User talk:ShadowRangerRIT/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Talkback from Zhang He

{{talkback|Zhang He|Borrowing your Navbar}}
P.S.: Thanks for adding December 2009 to my talk page. It saved me the time of doing it myself. Ha ha ha! =) - Zhang He (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Saw it, thanks, and no problem respectively. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Shankar

Hello,

Please let know why you are delete pages from Dr. S Shankar.

gerard

gerard.benerink@kpn-officedsl.nl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerabene (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I just tagged it for cleanup and removed the additional information added. Unfortunately, both the original information and the added information all violated numerous Wikipedia policies, including unreferenced info on a living person, reliable sources (you had none), original research (information that was purely opinion based and could never be properly sourced) and advertising. Not to mention the article was written in a decidedly unencyclopedic tone. For those reasons, another user decided it should be deleted. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Josip Broz Tito. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You're a little late to the party. We're actually collaborating at this point. And I had no intention of violating the rule; I know the line. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, okay then :-) Sorry for being such an administrative busybody. Hope you can work this out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I understand the warning (frankly it's better to err on the side of caution and warn than to end up blocking a violator without a warning). This article bothers me on levels beyond that of the criticism section. An article on a person should not double as a complete military history of the country in which he lived (though that might just say how thoroughly he dominated it). —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Salting

I am always a little bit cautious about salting articles where the name could become the title of a sensible article; especially when it has been created/re-created at different times by different editors. Re-creation of a deleted article is only rarely a blockable offence, except, of course, for the usual criteria of attack, obscenity, threat, etc. But it is worth watching. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Response in original thread (and your message copied there for cohesion). —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Leila Lopes

Hey, I'm wondering how I'm "breaking the rules" so to speak? I've cited a reference that the person is deceased. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondSheepRebirth (talk • contribs) 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You need reliable, third party sources to make claims of any kind, ideally in English. Of course, there's a secondary notability consideration; if she wasn't notable before her death, why is she now? —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 01:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, All this could of been avoided if you told me that Wikipedia articles aren't viable references. Thank you for your time. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondSheepRebirth (talk • contribs)

It could also be avoided if you did not engage in edit wars and chose to discuss changes that other people clearly object to (and indicated exactly why in their edit summaries). WP:BRD is a valuable guideline. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 01:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Mountain Mikes Pizza

I did not infringe copyright. I put the sentences in a block quote. And put the prefix "They Claim" before the block quote. That was not my own words, and they receive full responsibility for the quote.Powerkeys (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. It still qualifies under the unambiguous advertising rule though. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 01:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What can I do to make it a non-advert? I did my best not expressing any opinions on the matter.Powerkeys (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove the blockquote mission statement; marketing teams efforts don't go in an encyclopedia. Remove the pricing details; this isn't the place to advertise for franchisees. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 01:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy now? That is all the information I can give without being considered an advertisement.Powerkeys (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lucy Bennett

This was not a place to use A12. First of all, the character is not included in the list you say it duplicates. Second, if it were, agreed that this article would be unnecessary, but there would need to be a redirect, as is standard practice for fictional characters. The appropriate thing to do is to actually merge the information, and make a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't realize that. Will keep in mind for the future. Thanks. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Powerwave Technologies

I didn't create Powerwave Technologies, but I noticed the article at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and thought that I might be able to improve it. I added some references, and I think that they are enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Works for me. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

get died hoax

I'm not sure why you choose to instantly submit this article as being a hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsonevan23 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I could find no information on this whatsoever on a Google search, even in quotes. In most cases with relatively silly stuff like this, it's a hoax. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have (reluctantly) declined your speedy, because I don't think this is a hoax, which implies intent to deceive. Unfortunately there is no speedy for "non-notable and probably made up one day", so I have converted this into a PROD. Keep up the New Page Patrolling, it needs all the eyes it can get (even though there are at this moment 170 articles tagged but not yet dealt with!) Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Aspen Cove at Scofield speedy deletion

I am trying to make an entry for Aspen Cove at Scofield, a recreational development north of Scofield reservoir. I have rewritten the entry to be a factual entry about the community. Please help me keep this entry. My name is Mark Nelson and my login in Mln7. Mln7 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you haven't addressed any of the issues from the original speedy deletion. The section on "Recreation and Relaxation" is written like a brochure, not an informative, encyclopedic entry. The lot size is completely irrelevant except for the purposes of selling property there. While the rest of the article isn't quite as bad, it's littered with uninformative peacock words. And even if all this was fixed, it's not clear why the specific development is notable. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, you should be making your case on the article talk page, not here. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I Just LOVE How...

