User talk:Humblefool
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please be civil, and know that I will respond soon-ish to you on your own talk page. I don't delete stuff, even flames or spam, I just archive.
GamePal Hello, I started working on an article yesterday and when I came back to edit it, I saw that it had been deleted. I just wanted to know why it was deleted and what I can do to ensure it does not happen again. GPInc 13:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Astrobrite
Okay, so you just deleted my page on Astrobrite on the grounds that your quick Google search revealed the band doesn't have a proper website, just a Geocities fan page? How is that fair grounds for deleting a page? I get that you need to keep it free from every single band on the planet using Wiki to promote themselves, but if you checked this out properly you'd see that Astrobrite is the project of Scott Cortez, who is a leading figure in the 90s/00s ambience/noise-pop scene. I'll admit there isn't an awful lot of information available online but if you're going to take that attitude you could probably delete about half of the musician pages on Wiki. My first post was an accident, and way too brief (this is my first time at making an article) but I promptly followed it up with an article detailing his discography and a bit of background.
Look, I don't mind if you've got a valid reason for deleting this, but it doesn't seem like you don't at all.
[edit] Skulltag
Hey, I'm not quite sure I understand why you deleted this article. Those guidelines were proposed. They havn't been adopted yet, meaning that they pretty much don't stand for anything yet. Almost all of the software listed on Wikipedia violates those guidelines. Why not delete all of them as well? I think that this was unfair to the Skulltag community. HarrisonHopkins 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If you could recreate at that link for me to move somewhere else I would greatly appreciate it. HarrisonHopkins 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Skulltag. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Harrison, the fight's still going on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_17#.5B.5BSkulltag.5D.5D
Catman847 06:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] sino-british joint declaration
Hey, I helped you to add a tag for purposing deletion for this topic. Chinamen have no right to write down this topic, how dare they can create this topic talking about superior race of British people. Don't worry Humblefool, I will help you. I believe that this topic will be deleted in 5 days. Let us co-operate to eradicate all Chinese-related topics. : ) 70.52.74.207 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] immigration to Macau
I also added a tag for deletion for this topic. So don't worry, I will help you to delete all related subtopics of Hong Kong and Macau as many as possible. Next topic I am seeking now, and I will let you know later on. Again, don't worry I will help you to eradicate all inferior Chinese related topics whether it is copyvio or not.70.52.74.207 00:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] immigration to Hong Kong
excuse me, can you tell me why you reverted what I wrote in this article?70.52.75.136 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think this topic will be disappeared in 5 days, don't worry. Now I am going to add a tag for purposing deletion of other topics of Hong Kong and Macau, namely sports, economy, demographic, climate, etc, I think that these topics are more or less copyvio that they should be deleted right away. 70.52.74.207 00:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I already helped you to add more tags for deletion for the Hong Kong related topics like economy, climate, history or the like. I hope these topics can be eradicated in 5 days as we wish. 70.52.74.207 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Space Tree
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Space_Tree
You previously deleted Space Tree and now it has been recreated, could you please delete this again. --Simonkoldyk 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. --Simonkoldyk 00:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why Space Tree is repeatedly deleted, it has a large fan base and is part of Keen Toons pages such as Evil Josh & Billy have not been taken down, yet they have fewer episodes and followings as Space Tree. --freakybeastie 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Digital Opportunity Index (DOI) AfD
The "non-notable business" that you thought was behind the Digital Opportunity Index (DOI) article turns out to be the International Telecommunications Union, an agency of the UN, which is both notable and not a business. I've rewritten the article to make this more clear, and I've added information about the index to the ITU article, and I'm suggesting merge or keep. I invite you to reconsider your vote. cheers --Xtifr tälk 11:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Space Tree deletion
Hi. Just wondering about the Space Tree article you deleted three times. Talk:Space Tree mentions that it was only deleted because someone inserted a lot of copyvio. I think it might have some merit since the article was created in February 2005 and was never been so much as AFD'ed in over 1½ years. Just wondering if you had investigated whether the article could have been reverted to remove copyvio rather than deleted. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relist?
