User talk:Skier Dude/archive/archive Dec06

Diocese Infobox[edit]

You did a great job on the template. It is very good, it is a little bit too long though. Everything else is fine. Have a nice week sir.--Sir james paul 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a good starting point. Comments on the project page. --... and m@ 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message. Remember to sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes - ~~~~- like so. Cheers, Jpe ob 09:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean idiot teenagers[edit]

Removal of WP:PROD tags is not considered vandalism. They are removable by anyone, at any time, for any reason, by design. Please do not readd the tag when it has been removed, instead, take the matter to WP:AFD as a contested deletion, and please refrain from describing such actions as vandalism in the future. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an addition note, blanking your talk page without any sort of notice is frowned upon. You might want to consider archiving your talk page to keep comments in an easily viewable format.:As the page is now gone, and my memory t'aint that great, what I do remember is that it was put up for a speedy delete, that was removed by the author, then put up for the simple prod (not full afd) and that was removed by the author without any rationale given. I believe that it was the drmafd template Template:Drmafd that uses that warning about vandalism (i don't mess with the template language); or the Template:Drmspeedy.

But, if you can backtrack and see where I did put up a "vandalism" warning (which I don't think I did) for that, it would be appreciated. SkierRMH 20:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Could you point me to the source of your statement "As an addition note, blanking your talk page without any sort of notice is frowned upon." I have had 2 admins tell me that it's my space to use as I see fit - there's no solid policy - and for me, I keep something up there til' it's resolved and then blank it.)

Your edit summary called it vandalism. As for talk pages, you don't WP:OWN it any more than any other page, and while there's no specific rule saying you shouldn't, even resolved issues can become relevant again later, so it's useful to be able to look back and reference. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. the 'vandalism' was tagged for the removal of the speedy tag by the author, not the 2nd, which is appropriate.

Efficiency[edit]

Hey. I notice you've been doing Newpage patrol recently, which is helpful, and tagging dubious articles, which is also helpful. However, for stuff which is plainly and blatantly crap, you can tag them for speedy deletion (as per the instructions on WP:CSD), instead of going to all the trouble of listing them for AfD debates.

Keep up the good work, mm? DS 15:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notenglish[edit]

Hi, I believe you placed the wrong tag on Todorubros.com. You placed {{db-notenglish}}, which is a speedy-deletion tag that should only be used if the article exists on the appropriate foreign-language wiki. That article does not exist on the Spanish Wikipedia, and therefore the right tag is {{notenglish}}. I hope this is helpful. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update - The article is simple spam, it's a website for classified ads! I have put the correct "speedy" tag on it - with a note that it's not worth translating because of the contents. Muchas gracias!SkierRMH 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bradisdead.jpg[edit]

I noticed you uploaded this image and was wondering if you had the album, or you could give me the site at which you found it. I am just trying to know the tracklisting mainly, but if you know the length,producer, etc. that would be cool. Thanks for your time! --Will Mak 050389 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at the computer that I found that at - but if I recollect correctly it was listed on E-bay! - I just double checked & it was sold already, but if you go to [1] there's another picture there - and if you have good eyes you might be able to read the information off the label there! SkierRMH 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I've been looking for a cover to that for a while. --Will Mak 050389 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I've added a larger version of that exact same image, (I found the original eBay item page) and added fair use rationale. Thanks again for the info. --Will Mak 050389 22:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3-letter-words AfD[edit]

You did fun one, man. Thx!:) DMacks 07:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Octavian[edit]

I see that you previously change Octavian from a redirect to the Roman Emperor to a disambiguation page. I sometimes work on the disambiguation project. An occasional consequence of creating new dab pages is that a lot of wikilinks now go to the dab page instead of the intended target; the goal of the disambiguation project is to repair these links. It looks to me like the vast majority of Octavian wikilinks intend to point to the emperor rather than the Pope. So, I would like to change Octavian back to a redirect, and put a tag (like {{Otherpeople}}) on the emperor page. Before I do so, I wanted to run the idea by you to see if you had an objection. Also, I notice that the Pope John XIII makes no reference to him being known as Octavian, so that probably should be clarified on his page. Please let me know your thoughts.--Kubigula (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding so quickly. I copied your comment and responded at Talk:Octavian, so that the discussion is more accessable to anyone else who is interested. I should have started the conversation there in the first place.--Kubigula (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Thehits1prince.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Thehits1prince.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damnable bots - it was bounced out of afd (speedy), then I tried prodding it-allora, it's gone like I requested

