User talk:Tarinth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] AfD Discussions

My general thesis on AfD discussions is included on my User:Tarinth page. You may wish to read that if you're interested in my various positions on the subject. If you wish to respond with your own thoughts, or on AfD discussions in general, feel free to post them here. Tarinth 16:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

General additional points not worth enough to be mentioned there:

  • I consider e-gaming a sport, in the same sense that Skeet shooting is a sport. Top gamers, guilds, clans and competitors within e-gaming are therefore as notable as comparable professional sports teams and athletes. Tarinth 16:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Game designers are similar to other artists, and if their work is notable then I consider them to be notable by extension.
  • In a recent discussion regarding a particularly loathsome piece of malware's notability, I stated that if multiple major malware-removal programs (themselves with usership numbering in the tens of millions) recognize and remove the software, that this suggests notability to me, tantamount to articles being written about the malware. In other words, I don't think you have to point to multiple news reports about a particular virus to make it notable. It is enough that the experts in virus-removal have thought a virus was important enough to include it in their software. Let's make sure that Wikipedia can be a good source of information on these notable threats. Tarinth 16:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameSpy Arcade

It seems to be the developing consensus, I'll try to clean it up later, good suggestions, happy editing. Navou talk 17:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MMORPG

I left a somewhat-lengthy critique of the article on its talk page. Great job so far, and keep up the good work. It's not GA-level yet, but it could be soon. -- Kicking222 01:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
I, Beefnut, hereby award you a Barnstar for your intelligent and tireless editing of MMORPG. (1-15-2006)
I'm honored to accept, Beefnut! Thank you very much. Tarinth 19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

You are supposed to wait a reasonable period of time before trying to delete an article, to give the creator time to finish their work!

You waited exactly one minute on Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. That is counter to policy.

Please be more careful in future. -- Geo Swan 03:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I added my comments about the reason for my speedy to the talk on the page for Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. I apologize if my Speedy A7 mark was faster than WP policy (a policy I am not familiar with, but will endeavor to learn about now). Tarinth 12:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar. It is gratefully accepted. For the record, though, I have found JzG/Guy to be one of the most thoughtful and conscientious admins around, even though I disagreed with him in this instance. Regards and thanks again. Newyorkbrad 23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I chose not to name any particular admin and/or debate in the Barnstar, so as to not highlight any particular critique of an individual, but rather the issue. Enjoy! :)

Tarinth 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thanks for awarding me my first Barnstar. I'm honored that my first award would be for inclusion, which is so important to me.

Talk to you soon.

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution as theory and fact

I am glad to see someone else interested in this. If you look in the archives, there are just a few of us. Two editors that have been in Wikipedia forever (including the one who originally wrote the evolution article and does not like to see it changed) made things pretty unpleasant when I was trying to change the sections on theory and fact in evolution and also the creation-evolution controversy article. However, the good thing was that in the copious discussions, I realized some of the parts that were unclear in the presentation and in the arguments (this is probably the most common argument creationists have against evolution; it has even been written into law in a few states a few times). I hope that with this new knowledge, and new citations and references, I can make this complaint and a response very clear, inspite of the sorts of things that one finds in the literature:

  • Stephen Jay Gould: "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact."[1]
  • Neil Campbell: "Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate..."[2]
  • Ernst Mayr: "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact...And evolutionary change is also simply a fact..."[3]
  • Richard Lenski: "Evolution...is both a fact and a theory."[4]
  • Carl Sagan: "Evolution is a fact, not a theory."[5]
  • George Simpson: "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact."[6]
  • R. C. Lewontin: "...evolution is a fact, not theory"[7]
  • Douglas Futuyama: "...the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact..."[8]
  • H. J. Muller: "evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."[9]
  • Kenneth R. Miller: "evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."[10]
  • Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes: "Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution..."[11]

In the face of this, who wouldnt be confused? So I think that this needs to be sorted out and careful references assembled.--Filll 15:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be made more clear that the gravity case and evolution case are parallel. Here for example are some features of gravity that are still being investigated:

  1. apparent antigravitational forces on cosmic scales
  2. difficulty reconciling gravity with other forces
  3. confusion and misunderstanding about quantum gravity and where to look for it
  4. lack of observations of gravitons, or other features
  5. Some experiments that appear to have too much variance in the results, or some bias, etc
  6. problems with mathematics in some gravitational theories
  7. problems understanding about what to do mathematically inside the Schwarzschild radius
  8. not enough observational evidence for some features like miniblack holes, Hawking radiation or whatever
  9. not understanding the relation of gravity and dark matter
  10. variational formulation of field equations; what does this mean exactly? Why are they optimal?
  11. should cosmological constant be incorporated or not?
  12. is there a stochastic aspect to gravity or not?
  13. why does gravity exist?
  14. Why does gravity appear mainly in the attractive form? --Filll 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you think that evolution as theory and fact includes a lot of citations, you should see the rewrite draft. It has maybe 3 times as many references. However, I think the citations are necessary since:
  • so many people are confused over this issue
  • the literature is so ambiguous and unhelpful on this issue
  • even the supporters of evolution on Wikipedia seem to be badly confused about this issue, leading to very unclear and overly complicated discussions in an attempt to defend evolution.--Filll 17:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you can come up with predictions in biology for evolution

Then I will make a chart. I can easily do the gravity predictions of course, but I am not a biologist. In fact, it would be a great thing to ask for suggestions on the main talk page for others to chip in.--Filll 20:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (2nd nomination) I did some ressearh this afternoon and found what might be independent sources establishing him as notable as the creator of the game and CEO of the company which produces it. I posted my links at the AfD discussion. I'm not sure how credible the sources are, but one seem to be the London Times website, and the others seem to be outside of potential influence by the subject. I'm happy to rewrite the article if it appears that we will keep the article. I'm not a gamer but I saw the conversation at today's AfD log. --Kevin Murray 22:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

I'm glad you've become involved with the Evolution article, despite its controversial status. Here are a couple of suggestions:

  • Yes, a lot of people are protective of the article, including people whom I believe are supportive of Evolution. Though they have prior rights (which is not a Wiki standard, but one I see followed nevertheless), I believe everyone is open to new ideas. But bring them up in the discussion section Talk:Evolution.
  • Don't make substantive edits to Evolution without discussing it first. You're going to get reverted for almost anything but spelling or grammatical errors if you don't gain consensus first.

These are just my suggestions. Follow them, don't, it's your choice.

Also, remember that SciFi has nothing to do with Science ;) Orangemarlin 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Dr. Who is a good source for science. Sorry, I forgot to make that particular exception.  :) Orangemarlin 18:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Hits

Is there a specific critereon for g-hits? I see g-hits cited all the time as though it means something. My understanding is that it is considerd a valid test to prove notability not to disprove it, but am I missing something?

Thanks

--Kevin Murray 17:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam Retraction

I fail to see the point of attacking the issue of an article being called spam when I had already retracted that position. Perhaps a complete reading of the page would be in order before calling what I said "bullshit." This is in reference to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Palaeos. Hatch68 23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I missed the retraction. Suggestion: use a Strikethrough to clearly mark statements that you no longer stand by. Tarinth 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try that. Hatch68 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion

I absolutely agree with what you say on your user page. Personally, as of now, I know a rebel, a musician, and a painter (seperate individuals) who all deserve pages on WP, but don't due to policy. Whats ridiculous is that they are mentioned on other pages of WP and yet, despite sources and proof from themselves, their pages have been deleted again and again.

Policies...

  • sigh*

xCentaur |  talk  20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

Tarinth, you said that my request to delete Jumpstart was invalid per "invalid reason for deletion." I find your response unhelpful and frustrating because I don't know what that means. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and require additional information, not curt replies. I would appreciate a more thorough, thoughtful response. Kearnsdm 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

