User talk:Wwwwolf/archive4

This is the archive of User talk:Wwwwolf for the 1st half of 2007. Please don't add your comments here, use this link to leave me a note instead!

Please, HELP ME!!! I need help NOW!!!

Please delete my talk page, because the "You have new messages" template won't go away!!! I need help NOW!!! Please help me! Thank you!!! 71.38.213.104 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for deleting it! I can't thank you enough! Thank you! Now I can browse Wikipedia without running into that stupid message! THANK YOU!!! 71.210.206.143 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagram

You left this msg at Calabrese's page. Whilst he has a few bad habits (marking almost all edits as minor, and keeps deleting all reference to Featured Topics...), I can't see anything related to Pentagram in his contributions history.? (maybe it gets removed from there once the page in question is deleted? that or you've got the wrong editor :) Just a heads up. —Quiddity 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the deleted article revisions seem to disappear from an user's contribution history. (In my opinion a major annoyance - admins should see the deleted revisions in Special:Contributions listing, just a small limitation of our fine software...) Calabrese was the one who originally {{prod}}ded the article. Here's what shows up if I look at the "Pentagram (game engine)" article's history through admin undelete function:
  • 18:11, 25 December 2006 . . Calabrese (prod)
Anyway, just trying to spread good ideas with the comment referred to in above, nothing more. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New words and such.

Well Sir, I thought my blather might get hammered but hope springs eternal. I really like the word "prosporus". You know that Shakespeare just made up half the words that now exist in English as being both respectable and well bred. However when I try and create a new one it gets redirected. Maybe next time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cwisehart (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replied on the user's talk page: Okay =) Anyway, all jokings aside, I turned the article into a redirect because it's a plausible misspelling of "prosperous" and as such should redirect to "prosperity".

Basically, the sad state of the site is that we're a serious encyclopedia. neologisms usually aren't good enough to be included here, and silly jokes tend to get deleted. Basically we're not a dictionary either - or a joke book. (If you want to let out steam, there's always Uncyclopedia.) If you want to make a new article like that, people who get the joke would delete it outright people who don't would subject it to an extremely painful deletion process (You'd have to start answering tricky questions like "who uses this term in real world? Is there a source for this alleged political party of Spores?"). I just tried to make it a little bit less painful by turning it into a redirect because, well, it's a plausible misspelling.

Well, all I can say is that Wikipedia can be a funny place - regrettably we can't really use a whole lot of humour in articles themselves. Please keep that in mind. And finally, happy editing, remember to check our fine newbie material (if you haven't already) and remember to keep eyes open and just follow along everyone else's good examples. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Wikipedia

Hey. I think the Signpost link on Finnish Wikipedia should use the external link style, as per WP:ASR#Writing about Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia also links it as "external" instead of a wikilink. What do you think? Not that it's a major issue, though. Thanks, Prolog 19:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I changed it back now. I was only thinking of the various sites that mirror Wikipedia (and probably don't mirror Wikipedia: namespace), but didn't think it's a major problem. However, after considering those issues as well, I guess it's better to keep it as an external link. Hassle outside WP would be bigger than the minor hassle inside WP (not showing up in Whatlinkshere). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timbaland

Well, they cite Slashdot (which is almost as bad as citing Digg), and a finnish website now in Timbaland. I have changed it back multiple times from other things, but this time I don't feel like getting into it. Side-line was just a blog post that did not make it to the front page, and the Finnish website is in Finnish and I don't speak Finnish. It seems to be talking about the controversy, and it cites the youtube link and the Digg link that people have tried to put in before.--WhereAmI 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Lomisceau

I have been tagged as a vandal. I'm not sure why. I was trying to create a page for Stan Lomisceau, and edited out some grammatical errors. Can you tell me what I did wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gt8768a (talk • contribs).

Replied on user's talk page. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request: text from deleted talk page

Hi Wwwwolf, thank-god I found you.

Long story short: The article Anal stretching was SALTed, about half a dozen admins said I could recreate the article in my user talk page and then they would consider it for re-establishment as an article.
So I spent hours rewriting the article from scratch -- but on the Anal stretching talk page -- and the next day it was deleted by Mel Etitis.

Here's what you need to know:

  • Deleted page that I want recovered:

23:33, 20 January 2007 Mel Etitis (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Anal stretching" (Talk page of AfDed & deleted article)

Thank-you! Rfwoolf 15:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you! My request has been fulfilled. Rfwoolf 17:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedyable = G4?