...literally everything I post is "unconstructive" and therefore fair-game for you to revert.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're posting jokes and tangents irrelevant to the discussion. If you post a real reply that directly addresses the issue being discussed, it wouldn't be unconstructive, but so far you haven't. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi (re: Speedy Deletion of Candy King)

Listen can you leave it up until Monday, i need it for my school work and cannot access the candyking.com website in school because its apparant "Entertainment". Leave the candy king page alone i need that info for school on Monday ;/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Experting (talk • contribs)

No, I can't. Copyright violation can't just stick around because you'd like it to. Wikipedia is not your personal webspace (and this would be illegal on your personal webspace as well). —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. You'd proposed deletion of Discover the diamond in you, a page i created. I particularly have no issues. Was wondering about it myself. Thanks for the message. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Tandberg Movi

Hi! I notice that you put a warning template in the article Tandberg Movi, claiming that the article is "written like an advertisement". Could you please be more specific about which parts of the article that in your opinion make it look like an advertisement? Cheers, --Thomas von der Lippe (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, information that is primarily useful for advertising, as opposed to describing a product neutrally, is undesirable (I don't believe this was a spam page, or I would have nominated it for speedy deletion). The problem is partially a matter of notability (I'm not sure the product or it's related products are notable), and partially a matter of excessive detail on product features that aren't relevant to most readers. It isn't really necessary to note that it is often paired with other products from the same company. While describing features is okay, when it's the only purpose of the article it veers into advertising territory. If you could expand on why the product is notable, and what purposes it has been used for, that would help. Note that I don't mean what it can be used for, which is advertising-ish, but what it has been used for. I realize my response is not as helpful as either you or I would like it to be; in some cases advertising follows the same rule as pornography: I know it when I see it. Basically, as long as the article reads like a product brochure, it will feel like advertising. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It must intereste someone

Since there are shows at museums that showcase these timelines, it must interest someone.....

here is a link to a recent exposition in Italy with one such very detailed timeline...so you can realize the amount of stuff:

http://www.imss.fi.it/milleanni/cronologia/indice.html

happy reading

Altes2009 (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of italian peninsula

There are similar lists for the United States, and List of inventions for England, France, Germany etc, why not one for Italy? there is a LOT of stuff that came out of the italian peninsula from 700 BC to 2009 AD, why not know about it?

