User talk:Haikupoet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome![edit]

Hi Haikupoet, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

Evolution-tasks2.png
  • RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.
  • Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.
  • Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.
  • Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.
  • Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 03:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Way International[edit]

Saw your recent concerns about the NPOV of The Way International. I have neither the context (nor frankly the energy) to do it myself, but I'd point out that many of the concerns you mention should be added to the article are listed (albeit not in fully NPOV fashion themselves) in The Way's entry at List of purported cults. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I should probably add a link after checking it out. Thanks. Haikupoet 23:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parkerhouse[edit]

Good edits to the parkerhouse article. Way to go! Rad Racer | Talk 05:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, it couldn't have been less specific about what a Parker House roll really is, and a link to a recipe is always a good idea. Haikupoet 05:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Aled Seago[edit]

Hi Haikupoet: I have presumed to wikilink your 'friends of gays' comment at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aled Seago because I think it may give offence to some people who are not aware of the source. Normally I would ask before making such an amendment but I thought that speed was of the essence here. Please forgive me if this upsets you; I mean well. --Theo (Talk) 11:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shortwave bands[edit]

As the flower blooms,
Your rewrite brings me great joy;
Your words are golden.

Roodog2k 17:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Polydeism[edit]

  • The VfD errs.
  • I have cleaned up some problems,
  • -- BD2412 talk 13:39, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon[edit]

Just a note, but watch out for Gabrielsimon's edits on this page... he removed an entire section and has done these things in the past. In the future, before replying to him there could you double check that he hasn't erased anything recently? We need to stay on top of him because his clear strategy is to simply try to erase things he doesn't like. DreamGuy 05:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Good point. Thanks for the heads up. Haikupoet 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, I would really appreciate it if you could step in and undo his changes to Lilith. I go to other articles that I see he's pulling his schtick on to help out other people (like Otherkin, Witchcraft, etc.), but so far nobody is stepped in to help out on that article. DreamGuy 06:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, he removed the section AGAIN and then even removed part of the evidence section against himself... DreamGuy 18:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

He is one of the most obtuse people I've ever run into... Haikupoet 18:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • FYI: I've commented on the RFC talk page that you need to be a bit nicer. I agree with you, but although my tendencies run towards WP:DICK we need to try really hard not to be asses. His edits annoy me, and I fail to see that even a clue cannon would suffice, but this is the wikipedia, not the BOFH.  :) (and note MY username and where email goes, if you choose to test.  :) Wikibofh 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have noted this. Haikupoet 03:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I understand how frustrating it is, honest.  :) Wikibofh 04:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Lists of songs[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs. Most of the conversation there has take place on the talk page. There is also a policy proposal at User:Wahoofive/Lists of songs. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz[edit]

I saw your AfD vote for Simson Garfinkel. While he is of somewhat greater noteriety than I (David Mertz) am, there seems to be a common weird bias against academics/computer writers (but a porn actor or indy band of 1/20th the influence is automatically kept). If you feel like voting, thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Urdu[edit]

No, no name calling. But we might block if everyone is tired of reverts without justification. (Actually, Justice has compromised; but he either doesn't understand verification, or he has retreated to one POV he refuses to religuish. I'm not sure which.) This is something to discuss on the talk page, but I'll wait for someone else to bring it up. kwami 06:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Gnu/linux[edit]

I made an RfC over which redirect would be most suitable.

Categories[edit]

If an article is a member of category A, and category A is a member of category B, then the article is also a member of category B. So I didn't remove any categories. You did remove a category - the most important one. If you want to put the article into redundant categories, then whatever. I won't revert that, although it's wrong. But I do object to your deleting the main category. Mirror Vax 21:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

We Hate Tech[edit]

Haikupoet; I want to change your view about We Hate Tech, while we may be rough on the edges, the program keeps the highest of morals. After the initial frustration of some users, most have settled down on the issue, and I wish to seek a fair and just solution. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Anticitizen 1 20:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to do so if I didn't already think you guys had a humungous chip on your shoulder. Frankly, given what I've seen here and on your site, I don't see any reason to trust you without some sort of apology to people with more pull than me and a good-faith effort to stand down on the attempt to get your message across at any cost. (Even then I'd be inclined to think you've created a monster that might not be entirely under your control.) Haikupoet 01:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I must say Haikupoet, Im insulted. i dont ask you to trust me, i dont ask anyone to do anything but treat me and my efforts fairly. Please, dont think im seeking vengence, or to take anything down, i seek answers and justice. Im sorry you feel so intimidated. By the way, the whole chip on our shoulder metaphor, or whatever cleverness you think that is, its becoming over used. im not exactly sure what its supposed to mean anyway. if i was here only to take people down, i would have done so, so far ive seen nothing but attempts to take me down, sorry i dont fall over easily.Anticitizen 1 04:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's right! You want to post comments about my friends like that? Well, you better pick on me as well Junior! All we are trying to do is get a little assistance and time to develop the Wiki. Instead you and a few others choose to drag the process down. Kmac1036 06:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OpenInfo Corporation and OpenGCL GIS Software[edit]

I don't know how the term "vaporware" came to be referenced with regards to this product, however I can assure you that OpenGCL is very much real, and has been in use by GIS developers for over 2 years. It was a project started in 1997, and took until 2003 to release. I would appreciate if Wikipedia would please remove any libelous comments about the software, or else risk legal action

  • Oh boy. Legal threats from an anonymous user who hasn't proven his case on AfD. I'm shaking in my boots. I believe there's a policy against that. Haikupoet 18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

165.154.136.7 20:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) once again, please remove libelous comments or risk legal action.

