Jump to content

User talk:Corpx

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cmp01 (talk | contribs) at 17:09, 7 September 2007 (→‎Queen II Links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm kinda busy right now, so may not be able to respond swiftly to queries!
Click here to leave a new message.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there (Unless explicitly stated otherwise)
If you start a message here, I will reply here (Unless explicitly stated otherwise)

Bush = Hitler?

Hello. I didn't realise I wasn't logged in before, so I'm logged in now.

Let's recap.

Equating George Bush with Adolph Hitler is fine but pointing out such a comparison is stupid is a personal attack is it? Bizarre. Let's see "Comment on content, not on contributors. " you told me. Well, I did. I called the comment stupid, which it was. I didn't call the commenter stupid, so your criticism of me seems rather ill judged - as it was a comment on the intelligence of the comment, rather than the person who made it.

The original commentator was the one defending the Nazis not me, saying they were only 'half bad' in effect. You might think that an intelligent comment, I beg to differ. Feel free to ban me, report me or complain to who you like. My integrity is more important to me. Stay cool. Nick mallory 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

If you're going to delete pages you never read and bring in your friend MONGO to help vandalize wikipedia you're what's called a Vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsregistration (talk • contribs)

Force Unleashed

The link I added to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed had information on the page that the Wikipedia article doesn't have, and has a unique FAQ and preview for the game, that the official page doesn't even have. Its a valuable resource for that page and I think it should remain as an external link. The link had remained there for a long time before it was removed recently. --68.61.92.212 01:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy blanking.

Per Jimbo's comments here --Laugh! 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider that in the future. I might make a Wikipedia:Courtesy Blanking page too --Laugh! 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read about it and for this instance, I see no "cause harm to the subject (typically a person or organization)" by this being up Corpx 20:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't about whether the comments are harsh or not, so much as whether they could hurt feelings, and like Jimbo said, it's really no big deal. Afterall, if it needs to be restored, that's no problem. --Laugh! 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

-

wikipedia is an encylopedia. people want to learn about home exchanging. my post informs them about home exchanging. please leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yggep1 (talk • contribs)

deleted?

Hi,

I was trying to add links to PDFs that people can print out to use as a reference in the external links section and you deleted them... Also links to the Hormone Foundation which explains the endocrine system - and how those specific diseases work (which are all within the endocrine system.) Other groups like medline are listed - and they tend to have their pages link to the hormone foundation pages, so I thought people would like to have the hormone foundation as a resource for furthering their research. On pages that are lacking, I have been adding some content and making notes of where to go back to later. I don't want to do all of this work to have it deleted. Now I'm blocked for 7 hours? I seriously am posting good info not spamming. What can I do?

Sarah Sarlafrock 20:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didnt block you, because I am not an administrator, but you kept adding the same links to every page. Maybe you should discuss the addition of links on a talk page before adding it to so many pages. Corpx 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD attention request

Not sure if this is out of order, but there's a somewhat contentions AfD (here) that has received little outside attention. Since the AfD was initiated, a number of single purpose accounts (likely sockpuppets) have started editing (and discussing on the talk page) the article; not !voting, fortunately. In any case, I wanted to see if some AfD regulars could stop by and weigh in. I'm not looking to sway !votes here—I haven't targeted deletionists; I'm asking editors that seem to !vote a lot on music-related AfDs. No reply is necessary but your opinion is valued. Pr 2.0 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Marie Williams

I think that notability in general is a judgment call, if there is any basis, and if WP:V is fulfilled. I also think that I accurately reflected the consensus on that AfD, and that there was not the kind of gross policy violation that would justify a closer in overriding the consensus. If you disagree you are free to take the matter to Deletion Review or to start a new AfD -- i won't be offended in either case. I don't think Wikipedia would crumble without this article, but I see no valid reason not to have it either. I am aware that some disagree on principle in this sort of issue, but I don't believe their views are justified. However i honestly tried to asses the AfD, not to impose my own views. Do you think that I misread the consensus of those who actually commented in the AfD? How so, if so? DES (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Oh, I should add that I have come to distrust the google news archive as a proof of absence of coverage. It often seems not to include stories by significant news sources that can be found via regular google web searches if the stories are more than a few weeks old. In other cases storiese on the archive sites of significant news sources seem not to be found in regualr google web searches either -- perhaps they have disabled google spidering, as any site can do in the robots.txt file. So while google and google news can be excelant ways to find sources, i don't consider the lack of useful hits on google news persuasive of total absence of coverage. DES (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cmystudios

