User talk:Strikerforce

float

Friendly messages are much appreciated! Please add new conversations below. Thanks! —Strikerforce

Re: Twinkle

• If you're here to alert me to something that I did incorrectly using Twinkle, feel free to also trout me in good humor! I've only just begun to use it and am bound to make a mistake here and there until I get the hang of it! Strikerforce (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

`

DYK for B96 Pepsi SummerBash

Gatoclass (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

IkoniqueOS

Thanks for the further explanation on IkoniqueOS to this new editor. I noticed you added some supportive text for the prod to the talk page there. Did you want to add a {{Proposed deletion endorsed}} (or {{prod-2}}) to the main page as well? Might make it clearer for the closing admin.--RadioFan (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I may try to tackle it later today or tomorrow to see if I can help out the cause, but my initial Google search didn't look promising. Strikerforce (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiofan RfA

Hi, it may be a leftover in my browser cache but it looks as if you still need to update the time parser function :) --Kudpung (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that, but I'm afraid my attempts to do so are blowing the template out of whack! Would you be willing to assist? This is my first nomination and I don't want to mess anything up. Strikerforce (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry, it looks as if someone has done it. I'll tell you what though if it's any consolation - when I transcluded my own RfA last week, it was one of the hairiest transcludes I ever did :) --Kudpung (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I attempted it, but it appears that I didn't do something correctly, as it is showing up as "Pending closure" in the RfA report template on my user page?? Strikerforce (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA

On my RfA, you stated "Oppose Regrettably so, but I just don't see the need for the candidate to have the tools, given their stated purpose for running". I have to say that I am quite confused by what you say, especially as all three of the areas that I stated that I intend to work in do use admin tools (AIV, RfPP, CSD). Although I currently make reports to those areas, and having been doing so for quite a while, without admin tools, it is the administrators who respond to those reports, and I've frequently noticed backlogs there. Could you please explain what you meant by your statement? --Slon02 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in order to actually delete / protect pages, you'd need the mop, but I have concerns with some of your work in CSD, as referenced by a couple of other editors in the discussion. Strikerforce (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. In that case, I'll direct you to the same CSD log that I showed other editors with the same concerns. Hopefully the 100% accuracy in it will persuade you, but if not, then I'll respect your right to oppose. --Slon02 (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can not support at this time. Your attempt to come here to persuade me to change my mind is rather troubling, in my opinion. I view it as bad taste for a candidate to attempt conversation with a goal of changing the mind of editors who have offered oppose statements to their RfA on pages other than the RfA page itself. Strikerforce (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I do so is because all of these things have already been stated here, and I assumed that it is likely that some editors may have stopped paying attention to the discussion after the first day of their posting. --Slon02 (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have to agree with Strikerforce. My own recent RfA was going very badly at one stage but I would never have considered attempting to sway opinion outside the RfA discussion itself. It does not bode well for discussions such as AfD etc, that you would be involved in as an admin. Kudpung (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Post close

Regarding this, please don;t worry too much about it. I was actually writing a comment without a !vote (but leaning keep) when it was closed. I tend to agree with many of the editors saying keep but it was understandable that you thought there was a chance it was not worthy of an article. Glad you got to say your piece and it sucks that some assumed the worst.Cptnono (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

Excellent work welcoming people! Keep up the good efforts! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Strikerforce (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Strikerforce. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
Message added 16:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, thanks for offering to help the students in my absence. :) I appreciate it. ^Avic_ennasis @ 16:00, 9 Adar II 5771 / 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Baba shukla

Hi! As Baba Shukla, it was deleted 11 Mar 2011. I don't think there's a CSD tag for that, tho. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed that it had been previously deleted, which is why I deleted my original tag and changed rationale. But, you can't use the previously deleted material rationale for something that was speedy'd, which is something that I have trouble remembering until after the fact :) Thanks for the note! Strikerforce (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for telling you stuff yolu already knew. It has always puzzled me why there doesn't seem to be any way of flagging that something has been speedied previously. Want to take it up at the Village Pump? Me neither. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no need to apologize. I didn't intend for it come across as being irritated or anything like that... my apologies if it did. Strikerforce (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. Just part of my inadvertant project to become the first user to be blocked for long-term sickly-sweet, over the top, hyper-civility. I send thank-you's to bots and sockpuppets, even. My full apologies if my comments have caused you any concerns whatsoever. (HMoG, I'm doing it again... ) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

G-WAN

I applaud your self-editing decision to remove the prod on G-WAN. While the snow is gathering on the AFD for the G-WAN (Web server), the article creater is already agitated enough, no need to make it worse. Good call on the sock puppet report as well.--RadioFan (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll see what ends up happening at AfD. It looks like the sock report was declined, though. Strikerforce (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Editor Review

I have done what you said. How am I doing now?--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 00:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You're still heavy in the user talk space with over 60% of your edits thus far this month in that area. You've only made about 200 edits since your RfA, which is not really enough for me to offer a solid opinion. Reach out again when you get in the neighborhood of 2500 or so edits, which would be an additional 700 since your RfA. Strikerforce (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Bugapi

