User talk:Elektrik Shoos

Main page Awards Drafts UBX Sandbox Guestbook Talk page

Articles for deletion nomination of Boyd Crowder

I have nominated Boyd Crowder, an article that you appear to have an interest in, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Crowder. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

CSD of RIM musical club

It appears that article was already created and deleted at least one other time today.... Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 18:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless it was deleted per an Afd there's nothing we can do other than tag it with a7 again. But I'll warn the author. elektrikSHOOS 18:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Two of my biggest pet peeves are authors removing tags without improving the articles, and recreating deleted articles exactly as they were before they were deleted! Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 18:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate that too. The good news is, authors who do either of those things repeatedly can get blocked. elektrikSHOOS 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

AFD of Tekken X Street Fighter

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2010/07/24/street-fighter-x-tekken-and-tekken-x-street-fighter-announced/

Look the title up on google, many sources. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you read WP:CRYSTAL? elektrikSHOOS 23:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but did you? It says if the events are unverifiable. The game was announced today. Articles are pouring in on the announcement by Namco and Capcom. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Then add sources and remove the PROD. elektrikSHOOS 23:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I love Wikipedia and made the mistake of using the Article Wizard to create a page called "Postconsumers" which was speedy deleted (I mistakenly thought it met the notability requirement). Now the page title, with a damaging sentence about its lack of importance, still exists when people search Google for "Postconsumers" (happening a lot since it was just featured on the MSN homepage). Can you or someone please delete the page altogether, which is what I assumed speedy deletion meant? To leave the same page title without its content (and with a condemnation) as an active link on the web is harmful to all, which Wikipedia doesn't deserve. Thanks very much for your help; I found your talk page through my talk page.Carolholst (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to have been deleted and is no longer on Wikipedia, so you don't need to worry about that. However, this doesn't affect outside indexing by outside search engines. If a site such as Google or MSN has indexed the page, it should disappear from searches within a day or two. However, it may take up to a week for them to update/clear their search indexes entirely. There's nothing we (over here) can do about that. Sorry.

I should point out too that if you want to work on an article for eventual inclusion without the risk of deletion, you can create what is called a userspace draft. Since the page is in your personal userspace, you can edit the article freely, and ask for feedback if desired, without the risk of speedy deletion. Let me know if you want to know how to set that up. elektrikSHOOS 01:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

O'Reilly's Guesthouse

Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Reilly's_Guesthouse

Hey mate, you tagged this article in a number of ways, I attempted to go through and clean it up to match your standards. Let me know if more needs to be done.

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moggo (talk • contribs) 00:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, by adding sources and cleaning up a bit you've definitely satisfied both the notability and reference concerns. However, the article still reads like a promotional work and I'd suggest some cleanup in that regard. Read over Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch), and then take a look at the article again to get an idea of what I mean. When you're editing articles about companies, organizations, groups or products you have to be especially careful so as to give information without sounding like you're advertising. Thanks for the cleanup, though, really. I can't tell you how many editors I've encountered that will either ignore cleanup tags and continue adding, or worse, continue their work on other pages as well. elektrikSHOOS 01:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Article deleted

Hey Elektrik Shoos, Wondering why my article was deleted? I cited all sources? Smartypants73 (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the article Alisha Pillay. According to the deletion log (which you can see if you click through the wikilink) the article was deleted per CSD G11, which means that the page was exclusively promotional and would have needed to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Since someone has made this page at least once before, I'd recommend you start with a userspace draft first, which would allow you to work on a draft within your own personal userspace without the risk of speedy deletion. You could then ask for feedback from other editors once you believe it's ready enough for inclusion. Go to Help:Userspace draft to start one. The Article wizard can also guide you through the steps of making an article, and it also has an option to make a userspace draft (which you would want in this case).

Also, as noted on your own talk page by another editor, reliable sources cannot be edited or affiliated with the subject of the article, such as the subject's Myspace or Facebook profile. Please read over WP:RS to get an idea of what is and is not considered a reliable source. elektrikSHOOS 04:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Article also deleted