I speedy closed this discussion, as the article has already been rolled into this AfD by User:Shalom. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Morgan

Where is his family? User:Michellekerchal

how is it uncited when it's seen By millions week By week--KingMorpheus 01:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that would be ridiculous. THere are thousands and thousands of episodes (about 12 k to be specific). We only source names, imnportant revelations, dates and the such; but, entire plotlines? We would never finish sourcing them and basically it would be a page full of sources. I basically sourced the Storylines articles to General Hospital. Maybe you should try to look for sources and improve the article instead of just deleting sections out of them. (re: Alexis Davis and Sam McCall).--Charleenmerced Talk 16:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to fix everything you have deleted is a lot of work. So, pllease stop deleting parts of articles. There is a Soap Opera Project that is trying very hard to fix and maintian the articles, please don't make our jobs harder by continuing to delete without attempting to fix the article first. (re Emily Quartermaine).--Charleenmerced Talk 13:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

In the future, please as a courtesy, notify article creators of nominating their articles for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I again urge you to consider spending some time improving articles as well. Imagine how many articles might be improved if you put the same effort into that as you do AfDs! Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to focus overwhelmingly on AfDs, though. I looked at your contribs and noticed some "votes" even within the same minute, such as:
02:44, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Capp glossary (→Andy Capp glossary - D) (top)
02:44, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blast Arena Advance (D) (top)
02:01, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrisanthi Avgerou (→Chrisanthi Avgerou - D)
02:01, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isis in modern culture (→Isis in modern culture - D) (top)
02:04, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judas Iscariot in popular culture (→Judas Iscariot in popular culture - D) (top)
02:04, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pufferfish in popular culture (→Pufferfish in popular culture - D) (top)
To be honest, the rapidity of some of these and the incredible number that you participate in a single day does have me a little concerned that you may not be fully reading the articles and arguments and just "voting" out of principal, which is in part furthered by a number of the posts just saying something like "per Five" in almost cut and past fashion. Anyway, if you look at my early contribs from back in November of 2006, people took issue with so much focus on AfDs and doing them rapidly with similar arguments. So, I'd rather other editors not fall into the trap that I did. That's why I've focused much more effort on improving articles and limiting AfDs participation to a minimum. Anyway, as Eleonor Roosevelt said, "Learn from the mistakes of others; life's too short to make them all yourself," of something to that effect. Take care! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For almost every single "vote", I make sure to point out policy that I think the article in question violates. I dont see anything wrong with wanting to delete articles if they're in violation of policy. I'm not just saying "delete, because I dont like it" . I usually have a bunch of tabs open on 2 browsers during my "AFD session", so the time stamps may not be the way to judge my contribs there Corpx 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Along these lines then, I thought I would ask you if there is a policy or guideline that states lists should be deleted in favor of categorizing their contents? Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, a guideline, seems to state that lists, categories and series boxes are to be used in synergy with eachother. It says nothing about deleting one in favor of the other. Since you advanced this argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rhythm guitarists, and since policy at WP:Deletion#Deletion_discussion states "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants should explain their opinion and refer to policy", I'm requesting information about the policy or guideline you derived this understanding from. Thank you very much. (Mind meal 03:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I would advise you start adding that rationale when voting along those lines, so that others will have the chance to further critique such reasoning. In the very section you mentioned, it states that "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". In the case of someone being a quarterback, please see List of 2006 National Football League quarterbacks and List of 2005 National Football League quarterbacks. In the case of football, the quarterback must be notable, which if they perform in the NFL they are notable. Musicians have no "league" in which they can be associated. They perform in genres and on specific instruments for which they are notable. I am very interested in your response, because I don't believe the comparison between sports personalities and musicians are at all the same. Also, what policy or guideline are you using that states that when a category exists dedicated to something specific that a list cannot also exist? It is just that i continue seeing arguments for deleting lists and placing them in categories, and I'd like to know what policy states this should be practiced.(Mind meal 05:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • The list of 2005 NFL QBs is not a list of "loosely associated people". There is a set # of people who played QB that year and that's it. There is a strict criteria for inclusion into that list. For the guitarists, the pool of candidates is everyone who ever was a "rhythm guitarist". The policy is WP:NOT#DIR, which says WP is not for "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The List of American Football Quarterbacks is a much more comparable example because that would also be a list of everyone who ever played the QB position. Corpx 06:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree List of 2005 National Football League quarterbacks is not a list of "loosely associated people". I do not agree that musicians that perform rhythm guitar are "loosely associated". What else does a musician have to be notable for but for their technique and genre? I would like you to explain how a rhythm guitarist is not famous for playing rhythm guitar, using WP:NOT#DIR as the guideline? If the issue is that an individual may not fit the criteria, then that individual artist should be critiqued, not the entire list. It just does not sound right. Also, I still would like to know what policy states that lists should be deleted in favor of categorization. That is something I am even more troubled by. All of this smells of WP:POINT. Are you saying musicians must be categorized according to their respctive genres and styles by year? If so, you are advocating lists that will have duplicate information over and over again, and will be completely unmaintanable. (Mind meal 06:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • I'm not questioning the notability of any of the artists. I'm just saying that the list is a violation of WP:NOT due to how loose the inclusion criteria is and in such cases, a category should be used. I'm saying to delete this list, and tag each artist on the list with Category:Rhythm Guitarist Corpx 06:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have selected a very narrow portion of policy that simply does not say what you say it does. It states that "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". So you must be arguing that these guitarists are not, in fact, notable for playing rhythm guitar. That is the only argument that could be made here, because the very section of WP:NOT you keep referencing states what I just quoted for you. The list topic is musicians who perform rhythm guitar. That criteria for inclusion is far from loose; in fact, it is rather precise and defines greatly who can and who cannot appear there. It is not like List of guitarists, which is much more "loose". You are effectively advocating that one delete any list of musicians by style or instrument given your quite peculiar view on policy, and I will be considering seeking outside (nonpartisan) opinions on this matter so that we both might learn what policy actually says in this regard. Do you have consensus for your take? Right now we are arguing about whether a rock does or does not exist. Surely it either exists or it does not, and so it is with opinions on what language in a policy means. (Mind meal 06:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ryan Wehrle AFD