FROM THAT SAME SOURCE: Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia. True instances of such writing, which might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. Haikupoet, consider yourself warned (re: vapourware comment) 165.154.136.7 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Then provide some documentation for your claims. So far you have given no reason for anything you say to be accepted at face value. Show me the facts, I'll back down. Threaten me, and I'll ignore you. Put up or shut up. Haikupoet 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Provide evidence of your claim. Do you think the company spent 8 years and millions of dollars on nothing? You are not getting a software demonstration, that I can guarantee. If anything needs to be proven in court, then so be it. Otherwise, I am asking the editors of Wikipedia to remove the libelous (untrue) statement. OpenInfo 20:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • My evidence, such as it is, is that you are making assertions of notability that are entirely unwarranted. Your product is either of very narrow interest or it is vaporware. Google searches of both the Web and Usenet come up with next to nothing about your product. Therefore it either does not exist or is not remotely notable enough for Wikipedia. Haikupoet 21:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Haikupoet, You have accused OpenInfo corporation of fraud by the use of the "v" word, and have done so in a public forum that is closely scrutinized and edited. That is enough to warrant legal action against WikiMedia Inc. I trust that the Board Of Directors would be seriously offended by your misuse of Wikipedia resources and your deviant responses. 21:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been fun riding the merry go round with you, but frankly I have better things to do than argue with someone who may or may not be who they say they are about the status of a very minor software product. Haikupoet 21:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's good, because of sure that everyone is tired of arguing with someone about the status of their VERY minor (Haiku sized) penis.

Award[edit]

Here's a vandal whacking stick for beating back the trolls :) Quarl 2006-01-13
You are going to need a bigger stick. Xerves 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To those "wronged" by AFD[edit]

Ok, first off, I would like to say that this is one of the better explanations I have seen on this issue. So far what I have seen has been a bunch of links and lots of running around the bush. Now, for personal basis, I believe that YOU have made it a personal vendetta, along with other admins, to kill articles at will. You have also purposly insulted User:Anticitizen_1 which was uncalled for. i have not seen ONE person try to actually help. All I've seen is the automatic "tear it down" and "delete per nom" reasoning on many AfD pages. Come on, "thebroken" gets a WHOLE wiki page? It's nothing more than what "wehatetech" is. Oh, well, it's got Kevin Rose. Everything he does is on here I have seen. My opinion is you are still lying or trying to cover something else up much more to the core of the issue.... I want to know what it is! Kmac1036 05:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • First off I'm not an admin, just a frequent visitor to AfD. Second, you betray a profound misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Everything is very decentralized; an article only gets this kind of treatment when it comes up on AfD. Rank and file editors nominate, rank and file editors try to form a consensus. There is no one twisting anyone's arm to vote one way or another, and an article's presence on Wikipedia does not and should not imply an endorsement of the article's subject. Third, like it or not your community is creating problems for this community, and I have a tendency to stick around issues like this until they go away. Fourth, I called anticitizen_1 "Dennis". If he can't take an obscure Python reference in the spirit in which it was intended, that's his problem, not mine. Finally, massive distributed guilt trips are not an effective means of getting something put in Wikipedia, which is what I percieve your community's actions as. Believe me, I'd like nothing better than to see this whole mess go away. I'm sure there's plenty of things your community (being by its admission a community of disgruntled sysadmins) could contribute that would be far less obtrusive than a concerted effort to jam a promotional page into Wikipedia. Haikupoet 05:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "His problem?" Well, you are not to attack anyone regardless of humor barriers and such. That's good you are NOT an admin, that' means "Anticitizen_1" can push the issue if he so chooses. I lay a guilt trip on nobody. I have seen one big shadow game here. I just call what I see. I will not stand for people bullying nor trying to push others around. You got a position? State it, cite some stuff, or describe your opinion. Leave it at that. Kmac1036 05:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, what it comes down to is that it's not a conspiracy and it's not personal (in fact, I think Zoe was a little out of line pulling Anti's comment off of Deletion Review, but I don't know her reasons and I don't know her). The real issue is that a consensus was reached and the WHT community refuses to abide by it, and frankly what WHT people have done in this affair reflects very poorly on WHT as a whole. I mean, you come off as a well-organized gang of clueless newbies, and you know what sysadmins want to do to clueless newbies as a general rule. (I believe one of your number has already been banned for, what was it, threatening other users?) Haikupoet 05:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Rant/Threat from Xerves[edit]