Signature[edit]

Your signature appears to contain some unclosed tags. Could you please fix that? As it stands, it screws up the font on all comments following it. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the update - but can you tell me where that happened? Here's my "scripted" text: [[User:SkierRMH|SkierRMH]],~~~~~ - and I normally just cut&paste it! (see what happens here) SkierRMH,19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've left a and a open. As an aside, isn't even valid HTML; you should probably convert your signature to use CSS anyway:

User:SkierRMH, 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 still isn't valid HTML, and isn't doing anything: valid arguments to that attribute are integers from 1 to 7 (e.g, . Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work, and for fixing the open-ended tag. But the font also is far less legible, at any given resolution, than all others i've noticed, and IMO it thereby fails to meet the intent of our standard of using sigs that are pronounceable (and therefore more memorable and recognizable). Thanks for your attention.
--Jerzy•t 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

superhero movie directors...[edit]

I saw you voted to delete the article, perhaps you'd like to vote on the category? if so, it's here. ThuranX 05:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP... I don't know much at all about my scottish ancestors, except that some were from Dunbartonshire, around renton, near as I can find info, and others from Nairn and Banff. ThuranX 05:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article on "power therapies"[edit]

A search for "power therapies" on google gives 10,000 results. The guy who coined the term, Figley is a prominent academic. I think your prod was a little early. What do you think? There are also a fair number of citations in the academic databases. Would I be wasting my time if I expanded this article? --Comaze 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I was quick on the draw on that one. Granted, there are lots of ghits for this, but the article is horribly written, doesn't mention that almost all of the credible psychological community thinks its a bunch of bunk!! As it stands, it's useless - that's why I prodded it instead of speedied it - it's got 5 days to grow and become a real article. SkierRMH 08:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MacGyverSimpsons.png)[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Edward 09:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Grey Album guy[edit]

Sorry, I saw his summary of "gay sex" and assumed that it was further vandalism before actually looking at what his second edit was. Pumeleon^T 10:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo on that one :) I wonder if some of these anon isp's acutally just put stuff like that (gay sex) into their summaries to see if we're actually paying attention! I've had to reverse myself a couple of times on some on-the-cusp type of edits! SkierRMH 06:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thehits1prince.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Thehits1prince.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Note: The nomination was compelted on Dec 16th.[reply]

This was speedied, then ifd'd, finally, success in getting this deleted - and thanks to the user that got the better pic :) SkierRMH 06:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geth[edit]

The article is now a stub, so there is no need for its deletion.

12/24/06 This article is gone - can't find any record of AfD or speedy? But, it still shows up on the Search page #2 return after Geths. Weird!! 18:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jenni Olson[edit]

I've pulled down an extensive rewrite, and I think I have covered all the issues that people had with the article. Olson has been noted as writing an historically valuable book, her film has received good reviews and three awards, as well as having cultural impact with regards the Golden Gate Bridge, whilst her roles as a festival curator and founder, website founder and maintainer, collector and her importance to her field have all been established through verifiable citations in reliable sources. I would hope that's enough substance to satisfy any notability concerns. Appreciate your further thoughts on the article at the afd. Steve block Talk 17:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of references now - however the massive amount of red-links should really disappear. SkierRMH 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whip Jones[edit]

I've revamped the Whip Jones page and I'm asking for a revote. Please see the discussion on this. Please reply there to comment on what you think we need to fix or delete in order to keep the article. I can tell you've done a lot of biographies and this is my first so I need advice. I really didn't write this one, I separated it from the Aspen Highlands entry where it was interfering with reader's ability to learn about the mountain.