I left a delete vote that you should read in the AFD, as his Google hits are irrelevant in this case, (almost all minor league players and college baseball players get the same amount of Google hits) and this prospect isn't special (20th round pick). Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Attempted Edit

Corpx Please read below

Dear Editor,

I attempted to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BF2 on 28 July 07.

I wanted to add material about Battlefield 2 (BF2) and was warned, "Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia".

I was trying to provide readers a consolidated visual list of BF2 maps. I attempted to add the following link:

www.spartanwarfighters.net/3mid/6maps/maps.htm

I believe the content is appropriate.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated,

Richard

Login: Sfscriv —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfscriv (talk • contribs) 07:41, 28 July 2007.

This is a content issue, and thus we cannot actually comment on it. The best solution would be to contact the editor who warned you and discuss it with him. If you are unable to reach an agreement, then comment here and we'll do our best. But do talk to the user first.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 09:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it polite, of course, and remember that most editors are (quite rightly) strict about ELs and some are more or less strict than others. Adrian M. H. 09:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests"

Thanks!

My RFA
User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry potter relationships

Made me laugh anyway. :) 20:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:) Corpx 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hells kitchen season 2

that wasn't my commentary, read the note on my profile, i'm trying to make them all consistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.54.12.29

Basketball position articles

Thanks for you dedication to keeping the basketball position articles NPOV and free of OR. I know firsthand what a frustrating uphill battle that can be. I think you're a solid editor. A Traintalk 18:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi, Corpx, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy UCP 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minute

After all that business about how Wikipedia content must have historic notability, you vote to restore an article on a minor porn star? I mean, sure I think she should have an article, but I also don't think she's historically notable by a very (very, very) long shot. Everyking 08:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with epilepsy

Corpx,

I saw this AfD had been closed. The comments cited Snowball, mentioned "non admin closure" (which I've not heard of before) and on the article-page, the edit summary says "AfD speedy closed". I saw your comments on User talk:Giggy. I agree that Wikipedia:Speedy keep is inappropriate. I'm less sure about Snowball (which I don't have much experience of). There was a strong consensus towards keep, but it wasn't unanimous. Much as I disagree with your position, I don't think the debate needed to be short-circuited.