Hi just a low-priority message:

On your userpage you say

Note that using the text to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace has gotten editors penalized before. But that's your problem.

Can you possibly change that to Speedy-deleteable? It once took me a while to learn what G4 was.

But it's no biggie.
Rfwoolf 16:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That text actually comes from {{user recovery}} template, and was not written by me. I've cleared up that text a little bit now, and it now points to the G4 criterion directly. Hope this helps! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia

It looks like the deletion police are trying to circumvent a previous AFD again. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. As you voted keep, could you cast your vote again? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oops...

Apparently I added a speedy tag to Talor jacobs just as you deleted it, as I didn't get the deleted page warning. Can you delete it again? Thanks! -- Pinball22 16:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me get back my userboxes

I'm ANNAfoxlover, and I used to have a user page, but a part of it was not appropriate. But I had many userboxes that I liked, and I would like them back. They could have just deleted the inappropriate part. Please help me get my userboxes back, and my userpage. I am very sad and offended. Please help me. I would show you my user page, but it's not there anymore. Please help me. You don't know how sad I am. --ANNAfoxlover.

The Ildan case

Hello, a reply to your question on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehmet Murat İldan. I got aware of this spamming incident when Ildan anonymously tries to publish himself to the norwegian wp, where I'm an admin and "cleaner". I discovered that he had published himself to 31 different wp-editions. I started the process to delete the article in norwegian, and to alarm other language editions. (Note: Most Wikis have only two turkish author articles: Nobel price winner Orhan Pamuk; and Ildan. Turkich national author Yasar Kemal is only described in 10 laguages yet, so this is clearly unproportional).

A french editor wrote on my norwegian talk page that "this guy launched one of the most incredible spam event that I've ever seen on WP. On WP in french we are now shifting towards deletion, and all of his plays and books have already been speedily deleted. Thanks to you. fr:Clem23".

As of now it is clear that he is not listed in major turkish lists of authors [1]; that most of the articles (in all languages) are written by himself (probably using a translation programme); that he (or some other person) has used at least four suck puppets in the english deletion debate; and that turkishs contributors admit that " i've never heard of him in my life before his Wikiactivity. He is definitely not famous in Turkey, that i can assure you".

That's for now. --Orland 14:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clearing it up. So not only is there a global conspiracy to get the articles removed, there was also a global conspiracy to get the articles to various wikipedias in the first place. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Fox McCloud.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fox McCloud.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boson/WP:soft

I'm humbled by your gesture, and must say that I am very sorry for my needless outburst and closed-mindedness in terms of seeing your point of view. At least part of that was not being at my best (I didn't even explain properly when I tried) - after reading your first response and realizing what a prick I was being it suddenly hit me that I felt absolutely sick as a parrot, up till then I'd been pushing that thought aside. That's an aside though, if I can't discuss an issue sensibly with another contributor then I'm failing miserably as a component of this project.

I've got a lot of reading to try and get up to speed with WP:Software, I've no reason to dismiss it out of hand since it is a guideline in the making. I am reliant on guidelines on policies created already, which have been brought about in the same manner.

Apart from pushing my own comfort zone (IE finding new processes in terms of evaluating notability for Linux-based games), the up-and-coming guideline presents three issues for me:

  • 1) In the absence of secondary sources, how effective could an article on a game actually be, even at its best? Secondary sources is admittedly something that I automatically assume is part of an article, but even putting that bias aside I'm still struggling to come to terms with the suggestion.
  • 2) There are disputes with that particular part of the guideline on its talk page - since I have no experience or knowledge of Linux I'm in no position to comment, except to repeat that articles (particularly for games) which do not appear to have any available secondary sources cause me some concern. Again, I am reliant on those who do know these things to provide some solid guidance so that I can continue making (hopefully) relevant comments on AFD etc.
  • 3) Even after telling myself "you don't know anything about this subject, at all" and looking at the documentation of WP:SOFTWARE, it still seems quite impenetrable and unwieldy. If there is some way of summarizing the ways of judging notability on this criteria, it'd help not just me but others who are windows-centric to know what to look for and where to look for it. A lot of this Linux discussion is difficult to follow, for example the current AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armagetron Advanced. Whilst the current sources (at first glance) seem to be enough anyway, when coupled with a look at the actual subject, the discussion of distributions is all machine-code to me. I do need to get my skates on and start studying this, but it does seem like it will be quite difficult for unfamiliar contributors to get their heads around it all.

Anyway, I look forward to continued discoveries and discussion, thanks for being a gentleman. QuagmireDog 22:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content retrieval?

Would it be possible for you to provide me with the deleted content of the Thomas Scoville entry? It was deleted for some reason . . . I'm baffled by it, but any way I'd like to have it if you can salvage it and mail it to me at efigueroa@grbtv.com

Thank you!

Eleni —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.239.163.7 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For Purposes of Commons PotY

...I confirm that yes, I'm User:Wwwwolf on Wikimedia Commons too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got me... (MTA AfD discussion)

You got me... I'm big enough to admit I ain't got nothin' else to say... I'm just a stupid idiot who doesn't know anything; I changed my vote to "Keep" per, not only my stupidity, but your argument. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outliner

I ran across the Outliner article earlier today and your spam tag and comments from December. I'm afraid my method of dealing with mega vendor spam is to burn it to the ground and start over with a ruleset or some sort of methodology for including links. Perhaps just including links to products with existing wiki articles would suffice here? If you have time, please drop by share your thoughts. Kuru talk 05:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagram (game engine)

Prod was contested after the fact; the article is back and on AFD. GRBerry 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.um

About your edits on Feb 1 to Template:CcTLD about .um, it's ok. The media got confused over the status of .um as well. - Thanks, Hoshie 06:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:FF redirects

Actually, would it be better to do history merges? Axem Titanium 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment by Member 1

why did you have to delete that page of mine? its called fun, TRY TO HAVE SOME! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Member 1 (talk • contribs).

Replied on user's talk page. (SD on Sean dunn) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me[reply]

MMORPG article

Hi Wwwwolf,

Sorry if I've screwed up your discussion page :P but we're attempting to get GA status for the MMORPG article and one of the recommendations was the provision of fair-use rationales for each of the images related to the article. Since you've posted the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LotGD.png

it would be beneficial for the article if when you found time that you provided a fair-use rationale for it. Thanking you in advance :).

--Rambutaan 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convention on the coding of entries appearing in civil status documents

Hi, I would like to get back a copy of the deleted "Convention on the coding of entries appearing in civil status documents". I will not put that again on wikipedia as such, perhaps I will write a different article, I don't know now, but I do neet that text. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Convention_on_the_coding_of_entries_appearing_in_civil_status_documents —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aledeniz (talk • contribs).

Re: SofTech, Inc.

Please stop editing my contributions. My contributions are fact not advertisements. I made some edits - so please contact me first prior to editing... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bolglvy (talk • contribs).

Will reply on the user's talk page. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-conceptual art

I was wondering: would it be possible to retrieve the wording of my article on "Non-conceptual art," which was deleted. I didn't keep a copy of it, and I can't recall the exact wording. It was very short; about half of it is already contained in your Edit summary. If you can gain access to it, can you send it to me? Thanks. Bus stop 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied on your user talk. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I appreciate it! Bus stop 11:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gaggabagga

i do not like what you bave done to the page which i have created. no. no no no. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratsouffle (talk • contribs).

Actually, I hope I helped you and the article a little bit. After you created the article, it said "THE GAGGABAGGA WAS HERE BUT IT WAS DELETED BY THOSE WIKIPEDIA BASTARDS", but now, the page states "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Gaggabagga in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings." which is a lot more polite and helpful message, don't you think? It has none of the finger-pointing and is much more readable, being not written in all caps, and it's also standardised because all of the deleted pages look the same too - a considerable improvement, no? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kyle McKernan

Give me break


U FOOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmack14 (talk • contribs).

Replied on the user's talk page. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

g00gl3

Yeah I guess it was kind of stupid, I was just trying to increase my edit count. --eskimospy(talk) 17:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't worry, there's plenty of ways to get your edit count up without even doing stuff like this. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon

Did you send in your game for a mew? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeePee-20.7 (talk • contribs).

Nope, but my sister did. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somedomain

Hi, thanks for the message, feel free to delete it, seems a pretty boring article, at the time we thought this was gonna be a big exploit was it was not. Zeth 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MDX

Thanks for deleting my page! You have pissed off alot of adreneline raged teenagers. But that's not what I am talking to you about. If you have the "codes" that make up user:Melbourne DX then paste them into user:MELDX1 and i will take it off wikipedia in 24hrs

P.S We really need this

From, Melbourne DX Member No.1 ( MELDX1 )

Reply from MDX

Thanks for restoring the codes from the old MDX page. Considering to come after you if you didn't give them back but...well...findland is an expensive trip for teenagers. Just kidding!

Thanks again,

No.1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MELDX1 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

deletion of rocsearch

i was creating the rocsearch page and was using inofsys page as a template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siddharthmukund (talk • contribs) 10:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check it now and it wont appear as a copy of infosys or marketing material. infact the company has been referenced on A article in wikipedia on Knowledge services. thanks for the advice though Siddharthmukund 10:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletionist

Hi, I got to your page from the editor assistance page. I'm a pretty new wikipedist and I have a problem with a certain user. Yesterday this user pasted a speedy delete on three entries (all about conservative blogs) through his IP. I checked his IP contributions and saw that he generally busies himself with deletions. Two of the entries had his delete immediately removed, on the third, which is an entry only I contributed to (Fjordman, it was decided just now to keep (after i added more info, i have no idea if it fit the criteria originally). Today this user against posted speedy deletes, again only through his IP. I suspect he has an agenda, that he is not working with good faith and that he's using an IP to speedy delete on purpose. I also don't feel that he bothered following wikipedia policy for speedy deletes. One entry he wanted to delete had already gone through a vote and was kept. I know that he's legally within his rights, just like anybody else who wants to post speedy deletes everywhere, but i feel that he's abusing the system. I also do not see that he contributed significantly (with his username) and instead he spends his time deleting. If you look at the Talk:Fjordman you will see the entire argument I had with him, which I'm sorry to say, got out of hand. I cannot wave wikipedia policies around, but I do have a sense that this is a community that wants to work together to contribute. It bothers me when somebody uses this same system only to delete. Am I overreacting? Thanks Misheu 15:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, this is kind of a long ramble.)
Well, I haven't looked at the talk page comments in very much detail yet (might tomorrow), but I'll recap some of my observations on how the speedy deletion works. The editor who tags the article for speedy deletion is usually blameless for whatever happens; the admin who deletes the article makes the decision on whether or not the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion. People can tag articles how they want, but ultimately, tagging can be inconsequential. I've frequently had to refuse speedy deletions because of knowing better, or when improving the article doesn't really take that much effort (see Finnvox Studios for one of my recent decisions of this kind - used to have one half of a sentence that could have been understood as "spammy" tone =). Obviously, if there's a clear pattern of misusing the deletion tags, continued use of them in bad faith, well, that's bad, and the user should stop doing that - the speedy deletion backlogs seem bad enough without tons of borderline-case material, and this wastes everyone's time. But the general principle is this: If you honestly believe the article meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, tag it in any case; if the admin rejects that rationale, well, that's a sign the article should stand (at least until Articles for Deletion). If someone in good faith tags the article, it's not a big problem because it's the uninvolved admin that has to do the estimation of the situation and the ultimate decision.
As for an user having agenda - well, we need proof of that, and also to what extent the alleged agenda clashes with our policies. If all you can manage to prove through careful examination of evidence is "the user tags bloggers as nonnotable because, well, they are", it's not bad. If the evidence is "the user tags bloggers with political view X as nonnotable because, well, they are", we're dealing with two separate issues here - the discrimination and the deletion tagging. Tagging people who are nonnotable is still good; pushing for a group of articles to be deleted on political grounds is bad. Regrettably, it's also hard to prove, unless there's clear evidence that there is an orchestrated campaign of some sort going on (I'm thinking of the "war on blogs" that was going on some time ago, and that was a pretty blatant case because they had a noticeboard/article list right on an userpage (has since been deleted), and the Jason Gastrich case, where they had an external web page for rallying the users). I looked (briefly and without digging for much evidence) in the user's contrib history and they tagged only a couple of articles lately (regrettably I can't see the user's deleted edits based on contribution history alone - MediaWiki is a bit awful software in this respect); this is not, in my opinion, indicative of an "agenda" yet, or if it is, it's not indicative of which kind of an agenda. (They could be acting in favour of conservative blogs, trying to help readers by thinning the list to only the most notable ones. They could be just impartial readers who got suddenly interested of conservative blogs, found the articles lacking, and tagged them. It's all entirely possible.)
In conclusion, just chill off and act rationally. If the articles are being tagged for demonstratable lack of notability, {{hangon}} and adding more proof of notability is all fine and good. hangon and accusing the tagger immediately of having an agenda is not productive. Well, you'll get used to it - regrettably, what comes to new forms of expression (be it blogs or, in my case, video games), notability is a very flexible term still and the rules haven't developed well enough in my opinion. Just stay calm, and have faith that eventually, things will be just right. And just to cheer you up, this doesn't look like is anywhere near the most violent debate I've seen - just calm down and do the right things. =) And remember, these notability and sourcing debates are very tiring; I'm trying to distance myself from them for a few days, so I'm glad I could just try giving you some purely theoretical advice. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I know I handled this quite badly and I'm trying to learn, as well as get a balanced 3rd person opinion. You helped on both counts, so thanks again :-) Misheu 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Barkley

This page is legitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Togatownlaxplaya (talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf?

