User talk:Pepve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If I left a message on your talk page, I will be watching it for at least a few days after the last unanswered comment. So please respond on your own talk page, I like to keep discussions centralised. The other way around, if you leave a message here, I expect you to watch my talk page for some time. I will respond right here.

...and don't forget wikilove. :-)

Re: Thanks for correcting my spaced em-dashes[edit]

I guess I'd either make an extra edit (for example to remove the extra line break after the pre-formatted section) or leave a note on the template's talk page. --PEJL 21:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I went with the extra edit, seems more sensible since the edit summary is where the omission was. Thanks for the advice, I wasn't sure if the extra edit would be very well received. -- Pepve 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Watching pages[edit]

Oh yeah. I haven't really paid any attention to the watchlist thing, nor haven't I used it much. Maybe I should use it more. Thanks! MITB LS 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Flyleaf article[edit]

Check the article and the new section I created. I wanted you to see it first, since you seem to be the most sensible about it, but I cannot guarantee someone else has seen it first.  :) I will admit I was getting fanatical, and then I realized a compromise was what we needed. Thanks for the kind words and the criticism. I needed it. Jparenti 06:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: River[edit]

I do not understand your objection regarding the Iavardi River. This entry is part of the Wikiproject Rivers and meets the criteria indicated by the project. There are thousands of rivers which have similar entries, and I can find no reason for selecting the Iavardi for your objection. What you should do is specify the criteria you object to and submit them to the discussion of the Rivers team. I also don't understand what Basescu has to do with wikipedia. Afil 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on Talk:Iavardi River, shall we continue there? (As this has nothing to do with you and me, but everything with that article.) The mention of Băsescu was jokingly, I hope you're not offended. -- Pepve 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have responded in the discussion page too. The issue has nothing to do with the Iavardi River. If anything, it has to do with the Wikiproject Rivers. The issue of notability has been raised and has been discussed in the project page. It cannot and should not be raised for every river in part. The team has decided that we do not require notability criteria for rivers; this was done over a year ago. I cannot understand why you raise the question for the Iavardi river and not for all other rivers which have exactly the same problem. Of course I am offended. I am working on the project for several months, and have contributed with thousands of articles on which I am still completing the information. Everything has been done in accordance with the rules fixed by the project, before I joined the project. Nobody of the project team has objected to this until now. After several months of work, you suddenly show up and have a different oppinion, which you are entitled to. But instead of discussing the change of the project rules on the project page, you make the matter personal. Therefore I strongly object and single out a single article. This is not a correct way of dealing with the matter. Afil 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I get that I have offended you by proposing Iavardi River for deletion. I'm sorry for that (the offending, not the proposing). However, I do not see how I made this matter personal, my objections are to the article, not to you. The rest of your comment seems to be about the article, and I will respond to it on its talk page. -- Pepve 23:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark[edit]

This is just a mark, for historical purposes, to note that I added the top notice about watching talk pages at this point in time. -- Pepve 22:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

notability of cities and towns[edit]

By repeated decisions at AfD, all inhabited places are notable, cities towns and villages. Established WP policy for years, still consistently supported without any exception at all. applies to almost all geographical features as well. See WP:COMMON and WP:N. If anyone would like to change the policy, they are free to try, but my advice is that success is extremely unlikely. the best place would be WP:VP. DGG (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see all these minor articles on roads, streams and tiny villages disappear, but I understand that is unlikely to happen. So I won't push this too much. Also, I've just for the first time glanced over WP:OUTCOMES, and while it didn't exactly overjoyed me, it convinced me that I can not win all my battles. (On a different note, I think WP:OUTCOMES should be more prominently refered to from WP:N, I might bring it up.) All that leaves me with not much, but to criticize your argument itself. Which may offend you, or lead to a fruitful discussion. If the former applies, please accept my apologies.
First of all, 'established WP policy for years' means nothing more than 'current WP policy.' The fact that something is the accepted method for quite some time does not give it more weight, that is a fallacy. A policy is backed up by arguments and consensus, not by history. (This dynamic is what makes Wikipedia thrive, and it is the same thing that brought science to where it is right now.) To include a hidden claim (hidden, because you do not state it as a claim, but as a fact) like this weakens your argument. In my humble opinion.
Secondly, you seem to refer to WP:COMMON a lot. Why? Can it not be common sense that I deduce non-notability of some inhabited place from WP:N?
Pepve 12:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not make policy--the community does. I give you my interpretation of it in as best I can. You may take my advice or leave it alone. The reason OUTCOMES isnt emphasized is because its just a convenient summary of what usually happens at AfD, and it's what happens at AfD that matters, whether or not I agree with it. Personally, I thought this particular practice about villages absurd when I first came here, but I've come to realize that keep the arguments about each individual place from bothering AfD is worth it. . DGG (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think... :-) -- Pepve 18:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Iavardi[edit]

Dear Sir, your suggestion is contary to wikipedia policy. This has been discussed and the decision of the administrators has been the following:

speedy declined by reviewing admin.