I should point out that (unlike AFD, but like RFD and CFD) TFD has traditionally employed the reasoning that if nobody objects, the template can be deleted - this is mainly because the page is rather long and tends to be backlogged, and suggesting that nominations with "no objections" should be relisted is basically encouraging people to rubberstamp everything. Note that TFD is watched by a lot of people and it is unlikely for them to miss a nomination they would have objected to. The reason we're extra cautious about AFD is that articles are actual content, and templates/categories/redirects are meta-content. Yours, (Radiant) 14:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- The harm is in increasing the backlog of an already backlogged process, and more importantly in encouraging the mentality that people must explicitly endorse obvious cases they already agree with, or the idea that some sort of quorum must exist for process. What I'd personally do if I'm unsure how to close something is add my own keep-or-delete comment (thus clarifying the situation) and leave it for another admin to deal with. (Radiant) 09:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Result of the debate
Since when was the result of the discussion "delete" for the "History of Turkic Civilization" template? I have a feeling that you didn't even look at my last post to the talk page.. The number of delete votes was not so much more then keep votes, and that only considering that some delete voters actually campaigned for votes.. The reason the template linked to many pages where it was not listed on was because the template had been protected because of edit-warring. And the idea behind is not some "nasty" pan-turkic bias, Turks have not been a sedentary nation, please read the arguments more carefully before closing a vote and calling people's ideas "nasty". Even though I have not created this template, I think it is always a better idea to try to "improve" than be a "deletionist".Baristarim 10:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm strongly agree with Baristarim. I also want to make some comments about your decision for the template but please do not consider this as an interference. The template was protected, otherwise, it could be improved. Even in this case, the number of keep votes (27) was higher than the delete votes (25). There are similar controversial issues voted before, i want to give an example, [|here]. If you check this voting, you'll see that the number of delete (12) votes was higher than the keeps (7), but the page was not deleted. Changing the title solved the debate. In my opinion, the similiar kind of decision would be a better solution. I should also admit that your statements seems to me slightly biased. Regards. E104421 16:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your comment was quite POV, I would expect better from an admin. Otherwise I believe E104421 and Baristarim already said what I wanted to. Armanalp 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP Munich template
What was the change you did to WikiProject Munich template? Kingjeff 21:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Timecop
You said: "I have undeleted and unblocked Timecop's stuff. He's been doing this for over a year, and most of it's been by-the-book Afd'ing. Digg is very good at making things seem bigger than they are."
- As you wish, although my deletion was supported by at least one other person. I encourage you to make note of this at WP:AN. I will not engage in a wheel war with you, and I thank you for looking into it. I disagree with your decision but I'll let it stand. --Yamla 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Timecop has become a topic of discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#The old userbox question. I am letting you know because you had contested an earlier attempt to block this user. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Announcement
|
To keep this slightly Wikipedia related I have started Adopt a State, so adopt your state article today! |
[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Starwood Hotels.gif
 |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Starwood Hotels.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson, by Sean William (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] yma6 reply
no, im not a member of the band but a very avid fan as i'm sure you can tell:) and i'll be ready to make the page again very soon.
[edit] GPInc Again
Hello! Thank you for the links, I really appreciate helping me point in the right direction. I can understand how you would think the blurb I posted while working on the main article was a self-advertisement, but I assure you, that's not what I intended. We're currently one of the leading companies in our field, and wish to have our current history published somewhere, and since we are an online company, we felt the leading online encyclopedia would be appropriate. I do have a much more fleshed-out article now, in order to get it published, what steps do you recommend I undertake? I don't mind waiting days or weeks while editors review it and remove any subjectivity they may perceive, I'd just like to make sure we do get published and recognized as a "real" company. I have checked and found at least one competing company on Wikipedia, so I don't believe it is setting a new precedent for us to be mentioned on your site. Thank you very much for your time and help, and I look forward to hearing from you again soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GPInc (talk • contribs) 13:10, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Please re-register
Hello, Humblefool! You are receiving this notice because the Cleanup Taskforce has been inactive, as a result of this all active taskforce members are being asked to re-register.
For more information see: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Not Dead Yet
If you do not re-register here within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the membership list (if you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just add you name back).
RJFJR 01:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] loved...
...your post here. I never know how to respond to things like that and enjoy it when someone does! Renee 02:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aliens Ate My Buick cover (Thomas Dolby).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aliens Ate My Buick cover (Thomas Dolby).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Imageboards.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Imageboards.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