I don't know if the AfD can be resumed such that it finishes at the natural time. I would oppose restarting afresh it on the grounds that it is unlikely to reach a different conclusion and it is wearying to repeat ones arguments. Alternatively, we could just accept that technically it was closed too early, but it isn't worth doing anything about it. Colin°Talk 08:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with epilepsy

Hmm...I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Speedy keep; but my speedy keep verdict was based on countless other snow related verdicts I had seen before. The fact that it was featured, that your argument was shut down quickly, and that the only other delete argument was per you, were the reasons I closed it as snow keep. Giggy Talk | Review 21:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded in deletion review, setting out my rationale for closing the debate. Giggy Talk | Review 01:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented at the DRV. To echo Colin, the criticism thrown your way is off base. Your arguments were reasonable and well-framed, even if (ultimately) unconvincing for the majority. Eusebeus 09:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

Hi, Corpx. Kerala has been semi-protected for two weeks now (before which it received significant IP vandalism, much of which went unreverted for months). I just added the {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} to let readers know. India-related articles have recently been going through a wave of regionalistic/nationalistic edit wars, with disputes over the presence of different Indic scripts, status of official languages (what they are and how many there are) in India at both the federal and state level (see this and this, which details a weeks-long edit war/dispute that continues on the subsequent archive pages), and whether ethnic Indians born before 1947 are "Indian" or "British Indian" (see this and this). In this context, I doubt that that edit was done in good faith (especially since there is no "Indian language"). Thanks. Saravask 21:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Howe

Michael Howe (headmaster) nominated for deletion

You might like to look at this given further expalnation of references. Tallum 03:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abuja National Mosque

The reasoning for the speedy close? One, there was no way it was going to be deleted. Two, the nominator was trolling. (His block log might be of interest.) I'll write more about it eventually. Maybe tack Washington National Cathedral in with a bulk nomination if you really want the article deleted. Thanks, Picaroon (t) 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIHCR RFCU

You did not show diffs indicative of serious ongoing vandalism in your RFCU request. The case has been moved to the "Noncompliant requests" section pending the addition of diffs. MSJapan 03:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vistas High School

The article has been renamed correctly as Vistas High School Program. There is a discussion on a possible merge to its parent article at Klein ISD Merge. Your input is welcome. – Dreadstar † 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Again

What is up with you and this article? Would it help if each word or sentence was submitted separately?

1. The game has more RTS attributes than RPG.

2. The game is more of a multiplayer game than a single player game.

3. The maps have predetermined factions.

4. The support classes deserve further explanation.

Oh, by the way. I did get one (an edit) past you about a week ago, GATE Keeper.

That's right, I made my first successful edit to a Wiki-page without CORPX termination.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfscriv (talk • contribs)

Notification of discussion: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your extensive Wikipedia experience, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Young pic

Hi CorpX. I added a pic of VY I got from Flickr (actually cropped his face out from the original one). I changed the contrast some, maybe a bit too much. How do you like it? BlueAg09 (Talk) 08:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EEnE characters

Corpx, I can see if you think I wrote something incorrectly, but to send me a message telling me that I don't know how to use wikipedia and need to read a wiki article as if I'm that stupid is quite insulting and unnecessary. All you needed to do was send me a message about why you found it unnecessary. If you feel something should be removed, fine, but don't insult me in the process. Thank you. 24.32.34.132 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Harry potter

It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpswing (2nd nomination)

Since you commented on the first AfD for Jumpswing, I would like to invite you to the 2nd nomination. panda 14:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitfight Team Article

Here are some sources marking the affiliation of the Pit with the UFC and Chuck Liddel as a professional sports training organisation relevent to the Mixed Martial Arts information pages.


Anna Svidersky

Howdy! You recently participated in the August 2007 AfD of the Anna Svidersky article. There is currently a Request for comment on the talk page of the Svidersky article aimed at resolving disagreements over the outcome of that AfD. I hope you don't mind the interruption but any additional or outside input would be greatly appreciated by all the editors on the Svidersky page. Thank you for your time. AgneCheese/Wine 15:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 2 edits