see for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_inventions

that is where I got the idea

Altes2009 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As I noted in the article talk space, the United States is at least a single, continuous political entity. If you combine pre-historic peoples with ancient Rome with modern Italy, you lose any coherent focus to the article. All they have in common is geography; genetically, culturally and politically they have virtually nothing in common. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I should note that I think the U.S. inventions page is an equally silly bit of self-promotion, but at least it isn't taking credit for the achievements of the Native Americans as well. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oertum est^ Longobardos ab intact» ferro barbce longitudine, cum primitus Winili dicti fuerint, ita postmodum appellatos ; nam juxta illorum linguam lang longam bart barbam significat.
Do you really believe there is no link between ancient Italics and Modern Italians. Then why so many modern Italians still speak fluent Latin? You are insulting italians by saying that. We are one and the same people with the people that lived there since prehistory. Altes2009 (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, for one, the inventions you list pre-date Latin in several cases, so even if your argument were valid, it wouldn't cover the pre-historic inventions. Secondly, Italy (along with much of Europe) has been repeatedly overrun by outside invaders that displaced or assimilated the existing inhabitants. The political and cultural similarities are tenuous at best. Last I checked, modern Italians rarely pray to Jupiter or watch bloodsport in the Colosseum. The Roman Empire, for all practical purposes, disintegrated 1500 years ago.
Beyond that, if language were all that was required to indicate continuity, then basically all modern day Native Americans in the U.S. and Canada must be British; after all, they speak English (and usually better than your average Italian speaks Latin). This isn't an attack on Italy; I'm just saying that you're trying to combine too many disparate bits of information into a list that provides little of value. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 23:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, Italian civil law is still to this day based on Roman Law, and so is the law of many other countries. At list in legal Matters then there is continuity. what does it Matter if the roman empire disintegrated 1500 years ago? the British empire disintegrated in 1952, so what? from which time would you accpet a Timeline as significant? AD 1000? By then Italians spoke modern Italian? would that satisfy your criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
First off, a side-note. Please don't create new sections for each reply. Just click the edit link for this specific section and insert your reply with an additional level of indentation.
Returning to the topic at hand, the cultural continuity was never my main argument, just a problem with the reach of your article even if it were otherwise valid. The main problem is that your article is just a list with little context; how does the Latin alphabet and dentures relate, in any way, besides the geographical coincidence of their invention? Like I mentioned, with the exception of the U.S. article (which doesn't warrant an article either IMO), all the other timelines are for specific industries. The progression of transportation or communications technologies is important; you see what people at any given time had access to, how one invention influenced the next, etc. A timeline of assorted inventions originating in Italy doesn't have that purpose. Did dentures influence the development of the Latin alphabet? Did dentures influence Volta's early battery? Or Cristofori's piano? It's not that it isn't true, or verifiable, but how is it notable? What links them together in any important way? Is there information to be had in such a list that is worthy of note that could not be found in the corresponding articles? —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 23:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are a man of principle, why don't you also propose those other lists for deletion? why only mine? Dentures and the alphabet have one thing in common: they are strokes of pure genius. With such a flexible alphabet you can develop a modern society (that is why most european countries adopted it). You do not seem to be excited about dentures, but wait until you are 65 and then I am sure you will agree that they are the product of pure genius (unless you prefer to be fed by a nasogastric tube). And this is what i was going to put on that page and on my other page "Italian Inventions and discoveries"-which was also nominated for deletion in a domino effect. All the stuff that I would have put on put on those pages would have been strokes of pure genius. And the meaningful way they relate to each other is that if you let yourself be inspired and prodded by the achievements of your fellow countryman then you will want to achieve similar feats and you will want to go beyond what is possible in everyday life, in your work. In Italy time has frozen at the time of the renaissance, when these were the ideals learned people lived by (check out "palio" in wikipedia and look at the video link at the bottom of the page and you will know what I mean). I would call it the "Renaissance Code". Follow it and you will become a very creative person. I bet no one has ever taught you how to come up with an idea (because they do not teach you things like this in schools outside of Italy). Well, now I am going to enlighten you "Renaissance style" right here and right now: get a pan and make spaghetti sauce..with chopped onion, carrots, celery, olive oil and ground beef. taste good no? next day replace the ground beef with ground buffalo (bison) meat. There you have it....less cholesterol, a new dish....a new idea. Can you see the principle now? can you see how it can be easy to have new ideas? you can apply this principle to your everyday job and to many aspects of life. change one ingredients and you obtain something new. and believe me...it comes a lot easier...if you have a list of the achievements of your countrymen to inspire you. Now, if you go back to wikipedia and read up about "Sprezzatura" you might even get transformed into an Italian..... the process might take a while....perhaps one year, but I am sure you will eventually "convert" to being a "Renaissance man" and live for invention. and when you do I suggest you go to a Pilgrimage to a place in Italy called "Balzi Rossi" in the region of Liguria, just a stone throw from the french border, and you will see that nothing gets lost in Italy and that even the Italians of 25,000 years ago are still very much with us. So perhaps you think that the list is just bolstering nationalism and it is, but it is also powerful inspirations for Italian-Americans, Italian-Canadians, italian-Australians to become "Renaissance men" and invent new stuff. What if you and I42 are going to deprive the world of the next Leonardo, for lack of inspiration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I did just post a query to the U.S. timeline talk page to justify the article, as a prelude to an AfD process.
As for the wall of text, I think you are going a little overboard on your praise of Italian culture. I have no particular opinions on it myself (I've never been, though my sister has), but I find that in practice there are a lot more similarities than differences among cultures originating in Western Europe. Much like you praise the creativity of Italian culture, U.S. schools were, until recently, held out as an example of the advantages of a system that encouraged creativity. While test scores were lower than those of the school systems in Asia, graduates of U.S. schools tended to be more successful as inventors and entrepreneurs, even when adjusted for socio-economic background. This is not to say that the U.S. is superior to Italy on that front (never read any decent comparisons on the relative efficacy of their school systems, and with the recent drive for test driven schools I think we've lost some of that spark), but the point is that many countries view their culture as being something special. I think in most cases it's true, in the sense of unique and interesting, but not true as far as a general superiority of one culture over another (there are exceptions to the general rule, but those are mostly for repressive and/or overly violent cultures).
On dentures and the like, I don't think they are unimportant in general, only that lumping them with other inventions coincidentally invented in the same arbitrary geographical region is pointless. I expect I will greatly appreciate them (or more realistically, their modern technological replacements) as I grow up, but at no point do I expect to think "Thank you people-who-happened-to-inhabit-the-Italian-peninsula, for inventing dentures and the Latin alphabet, enabling me to communicate both by speech and text." :-)
Oh, and I have had buffalo, using it to replace beef in several recipes. :-) I'm not much of a chef, but my girlfriend is, and I do help and learn from her. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT!

