User talk:Pyrospirit

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Pyrospirit}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome to my user talk page. Please sign your posts using ~~~~ at the end of your message. I prefer communicating directly on Wikipedia, but if you want to talk with me privately, you can send me an e-mail.

If you are here because I tagged your page for deletion, please read the reason I tagged it and related policies before asking me! If it still doesn't seem like it should be deleted, I'll do my best to explain why, and remember that I do sometimes make mistakes. Don't forget to link to the page.

—Pyrospirit (talk · contribs)

Fishing

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

As shown above (grin), I turned the page into a transcludable template itself. Maybe we should just turn Template:Trout into a transclusion of it? You can always make a modified version at Template:Trout2, or something? - jc37 18:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess the text doesn't have to be a part of the template. I'll go ahead and make the change to the {{trout}} template. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I dunno, I kinda liked yours too. And I'd love to see Template:Minnow : ) - jc37 19:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I guess I'll go with the trout2 idea and make my old one into trout2. The minnow one... you can go ahead and do that one if you want. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just move trout to trout2, then, to retain the edit history? - jc37 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, already created trout2. The edit history was just me creating it plus my minor edit to add in a tag I forgot in the first edit, so there's no real reason to keep it in {{trout2}}. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was more effort than it was worth. I just did a history merge, but it took more edits than either page currently has : ) - jc37 20:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Why'd you go to all the trouble? You do realize all you did was combine and rearrange a few edits all by me on a couple very similar pages... Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the original intent was "being helpful". But noting my comment immediately above, I'd have to agree with you in this case. - jc37 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History merges and technicalities aside... Yay! We get to whack people with trout now! ^_^ Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but please use your trout with restraint and in moderation : ) - jc37 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm not the sort to go indiscriminately trout-whacking. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liar. Well, maybe in Wikipedia, but I can see you metaphorically whacking people with trouts rather indiscriminately offline. Kalai Eljahn (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't deny it. :P Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right back at ya

{{minnow}} :) >Radiant< 12:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! ...Though it is still a trout, just a smaller one. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD backlog

How do I get there, and what do I do? I want to help clear it in any way possible, but I can't do anything if I can't get there. (p.s. Not an admin.) --Gp75motorsports 02:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A CSD backlog is a result of a large number of pages being listed for speedy deletion. The complete list of pages tagged for speedy deletion, and the place at which the backlog exists, can be found at CAT:CSD. However, only an administrator can help with a CSD backlog, because clearing it involves deleting the pages listed there that meets the criteria for speedy deletion. What non-admins can do involving the CSD backlog is help out with the new page patrol from Special:Newpages and tag articles, either for cleanup/improvement of some sort, or for deletion. (You may find the following scripts useful for this: Twinkle, wikEd, NewPagePatrol.) Yes, this does add to the CSD backlog rather than reducing it, but better that than ignoring articles that should be deleted. Anyway, a backlog at CAT:CSD is a perpetual issue for administrators, and they can deal with it fine. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the message already.

It looks like I inadvertently started a page with my username. It was an accident. I was only trying to get to my user talk page. I got the message and even posted that on the talk page for the spyder130 article you tagged for deletion. That was why I deleted your long disclaimer on my user talk page. I'm not sure why you put an identical message on my talk page after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyder130 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The message I placed on your talk page is the standard message notifying the creator of an article when that article is tagged for speedy deletion. Another user (not me) reverted your deletion of my message, because it's generally considered bad practice to delete messages on your talk page without explanation, especially speedy deletion notices, which are considered a type of warning for certain purposes. I didn't put the notice back, your deletion of it was simply reverted by someone else. In a case like this, though, where the creation of the article was unintentional, there shouldn't be any problem with it. To avoid having your edits mistakenly reverted like that, you might want to use an edit summary to explain what you're doing. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the greeting and help left on my page

Nuff' said. Arain321 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC) • contribs) 17:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :-) Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly (Moist snuff)

A tag has been placed on Gizzly (Moist Snuff), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

I am letting you know as you seem to have removed an earlier "spam" tag and replaced it with some gentler solutions. With the best will in the world, I cannot see this article as anything but advertising for a single product. It has no other purpose. If you still disagree, please use the "hangon" tag and follow the process. Bielle (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember removing the speedy deletion tag, just placing some cleanup tags on an article that hadn't been patrolled yet. I think what happened was that it was created, tagged for deletion under G11, then deleted; it was later recreated, and I tagged it for cleanup without realizing it had already been deleted previously. (From what I can recall of it, I agree with your decision to tag it for speedy deletion.) I was using the [[WP::-)|Friendly]] script to tag it for cleanup, and it doesn't remove already existing tags; therefore, unless there was a glitch in the script, I wouldn't have removed the speedy tag. Does this explain what happened? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Ifexist

Hello, Pyrospirit. You have new messages at MZMcBride's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--MZMcBride (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome at Wikiversity