I added a plot anaylisis to the Battlefield 2 page, and you reverted it. Stop deleting my material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by USBrooks (talk • contribs) 04:44, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Hello. I've seen your recent participation at AfDs. May I ask you; Why are you so hellbent on deleting every single article that passes through AfD. This behavior is damaging; the point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of as much notable information as our servers can handle. Deletionism is not a good POV to have when building an encyclopedia. A look at your last 300 edits shows me that the only participation you have is to AfDs. I suggest you step back from it for a while and start actually contributing to the encyclopedia, so that, when you come back, you have a different POV when participating in AfDs; the POV of those who actually write the articles at AfD and know how hard it is to write an article and then have it deleted by a bunch of people who don't even bother to try to improve the article instead of destroying it. If you don't know where to start, I suggest you visit the Community Portal or Requested Articles. Regards, Boricuaeddie 13:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've written plenty of articles - See my edit count. I just have a thing against trivia and "over-coverage" of fiction. I do not think trivial details/fiction guide is the way to build a good encyclopedia. I dont have very many of articles I've contributed to nominated for AFDs, because I almost always try to avoid these things. You'd hardly see me try to vote delete for any science/math/academic/sports topics unless they're in gross violation of policy. Corpx 14:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Young

I have reverted the changes you made; the edits are legitimate extensions of WP:LENGTH and several other sportspeople have similar setups. Additionally, one of the people that was against it did agree to it on Michael Vick. You can view the relevant discussion here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion extends beyond the WP:NFL project. Category:Career achievements of sportspeople shows that a number of people have had similar things done (and this is only Sportspersons). Additionally, citing Favre and Manning as examples is somewhat misleading. The vick discussion i had with ksy speaks to the fact that things are different, and if you look at the number of editors to the articles in the cat. - you will see that there is consensus for it (if there wasn't consensus - the articles wouldn't exist). I would like to point out one or two things from WP:LENGTH, but so much of this is supported by that, I would ask that you review the entire article. Happy to engage in discussion - but i don't think WP:NFL is the place. I think it needs to happen at WP:LENGTH (or something like that) and we then point people to the discussion. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rehash it here. The only thing not covered in Vince Young, but in the other article are the school records he set, while at Texas. This is trivial information and breaking school records are not generally considered a big deal. Everything else is already covered in Vince Young. Corpx 07:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content within and the location of the content are actually two separate issues. If you feel the information shouldn't really "exist" at all - then that's a separate issue. The "what goes in" is more an issue for WP:LISTS. The vince young article is too long anyway; however, you could reincorporate certain information back into the article. If it stays in list form, then you are stuck with LISTS and LENGTH guiding the presentation of that content. Of course, if it's worked back into the article properly (that is with supported prose) - LENGTH may still apply. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you Wikipedia:Featured articles, most, if not all of them exceed Vince Young in size. You can trim out insignificant details in Vince Young or expand on other sections by creating a new article, but listing accomplishments of football players should not be done, when everything important can be merged in the main article Corpx 08:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you can substantiate your claim on length of FAs, I don't think that's something we can say is true or not. I did however, just do a spot check on one article - Everton F.C.. I basically just jumped to the section and clicked. It's 42kb in legth and young is currently 33kb so both are long by WP:LENGTH standards. I'd also say that Everton F.C. is a much more "notable" topic globally and there is a lot more potential candidate. So if it's acceptable there (which it is) it's acceptable most other places. You have several subarticles that have been split off History of Everton F.C., List of Everton F.C. players, List of Everton F.C. managers, Everton F.C. records, and Everton Tigers ... so right there - you can see there is support for this type of content move. It is certainly reasonable to have some sort of section written like Everton_F.C.#Everton_Tigers that would refer to the full article. Lastly, if you feel that most of the information is somewhat trivial - why would you want that in the main Vince Young article? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the FAs are well over 60kb, so size really isnt a problem for Vince Young. Adam Gilchrist is 92kb, but community deemed it featured content, so size was not an issue there. Ian Thorpe is at 86kb. I dont know how you can compare an athlete to a sporting club. Of course, the club is going to have more tangential articles rather than a player who played college ball for 4(+1) years and has 1 season of NFL experience. As for the trivial details, they should not be merged back. I just want the stuff you removed merged back. Everything else mentioned in the other article already exists in Vince Young. I thought I had re-added everything when you removed the college statistics, but it looks like I missed this. Corpx 08:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you really wanted to trim Vince Young, feel free to remove some of the the game-by-game recap of his first NFL season. Corpx 08:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again - unless you can provide proof - you can't say anything quantitative about FAs. Some are longer and some are shorter than VY. I would also say that you need to be careful when using FAs as examples because the current version could be significantly different from the version when the articles were "admitted". Also, WP:FACR does not spend a great deal of time. Regardless, none of this supports the inclusion of this information. The best examples I can find on consensus for this (outside the category i provided you with) are the guidelines i pointed you to. As they are guidelines, they are fairly representative of the wants of the community. What I am hearing here is that the Vince Young article needs to be cleaned. That is something I would probably focus on before I worried about making edits that are against wiki guidelines. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that an article jumped 60+kb after it became a FA? I find that implausible. WP:LENGTH only reccomends a size limit of 32kb - it does not explicitly bar articles over this limit. It also goes on to say that lists inside the article should not be counted towards the size, among other things. It also says to discuss removals with other editors, which was also not done in this case. We obviously disagree on whether these should exist or not, and that's why I'm asking for 3rd opinion. Corpx 08:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is explicit on wiki - in fact - the only thing that is explicit - is that nothing is explicit (WP:IAR). Asking for third opinions is fine, but again - I think you are asking people based on their "closeness" to the topic and not based on their ability to "make unbiased observations". One of the reasons why I joined the project is that I am knowledgeable about this topic, but I'm not a big fan of the nfl.
I have not seen anything in the articles I pointed you to that seems to support leaving the material in. You have identified a number of problems with the content in the expunged article and also within the main space. Would it not be prudent to fix the problematic content before having this discussion? If you look at the six or seven articles already in that category - you will see that many editors have touched them. That is in a way - a sign of consensus. Do you have any examples of this information beign included or in wiki documentation where it asserts that this information is better off in the article? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time going through several FAs for athletes. I did not see any examples of an embeded list like the one in question. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how you cant value opinion from editors who are close to the issue, because it is mainly a style issue and input from people who edit these kind of articles should be valued. Any bias should be weighed as consensus not to build these "List of achievements by _____" type articles. There are two articles like this for football - Vick + Vince and there are lots and lots of athletes who have accomplished a lot more, yet lacking these type of articles. These articles all have some sort of a list in them - Brabham Martin Brodeur CM Punk Tom Pryce, showing that embedded lists are fine and accepted Corpx 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about not valuing an opinion? I do not understand what you mean by "Any bias should be weighed ...." - would you clarify that. Additionally, as for Manning and Favre, I've already explained that those moves were not representative of consensus - rather they were edits made after an active party was forced to disengage from the conversation.
I would actually expunge the data from Broduer's article as well - it accounts for about 25% of the article lenght. Just because the information has not been moved does not mean that their is consensus for it "not to be moved". I am still looking for something that suggests the move of content was in appropriate and i have not seen anything. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:LISTS talks specifically about the use of standalone v embedded lists. Juan Miguel Fangio|<fo nt style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat  20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think other editors would like your removing information like that from featured articles. Since size is no longer the limiting concern, what other justification do you have for keeping this page, when the information in there already exists/can be easily merged back into Vince Young ??— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Some editors may not like it, that is true - but again - there are other articles (of much more notable athletes) that have been handled in a similar fashion. While you claim that length is not an issue - WP:LENGTH (a guideline) disagrees with you. You said that the information is trivial and that the information in Young is trivial - if that's the case, then please feel free to remove the trivial information. Beyond that i'm not sure what you hope to accomplish. Unless you care to overturn a consensus that exists (both at WP:LENGTH and WP:LISTS) as well as the fact that several other editors edit the related articles with no dispute. Approximately 25% of the article was this "list" and if you claim that length is no issue - then perhaps a cleaning of the other bad content would help as much as putting this list back in. Until you can show a clear change in the consensus, I don't know what else to tell you. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP length only makes a suggestion, not set a mandatory limit to follow (as it used to). Corpx 06:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well - i found another example of an article - (which i moved to the more encyclopedic title) - List of career achievements by Wayne Gretzky. I really am not sure what to tell you right now - it's pretty standard practice to be move embeded lists to separate articles once the main articles reach excessive length (as defined by WP:LENGTH); and seeing as these are guidelines and I still haven't seen anything that says this move is "wrong" - i'm just not sure what you'd like to do about it. I'm a bit worn on the DR process because of my recent experiences with it - but i'm listening. I'm not going to touch Favre or Manning (for now) - but seeing as the young article was created by an independent user - i just can't see any reason to revert that. If you come up with some findings that say the moves are frowned upon given the length circumstances, please let me know. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is just no length concerns for Vince Young right now. It sits at 33kb, while the FA Gretzky sits at 47kb. Gretzky's achievements page lists NHL records he set, not the team records he set, which are far less notable 07:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you want me to say other than you've shown me absolutely no reason to overturn consensus? Another user started the spin off, several other's have edited it - don't touch it. If you want to take this further, you're going to have to try and overturn very clear and concise documentation. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you a lot on Articles for Deletion

Seems to have become something of a pastime for you. I wish I could get back into it - it's fun. Good work you've been putting in though...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing my part :) Corpx 05:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M.V.E.i.

