User talk:Knowledgekid87

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
My stress level

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

For asking about my identity. I appreciate it more than you may realize, so here's a kitten.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel strongly that the name Juno should be in the first line of the Blizzard of January 2015 article?[edit]

I put a note in talk Talk:January_2015_North_American_blizzard#The_use_of_the_TWC_name_in_the_first_line_is_an_endorsement_of_TWC. You seem interested in this, so, I'd love to hear your opinion. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chi (Chobits)[edit]

The article Chi (Chobits) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Chi (Chobits) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on your hard work! :) -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks =) Thank you for your help as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Hi KK, I think it would help if you were to stop posting about RO and the SPI. You were the top poster to the SPI page, plus all your posts about it elsewhere. All it serves to do is increase the heat. If you'd like things to calm down, the best way is to lead by example. Cheers, Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I would love for the issue to end but of course you know Wikipedia as much as I do that it just doesn't happen. [1][2]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
One voice fewer would help at this point. I'll try to take my own advice and leave it there. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you too, I will just let it drop, I have been trying to help RO out though as she has been through a-lot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
KK87, I appreciate that you were there to defend me while so many others were attacking. SV says that more voices to the discussion is bad, but she pinged an editor who called me a cunt and another who harassed me all over Wikipedia for 6 weeks that I agreed to an IB with. Thanks for being there, if not for you and Viriditas, I would have had little support. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to put blame on SV here as maybe she didn't know about the cunt thing (I hope not). I feel it is best going forward is to put this SPI behind us and either voluntary staying away from each other for like a week, or through WP:AN seek an IB between you and Victoria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
KK87, SV linked to this thread at SPI, which clearly states that the editor she pinged had called an admin a cunt, and later clarified that they were referring to me, as they edit warred to keep the slur at talk. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Id like to WP:AGF but SV if you are watching I don't see how it was helpful to ping someone who has had a bad past with RO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
She pinged an editor who had been indeffed for harassing me to pile it on; it was no accident. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Right now I think you should try to go back to normal editing, this isn't right I know but here on Wikipedia things like these build up over time. Going to WP:ANI about it for example is just going to cause other editors to rehash the SPI case all over again and it will be a mess. Hopefully it ends here, if not then the small things will sadly add up into a case that would be in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

I like your controbutions to Wikipedia, and are happy that you like manga if you can I would like one of your Manga drawings.

Glistensnow (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks =) I haven't drawn in awhile but can show you what I have done via youtube. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much[edit]

Thank you, Knowledgekid87, for your kind comments at [3] about my quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia to improve articles related to freedom of speech and censorship to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA. Please also note that the article includes commentary from secondary sources written by women, including: Carly Milne, Regina Lynn, Annalee Newitz of AlterNet, author Violet Blue, author Audacia Ray, Bonnie Ruberg of The Village Voice, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Jessica Roy of The New York Observer, author Sarah Schaschek -- indeed, the majority of the secondary-source-commentary in the article itself is cited to female authors. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of Speech[edit]

Next project?[edit]

So, do you have an anime and manga project in mind? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The only other one I was thinking of improving was Missions of Love for right now, other than that in the short term have been working on general cleanup issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want my help, just ask! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks =) I am going to take a break online for a bit (Like an hour) but will be back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Jigen[edit]

This is a case of a bad article rather than a non notable subject. i am restoring the article in order to work on it, my user space is already full of WIP Lupin stuff so I will do it live. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@SephyTheThird: if you know the series then yes by all means fix the article up. Right now though it is all in universe info that if trimmed down would fit nicely into the list of characters article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The character articles all suffer from the same issues but they were low priority compared to the job of the wider franchise (which is never ending work). However I have a pretty good idea of what is missing, needs removing or sourcing it's just a case of time. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Well for Chi (Chobits) for example which I worked on to GA status I found that linking to episodes count as a plus. The biggest thing you need to find are real world information the more the better best of luck. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Sorry if I sounded rough at List of anime by release date (pre-1939)'s afd. I see you worked on the others. I been focusing on American short films for awhile since I has better access to the original documents. You are trying to improve Wikipedia - and I need to sometimes take a step back from the actual bad-faith person I sometimes have to deal with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Its okay, no worries, Im not making any promises to edits right away as im going through the cleanup list ATM but will put the list on my watchlist to look at and improve upon at a later time =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I have some 1030 articles that need to be created and about 100 more that need to be pushed to GA status. The project - unlike A&M - is not controversial and coverage of the content is abysmal. A&M is probably something I shouldn't edit too much because you know how I tend to swoop in, drop a bunch of content, and move to the next article. I can do that without ruffling anyone's feathers in the boonies that is American silent films. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on the BLP sourcing[edit]