  • So you want us to bow down like lapdogs and kiss your ring or something? The only way this will end civil if our page is restored and we work TOGETHER on improving the content. You posted on our AfD that you would consider it based on the facts of slashdot/itunes and they were true. I am not going to dispute we are in the largest 100 podcasts (we are not), but we are in the largest 100 of the technology podcasts. You cannot dump a NN on us without criteria and that is exactly what happened. Until we get what we want this will continue. I hope it stays in a civil manner, but when you get in a situation of power you much slowly realize all you are going to be doing is fighting people day in and day out. Wouldn't you rather want to work on something more productive than fighting this out with us over months *Yes months*. Xerves 17:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't appreciate you adding the word "threat" to the posting. Can you see the problem we have here? You acuse us of not being civil and you are adding a rather harsh word of "threat". I guess you can take it to mean that, but I am trying to be civil about the matter. Xerves 17:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • WEll mabye a German court will just finish this stupid little battle for us. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/20/wikipedia_shutdown/ Xerves 17:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

wehatetech[edit]

Xerves is going to get blocked right now for his legal threat. If anybody else want to continue their behavior, they can be blocked for violatins of WP:POINT. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me. From looking at their page it looks like they've called off the whole thing anyway, so I suspect we won't be seeing much more of their like. Haikupoet 19:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

ARE YOU SERIOUS? Does anyone here have any sense? WHAT THREAT? "Zoe," you have proven yourself to be a prolific censor here on Wikipedia that makes a statement that can easily be twisted out of context. I found that story and posted on his site. I thought it was interesting, to say the least. All we asked for was a reason. All we asked for was the process that was followed. All we asked for was the TRUTH, which you seem dedicated to hiding from us. Kmac1036 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

N.B. - I am NOT done. I am NOT finished. I am NOT leaving until people are treated fairly! I could care less about the wehatetech wiki article. "Xserves" knows more about the Internet and websites then what 30 admins here have forgotten over a whole lifetime. Kmac1036 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You've gotten the truth, repeatedly. Whether or not you want to believe it is your choice. Fact is, Xerves chose to imply a continued crusade against Wikipedia and got whacked for it. If you don't play nice, you have to leave the sandbox. As for his level of expertise in system administration and websites, that's wholly irrelevant. Roger Waters is a musical genius, but that doesn't mean I'd want to collaborate with him if I was a prominent musician, as he's also an arrogant schmuck. The process was followed -- a vote was taken, a consensus assumed formed according to the rules of Wikipedia, and the article was deleted. Everything else has been a rearguardist battle waged by people who didn't know enough about the battlefield. Put it this way -- if Xerves is really the expert you claim he is, he should know enough to learn the lay of the land of a forum -- any forum -- before joining in. Haikupoet 23:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll[edit]

Dear Haikupoet, I would like to in vite you to my 1st poll, Best DCOM. Thanks! : ) Tcatron565 9:47 am CST 2/04/06

Apple Macintosh[edit]

Please fix your links you put up on the Apple Macintosh page. I just spend about two hours fixing every damn link on the entire page the other day, and I'm sort of tired of it. I realize that most or all of them do get you to the right page, but they all say "redirected from..." so and so (meaning, PCI should be Peripheral Component Interconnect... in case you don't know how to link like this, to get PCI linked, do it like this, only obviously with the brackets up against the text: PCI . You also have linked some things that are alreadyy linked on the page. Also, think about rewording things like "Mac-specific" to "proprietary..."

) Dan 07:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WNRI[edit]

Thank you very much for dealing with User:J.sweeton@wnri.com. He is indeed a WNRI employee (I've met him personally), but at least I'm not the only one who realizes that he's removing inconvenient facts. Thanks again for the help. --Analogdemon (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Quik (boot loader)[edit]

Quik (boot loader) has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 01:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello. As you've removed the PROD tag, would you consider adding information to the article that shows that this piece of software meets WP:SOFTWARE or any other notability standard? Best regards, Sandstein 14:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy of Silence on AfD[edit]

Hi -- please take another look at the article and/or the AfD; it was on my cleanup list for a long time and seeing it on AfD prompted me to do a rewrite. You were definitely right to nominate it; it was in a horrendous state, but I think the subject is, in fact, notable, and that the article as rewritten can be saved. Thanks, MCB 05:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

your vote on cool (african philosophy)[edit]

I noticed you voted "per Urthogie." I urge you to change your vote to delete so that the article isn't kept. Even though merge is the most sensible option of them all(and its probably what we can do, even if its deleted), it seems like the most pragmatic thing to me to vote as one unified base against this POV fork. If the people who recognize its a POV fork are split between two options, the article will by default be kept. Of course, even if its deleted, we could merge it into the article on cool.--Urthogie 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, It seems you already have. Thank you, and sorry to bother you. PrometheusX303 20:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Weather Channel[edit]

This is not "possible spam" from the network. Charlie the Dog Showcase is a cartoon, not a commercial. Also the network does not engage in "vandalism".

Would The Weather Channel had aired it without the viewers knowledge, they should announce it. I think The Weather Channel paid for their own article to be edited, but had they added spam to their article would cause the network to be in trouble. There is almost 77 percent of the viewers who watch The Weather Channel.

Regards,

--65.54.154.17 19:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Meteorologist

  • You're jumping to a lot of conclusions regarding my edit summary. The reason I called it possible spam is that there seems to be someone pushing this "Charlie the Dog" thing on various TV-related articles -- it's popped up before in some form on WGBH at any rate. At no point did I wish to indicate that it was TWC responsible for it; it would be kind of pointless to advertise a show that doesn't even appear on their schedule anyway. Nor do I believe that a major organization such as TWC would vandalize their own article to begin with. No, what you have here is an anonymous third party who seems to be pushing some kind of viral marketing agenda. Haikupoet 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Try a 72-hour block[edit]

There could be lockout on our own Weather Channel staff for 72 hours beginning on Sunday May 7th at midnight.

If they were involved? Perhaps, we could restirct access to Wikipedia from their computers at The Weather Channel at midnight on Sunday, and block their IP's, which they will not edit The Weather Channel and Intellistar article again, I apologize for the trouble that has happened. - Local on the 8's will continue to air during the lockout after Sundays until it expires in 72 hours.

--65.54.154.12 01:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Why? First off, as I said, I don't think this was done by the company or anyone associated with it; it would be pretty idiotic to do so. Wikipedia is open-content and pretty much anyone can do whatever they want with it; the key is that nobody owns an article. The downside of that is that there can be third-party vandals who insert random junk. Also, I'm not an admin or anything; I have no way of searching IP addresses of contributors so not only do I not know who did it, I have no way of knowing. I don't really see an issue that would require a block from corporate computers. Haikupoet 01:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I will resign from Wikipedia, and will never discuss this with anyone else.

I think that you are a true meteorologist or weatherman. if you fail to not insist the dog character is crap on the air to the entire TWC staff, I will not watch The Weather Channel. Unless, you insist you are not affliated with The Weather Channel in other ways.

Also, I could accuse that radio station of lying, they probably think too soft about that character, which they deny it, but they ignore him, also I have never heard of any other NPR member station putting down nonsense, telling anyone to ignore the character or not watch him. It is sad.

--65.54.155.47 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm not a meteorologist, just someone who occasionally likes to read weather reports for fun. I deleted the entry on the cartoon because it's not verified on TWC's website, which I'm sure you must agree should be the reference of last resort for such subjects. The show itself is unverifiable -- at the very least you'd think the creators would have a website for it, or if it was an old one a tribute page or an entry on IMDB or something. Haikupoet 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Slippery slopes[edit]

I am not sure it is permissible or advisable to argue for or against deletion on the basis of a slippery slope. You really oughtta evaluate the articles on their own merits. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

--65.54.155.47 05:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Masonic Editors[edit]

Hi,

I think that your comment about Masonic editors was unfair. Although they get a little caught up in their hobby/belief system and like all of us have trouble recognising their biases the ones who commented on the AfD aren't out to hide anything. It also makes it harder to edit articles about the religious objections to Freemasonry when they believe that people are out to get them. I didn't think that your comment helped in that regard.

JASpencer 12:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

NSFW afd[edit]

Hey, I wasn't wikilawyering was I? I just want things on wikipedia to be sourced reliably, or at least be confident that if someone tried hard to find a source he'd succeed. In this case it just seemed to me that beyond the basic definition of the term, there isn't much that could be found in reliable sources. I did spend quite a while looking. I am sure you are a more experienced wikipedian than I am, so I'd like to know what you think. nadav 07:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I just think there are certain situations that fall outside the normal research rules. It's such a widely attested word/abbreviation/whatever-you-call-it that it seems it would be sufficient to see how it's used. (Now that might be in violation of WP:NOR, but I don't know that for certain.) Preponderance of the evidence and all that. Haikupoet 17:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Altbier links removal[edit]

Hello. I don't know why you reverted the links I had removed from the altbier article, but please do not do it again. Also, I don't find "oy vey" a very good explanation of your reasons. Thanks for you future cooperation. Mikebe 17:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I don't know that I won't revert it, but I'm more than happy to talk about it before I do. Haikupoet 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked through your contributions and see that you have done between little and nothing for the beer articles, but you (and several other non-beer contributors) seem to be on a guard for the bjcp. Why is that? (that was not a rhetorical question, I really am curious.) Mikebe 17:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The main reason is that the BJCP is the main standards organization for brewing (especially home brewing, but also commercial to a certain extent) in the United States. BJCP standards are used heavily in beer competition and are considered authoritative to American homebrewers. May I ask why you have such an aversion to such references? Haikupoet 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary? And I'd really appreciate an answer to my question. Mikebe 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I thought I did answer it. And as it happens I'm a homebrewer with a reasonably extensive library on the subject of beer, and that's the sources I have access to, so I have documentation for that sort of thing. I'm sure other countries with large homebrewing contingents have similar organizations with similar standards, and they should probably be here too. But I don't know those organizations, I know the American ones. (And why shouldn't a German style definition be in there as well?) Haikupoet 18:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had asked why you contribute little or nothing to the beer articles, but keep an eye on bjcp links. I don't see where you've answered that, but I'll go ahead and answer you and hope that you will come back with an answer to my question.