69.19.14.44 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC) B.Jones[reply]

SkierRMH, I've noticed that you base some of your AfD discussions and worthiness on ghits, I spent some time Googling the different variations of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whip Jones you can see the ghits results on the discussion page. If you have a moment and could reexamine the updated Whip Jones article itself, and perhaps reconsider your reccomendation, I would appreciate it.

More about me on my User page:

- BMcCJ 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Just FYI, no need to remove the test in the WP:AFC articles unless it's an attack article or pure nonsense (e.g., i love bananas). It's a bit confusing for some of the people going back over it. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! I was just following the guidelines in the templates Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Templates, specifically for

Copyvio - "Submission contains a copyright violation, and you want to point out the source of the copyrighted text. Please delete the copyrighted text in the submission."
nonsense - "The proposed article previously in this section has been declined and removed from this page, since it appears to be nonsense."
attack - "The proposed article previously in this section has been declined and removed from this page"

In fact, for all three of these, you will note that the directions (which I have been following) state clearly to Please delete the nonsense - Please delete the attack - Please delete the copyrighted text in the submission.

Has something changed that I'm not aware of?? Please let me know. :)

Also - is it just me, or are the edit buttons misaligned? I keep purging the cache and refreshing the page, but they seem to be one position up from where I'd expect them to be! No biggie, just a pain in the tuckus! SkierRMH 21:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the edit button might be getting misaligned if you're deleting any section headers (e.g., sources), and using the back button after submission. Or we might be messing each other up. ;)

Anyway, I see your argument. If the article is total BS (e.g., "Thomas Pearce is a NOOB!), I just outright delete the section; no point in cluttering it up. If there's any question that the author may just not know how to do it (e.g., not too smart, or young), I'll make such a note. But if I remove anything and leave the section header in, I'll add (copyright removed), and add the note. That's just how I do things. Thanks for getting back. -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tingye Li[edit]

Why did you put a speedy template on this article ? This biography clearly goes about a notable (even very notable) US scientist, a pioneer in telecommunications. It would be best to remove this template before someone inadvertently deletes this article. JoJan 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the article history, you will see that I marked it so when it was simply one line of unsourced text. At that point it did deserve a "speedy". However, there have been massive overhauls (c. 90 edits) to the page since then - and either of the people that worked on the article could have taken the "speedy" tag off of it - and you could have as well (anyone but the creator, if I read CSD guidelines correctly.

I have removed both the speedy & the hangon tags from the article, which obviously doesn't warrent speedy or, imho, prodded deletion. SkierRMH 19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Marc Byrd[edit]

Is there a problem? Leave me alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hizzyhutch (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC). [reply]

e-sports AfDs[edit]

Next time, do me a favor and actually read articles and search for some reliable sources, if you please. You obviously didn't look at any of the actual articles (perhaps that's a misnomer- maybe you looked at one or two) and then copied and pasted your response (not just beacuse your response is always the same, but because you voted about a dozen times in the span of three minutes). While not everyone who was nominated is notable, a lot of them clearly are, as supported by multiple sources. It also doesn't really help sway whoever is closing discussions when they see the exact same comment again and again that simply says "Delete all of these". -- Kicking222 02:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If playing a game or winning an award for playing a game are not notable, even when multiple reliable sources report on said playing, then why not AfD Phil Hellmuth, who is solely known for poker? Why not try to delete Deep Blue, which was only known for playing a game and is not even human? Whether you like it or not, many of these people/teams are notable, and I'm obviously not the only person who thinks so. -- Kicking222 03:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also said: "2nd, they weren't all delete." However, you did vote delete on every single one, so this was a flat-out lie. -- Kicking222 03:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment on Kicking222's talk page: What you think should be notable doesn't matter. Maybe I don't think that shooting a stupid orange ball into a net should make anyone notable, but I don't put Michael Jordan's article up for AfD. The point was that they are notable per WP:BIO whether you like why they're notable or not. If you can argue against their notability rather than why they're notable, go right ahead. J0lt C0la 03:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)