Jump to content

User talk:Wickethewok/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click here to leave a new message

I will respond to messages left on my talk page here. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there. This prevents fractured discussions.

Archived

[edit]

The Orb

[edit]

Holy smoke Batman! That article is looking awesome. I do believe Mr Cauty will soon have 2 of his former bands at FA (would that be a first I wonder?)

Now, that said, I have to grumble at you young man! In the references you're using US style dates, but The Orb are a British band. I'd suggest using full wikilinked dates instead (3 November 2006). --kingboyk 14:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some experiments with date formatting and I think it has to be [[November 11]] [[2006]] to be autoformatted. 11 November is a redirect.
I'm hoping to reuse some of your Orb material in Jimmy Cauty and Chill Out (KLF album) and I'm also hoping you'll want to help out with the latter's drive to FA standard, but it won't be for a while yet. I'm helping out on Paul McCartney and also spending less time on wiki. Cheers mate, keep up the great work! --kingboyk 16:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, feel free to use any of my material of course. I'll gladly help out with Chill Out, too. I've experimented with the date stuff and "my preferences" stuff, too, and both [[18 March]] [[2006]] and [[2006-03-18]] seem to work for time/date autoformatting as well. Wickethewok 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egullet

[edit]

You suggested that it be marked for deletion due to lack of relaible source. I am the original author of the article and I am the -founder- of the eGullet Society. If you have any questions please email me. jperlow@gmail.com

Improved AFD discussion

[edit]

I've persuaded the proponents of the article to cite sources to support their arguments that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please revisit the discussion, read what is cited, and add your comments on how far they go towards satisfying WP:WEB. Uncle G 08:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LES

[edit]

Got your note on Low End specialists, i meant to start an article quick, that why i copied, I don;t think the notion of deleting an article is a good thing, as you did yourself, people come along and clean it up, that what collaboration is about. Plus were not making money off of it, so whats the big deal. I won;t in the future, but trying to get your point.

Thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatan dost (talk • contribs)

  • There are many issues dealing with copyrights and this is not up for debate. We are not allowed to steal content from other websites, whether Wikipedia is non-profit or not. Wikipedia has not had many legal problems despite its popularity and wealth of content - please help it stay that way. Thanks! Wickethewok 02:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion summaries

[edit]

Hi, I have noticed that you often provide only a very short abbreviated deletion summary when you delete pages (like "a7" "nn-bio" and similar). Please keep in mind that most users do not know all of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria by heart. Please consider providing a brief "plain English" explanation without relying exclusively on "CSD jargon". Additionally linking to the relevant criteria so people can read it in full can also be useful, for example [[WP:CSD#A7]]. This will help a "layperson" better understand why something was deleted when looking at the deletion log.

Most browsers have a autocomplete or other "form filling" features that allow pre-prepared boil plate texts to be inserted into web forms with just a few keystrokes. This is useful for inserting detailed deletion summaries without having to type out the same things over and over. Please consider looking into it. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aplus.Net

[edit]

Hi, I believe you voted to delete Aplus.Net. One week after deletion they recreated it as Aplus.net. They recently renamed it back to Aplus.Net and started linking it around inappropriately. I spotted it and speedied it, but they've contended it, and it's undergoing a second deletion review. Please could you take a look at the article and vote (one way or another)? Many thanks!WolfKeeper 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SB.com

[edit]

The deletion of this page was very much wrong. In the very least it should have been put up for vote rather then unilateraly deleted without any hearing from the people who have edited the page. You gave us no chance to defend the article and summarily deleted it without so much as an afterthought. Other articles of its type at least get a VFD (notably Trek BBS and Stardestroyer.net). Give the article a chance rather then enforcing your opinion on it. And in the very least give people the chance to copy the content. Some people have spent some effort on the article and now have no way of retrieving the article. I myself want a copy of the article including its entire edit history and discussion page. Alyeska 22:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • PRODs are in place for 5 days before they are deleted. If the tag is still there after 5 days, it is fair game to be deleted. The proper course of action would have been to remove the PROD tag as it suggests. To apply for undeletion/listing at Articles for Deletion, head on over to WP:DRV and go to the PROD section. Wickethewok 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We were not apprised of this fact, and as Alyeska notes, it is generally frowned upon, sometimes very severely, to remove a tag such as this from an article. E. Sn0 =31337= 00:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in my experience I've been chastised for removing ANY tag. This has been from both users and admins. I was rather disinclined to remove the tag. So now because its been deleted without review, I have to apply for review just to get it undeleted? Its called burden of proof and it shouldn't be placed on the people defending something. Alyeska 00:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • PROD tags can be removed by anyone. Various other tags often require discussion for removal, but anyone (even newbie anons) can remove a PROD tag. If anyone chastises you for removing PROD tags, you can correct them of course or ask an admin to intercede if the situation escalates. And as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence, the burden of evidence is on those who adds the content in question. Wickethewok 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So because of a misunderstanding I now have to go out of my way to get the page back. Consider this my retroactive removal of the tag. Had I know it was that easy I would have done something about it then. Now your placing an extra burden on me right now over a misunderstanding. Alyeska 00:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikithewok, please own up to the fact that the article was deleted in error. It is notable to the vs community as it comprises a very large fraction of same. I'd also like to know who put the PROD tag up and why. E. Sn0 =31337= 00:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I did attempt to engage the person who tagged the article with dialog. I and someone else both posted messages in the discussion section trying to get to the bottom of what was going on. I made a good faith effort to try and fix things from the start and was met with silence. Alyeska 00:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong evidence a Deletion Review is strongly required. I hate unilateralism. E. Sn0 =31337= 00:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to tag that 'minor'. I accidentally clicked it when I missed the 'save' button. :) E. Sn0 =31337= 00:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. E. Sn0 =31337= 01:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article merge

[edit]

why not merge the article (Nanaca Crash with Cross channel)? when i found that its not there anymore, I'm not pleased at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JZX100 (talk • contribs)

the orb

[edit]

hi wicklethewok, just looked at the wickipedia orb entry. which is pretty good but there are a few mistakes. simon phillips who played with the orb from 1992-1996 and then 1998-2003 is not a drummer and did not play in toto or any other band except prayerbox. he is however the same simon phillips who was threatened with legal action by damien hirst (artist) cheers.

dave

xx

  • Hey Dave. Actually, I realize that its a different Simon Phillips, its just that the links were incorrect. I've fixed them, so now they should point to the right person. Thanks for pointing it out. Wickethewok 04:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Drake

[edit]

Hey, I'm going to take you up on your offer of "another set of eyes"! Have put Nick Drake up for peer review, and any thoughts or comments from you would be most welcome. Thanks - Coil00 23:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quake 2: Lost marine

[edit]

Why have you proposed to delete the DOOM 3 mod in Wikipedia called Quake II: Lost Marine? As well as all the other references to it's creator and his accomplishments? I'm reporting these as unsatisfactory deletions and edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.254.173 (talk • contribs)

Why have you marked this page for deletion?

Quake II: Lost Marine

There are plenty claims of notability.

www.futrixstudios.com

http://meanarena.planetquake.gamespy.com/quake2_lostmarine

Created by game industry veteran Thearrel 'Kiltron' McKinney former Ritual Entertainment designer now Futrix Studios owner/lead designer.

Have you requested everything about him to be deleted? It looks that way and there isn't a reason for them to be deleted as they've been on wikipedia for nearly a year and are all valid/legit pages.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.254.173 (talk • contribs)

It's a DOOM 3 mod, it won't have a published source unless you consider the many magazines it's been published with not a valid publishing source. Same goes with all the other DOOM 3 mods listed on the DOOM 3 wikipedia page but those haven't been requested to be deleted, just this one.

What about the Thearrel 'Kiltron' McKinney that was created? Did you have that removed as well? I'm not trying to cause trouble, but you really shouldn't request stuff to be deleted if you haven't done any in depth research about individuals, who they are, what they have done, or projects they've worked on to justify your request for deletion.

This is a valid person, with valid industry work and no sense in requesting them be removed because you feel it isn't valid.

For example, this wikepedia page is a DOOM 3 mod as well with no source of publishing, but has it been requested to be removed? NO! And there are literally hundreds more mods for many games within wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Man_Standing_Coop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.254.173 (talk • contribs)

I'm just asking why you would have the website I just mentioned deleted? It's the most notable DOOM 3 mod ever made, and even won awards for mod of the year. Now having it's page deleted is uneccessary, unfair and abusive to it's creators.

You've also targeted everything to do with Thearrel 'Kiltron' McKinney you even had the listing of his website removed which was part of the launching of Quake III Arena bak in 1999 and has been around for 10 years. These deletions are uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.254.173 (talk • contribs)


Deletion of AeroXperience

[edit]

I'd like to question the deletion of the article on AeroXperience (www.aeroxp.org).

I believe it was unjust, we have marked the Vista scene in both customization and developement and are a well known site for what we do. The deletion was uncalled for, would also like to note that Neowin is a community site and they're entry is intact. I'd appreciate a review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victormach (talk • contribs)

deletion of David Betesh

[edit]

Hi... you might want to protect this article against recreation. This is the fourth time this user has tried to create this vanity article, and the fourth time it's been deleted. He, or at any rate somebody (but who else would bother?), also removed your warning from his talk page from an anon ip, a change I reverted. I know this because he's tried similar tactics at Emanuel Jaques. Unfortunately he shares a name with a child-murderer, and objects to this name being in the article. He first erased it while logged in. When I restored it and placed a warning on his talk page, the same edits began to be made from an anon ip. --Rrburke 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever

[edit]

He has gone out of his way to irritate me. Those pages follow the rules as I have been told. Remove the unwarranted MFD and I will clean up my language. As it is, I am showing considerable restraint. After seeing another page that I have worked on deleted, now my personal pages are under attack. Kinda hard not to get just a little emotional. You see, whats going on has become very personal. Trying to get my pages deleted is a personal attack against me right now. Alyeska 06:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Previously, user pages that are former articles have been deleted after extended periods of time if no attempt has been made to improve them. I understand that this may be stressful, but please relax. You can always save these to local disk as a last resort for personal use. Also, please stop removing deletion templates - this has never solved anything and can lead to blocking. Wickethewok 06:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will second Alyeska's observation. Assuming good faith is now quite impossible in the slightest given the weight of evidence against, therefore this can only be construed as an effort to destroy this information forever and silence Alyeska by playing just within the rules, i.e. gaming the system.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 06:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a bunch of bull. I can no longer assume good faith. Now your in effect saying that nothing can be done to undelete a page because its going to be deleted anyway. Of course the page in question right here happens to be the YOUNGEST page in my collection. So all those pretty promises that we could at least try to improve the article in the AFD proves to be shallow lies. Lovely. Alyeska 06:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I make no claims as to the nominator's reasons for nomination, aside from what he has written. Some of my work has been the subject of bad faith noms in the past, and, by making cogent, non-hostile arguments, these articles were kept. I suggest you take the same approach. Wickethewok 06:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on man. Isn't it a tad suspicious that right after the AFD progressed and all those promises were made that suddenly I am getting attacked? And the fact that you actual allow bad faith noms ruins the argument that Wiki policy should be observed. I've already had one main page deleted by a bad faith nom. I have zero confidence in Wikipedia and your allowing this to progress ensures that I will continue to have zero confidence. BTW, any look at my contributions shows that I have no desire to cause trouble. I am not breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules. I am dealing with shoddy situations, and often aimed directly at me. Don't allow a mockery to be made of Wikipedia. Alyeska 06:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly realize you are no troublemaker. However, I do not wish to speculate as to Calton's motives at this point in time (two editors can disagree without one of them being a troublemaker). If you feel you are the victim of an extended period of harassment, I suggest you visit WP:AN or WP:RFC. However, I would also suggest that you let the Mfd play out a little bit and see other editors opinions before taking such action. Wickethewok 06:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this. Calton not only proposed my page for deletion, but he used my very text against me. Whats more, he listed every single personal page that I have making a "hit list" of pages to be removed after this one. His motives are highly suspect. Alyeska 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While possibly suspect, I am not willing to take any action against an established editor, who has not done anything definitively wrong. For actions against an established user for something other than vandalism/personal attacks/3RR/etc, you usually need the agreement of multiple admins and some sort of brief investigation. You may make an inquiry at WP:AN if you feel this is particularly pressing. Wickethewok 07:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Marine

[edit]

I am the creator of the Quake II: Lost Marine project and it has been brought to my attention your request for deletion. As well as all other references to me within Wikipedia that users have created. I share a network with 15 other people which some have created and edited these articles about me and my professional career.

It doesn't make sense after reading your discussions with other admins that you say the articles you had deleted have no notability or you can't find any resources. I believe you to be in the wrong by doing this, and I do feel this has been a personal attack. Articles that I'm aware of that you had deleted.

Thearrel 'Kiltron' McKinney Quake II: Lost Marine The Mean Arena Futrix Studios (not 100% sure on that)

As well as any links to any other mentions of me or my works within other Wikipedia articles. You aren't doing very thorough research to request the deletion of information about other professionals and their careers. For example, Quake II: Lost Marine is a mod for DOOM 3 (currently) and not for Quake 4. What research tells you this mod is available for Quake 4? It isn't, it's only available for DOOM 3 and is being ported to Quake 4. So the removal of the link to the mod or article from the DOOM 3 article and relisted in the Quake 4 article is invalid on your part. I could understand maybe 1 or 2 things being removed for your lack of research, but to remove me completely from Wikipedia as a whole is no doubt vendictive, intentional, and a personal attack. Especially when every instance mentioned and all articles are valid articles that all have notability and all sources can be sited. Type any one of those into Google and you're guaranteed to have them at the top of the list. The articles were 100% accurate and true and valid. You're not doing a very professional nor thorough job editing Wikipedia when it's obvious you aren't doing the right research. Do you even know my professional history or the companies I've worked with, or for or the games I have worked on? Probably not, so you felt it necessary to delete everything about me mentioned. Or there is another motive which I'll be glad to look into. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiltron (talk • contribs)

  • You may debate the issue here. You may contest any past deletions here]. I assure you I have nothing personal against your game mod. Deletion nomination is normal procedure on Wikipedia. Dozens of articles are nominated for deletion every day, including many video game related ones, so its nothing personal. Wickethewok 17:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicheat

[edit]

I dont mind if you delete this article (wikicheat), but I would like you to find an actual breach of the rules, I may be bias because I made the article but "Doubtfully meets WP:WEB" sounds as if you think it should be delete, and that your not sure, I would much appreciate it if you could do me a favour and find the rule I breach before deleting this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darklordabc (talk • contribs)

Wickethewok?

[edit]

I don't know of any other way to sign my old name without editing something... I just changed my name the other day and have not had a chance to comment on anything yet. Thank you for your concern. --Indolences 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it was just that you posted something on an AFD and then your username was changed a very short period of time after that. Don't worry about it - twas confusion on my part. 'ave a good one. Wickethewok 18:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha

[edit]

Thanks for the note: I've been traveling for an extended period, and am totally swamped right now. I will try to get to it as soon as I can, but I can't make any promises. Sandy (Talk) 22:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quake II Evolved

[edit]

You should delete this article as well since you had Quake II: Lost Marine deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_II_Evolved

Otherwise we'll just assume your association and follow up with a full investigation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.87.172 (talk • contribs)

Children (song)

[edit]

Can you delete the page and move Child (song) back to the correct title? It was moved by User:Stewy 89 and you replaced the content, so the edit history is messed up now. --BANG! 02:55, 20 November 2006

Lockergnome

[edit]

I reverted your edit to Lockergnome. My explanation is provided within the edit summary. Computerjoe's talk 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

k-os

[edit]

Hi, I noticed you recently did a couple tiny changes to k-os. I'm assuming you read the article in order to do those changes, and I was just wondering what you thought of it. Did everything make sense or did anything sound akward? Or do you have any other suggestions for improvement? Your input would be appreciated since I want this article to be the best it can be. Thanks for your time and edits. :) - Tutmosis 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really haven't had much of a chance to look at the actual content, though I probably will tomorrow. Looks like a good candidate for support, especially given that Tony1 OK'd the language (he has high standards for prose). I'll review it tomorrow, but at short glance it looks great. Wickethewok 03:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghastly's Ghastly Comic

[edit]

[1] Verifiability asserted in the second post from Ghastly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: Indo Jew Bowl

[edit]

It's unfortunate you deleted this page. Had you simply gone to the website listed, you would have seen the press citations you desired. While they surely should have been present on the wiki page, you should have added them rather than deleted it.

Did you happen to back it up before you deleted it?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/pete_mcentegart/11/17/ten.spot/index.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/pete_mcentegart/11/29/ten.spot/

http://hometown.aol.com/indojewbowl/page16.html

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/askthereferee/cs-051228askjerrymarkbreit,1,1174018.story?coll=cs-bears-asktheref-headlines

http://www.chicagojewishnews.com/story.htm?id=250056

http://www.gapersblock.com/merge/archives/2006/11/#017240

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.182.182 (talk • contribs)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gus Gus - Purple (Sasha vs. The Light Remix).ogg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Gus Gus - Purple (Sasha vs. The Light Remix).ogg. 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. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete Madness Combat?

[edit]

Did You? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.220.192 (talk • contribs)

Pictures of users

[edit]

Are users Allowed to put their pictures on Wikipedia? I thought it was not a blog? I found this image on a user page User:Nv8200p and it is not attached to any other pages

Image:Larry moore 2006.jpg

I dont know if it should be for deletion so I wanted to check with an admin


Thanks, Cs california 11:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album covers

[edit]

Oh ok, thanks for the info of the album cover. I was just worried thats all. I didn;t knwo it was fair use. Once agaon, thank you! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggid (talk • contribs)

Google Earth Hacks

[edit]

I'm wondering why the following article was deleted:

Google_Earth_Hacks

You mention that it "Looks like it fails WP:V", but virtually all of the information on the page can be easily verified by visiting the site (users, files, downloads, posts, etc).

Any chance it could be restored?

Thanks.

Mickmel 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:V specifically requires independent sources, which is why it was deleted. If you wish for this to be undeleted and you have sources (eg. online articles about it, tech magazine articles, whatever...), you may apply at deletion review. Articles deleted through the PROD process, such as this one, are often restored for discussion. Wickethewok 17:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned Fair Use Image Tagging

[edit]

Hey buddy,

I noticed that you tagged [2] for deletion because it is a fair use image and is not currently used in any articles. However, the story is a little more complicated than it first appears.

This image was formerly used in the deleted article General Mayhem, which is currently residing in my Sandbox. Being in the userspace, I have chosen not to actually "use" this image in the article. Nevertheless, I'd like to keep it uploaded on the servers in the event that the article is undeleted.

What do you think? Would you have a problem with me removing the tag? —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeform Five

[edit]

I did not appreciate the undeletion of Freeform Five. At best it is improper to delete an article to mainspace without a WP:DRV. If you wanted to delete it without due process you should have undeleted to userspace and then moved to mainspace when it was properly attended to. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was merely undoing your obviously incorrect A7 deletion. It would have been immediately overturned at WP:DRV. Why bother? More convenient for everyone this way. Wickethewok 07:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Process is there for a reason, if you feel so strongly, do nominate it. (to WP:DRV). Also, If you wanted to delete it without due process you should have undeleted to userspace and then moved to mainspace when it was properly attended to. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your deletion was just as incorrect as my undeletion. There were obvious claims of notability including a chart ranking, so I felt that it fell under Exception 1 of the Undeletion Policy. Next time I'll apply at WP:DRV, though, just for you.  ;-) Wickethewok 08:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because my actions may have been incorrect, it does justify incorrect actions on your part. I've done a fair bit of work in CSD and think I have a handle on it. If you disagree, then you can always use DRV, that is its purpose —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request

[edit]

Hi Wickethewok.... I received your request to review Sasha (DJ), and thanks for asking. A quick look doesn't suggest any major problems. If you are ok with me tweaking a little of this and a little of that (realizing that I may accidentally change a meaning, which you'd have to revert), I'll spend a bit of time on it over the next few days. That's about what I can offer. :) –Outriggr § 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks! Feel free to edit away of course! Wickethewok 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still looking at the article. I hope the changes are mostly agreeable. (I see you went through it as well and did a good job of ce.) I have three more sections left, for another day, if you want to wait for that before FAC nomination (if that's your plan!). If you're in a rush, though, I don't think there are any showstopping issues in the writing. –Outriggr § 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! We're all done now, I think. I have a concern with the sentence "These influences inspired his use of strong melodies with little percussion and breakbeats on Sasha's artist album." because I don't know what "artist album" means. (I think I removed a reference to that elsewhere.) Also, does this mean "little/minimal breakbeats", or "his use of strong melodies and breakbeats"? That whole sentence needs tweaking. Cheers –Outriggr § 04:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its supposed to mean "lots of melody and some, but not too much breakbeats" - I can't think of a good phrasing off the top of my head. "Artist album" means "album of original material", as opposed to a mix album (a continuous album of other artists' work). Thank you sooo much, again! Wickethewok 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I've been looking through your diffs, and I must say - very nice work! Top notch copy-editing! Wickethewok 19:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Thanks for the nice comments, it just needs mega categorization in there. I'm not trying to make it too complicated but still understandable and complete. Thanks again! :) Andrzejbanas 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Orb

[edit]

Hi,

Can I take a rain check on helping you? I have one last final exam on Saturday morning, and I have to cram my head off. After that, I'll be free. :-)

--Ling.Nut 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finally done with all my exams and papers for the semester. :-) :-)
I've been looking at The Orb for the past few minutes, and I must confess that it is difficult to offer concrete advice. I'm not saying that the article is bad — in fact several parts of it are quite interesting. It's just big and really circular in its organization. I mean, first there are sections about the band within different time periods, then there are sections about things such as their scifi influence and imagery and techniques and drug use etc. And I noticed that stuff about, say, scifi is dribbled across many sections, and even stuff about different time periods appears outside the time period sections. Usually when people say "It's gonna take a really long time to get this right" it means that thing (whatever it is) is cr*p. But this article isn't bad; it's just the organization of it all.
Ow, I hate to do this to you. My best advice is gonna be quite tedious and even odious. :-) I would suggest that you copy/paste the entire text to a Word document using a font size that's somewhat larger than normal and — gulp! mdash; do one of either two things:
  1. the way that sounds easier but may not be: come up with some kinda abbreviation or code or color code or something to identify topics like "scifi" and whatever, then go through and mark up the article, categorizing every single sentence, if possible. Gulp!
  2. the way that sounds harder but may not be:using scissors, physically cut each sentence or very closely related set of two or three sentences off of the Word document. Lay the scraps in piles according to topic. Let the piles choose your topics (subheadings etc.) for you.
It's true that there are still some sentences that may be trivial enough to delete completely. You may notice a few of these as you are doing the categorization. Moreover, when you are finished with the reorganized version, perhaps they may jump out at you...
My advice is a task that is a pain in the... neck. I apologize. If you don't like the advice, then just ignore me. My wife certainly does. You won't be the first to do so. :-)
My second piece of advice is this: get a second opinion. Maybe I'm full of baloney. If you know anyone who does FA reviews, then call in a favor. :-)
Later --Ling.Nut 01:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the advice. There's probably a bunch of stuff in the chronology/biography part that should be moved to other sections, so I'll look into that. Afterwards, I'm gonna probably put this on peer review at some point in the near future for more people's advice as well. Thanks again for taking the time to look at the article.  :-) Wickethewok 02:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troublesome editor

[edit]

Hi Wicket, could you do something with this fool, please. + Ceoil 00:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-creators and speedy deletion tags

[edit]

If I read the speedy deletion tags correctly, only the creator of an article is prohibited from removing it. Hu 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyon Boyer

[edit]

I created this page with the intent that my grandfather get the recognition as the local historian he was for Marquette, Michigan. He wrote the article that was used in the Encyclopedia Americana for many years regarding the history of Marquette. He is the source for many current published Marquette authors. Please consider reinstating this page as my grandfather was a notable local historian and should be recognized as such. Thank you.

Sarah Kenyon Smart —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sksmart (talk • contribs) 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sasha (DJ)

[edit]

This article needs too much work right now. Can you have a friend or relative who is not familiar with the topic copyedit? Or another editor, someone you share an area interest with, but not this one, someone who doesn't edit DJ articles, and who is not Brittish. Maybe if you print it out and go through it, asking will the average 85-year-old know what I'm talking about you'll see the problems. I would like to see it get FA status for the topic alone, as I think Wikipedia can excel in areas where other encyclopedias or sources don't venture: we have factual and verified information unlike the fanzines, we have biographical information like the big encyclopedias, but a single DJ isn't too small a topic, we're up to date like the newspapers, not a year late like the encyclopedias can be. KP Botany 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I edited the article, and I'm not British, nor am I familiar with the subject. I do agree that there is sometimes a tone of "lingo" to it, but as I'm not familiar with the subject area, I didn't want to start tearing sentences up in an attempt to make our hypothetical grandma understand better. Having links to specialized terms offsets the need to have explanatory sidebars, to some extent. Realistically, this article can't be expected to explain "house music" any more than cell nucleus can be expected to explain "cell". Does it need more introduction to what a modern DJ does? I don't know.
Maybe you're reacting partially to the number of proper nouns in the article? There are a lot, and it makes the average reader feel quite excluded. To me, it goes with the topic, and is not something I would try to address as a "copy edit".
Wickethewok, I could point out a few instances where clarification might be helpful:
  • "A-Levels"
  • a short introduction to the "mix album"?
  • expanded explanation of software/hardware when mentioned

Just some ideas.

–Outriggr § 02:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had my mom go over it before (she's an English prof with no background knowledge on the subject), but that was quite a few drafts ago (I'm not British either, for the record btw). I expanded on some of the technical info, though its hard to define genres without going into a lot more detail (especially since they aren't particularly well-defined in the first place). You can't really describe "acid house" to someone who doesn't know anything about electronic music without going to a bunch of background stuff. I tried just throwing in some basic adjectives to describe some of the sub-genres, which helps some I think. Hopefully this will be a FA someday, though 4 FACs for one article is a bit much for me, especially when there are many other important music articles that are still only stubs. Thanks again KP Botany and Outriggr for your assistance - it is much appreciated. Happy holidays to you and anyone else on my talk page.  :-) Wickethewok 04:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it has been through 4 FACs already, these are supposed to be included with subsequent nominations. However, if this is the case, I will personally edit the article from top to bottom, if I still disagree with supporting it for FA, and make sure it has everything (although you'll have to do the corrections) to become a FA. It's clear you've done research, and you're working hard on the article, it still just needs too much work. Remind me Tuesday, post links to its prior FACs, and, if it still needs support for FA, I will go at it. KP Botany 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might be an idea to utilise the 'term' template used in the British African-Caribbean community article (today's main page FA no less!) + Ceoil 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take you up on your offer...

[edit]

...to help clean up the Gaia Online article. Frankly, it's awful. You said on its talk page that you'd help clean up all the OR if someone asked. Well, here I am! Asking!

Thanks a ton in advance. DroEsperanto 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; you too! DroEsperanto 15:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Conservapedia Entry from List of wikis

[edit]

Why exactly did you remove the Conservapedia entry from the List of wikis. Your reason on the page for deletion was "(nn wiki)." What does "nn" mean? Thanks! VeniVidiVici007 06:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

[edit]

sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.203.206 (talk • contribs)

  • I assume you are referring to your temporary block due to spamming. There's really no reason to apologize, just refrain from posting links to MySpace groups or any other websites you may be affiliated with. Happy editing! Wickethewok 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wickethewok/Archive_4&oldid=1142691722"