User talk:Reyk/Archive8

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Proposed deletion of Bugoff

The article Bugoff has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem to be notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded Lists

I will be nice and civil and suggest that you self revert [1]. Another editor [2] has agreed that I have not vandalized.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassing other users to try to get your way is no different from edit warring. You have no consensus for the changes, and the ANI thread about you is still on going. Reyk's reverts were fully proper, while yours was edit warring and should earn you a block. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is not the only reason your edits can be reverted. In this case, for instance, you are edit warring and attempting to ram through wholesale changes to list-related guidelines that are not accepted by the Wikipedia community. You can definitely be reverted for that. Reyk YO! 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Thanks

Thank you for this barnstar. I did put quite a bit of time and effort into trying to help, and it is encouraging to know that at least somebody appreciated it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate the smile I got reading your comment at User talk:Dwanyewest. A fair amount of truth in that. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

LMC

Hi! I studied the Wikipedia:Subpages policy, and so decided that User:Rursus/Large Magellanic Cloud and its accompanying User talk:Rursus/Large Magellanic Cloud are suitable places. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

I just read the complaints on the incident board recently I would like to thank you and some of the other people who defended me. I like wikipedia and especially like reading about fiction but there is too much poorly sourced articles. I don't object to articles existing but I do about unsourced material. I really wish to clean up many other of the Masters of the Universe articles like Mosquitor but I am likely to meet resistance from fanboys but I thank you for defending me since you don't know me and you didn't have too. By the way the way I am fan of the show of The Shield some of the character articles need further sources I have started the ball rolling by adding some the way I Have with He-man articles so any help would be appreciated. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

DYK for Frederic de Hoffmann

Updated DYK query On March 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederic de Hoffmann, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for NGC 7027

Updated DYK query On March 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article NGC 7027, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Removal of PROD from 2009 Inter Provincial Tournament Meyersdal

Hello Reyk, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to 2009 Inter Provincial Tournament Meyersdal has been removed. It was removed by Rigadoun with the following edit summary '(rm prod; Action Sports Cricket Inter Provincial Tournaments makes it clear that this is the top national championship in this sport and thus notable.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Rigadoun before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sea interferometry

Updated DYK query On March 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sea interferometry, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

'Private' deletion

Thanks for your endorsement over on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private series characters. I've opened a deletion review, because I feel that the arguments for keeping it were insufficient, and would appreciate hearing your stance again if you want to offer anything. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replied. I am not entirely convinced that a closing admin should go against clear consensus, even when that consensus is based on bad reasoning and not grounded in policy. Rather it should be incumbent upon keep voters to actually make good arguments, but that's not the responsibility of the closing admin. You win some, you lose some- and it doesn't stop you from aggressively scraping away the cruft. Reyk YO! 01:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the notability of lists

You may be aware of the debate about the notability of lists, where there is some disagreement between Masem and myself about what defines it as a topic (is it the lead or perhaps the title), and whether list topics are subject to some form of inclusion criteria, e.g. evidence of notability or some other form of external validation.. I just don't seem to be able of reach for the right words and your input would be most welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Frogs

Hah! used the metaphor myself before. [3]. Go well. Bali ultimate (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

may the record reflect

that i don't think "deletionists" should be proud of it. I think there are better alternatives. but thank you for the welcome. :) EME44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010


Dr. Judy Wood Notability

Isn't this a notable secondary source though?

Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/052308.html

Please let me know. Thank you.


The two reasons given for the deletion of the content was: 1. She is not notable. 2. Copyright violation. I have copy right permission from her personally, and I was going to have her email the permissions list until all this happened. As for a notability, Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher ever to file her evidence in a court of law, and her court case made it all the way to the Supreme court. She discusses her research and the court cases on the very popular Washington DC Radio Station WPFW 89.3, on the Ambrose Lane 'We Ourselves' show. There are many other places she has presented, but this is one of the most mainstream and credible places. Considering that Dr. Wood has done more to bring about truth and justice regarding 9/11 than many other 9/11 researchers who are mentioned in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I think some information about her should be added to the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

RfA Thanks


I wanted to thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded at 134/4/0. I am truly amazed but equally elated by the result and I hope I am able to serve as a good administrator. It was a surreal experience to succeed, and I will strive to meet your expectations.

More specifically, thank you for your support. I hope I can fulfill your expectations.

