User talk:Zetawoof/Archive5

This page contains archived discussion from User talk:Zetawoof. Please bring any new discussion there.

please don't delete comments in talk pages

thanks. Specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/January_14,_2009 ThrustVectoring (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing off-topic comments and trolling from talk pages is standard practice. As I noted in my edit summary, "nothing of value was lost". Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zetawoof/PortalList

Hi. I saw User:Zetawoof/PortalList while checking back links for a deleted portal and was thrilled to see it. Is it bot generated and will it be kept up to date? I occasionally patrol portal space to get rid of incomplete junk and was glad to see this exists. Something like this would be great for maintaining portal space. As a suggestion, adding talk pages to it might also be helpful (ie, orphaned portal talk pages from deleted portals). Thanks for creating the page. --B (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the page isn't exactly bot-generated... I've got a Python script that scrapes api.php for a page listing and generates Wiki markup for the table, but posting it is a manual operation at the moment. I'll be trying to update it regularly from now on, though.

Ooh, and handling talk pages is an excellent idea. I'll get right on that! Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Thanks! You may have noticed I've started going through it deleting some of the orphaned junk. Two other requests: (1) Is it possible to highlight ones that are in Category:Portals under construction or Category:Portals needing attention? That highlight combined with a date modified is a red flag that it needs to either be worked on or deleted. (2) Can you include the number of redlinked transclusions? (Is that information available?) That could be used to find portals that were either never completed or which were completed, but the rotating content is broken or nothing has been created for the current month. --B (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afd of Mucoid plaque

Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charity_Shopaholic/Bestiality

Shoved the 2 articles together to start to merge last night. Please feel free to edit it. Charity (Talk) 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophiliacs

I don't know why I've been calling it that lol, sorry, will try to stop:) Mind you, apparently it does exist as a word that others use [1] so I'm not being completely random.:) Charity (Talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I really appreciate your help, clearly I have no idea what I am doing yet. Thanks for showing me how to properly nominate articles for deletion.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		message Pilkington1984 (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Intricate subpage: Duh.

{{Intricate portal subpage}}

That’s the ticket, er, I mean, tag. Moved it; just waiting for the "spill to get mopped up": tagged with {{Db-g7}}. The new tag name helps clear up the confusion, especially in my own head. Thanks for tracking all the portals—that's a very useful list: I see there are niches to fill. Schweiwikist (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your helpful assistance to an IP editor/SPA/vandal.

I like to be helpful to new editors, including those who might possibly be problematic, but did you notice that this action was confirming as worthy of attention and filing an AfD on behalf of an IP editor who had vandalized the article in question, first, then turned to trying to get it deleted, with a misleading nomination at MfD? Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Relistings_of_AfDs_by_non-administrators where your action is mentioned. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice barnstar above from the vandal. I get a major web site whitelisted, possibly affecting 500 articles, no barnstar. I get editors unbanned. No barnstar. I suppose it depends on whom you help. Seriously, please be more careful next time. --Abd (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the AFD. I really don't appreciate this attitude. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand, and I apologize. However, will you be more careful next time? --Abd (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character IQs

Hello! I am doing some searching and it does appear the subject of intelligence of fictional characters is something covered in scholarly sources, such as Patricia M. Puccinelli's Yardsticks: retarded characters and their roles in fiction (P. Lang, 1995). Anyway, I believe the article can be dramatically revised to be about the intelligence of fictional characters as depicted in fiction and as such believe that we can use some of the verifiable information from that article for that purpose. Again, what I propose is an article based entirely on such secondary sources as Puccinelli's mentioned above and that only lists those IQs of characters also verified in other secondary sources. Might you please reconsider so that we can use what we can from it for these purposes? And as others know I do tend to follow up my ideas for such rewrites (see rescue barnstars on my userpage). Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^My talk 23:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the general topic of intelligence in fiction would be fascinating! However, it'd probably share little to nothing in common with the current article, besides perhaps some of the references... if you want to request that it be moved into your userspace for reference or improvement post-AFD, that's probably the best way to go. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media Temple

FWIW there's a small campaign being orchestrated on Facebook and ecademy also I suspect about the AfD for Media Temple. Thinking the discussion on FB was genuine I tried to help but soon discovered it wasn't! I agree with your comments on the AfD "discussion" page. The majority of the rest of the comments all seem to come from the MLM mafia. LookingGlass (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering where all the canvassing was coming from. I'm curious... can you point me at that campaign? Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New message!