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Bugapi (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi. -- RadioFan (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Have endorsed the statement, as provided. I didn't see anything else for me to add, at this time. Strikerforce (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the quick attention. Hope I got it all, or at least the important points. Not sure what will come from this discussion but at least it gets it all down in one place.--RadioFan (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiselittleowl

I've detagged it because I don't think your reason complies with WP:NOTCSD, Criterion 1. Actually, I'm trying to find out what the heck db-reason IS there for. I think I've only ever got away with a couple of them, and I can't remember why... It only seems to work if you use a valid CSD reason, and there are tags for them already. Anyway, if this user starts holding loving conversations with a beloved, there could be further action available. As it stands, it's just a comment that doesn't even have a suspicion of an attack in it. Or spam. If it were in mainspace, it would go under context. On a userpage, we can't use that. Ah well.... Peridon (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How does the current content not fail Wikipedia is not Facebook? Not trying to argue with you, just curious how you can justify removing the CSD. Strikerforce (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to argue. I'm working from

"The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion.

1. Reasons based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not: "a dictionary", "an indiscriminate collection of information", "a crystal ball", "a how-to list", etc."

And "Simple use as a personal web page is not in itself a speedy deletion criterion, although clear advertising and promotional use is." (From Wikipedia:User_pages#Deleting_others.27_user_pages. I used to enjoy battles with evangelists where I would counter their Bible quotes with my Bible quotes. There's probably scope for a similar game with Wikipedia policies. Your turn.... :) Peridon (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Counterargument, from What Wikipedia is not:

"Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account."

I ask you, good sir, what is the "information relevant..." in "Dylan Campbell is the love of Taylor Payne's life"? If you ask me, the two policies that we are using seem to counteract each other and send us in circles. LOL Strikerforce (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I find the userpages policy confusing - "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia" and "usually one's user page has something about oneself". This is hardly substantial, and presumably the Owl is one or the other of the two lovebirds. Tag it again with 'per discussion on my talk page' in the summary, and see what someone else thinks. Whatever happens, we'll learn something. Previously, I would happily slap tags on to see what happened. Now, I'm having to learn to be more legalistic (without getting hidebound...). Peridon (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I won't tag it again. Big picture, it's not that big of a deal, you know? If I were wagering, I'd bet that the editor is probably young (under 13 or 14, most likely), in love for the first time, and wants the world to know about it. Pretty harmless. We were all that young once, right? I'll probably just leave a gentle note on their talk page about it and call it a night (especially since I'm about to head to a BBQ place to watch my beloved Illinois Fighting Illini play in the NCAA Tournament tonight... hopefully they don't choke, but I'm not holding my breath). Thanks for the discussion! :) Strikerforce (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a good time. Always willing to engage in an argument a discussion (except when I've got to be up at 4 in the morning... Peridon (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect External Link Notation in Mark Boerebach Article

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I think rather it being an external link, it can be added to the references, and noted as it coming from National Nine News, from memory, I think it aired on Wednesday 22nd October 2008. Thanks Whitewater111 (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Replying on user's talk page, in order to keep conversation in one place. Strikerforce (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Help request

I would appreciate it if an administrator or bureaucrat who may be online would review this edit[1] and advise me of any recourse that may be permissible. If necessary, I can be contacted off-Wiki via email. Strikerforce (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin or bureaucrat, but I think this is resolved as best it can be. Please raise it again if it becomes an issue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Watseka wonder

i know that the forums are not considered as a reliable source but i mentioned it because of a reliable article(setevenson report) and his quotes were mentioned in it.--Navid1366 (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This a stevensons report http://www.archive.org/stream/watsekawondersta00stev --Navid1366 (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Then source the report, not the forum. The forum is not a reliable source and can be removed from the article at any time. Strikerforce (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks please help me more in the future and please removed the deletion tagsNavid1366 (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly assist you further! However, the deletion tag can not be removed. Once an article is nominated for deletion via the AfD process, the debate there must be allowed to run its course. Strikerforce (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I added it as an inline citation and in addition to previous sources i added another one in common style--91.99.15.58 (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagging of List of number-one hits (WorldWide)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on List of number-one hits (WorldWide). I disagree with the speedy deletion of List of number-one hits (WorldWide)because This does not duplicate the individual country lists, or any other article, so this does not meet the CSD criteria. Questions such as "Is this necessary?" are ones for AfD, not speedy deletion.. You should therefore not retag List of number-one hits (WorldWide) for speedy deletion. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh. No big deal. I may nom for deletion via AfD, at some point, but I also might not. I'll keep an eye on it and see how it develops. At the outset, however, it would seem that it duplicates existing lists. Strikerforce (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it does duplicate existing lists, as this is a single worldwide list (or rather an index of such lists by year) rather than lists per country. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That could be the case, yes. I see someone has already nominated it for deletion, though. I wouldn't mind seeing what the original author was going to do with it.--Strikerforce (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

barn star

thats my pleasure because of your attention about my job in Wikipedia and this honor.thanksNavid1366 (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Possessed (2009 film)

I wish to ask your opinion of The Possessed (2009 film). As a two-sentence stub undergoing active editing, and without any tagging for concerns, it was nominated for deletion just three hours after creation.[2] Over the following few hours, the article has been expanded, sourced, and is looking far more suitbale for inclusion in Wikipedia.[3] Might you have advice for further improvement? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)