Please see the following topic: http://forums.sega.com/showthread.php?t=306802 - Zhang He (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Either this isn't that new, or it's just the same problem as always. Adobe's Javascript facilities are abysmally poorly coded, security and performance-wise, and virtually no one actually uses them. It's good practice to keep it disabled even after they patch the latest problem with it. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Speilberg BLPN

No, I hadn't read the discussion page before posting my comments.

BTW, I'll point out this snippet from the BLP guidelines you quoted in discussion: can be sourced to reliable secondary sources (my emphasis). This is actually a significant part of the issue. Using secondary sources (other people's analysis) rather than us editors picking and choosing material from primary sources ourselves helps us avoid original research. Obviously, with some current issues involving criticism, they're too recent for secondary sources to have evolved yet, and we muddle through. However, Speilberg's been around for forever, so there should be at least some good critical analysis of his film career in secondary sources now. Even the "legitimite" criticism in the article (in my opinion, which seems close to yours) is actually a collection and synthesis of snippets from mostly primary sources, i.e. it's original research. It's well-done, and fairly even-handed, picking relevant and important criticisms (IMHO), but it's OR none-the-less. Given the existing collection of snippets and summaries from primary sources, it's not surprising that a naive editor assumes that adding some more snippets is OK. If not for the vitriolic nature of those bits, we'd be tempted to ignore them being tossed into the bucket.

Finally, the criticism section could benefit from some reorganization, splitting the general film criticism from the business/personal, probably with a sub-section for Schindler's/Holocaust stuff. Studerby (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Responded on original thread, and incorporated your reply there. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Tito? a big LOL!!! You're a far far braver soul than I!!!!Studerby (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Prod tags

Hi. I responded to you over at my talk page and the talk page of the list of inventions. I just removed another prod tag you recently added, for a procedural reason. You can't prod articles that have already been sent to AfD. See the prod policy for the full details on when it isn't appropriate to tag an article for proposed deletion. To get that article deleted you have to send it back to AfD. ThemFromSpace 22:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't realized it had been AfD-ed before. Thanks for the heads up. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Batyanya

Hello ShadowRangerRIT, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Batyanya - a page you tagged - because: Doesn't apply to fictional characters. PROD or take to AfD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  20:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Info

Here you have been cited:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DIREKTOR. Maybe you want to express your opinion. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw (I have the talk pages of most participants in the dispute over Tito watched), but I don't feel he has done enough to warrant Admin intervention lately. Being sarcastic is allowable (being annoying, or even a bit of an ass isn't prohibited), as is a single revert of edits. If you disagree on the revert, state your reasons on the talk page, that's the whole point of the WP:BRD edit cycle. I just posted to the Tito talk myself, supporting many of your changes, with an explanation for each. I'll give him a couple days to respond, and if he doesn't, I'll restore the ones I believe warrant being restored. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It.wiki policies then are different from en.wiki policies. On it.wiki it isn't allowed to be sarcastic, allusive and provocative. See you. Merry christmas. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Shadow Ranger. Just so you know, I share many of yoour sentiments about these inventions pages. I like you would like to see all of them deleted from Wikipedia. But my point from the beginning was this. If the United States gets delated, then why does China, England, etc have the right to have their inventions pages? If you can ever get a group going that can have the pwer to delete all invention pages from Wikipedia, you can count on me.

Thanks for the help with Twinkle. Some people just do not know that Tim Berniers lee invented the WWW and not the internet. Thus, I hate having to revert edits that people stupidly make. ;)

Happy Hannukah! --Yoganate79 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

spotty ink references

i got you, and I agree, it's rather hhard to believe a flag exists without a flagpole to show it.

I'll upload episodes of "Filling Station" build a Wiki site for it, complete freeze frames, then make the references.