Hello, Zetawoof. You have new messages at Control-alt-delete's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Cliff Lemons

Hi. I want to clarify a point, and not get into an argument. It was obvious to me that this article was not real, however I pursued some basic research to make sure that this was not a legitimate topic, written poorly, in which case it might have been rescued. Since arguments for notability are actually based on the subject, and not the quality of the article, I felt it was more appropriate to list the article on AfD (especially after my CSD tag was removed by the author). I am not an admin, I don't have the ability to do anything other than tag articles for deletion or discussion. It has been pointed out to me numerous times that if there is any doubt as to the notability of the subject, the correct place for listing would be AfD. An example would be an article entitled "Camel toe spider." It was obvious that the article was bogus, just by reading it. However, after taking some time to do a search, I found that there is a Camel spider, which is currently being called the "Camel toe spider" on Youtube and other popular websites. Since it actually refered to a real insect, the most appropriate action was a redirect, rather than a full deletion.

In regards to Cliff Lemons, and keeping in mind that I have already explained that I was aware that the content was bogus, can you explain to me what it was that I did that was incorrect, and why the comment appeared: "there is no need to bring this to AfD?" If you were just trying to speed the process along, I understand... but the comment has left me a little curious. I appreciate your time in helping me more fully understand the AfD process. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. If I follow what you're saying there, you brought the article to AfD because the author removed the CSD tag? In the future, you can just replace the CSD tag and give them a warning on their talk page with {{uw-speedy1}} - speedy templates aren't supposed to be removed by the author. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly what I was looking for, but I do appreciate your time... and watch out for those bloodthirsty Caliopes. ;o) --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many spaces

How did you discover the many spaces in Google Toolbar for Firefox? --Ysangkok (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was showing up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Redirects obscuring page content. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Userboxen"

That little wolfy in your userbox is adorable! Neat little concept too; would you mind if I took it? :) ζ! (Speaking of which, how do you get that little icon to appear after your signature? :) Draconji (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead - there are plenty of wolfies to go around! For information on setting up a customized signature (which is what I've got there), see WP:CUSTOMSIG. Some knowledge of HTML will help. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you my good man :) Draconji (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test Books

I saw the discussion and the precedent that uncle G posted. Feel free to keep tagging as I'm going to delete them. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy at the moment, but if you want to have a go at it yourself, there's a list of all suspicious-looking books at User:Zetawoof/BadBooks. Not all of them are necessarily speedy candidates - some are actually attempts to write articles, rather than books - but most of them are just newbies screwing around with the book-creation interface. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General CSD criteria for books

Here is the pointer to the discussion. Nothing fancy yet. I should tack on "...and CSD high schools" just to get some attention. :) I'll check back in a day or so and offer some thoughts on specific wording if the thread hasn't generated some yet. Protonk (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Cleaner

Thanks for your comment. I've got it in the back of my mind to ask for a new speedy deletion category some day, "articles with subject matter that we can reasonably expect to have dangerous consequences based on our experience with previous such articles", or something like that. My reaction when I first saw this article was pretty much the same as yours; a half-assed article on the subject isn't likely to be helpful, in fact, it could easily morph into something very unhelpful. What kinds of articles related to malware and/or warez would merit speedy deletion, do you think? (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Portal:Southern Ontario

Hello Zetawoof, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Portal:Southern Ontario - a page you tagged - because: neither Southern Ontario nor the articles linked are stubs, so P2 is not met. Use WP:MFD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 08:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese (dog)

I would like to hear your opinion on this article. Namely User:Mangojuice provided great editing. The last stable version of the article, under his guideance, gained support of all involved parties (except User:Pietru, which now goes by the name User:Notpietru. After Mangojuice dowsized his involvement with the article (he promised to keep an eye) the user from Malta (Notpietru) changed the structure significantly.

