User talk:Retartist

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

Talk Page

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Retartist! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I always thought[edit]

that the whole point of philosophical quotes was to be vague? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: News and More[edit]

Hello Retartist. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of News and More, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Radio stations are generally considered notable, even without references. Thank you. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 11:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined speedy[edit]

Hey, I declined the speedy on Destry (band) because there was *just* enough notability asserted by way of the album and the band members. I can't honestly guarantee it'd pass WP:BAND if it went to AfD, but there was just enough notability asserted to where it'd pass speedy. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion G5[edit]

I have just declined three speedy deletion nominations you have made under criterion G5 (creations by banned or blocked users). In none of the three cases could i find any evidence at all that the user was evading a block at the time when they created the page in question, and a page is not deleted because the person who created it later became blocked. If you know that a user was, in fact, evading a block, but that fact is not likely to be obvious to an administrator reviewing the speedy deletion nomination, then you should give an indication of where that evidence is. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The user in question came to my attention when i was browsing Special:NewPagesFeed and filtered new pages created by blocked users, all the pages were created after the user was blocked. Retartist (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Update, he was blocked on November 2 and he created the page(s) on November 3 Retartist (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, a page can't be created by a blocked account, and it needs to be a different account of the same user. If you know what other account of the same user had already been blocked before the page was created, then you need to indicate what account that was, as without that information no administrator has any of verifying that the page was created by a blocked user. Usually in such cases the block log for the sockpuppet account says what earlier account it is a sockpuppet of, but in the case of Mike78040 the block log entry just gives the reason as "Copyright violations", with no mention of any previous account.
As for the dates of creations of pages, as you can see here, Limperich (SWB) was created at 21:02, 1 November 2013, not 3 November. (If you have your Wikipedia preferences set to show your local time, rather than GMT, you may see a different time than the one I have quoted, but it can't be more than 12 hours different, so, depending on what time zone you are in, it could show as 2 November, but not 3 November.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sphe07 created Eliakim Khumalo on 30 October, even further away from the 3 November that you quote as the creation date of all the articles in question: [1]. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it was my mistake. Will check before tagging. Retartist (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your G5 tags were mentioned in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikigabriel11. In case you have anything further to say, please comment there. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Shibe Inu Doge meme.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Shibe Inu Doge meme.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Labradoodle and siberian husky cross border collie puppy.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Labradoodle and siberian husky cross border collie puppy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


I removed the nonfree image in User:Retartist/Userboxes/Doge per the NFCC criteria 9, Restrictions on location. If you have any questions, please let me know. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I have removed the image from the 'Dogepedia award' you placed on Cmcnamee's talk page per the same criteria given here already. Please do not keep using non free images. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Doge (meme)[edit]

A file uploaded by you is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 27#Doge (meme). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

CSD contested[edit]

Hi there, I have removed your {{db-nocontext}} on Mi esqueleto, as it has enough context to identify what it is about. Feel free to Propose deletion or take to AfD if you disagree. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 11:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mecaplast Group[edit]

Hi, I would like to find out why you have tagged my article for speedy deletion. Thank you for our response.(Albert av (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC))

Image Studio Lite Submission Declined[edit]


Thank you for reviewing the Image Studio Lite article. The Articles for Creation are very backlogged, and I appreciate your time.

However, could you please be more specific about what parts of the article your think are not objective (maybe compare this to similar articles like Image J)? Would it help if removed the line about “A full version of Image Studio ….” from the intro and boiled the Features section down to a summary?

