Why did you move the paragraphs around? If you wanted to leave a vote, it hasn't been recorded. Please leave a vote if you wish, but moving other people's votes around can be considered vandalism. Oscar Arias08:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved that vote to the bottom because it was inserted above the nomination, rendering the VFD incomprehensible. Seemed a relatively reasonable bit of refactoring to me. At the very least, I'm going to move the nomination back above the comment. Zetawoof09:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. You have proposed the article Kummeling for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... I think the article makes a pretty good case for its own deletion, but I'll go ahead and add a reason anyway. Zetawoof(ζ)22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You add tag that shows sari article violates copyright, could you please define me why ? because i have added those notes, from AliHessami Book about Sari City, Please reply to my talk page, Thank You! --Ali06:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, it reads like you typed up, or translated, a book or web page that you found. The formatting, in particular, is highly anomalous. Zetawoof(ζ)10:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PROD
I find your attitude objectionable in evaluation of why I unprod things. I do not have an objection to the PROD process, unlike what you intimate in your discussion on Mao Kobayashi. I infact use PROD. If I feel an article is noteworthy enough that it should go through AfD instead, I will unprod it. I will not nominate it for deletion unless I feel similar to the PRODder that it should be deleted. (I have actually unprodded and then AfD'd things). If you have a problem with people unprodding articles because they may have value, then you are debasing the value of PROD. 132.205.45.148
Cleanup Thanks
Hello Zetawolf, thanks for your assitance in cleaning up some of my posts. I have only one re-modification found on Zeppo. I have added a more generic link to The Zeppo Network, Inc. which is the IP holder for "Zeppo. Regards, Robertholf 11:38, 7 May 2006 (HST)
I have started an RfC concerning Zennie. I would really appreciate it if you would certify the basis for this dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zennie so that we can get Zennie's refusal to license under the GFDL resolved. You aren't under any obligation to do so, of course, but you did try to resolve this issue with the user. --Yamla19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My involvement with the case is really very limited - all I've done is post a brief comment clarifying GFDL/GPL licensing in the copyvio discussion. I don't really know as I have anything to contribute. Zetawoof(ζ)19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was when the history was word for word copied! it is no longer it is brand new! please remove the speedy delete! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregorykay (talk • contribs) .
Zetawoof, I have put up an AfD on the page in place of your CSD, which was repeatedly being taken down. I think this is a better solution to the problem than having Gregorykay (talk·contribs) constanly vandalizing it and taking down your notices - Hobbeslover01:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Story of beyblade, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. This is a perfectly fine start to an episode list article. I have moved it to List of Beyblade episodes so that it's at the right place and won't get duplicated, and I filled in the context. Hopefully others will continue to improve it. If you think notability is a concern, bring it to AfD: in my experience fancruft deletions are always somewhat controversial. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk03:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm still a bit concerned about the length, though; the article is currently a massive 136 KB, making it extremely hard to maintain. There's also precedent against full episode summaries - even the Pokèmon series list doesn't summarize every episode. Zetawoof(ζ)04:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What harm does it do to leave the article by itself? It is descriptive, concise and informative. The AfD decision was 4 - Keep, 4 - Redirect and 1 - Merge and Keep. That is about equal, which results in No Consensus. HighwayRainbow Sneakers20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was closed as merge and redirect; you can verify this for yourself by taking a look at the closed discussion. If you would like to contest the decision, you can do so on WP:DRV. Zetawoof(ζ)20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm not sure in this case. Take it up there anyway; if that isn't the appropriate venue, I'm sure someone there can direct you to the correct one. Zetawoof(ζ)21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have expand on the article a fair deal, and I have been informed that since this article is not the same as the one that nominated for AfD (content wise), the decision can't be upheld. Cheers, HighwayRainbow Sneakers22:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not vandalize that article.I just thought that it had a PPOV instead of a NPOV like it should.I'm not one of those "LOL FURRIES" people,I am simply trying to make it objective.Oh,and sorry if this username doesn't exist,I can't remember if I had an account on here.--67.23.176.1202:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't deliberately misrepresent the time and date of your edits. It really doesn't make a good impression. Your edits were hardly objective, and have been reverted multiple times by multiple users. Continuing to make these changes will lead to your being blocked from editing. Zetawoof(ζ)04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, What did you do with animated series batman. I didn't know what was a kikiproject and I'm not sure Animated Series Batman should (or souldn't) be one. It's supposed to tell the bio of DAAU version of Batman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk • contribs) .
