User talk:Pyrope/Archive 2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
LOL
this. DH85868993 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Query
Not entirely sure what you mean by "no, really, don't" - my apologies. I must have made some terrible faux pas without realising! Anyway, I was just following the advice of the orphan tag on List of residents of Wolverhampton, which states "Please introduce links to this page from related articles". Zelda199 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The key there is "related". And the "no, really, don't" was in reference to the title of the section, "See also". The reason I removed that section was because the two pages really aren't related. Apart from the fact that Dickie Attwood was born in Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton has no relevance to his life and works. In the opposite sense, Attwood isn't at all famous for having an association Wolverhampton, nor has he had any influence on the town. The Wolverhampton link between Attwood and the town is perfectly adequately handled by the wikilink next to his birth date. Pyrope 21:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, fair point. The list does say "This is a list of notable people born in, or associated with, the city of Wolverhampton" but that irritates me slightly because then there is massive overlap between that page and Category:People from Wolverhampton. I think I might suggest that the residents list be just for people who have a more significant connection with the city than just being born there, which the category I mentioned already covers. Thanks for the heads up! Zelda199 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello
I'm trying to get people who are willing to help me out with a pet project I've begun but realised that it will be extremely hard for me to even make a small dent in. First of all, I got your name from the list of active members on the wikiproject for mining articles. Please disregard this, if you're not interested.
So, here's what I'm trying to do and what you could do to help me. I noticed that there were very few articles that list mines. I've tried (to the best of my abilities) to create a sub-page that lists all of the probable articles for lists of mines that I could think of, you can review this here.
Basically, I need help. Suggestions on different lists to add, I need lists created, if the lede I've been using should be changed, I'd like community consensus on the standard layout (I've been going with listing articles like List of gold mines by country and List of mines in the United States by output. If someone would like to make templates for these articles.
Please, don't feel obligated. I came to you, and others like you because of your implied interest in mining articles. List articles are not exactly in everyone's taste. If you are completely uninterested, but think you might know someone who might be, please let them know about it. I could use all the help I can get.
Oh, and if you happen to create any new articles on mines, please add them to any of my recently created lists. Sorry for this being so wordy, have a good day and happy editing! Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
F1 tables for Friday practice test drivers
I see you've removed a couple of these - as far as I know, consensus is to have them. In any case, we can't have them for some drivers and not for others. Thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't recall a discussion on this, but it seems odd to have "results" tables for somebody who was never even entered for the championship. I only scanned through a few of the current test drivers to check, but if there are more then I'd certainly support the removal of their tables also. Pyrope 17:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- They're supposed to be "Complete F1 participations" tables, not results tables - whoever put them there made a mistake. My feeling is that either we have the TD cells or not - it is illogical to have them for drivers who have started races and not for those who haven't. Either the information is desirable or it isn't - it's the same information whether a driver has then gone on to start a race or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Very fair comments all. I'd tend to fall on the side of doing away with TD all together in tables. A detailed run down of exactly which races a driver has tested a car at is deeply into the realms of trivia. A note in the text referencing their employment as a test driver for a certain team during a particular season is plenty in most cases. Where a driver gets a reputation as being something of a testing specialist (Paffett and similar) or a Friday hotshoe (e.g. Davidson), then more detail can be added, but I still don't see how that is data that actually requires a summary table. Pyrope 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Doing away with TD in all tables would need a discussion at WPF1, I guess. I have no idea if people would go for it or not. I wasn't a huge fan of it when it was initiated, but I'd probably side with keeping them. I would mainly object to removing some and not others - that would be a typical WPF1 half-assed "solution". That said, I've lost nearly all my enthusiasm for modern F1 on Wikipedia and I probably wouldn't care either way. Some of the trivia and stat minutiae we've got right now makes the TD thing look like vital info. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly my thoughts - there are far worthier things to be done about articles on the past, instead of fighting with people over the latest new table for the season articles or whatever. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Rollback
Thanks for requesting rollback. I've added the flag to your account. Best, AGK [•] 15:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- You'll find it useful for dealing with our IP friend :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hard to think of a permanent solution for this guy - wide-ranging IPs and a wide range of articles. Looks like it'll bump up our edit count though... Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Re:FYI
That is a very interesting link. I suspected something along those lines, but drawn a blank as I'd completely forgotten that particular user. It puts a new slant on a couple of things, to say the least. Thanks for the heads up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Re: Kevin?