As you know, the page you reverted the link on is not a page concerned with home-brewing. Secondly, as you correctly point out the bjcp is an American organisation and the beer in question is not American. So, I am removing the links because 1. this is not a home-brewing article (feel free to put them in the home-brewing articles where it makes some sense) and 2. because the bjcp is not an authority on foreign (non-American) beers. Creating styles for home-brewing competition is one thing, but using those styles in a general-interest encyclopedia is quite another thing. This very subject has been discussed before -- I am not on a one-man crusade. Mikebe 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, as it happens, I have long had an interest in beer; it's just that I haven't, at least until recently, had much to contribute to the beer articles. As for the issue itself, I think portrayals of how a particular beer style is defined are quite relevant to the article. They don't supplant a primary source, they're additional information. What the BJCP (or any other beer standards body) has to say on a particular style, I think, is relevant in that regard. Haikupoet 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why, when you rarely edit beer articles, you seem to regularly monitor bjcp links, then swope in when you find one deleted.

I agree with you that it is a good idea to give the reader some idea of what to expect when he/she prepares to try a new beer. However, where I disagree is that bjcp style guidelines, which are intended for judging home-brew competitions and nothing else, are the best way to do it. Let me give you an example: if a reader were to click the link to altbier on bjcp, the first thing they would see is this: "Aroma: Clean yet robust and complex aroma of rich malt, noble hops and restrained fruity esters. The malt character reflects German base malt varieties. The hop aroma may vary from moderate to very low, and can have a peppery, floral or perfumy character associated with noble hops. No diacetyl."

"Huh??? Esters? Diacetyl? I thought these beers were pure, not made from chemicals! What are 'noble hops? Are they any different from regular hops?" -- all perfectly logical questions for the average reader.

How exactly is that helfpul? For homebrewers like you, yes, perhaps it means something. However, I would point out to you that according to the bjcp, they have 4060 members, almost all from the US, out of popular of 300 million. Clearly, without argument (these are facts), the bjcp represents a very tiny part of the US population. Furthermore, you may think what you like, however, I can assure you there is nothing like the bjcp in Europe. There are amateur brewers and clubs, but they do not have style guides like the bjcp and members do not promote them as relevant to the general population, as you are doing here.

If you know an alternate source for taste descriptions, fine, let's take a look. But, if you can't find any or there aren't any, let's not confuse the reader with notes that are not at all intended for the casual, non-technical person. Mikebe 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • BJCP guidelines are also used in professional competition, and as far as the size of the membership goes, well, not all beer aficionados are beer judges. Why do I edit beer articles? Why not? It's an interest of mine. So I haven't done much up until now. That doesn't give me any less right to edit articles on the subject than you do. And are you seriously arguing that a technical document is unsuitable as a source? Because if you are, I would say the same logic applies to ISO standards, patent applications, (published) scientific papers, and legal citations. And in any case, on what grounds do you argue that an American style guide serves no practical purpose? Haikupoet 08:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, bjcp = competitions (I am not aware of any professional ones, but then, I never heard of the bjcp until I came to WP). Whether they are amateur or professional, the style guide is what is called a "competition class", not a general guide to foreign beer styles. Furthermore the bjcp is not a standards organisation, but a competition organisation. It is US-based, US-centric and not recognised outside the US. Furthermore, we have had discussions like this before, interestingly enough with other members of the bjcp fan club, and a WP admin offered this view: "I am forced to conclude that a) the emphasis on American beer style guides is undue weight and thus not NPOV"

As far as the technical document is concerned, are you seriously equating drinking beer with discussing scientific papers and standards?

And finally, I know you won't like to hear this, but for many of the European beers described by the bjcp, they are just plain wrong. So, overly technical and often incorrect as well -- and you think WP should offer this to the general reader? Mikebe 09:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it's the right sort of information, but if you've got a better/more accurate source, by all means add it. And yes, I am quite seriously making that comparison, not so much for drinking beer as making it. Haikupoet 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Help Please[edit]

You Were Recently Invovled In The Deletion Of My Article "Factory: The Musical". The Film Is On A Video Cassette. Could You Kindly, (On My Discusion Page) Talk Us through How To Put This On The Internet? Many Thanks (BUT NOT FOR DELETING OUR ARTICLE. RAWR!), Woomoobs57 12:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, first thing I need to know is what kind of videotape the movie is on, because that affects how you get it into the computer. It would also help to know more about your camera -- make, model number, that sort of thing. Haikupoet 17:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering that these kids have done nothing but leaving insults and vandalism on the pages of everyone involved, seems to me that asking for help is a little strange. Fan-1967 16:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll cut them some slack because they're kids. Haikupoet 17:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You Haikupoet, You Are A Legend. I Will Find Out In The Near Future, If You Help Us, Thanks Ever So Much Woomoobs57 23:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

American-style Lager[edit]

