User talk:Swpb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Please sign and date your post with four tildes, as so: ~~~~

Contents

[edit] dab notices

see reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#dab_notices. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

[edit] Pepper

Hi !

I agree with your comment on the pepper-disambiguation.

The problem I ran into when trying to fix it is that it appears to me as if *most* of the pages linking to "pepper" really mean pepper as in the group of spices. Which means that:

Linking to black_pepper is wrong. Linking to the disambiguation is however also not correct, it is clear they mean "pepper (spice)" and not for example, "pepper (music)". I wrote about it on the talk-page for pepper.

What do you think about my idea: Write a new page "pepper (spice)" which talks about the group of spices commonly refered to as pepper (or peppers), and include links to the various types of peppers, such as black_pepper and chili_pepper.

Good ? Bad ? Wanna help ?

[edit] Weightlessness

Excuse me,but i didnt edit that page.You might be mistaken with someone else. 82.20.49.200 November the 13th 2007 5:19 (UTC)

[edit] Trønder

Sorry about that. I was not aware of the prosedure. I swear I was not comitting vandalism. Thanks for letting me know. Nastykermit (talk)

[edit] your prod of National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights

fyi: I tagged it with db-spam -Gwguffey (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of Turkish heroines

An editor has nominated List of Turkish heroines, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish heroines and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future films

Hi, I noticed that you recently created The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (film), and I wanted to inform you that the notability guidelines for future films stipulates that stand-alone film articles should be created when a film has been shooting. Judging from the lack of a full profile at IMDb, this does not seem to be the immediate case. Can I encourage you to merge the passage to a "Film adaptation" section at The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test? Some examples of merging include Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV -- you can see additional examples here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! If production begins, the article can be revived to be a full-fledged film article. The threshold is in place because a lot of factors can disrupt the development of a film -- scripting issues, budgeting issues, casting issues, etc. It happens more often than you think, as I've found out working with these articles. :) Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reply

I feel awkward explicitly stating that the subject of an article is "notable".

Unfortunately, the wikipedia has self-appointed quality-control experts, who will nominate any new article for deletion, for a lack of notability, if it is on a subject they aren't personally interested in. Some of them are very hostile, uninterested in dialogue. So, if the article contains the phrase "is notable because", they have to at least use {{prod}} or {{afd}}, not speedy deletion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] speedy deletion

I am sorry, but I can assure you that the wikipedia does have a group of self-appointed quality control experts who will nominate articles for deletion based on their personal petty prejudices. I write on controversial topics and I regularly encounter them. A few of them have made it to the rank of administrator. And there are administrators who conclude speedy deletions without really bothering to do the obvious due diligence of checking the article's edit history, to see if its current shitty shape was due to vandalism, or to check beyond the first screenful.

Trimming the accumulation of cruft is important. But the current procedures are in desperate need of reform or outright replacement, IMO.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeo_Swan&diff=191130517&oldid=190475663

Really? Could you direct my attention to the discussion you reference?
You misunderstand me. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The main reason I think reform or replacement of the wikipedia's current procedures for clearing cruft is important is not that I encounter individuals whose justification for deletion seems narrow-minded or shallowly thought-out. It is that a subculture has grown up, and infecting a significant fraction of the regular deletion patrollers that is at odds with the culture of consensus and civility the wikipedia is aiming to build. Regular patrollers routinely breach WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BITE, in those fora. These breaches of civility are so routine they pass without notice.
I subscribe to the "confine the discussion to the talk page where it was first raised" school. You won't be inconveniencing me if you respond here, rather than on my talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Just in case no one else says it: thank you for cleaning up GR and punctuation! It's often a thankless job, and I'm glad to see someone's taking the time to do it anyway. Maury (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfD nomination of Monkey Steals the Peach

I have nominated Monkey Steals the Peach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — TheBilly(Talk) 23:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Starr (blues guitarist)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jack Starr (blues guitarist), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Jack Starr. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Kneel_mark_III.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kneel_mark_III.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GLA

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)