Hmmm...! I'd never noticed this guy before, and he certainly seems like a pain in the backside. He can't spell very well, like Kevin, and it's a similar style. But I am wondering if Me12356 is User:86.143.78.33 and/or User:81.159.15.193 and/or User:86.182.140.132 - similar articles over a similar period. Those IPs are from the Wales, Worcestershire and Birmingham areas, which would rule out Kevin, who is Dutch. The other thing is that Kevin always liked to edit articles on older teams and drivers, messing around with results tables etc; and also he did a lot of F2 stuff - this guy doesn't seem to do that, not yet anyway. What do you think? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Just adding in here, and great work on helping stem the recent tide of F1 vandalism, that I've gone and given Me12356 a strongly worded warning on his edit warring. I do suggest that if you notice the user again making these typically useless edits to report him directly to the admins. I have noticed Me12356 since January, when he was making random colour changes to templates making some virtually unreadable, and the edit history seems to be focused upon Renault and their former F1 team. Anyway, just a notice and thanks for getting involved. QueenCake (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice that the IPs had edited against Me12356. That pretty much rules that out then. Pyrope, you definitely have a point about the obstinacy of this guy, and it would be a shame for the planet if there were two people out there like that. But as you say, the 94.170.212.160 IP seems to suggest Me12356 and Kevin are different people... shudder. It's definitely something to keep an eye on, and I'm watching for Kevin's classic "championchip" spelling error. QueenCake's warning was a good idea, and maybe at this rate Me12356 will get himself blocked anyway, thereby removing the problem for us. I keep expecting DeFacto to show up again in some guise or other as well - he definitely did not appreciate getting indeffed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Would It Be allright if the renault f1 navbox was renamed renault sport f1 as renaults status in f1is as engine supplyer also to add some links of teams to engine supply. (talk) 21:36, 2 may 2012 (UTC)
Please Help Edit The New {{Team Lotus}} Navbox With The Cars And World Champions thankyou. Me12356 18:03, 02 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'll certainly lend a hand where I can as I think the idea is a good one, but you need to start using the "Preview" button to make sure that your edits are good before you save them. Pyrope 17:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
F1 circuit maps
Hey, Pyrope
I saw your comments on the way circuit maps are laid out over at WP:F1, and I was wondering if you knew how to draw up circuit maps yourself, or if you knew someone who did. The reason why I'm asking is because I've noticed inconsistent and incomplete circuit maps for the Formula 1 pages, and I think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but I'm hopeless when it comes to graphics programs so in order to make the maps uniform, I'd need some help with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry for the delay in getting back on this. Been busy. Anyway, as you'll see from the authorship info for the Buddh circuit map, I can and do produce some of these diagrams now and again. Once upon a time we had a reasonable (just a few tweaks needed) house style, but an editor who had the time decided to go for a more map-like format. I, personally, think they are a dog's breakfast as far as providing usable diagrams go, especially reduced to infobox size, but I really haven't had the time to push back. I think we should be keeping these much more up to date, and I'd be happier if they looked more like my Buddh diagram, but time is the key. Each diagram would take probably an evening's work to get together properly (including sourcing the reference materials) and I don't really have that lately, not to mention that the process is quite tedious. I'd be happy to provide advice though. Pyrope 18:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- And sorry for my delay in getting bck to you; I didn't realise you'd reply here.
- Anyway, while I think this is an issue that we need to address, I don't think it's so critical that it needs to be done straight away. I know it's a bit weird for me to say "I think this should be done, but you guys need to do it", but I genuinely am that bad with graphics programs. I can't even draw a stick figure in MS Paint.