Do you run Wikipedia, or are you a random user who likes to cut down the dreams of children. I aspire to create my own casino game, and had made a very good one! Maybe all you did was scan through it to see if it's useful but it's actually fun. Obviously at the moment it has no value to society because it's not any bigger than me and my friend, but that could've easily changed. i wrote the article solely informatively and you just erased it! it was written like any other article! I'm a twelve year old boy who looks up to my brother who plays different poker games all the time and i just wanted to impress him. my user name is actually my brothers. I'm so sad that my game was up for no more than 30 mins just because it isn't real. Unless you own the site or work for it, in which case it's understandable that you would want to delete it to maintain verifiability of your site, then your just mean! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casinomaker99929 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not own Wikipedia, but I am an editor who acts in accordance with its policies. Nor did I delete your article. The article was deleted by an admin per db-a7, which means it was about a club which did not assert the significance of the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is a widely used reference tool. It is not a place where you can post things you made up one day. Pages such as this one can damage the credibility and integrity of Wikipedia unless they are well-sourced and already in wide use. Please read over What Wikipedia is not to get an idea of what I'm saying, and don't introduce inappropriate pages in the future. Also, this kind of personal attack is absolutely uncalled for. Please be civil and assume good faith when dealing with other editors. elektrikSHOOS 19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not wish to inflict emotional trauma on your wellbeing. I was just very offended that my article and game which had a combined total of 10 hours of work put into it, (in order to brainstorm the idea, calculate the odds, adjust the pay table and discover the optimal strategy, along with creating an account and article that could accurately describe the new game to a person who had not taken part in any of the proceeding work in creating such game, could understand it) could be deleted in under 20 minute. How ever attacking you was wrong, even though i didnt entirely attack you, because i did state that if you worked for wikipedia then it was understandable. Non the less, my behavior was inappropriate, and disrespectful for this I am sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casinomaker99929 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD Deletion of Elaine Mardis

Hi, Copyright/notability issues with Elaine Mardis, Timothy Ley and George Weinstock should now be resolved. Please see my talk page for more info. I also believe you may have added an AfD tag to Richard K Wilson as well (perhaps by mistake since it refers to Elaine Mardis). Thanks, --Gremerow (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Childs Play

Perhaps we can work this out, I worked hard on that article and it sites sources, I have information, theres no problem I can find. Im not trying to argue I just want to help and contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevetheMovieMan (talk • contribs) 04:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

La Glorieta

I'm curious about the peacock tag on La Glorieta, which I just finished working on and I believe is well sourced. Which part do you think "may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information"? Camerafiend (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In that article, two words immediately stood out to me as being potential peacock words - "historic" and "grandiose." (To be honest, I'm not sure why I tagged the article for two words without just fixing it, now that I think about it.) Anywho, per WP:PEACOCK, you should generally avoid words like that because they're essentially puffery. Clicking through the previous link will give you a better idea of what I'm talking about. elektrikSHOOS 02:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm familiar with WP:PEACOCK. I don't see how "historic" constitutes puffery, as the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (emphasis added). As for "grandiose," the mansion is described in the cited source as "ornate" and a "Frontier Xanadu." I do not necessarily object to removing "grandiose," but it is backed up by the source (and, I feel, apt; here's a picture of the building in question). If you disagree on this point, I'll remove it. Camerafiend (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll bite on "historic." But even if it's cited as such in the source, I'm still wary about using a word like "grandiose." That's really more of a wording issue at this point, though. I don't feel like fighting today. Leave it, and feel free to remove the peacock tag. elektrikSHOOS 02:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually now that I've thought about it some, I agree with you on "grandiose"... it is sourced, but it really doesn't add anything to this article (which is about a different building anyway) and keeping it in will probably just cause more disputes. Thanks for your time. Camerafiend (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Irides: Master of Blocks

Irides: Master of Blocks I've made the necessary changes, get rid of the tags--Cube b3 (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You can do it yourself, I won't stop you. elektrikSHOOS 02:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate it--Cube b3 (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Cooney Deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Cooney This was relisted "for a more thorough discussion" I challenged two of the points you made under your Delete, but you have not responded to that or any other points I tried to make. Is this really a discussion. Is this as good as it gets on Wikipedia?--Jacky Smythe (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made my points there, and I don't care to argue about it any further. Please do not contact me regarding this again. elektrikSHOOS 04:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to argue. I am asking you; Is this really a discussion. You have not responded to the points I tried to make. Should you abuse me for trying to talk to you?--Jacky Smythe (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made my points there. IMDB can be edited by anyone and is not considered a reliable source. He is mentioned in passing in the other two articles. Ancestry.com does not confer notability. Based on what is in the article it is not enough to confer notability. These are firm points, period. I'm not arguing about it anymore. I can understand if you don't want your article to be deleted, but you also need to understand that Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I am not arguing about it anymore. Please stop harassing me. elektrikSHOOS 04:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I contacted once. how is that harassment; You say my first words were to argue; your comments and everything you say is worthless, if you don't have time to be thorough, then why bother. And don't talk to me like your the headmaster, you idiot--Jacky Smythe (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not refer to other editors as idiots. Your comment has been constituted as a personal attack and is not tolerated under any circumstances. If you continue to make comments such as this one you may be blocked from editing. elektrikSHOOS 05:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

gracious communion

thanks for the fix @ Dynamical Neuroscience. Please let me know if you have any input in general on the page. -X —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xurtio (talk • contribs) 04:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Value driven maintenance style