Thank again,

Sam at LI-COR (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

To Clarify I meant that the page read as if it was a page on the producers website listing the products features to a potential user like: Photoshop Features. The point was that I felt that the article was too much like the tutorial guide source and had not enough on its actual use towards Western blot images. So if you were to add more on its use and added more third party sources it may pass. Retartist (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I see, thank you for clarifying. You don’t perceive that the article is written in a promotional tone, but you think that 1) the article’s emphasis on features makes it seem promotional and 2) it also requires more external validation. Those are interesting points. I think a different perspective may address your concern #1, but concern #2 is something I would like to ask you about.
To the first point: as you mentioned in your comment on the article page, the software has an input (this input is images) and an output (the output is data that correlates optical density of spots on an image with biomolecule abundance in a sample). The input image types are explained, the method of obtaining data (quantitation & background subtraction) is explained, and the outputs (export) are explained. My opinion is that this article addresses the workings of IS for a scientist interested in reading about image processing software, even if the content is arranged around features. Let me know if that makes sense.
POINT 2: is the tricky one. The Ultimate Source for information about IS is the user guide; other sources are secondary. My hope was to provide sources such as Luke Miller’s blog and the How to WESTERN-BLOT to provide other tutorials that substantiate my explanation of IS lite. The “Further reading” and ”External links” provide notability. However, this format of providing references makes it impossible to inline references, which I think is what you want. How would you have me address this quandary?
Thanks again for your time. You are helping me make this article a valuable addition to the Wiki knowledge base. Sam at LI-COR (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please check Autodesk_Maya for an example on a C-class software article as an example. It contains an explanation on its uses. Retartist (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  • After reviewing the Maya page, it occurs to me that their Components listed in the Overview section look very similar to the IS article. Are you recommending that I dismember the "Features section" entirely or would adding some kind of overview section (similar to how the Maya page is set up) explaining a basic workflow make this page seem less commercial to you? Please keep in mind that Maya and IS Lite are very, very different. Maya is a huge, complicated, expensive software, and IS Lite is small, free, and basic.
This is a very simple article. My hope is that scientists in the field will add any additions they deem necessary once the article is published.
PS: What do you think about the sources? How should I address the quandary in my previous post?
Thanks - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I Recommend that you add an overview section explaining the workflow and what Western Blot imagery is. I just think that having an article with a features section and little or no overview is not enough. Concerning the sources I recommend that you use some of the further reading or external links as sources. AS LONG AS: they refer to the software, they are preferably third party and generally WP:RS. Inline citations are hard maybe refer to: WP:REF? If you can't inline cite the sources you can still have them in a bibliography section. Hope you can improve the article.- Retartist (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I’m glad you were able to stay with me through this back and forth. This article is important information that should be included in Wikipedia, so I’m happy to have an editor paying attention to it.
After this talk, I have a grasp on what needs to be done. I will work on the edits we talked about and get back to you on your talk page when I’m ready to resubmit.
BTW, I noticed that neuroscience and graduate studies are in your plans for the future. I'd be remiss not to point out what a small world it would be if you ended up using IS someday (or ImageJ) - let me know if that happens, I'll be here awhile…
Best on your exams. Thanks for helping and I'll talk with you soon - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad to be of help. Looking forward to the improved version - Retartist (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The edits are up, but I have not resubmitted the document.
Please tell me if this looks like the Overview section you had in mind.
As far as the sources go, there was really only one of the External links (Densitometry Tutorial for Image Studio Lite...) that I could move to the References section (and it should have been there to begin with, it is an introduction to IS Lite and links to a tutorial already included in the References). The other External links are to other WB analysis software or to the IS software page. The Further Reading links just say that they used IS lite to do some analysis; they don't really explain much about the process from the software end. I think the third party references listed provide validity and context for the article (I even saw the Luke Miller blog post cited in a Master's Thesis), and I hope they will be okay without being inline references. There doesn't appear to be a good way to do this.
If you have time, I would greatly appreciate a thumbs-up or thumbs-down review prior to resubmitting the article. Best - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I currently don't have time to do a detailed check. From a brief look; the article needs to have the first paragraph in the overview section moved up to the lead or the whole section reduced little bit and moved up to the lead. Have you read the manual of style? It currently WOULDNT be AF'D if it was a full article but I feel that it needs some stylistic clean up and maybe one more third party reference. I think if you submitted it; it might pass depending on the editor. I want it to pass and be a B-CLASS article. You could ask at the teahouse for any final tweaks but I have made my recommendations. Good Luck - Retartist (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe the division of content between the Lead and the Overview fits Wiki’s Manual of Style, but it may be time to get some more opinions. I’ll be resubmitting soon. Again, thanks for the help! - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL[edit]

Information.svg Please do not call other editors "fools", as you did at User talk:Shyam Sundar Mandal. Insulting other users is discouraging and unnecessary. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juror misconduct, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Influence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your support of the Violence against men category. Just a quick suggestion - it would make your case stronger if your provided a rationale for supporting the category. Thanks!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)