Hi Haikupoet. I notice you recently created a new article. Were you aware that this is already covered under Pale lager, so the information is being duplicated. Would you like to help out on tidying up the Beer style articles? We have some other duplications that could be merged, and it would be interesting to talk through the best way of tackling these merges. Cheers. SilkTork 01:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, I branched it off the Pale lager article, because I figured there was more that could be said about American-style lager than could be said in an entry on a list. There was actually more I wanted to write, but I didn't have any sources for it. So I don't think merging is the way to go, but maybe a bit of fact-swapping? (I don't feel confident about grouping beers outside North America and Japan under "American-style lager", to be honest with you, but as far as I know there isn't a whole lot of difference between styles outside traditional beer areas.) Now what did you have in mind for other articles? Haikupoet 01:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Pale lager in North America is similiar to pale lager brewed in other parts of the world. The only significant difference is the location in which they are brewed. Some pale lagers in North America are all malt, some use corn adjuncts, some use rice - these are things that also happen in South America, Europe, Africa and Asia. The abv varies in North America, just as it does in the rest of the world. There is a tendency for breweries - especially those brewing to a budget - to use local ingredients. Sometimes these local ingredients can have an interesting, sometimes even a significant impact on the taste of the beer (such as sorghum in Africa), but that's where comments or even sections can be added to the main articles. As for some of the others - I've just made a suggestion that Near beer, Small beer and Low alcohol beer should be merged. I also think that the different flavoured stouts and porter could be merged. Cheers! SilkTork 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I could see Near beer and Low alcohol beer being merged, but I'm pretty certain small beer is something else entirely (isn't small beer traditionally made with the later sparging runs of a barleywine?). As for style similarities regarding American-style lager, I more or less agree, but I don't think it invalidates the article. What it seems to indicate is a title change and a bit of expansion to cover international variations. I don't think it can be remerged with the main pale lager article, though. So, yeah, rename one or both articles (not exactly sure how though -- maybe make pale lager "list of pale lagers" or something like that), I say, but keep them separate. Haikupoet 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect proposal[edit]

Hi again. You did a bit of editing on Burton brewing, so I thought you might be interested in this proposal to redirect Burton brewing into English beer. Cheers! SilkTork 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion[edit]

(I left this note on the wrong users talk page yesterday!) Please see, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votes for deletion (2nd nomination). I have deleted the redirect. Please do not recreate, if you have any thing new to bring to the debate then please do so at WP:DRV. Thanks/wangi 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hydroxyzine[edit]

You may be interested to know that i've updated the Hydroxyzine page quite significantly. James.Spudeman 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


A tag has been placed on 9412 (Internet radio station), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RJASE1 Talk 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I like your style[edit]

I like very much your precise and formal use of the English language at the various reference desks. Being a foreigner, people like you help me learn a lot! Keep it up! --Taraborn 10:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Radioio[edit]

A tag has been placed on Radioio, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Radioio. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RJASE1 Talk 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Füritechnics[edit]

A tag has been placed on Füritechnics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mattinbgn/ talk 01:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive![edit]

Many kilobytes
Tell me that the time has come,
Archive your talk page!

bd2412 T 07:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spinnaker[edit]

I have commented out the Spinnaker paragraph giving this as reason. -- There are 180+ known versions of Logo- this is not one as it lacks the language structure- is there any reason why it is notable enough to be included. Various pseudo logos have mentioned over the years- viz KTurtle, these just confuse unless they had something to offer the Logo development spine- and almost every secondary school IT teacher used to set writing such a package as coursework in order teach the principles of Graphics- whether it be on the Commodore Pet, Apple II or what ever! Yes you could do it on an teletype- two of my students did- one is in Networking and the other is a Roman Catholic Priest. ClemRutter 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)



June 2007[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Cabbage soup diet, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

chanko[edit]

I started the glossary of sumo terms for the specific reason that there were too many stubs out there about sumo giving too little info. When I went to chankonabe, I suspected I would find a much better article and wouldn't feel the need to redirect to the glossary. But I found a few paltry lines, with almost zero mention of it's "life outside of the sumo world", so I figured it was better to show a User who is looking it up a glossary than this "article". If you think the article has merit, it would be great if you could give the article some more substance. Malnova 20:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I gave it what substance I could (including some references), given that I'm a foodie and not by any stretch of the imagination a sumo aficionado. And even then I do think that there's more information in the article than there is in the glossary page. I don't believe that just because an article is a stub means that it isn't appropriate for it to stand on its own -- it just means it needs more content (like I said, WP:PAPER). There is no need to redirect to the glossary under the current circumstances, especially since if someone wishes to expand the stub in the future, it'll be quite a bit more hassle to revert the redirect rather than simply expand the article as is. I've posted a request on WP:RFE in hopes of addressing your concerns, but I don't think the fact that it's a stub is really all that big a deal. Haikupoet 02:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for adding info and the tag asking for more input. It's a great start. Malnova 09:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

National Weather Service[edit]

When I first saw MusicalPlanet's move at National Weather Service, I was a bit suspicious, as well. But now I'm not so sure it was a biased move — and here's why.

This link gives a list of various meteorological organizations around the world, and assuming it's correct, there's no other organization named the "National Weather Service." There are less than a half dozen that even use the term "weather service" in their name, and there is only one other organization that uses the phrase "national weather service" in their name. Even that organization's real name is the "Finnish National Weather Service," rather than just the "National Weather Service."