- Right now, I think the only one that really demands attention is Singapore. It just looks totally incomplete, and there is no explanation of what all the blue and yellow patches are. I'll try and find some more people who might be interested in refining the circuit maps. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Owen Maddock
Hi Pyrope. I recently created Owen Maddock as a redirect to Cooper Car Company#Rear-engined revolution, which contains a little bit of information about him. While creating links to my new redirect, I came across the draft article about Maddock in your sandbox. I think it looks great! I'd strongly encourage you to replace the redirect with your draft article. DH85868993 (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
For your kind words - much appreciated. I am (perhaps naively) surprised at just how little some people seem to know about the sport, yet they feel qualified to push their ideas so hard on here. I think we could certainly benefit from banning IPs from editing - those who genuinely have something worth contributing would surely be happy to register. But I think we have a long wait... I won't be far away if I'm needed for anything useful :) Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
IP vandal
Hi Pyrope. I'm starting to get the impression that the folks at Wikipedia talk:Abuse response aren't planning on semi-protecting any articles (there's been no response to our requests for a week now). Do we need to consider pursuing other avenues? DH85868993 (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hey DH. I gave it some thought, and was wondering about requesting the semi-protection, but we seem to have attracted a couple of moderately productive IP editors adding material (albeit largely illiterate and completely unsourced) to the race articles lately. As a result, I decided to submit a formal abuse report, since the informal approach seems to have fizzled into stagnation. The report is at Wikipedia:Abuse response/2.30.196.109, if you want to take a look and contribute. Bye for now. Pyrope 13:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Toyota In Formula One
Hello Pyrope should a vote be placed to moved the Toyota Racing Infomation to a page called Toyota In Formula One as Toyota also supplied engines as well as having their own team. for example Jordan Gp used a toyota engine in 2005 and Williams used them in 2007-2009. Me12356 (talk) 18:27, 04 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Toyota's F1 involvement was very simple and straightforward. They've only been involved once and the race team and constructor were the same entity. Toyota Racing was a distinct entity from Toyota Motorsport GmbH., and the engines were supplied in much the same way that Ferrari supplies engines. Mercedes, Renault, Alfa Romeo and the rest that we use the "XXX in Formula One" pages for have long, complex and varied involvements, so an article about one of their identities (e.g. Mercedes AMG) really can't legitimately cover the rest of their history. That's not the case for Toyota Racing. Pyrope 11:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
WP Motorsport in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Motorsport for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Aston Martin Racing
Ive created an Aston Martin Motorsport Navbox as i thought the page needed one to be able to find a easy way to find the racing cars. What do you think of it so far. I know needs some work by needing some of the personnel and cars on it.
-Me12356 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't looking too bad, a good start, but there are some improvements that could be made. Remember that Aston Martin Racing were far more successful in sportscar racing than they were in Formula One, and any navbox should be sure to include sufficient information that the important related articles can be navigated as well. Go have a long read of some of the information out there and then have a think about which cars, drivers and personnel should be included. As I've said before, we are only really trying to include articles within a navbox that are very important to understand the complete history of the navbox subject. On that basis, I'd argue that Trint's three, 10th and 11th place finishes for Aston makes him a very trivial part of their history. He should really be excluded from the navbox. One minor but important point to bear in mind, also, is accessibility. Wikipedia does try to cater for people whose eyesight may not be the best, so try to make sure that any colour combination that you choose for the title has a decent contrast between the text and background. To my eyes, on my screen (the fact that computer screen can vary a lot in their performance is also a valid concern) the current choice is a little samey. Anyway, not a bad start and there is plenty of information out there that will help you make sensible decisions about what to include and what to leave out. Bye for now. Pyrope 20:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there - this article might need some restructuring as another editor is redirecting articles away from it to Reg Parnell Racing, which explains nothing about YCR. He's moving them because YCR is a dab page. Either it shouldn't be a dab page and articles should direct there, or British Racing Partnership and RPR should explain the YCR situation fully and completely. Thoughts? I suspect the job would be best done by you.
The discussion between me and the other editor is here and here. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I only originally added the dab tag as a clarification. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia community now seem to feel that a disambiguation page shouldn't have any explanation and is just a list of links. Times change, I guess. Pyrope 16:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. I was going to just remove the dab tag myself, but then I wasn't sure whether or not you thought the YCR page could become the "new" style of dab page, which has steered towards the purely functional crossroads page, or stay more of an explanatory article. I think it's a handy article full of information that doesn't sit perfectly in either the BRP or the RPR article, and works pretty well as it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited Robert Eberan von Eberhorst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermann Müller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hope you aren't too fond of your signature...
... 'cos someone's got a matching one. ;) — JonCॐ 13:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Construction costs
The same can be said of dollars. A circuit in India would be priced in rupees, so when was it converted to $? Presumably at the time of construction. It's the same here. Also, to omit this and focus only on USD doesn't represent a worldwide view. Since F1 is followed in Europe and not America, and since more countries use the euro, then it makes sense that if a second currency is used besides that of the hosting country, it should be the euro. USD users should feel lucky that they have bene left in at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.26 (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
100% agreed
Removing the original claim was the right solution (A. Senna page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.87.42 (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
US GP
When the ONLY talking point of that whole race was that there were 6 cars, it's hardly trivial to point out that this had happened before. If six cars finishing a race isn't a defining fact, then we might as well delete this entire article. It was otherwise an uneventful race with nothing significant happening.