The header of the page described it as a WikiProject: "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to Animated Series Batman. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians." There appears to be a partially formed article halfway down the page; do you want me to split this out to a proper article? Zetawoof(ζ)22:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean that you are leading this Project? Cause I don't see any discussion anywhere about turning it into a Project - I see discussion about merging the article. A more complete explanation of why you did what you did, on the talk page, would be appreciated. CovenantD22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no interest in leading the project. I simply noticed that the page opened by describing itself as a WikiProject, and moved it accordingly. If the WikiProject header was added inappropriately, then I'd fully support a move back to article namespace. Zetawoof(ζ)22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there has been such mention. I made it, the only problem is that I didn't know what was exactly a wikiproject. I think I'm gona undo the whole thing.--T-man, the wise22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zetawoof, please do move it back. As you can see from T-man's post, he didn't know what he was doing when he added that. The article itself probably isn't going to exist for much longer as most people support merging it into other articles. CovenantD22:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct...though Muggle Net and IMDB are reporting this. Obviously, they haven't chosen a director yet but then David Heyman's going to produce this film and Steve Kloves will do the Screenplay and it is highly likely David Barron going to "Execuite Produce" the film. Also, it is likely Dan, Rupert and Emma will return. ForestH2
The fact that you referred to the edit as a "wiki war" was reason enough for me to revert it, no matter what the content involved was. Add to that your multiple previous blocks for revert warring, and... Zetawoof(ζ)08:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you are saying that once a person has been blocked for vandalism, every edit they make from then on is vandalism? How about reading my edits before you revert? Better yet, try not to whitewash wikipedia articles. 68.69.194.12504:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once a user has vandalized sufficiently that they've been blocked for vandalism, it's generally considered a fair assumption that subsequent edits they make to the same article may be considered suspect. Zetawoof(ζ)04:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats one theory. Another is that you are simply a furry zealot who automatically changes edits that might paint the furry fandom in a negative light, regardless of whether they are relevant or sourced. 68.69.194.12505:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why the deletion?
Hi Zetawoof,
Why did you propose the deletion (and I'm assuming, you carried it out) of the Mourning September article I was writing? Did you read my defense on the talk page?
--eudaemonic307:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Watford office Options was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot208:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of Section "Cursed News Groups" (from Curse)
I assume that you intend to follow the policies and guidelines of WP participation.
Correcting a newly added sentence that you know to be wrong is also much better than
simply deleting it.
Blanking, the removal of all or significant parts of articles is a common vandal edit.
Sir, you have so far been reverted by no less than four different people, and have been blocked twice under 3RR for reinserting the section. The text you're attempting to insert is largely unsourced, and borders on patent nonsense. If you want to discuss the insertion of this section, you may do so on the article's talk page; however, until a consensus can be arrived at that the section belongs in the article, it stays out. Zetawoof(ζ)00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ma'am. And the requirements for both verification and NPOV have been met as discussed in the talk-page.
You should yourself supply justification for your POV which declares "patent nonsense". Your reasons are
There has been basically no "discussion" on the talk page. And I suppose "patent nonsense" is a bit harsh, but the fact remains that you've presented some bizarre but non-notable claims without any real kind of support. Zetawoof(ζ)04:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, all of the various curses listed on the page are "bizarre" from the NPOV and on that point we
agree. The purpose of the list is to show the various types of bizarre curses. It makes the article
interesting. Due to a person whom was blanking the addition and not participating in discussion, I
requested that the page be frozen. The 3RR which you refer to above was mainly due to the actions
of that person and my failing to report the same in a more apparent fashion. I am not very experienced,
but am learning very quickly. Please have some patience. Support in numbers has never indicated much
more than numeric superiority. :) I took the brunt of the war, but I would still like to see this
article expanded. There is also no mention of the Video Tape even though it was mentioned before.