I'm going with your idea of tagging Expand Japanese on the articles that are built up for the BLP stubs. That should remove the tags for BLP sources until that exercise has been done and will bring over a decent bio which can then be referenced. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Okay sounds good! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Tvx11[edit]

Hi Knowledgekid87,

I noticed that you shut down the Tvx11 imitation account the other day. I have found another one whom I believe to be the same editor, as his user talk page was created with the description "for fun" before he blanked it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADarrandarra&diff=650895838&oldid=650895532

I am on the lookout for others. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Sorry but im no admin, the person you are looking for is User:JodyB. I merely suggested that this could be something of a bigger thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hit o Nerae[edit]

This appears to be one of those times where several individual works are actually part of an anthology series. You may want to consider adding/merging The Cosmopolitan Prayers and Love Love?, they are all listed together in Anime Encyclopedia. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Out of the three Love Love? has the most potential of being notable. I will prob add/merge The Cosmopolitan Prayers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

PROD of List of Ojarumaru episodes (series 18)[edit]

Just to let you know, I have removed the PROD template from the above article. The PROD was due to expire on March 22, which is 10 days before the new series started. There are separate list articles for series 1-4, 6, 16 and 17, so it would seem likely that the article for series 18 would be recreated next month anyway.
I have also raised a separate issue on the talk page of the main article, Talk:Prince Mackaroo. Your user page suggests you are an anime person, so you may be able to contribute an opinion there. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

there should never be a need to create a episode list before something has even aired, regardless of how long the series is or how many other articles there are. Episodes should be listed on the main list until a reasonable number have aired, when they can be moved onto an article (assuming they have summaries, otherwise no reason for a separate article at all).SephyTheThird (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, @Athomeinkobe: can you show how the new episodes are notable or have had an impact? A mention of the episodes in prose on the main article should be fine until notability is established for a split off list. I feel like bringing this to AfD as we cant and don't have lists of everything just because they may or do exist. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I replied to your other message on the article's talk page. I now see that you are proposing that the lists be removed in their entirety. In that case, I suggest you take it up with the author of the lists. I am not an anime person myself, so I am not particularly interested in investing any time in sourcing the notability of individual episodes or series. However, looking at this list, the show seems to be in fairly esteemed company. Sources to satisfy notability require are bound to exist in Japanese, if not English. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to keep bothering you, but I see you've listed List of Chibi Maruko-chan episodes at the page Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I am now having second thoughts and tend to agree with you that there is not much that establishes these long lists of episodes as being notable. On the other hand, most TV shows tend to automatically have a list of episodes, don't they? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Athomeinkobe: Its okay you aren't a bother, I just haven't the time to take a good look here, as you said there are tons of lists and articles that really need help. If you want I can point you to some lists that are in better shape than the ones for Ojarumaru that have outside coverage in the form of a better lead/reception section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User blanking section I just wrote[edit]

An anonymous user has just blanked a reception section I wrote for Gundam Reconguista in G. I believe he did so because he was a fan of the show and did not want any negative reception to be noted. I provided several sources and backed up my claims. 72.238.104.64 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Note2[edit]

It never ceases to amaze me, in my years here, to see when socks seem to think they're the first ones to try that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Same here, you would also that even if they do say such and such they expect it to actually work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Request[edit]

You've made quite a few comments about me that are either filled with innuendo or are simply not nice. It's not conducive to a collegial and collaborative editing environment. I'm asking you to stop. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Asking you to provide concrete evidence for ILT isn't asking much, you are suggesting that the community supports sock puppets "It's sad that "the community" would rather support a person who to date has created over 108 confirmed accounts and perhaps hundreds of articles that need to be scrubbed." I do not see that as collaborative editing either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Eureka Seven characters[edit]

Hi. A couple weeks ago Eureka (Eureka Seven) was placed for AfD along with mentions of Dominic Sorel and Anemone (Eureka Seven). Since the relevant discussion has now closed, I was wondering what should become of these remaining articles since the AfD tag remains on them. Based on the mentions by the nominator and the closing admin's decision I say we merge them. Thoughts? —KirtMessage 14:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged, the reception of the characters will really benefit the characters list with the out of universe info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. There wasn't much reception. —KirtMessage 16:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the series articles are pretty much cleaned up now. I was thinking of further merging the AO characters to the main ES character list but I'm not going to force a merger or anything. The last thing that concerns me is the existence of the mecha article. —KirtMessage 12:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it would be best if it could be merged into the plot and explained there in like a paragraph not a full article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You said that you can help me with the steps you placed on admin notice board[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchback_(Celldweller_song) I know about this subject area. Is a source form the original artist's website, or a documentary of creating the song a good reference?Doorknob747 (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Scratch that im now looking to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Levante I only want to learn how to format ref area so bullet points do not go on pic.Doorknob747 (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you also tell me how I did by putting the wikiproject automobile stubclass article box. Doorknob747 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) @Doorknob747: The types of reliable sources are outlined here. BTW, the cheat code for the image question is to put the bullet points above or below the image, or put the image on the right side of the page. That is currently a glitch. Epic Genius (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Epic Genius: I fixed it. Doorknob747 (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Doorknob747: I will be happy to answer any questions by Monday. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Robotech[edit]

I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotech Armed Forces received a non admin closure as no consensus despite it being 2 deletes+nom vs 1 keep and the arguments presented. What are your thoughts? SephyTheThird (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@SephyTheThird: I feel like it was speedily closed and would take it to WP:DRV. My thoughts were going there but then its another thing to do, and I have been trying to condense the character list as it is. If you want to take it to DRV I would support an overturn. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
another editor took the issue up with the closer who has now added his own comments.SephyTheThird (talk)<
Yes I see that and thanks for mentioning something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion[edit]

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Slow down and stop[edit]

Whoa, could you slow down and stop steamrolling with 2015 Baltimore riots? You're acting against consensus on the talk page, where the people who want a split are in the minority. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point I would send the proposed article to AfD, there is a split here and I feel other editors should weigh in. Adding an info-box is not much of a streamroll. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI which you've probably already seen[edit]

Hello K. I suspect in dealing with this "dodo sock" you probably saw this User talk:Doorknob747/database/doc4. I thought about putting a speedy tag on it but, since the pest put it in your name, I thought I'd let you do the honors. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I was going to but why isn't it under Ghost's namespace? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Door's ghost created it in Doorknob747's space. I've already tagged it with a g5 speedy delete. BMK (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks, it confused me here is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that BMK. K when trolls like this one pop up that is one of the ways that they will mess with editors that they don't like. I am sorry that you both have had to put up with this nonsense. Hopefully everyone can get back to normal editing - whatever that is. HeeHee. MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries...[edit]

...I know about it. I'm monitoring it, but don't plan to participate, since every one of the complainants (except for one, who I'm not sure about) is holding a grudge against me because of previous disputes. The lastest one's cause for grudgery can be seen directly up the page on AN/I, where I (and other editors) recommended he be blocked for blatant violations of his interaction ban. In short, so far, there's no meat in these complaints, just the airing out of past grudges. BMK (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, best of luck and happy editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Arb[edit]

RE: [4] at Arb. Just FYI, a clerk will remove your statement pretty soon; now that the case has been opened, they don't allow that page to be edited except by arbitrators/clerks. As for why take it to Arbcom rather than indef block Lightbreather? Because if I issued an indef-blocked, you and others would yell that I was too involved and there'd be a big ANI brouhaha. The wiser alternative then, is to allow the arbitrators to determine whether or not an indef block is necessary or whether other sanctions might be more appropriate (or whether no sanctions are appropriate at all). The bigger underlying question is whether the community has handled this appropriately - is it okay to just keep handing out interaction bans when two people aren't getting along, or is there a limit at which we say, hmmmm, maybe that isn't the best way of moving forward. The case evidence and workshop pages are open, if you have anything you'd like to add. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Karanacs: Yeah except now it is going to be an arbcom brouhaha. Karanacs you are a good admin but the fact is that you have interacted with LB, so you aren't and cant claim to be totally uninvolved here. Why not get someone like User:Alison's opinion for example? She doesn't know LB much less interact with her but I respect her opinions as well as yours if you were uninvolved in a case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Opening an Arbcom case has nothing to do with being an admin, so me being "involved" or not has zero relevance. It's an action any user can take. To get an uninvolved opinion, I could go to ANI, I could go to AN, I could go to an individual admin or editor...or I could take it to Arbcom. I chose to do the latter because Arbcom is the only one of those options which I thought would give Lightbreather a fair hearing rather than a series of rants. Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough but admin or not I feel you are involved which could play a factor in judgement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Which is the whole point of taking it to Arbcom, where I can present evidence, and LB can present evidence, and other people can present evidence, and the Arbs can sift through it and issue their uninvolved opinions. Pretty much every single Arbcom case is brought by someone who is involved with a dispute. A lot of the requests don't make it to full cases because the Arbs don't see enough evidence to warrant their looking at it. This one did. Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request[edit]

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

SugoiCon[edit]

Should SugoiCon con be restored to the active list then? Those dates on the official site mentioning Go!Daikocon are from 2014, and while we do not use Facebook groups as sources, there seems to be no signs of this convention returning aside from older "Well be back" posts. I personally feel that it could be moved to the defunct list and moved back later with no serious issues I.E. Anime South. Esw01407 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Esw01407: I wouldn't object if it were like July now. Seeing though that the convention is typically held at the end of the year I kept that in mind. if you want to put it as defunct you can I guess, but no announcement has been made anywhere and the website is still up and running. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm more then willing to compromise and re-add it to the active lists and check back later. Plus judging by the current trend, might be removing lots of conventions on the list in 2016, 2015 has been a rough year for cancellations. Esw01407 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay sure, for me I wouldn't mark it as defunct unless some kind of a credible announcement is made someplace or the website goes to the far off world of 404. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Article rename[edit]

Do you think we should rename it to something more standard, so that we state where it occurred, as that is apparently standard procedure for these sorts of things, and that is why I had it at that place before I got the CSD message from EoRdE6. If so, feel free to move it, as I figured I would leave a message here instead of the talk page, since you might actually see it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered either way, as long as the title isn't too much of a mouthful. BTW, the only reason I CSD'd yours was because it was created some 10 minutes afterwards, not because of its name. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Already taken care of it looks like, im for naming standards though yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I figured as much, but I just found it odd since I would have redirected it. Either way, it works now, so thanks for the hard work! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Welcome =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Futanari[edit]

Listen, I know that you don't want drive-bys, but I started editing and flagged the page and your reply was to remove my flags and tell me to go to the talk page. I already had, and your reply there was, "Six books are cited here, if you wish to expand upon the article to include "Western fetishisation of futanari" feel free to do so." C'mon, this is hardly good faith. I did go to the talk page and I am engaging there. Also, as I said there, the cites are dubious in many cases and outdated. Ogress smash! 02:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right and I apologize. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:A Letter to Momo#Good article push[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:A Letter to Momo#Good article push. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
From one otaku to another. (´・ω・`) Sigehelmus (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Eureka Seven again[edit]

Just a heads up. An obvious ES fan seems to have the intention to recreate the character pages that were up at AfD a few weeks ago. Here, here, here and here. —KirtMessage 10:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be a clear case of archiving the pages in case they come across more reception. I don't see any reason to be concerned or assume they are actually planning to recreate as they are.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Better to keep an eye on them as they were at AfD quite recently. It would be problematic if the user decided to recreate them for the sake of opposing the merger consensus. —KirtMessage 14:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@KirtZJ: I will keep an eye out, if they are recreated they could possibly fall under CSD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)