It makes no difference whether the cars were going clockwise or anticlockwise. If 6 cars finish this will have a profound effect on the audience satisfaction. There is no question this is notable enough. Just look at the public outcry, the ticket refunds, and the fact that F1 would ultimately abandon Indianapolis forever. There was a hige tidal wave that started when those other cars pulled off the track in 2005. It makes you wonder why there was no fuss in 66. Or maybe there was - the source doesn't say.
As for the exact wording to be used in the article - I could have said "There was no need for such public outcry, as nobody in 1966 got their knickers in a twist!", but I don't think that's the right tone, nor can I find a source that says that.
So what's your suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.26 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Banner
Ignore him, he is not worth the aggravation. We should really try to get that stupid claim about restaurants appearing in Michelin being notable stricken from the GNG. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's a throw away footnote based on no factual evidence. Surely if every entry to the Michelin guide were notable, every restaurant with a star would have been noticed. The fact that they have not simply disproves this statement. How did it get there in the first place? Pyrope 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way...
...I revisited my comment at the Klondike Gold Rush talk page - I realised that my original reply to you could easily have come across as being abrupt/rude, which wasn't my intent. I've modified my comment, but my apologies anyway if it did come across that way. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Trevor Taylor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Possible sockpuppetry?
I'm wondering if our friend Lucy is back again, as User:Eff Won (contribs [1]). This is patently not a new user, and is already causing a fair amount of consternation. There's a sockpuppetry discussion between me and Prisonermonkeys on my talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I opened a case here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucy-marie Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Owen Maddock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cooper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
MasterCard Lola F1 Team
I created a Navbox for the MasterCard Lola team as, I thought they needed one,But theirs not much infomation on the teams personnel, This is it so far.
|
Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Grosjean
Hi Pyrope. In this edit you actually restored the bit about Grosjean refusing Stewart's offer of help. Was that your intention? (I thought it might not have been, given your edit summary). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. DH85868993 (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Done, I've applied the duck test and indef blocked them all as sockpuppets. No SPI case needed as it's pretty clear cut. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
- It's already listed at the spam blacklist page, I've added a note there. I'm not actually sure how to do this, otherwise I'd do it myself. Hopefully someone in the know comes along and blacklists it before the spammer gets around the IP block. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
AGS
You were absolutely right. Thank you for undoing my change and please accept my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRibeiro66 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Arrows
Hi Pyrope. I've clearly angered you with my handling of the Arrows RM. I wanted to ask if you really think I should stop non-admin closures of RMs. I don't think I'm a hero or anything, but RM has had some pretty large backlogs lately, and I've done a lot to help fight that. I suspect when you said that I have "a bit of a history of this sort of thing and has been advised previously that they should stop" you were referring to Dicklyon's response to the Paris airports RM. That really is a bit as far as histories are concerned, and I didn't see anything there advising me to stop the process altogether. If you think I should, I'm open to discussing it with you. As I said on the Arrows talk page, I'm plenty willing to help with whatever cleanup relates to this move. It's going to be a lengthy process no matter what we call the article, given the large number of incoming links to Arrows (yes, I realize there are over 500). Finally, if you're unhappy with a specific closure I've made, the best way to get my attention is my talk page. Most of the closes don't cause any sort of reaction, so I don't watch pages afterwards. We could've had the article at a more consensual title by now instead of beating up on me in absentia. So just let me know if you'd like to discuss anything, or how I can help make this right. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Dont understand?
You messaged me before and I didnt understand what Navbox title your where meaning. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
My editing
no offence but you have no right to question how much I know about F1, you dont know me and the only reason I put STR was because on Tv their refered to STR Ferrari. And I dont think their whole constructor name is Scuderia Toro Rosso its just Toro Rosso or STR. Scuderia Toro Rosso is the full team name not the constructor name. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Campbells Kingdom poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Campbells Kingdom poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't there a "don't template the regulars" edict still out there somewhere? Big spammy message of which only one sentence actually is informative... nice work botmaster. Pyrope 15:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. John Horsfall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright status given of the Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway
I have given written evidence of the copyright permissions. I have also emailed this to permissions-e@wikimedia.org.
Alastair Carr (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you (although somewhat backhanded, but at least honest about that)
Thank you for this comment! Like I posted there, a potential future challenge to MOS:CT should be based on your argument. On a related note though, your cluefullness in that discussion makes your bias-clouded judgment at Talk:Mark Webber#Requested move that much more readily apparent. Just saying. --87.79.133.209 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Where to go with deletion discussions
Where to go with deletion issues:
- WP:PUF - if a file is marked as free, but there is reasonable doubt as to whether it's really free.
- {{nsd}} - unsourced images, e.g., images marked as coming from the US government, but no source is provided. All images on Wikipedia must have a source, with the exception of images that fall below the threshold of originality (see {{PD-textlogo}}). Images which are marked as self-created are considered sourced.
- {{nld}} - lacks a license.
- {{npd}} - marked as belonging to a third party, but no proof of permission is provided through OTRS or through the external link.
- {{rfu}} - images which fail WP:NFCC#1.
- {{dfu}} - images which fail other components of WP:NFCC.
- WP:FFD - images can go to this board for any reason whatsoever, however, it is encouraged to use one of the other options if it is available. Sometimes images which are contentious rfu or dfu go through this process anyway so as to give the community the ability to discuss it anyway. It is optional.
Also, you might want to install Twinkle, which greatly eases the process. Also, occasionally the deletion outcome is so obvious it doesn't need discussion. That would be Wikipedia:CSD#Files. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for illustrating my point. I come to Wikipedia and contribute for fun, not as a job. Having such a fractured and badly coordinated process simply for deleting a file amply illustrates the hurdles placed in front of editors when all they want to do is improve the quality and legal standing of the Wikipedia project. We need a one-stop-shop where all detetion related issues are dealt with, rather than being passed from pillar to post by OCD admins who get uppity if the issue you are addressing isn't precisely the one that that particular notice board considers. Frankly, I'm going to avoid the whole process from here on in, as between you lot and the numpty uploader in question I don't need the aggravation. My time is not best spent slavishly following this moronic bullshit. Pyrope 18:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, let me see if I understand this. The community has spent a decade coming up with several processes in order to ease the flow of deletions, but because you don't feel like taking five minutes to learn about it (seriously, it is that simple), we should just get rid of the whole thing. Then, when you did it wrong, an IP (notice someone with almost no established edits who already understands the difference) pointed out that you'd used the wrong process, you decided to throw a temper tantrum. Then when I very kindly took 10 or 15 minutes out of my day to type something up to help you out with something, instead of thanking me (you're welcome), you accuse me of being complicit in "moronic bullshit." Feel extra specially entitled today, any? By all means, do stay away from the file process, as you clearly do not have the temperament to work there. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ease the flow for whom? Not for editors who aren't up to their necks in the minutiae of the process, clearly. And five minutes? You think reading the introduction sections to a dozen or more only subtly different processes, many of which operate in completely different ways, takes five minutes? Try an order of magnitude greater than that. You put the effort in once, and by the next time you use the system months later the goalposts have shifted, there's yet another new, tedious, hairsplitting page to deal with, and people seem keen to pat themselves on the back for this. Yes, thank you ever so much. Well done. Bravo. Feeling self-satisfied today, any? I wasn't "working" there, I was merely trying to get some crap cleaned up from a serial, yet somehow immortal, disruptive editor. An editor that has been blocked under many different sockpuppet identities, and yet who seems to be able to evade these at will and rise again from the ashes to continue on exactly where they left off. You can rest assured that I shan't be going anywhere near the deletion process ever again. As I pointed out, being an unpaid volunteer I do this for fun; dealing with disruptive cretins and the complacently complicit I can do without. Pyrope 01:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, let me see if I understand this. The community has spent a decade coming up with several processes in order to ease the flow of deletions, but because you don't feel like taking five minutes to learn about it (seriously, it is that simple), we should just get rid of the whole thing. Then, when you did it wrong, an IP (notice someone with almost no established edits who already understands the difference) pointed out that you'd used the wrong process, you decided to throw a temper tantrum. Then when I very kindly took 10 or 15 minutes out of my day to type something up to help you out with something, instead of thanking me (you're welcome), you accuse me of being complicit in "moronic bullshit." Feel extra specially entitled today, any? By all means, do stay away from the file process, as you clearly do not have the temperament to work there. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
If you have such a hard time, why are you using anything besides WP:FFD (Files for Deletion) that's the default deletion process ? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)