The show doesn't make other references to any other artists.

For now, you may delete the references.

96.229.83.169 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless the style is *really* similar though, you'd still need to provide some compelling reliable source that says that it was an intentional allusion to The Ink Spots, not just a coincidence. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dynasty of Hasan

You want to delete it after so many months back =?? makes her want her knowing, better human

exactly what's wrong with this article? what problem you have with this family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibi Fer (talk • contribs)

Because the article is still unreferenced, original research. Please read the rules on this sort of thing. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

College football season articles

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. You should also consider perusing the contents of Category:Ohio State Buckeyes football seasons, Category:Nebraska Cornhuskers football seasons, Category:Tennessee Volunteers football seasons, etc. I'd appreciate you not wasting my time with your arbitrary thoughts about what is overboard, when others have spent countless hours to define what is appropriate for inclusion. What I would have appreciated more on my talk page would have been a comment like "Hey, jweiss11, thanks for all that work to bang out the core structure of the history of one of America's most storied sports teams." Jweiss11 (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Hostile much? All I said was that the criteria for inclusion appear to be too lax. It wasn't an attack on you or Michigan (I don't care about *any* university sports program, Michigan or otherwise). Remember, consensus can be changed; I do want to know what the current crop of editors think of this rule. I kind of expect to be shot down; the nature of the various WikiProjects is such that they attract a group of people who are very interested in the subject and this leads to a *very* broad definition of notability. I'm sure you put effort into collecting the information, but that's not the point.
To your point on the existence of other teams' season pages, that's not a real compelling argument. If it did, all you need to do is create a couple bad pages that survive a cursory inspection, then use them to justify future articles.
Finally, why would I thank you for banging out skeleton articles on ancient sports teams? I'm asking this seriously (really, it's not a rhetorical question); I noticed your pages on new page patrol and decided to look into it. If I believe the contribution is earnest, but not useful, I can respect you (though your tendency to assume bad faith weakens that), but I'm hardly going to thank you for, in my opinion, cluttering up Wikipedia with junk articles. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RefImprove tag

this, really? There are 137 references provided and no unreferenced sections. I had not added a references template, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to where you were thinking that the references had to be improved and if you had any ideas or specific concerns to address this. Thanks,--Terrillja talk 22:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. What I meant was "the references need to be improved because the copy'n'paste dropped several named refs". If those are fixed, it's fine. Sorry for the confusion. The short form (refimprove) is what I meant, but the long form (it needs more) isn't. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That makes more sense. Luckily for me, AnomieBot magically finds the refs in the article I pulled the text from and fixes all the references, check out the article now. Saves a lot of effort. Thanks for the reasoning, I was a bit confused. Next thing to do is to check all the refs, some are redundant and need to have a refname added, 137 refs is probably more like 110 refs. The work never ends.--Terrillja talk 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for the information on the article I posted on Problem Management. I will read the guidelines and redo it.Cwilli1024 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pink vandal

I've blocked this guy for three months, and as (a) you say his changes aren't confirmed by IMDb and (b) he seems to be some kind of nut, I have gone down his contributions list and simply rolled everything back without checking - I hope you agree that's the best thing to do? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree his edits can be removed without checking, but unfortunately at least one other IP editor has been making the same sorts of edits, sometimes interleaved, sometimes missed for quite a while with other editors doing partial reverts. I'm going through and doing a check for all edits by those suspect IPs and restoring a "last known good" version in each case. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
OK - sorry, I'm out of time now, I shouldn't really have stayed to block that guy. I'll see how things are in the morning. I'm not too familiar with protection policy but I know they don't like to do it long-term - might be better to watch those pages and try to block all the vandals, unless they turn out to be IP-hoppers. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The original bad IP editor (the one you blocked) was replaced (during his earlier blocks) by other IPs making the same edits, thus my request for page protection. I know it's not encouraged (heck I argued Xeno into unprotecting Mickey Mouse for a few months before someone else reprotected it), but in the case of a couple hundred mostly unwatched articles with multiple IPs pouncing, I don't know what else to do. I understand you can't stick around, just wanted to explain. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you vandal fighters

Thanks to all of you who helped revert vandalism on my user page! I don't know what I did to the IP (his only edits were to my user page, so I'm guessing he's someone I got blocked connecting from a library computer or somesuch). I didn't even notice the vandalism until it had been fixed and the vandal blocked. Impressive response time. Again, thanks! —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Preacher Boy page for Billie Holiday

I put a hold on to your speedy deletion for the reasons I stated on the page. You did not point to what it is you perceive to be a copyright infringement. As I stated, there is nothing on the page that is a direct copy from any book or article. The interview from which I quoted is in public domain and is available on many records and CDs as a result.