It's unnecessary to add disambiguating terms to a title unless there's something directly in conflict. If we wanted a page about national weather services in general, it should be at "National weather service," not "National Weather Service," given that it's a unique, proper name. What do you think? — Rebelguys2 talk 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution, but it certainly isn't worth an edit war. Might be a good idea to ask an impartial admin for an opinion. Haikupoet 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    • An admin isn't necessary, as I believe any user can make a move a page if the target's history contains only a redirect.
    • I don't really understand the point of erring on the side of caution — there's no other reasonable targets I can think of for National Weather Service to redirect to, unless you really want to use it as a catch-all redirect to a page on national weather services. I think that's a little unnecessary, though, given the existing disambiguating differences in capitalization. Perhaps we could place a dab line at the top of the article in case Finnish National Weather Service is ever created. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, I just saw the message on the article's talk page. The IP address has a good point, but I think that disambiguating the page isn't the correct solution. We disambiguate when there's a conflict in the title of an article's name — there's no conflict here, nor will there be, unless another organization, anywhere in the world, called the "National Weather Service" arises.
      • Rather, the problem was that the DYK didn't offer enough context for the international reader to understand. The article, however, certainly does, right there in the first line. As a result, we don't need to do further explaining in the title. It's not like that would have helped in the DYK entry, as use of the dab parentheses are often a bit clumsy. We should have piped the link and described it as the U.S.' National Weather Service. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

NetPresenz[edit]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article NetPresenz, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Whispering 17:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Internet Radio[edit]

You may wonder why the Digitally Imported article was nominated for an AfD. One, apparently User:Metros an administrator believes that Internet Radio has no place on Wikipedia. He deleted two stations of mine that were on the tuner, as well as the company I work for, and there Internet stations. The pages I had, all had sources. Sky.fm's page does not have any third-party sources. Also this does not establish notability either. Please dont think i am attacking you, I am just saying maybe we can work together to make the whole Internet Radio thing more notable on here.--NightRider63 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, there you run into WP:POINT. I do agree that some kind of standard is required, and is likely long overdue. I'd be willing to contribute an opinion or two to the discussion -- just let me know where it's set up. Haikupoet 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You probably know more then I do, so if you would like to start a project let me know.--NightRider63 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Boston Bypass[edit]

I added some references to the Boston Bypass article, which just survived AfD. If you have the time, would you work the references into the article and expand the article with the referenced material. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 02:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

  1. The merge waqs discussed by a half a dozen users here and here and nobody opposed, whereas at least 6 experienced editors agreed.
  2. All content that was RELIABLY SOURCED was merged into the Simpsons page. The rest was POV, OR, and cruft. For more on those, I suggest you read WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:CRUFT.
  3. Most of the words that weren't merged into The Simpsons were redirected to the episode page of their origin, many of which have sections on that word, like Can't sleep, clown will eat me.

I went through all of the proper channels, had a discussion in which I clearly outlined what I planned to do, and you just come along and decide to revert it. I suggest you discuss it on the talk page before undoing it again. -- Scorpion0422 20:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Don Turnbee[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Don Turnbee, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Don Turnbee. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Don Turnbee[edit]

I have nominated Don Turnbee, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Turnbee. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

GET OVER YOURSELF/ GROUP THINK[edit]

Dear Haikupoet, I make the bold suggestion of "get over yourself," not only because I am awed by how my recent "strike" against wikipedia compels you to make another grandstand on my own talk page, but also because of your continued, patronizing tone, as if you know what is for my own good. Moreover, your ego seems to have precluded you from getting the true drift of what I am really saying. Unlike you, and perhaps many others on wikipedia, I don't look at the editing rules and "culture" of wikipedia as being my religion. I sure am not going to let it brainwash me, much as it seems to have done to you and many others. So, please don't suggest that I am over reacting, missing the point and so on. And no, I don't think that I have a problem with distinguishing general ideas (which are expressed in various forms on wikipedia) from my own personal experience. That is not only an arrogant suggestion, but seems to imply craziness or lack of self perception. Also, your implying that I am myopic is utterly laughable. You know nothing about me, despite a few writings. Perhaps, the problem with you and other people on wikipedia is that you don't understand the basis of true knowledge and wisdom, versus the illusion of it. This is why I made my point to which you felt the urge to respond; but, sadly, to which you cannot seem to truly fathom. Believe me, I have thought about this well enough and then decided that wikipedia is not for me. I heard warnings about wikipedia long before you and othrs said so, but I guess I had to see for myself. Don't flatter yourself and assume that you did it alone; as is the same for other correspondence with other editors. I have observed problems in many areas, structural forms and publishing phenomena. Because of my life experience, outside of wikipedia, I feel confident that I based such judgement on sound comparisons, as far back as to the history of the PC, desktop publishing, email, the the birth of the internet, mass media publishing, politics and so on. Yes, in my opinion, wikipedia has many problems that have yet to even be discussed or perhaps conceptualized. Therefore, my personal "strike" will last for however long as it takes wikipedia to resolve these issues, as I see fit. In this particular instance, I don't look at this writing as being an editing contribution, but simply as a response to or "talk" with you personally. Of course, you don't have to agree with me, and frankly I don't expect you to, but this is indeed my opinion and my experience at wikipedia. There are already people on wikipedia who agree with me, if you see "criticism of wikipedia." If you have any sympathy on this matter, then my only suggestion to you is to resolve such "curiosity" and venture "somewhere over the rainbow"; whereas, perhaps then you will see a different world as compared to the virtual reality in which you confide now. For me, I've been there and done that... In my world, in my experience, I've already discerned suh differences. Welcome to the new millenium Haikupoet! I hope you make a life of it and not the same mistakes.Calitalia (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Calitalia

