User talk:Izno

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

Tower Defense[edit]

Hello Izno, GaelicCharm here. I re-updated the TD page. Removing a good update to the Genre's wiki page because it LOOKed like promotion doesn't make sense to me. If you're familiar with the genre, you'll understand the change as legit. If you're not, then visit and play for an example of what I mean. You'll note the 44 Million plays. It's not a rare device in TD.

I am in no way affiliated with Kingdom Rush or Incursion, but I deleted there names this time. KR and Incursion are 2 different companies that I have no formal affiliation with at all. I only mentioned those games, just as "Flash Element" and "Desktop TD" are in the first 2 paragraphs, by way of reference material. I hope you don't choose to undo this honest update to wiki page again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaelicCharm (talkcontribs) 09:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted. Please discuss next time per the WP:BRD cycle. In summary though, the source used is not a WP:RS. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Izno, Forgive me, what is "WP:RS"? The source is the ACTUAL GAME THAT EXISTS. SO I can't imagine what issue could possibly be had with it... Do you play tower defense games? If so, you know this "claim" to be true; if not, what kind of source would you need other than examples of games themselves. The #1 Downloaded app for the last month has been a game with this mechanic. ...? GaelicCharm (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If you would click the link you would see that it is our guideline on sourcing. To add something to a page, and especially the genre pages (which are susceptible to spam), you need to show that those games or that particular sub-style of game is covered by reliable secondary sourcing. The page you've provided does not qualify as such.
Additionally, most genre pages tend to focus on the important games of the series (as a matter of editorial judgement). Your example is not one of those.
And yes, I have played many TDs in my time. Which is irrelevant to what Wikipedia needs in an article. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


Hello Izno, I haven't used a talk page before, so I may not get this quite right. I'm contacting you about the repeated deletions of the external links to density and surface tension calculators on the "Hydrochloric acid" entry.

I hope we agree, first of all, that being able to convert between volume and mole-based concentration units, and know apparent and partial molar volumes, and surface tensions, is valuable. The article lists, in the main body, a few physical property values.

The calculator, which you dismiss as "any old calculator", reproduces values from a critical evaluation of original data up to the present time - including those on which the Critical Tables values, and those in Perry, are based. A number of discrepancies have been resolved, and densities and the other volume properties below 0 oC are also obtained. I think it is safe to say that these values are the most accurate available. The work is described in a paper published in J. Phys. Chem., as is the work on surface tensions.

I should also say that the site where the calculators can be found is not trying to advertise or sell anything, and is free to all users. I think this is consistent with the philosophy of Wikipedia. I hope you will not delete the links again.Slcpr (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Freerunning article[edit]

Hi. user:Feraess and I think "Freerunning" should have its own article page, as not only is the sport all but not represented on the parkour page, but there's actually a lot of reputable parties out there who specifically contradict that freerunning should be a part of parkour at all. Saying parkour inspired freerunning without actually saying anything about it just doesn't cut it given the notability of the sport.

I noticed this old revision was extremely thorough, and somehow got paired down to a mere stub which you deleted on Mar 15 2012. Was there an official debate whether to keep the article, or was this your judgement alone? Either way, what do you think of restoring the freerunning page at least as a stub if you think there are too few sources to warrant an in-depth article? There are multiple pro freerunning athletes recognized by WP--Timothy Shieff, Daniel Ilabaca, and I started the Ryan Doyle article about 18 months ago who's primarily a freerunner, hence there's more support on WP for it now than when you redirected the page. If you want another solid source here's a National Geographic episode of Fight Science. user:feraess has listed other sources on talk:parkour Squish7 (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Merging a small category[edit]

Hi, I note that you manually merged a category without discussion. The proper thing to do would be to start a discussion at WP:CFD, especially as there was a previous decision supporting the category, which was clearly linked from the talk page. As it's a small case I'm not too bothered, but one thing which I think you definitely should have done was to place the articles into the other parent categories of the cat which is up for deletion (now done). It's also good practice to notify the category creator. Please drop me a line if I'm not being clear about any of this – Fayenatic London 18:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. The previous discussion was in 2011, when there were actually a large number of articles in the category, of which a good number were in the past year or so merged. Due primarily to the previously merged articles, circumstances are different. Even if I had realized there existed a previous CfD discussion, I would have still probably merged it. (I would probably have not merged it were the parent category not also small, but as it is small even with the merged articles....)
  2. In short, it was a bold decision because I knew the category probably wouldn't merit a full CfD and that a bot-tagging (or semi-automated by another editor cleaning a backlog) for CSD-for-empty-category alone would probably suffice.
  3. My apologies on missing the additional categories on the one article.
--Izno (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, I meant to link Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 24#Category:Lists of James Bond allies.
For the record, there were two articles, one of which I have just nominated for merging, but List of James Bond allies should not have been removed from Category:Lists of fictional sidekicks. Anyway, apology accepted. – Fayenatic London 18:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I realized my own error on the time periods just now and corrected it just prior to your edit. You somehow managed to miss the usually inevitable EC. :^) --Izno (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh no I didn't! Face-smile.svgFayenatic London 18:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Undid revision 565782310 by Izno (talk),[edit]