So, if you would please make your objection more clear, I would appreciate it. Thanks.--Tal1962 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to look at this in detail, but the original speedy for copyvio was when the page was created with just the lyrics of the song. I later put a prod on it when it was recreated, as it didn't meet notability standards (unreleased with no significant coverage). —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 23:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughtful message

Thank you: I've meant to do something about the Twinkling-Rollbecker business for some time now. The technical stuff here shouldn't scare me but yes, it does, and I also savour the occasional sardonic and personalised remark when reverting vandalsim. But yes, it's horrendously slow; and of course I'd rather be editing. So... yes, which of these critters is easiest to use? For one such as I who knows bugger-all? Rollback sounds good. Do I simply apply on the page-link you gave? And can I still personalise the tool with "firm and maybe even sarcastic but generally fair" commentaries on the offenders' talk-pages? Haploidavey (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you've already told me this. Twinkling it is then. Best Regards - and by the way, I'm glad your reluctant revert of the splendid Clinton contribution (see user page) is now enshrined in perpetuity. Don't you just love this place?! Haploidavey (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I responded on your user page anyway (didn't see this until after I had responded). And yeah, being able to link a funny diff in perpetuity is pretty awesome. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 23:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I loaded Twinkle and it's a lot less scary than I thought. Haven't dared use it yet... Cheers. Haploidavey (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - absolutely no need to apologise; I welcome any tutorial help. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

GSautter

While the content of the species pages clearly is of scientific nature and useful mostly for people with a biological background, I think they still do have a reasonable right to exist in Wikipedia:

  • They give background and detail information for any article on higher level taxa
  • Anyone who is interested can read into them and refine them
  • After all, are articles on complicated math subjects any more commonly useful?

Gsautter (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Natural Born Thieves

Understood. I apologise, I'm a fan of Robert Knepper, and didn't think to read the guidelines.

Could you please delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TempPass (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


forgot

Why does the whois need to remain? "For repeated vandalism by an anonymous IP address, it is helpful to take the following additional steps"


From what I understand, the block was only about my whinning about wikipedia doing things I don't like...

Single block. Tedder declined to specify reasoning, and the person who denied the appeal was, as I wrote, "looking for a reason to deny the appeal". The reason specified was not applicable as it was my own edit I had edited.

Hmm... as far as I can see, the whois tag was placed 3rd party and as such seems to have little merit.--173.171.222.251 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TV21

Hello, I'm trying to create a page for the rock band TV21 but it seems to be flagged for speedy deletion. They certainly deserve their own entry, having recorded several records in the early 1980s and appeared on TV. Am I doing something wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greedoreedo (talk • contribs) 22:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BAND for what is required to make a band notable. If you can provide references establishing notability per the guidelines given there, then add a hangon tag to the article and include the information establishing notability. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your changes to my page

Thank you for making changes to my page. i have just started out here and im not quite certain what i am doing or what i am going to do, but i do hope that we can be friends. Ilovewiki512 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

Hello,

Someone has deleted a page I created and was encouraging people to contribute to - The Rock Triangle. It seems that some people think that it is advertising, please can it be undeleted so that I may take more time to look through Wiki's rules (this is my first ever contribution) and edit whatever needs editing. For your information I live in Bury, Manchester, UK and at the minute the town's being heavily redeveloped. I thought it surprising that this hadn't been documented on Wiki so decided to start an article, detailing encyclopedic information about the development so far.

Any questions please feel free to contact me,

Many thanks,

Paul Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauljamestaylor (talk • contribs) 09:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the deleter, though I may have nominated it for deletion. Not being an admin, I can't delete pages myself, or view deleted content. Please go to the page itself, and look at the deletion log, which should show you which admin deleted it. You can ask them to e-mail you a copy of the page to work with. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 13:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't get on the page, it's like it never existed. I got your name from a link that stated the page had been marked for deletion, you must be able to help, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauljamestaylor (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you click the red link in that notice, it will take you to the deleted page log. If you read further down it will have a section in pinkish-red "A page with this title has previously been deleted.", and a log of the deletions. Fastily apparently deleted the page, you can access his info from there. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cubana de Aviación Flight 310

I've replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubana de Aviación Flight 310. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of JC Studios

Hi, I'm looking to not have the JC Studios page deleted. I work for a PR firm and we're trying to put information about JC Studios onto WIkipedia. My boss posted a page earlier that was way to blatently advertising. I think the page I just posted is closer to what Wikipedia is looking for.

