User talk:WarthogDemon/Archive/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 11

Contents

AfD Question

I would say generally yes, as long as others haven't made substantial edits to the article. Of course, other editors would be free to post the same article if they felt it belonged, and it could be then listed for AfD all over again. -- But|seriously|folks  04:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [1]. -WarthogDemon 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that can be deleted. I'll take care of it. It looks like it's heading for WP:SNOW anyway, so I don't think anybody will mind. -- But|seriously|folks  04:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [2]. -WarthogDemon 05:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we all have more weighty issues to discuss. Thanks for the heads-up! -- But|seriously|folks  05:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

PROD for MFD

Clarification: Once you have nominated an article for WP:MFD, you should just let the process run its course. My point was that if it's fairly obvious that the page should be removed, as in this case, you can use {{subst:prod|Reason to delete}}, just as you can do with articles. When to use "prod" is at your discretion. Shalom Hello 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Employment Guide

Thanks for the help on my recent post. I have made the changes you suggested. My intention is not to advertise, I just wanted to inform people about this job site. I'm going to continue to try to make improvements to the article. Thanks for your help. -mharr066- 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh?

You did make sense...I was replying to Zephraud, not you. Sorry if you thought I was >_<--Zxcvbnm 21:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [3]. -WarthogDemon 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Pichu

Why would you put merged articles into a category? They're better off on a list, since they're not actually articles. Plus, Pichu was in the main Pokemon category. But for other categories, it would make sense since the rest of the characters have articles.--Zxcvbnm 02:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [4]. -WarthogDemon 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Pokemon 481-493

Hold on, vandalism? I just wished to add the Katakana for Darkrai to match the rest of the Pokemon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoshi Of A Down (talk • contribs).

Replied here: [5]. -WarthogDemon 06:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I just though it was an interesting piece of info. Yoshi Of A Down 06:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [6]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs).
I'll leave that part removed, but I still wish to add in the Japanese text Yoshi Of A Down 06:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [7]. -WarthogDemon 06:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheers Yoshi Of A Down 06:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POKE is doing some housecleaning

This notice is to inform you that because many people have added their names to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants but do not seem to be active, all names are being deleted in an effort to find out who is still truly interested in the project. All you have to do is re-add your name if you'd still like to be considered a member of WP:POKE. Any questions, you can contact me on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [8]. -WarthogDemon 17:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You've Been Loved!

Hey there! Arknascar44 has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. Remember to pass it on to all your friends by adding {{User:Arknascar44/Love Cabal}} to the top of their pages. Don't forget to add your name here! Love and best wishes, Arky ¡Hablar Conmigo! 01:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [9]. -WarthogDemon 20:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget to sign!! =) Arky ¡Hablar Conmigo! 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And how did I vandalize Palmerston?

I don't think the page should be deleted so I removed the tag. How the heck is that vandalism? I did nothing wrong and you can put the tag back on. Don't do crazy over nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.226.107 (talk • contribs).

Replied here: [10] -WarthogDemon 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My Editor Review

Hello! As I have run into you/worked with you on Wikipedia, I was wondering if you would be willing to comment in my editor review. I know you are probably busy with other contributions to the project, but I would greatly appreciate any comments or criticism that you have that could make me a better editor! Thanks very much for your time and consideration, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 13:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [11]. -WarthogDemon 04:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Double the Trouble

I deleted it based on no assertion of notability and the prior AfD. I guess we'll just hvae to watch it until it is appropriately sourceable (if ever). Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [12]. -WarthogDemon 20:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vertabase Pro

Hi, WP:AFD says in really tiny text that maybe ought to be bigger: "If the article has been nominated for deletion before, use {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}. See Template Talk:afdx. This does not include articles that have only had the {{prod}} tag removed." And then on the third step it says to use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of just "PageName". I believe this is the proper convention. -- Renesis (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [13]. -WarthogDemon 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem! Although I had hoped I'd fixed it before it had been viewed! :) -- Renesis (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Julia Kardisian userpage

I dunno, people get a little more latitude on their userpages -- tag it for speedy del. if you want and I'll let someone else make the call on that one. NawlinWiki 01:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [14]. -WarthogDemon 01:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [15]. -WarthogDemon 01:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: What to do with the lists

I like the lists - it can be very useful to have a quick summary. I just don't see why we can't have both lists and articles, especially for the major characters and well-written articles, of which Bulbasaur is one. I do agree that many characters won't merit an article, but Bulbasaur certainly isn't in this group. Kind regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [16]. -WarthogDemon 22:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Smilin' back at ya

IrishGuy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

IrishGuy talk 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [17]. -WarthogDemon 23:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Took me a while to figure out who it was that did it before I realized I had reverted one of his edits. Thanks again! Deflagro Contribs/Talk 03:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [18]. -WarthogDemon 04:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

Thank you very much for agreeing to review me, and for being thorough with your research before responding! I really appreciate it! Best regards, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Onvia

Hello WarthogDemon, You placed a notability tag on Onvia 2 minutes after the article was created. I just wanted to remind you that all articles start as stubs, and to have a little patience -- if the article's not improved in a day or three, then tag. In the meantime, the article when you tagged it asserted notability (174 employees and publicly traded!) and you didn't even wait to see if the original author was in the middle of editing (which they were). In other words, patience is a virtue for all editors, including new page patrollers :) For the record, I have nothing to do with this article or this editor; I just noticed it on linking from something else. And yes, I have been involved with Wikipedia for some time, and leaving articles about non-notable companies up too long hasn't been our downfall yet :) best, -- phoebe/(talk) 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [19]. -WarthogDemon 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
re: "Though I'm wondering why 2 minutes is fast to get tagged; many nn-articles get tagged within 1 minute in my experience" --
well, I would say they're all being tagged too fast :) Spam, and purely vanity articles ("john doe is a 16 year old who likes to skateboard") are easy to identify at first glance, but any other sort of notability decision is inherently subjective, ideally relies on a deep knowledge of the subject at hand, and is governed on Wikipedia by delicate structures of guidelines, precedent, and common sense. None of these things are necessarily easy to determine in one minute. Also, tagging a good-faith effort for deletion within a minute or two is a sure way to irritate old contributors and drive off new ones; it is by necessity a reasonably rude thing to do. A cleanup tag, even a notability cleanup tag, is perhaps better for many of these speedy cases.
of course, others may (and do!) disagree with me -- but I'm certainly not alone in thinking this, either :) (and note none of this is a commentary on any of your actions; just general thoughts). All best, -- phoebe/(talk) 21:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

The deleted article was rescued and moved to Wikia, http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:Filmguide:Zeitgeist , so can you put out the word to the Zeitgeist warriors, so they can stop trying to slip it into Wikipedia? It has been deemed inappropriate for WP, but it is welcome on Wikia. - Crockspot 19:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, you're not the user I was meaning to leave this message for. - Crockspot 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [20]. -WarthogDemon 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (2)

"Google videos hardly reach the requirements of "notable documentaries." -WarthogDemon 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)"

Actually, the first time I saw this movie it was being presented at the University of Michigan. Additionally, I also have a DVD of the documentary, so I continue to assert that this article is at the very least "notable". --Trekerboy 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [21]. -WarthogDemon 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Definition of notable just so we are on the same page [22]. Further, if your DVD of your friend's daughter have a deletion review [23] more than 20,000 words long, then yes, I would argue that it is notable. Also, I highly doubt that the DVD of your friend's daughter has any original content and new ideas, but if it did and a lot of people were interested in it, then yes, it would be notable. --Trekerboy 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [24]. -WarthogDemon 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Question??

I would like to know what I can do to correct the page for Zina Goldrich ? I have added footnotes and changed some words. A Talk Page editor suggested I ask you since you posted to COI tag. Thanks. 209.11.94.2 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [25]. -WarthogDemon 20:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mercando

Good catch! I've blocked the editor indefinitely, since all of his/her edits were copyvios. Cheers. -- Merope 22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [26]. -WarthogDemon 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Prod And Tag

Yes, the prod indicdates my uncertainity of the article. It's a special case. Usually I tag and then prod if the admin declines. Sometimes when I've done both at once the admin declines the speedy because of the prod tag. In this case, I was lazy and did both at the same time. hbdragon88 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

im sorry

im sorryGogetit1232123 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [27]. -WarthogDemon 18:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Earthdemon 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

- - gogetit1232123 just told me the Earthdemon wdhat happened and sence i told him to get people to know me more i apologize for his bhaver and i ask u to help me make that page. i just made this account so i could say this but ya so please help my Youtube address is www.youtube.com/earthdemonEarthdemon 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:AIV

Seemed reasonable to me, the titles and areas were very similar as were the usernames. Good call. LessHeard vanU 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [28]. -WarthogDemon 21:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hindustan Movement

FYI, I've done a complete rewrite of the article at Hindustan Movement and deleted the copyvio version. I still have concerns about notability; it needs a citation to back up the Yahoo Internet Life award for it to meet WP:WEB. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [29]. -WarthogDemon 01:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks

didn't realised that had happened, i had followed the link from the user's sig on Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz [30]. thanks again! ITAQALLAH 01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lonely Forest page

Please put back the page I just wrote on Lonely Forest, I noted in their talk page why they are "notable." Matt510 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [31]. -WarthogDemon 03:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -Matt510 03:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [32]. -WarthogDemon 03:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Lilly Arbor Project

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Lilly Arbor Project. I do not think that Lilly Arbor Project fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because this was not in fact a copyvio. While it relied on a single source, i could not find any text actuly copied from that source. Rather all text was rewritten/paraphrased.DES (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [33]. -WarthogDemon 05:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the previous incident. Do note that on Talk:Lilly Arbor Project User:Iupuicees asserts that he has permission from CEES IUPUI (the organization, not the user) to post content from their sites. This may be false, or may be so restricted that the content isn't truly free, but I think that perhaps we need to assume good faith a little more in this particular case. Do you agree? DES (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [34]. -WarthogDemon 05:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I got a msg from LHVU on my user talk page. He asks that I review the edits of User:Cees iupui who you had already pointed out to me. He says that if I am satisfied that they are different users, or are the same by making the same mistake (by which i presume he means acting wrongly but in good faith) then he will be happy to unblock, or a should feel free to unblock myself. He did not say anything about the block msg without an actual block on User:Cees iupui. I will look into the matter further, and let both you and LHVU know my views. DES (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
See my response to LHVU [35]. DES (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [36]. -WarthogDemon 16:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
See my msg here and here. DES (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [37]. -WarthogDemon 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Music videos

Here's my two cents (and it might be worth asking others, as I am not an expert in such matters) it's not original research to say something exists simply because it doesn't have an online cite. For instance, the plots and other details of movies, particularly obscure ones, often can't be online-cited -- but they do exist, and anyone with access to the DVD or whatever can discover them. I know that for many obscure albums, folks have transcribed data directly off the records themselves. That's not original research. Also I've worked on some articles in which the original sources were either books, or in a foreign language. Again, that's kosher. I think original research in the context of a music video would be things like personal interpretations of the video's meaning or guesses as to the reasoning the band might have chosen to make such a video, etc. Also, plenty of things are unsourced on Wikipedia. It only really matters when it is challenged. For instance the article Lampshade provides no sources asserting that lampshades exist, or that they are used as described. If challenged, someone would have to provide sources, but it's highly unlikely that it will be challenged, as these are not controversial assertions. As for your second question, I'm not sure I totally understand. Do you want to create an article about the single and link the video? Or link the video to the article about the album/artist? Dina 18:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here: [38]. -WarthogDemon 18:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that a youtube version of a commercially produced music video is a copyright violation, so it just might not be doable. Dina 18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [39]. -WarthogDemon 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
All you want to say is "this video exists" because you know you have it taped somewhere? I don't think that's a huge issue, unless someone comes back it "rubbish! prove this video exists!" which seems unlikely. Dina 18:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [40]. -WarthogDemon 18:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I say go ahead, more information is always better than less. Dina 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied here: [41]. -WarthogDemon 21:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
No worries, it wasn't an argument. I was distracted by other things. Also, it's extremely hot in the Northeast US right now. Gah. So my apologies if I was abrupt. Finally got the AC in, with only one minor injury. ;)Dina 22:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)