I added to the bottom of the discussion this morning showing how the newsgroup section meets each of
the tests givin in the documentation about verifiability as a self-published source. Please review.
The weak point in that verifiability is that of notability, however, because of the source itself
that the article speaks about being considered unverifiable, what appears to be an infinite loop
in logic then ensues. Consider the following statement: Some people on UseNet believe in curses.
Zetawoof Having stated your perspective, I wonder if you would give me your opinion on another article which I have recently made changes to. Please review the history over the past day or two carefully before making any assumptions. Please reply here on your page if you wish, I have it on my watchlist for that purpose. Thanks. Ste4k00:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what they are. The sources that you removed are definitive for the subject - the first one was the very web site that the article is talking about! - so they should stay. Zetawoof(ζ)01:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, I put them back under external links. You being familiar with the curse page, and how its layed out wiki style, could you take a look and give me a 2nd opinion on what sort of list of things should be included here for sections? Thanks. Ste4k02:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now! :) You took out the reference links that were the cites for the statement that the same company owning both web sites. Why?
After some investigation I was able to uncover some notoriaty, however, the name of the woman on that site is owned by the company she works for. That same company (based on P.O. Box address in Vancouver) has been cited for fraud, spam, and all sorts of things. Send me an e-mail if you'd like the address, etc. Thanks! :) Ste4k09:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am, quite honestly, not all that interested, and I don't expect the encyclopedia is either. Wikipedia isn't investigative journalism; it's an encyclopedia. Zetawoof(ζ)19:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AI USA
Amnesty International USA is a large organisation with a seperate history to that of Amnesty International. Many of the things the organisation campaigns on are unique to AI USA. It has over 350,000 members, and as such is far more notable than the vast majority of orgs on this encyclopedia. Plus you created a double redirect - if you think that the org is deletable then you should AfD it. Not asking for comment on the talk page is another blatant discourtesy. Mostlyharmless05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zetawoof. I was in the process of making the entry when you got there first :-) I got the edit conflict message.
But I found a different page [[1]] with the exact text. Should that be noted on the copyio page too?
Thanks again.
Brian10:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
26 June2006 01:27 Ste4kwrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, since you've been at this awhile longer, okay? I went through the citations of this page and converted them all to cite-web templates and tried to find the correct author and so forth. If you get any spare time, would you mind swinging over there and giving it a once over? I'd appreciate you letting me know if I screwed anything up. Thanks. :)
That looks more or less OK, with the minor "gotcha" that dates in {{cite web}} don't need to be bracketed - I think the template does that on its own. Zetawoof(ζ)01:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest we do to get rid of this IP who's so single-mindedly replacing his incorrect edits on this article? I pointed out the problems with his edits on the talk page, but he's just reverted yet again. Suggestions? My patience is wearing very thin. Tony Fox(speak)05:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep on reverting, I guess. There's not really a lot you can do with a user that simply won't listen, I'm afraid, and this one smells particularly trollish. Zetawoof(ζ)00:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying there. What am I to insert, and where? I just think I could get a better explanation than a simple notice. And I would say the band is popular enough. If 3 songs isn't enough to make the band popular, maybe the fact that he's a member of another very popular band is enough. Tell me what I should do here, I think the article would be good to keep. RoryS8906:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)RoryS89[reply]
There are some pretty specific criteria for what is generally considered to make a musician or a musical group "popular enough" to get a Wikipedia article: you may want to read them. Now, I did overlook that Dave Douglas appears to have some significant notability on his own; however, this doesn't necessarily mean that a side project of his is notable. Even so, I've removed the speedy tag. If you could dig up some information on Agnes that demonstrates its popularity - or, at least, importance - as an independent entity, that'd be great. Otherwise, though, it probably belongs in Dave Douglas's page, with a redirect. Zetawoof(ζ)07:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archived Debate
Hey! Knowing that you close debates sometimes, what is the code the makes a gray box and says "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.". I know if you hit edit you can see the markup, but I'm pretty sure no one does this. I couldn't find any template, nor could I find it on the AFD page. So what's the template?TeckWizTalkContribsGuestbook14:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are {{at}} and {{ab}}. {{at}} doesn't take a parameter; instead, follow it by the result ("keep" / "delete" / "no consensus"). Make sure to subst both. Zetawoof(ζ)15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Okay/ Thanks! Also, is tl, like you did for the template names, another way to do <nowiki> ? TeckWizTalkContribsGuestbook 11:38, 5 July 2006
Ouch, careful with the <nowiki>s! Anyway: Yes, more or less. There's actually a template called {{tl}} (how's that for recursion?) which generates the output a slightly different way, so as to create a link to the template page itself. Zetawoof(ζ)11:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I get it. It basically is <nowiki> except that the middle has a link to the template instead of no link at all and instead of the actual template being displayed. Okay. Thanks for answering both my questions. TeckWizTalkContribsGuestbook21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a message I sent to a user after he contacted me, and which he later retracted his comment because of the situation with Yurikat. Please see my talk page.