However, this posting was also flagged for copyright violation. I believe it's due to information from www.needstudios.com, which is our client's Web site. We actually do have permission to use this information as we're posting for our client.

I can change the entry on JC Studios as required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrooklynPR (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Kryptonite Media Player

FYI, this is now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you noticed—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I have psychic powers. Fear me. :-) —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheikh Khalid page....

I just posted this on the discussion page attached to the Sheik Khalid article...

It seems like there has been a back and forth campaign regarding this page for months. Last week I went through and edited this page thoroughly - it was in disarray and seemed like it was being used for political purposes.

The page was missing citations and factual documentation. I added over 20 new citations for mundane facts - IE the date Sheikh Khalid became crown prince in 1958 - and factual documentation for the controversial issues in which Sheik Khalid was involved. I included additional factual information about his lobbying and political activities in the US - a point disputed above. I included names of the lobbying firms and the citations to the contracts. I removed comments like "California Strategies is paid to operate the blog to promote Khalid's agenda and to position him as a "thought leader" in DC." that seemed to have an agenda.

I think this paragraph in the opening section "However, this alleged royal decree has never been officially recognized by the Government or Ras Al Khaimah or the United Arab Emirates. The decree has never been presented in public other than in .pdf form on a blog managed by his lobbying team, California Strategies with whom he has a contract for approximately $900,000. [2] The decree was never officially published in the UAE nor does it have an official document number, both of which are necessary for such a decree to be in effect or considered authentic. For this reason, the official UAE informational website, www.uaeinteract.com lists HH Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi as Crown Prince and Deputy Ruler of Ra's al-Khaimah. [3] UAE Political Leadership" which is continually added by LucasStar78 seems to have an agenda.

As opposed to what I posted which was that Khalid stated there was a decree and that "The decree has not been officially recognized by the Government of Ras Al Khaimah or the United Arab Emirates." Which is correct - Khalid stated there was a decree - no official or government has recognized that decree. What khalid paying a lobbying firm has nothing to do with this factually accurate statement.

I created third party citations for the policy section where possible - which did not exist before.

I added citations for the section that detailed Sheik Khalid's tenure as crown prince - there were almost no citations for this section.

I removed the back and forth disputes that were evident on the page and created a factual framework for the controversial situations that were not discussed in the previous entry - this included the current situation about the America's cup, Iran, nuclear weapons and Sheik Khalid's lobbying and political efforts in America.

I do not work for CA strategies or any of the other firms mentioned. I am not interested in a back and forth dispute over the page. I think it should have factual, unbiased information. I am happy to work out an agreement on the language.

I feel like I improved the article and made it more factual and accurate. Previous people had been editing the page for months and it was flagged for poor content and citations. Again - happy to work out a compromise to create a good page. Max Austin (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Austin (talk • contribs)

Electronics, Intelligence & Support

Hi, I was correcting information about this company, which was very outdated. There were lots of edits, but not many changes related to the kinds of information provided. I'm not sure if it was an automatic trigger that scheduled the page for deletion.

In any case, I'm writing to ask you to reconsider, since it's a pretty modest description of the organization.

Please let me know how I can improve it.

Thanks, Barb EIS-external (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Inform

I inform you: read user talk:Jimbo Wales#Ex Yugoslavia case —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.126.34 (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Dr. Vijai S. Shankar

Hello, I did so my best to make a wiki wonderfull article about Dr. Shankar. What I understood is about copyright.

The website (http://www.evolutionofmind.org/Evolution_of_Mind/Author2.html) is updated the licence 

Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License

as a foodnote. So that the text can be used for wiki.

Please let know if this is OK.

It is the first article made and would be very fine to help for a good contribution to wiki.

Please undelete and let know if there should be some corrections.

Thank you, Gerard (Gerabene (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

Hello

You can protect boomerang Latin America that I not to drive to him very the wikipedia in English I am wikipedia's user you are Spanish for favor you can yield and protecting the article Boomerang ( Latin American TV channel ) in order that they stop and inventing information.--Hugo Felix - Messages Here 20:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, so I can't protect it myself even if I thought it should be protected. And from what I can tell, the edits appear to be a content dispute, not vandalism. You need to at least make an effort to communicate and resolve this on the article talk page before pushing for page protection. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nanotech Age

You removed the speedy without looking at the AfD. In the AfD, the author states that he has transwiki-ed the article to the Future Wikia and no longer opposes deletion. If you're an admin, please close the AfD and delete the page; otherwise, please restore the speedy template. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your message. I don't see where in the AFD the user agreed that the page should be deleted, though I do see that he says he transwiki'd the page to Wikia so "that part of the job is done now." [1] In any case, I think he's being agreeable to some very strong peer pressure and is exhibiting characteristic behavior of a bitten newbie. As such, I don't believe that speedy deleting the article is an appropriate response to the situation and plan to let the AFD run its course. Thanks, causa sui× 21:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Understood. I would like you to give a justification for the page though. The topic is intrinsically tied to Kurzweil's work and intrinsically WP:CRYSTAL. It would be appropriate to detail it in an article on the book, or even an article on the general concept (Technological singularity), but articles covering specific predictions aren't appropriate. It's like writing articles on the Battle of Yavin of Star Wars, or on the New California Republic of Fallout. And this particular incarnation of the page is written from such an in-universe perspective and involves so much original research and synthesis that I consider it a wash. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
There are definitely problems with the article, and your criticisms are well received. I've posted some comments on the AFD page, so maybe we could continue the deletion discussion over there. --causa sui (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Resident Evil characters

Hi Ranger,

All of the self-links on the List of Resident Evil characters have now been removed. I haven't removed any of the links to sections which employ the pound sign, however I have removed all the links to redirects to sections; they are more confusing to editors of the list and more time-consuming for users reading the page. I could have replaced some with pound sign links, but they can get excessive, so I decided to only leave the ones which were already there; the number of links on the page in general should probably be reduced anyway. Nonetheless, if there are certain section links which are not currently included which you believe would be beneficial, feel free to add them.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ranger,
You are correct in saying that the cited Queen Leech link is a link to a section, however it is a link to a section through a redirect; these are the self-links I suggested should be removed. The preferable type of links to sections are those that simply employ the pound sign before the section title. For example, see the link to "James Marcus" in the third paragraph of the "Rebecca Chambers" section. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.
Neelix (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Sheffey

Thanks for your advice about the notes for Robert Sheffey. I hope to get to that shortly. The longer I contribute at Wikipedia, the more difficult it gets to create new articles. You have every right to be skeptical of new articles; but it's hard for the computer-challenged folks like me to get all the "t"s crossed right from the get go.--John Foxe (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your help.--John Foxe (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Shloime Gertner

ur suposed 2 b jewish, so u will understand the importence of my article on shloime gertner, he is a famous singer, i dont actually understand wots wrong with the article, pls tell me wot it is on my discusion page thanks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by YB1234 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Roderic Noble

Thanks for your advice about the page for Roderic Noble. I have recently interviewed Roderic. I'm just putting up some of the details on Wikipedia for the benefit of the readers of your online Encyclopedia. Could you let me finish? I would be very grateful.--EnglandEnigma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

I should point out that original research is not accepted on Wikipedia. If your work is published in a reliable source then it can be used as a reference, but even then, you need to keep the rules on self-published sources in mind. The edits, by you and your closely related accounts are against the sockpuppet policy as well as the biography of living persons policy. The extreme regularity of the edits (done 9-12 seconds after minutes evenly divisible by 5) also invites suspicion. I have posted a thread at the administrator's notice board asking for an investigation; if you wish to explain yourself you can do so there. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure about the notability on this one. Your edit summary here notes he's notable for having had two roles in notable productions, however WP:ENT actually says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films..." (emphasis mine), which is not the case iwth Noble. I did a quick search and there's certainly a paucity of independent coverage on the subject, I doubt the article would survive AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The role in the movie appears to be significant. Hard to tell if the role in the TV show was significant; I'll admit it probably wasn't given he only stuck around for one episode. I suspect an AfD might succeed as well, but I wanted to give the contributor some time. That, and the editing behavior was extraordinarily odd; I wanted people to have a little time to investigate my WP:ANI post, rather than having it deleted before someone could confirm if abuse was occurring. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole article and its history seems....odd. I don't blame you from coming to ANI asking for more input. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)