User talk:Gekritzl: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:51, 2 January 2015

Revolutionary barnstar

		The Red Barnstar
		This is used for users who have created a new, "revolutionary" essays in Wikipedia. This barnstar is awarded to Gekritzl, for his revolutionary essay on deletionism, and his unwavering loyalty to commrades in need. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. The deletion Gestapo are too frustrating, and often do not follow Wikipedia policy.

Nomination of Contrastive focus reduplication for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Contrastive focus reduplication, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contrastive focus reduplication until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech Massacre

I admit I was a litte over zealous by overly reverting your edits. I did so because non of the web sources said nothing in the tone about and "exorcism" or the "church for church" search. I investigated a little further and found the AP note that you cited. It also says nothing about them. In that note, there is no mention about any exorcism. It also doesn't state that Cho's was taken to the church. It only states that Cho's mother looked for help from the church, and that a Presbyterian minister considered that spiritual power was needed to help him. I rephrased the sentence in order to reflect the AP source. Please check it and if you want to add or remove anything from it, please take the linked source into consideration. By the way, I said the sources were unreliable because, of the two verifiable ones, only one mentioned something about demons and that particular source (tldm.org) is unreliable because it is a self-published apocalyptical fringe theories cite. The other one, the opinion column, said nothing about exorcism or demons. The AP source was the correct one. So please take a look at the article and let me know what you think. Thank you for your contributions. --Legion fi (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, your interpretation is correct. His mother was seeking spiritual help for him, and the pastors thought that some demonic presence was affecting him. If we are discussing this, then I shall mention an argument against the use of the "exorcism" term. There are two kinds of demonic (or spiritual) influence over a person: obsession and possession. The obsession is when a person thinks (let's not discuss the reality of the claim) that he is being spoken to or externally influenced by an entity. Possession is when the entity resides in some part (or in the whole) of the person's body, or in a place. This last kind of influence is the one that needs an exorcism, because the entity needs to be cast away from the body or the place that it has possessed. In the AP note, the pastors do not mention that some entity is possessing Cho, so we are not sure that they were seeking an exorcism to help him.

But the reason I really oppose the term "exorcism" is that it is nowhere to be found in the original source. Yes, most likely they were thinking about some kind of exorcism, but it is not stated that way in the source. If we use a dictionary definition to infer what they were thinking, then that would constitute original research, and therefore is not admissible in the Wikipedia. If you find a source that explicitly states that they were seeking an exorcism for Cho, they I would have no reason to oppose the inclusion of the content. Thanks. --Legion fi (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I thank you for taking the time to investigate this matter further. Nonetheless, I'm sorry but I had to revert your edits again. Citing from Wikipedia policy about Original Research (which is one of the three core wikipedia policies) "Wikipedia does not publish original research". And by original research the policy understands "any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources". Again, you have not provided a source that is "both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support[s]" that Cho's mother and the church were seeking an exorcism for him. So far, we have a source that states that his mother looked for help from the church, that a minister said he needed "spiritual power" to help him, and we also have the source that states that an unrelated young female may have died as a result of a Korean (not Christian) rite similar to exorcism. In that last article, they also state that Cho's mother "had approached several congregations seeking help" and that the same Presbyterian minister also said that "Cho was afflicted by "demonic power"". Concluding, the assertion that Cho's mother or the church's ministers were seeking an exorcism is very plausible, but it constitutes original research. That is the only reason I'm opposing and reverting your edits. I don't consider your ideas to be erroneous, neither do I think that they are away from the truth, but unfortunately there is not a source that specifically states that someone was seeking an exorcism for Cho. Please, if you intend to add the content again, find a source that directly states it. Please also read the original research policy. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what one of the references said: "The family of Seung Hui Cho, the Korean-born man who killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech in 2007, considered using members of a Woodbridge church to treat their emotionally disturbed son [using exorcism] in 2006 but ultimately did not, the pastor said. The Rev. Dong Cheol Lee of One Mind Presbyterian Church said that Cho was afflicted by "demonic power" and that his mother had approached several congregations seeking help." So the mother was actually considering the supernatural cure of "exorcism". AND THIS IS NOT O.R. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is from the Washington Post report about mental illness (just to let you know that I do read the sources you are bringing in). And no, it does not state "using exorcism" (it is correctly put by you between square brackets as it does not appear in the original). I have opened a thread in the original research noticeboard about this matter. Can we take this discussion there so others can see it and express their opinions? Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sugarbomb

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sugarbomb requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kaldari (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

"Their sound has been compared to the Beatles, Queen, ELO and Jellyfish."?!!? The citation says those bands are "influences" not bands they have been compared with. And the quote comes from the band's own website, anyway. As best as I can tell after wasting 20 minutes on Google, this band doesn't meet the WP:BAND criteria. They had 1 major label album and 1 significant reliable source media article about them. Please make sure that bands are actually notable before creating articles about them on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like "Hello" barely charted, which is their only claim to notability. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sugarbomb

The article Sugarbomb has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No WP:NBAND notability established by sources, and I can't find any - just Youtubes and mp3 downloads

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

AMAZING! What idiot would propose SPEEDY DELETION of the Sugarbomb article?? FFS.

File source problem with File:Space-network-customer-rf.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Space-network-customer-rf.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Gekritzl. You have new messages at Randykitty's talk page.
Message added 17:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
-== Cruft? ==
-Hiya!
-Generally what cruft tends to mean is that the external links are by blogs or sites that are either non-notable or don't contribute anything of value. For the most part the only things that should be in the external links are sites that are officially part of the band. You can put in links that aren't official to the band (reviews, interviews, etc), but generally if something can be useful (in this case reviews by a reliable site) then generally you should try to find a way to work it into the article as a reference. The only reason a non-official site should be in the EL is if it's by a notable site (which PopMatters is) and there's no way to add it as a reference to the rest of the article. What had happened previously was that people kept adding to the EL section and it turned into this lengthy part of the article where it was just collecting links. Specifically, it was collecting a lot of blogspot reviews that just weren't considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines.
-The reason I'd removed PopMatters was that when I'd previously clicked it it'd come up as a dead link to me. I can see where they work now, but for some reason the PopMatters link that had previously been up didn't work. If possible, we should see if we can work it into the article.[[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]] ([[User talk:Tokyogirl79|talk]]) 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 ==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Sugarbomb]]==