Thanks for your message. May I recomend, however, that you compare the edition that is being put up by Yukirat. He deletes content which on top of being sourced, also has consensus in talk. The content which continues to be deleted was not contributed and researched by me, but by other users. Personally, I don't agree with much of it, but it has been sourced and they have their references.
I have already put a complaint against the users constant use of "that's anti-White" as his sole defense for deletion of sourced content. If he want's to make allegations (and I've evven asked the user to define what to him constitues "anti-White") then he has to back them up. I am not the first user, you can see the talk page, that has asked him to explain himself and all that is given back is either silence or more one sentence replies stating over and over again "anti-White", "controversial", "hate", but not once define or explain what or why they are so.Al-Andalus07:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response to my question on the Village Pump. I was just looking through the Image copyright tags to see if the photo might fit in any other category. Could it be argued that the image ([2]) might fall under Fair Use as a HistoricPhoto at all? Since the pipe no longer exists, the photo definitely represents a non-reproducible historic event. What about if it were reduced in resolution? Again, thanks for your help. Bobo1234508:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Technically, yes, but it'd never stand up. The photo only really documents the existence of the pipe, which isn't the historical event described in the article. Zetawoof(ζ)09:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the historical event the act of pollution from the pipe? That certainly is described in the article. The picture would perfectly illustrate the act of pollution from the Chisso plant. I understand that Fair Use is a grey area, so it's hard to say one way or the other. But if so, isn't it best to be bold and use it? Somebody can always contest Fair Use if they think it's a copyright infringment and if so, it can be removed. I can reduce the resolution, so that only the thumbnail-size version exists on the server - just enough to illustrate the article as per the HistoricPhoto outline... What do you think? Bobo1234513:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A generic "pollution" image{{HistoricPhoto}} is really only appropriate when the photograph uniquely documents the event in some way - for example, the photo Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima uniquely documents the Battle of Iwo Jima. This picture isn't really quite that way - although it does document something historic, it doesn't really show anything that another generic image, like the one to the right, couldn't. Zetawoof(ζ)19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furry Fandom Reverts
Hey, can you explain why you reverted the citations I added to the Conventions section in the Furry Fandom page? The update comment said "see talk," but the talk page only referred to the paragraph you removed, and not the citations I added. --Dajagr16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'm not quite sure how that happened. Definitely unintentional - and fixed now; thanks for pointing that out. Zetawoof(ζ)01:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Given the close proximity of the edits (within 2 minutes of each other) I'm guessing that yours just clobbered mine. I didn't want to restore them until I had given you time to comment, in case there was some reasoning behind it. Thanks! --Dajagr01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised it happened, though; you're supposed to get an "edit conflict" page when that happens. The servers were acting a bit weird, though - I was getting occasional server errors on save - so who knows... Zetawoof(ζ)01:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to main article. Don't fork unnecessarily'
Ah! Now I know what you mean: you have decided to delete wholesale the new article I started. So much for 'free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.'! What a sham! Etaonsh07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The new articles you were creating were identical in purpose and extremely similar in content to an existing one. There's no point in creating two articles that describe the exact same thing. Zetawoof(ζ)08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply untrue. You are suppressing the fact and discussion of the inherent racism and implied ownership in the phrase 'English Spelling Reform,' in a totally dishonest manner which altogether subverts and undermines any concept of a 'free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.'