As I have stated before, but probably not in a conversation yo were in, I do not understand AfD very well and I do not understand NPOV very well either. There is no really good way to learn except by hard experience I guess. I have been shocked at some of what I see, and some of the results here are very uneven for a secular public encyclopedia. I think that blogs are an emerging media, like podcasts, video blogs, webcasts, youtube etc. There will probably be more such emerging media in the future, of varying reliability. Old media like newspapers are scrambling. Broadcast television is scrambling. Books and libraries are scrambling. The world of media is changing like never before since the invention of the printing press, since this new set of media changes are coming very fast, instead of over centuries or decades, and they are affecting all the old media substantially, all at once, by duplicating them or replacing them. So in this transitional period, things might be very unusual for a while. One of the things that we will have to get used to is that some blogs etc. are as influential as newspapers or books or magazines. These are part of the new information fabric, and we are still sorting this out. So in short, I would say some blogs are ok. But a better evaluation method is needed for sure.--Filll 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I posted this on your talk page:
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. My general feeling on blogs is that they should be held to the same standard as any other media. For example, a blog that has received widespread recognition is no different (in my opinion) than a major syndicated column.
  • For example, http://www.mashable.com/ is a blog that has a million subscribers, and is mostly written by one person; it is widely followed by the Venture Capital community as a source of information on emerging Web technologies. Is that "just a blog" or is it now on the same level as a major syndicated column?
  • The website http://www.gamedaily.com/ is presented in a blog-style format, but it is written by a staff of editors, subject to an editor-in-chief who exercises editorial discretion, and is owned by America Online which ultimately passes judgment on the suitability of content. In my eyes, it is no different than any print magazine that covers computer gaming (and may even be more relavent, since it has access to more current information).
  • The website http://www.palaeos.com/ is written by a staff of paleontologists. Articles in the site have been cited in the journal Science. Sure, I wouldn't claim it has the level of peer-scrutiny that Science itself has, but surely it should rate at least as highly as any other second-tier journal with similar editorial policies that appears in print?
Tarinth 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As another symptom of this, one can look in the academic journals as they discuss the pros and cons of WP (look at the external links to Wikipedia such as Kirschner, Ann, Adventures in the Land of Wikipedia, from the November 17 2006 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education). WP of course has some great strengths like immediacy and worldwide input that are hard to duplicate. It also has appalling features as well. If one had a Wiki in some specialized area, open to say PhDs in field X, I could imagine much faster feedback and better reviewing, and potentially a better literature. There is nothing that necessarily makes Wikipedia or other Wikis less reliable if the right checks and balances etc are in place, and editors meet some minimal standard. --Filll 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A few of us have been working on making such a Wiki, but it hasn't progressed much recently. I can tell you who to contact about it if you are interested in helping. --Philosophus T 18:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Philosophus, I'm interested in learning more about it. I'm not an expert on Wiki-history, but it's my understanding that such a service is what was tried before Wikipedia. It failed mostly due to lack of critical mass (exoerts too busy to create enough content, not enough people looking at the content to get people interested in creating it, etc.) Perhaps it would succeed now where it failed then, simply due to the larger number of people who are now online. On the other hand, the low barrier to entry offered by Wikipedia is simultaneously its great strength as well as its great weakness. Tarinth 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support article

Thanks. I was fairly surprised, actually. I did it with Orangemarlin and we stupidly did not invite community input on our rough draft in a sandbox page, but just finished it up and published it. And immediately I was slammed for

  • being too hard on the creationists by not being forceful enough with their side of the story (it was always in there)
  • writing something to defend evolution at all since "everyone knows it does not need defending and there is no controversy whatsoever. So why bother even describing the fact that it is the mainstream position? Everyone knows that right?"
  • not putting it in already overly full articles that we are trying to shrink like creationism-evolution controversy
  • not putting it in with the scientific evidence for evolution in the evidence for evolution article (WTF??). I explained and explained that and he didnt seem to get it.

I am dumbfounded. I start to see why some articles and some sections of some articles are so abysmally bad. Just unreadable tripe. Good gosh. I do not claim I had written some masterpiece, but I did try pretty hard to track down a lot of sources and to present the topic from as many angles as I could think of, and present both sides of the debate. And somehow there was supposed to be room for all that in articles that are already too long? When we have probably 50 or 100 creationism articles already (or more)? I am sort of stunned. Thanks for the good words though. We will see if it gets to stay. I have begged enough. Now I am just sort of burned out and disgusted.--Filll 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other AfD

I blasted that character Guy. Wow what an attitude. So cavalier. Deletionist I guess. So flippant. I hope I wasnt too harsh, but just calling as I see it. If you want, you might look at the excitement I have had with other creationists at Hindu creationism.--Filll 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD merge question=

A merge vote here is to delete the article in question and to take the salvageable parts and merge them into the other article. It's usually for something like this The South Park Mall debate, where there's a little bit of good stuff, but not enough to warrant its own article - AND - at least some parts are pertinent to the target article. Hope that helps! SkierRMH 01:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government simulation

Hello there! As you participated rather actively in the recent AfD of Government simulation, perhaps you could address the concerns raised by me in that article and on its talk page? It'd be great. Thank you, Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Juergens comment

I have to say, your Ralph Juergens comment was really poorly researched with both reference to the policies you cite and the actual subjects and content of the disputed article. I hope you look at my criticism and reconsider. --ScienceApologist 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks For Speedy Keep

Thank you for your decision of speedy keepy on the debate for the deletion of my User Page. Just so you know, Opronc-oB is a sockpuppet of Opronc and Opronc-oA. I am dealing with this User at the moment, so don't worry. Acalamari 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political simulation

Take a look at government simulation game. I've essentially rewritten the article and added some strong references. I think you'll agree that this article establishes notability and is now well-sourced. There could still be a lot more information added, but I think this is adequate to get started. Tarinth 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Without doubt. The former article - and its associated talk page - was a load of crappy bullshit, but it is now a very well written encyclopedic stub. Great work, kudos to you for following up an AfD in that manner! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Diana Institute of Peace

Hi,

I kindly request you to have a look on the Princess Diana Institute of Peace whether the details I have submitted are meeting the criteria for citation. Thanks Rajsingam 11:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)



Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs User talk:Seraphimblade User talk:Freedom skies User talk:Rumpelstiltskin223 User talk:Dangerous-Boy User talk:Ccscott User talk:Dennisthe2 User talk:DoDoBirds User talk:Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas User talk:Tarinth


Hi Tarinth,

Thanks for your comment, I have got few more in my collection, but they are also press releases and news coverage. Can I create a Gallery for that off-line news items and attached to the main article?