  • I have my own criticisms of Wikipedia, thank you very much, and talking about "true knowledge and wisdom" does nothing but makes you look like an egotistical crackpot. I still think it's a worthwhile project that for the most part works as well as it can under the circumstances. Coming in and running roughshod over the existing culture, then complaining that it doesn't work the way you expect, is not going to endear you to the locals. Also, as I've pointed out to you in the past, life experience is worth precisely nothing on Wikipedia -- you need to be able to document what you say, you can't be too picky about the rules (WP:IAR), and you can't be too protective of your own writing (WP:OWN). If you have a problem with any of this, maybe Wikipedia is not the environment for you. Haikupoet (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello,[edit]

please have a look at what I've written in the discussion page of Bagna Càuda. Regards, --213.140.17.108 (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

student lounge[edit]

student lounge has recently been rescued, you may wish to review your vote at the deletion debate as new sourcing and copy editing has taken place.Myheartinchile (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I just wanted to thank you for joining the fight over at orgone I was going crazy. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem. You actually already know me, but if you figure out who I am I'd appreciate you not giving the gaffe away as I would prefer to keep the two identities separate for the time being. Haikupoet (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I would appreciate it if you would actually look at what you are reverting before you revert. Probably because of your last revert, Orgone is now protected. the totally-disputed tag I put in produces this on the page. Being in line with WP policy and at least looking at what you revert would really help, what with the Zen. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 18:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What, the "this is why we can't have nice things" argument? First off, we seem to be in great disagreement about exactly what policy is. Second, if my edit was the straw that broke the camel's back, it's about time. All it was was the last shot in yet another editing skirmish. Haikupoet (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

.977 Music Network[edit]

Thanks for your updates to the .977 Music Network article. You can further help this article by adding some references which establish it's notability. Without these references the article may be deleted.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If being present on iTunes for over five years and being #1 and #2 on Shoutcast's popularity list (listener figures are provided on www.shoutcast.net), I'm not sure what else can establish notability. Web radio is something of a world unto itself, and since it's rated as high as it is on one of the largest web radio services in the world, I think it qualifies. Haikupoet (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Beer category decision[edit]

A discussion has been opened on changes that have been made to the existing Beer category system. The changes reverse the decision made by the Project in April 2006. The changes were based on agreement by only two people, and by a discussion that took place outside the Beer Project. There may be some merit in the changes, and to prevent future conflict it is important that there is some discussion of the matter. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Brewery_cats. SilkTork *YES! 15:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Navigation keys[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Navigation keys, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: WASD keys. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008[edit]

Information.svg Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Navigation keys a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am "reading the damn edit summaries", and yes I do know what you are trying to do! The thing is that you are doing it the wrong way! The answer is NOT to create yet another article, and copy/paste in content. The answer is to;
  1. Wait for the Afd to complete
  2. MOVE one of the 3 articles into the new title
  3. Add content from the other two as necessary.
Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:BOLD. I would redirect the old articles, but as I said, I don't want to screw up the AfD process. Haikupoet (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Navigation keys[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Navigation keys, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navigation keys. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mayalld (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of WTBU[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article WTBU, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

unlicensed, low power, college radio station, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan2 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:ITunes radio[edit]

I have nominated Category:ITunes radio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

I'm nominating an article you have worked on for deletion. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination). Borock (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Long Range Locator[edit]

Are you aware that one of the links in this topic is dead?

Sandia report on the DKL Lifeguard

I will see if I can find the proper link to the report and get it fixed. Minutor (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Worth a shot. I might actually have a copy of the report myself, but I suspect hosting it specifically for the article might be a policy violation of some sort or another. Haikupoet (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The link has been fixed. Minutor (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

anon/ip editors[edit]

Please don't criticize people for editing without a user account, as you did in your recent edit summaries. This is kind of wp:bite-y, people have the right to edit anonymously. riffic (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

October 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to United States Army Soldier Systems Center, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. allennames 17:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of classic rock radio stations[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated List of classic rock radio stations, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of classic rock radio stations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ridernyc (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of classic rock radio stations[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of classic rock radio stations. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of classic rock radio stations. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:BettyCrockerPB10e.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BettyCrockerPB10e.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Haikupoet! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,809 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Ramona Cheorleu - Find sources: "Ramona Cheorleu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dome Publishing[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Dome Publishing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for references and notability since December 2008

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fayenatic (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tylogo2k.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Tylogo2k.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 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) 04:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Radioio[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Radioio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be a noteworthy internet radio station. No independent, reliable, third party sources are found for this.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Radioio for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Radioio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radioio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cuisine10Min.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cuisine10Min.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Garamond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Linotype
International Typeface Corporation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bookman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Vincent Zarrilli for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vincent Zarrilli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Zarrilli (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)