User talk:DarkAudit/Archives/2008/April
 | This page 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. |
Ulteo
Your only comment is that I have "made few or no other edits outside" the topic is true but not correct: if you have soemthing else to say is better you do this on theme that is if the voice Ulteo is reasonable to rest on wikipedia or not, and not if I have made other contributions to wikipedia. Perhaps this will be the only contribution I ever do, but is worth of respect as all the others. ---Panta 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Zoo
Here's the thing, every Big Ten student section has its own page. Are you going to tell me Northwestern's student section is notable? But they are protected more because the are grouped together with the other Big Ten sections. None of those pages has any references nearly to the extent that I found with a quick archive search (and by the way, there is no requirement that notability be above the local notability especially of a major city and clearly the Zoo has been profiled nationally on ESPN and in SI). I would like to see every Big East school with a student section article if this is the route it is going down, but incredibly, some of the BE schools don't even have their own basketball page! Look, I think there is a very fair debate whether or not student sections as a article topic deserve their own pages, but I can't stand by when the NTAC guy tags the Zoo and I see no movement by him on any of the other Big Ten pages. He did at one time tag the PSU student section and it passed an AFD. Not only that, this person has hardly any edits other than the tags to the Oakland Zoo. An then some guy from Ireland pops and and says "Delete" when he can't have any idea what he is talking about and that is just ridiculous. I don't go around tagging every obscure soccer player out of Ireland on wikipedia and there are 100s. Clearly, the Zoo is notable within the context of college basketball as a subject matter. And clearly, if every two-bit head football coach who lived 100 years ago has his own page, and organization like the zoo this warrants notability in the realm of college sports. Certainly there is widely varying stands of notability in wikipeida. I mean, no where does this article represent any standard of notability. However the Zoo is clearly notable regionally, and within the context of college basketball and college sports. It does not violate the most serious aspects of wikipedia, and that is advertising and self-promotion. Seriously, if WVU ever puts up a student section article, I won't do a thing to disparage it, but the precedent is being set here for what is notable, and clearly the message that is being conveyed right now through wikipedia is that things associated with the Big Ten are more important than other college sports articles.CrazyPaco (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would never nominate one of those other pages for deletion. That would be wrong. There is nothing wrong with those pages, or the Zoo page that exists. They do not undermine the essence of wikipedia. They aren't blatant advertising. But I will take a stand on the Zoo. But you'll never convince me it is appropriate to nominate one page and not all of them, it shows clear bias. Good night and thanks for your discussion.CrazyPaco (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: Aaron Michael Lacey research
Well that's great, and just for the record I still stand by my initial "Weak delete" comment in the original AfD discussion. But I'm also going to stand by my "Keep" comment in the new discussion, because I still feel that your re-nomination was a touch hasty. I hope you understand. :) PC78 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Erasing sidewalk etiquette
I don't think you acted reasonably by dismissing my contribution to the sidewalk article as 'vandalism'. Would you please reinstall it. Thanks.
I don't think you acted reasonably by dismissing my contribution to Fly UK Vitual Airways article as "ADVERTISING" —Preceding unsigned comment added by NellesJason (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In Regards to Vandalism
According to Wiki's Vandalism page: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Which I am not doing, I am attempting to add legitimate content. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I am attempting to create an article on this player, I'm glad you understand. The Dr. (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If I understand your question, then yes: the three "sources" mentioned are all "trivial coverage" as defined in that portion of WP:WEB, and thus useless in establishing notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. Trivial mentions, by definition, do not constitute significant coverage. If people actually read things like WP:WEB, we wouldn't have so many arguments at AfD. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
2000s Icons
Mate i havent edit that page for over a month, i only added things that was obviously quite true as in george bush being an somewhat icon for 2000s politics and Nu metal for music, i know about citing but i was kind of lazy but if you had like to see some then u may wish to have done so yourself (which is what editers do on wikipedia is mostly about improving)and also bear in mind as i havent edit that page since March 2nd other pople have edited that section particularly the name of the 'best' bit since then. Happy editing. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Kanabekobaton
Re the IP edits: yep, that's what I saw: the same edits being made by an IP. Another admin blocked the IP; I blocked User:Kanabekobaton for 48 hours for sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- He got my attention by going after Stansbury Hall. That's the old WVU arena down the road from me and one of my first articles. It became clear that this person was going to go on no matter what others said. when the IP started following edits I'd made only minutes before, and only after I'd made them, it was crystal clear that this was not someone acting in good faith. DarkAudit (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving a note for you too, Dark. Had you taken the time to look at the edits you were reverting you would have seen that you were breaking fields in the infobox, and the IP was trying to fix them. -- Ned Scott 09:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- And changing from one template to another is not vandalism. -- Ned Scott 09:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect to "[A]t least an attempt should have been made. There was none." Buried in one edit summary was the text "non images" diff. Yes, the user should use better edit summaries, but at least one attempt was made to explain. I'm going to go ahead and assume good faith here—although with my unblock text, I left a reminder that edit summaries and talk page discussion are essential to make sure other editors understand why changes are being made, so we don't have to wonder the motives of the editor. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Kanabekobaton
Re the IP edits: yep, that's what I saw: the same edits being made by an IP. Another admin blocked the IP; I blocked User:Kanabekobaton for 48 hours for sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- He got my attention by going after Stansbury Hall. That's the old WVU arena down the road from me and one of my first articles. It became clear that this person was going to go on no matter what others said. when the IP started following edits I'd made only minutes before, and only after I'd made them, it was crystal clear that this was not someone acting in good faith. DarkAudit (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving a note for you too, Dark. Had you taken the time to look at the edits you were reverting you would have seen that you were breaking fields in the infobox, and the IP was trying to fix them. -- Ned Scott 09:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- And changing from one template to another is not vandalism. -- Ned Scott 09:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect to "[A]t least an attempt should have been made. There was none." Buried in one edit summary was the text "non images" diff. Yes, the user should use better edit summaries, but at least one attempt was made to explain. I'm going to go ahead and assume good faith here—although with my unblock text, I left a reminder that edit summaries and talk page discussion are essential to make sure other editors understand why changes are being made, so we don't have to wonder the motives of the editor. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)