User:M.V.E.i. is still flying through the AfDs, hurriedly voting "Keep" to everything in sight without any explanation or even a simple "per nom". I reminded him that closing admins don't just count votes, and that he needs to explain his rationale, and he replied that that was "idiotic". wikipediatrix 15:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sucks, but I dont think there's much else we can do about it :/ Corpx 06:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frequenting AfDs is a bad thing?

User:Badagnani is getting a little worked up over the List of American AfDs. I hate telling people to be civil, since everyone knows that already, but if it escalates anymore...I don't know what to do but ignore it. That and he's spamming notices all over the place, such as TALK:Laos, TALK:Jamaica, TALK:Germany etc. Bulldog123 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really am not sure if those fall under canvassing. WP:ANI might be a better place to ask. I started a section there - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_Notices_on_article_talk_pages Corpx 06:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure you mean me?

I don't know what the uncite template is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.44.119 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

218.186.14.42 - Vandal Warning

Hi There,

I viewed a wiki page and was shown a vandal warning for the IP address mentioned in the subject. I have since registered an account so that I may respond to you here. However you may note that the IP address I think is for Starhubs MDA proxy server which ALL residential traffic goes through.

So I think perhaps posting warnings against that IP is simply showing the warning to a lot of people that have no need to see it. Not sure if you get both the IP addresses reported to you in the edits system, as I hope it shows the cache and actual user address.

Hope this helps.

John

Hello

That annoying last change message keeps appearing how do I delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.209.247 (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something more constructive perhaps

Hello! You and I obviously do not see eye to eye in most deletion discussions, but for me that is kind of a minor aspect of my editing (if you check my edits for today for example, you'll see that aside from the Dawn of the Dead discussion, I have focused on welcoming editors, improving articles, etc. One area that I noticed you work on that I have limited experience with deals with vandalism reporting. I recently made some attempts at this tonight:

  • 04:33, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism‎ (→User-reported - user still vandalizing despite warning)
  • 04:21, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:68.98.159.110‎ (welcomed anon vandal) (top)
  • 04:20, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Erythromycin‎ (Undid revision 154952304 by 68.98.159.110 (talk) anon vandalism) (top)
  • 04:19, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism‎ (→User-reported - added one)
  • 04:12, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Kekkei genkai‎ (Undid revision 154951012 by Bluelightdragon (talk) user had added all kinds of vulgar stuff)
  • 04:06, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles‎ (→That vandal - reply) (top)
  • 04:01, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism‎ (→User-reported - reporting IP that has made at least three unconstructive edits)
  • 03:57, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Echuca High School‎ (Undid revision 154947653 by 124.180.239.39 (talk) reverted off color remark) (top)
  • 03:56, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Mathoura, New South Wales‎ (Undid revision 154948576 by 124.180.239.39 (talk) anon made insult) (top)
  • 03:50, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:124.180.239.39‎ (welcomed anon vandal)
  • 03:50, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Echuca Secondary College‎ (Undid revision 154947733 by 124.180.239.39 (talk) anon added nonsense) (top)
  • 03:48, 1 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:75.65.121.246‎ (welcomed anon vandal) (top)