Hello, sorry if this bugs you. why did you undo my editing on The Sims Series Template? i'm not a vandal, but if i skip the discussion page (or whatever that is), sorry. there is an expansion pack named Into the Future, Check the official website, because i still don't know about why the deletion. i know i still a newbie and i am not an english native speaker, so pardon my grammar. and you did not write note about the undoing. please tell your reasons. and i am happily read any critique, but be clear and simple :) AldeyWahyuPutra (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)AldeyWahyuPutra

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion[edit]

Due to the insular nature of the WikiProject, I have opened my proposal up for debate at AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MOBA[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:MOBA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 20:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


Two days ago I opened up this formal move request based on the suggestion I initially made at WT:ANIME. As you contributed to the original discussion, your input is welcomed at the new one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dynasty Warriors and the like game cast[edit]

Dynasty Warriors series is an acception under inappropriate content #10 because the game's cast and VA are particularly notable. Dynasty Warriors holds a world record for the most playable characters in a franchise (excluding Warriors Orochi) and the voice actors can't be fitted in the article any other way. Lego Marvel Superheroes is another example, considering the wide range of playable characters it would be messy and vandalistic-like to create sections stating the playable characters since it is not necessary due the fact it is in a table. Now on the other hand, take a game like Super Mario 64 DS. Since the game only features three playable characters; Wario, Mario, and Luigi, it falls under inappropriate content #10 because making a table for them would be a waste of space and would be added in a section for characters, where voice actors would also follow the three characters etc. But for Dynasty Warriors, simply putting (in addition to the notability of the characters) the entire series' installments are defined by the stages and the characters. In every game, the big gist is the stages carried over and manipulated and the newly made available characters in the installments. Why? Because the game follows the Three Kingdoms period of Ancient China. It isn't a new story and isn't a work of fiction. Also, the list isn't fancruft.

Please do not take further actions to the page as we discuss here. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 03:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update[edit]

Hey Izno. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata fussing[edit]

Hi, Izno. I spent some time fussing to add the BnF identifier for Jean Giraud (mathematician), then left a plea for the latest person to edit that page. --P64 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Blizzard template[edit]

Hi Izno,

I noticed your revert on {{Blizzard Entertainment}}. I was actually wondering myself why the franchises weren't listed in full, but after searching through the history section, I saw that the decision was made over five years ago. May I suggest a new discussion about incorporating the rest of Blizzard's games? --Soetermans. T / C 18:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Soetermans: Well, the reason I remember that that decision was made is that I've been here that long... awkward (for me). I wouldn't stop you from beginning a new discussion, but I'm not sure I would support your version. The current solution seems completely appropriate to me. --Izno (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Two days short of two months of replying! :D It's okay though, I realised if nobody else in that same period ever thought of putting everything into one template it'll probably won't make it through a discussion. --Soetermans. T / C 09:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@Soetermans: Well, obviously, look at the previous revision to yours; it was that way at one point. The reason it was changed was that it was causing duplication in navbox templates, as there are Warcraft and StarCraft specific templates (and a Diablo template?) that covered the navigation to an appropriate degree on all of the pages that would be added to the Blizzard Entertainment template…. That no-one has changed it back since (without checking the BE template history) may be a result of people (like me) preserving the previous consensus…. --Izno (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Parkour re-revert[edit]

Replied to you at Talk:Parkour#Izno film re-revert. ··gracefool 23:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of text from Vulcan (Star Trek)[edit]

I reverted your edit to Vulcan (Star Trek). I assume you mean this was taken from If so, it's not a copyvio, since all the text there is CC-BY-NC. There may be legitimate reasons to want to delete that text from the article, but it's not a copyvio. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Actually, CC by NC is a copyvio when we're working on CC by SA as a first point (the NC means the text is not permitted to be copied freely as that restricts downstream users to non-commercial uses). As a second point, both licenses require attribution, which was not provided (in the history summary or otherwise). So no, actually, due to both points (both are both necessary and sufficient) it would be a copyvio.

Of course, that's beside the point. There are better reasons, mostly that the text is not in keeping with our guidelines on writing about fiction. Please revert your reversion. --Izno (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, please do not use rollback except in cases of obvious vandalism. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough (on all counts). Thanks for the correction. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG The Template Barnstar
Thank you for all your help at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent. I hereby award you this template barnstar as surely it was a great team effort. I will be sure to swing by if ever I have any coding questions. Mkdwtalk 06:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Common Core article -- thanks[edit]

Hi Izno. Thanks for fixing up the table in the Common Core article. Much better now. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


So why did you just remove a whole bunch of content only because it was inside brackets? ViperSnake151  Talk  05:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Twitch Plays Pokémon#Parentheticals. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

your Assassin's creed Navbox edit[edit]

You have mis-applied for non-bidirectional link in your edit.

The page reads: Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional.

It just means that every article that has a particular navbox should have a link in that navbox to that article, not the other way around. It does not mean that every article that a navbox links to should have that navbox in the article. (e.g. see: Template:Health in the People's Republic of China)

SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@SYSS Mouse: I have no idea what edit you're talking about. That aside, you may wish to review the discussion on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and_navigation templates#Bidirectional navboxes?. Your interpretation does not seem to be the consensus interpretation, so perhaps the text needs amendment. --Izno (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


Just checking; in your edit here, did you really mean WP:C (Wikipedia:Copyrights), or did you intend maybe WP:CON (Wikipedia:Consensus)? TJRC (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@TJRC: Yes, I meant Consensus. --Izno (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification[edit]

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives thanks. Kraxler (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Super Smash Brothers hatnote[edit]

I saw your revert of the hatnote addition for Splash Brothers. While your edit summary mentioned "I don't see that as a likely typo", it's not a typo as much as a mixup of terms. If we Google search for images of "Super Splash Brothers", it shows that there is a large number based on a Super Smash Brothers theme for the basketball duo. My rationale for the hatnote is that there might be some non-basketball fans who remember the basketball tandem by the Super Smash Brothers-like theme, but don't remember that they are really called the "Smash Brothers". Thanks for the consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Instinct says that they're still unlikely to go to the article on Smash Bros. if they know that what they're looking for is Splash Bros. Additionally, that seems to be an images-only thing. Using the web search yields drastically different results. --Izno (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I was implying that a reader might want Spalsh Bros, but they vaguely remember it as Smash Bros because of the Mario theme. It was an attempt to lead a few anticipated lost readers that might make this mistake. At any rate, if you maintain it is too obtrusive, it's not the end of the world. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I probably wouldn't revert if it you readded it if you really think it's going to cause a problem for confused readers (again, I'm skeptical). I'm not sure why you thought I suggested it was obtrusive. --Izno (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


I learned a quick new way to talkback with people (ping) from you & wanted to express my joy! Thank you! Look forward to working with you more. :) IamM1rv (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

hi, i think the changes/additions are useful. If the form of the links is inappropriate please edit/change them that they show up in external or references (?). thanks and best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyk1ng (talkcontribs) 14:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Warcraft Universe[edit]

You are making point that you do not give consensus but have been making changes without watching talk pages or answering pings. The other gentleman and I have not agreed to all of your transfers in the merge proposal - but they can stand if we organize it better. I have several points to discuss, but they belong on the talk page - instead of a 3 way conversation on 3 different talk pages. IamM1rv (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@IamM1rv: "they belong on the talk page" - I agree with this.

"The other gentleman [... has] not agreed to all of your transfers in the merge proposal" - Flatly disagree with your opinion of what the other gentleman has or has not agreed to. You are the only one who has had a problem with those links in particular. If we're going to merge the templates, then we're going to merge the entire content of one template to the other where the one template has more/different information contained therein. That's how a merge works. If we want to move forward from a merge, then that should come as a separate discussion (already partially begun at Template talk:World of Warcraft).

I won't be answering anything else for the next couple of hours since I have work to do. --Izno (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Roger on that ... will drop more notes on the talk pages. My work sleep schedule is offset 8 hours from you, so I won't be active for 16 more hours. The other guy had previously put on original talk page to me (before we knew you were active still with 4 days since I messaged you) that he transferred all the links he agreed to merge & to delete "World of Warcraft" template. Maybe he just forgot them, not looked like implicitly saying they were not important enough. IamM1rv (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I transferred the links I was aware of at the time. It was not an endorsement of any links otherwise missing, as I did not do an exhaustive check for others. Let's continue any further discussion on this topic at Template_talk:Warcraft universe#Category for 3rd party. -- ferret (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

2012 Virginia Beach F/A-18 crash[edit]

Hi and thanks very much for fixing this. Samf4u (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks on category for wow2! IamM1rv (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia[edit]

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)