. Etaonsh10:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I 'have a problem' with the current title, the very substance of which you seemed to suppress - this isn't some intellectual playground - not for some of us, anyway. So I've followed your suggestion, proposed a move, and BINGO! - maybe the other guys will actually read it in a hundred years or so. Etaonsh16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now the only problem, mr.woof, with what you're proposing, is that a 'move' presumably involves the deletion of the current article, thus obscuring the fact of the historical English role in unnecessarily arcane spelling, and the Celtic role in exposing that? Etaonsh16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have confused what was being said. Nothing was said about the nominator at all. In fact if you look at the edit history of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Scorpiondollprincess .. really examine what the person wrote, have you ever seen a person with basically zero experience on Wikipedia use terms and explanations like that? That's why it looks highly suspect for someone who has multiple accounts. -- Stbalbach05:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, just looks like they discovered AfD early. Suspicious would be if every single edit were related to this single article. Zetawoof(ζ)05:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really talking about the article. Read in detail what this person is writing. They are pulling out terms and rules and regs that I've never even heard of and I've been here 3 years. This is not a newbie, newbies don't act like old vets. It's really not even surprising, some people prefer to use a sock account when dealing with issues that can result in conflicts, and AfD's are that kind of thing. -- Stbalbach05:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flipping through that user's contributions briefly, it looks like they're not new to Wikipedia, but their contributions to AfD are generally high-quality and precisely the kind of commentary AfD discussions need. Whatever the case, it could just be as simple as someone not remembering their password, or maybe they're learning by seeing how others contribute. -/- Warren06:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The citations you reverted made no connection between the subject they were discussing and the furry fandom. The selective nature in which you reverted these citations but not others is evidence of the hypocrisy and bias that this article is riddled with. - 81.178.86.1510:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the citations, take it up on the article's talk page. Don't remove the citations wholesale. Zetawoof(ζ)21:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not include Kukality? Its not Neologism!!
Juust want to verify something.Please be fair ! thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.153.235.78 (talk • contribs) .
Hi. I've done some major work on the House Made of Dawn article that you tagged as over-long. The work includes pruning 13,500 words of literary analysis and some other POV paragraphs as well. While I agree that work could still be done to precis the over-long chapter summaries, I think that it's back in line with the rest of Wikipedia and a fitting size for such a major work. Could you please take a look,a nd if you agree with me could you please delete your overlong tag? I'm always reluctant to remove other editors' tags without their say-so. Cheers! Vizjim09:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still rather long, if you ask me - the "allusions" section, in particular, seems to recap material which should exist somewhere else in Wikipedia. (If it isn't anywhere else, then some articles need to be written!) The References section is rather lengthy as well, particularly considering that none of the reference works appear to be referenced (ha ha) in the article. If they're meant as further reading, then the number seems kind of excessive. Zetawoof(ζ)09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do ask you, and what you say makes sense. I'll get my pruning shears out once again when I can summon up the energy. In the meantime, I suspect that these edits won't prove to be entirely uncontroversial, so it would be great if you could please add comments to the discussion page of the article as well! All the best, Vizjim09:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changes have been made (I simply split off the useful information into new articles and expande the see also section). Again, please check and if you agree delete the tag. Cheers! Vizjim09:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting me to my problem reversion on the horse article. Somewhere along the line the article got pretty badly messed up with some vandalism that didn't get caught until after some other edits. I'll be a little more alert next time. Montanabw06:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE
WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have
deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and
remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The official
policy is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and
removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the
uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn(talk)(email)(Contr.)20:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your suggestions about how to deal with the characters in the Sword of Truth: I'm on it, you just happened to be a little too quick for me.