Namely Mangojuice structured the article to show the two stories of the two Melitas, by grouping the story about Callimachus and his supporters. Mentioning Strabo's three way of looking at the story (town of Melita on the isle of Sicily, Adriatic Melita, and the African Melita (Malta)). Then it was decided to mention John Caius as the person who misinterpreted Callimachus for the first time.

Notpietru completely changed the paragraph on Callimachus, insisted that Strabo can be only interpreted in one way, and added material that was written on Malta by a Maltese knight where he propagated the theory of Maltese being orriginated from Malta.

Mangojuice thought, and I agreed, while at the same time others agreed, that the article will not mention each and every instance and also each and every source where the breed was mentioned, but only the most prominent ones. Those most prominent had had a great impact on the overall opinion and the later patronage of Italy.

I hope that you are willing to get involved, but if you are not up to it I will understand.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. The talk page archive is also very informative.

The article gained some attention from the admins and Pietru was obliged to discuss each and every change before making it by the uninvolved admin (Tanthalas39), but he has not followed the rules, which I must follow by the involvment of an user (not an admin) Crochety Old Man.

I hope that you will find time to answer me soon.

Yours truly, Imbris (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam userpages

You're doing a good job flagging all these spam userpages - how do you find them? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for red-flag phrases like "contact us" and "toll-free" on user pages. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 33#Book-problem bot

This might interest you. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Replying. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, would you mind running your script again? Last time you did the books categorization was getting overhauled, so the report would be very different. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I began drafting User:Headbomb/Book-Prod, a sort of guide for people who will eventually be faced with PRODs. Feel free to edit it directly, or comment on the talk pages. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, excellent. I've made some edits there. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to WP:BPROD, made some changes and proposed it as a policy/guideline/whatever you want to call it. Since you know more about book problems than the average cookie, feedback would be welcomed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Wikipedia mirrors

Your comment on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions led me to add answers.com to the suggestions. Might wanna take a look. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^(Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoo Code. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Star

I agree its not complete but wait for a week. I don't know how to complete the redlinks but I will find someone who will cooperate with me. If you will find it same the next week then tag it for deletion. --Extra999 (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I and Buzzzsherman, together, have completed it. See - Nice ??? --Extra999 (Contact ^me) 07:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the word "excellent". Really, mean it. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 15:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straitjacket

I see you reverted a recent edit to the straitjacket article. The edit had removed a section which was probably lifted from another website. Could you stop by the discussion page and comment on why you reverted the edit? Eg., proper procedure wasn't followed, you didn't know why the edit had been made, or whatever. Thanks. 173.66.232.236 (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted that edit because there was no explanation given for the removal, and large section removals like that are typically vandalism. A bit of searching doesn't turn up any web sites that the section appears to have been copied from, either. Interestingly, though, it does appear that the section was added all at once... anyways, if there is clear evidence that it's a copyvio, that changes matters, but there isn't any at this point. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zetawoof. You have new messages at User_talk:Zetawoof/BookList#Suggestions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deleting portals

Just want to make sure you're aware of WP:CSD#P2. Usually easier and less messy than MFD. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. A bunch of the ones I just nominated wouldn't be candidates for P2, though, as their topics have enough articles to potentially bring them over the line. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I had clicked only one of your nominations (Portal:Azad Kashmir, specifically) and it seemed rather silly that it needed a full debate. Plus, I wanted to display my ever-lasting knowledge of arcane speedy deletion criteria! --MZMcBride (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counting portals

User:Zetawoof/PortalList is very helpful, as it meant that I could add numbers to the list here and then update the "official" number of portals, adding about another 80% to the total! If you got a chance to run it soon, just to check for changes to the 1051 total, that would be great. Thanks, and regards, Bencherlite^Talk 12:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll regenerate PortalList this evening. Zetawoof (ζ) 15:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Zetawoof (ζ) 03:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Bencherlite^Talk 07:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tweak requested

Instead of using

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Canadian

use

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Canadian/

Or whatever the equivalent is for your code. Reason being there are no pages which would be part of Portal:Canadian (except fot the top-level redirect I just created) simply pages that are parts of other portals beginning with "Canadian".

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

That's an excellent point, and I'll do that the next time I generate the portal list. Zetawoof (ζ) 20:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]