Thanks! ceranthor 15:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

I've gone ahead and refactored your statement on the arbitration requests page because it was a personal attack. Please don't readd it or you'll be blocked. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that could arguably be removed as a personal attack is the word "pest". The rest of what you removed though is fully accurate. A Nobody is, demonstrably in fact, incorrigible as well as a lying, sneaky, disruptive game-player. All of that can easily be backed up by the body of evidence collected in the RfC where the section headers contain accurate, purely descriptive words like "lying" and "disruption". So you were out of line to redact anything but the word "pest". --78.34.109.94 (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what 78.34.109.94 said. I feel I can justify every word of what I posted based on evidence presented at that RfC and in other places. Would you consider "Joe Bloggs routinely commits theft" to be acceptable but "Joe Bloggs is a thief" to be a personal attack? Because that's what this semantic quibbling amounts to. And you're threatening me with a punitive block for it? Absurd. Reyk YO! 13:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you're going to redact my statement, Carcharoth quoted the bits you find objectionable in his statement so you'll probably want to redact him as well. Otherwise everyone will still be able to read what I wrote. Reyk YO! 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not fool ourselves, Postlethwaite isn't even reading this. I'm pretty sure he was just trying to bait you into restoring the uncontroversial parts which he purposefully redacted so as to have an excuse to block you. I know that guy, it's what he does. Typical civility police suffering from a bad case of unwarranted self-importance, what else can you expect from someone like that? --87.79.186.183 (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you worry sir, I am reading this. With regards to refactoring Carcharoth's statement because it contains your personal attacks, it's merely pointing out what are personal attacks, he's not making them. There's no need to refactor a statement which points out perceived personal attacks, so long as the person making the statement isn't reiterating the attacks. With regards, to what is and what isn't a personal attack, I regarded both those statements in full as uncivil at best and attacks at worst - neither were appropriate on Wikipedia, certainly not on an Arbitration page. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless they are true and I stand by them. As I have said, I can justify the lot based on evidence presented at AN's RfC and other places so I obviously totally disagree with how you "regard" them. Everything I said applies only to his behaviour on Wikipedia, and all of it is backed up with ample evidence. It's not as though I called him a dickhead or an arsehole. IP guy, that last statement you made about Ryan is not cool. Reyk YO! 23:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Articles on Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri 22 May 2010

I plan to overhaul articles on Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and would appreciate your guidance.

First, could you explain to me what a deletionist is. A friend of mine sent me several newspaper articles, but I suspect they are slanted.

Regarding those two articles (sorry about no internal links; I am still learning):

Second, I have added paragraph about unofficial patch to both articles. There is a great deal of excitement among the SMAC forums about it, so I think it arises to the level of being included in Wikipedia. Since I am involved, I would appreciate if you would check the paragraph to see if it conforms to your standards and give me guidance.

Third, regarding external links. I do represent site that does not have external link. [1] One of my members alerted me that there was no external link to our site, although we are more active than the other sites that are listed.

I came here and read the article and decided that the unofficial patch project was worthy of mention at Wikipedia.

I was surprised to see this external link, "WePlaySMAC site - The most active SMAC community on the Web," especially since it isn't true. I did research by going to that site and searching for "Wikipedia" and discovered it was a new site deliberately placing the link to promote itself.[2]

I read the guidelines for External Links. In particular, I noticed that people who represent a site should not place an external link, but turn the matter over to an unbiased editor. I thought about "Civilization Gaming Network Forums - home of the Unofficial Patch Project," but that seemed stupid (if someone is interested in the Unofficial Patch Project, they can follow the citations). So then it was "Civilization Gaming Network Forums" (which you can insert -- it points to an entry post for new people)

However, I think a better solution is for me to write and you to review a paragraph about all of the SMAC sites[3] and delete a lot of the external links.

Fourth, what is the proper protocol for overhauling articles? Is it enough that I start a discussion on the talk page of the article or do I have to contact everyone who has made a revision?

A reply on your talk page is fine.