I have attached the "Incorporation Notice" as that is the only reference that the Institute is incorporated and I have incorporated that. ThanksRajsingam 13:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guildcafe article

Don't worry, I plan on recreating the article once more reliable sources become available: Since I'm an admin myself I can undelete the history when the time comes. Since I disagree with the specifics of Wikipedia's notability guidelines I don't usually involve myself in my admin function in AfD, but it's clear from the AfD that the moment one or two further sources appear all arguments for deletion disappear. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-01-8 19:15

[edit] hwahog

Hi. When removing the duplicate comment of doc glascow, I think you inadvertently deleted DGG's opinion on the hookers with hearts of gold AfD. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've corrected my mistake. Tarinth 19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government simulation game

Government simulation game <-- that's the greatest post-AfD work I've ever seen. Keep it up and you've got a featured article in no time! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anton Balasingham

Hi,


The above personality did a lot for a lasting solution in the island though he suffered from diabetes, Motor Neurone Disease, a degenerative disease of the nervous system, and possibly medicine-induced bile duct cancer.

Now putting his Bio "Terrorist Tag", I feel unreasonable and removing it, please take necessary action on this.

I have discussed my points at Talk:Anton Balasingham.Rajsingam 10:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so there's no "action" I can take beyond another other editor (including you). I suggest making productive changes as you see fit directly on the article, and discussing changes with other editors on the article's talk page. Tarinth 15:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Hi

I couldn't understand why this user User:Netmonger is raising the above problem which totally irrelevant to Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam Page. As this is my Bio, could you help me to sort out this matter with him. Rajsingam 13:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

[edit] Something Quite Interesting

Something Quite Interesting

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?"

Hi

I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netmonger#Are_you_Arsath.3F

But He has come out with the following lenghthy statement about me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rajsingam


Kingrom Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam 03:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Hi,

An editor is continuously vandalising my Bio over dispute related to Talk:Anton Balasingham. The editor tried hard to delete my Bio from wikipedia. You can see the evidence here(1) and here(2)' The editor is taking an undue interest over my Bio and deleted over Citation. I have restored the information. I requested an Administrator to check my Bio whether Citations are enough. I also taken this matter for Request for Comment. Though I have off-line media archives(which are attached on Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam, I couldn't bring it to the articles. Now I am very much frustrated. Please help me on this matter.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 05:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

[edit] AFD on Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Hi,

An AFD on my Bio Rajkumar Kanagasingam is brought only to distract the offences at wikipedia after stealing my e-mail address and thereafter my wiki passwords by Netmonger and his/her group and nothing else. How this user can bring this AFD before he clears himself from the offences which is now under investigation under an Administrator’s supervision and the details are here.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 05:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Hey, I was wondering if you'd be willing to upload an image (under a creative commons or GFDL license) of yourself for use on Jon Radoff. Also, has there been any major coverage of GuildCafe in the mainstream media? Once something happens please let me know so that we can undelete the article. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-03-20 20:55

BTW, I've restored the GuildCafe article in my userspace, see: User:Jacoplane/GuildCafe. If you find new media sources please add them there, once we get one or two more sources, the deletionists will have a hard time winning the debate like last time. Cheers! JACOPLANE • 2007-03-20 21:01

[edit] List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DKP

Do not make assumptions about what I have or have not read. In fact I read the whitepaper by Castranova prior to listing this up on AFD, and if you re-read the original nomination you will see that I made mention of it myself. It is not, as you claim, an extensive analysis - in its abstract it is admittedly "not thorough". It is also admittedly a somewhat humorous, tongue-in-cheek piece of work as demonstrated by the reference to the Beowulf quote as a "Dragon Kill Loot Table". None of these things are inherently terrible in and of themselves, but taken as a whole (along with the fact that they reference this Wikipedia article), in the face of the fact that this is the lone scholarly reference in the article, are enough to tell me that it is not sufficient. Not to mention the fact that the assertion this article references that whitepaper is patently absurd, given the fact that the article was written first, and the sources inserted afterward with no edit to the content of the article. This is not proper research and sourcing, this is an attempt to salvage an article rife with original research by tacking on purported sources after the fact. Arkyan • (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The AFD on this debate has finally closed as a no consensus, which I pretty much had anticipated by the end. The closer did stress the importance of giving this article a massive rework to focus on encyclopedic content and not game guide material. While I still feel that the content that exists ought to have been deleted outright, I did hint in my original nomination that a rewrite from square one might be acceptable. Since you are the only editor in this discussion to have presented any new sources, I believe you are in the best position to do this. While I am not 100% satisfied with the sources presented I am willing to abide by a compromise of rewriting the article based on these sources you have provided.
I am also willing to assist in rewriting this article from scratch based upon the sources you presented. Please let me know what you think. Arkyan • (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel the article needs to be rewritten "from scratch," but by all means, if you feel you can improve the article or trim fluff/unsourcable content, then by all means do so. I do think that quite a bit of the existing content can be supported by the sources already presented, however. Some additional effort to add references or revise content based on what can be found would probably be worthwhile. Also, in cases where some information is only available from a primary source, Wikipedia doesn't necessarily prohibit the use of such sources when there's no reason to disbelieve them (although such sources can't, by themself, establish notability of the subject in general). Tarinth 12:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is my take on the article as it stands. I'm pretty much okay with the lead paragraph. Section one is largely okay, though could use some minor rewrite mostly to make the wording more encyclopedic. Sections 2, 3, and 4 however are unsourced and the bulk of the original research in this article. It is also the part that comes across as being "game guide" material. I feel that these sections can probably be collapsed into one smaller section that briefly touches on the different DKP systems without the in-depth analysis that is the core OR complaint I have. Section 5 requires a full rewrite and would benefit from more sourcing, although the whitepaper may help with the economics section. Section 6 is also in need of an overhaul - the implication of a "DKP controversy" is unsourced, and should be treated as a simpler "arguments for/arguments against" based on the sources you found. Section 7 does nothing to add to the article and likely can be deleted, and finally the "External Links" section needs to be largely pruned to remove promotional links and restricted to material relevant to the article. Arkyan • (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
As a side note I'm usually not around on the weekends, so if you leave a comment I may not get back to you till Monday. Thanks, Arkyan • (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the DKP article according to the discussion at the AfD debate as well as my 'recommendations' above. Please take a look at the changes when you get a chance and tell me what you think. Arkyan • (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PGNx Media

An editor has asked for a deletion review [1] of PGNx Media (see article here [2]). Since you participated in the discussion, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Arielguzman 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Update: At the Deletion Review, the closing administrator did not dispute the notability of the subject matter but feels that my account is too new and I am therefore affiliated with PGNx Media. Would you be willing to write a new article? All of the information you would need can be found on my user page. Please let me know. Thanks Arielguzman 05:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added my thoughts on the DRV, endorsing deletion. Sorry, but this article is going to have to rise to a higher standard now that the article's creator was found to have waged a massive sock-puppet campaign. I'm not going to be a good candidate for writing a new article either, because I'm just not familiar enough with the subject. Although my interests on Wikipedia tend toward articles pertaining to videogame/MMORPG subjects, I haven't used this site in the past so I don't feel I could do an adequate job. I imagine that if the site is as popular as it pupports, it will only be a matter of time before one of its own users comes along to start an article here. Tarinth 12:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:WoW Flying Gnomes.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:WoW Flying Gnomes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BalanceOfPower.png

Thanks for uploading Image:BalanceOfPower.png. 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 04:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PoliticalMachine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PoliticalMachine.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 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy

I have nominated Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusionist issue

HI.

I'm temporarilly wikifried, but I'll be back in couple of days with new energy to help. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [WP:CRYPTIC]]

WP:CRYPTIC isn't policy, there is no point in voting keep in almost every AFD just because it mentions a relevant wikipedia guideline with links. Some of the policies are very self-explanitory. Secret account 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nominations need to provide a clear explanation for deletion; aside from the cryptic nature of some nominations, too many people are lazy about providing an explanation within the guidelines. Tarinth (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was fails V RS BIO, or a bunch of confusing wikipedia slang of minor essays and pages, then it's a concern, but showing the links to the one or two relevant guideline, people can find that out just by clicking the link. Secret account 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for the bollocking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warm Showers. I'm sure you're right. I've done my best to help everyone understand why the article was listed (even though I made a number of wikilinks in the nomination to help the editors). All the best!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I will bear your suggestions in mind in future AFDs, you make a very good point. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GamerDNA Logo Color.png}

Thank you for uploading Image:GamerDNA Logo Color.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)