Are you really a wolf? I'm really a fox, but are you really a wolf? Just wanted to know. C U L8R! A•N•N•A hi! 00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooo-oo! Regrettably, after the Essjay scandal, Wikipedia administrators and other editors in any positions of authority aren't really allowed to say they're wolves... so I just have to instead say that I'm a human being, though I'd really want to be fluffy and wolfy! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please! Let me create a page for Peepal!

Whatever I am creating since yesterday, is getting deleted almost immediately.

Please let me see how it works for a day or two before your merciless editing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peepal (talk • contribs).

Will reply on the user's talk page. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan fiction is "not worthy"

Dude,

You commented that links to fan fiction from computer character sites were not worth having, and deleted a comment at the page devoted to "Natla" from Tomb Raider (to the effect that Natla - a minor character in the game - had featured in at least three fan stories). I've left a comment in the discussion section on that page, and hope you will reconsider. Fan fiction is the upcoming thing and surely is at least tolerable in a "Trivia" section?

Thanks, Ostercy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ostercy (talk • contribs).

Replied on Talk:Jacqueline Natla. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publsih America

Sorry, was a totally unfair comment on my part. Thanks for your message. AndyJones 16:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I somehow encountered you again and found out that you became an admin since we last talked. Congrats! (I guess ;) You'll do fine with the mop. Wikidan829 16:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ascender Corporation

Hi, you deleted the Ascender Corporation page before we had a chance to act upon the [hang on]. We didn't know whow much time we had but we have edited this content to hopefully be more approrpriate and consistent with your guidelines. Should we re-post it or create a new page? Thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AscenderCorp (talk • contribs).

Replied on user's talk page. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Malcolm/Userboxes/DS

Uh... divisive? This box has been in existence since 2005 and the big issue to consider is that the whole purpose of this template is to say that the user prefers this particular console. The wording is a bit excessive, the purpose of existence of the userbox certainly isn't; I don't think CSD T1 should be applied if the wording in the box can be changed to less annoying form without making the box entirely redundant in the process.

With all due respect, I don't think this is a matter for deletion; all this template (and others like it) really needs is a wording change (e.g. "This user's preferred portable console is Nintendo DS").

So if you don't mind, I'll be restoring it later - and changing the wording. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem : )
As I find them, I've been deleting the "comparison" userboxes as divisive, though I have edited a few as well. If you see any more that could use such editing, please feel free to help out : )
Note that "prefer" is one of the words noted to avoid at WP:UBX#Content, for just these reasons. How about just "This use plays games on the Nintendo DS portable console."?
And when you restore it, you might want to leave the other revisions deleted, to hopefully deter someone from reverting to the divisive form.
Anyway, thanks for the note, and I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I went ahead and restored it with the text I mentioned above. - jc37 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are nice to say

Hello,


You deleted a page I created recently called "Things that are nice to say"

This was *not* a random list of words.

Every one of the words was mentioned on the Sowerby and Luff Show (Podcast) under their catagory "Things that are nice to say"

I hadn't finished with it and was going to add more detail soon.

How about giving someone a little time, or at least a warning before you rudely delete someone's work?

tblahout —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tblahout (talk • contribs).

Replied on the user's talk page:

The reason the article was deleted before was that it had no context. Imagine, for example, that someone stumbled on the article and tried to expand it; There was no indication of what the article was really about, aside that it had a list of words - no mention of the podcast! Articles really should make their context somehow clear, so that people don't end up just confused when they read the article.

My apologies if this has inconvenienced you. However, I'd really recommend looking at other articles and seeing how they are generally constructed, looking at the Manual of Style and other guidelines. it's generally recommended to prepare the article in advance (in user space, if necessary) to a state where it does have some context and other basic information, before posting it in the article space. Providing some context initially shouldn't be too hard.

Anyway, welcome to our highly complex world and happy editing. =)--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]