Vyeh (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Vyeh, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'll start with explaining my views on the competing philosphies of inclusionism and deletionism. At its heart is a disagreement about which topics we should cover and what kinds of sources we can use to decide whether or not to cover them. I think everyone would agree that an article on, say, Einstein's theory of Relativity backed by countless textbooks, scientific articles, newspaper coverage etc should be covered here. Equally, I don't think anyone would argue that I should write an article about my cat backed only by my say-so. But between these extremes are some borderline notable topics. What about a comic book character who appeared a handful of times and the only source for it is the comic itself. Should we cover that? Broadly speaking, the inclusionist side would say that we should and the deletionist side would lean towards deleting it. Similarly, inclusionists would lean towards accepting things like web forums, blogs, and extremely passing mentions as reliable sources whereas deletionists would be more wary of those sorts of things.
You say that the news articles you've been given seem slanted. Let me guess, they seem slanted towards the inclusionist viewpoint. That's probably true. I've seen a few articles that seek to paint the deletionists as a big gang of grumpy killjoys, but this is unfair in my opinion. The one-sided coverage is probably because "inclusionist" sounds all warm and fuzzy while "deletion" sounds scary. IMO this is all backwards- in my experience the nasty and vindictive side hasn't been the deletionists. Also who'd read a newspaper article entitled "Dedicated editors seek to maintain high standards" when "Relentless editors removing other people's hard work!" sounds so much more interesting. Anyways, I urge you to read the opinions of both sides and then make your mind up.
As for the articles on Sid Meier's games, you do not need to ask permission to make edits. We have policies that state that nobody owns articles and that editors should be bold in making the edits they think are necessary. It is good that you're asking for advice before making large-scale edits though- politeness and consideration for other editors is always a good thing.
Generally speaking, Wikipedia is not comfortable with admitting web forums as reliable sources. The reason is quite obvious: anyone can come on there and say anything they like. It would be like putting something in a WP article because you heard it from a guy in a pub. That's not to say that forums are forbidden altogether- if it's the official forum of something we should be covering and we can be reasonably confident that what's written there isn't total bollocks then it can be considered more or less as a reliable primary source. Which means we can use it to back up facts but we can't use it to decide whether the subject important or not.
Regarding your forum, I have to admit that I don't know enough about computer games to judge the notability of this new unofficial game patch. Are there other sources, outside your forum, that mention it? That would be a big help. I think I'm probably the wrong person to ask for guidance on this. Perhaps you could look through the edit history of the articles you want to work on, find the person who seems most active there, and ask for their input.
I'm sorry to bodyslam you with this humongous wall of text about our policies, procedures and philosophies without actually being able to help you with your specific question but I think if I don't know what I'm doing on a certain subject it's more helpful to point you in the direction of people who do. Regards, Reyk YO! 04:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Reyk. Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I appreciate your insight about deletionists and the reason news articles are slanted against them.
Here is a source outside my forum, [4]
I will look at the edit history.

Vyeh (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. I have overhauled external links. There was some broken ones and some self-serving ones. I took out the Moby Games link. It was just a review. The Planetfall link was an ad for a modification of a different game that was based on SMAC. I change the description of the Apolyton link. There was no strategy discussion there. I tweaked the description of the Civ Fanatics link (from "home of" to "features" and dropped the unnecessary "(unofficial)." I added description to Gamespot link and removed the unnecessary "Alpha Centauri on." I pointed the self-serving WePlayCiv link to their downloads section, which has unique content which will interest Wikipedia readers and changed the description. Finally, I added an external link for Civilization Gaming Networks Forum (mine) for fairness (if three of the four big forums have an external link, it would be odd if the biggest did not).
I have described what I have done, so you can check it. The only issue I think we need to discuss is how I handled the "Official Strategy" link. Unfortunately, the game company no longer links to the Official Game Site from their site. So we can either not include the company and make the official site the material about the game rather than the sales area or include both.
On balance, I think a deletionist would be happy. I like to think of myself at this point as a conservationist. I tried to preserve as many links but was unable to figure out a way to accommodate the more egregious ones.
I look forward to your reply.

Vyeh (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Civilization Gaming Network Forums
  2. ^ "WPC links in Wikipedia SMAC(X) articles", WePlayCiv Forums, January 7 - March 29, 2010.
  3. ^ Petek (2009) "SMACX Links" WePlayCiv, May 1, 2009.
  4. ^ WePlayCiv "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri / Alien Crossfire Unofficial Patch released!", WePlayCiv, May 14, 2010.

Liar liar pants on fire

Nice touch to that essay!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Minor Barnstar
For your minor edit that really added clarity to an essay. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Hi. I think it is important that I bring you and Narthring into an issue. I overhauled the External Links (see the discussion page, being extremely careful to be fair to all SMAC forums and notifying you and Narthring of my interest. Bdanv, moderator of one SMAC forum, edited the External Link for his forum introducing several self-serving elements (he moved his link to just below the official site's link, violating alphabetical order and he used "WePlaySMAC" instead of the "WePlayCiv" that appears on his forum page). What I have done pending review by you and Narthring is to put the WePlayCiv link back in alphabetical order, put in the correct "WePlayCiv" instead of "WePlaySMAC" and conformed the information to objective information that is available to you or Narthring upon following the link. (This necessitated removing material I had originally written when the link was pointing to the Alpha Centauri Downloads section instead of pointing to the Alpha Centauri Forums section.)

I believe my edit preserves the information Bdanv was adding while following the WikiPedia guidelines on external links.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi