User talk:Wtfunkymonkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User categorization

Greetings! Your user page hasn't been vandalized :-) --it was updated to use the new User Categorization scheme. Although I know that some people don't like to be "categorized" I have categorized your User Page as a Wikipedian in Nevada (Category:Wikipedians in Nevada) since your name was listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Nevada page and I didn't want to lose sight of that. The Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Nevada page is scheduled for deletion. Thanks! Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 03:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three Cheers for You!

Dear Wtfunkkmonkey,

That was a wonderful thing you did, reverting the vandalism to the Gregorian Chant article. I had just loaded that page and I was confused about the image. At first I thought it was a legitimate image, and I was struggling to make the connection. Then I realised it was vandalism, and I was not sure how to do the reversion, but I thought I'd try anyway, and I had just clicked the "Edit this Page" button when I noticed that someone had already saved the day. You're great!

Savio mit electronics 09:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Many thanks for helping fend off the vandals while Gregorian chant was on the main page. I wasn't prepared for the level of vandalism. It's heartening to know how efficient and diligent you WP admins and editors are to revert it! Peirigill 07:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Brad Hines

Wthfunkeymonkey [sic],

Could you remove your "delete" vote on "Brad Hines" entry as the criteria you sited has since been fixed?

kindly,

UtzChips--Utzchips 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jupiter Fiasco

Thanks for your contribution to Jupiter, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. I hope you can help us out! A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Benwildeboer 01:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not so much that you incorrectly reverted an edit of mine on the Jupiter article so much as I selected the wrong edit to revert to. It's pretty obvious if you read my edit summary, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a complete goof on my part. Thanks for catching my mistake. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl

Hi there, I've totally revamped and sourced this article. Please take another look at it if you like, Thanks! Bwithh 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pale Pacific

See Samir's talk page for speedy deletion discussion about The Pale Pacific -gert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gert2 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 December 2006

[edit] WP:CSD#A7

Wtfunkymonkey, I think you may be misapplying A7 a bit. I've come across your use of it a few times while clearing out CAT:CSD, but I was prompted to leave this message when you re-tagged an article for speedy after it had been restored for AfD consideration. Anyway, take a perusal of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 to see just how controversial this criterion is, and how it was intended when it was proposed. Tagging everything with {{db-a7}} may seem helpful in our everlasting efforts to clear out the garbage. However, taking things that have some assertion to notability through slower deletion processes actually makes people who try to contribute articles feel better about Wikipedia if such articles do get deleted. They feel less burned by the process and it often makes the difference between them continuing to contribute, or becoming angry and disaffected. Give it some thought. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts, as well. Thanks.--Kchase T 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken on this, especially in regards to The Pale Pacific. While CSD:A7 could be an overly broad reason for deletion it does have one very important aspect to it. If an article is created that does not at least claim to be able to satisfy WP:NOTE then what is the purpose of having that article. Notability is one of the primary requirements for an article, and if the subject is so unremarkable that the author creating it cannot even state in exaggerated terms that the article is deserving then what possible hope is there? I read nothing in The Pale Pacific that even tried to achieve WP:BAND guidelines.
Some may argue that an article while it is being initially developed may not meet all requirements during the early stages. This is wrong, an article should at least try to qualify, and if it doesn't then the deletion process has enough checks and balances and delays to improve an article to a state where it at least has potential. wtfunkymonkey 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right that The Pale Pacific doesn't assert notability, but it got to AfD after an admin reversed his own speedy, so the chance for a wider forum won't get foreclosed a second time. As to the more general cases, WP:BIO actually says that the criteria are "not intended to be an exclusionary list", thereby providing other opportunities for an article to assert notability, without, as you say, attempting to meet one of the criteria. The other notability guidelines, as guidelines, are open to similar exceptions.
The broader problem with trying to apply the notability guidelines to assertions of notability is that newbie article creators don't have a clue what notability is, let alone the specifics of the guidelines. The reason someone or something is deserving of an encyclopedic article may not be apparent if they don't meet a specific notability criterion, but a significant accomplishment can still assert notability. This is a good example. Articles that start as pathetic stubs that barely assert notability are expanded over time by editors who wouldn't feel comfortable creating an article from scratch (and with aggressive new page patrolling, I can hardly blame them). If such stubs are allowed to sit and expand, often this can be the result (admittedly, it usually takes longer). Your thoughts?--Kchase T 05:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TrekBBS Deletion Review

Thank you for your opinions in the TrekBBS AFD. I do not agree with the closing admin's decision and have listed this now under Deletion Review. As you had participated in the AFD, I wished to inform you this in case you wished to voice your opinion on this --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 17:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call on taking that to Deletion Review - the admin was certaintly short sighted in seeing that AfD with a no consensus outcome. wtfunkymonkey 00:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iskin

Hey funkymonkey, I changed most of the content on this article since you tagged it. Do you still feel it reads like an ad? -SpuriousQ 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • the rework does take significant steps to removing the questionable content. As such I have removed the advert template. wtfunkymonkey 00:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hope/Faith AfD

Dear Wtfunkymonkey... I think your comment "Special acting skills that involve crying and pooping your pampers does not meet WP:NOTE in my opinion" is very dangerous. IMHO, that would probably remove about 80% of the actors' articles from WIKI!! :-) Thanks for the laugh!! SkierRMH 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wgwag

The guy is trolling. I suggest not feeding a troll.--Kubigula (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stockpile (military)

Please see note on new talk page on Stockpile (military) re dicdef proposal. Bernard S. Jansen 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i have my sourcessss! how dare you!1!1!1

how dare you say my article needs cleanup! i have my sources! how dareeeee you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proraceskier123 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 23 January 2007.

  • I assume you are talking about the article you created on Bob Meyers. The article contains numerous spelling and grammatical errors, does not conform to wikipedia guidelines for layout, formatting, or quality. You do not cite any sources, or include any references. As such I have decided to flag the article for help to improve it's quality, rather than flagging it for deletion outright.

M'excuser ! j'ai aperçu une source et j'ai une autre une droite prochaine à vous ! vous ose comment ! le cherche en haut, je vous ose le garçon !—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proraceskier123 (talk • contribs)

excuse me why are you marking this page for deletion? i have provided a sight and can sight another one so please give me a valid reason? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proraceskier123 (talk • contribs)

I removed the translation box as a translation has been provided. -Yupik 11:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] palais royal, musee de louvre

chatelet...chatelet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proraceskier123 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] HOTEL DE VILLE...hotel de ville

concorde...concorde franklin d. rosevelt...franklin d. rosevelt tulleries...tulleries —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proraceskier123 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] fwiw, Proraceskier123 was blocked

from further edits. Paul 04:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, that's actually quite good to know. Imagine my surprise when I come back from lunch and find this stuff. wikidrama thy name is Proraceskier123 --wtfunkymonkey 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zwinky

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel Talk 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:80s logo.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:80s logo.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Breakpoint by Richard A Clark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Breakpoint by Richard A Clark.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 20:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)