I just started the Sword of Truth WikiProject this afternoon, and I hadn't really had a chance to flesh it out, but now I have, and if you look at the tasks section, you'll notice that I've signed up for the first task, which is to converge all those SoT character pages. Once the merging and redirecting is done, we can see what is left over and what needs to be deleted. All I ask is a little patience, as this could be a rather long, tedious task. Thanks, Runch00:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. What I'm after specifically, though, is the subtask of finding all the existing stubs and deciding what to do with all of them. This is closely related, but not quite the same thing - it's specifically aimed at cleaning up and/or removing existing articles. Zetawoof(ζ)01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone spotted the analysis article and, rightly, deleted it. So HQCentral is back and re-inserting the material into the article. Having watched his bahaviour on a few other projects I know that this is going to be difficult, but I do not want him to keep the article an unreadable POV mess through sheer force of bullying. I've had more than enough of that sort of behaviour from him, and in this case, where Wikibooks exists as a perfectly good repository for his thoughts I don't think he has any right to insist.
Can you please do me a favour and watch the HMoD page for the re-insertion of the analysis? I will do the same but don't want to break 3RR. Cheers, Vizjim09:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said that striking other people posts is vandalism, yet you deleted how many of my comments? The pot can't call the kettle black. 19:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justyn (talk • contribs) .
Did I remove some comments in that revert? Yes, I did - sorry about that. I noticed the two that you'd added at the bottom, but I didn't realize there were a few higher up. Feel free to reinstate them. Zetawoof(ζ)21:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"# (cur) (last) 03:38, 8 October 2006 Zetawoof (Talk | contribs | block) (→External links - actually, that isn't "the video of the incident" (it existed prior to 2005), so legality is a moot point)"
It's not. As I was trying to say, it was available online prior to the accident, so there's no way it could have been a video of the accident! Zetawoof(ζ)07:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tonyauippa block
Hey, Zetawoof! I noticed that you put the blocked message on our favorite rapper's page. In the future, please let an admin do that after he or she blocks the individual--one, it's less confusing for the admin looking into the vandalism, and two, the user in question won't get mad at you. ;) I've blocked him for 24 hours. Keep up the good work! -- MeropeTalk16:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. Hadn't ever had to do that before, so I didn't know how that bit worked. I'll have to remember that in the future. Zetawoof(ζ)19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phene is a scientific term within the field of genetics. As far as I know Phenol is a completely different word with a different spelling, though I'm not a chemist so I could be wrong.
Yes the term was coined recently, however that's why they call it science. Bioinformatics is a relatively young field, so new terms like this are cropping up all the time - and because it's science once the term has been coined it tends to stick around.
I need that definition inorder for other entries to make sense, so I need it back. However, I'm new at this so I assume I have made some mistake.
I can make a disambiguation page if you are certain about the Phenol thing, or I can try and find references if you think it unfounded. But in any event please clarify how I must improve the entry to prevent it getting deleted again.
You are indeed correct that the term appears to have some currency in certain branches of science. I've gone ahead and replaced your previous content, which does need some cleanup, and left a reference for "phene" as a synonym for benzene - it's an older term, like "mineral naptha", "carbon oil", or "pyrobenzol". Zetawoof(ζ)07:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I award you this barnstar. Even though you consider yourself a deletionist, your comment Google hit counting is a terrible way of establishing notability in voting to keep on an AfD has made an impression. When AfD's are sometimes seen as nothing more than popularity contest, intentions and comments like this keep it in perspective. Khukri(talk . contribs)
I will maintain that Google hit counting can often be a simple way of establishing the lack of notability of topics which could be expected to garner significant numbers of hits. "Deletionism" doesn't mean I think all articles should necessarily be deleted - it's more a statement that I feel that it's often better to not have an article at all than it is to have a badly written article, or one on an ultimately unencyclopedic topic.
G'day Zetawoof. That's a good cite you found for sweeteners -- personally I don't like anything that's not sugar or honey, so my dogs don't get the rubbish either. However, I do think there is a syntactical problem with your use of "probably" at the close of the Grapes/Raisins paragraph. One would be looking for a word which expresses an act of volition, which is why I used the word "perhaps" when I originally wrote the paragraph. "Probably" expresses causality and compulsion -- it's similar to the relationship between "will" and "shall". I'm not going to rv it though, I'll leave it to your good judgement. Gordon | Talk, 21 October 2006 @03:42 UTC
No, you do have a point there. I changed that word again to "likely", as "perhaps" seemed a bit weak. No problem with the citation - I grabbed that from a forum where I'd seen it mentioned. Zetawoof(ζ)09:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dead
That would be just it. I suppose it really ought to be in the article, so I'll put in the fact that there's a huge and well-frequented wiki attached to the game, an integral part of it in fact. There's at least as much wiki as there is game on UD, and you're simply not getting the full game experience without the wiki.--Mobius Soul23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that does make sense then. I was just running through the category and happened to notice a few articles that didn't seem to fit. Zetawoof(ζ)23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I assumed it was a vandalism article because the Antivandalbots version of Dutch boy actually reverted back to another vandalism version. Thanks again.--Seadog04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Always gotta be careful in that respect. AVB and its friends (Tawkerbot, etc) will only revert a single layer of vandalism - they're quite simplistic, really. Check history before assuming that an article's always been vandalism. Zetawoof(ζ)08:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's preferred - if nothing else, the syntax is a bit more straightforward. As a bonus, once we add class="wikitable", it starts looking like the rest of the tables in the project. Zetawoof(ζ)19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've just never had to recreate an article in the midst of editing it before. I wanted to let you know in case you saw that I had recreated it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New page patrol
Firstly, thanks for all your work tagging the nonsense with CSD tags. Could I ask you, however, to post the templated message (of which a link is provided at the bottom of the template) to the authors' page, to help prevent them recreating? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ]04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I didn't actually carry out the deletion - Eagle101 did in response to the deletion tag which I placed on it. That's more or less a technicality, though - the real reason it was deleted was because it met criteria A7 ("unremarkable people, groups, companies, and web content") of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria, as it didn't describe why Stick Football was important. As a general rule, all Wikipedia articles should try to answer the "so what?" question - they should explain why their subject is special. Zetawoof(ζ)01:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Signature problem
Thanks for the update - but can you tell me where that happened? Here's my "scripted" text:
<font face="Vivaldi"><font size="large"><font color="Green">[[User:SkierRMH|SkierRMH]]</font>,<font color="Purple">~~~~~</font> - and I normally just cut&paste it! (see what happens here)
SkierRMH,19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've left a <font face="Vivaldi"> and a <font size="large"> open. As an aside, <font size="large"> isn't even valid HTML; you should probably convert your signature to use CSS anyway:
Of course, that ends up being huge, which is almost certainly undesirable. Dropping the font-size is probably a good idea, now that it's actually working. Zetawoof(ζ)19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found out the problem - it just happned again! Appears that somehow an additional line break happened in the C&P which causes the font and /font to be unbalanced... but it doesn't happen all the time; bloody heck ;) SkierRMH,08:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that <font size="large"> still isn't valid HTML, and isn't doing anything: valid arguments to that attribute are integers from 1 to 7 (e.g, <font size="7">. Zetawoof(ζ)09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I went on a Digg-link-removing rampage a few days ago (they rarely convey any information that isn't present elsewhere), and happened to hit dealspl.us on my way. Zetawoof(ζ)01:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else salted it, but I've now blocked the creator and all his socks indefinitely as he was repeatedly warned. Thanks for the heads up Glen 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was meant to be a category. I didn't realise it wasn't (I clicked a wrong link which I found and corrected). Thanks for tagging it for speedy or I wouldn't have realised and would have ended up very confused as to why the category wasn't showing the pages. James086Talk | Contribs11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An advice or comment like this is not welcome on my talk pages.
With regards to your comments on Talk:Neo-Nazism: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Zetawoof(ζ)00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. You can do this yourself, actually: use {{subst:at}} and {{subst:ab}} to get the formatting. (I'm not an admin, and you don't need to be an admin anyway to close AFDs that have concluded in deletion.) Zetawoof(ζ)08:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Minamata_Chisso_Industrial_Waste.jpg){kind=link}