Anyway, I would be interested in any feedback you have on the above and any suggestions you may have as well and if you think it would be worth my time and efforts to check out that vandal proof thing. Please just reply on your talk page (I'll "watch" it for now) and I look forward to whatever response you may have and hopefully we'll be able to work on something constructive together. All the best! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly dont know if I'd recommend Vandal Proof to anyone anymore. That's because they've stopped development on it a while back and now are focusing on WikiMonitor. Due to this, a lot of good features in vandal proof are broken now (like the size of the edit, the word filter to find profane edits, viewing of the warnings, just to name a few). I still use it because it is much faster than reversion by manual way. The last version released (1.36) is very buggy and so I personally use 1.35. You might have better results than me though. If you want to use this program, you have to request permission at WP:VPRF. You might also want to check out the other tools available at Category:Wikipedia_counter-vandalism_tools. I still use VP because I'm too lazy to learn anything new. Corpx 05:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Corpx, thank you for the reply. Tonight, I just kept clicking on recent changes and looked for ones made by editors without a welcome (i.e. obviously new people), I noticed two, I think, who vandalized after being reported at AIV and were subsequently blocked. That was incredibly time-consuming, though. The other thing is how do we know what is an appropriate warning to make? Is there a page with templates that you use your warnings from? Thanks again! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeap, WP:WARN lists all the possible warning templates. The general rule of thumb is to start off at level1 or level2 (level1 is mostly for test edits and other good faith edits), but it is your judgment call. If the IP/user was warned and procedes to make the same/similar edit again, give the next level warning. Vandalism after level4 warning is reported to WP:AIV. The thing to keep in mind is that for most cases, you have to start over on the warning scale if the last warning is not from the current session. By that, I mean you cant give a level3 warning because somebody put a level2 warning a week ago. This is because IPs/users change and may lead to "biting" new editors. That's pretty much it. :) Corpx 06:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful and pleasant reply. I may take a day off or so from editing, so have a nice labor day weekend! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm somewhat back. Anyway, I made your tips into a section of my user page, which I thought you might like to see. Happy Labor Day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Akatsuki members

The List of Akatsuki members AfD you participated in has been brought to deletion review here. Please take a look if you're interested. (I'm guessing you've seen the DRV already, but since I'm notifying the other AfD participants I thought I'd better not leave any out.) — xDanielx T/C 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sociolinguistics research in India

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the Sociolinguistics research in India article has been substantially improved since you !voted in the AfD. If you have time to take a look and comment again on the AfD that'd be great. Thanks! --Zeborah 06:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notabilty (sports)

Here's a new proposal that you may be interested it. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 18:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curzon Street

Can you please revisit this discussion. I have done some digging and have found that the street has a very prestigious history, which I have added to the article, including several references. I believe the page is now of a quality whereby it should be kept. -- Roleplayer 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animecon (Finland)

Long story short, a rewrite was called for, a rewrite was made, since all previous discussion was based on the then-current state of the article you might want to re-check your position. Thanks. --Kizor 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woot! --Kizor 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can I not place a link to this page on the Queen II page?

http://www.queenpedia.com/index.php?title=Queen_II

This is a perfectly valid link to more information about this album. You allow a link to Queen Picture Hall, so why not a link to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp01 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 3 very knowledgeable fans, one of which has written a book on Queen, that edit the site. It's not an open wiki. Registration is closed to the public. I can assure you that more time and effort has been put into making sure the information is correct than anything that is on the Queen II page on wikipedia.

To see the book that I mentioned please look here. You can see that it has a 5 star review from customers on Amazon. Cmp01 04:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still, it is basically a fan site, albeit one run by knowledgeable fans. I'm not questioning your knowledge on the topic, but I don't think the information you post there can trusted as a reliable source. Corpx 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Picture Hall: Queen II is a fan site and it is linked from the Queen II page. What makes this ANY different than placing a link to queenpedia?? To suggest that the site is not a reliable source is absurd, when the Queen pages on Wikipedia are littered with factual errors. We have also received praise for the site from Queen's official studio archivist and chief studio engineer.

OK. I suggest you remove every single fan site link from every page on wikipedia. For example the main Star Trek page on wikipedia liks to a fan site. Spend 10 mins looking at our site and then tell me that it is simply another fan site. There is NO other Queen site on the internet that contains the level of detailed ACCURATE information that we have. The fact is that you are removing a link to a valuable resource for Queen fans. You have yet to give ONE good reason as to why this link should not be allowed.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paptimus Scirocco

I agree that this article needs to be fixed, but I would not delete it considering the character's fianl confrontation with the protagonist Kamille Bidan. Shaneymike 14:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopters in film & TV

As the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicopters in popular culture, you might be interested in Helicopters in film & TV. It's just been started, but there apperas to be no attempt to source it, or go beyond just being a list. I opposed the orginal deletion, but I do try to follow the rules, and this appears to be an attempt to skirt them, but with no actual improvement that might merit appealing the AFD. - BillCJ 06:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Corpx&oldid=156305623"