By repeated decisions at AfD, all rivers and similar places are notable, including cities towns and villages. Established WP policy for years, still consistently supported without exception. See WP:COMMON. If anyone would like to change the policy, feel free to try, but my advice is that success is extremely unlikely. I urge the WikiProject to endorse it. Feel free to remove andy speedy and prod tags placed on such articles. (except if they should happen to be copyright violations) As the reviewing admin, I've decline the speedies i saw--if any others need to be undeleted, please let me know. DGG (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DGG that they should not be deleted. Of course, it would be better if each article had a little more information. Rmhermen 01:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what your reasons are for insisting on the deletion contrary to this policy which has been established for years. I would appreciate if you would not repeat noting such articles for speedy deletion.Afil 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply more in-depth later, for now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iavardi River. -- Pepve 23:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay. But I think the whole issue has been cleared up by now. To summarize: I did not act against Wikipedia policy (see WP:DELETE), the tag that was placed on the article was not a speedy, it was an AfD nomination. And you shouldn't have removed it, but you know that now. I'm glad we've both learnt something, happy editing. -- Pepve 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Shoegazing[edit]

That wasn't vandalism, but it was deliberate.

The shoegazing article should be in the category 'shoegazing' not 'shoegazing musical groups'.

The shoegazing category is already in the other 2 categories so nothing has been lost by deleting them (from the article). Dyaimz (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, I did not accuse you of vandalism. I became suspicious of your edit when I saw that no edit summary was provided. In these cases I always check what the edit was, and your edit did not seem very good superficially. So I reverted, noting my suspicion in the edit summary. It may have been a bad revert, but well, errare humanum est. And indeed, when I looked at your edit better (after you rightfully reverted my revert) and checked the category pages, I found out that I was wrong. So: thank you for watching and correcting me. And please, next time provide an edit summary. Enjoy. -- Pepve 01:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bigglesworth winks at you[edit]

Mr Bigglesworth winks at you for pointing that out. You don't want to get on the wrong side of Bigglesworth as he may scram your face leaving you with an unsightly frickin scar. There is of course always a chance he may frighten you and force you to fall into the fish tank with the deadly piranha. Aaargg! However he is smiling happily away on my lap. Thanks popeye - he always liked sailors (dirty beggars, popping in and out of each port

Gracias amigo -it was a prototype template -an experiment ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 22:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gurness[edit]

Thanks for your interest in this page. The archaeological literature typically uses "Gurness", but the terms are certainly interchangable. I would favour leaving the name as it is. Hadrianheugh (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability for 388 Greenwich Street[edit]

Hi there, you placed a notability tag on the article I just created. Well I just finished adding some references and additional info. Could you review and remove notablity tag if you feel that I've established notability. Otherwise, please let me know if you think this article is still lacking. Thanks. Wikipedia brown (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I removed the tag, the notability requirement seems to be met. I also fixed a double redirect you accidentally created somewhere down the line. Have a nice day. -- Pepve (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: L'aeiou a.k.a. The Vowels[edit]

No problem at all. I'm actually glad you pointed out the wording is importance and not notable. Even though I've been around since 2004, I only recently started helping out with recent change and new page patrolling and I really hadn't noticed the wording was importance. I hope I didn't come off as mad at you on the AfD nomination; just pointing out that, while they assert that's the importance of the band, 200 EPs certainly doesn't make them notable. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to be of help. I didn't interpret you as mad, that's fine. And indeed, they aren't notable. Happy patrolling. -- Pepve (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Colin Hay image[edit]

You know, I tend to agree with you on the CD cover art image, but if we're going to remove an image, for the sake of the article that we're trying to improve, we need to find another one to replace it with, don't you think? Edit Centric (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Very much indeed. But I have no idea where to look for a usable image, any tips? -- Pepve (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Montezuma's Revenge (music)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Montezuma's Revenge (music), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montezuma's Revenge (music). Thank you. Drewcifer (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. -- Pepve (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

stub on The Plague (song)[edit]

Hello Pepve,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! PamD (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. But the thing is, I really dislike stub sorting. So I approach that issue lazily, and just use the generic version. An luckily there's loads of other stuff I do like, but others don't. Happy editing. -- Pepve (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Science WikiProject[edit]

Based on the your userpage, you might be interested in joining the History of Science WikiProject (which also covers philosophy of science and STS). You can browse the lastest project newsletter to see what some other editors have been doing lately with the histories of science, medicine and technology. Cheers--ragesoss (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Music samples[edit]

Hi. I noticed you've participated in discussions at the music samples guideline's talk page, and I was wondering if you'd like to weigh in on my proposal regarding sample lengths. Thanks. Timmeh 01:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Cassie (song) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cassie (song) 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/Cassie (song) 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. Beerest355 Talk 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)