Hi, I've rewritten the article on value driven maintenance because there were commercial references; i've deleted these. Now it is mentioned that the article's tone or style is not appropriate. Could you indicate what to change in the article to make it more appropriate? Thanx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaspah (talk • contribs) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Netflix GA review

Hello, I've reviewed Netflix against the GA criteria, and unfortunately it doesn't meet them at this time. I've left some comments and suggestions at the review page. Let me know if you have any questions.--BelovedFreak 12:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Do not add the Notability tag again on Aldo Polanco! In addition that councillors' articles are sponsored by Wikiproject Chile, there are more of them! Please. Thanks. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Being sponsored by a WikiProject does not, automatically, by definition, make someone notable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I also daresay that this is a possible misuse of the trout template at well. Trout templates are really more for light screw-ups and other hilarious acts of idiocy, not serious instances of "i disagree with your tag, so don't add it again." It's like adding "lol" to the end of "I can't find my children." (Also, thanks Everard for the feedback.) elektrikSHOOS 08:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Crow (2011 film)

Yeah, I wouldn't have given the warning and reverted, except it was in the middle of an AfD. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Illinois listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WikiProject Illinois. Since you had some involvement with the WikiProject Illinois redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I've read on your userpage you've been WP:SOCK'd before. Is this User:Electric Shoes your account? —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

...and User:Elektrik Shoos sock? —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are both legitimate socks, as well as User:Elektrikshoos, as I've noted on both their user pages. I'll make a note of it on my user page. Though the second one I actually have to go about deleting, as I realized I misspelled it. It's currently User:Elektrik Shoo sock. I left out the second 'S.' D'oh! elektrikSHOOS 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

PlayStation Good Article Review

Talk:PlayStation/GA1

I've read through your review and improved on the said areas. Can you re-review the article? Thanks.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to let the article sit for the prespecified week before I look at it again. Thanks for improving it, though. elektrikSHOOS 08:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No Problem. Thanks for reviewing it in the first place, been working on the article for awhile now, but it doesn't get much attention.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Savlonic

An article that you have been involved in editing, Savlonic, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savlonic. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Back Off

You didn't even give me time to finish editing my very first page creation before you marked it for deletion. Crazy man...what is your problem? Give a guy at least 2 minutes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermoder (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Jockiem Joyner. When I saw the page it was a merely a brief description of the artist and a brief discography. I see about 40 or so of pages similar to what yours looked like get created by new editors daily, and 90% of them are usually deleted for the reason I tagged yours - because most people just look to put some up some brief promotional about their favorite band without further expansion. I see now that's not what you intended, and I apologize for hastily tagging it. Since it appears you've remade the article at a new spelling, I've turned the old one into a redirect for you. Thanks for editing. elektrikSHOOS 04:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

However, in the future, when dealing with other editors, please remember to assume good faith. Any undue hostility is completely unnecessary when dealing with other editors. It creates unnecessary tension. Please read over WP:EQ. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 04:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing Notability/Citation Tags for George Weinstock and Timothy Ley

Hi, Are you able to remove the tags on these articles or is there someone else I should ask? I believe these articles no longer contain these issues. Thanks, --Gremerow (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can remove them, including you. They're at the top of the page. elektrikSHOOS 17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

It's nice to have some company out there! ;) Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 19:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem! elektrikSHOOS 19:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

I went ahead and reverted your edit to List of Annoying Orange episodes. The edit you reverted to was dangerously close to violating WP:SPOILER and was unnecessarily long. --173.54.204.54 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, was just doing a routine vandalism check on Huggle (unexplained removal of content). Thanks for explaining. elektrikSHOOS 20:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad we're square on that. --173.54.204.54 (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

2009 World Series

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to 2009 World Series has been reverted, as it introduced negative or controversial biographical material without providing a reliable source for this information. Wikipedia requires that all such material be sourced to address the issue of libel. Thank you. elektrikSHOOS 19:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The explanation made no sense nor was it grounded on any basis of reality. The source (ESPN.com) is completely reliable and there was nothing of a 'biographical' nature in the edit. Don't see how libel is an issue at all. Do you even know what that means? Get a clue. It seems like there is more than one comment on this page taking issue with your haste and questionable interfering. Back off. Tjrover (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)