Just wanted to say hi :-) ----Erkan Yilmaz (talk ?, wiki blog) 17:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice to see Wikiversity has a good system of welcoming too! I found the message quite helpful. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a big mistake

Hi there, I think you should try first to search on google about Kord, and then before try to delete my contributions, think if it's fair what you did. I work on that subject and i think it's not fair that you come and delete something that you don't know about it. I appreciate to search about a subject, before do this kind of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drokstef (talk • contribs) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing this conversation on your talk page. Please reply there. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search better ;)

Search better :) It's overdo those "not notable" reasons that you post it. Sorry for being so intrude but it's not so good when you discover that there are persons which are not havin' some other things to do then put "Article for deletion" without comin' with notable reasons. take care and please stop this game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drokstef (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing at a game here. I seriously believe that Kord (band) is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, so I started a deletion discussion on it. This is standard process for articles that are possibly non-notable, as talked about at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. At this point, it's up to the community to determine consensus on whether it is notable or not; after the AfD discussion is over, we'll see whether other Wikipedians agree that it's not notable. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong aplication!!!

hi, I'm so annoyed 'cause you're still trying to delete some articles which are very notable (without searching for reliable sources) and this articles are containing some important criteria for musicians like: they had a charted hit on a national music chart (RT100) and if you search about RT100, you'll se that it's a reliable source; and then, this band (Kord) contains at least one member who was once a part of a band that is otherwise notable (Nicoleta Alexandru); and then, they had been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network (SRR - Radio România Actualităţi); and then, they had been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network, like : RadioTotal which had them in their top too, and few weeks ago they were invited on Romantica (Romanian TV Channel) in a tv-show named Teoviziunea, where they launch the new video of a single named Viseaza. You don't think that this are reliable source and notable? Please contact all those named sources and find that i'm NOT a crazy editor which is writing some aberrations. Everything that i write you it's TRUE and because of that i think that both article are notable. Thanks for reading this and hope you'll not suggest again both articles for "Article for deletion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.80.198 (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable and you have this wealth of reliable sources, then why don't you put them in the article itself? Also, just because something is true doesn't mean it's notable. Besides, whether it's deleted or not is really out of my hands at this point—I don't control the results of the deletion debate. Again, if you have reliable sources that show notability, put them in the article. The deletion debate doesn't end for a few more days; there's still time to improve the article. One thing you may wish to do is to place the article's content in a subpage of your user page, from where you can edit it freely without it being deleted. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!

hey, sorry 'cause i'm telling you that, but you're thinking of what you write or what??? How can you ask me to put those reliable sources in the article itself in time that they are already there and all you need it's to verify them, which i did and were ok. That's why i comment about it. And then beside that, have you read "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" ? i think NOT! Look there and find what it means "notable" for musicians and ensembles! And last thing that it's really annoying for me, is how can you tell me to place the article's content in a subpage of my own page, when this article it's not about me and it's about a band named KORD, which look being a notable band!!! Sorry if i upset you, but it's not logical and fair what did you write above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.80.198 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 21 December 2007

If you had read the pages I linked you to, you would have known that user subpages can be used to store articles you're working on, not just information about yourself. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's that ?

hello dear Pyrospirit, i'd realy love to explain me what's that? i mean about Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Drokstef you should try to learn how to use IP_SEARCH and the accuse others about Suspected sock puppets. How dare you to accuse me for something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.168.220.29 (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2007

As I already stated in the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Drokstef, judging from the various edits made to Kord (band) and Stefan Corbu, especially the common pattern of removing the AfD tag then commenting on the AfD page, I have reason to believe that you, the other IP, and Drokstef are the same person. If this turns out to be incorrect, then I apologize for any trouble this has caused. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your name

how did you change the color of your name and stuff? links would be great Niyant (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that? I just used a <span> tag to change the color. All you do is this: <span style="color: whatever">Your text here</span>, of course replacing "whatever" with the color you want. Here's the exact code used for my signature:

[[User:Pyrospirit|<span style="color: green">Pyrospirit</span>]] ([[User talk:Pyrospirit|<span style="color: darkorange">talk</span>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Pyrospirit|<span style="color: red">contribs</span>]])

For more information on this, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention this part... to make something like this into your signature, so that it appears whenever you sign with ~~~~, go to Special:Preferences, check the Raw signature box, type the code for your signature into the signature line, and save your preferences. Just keep in mind that your signature should include a link to your user page or user talk page, should be fairly easy to read (i.e., no yellow or really small fonts), and shouldn't be longer than a few lines at most. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 06:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and wish you a happy holiday! Niyant (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 07:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debt-based monetary system

As an uninvolved party here, I'd just like to point out that WP:3RR does not entitle you to three reverts, and in fact recommends avoiding multiple reverts at all. Reverting precisely three times and numbering each one is in violation of the spirit of the rule, if not the precise letter. Why not just discuss it on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting when there's clear opposition to it? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been talked to death on Talk:Debt-based monetary system. Every piece of info in that article may be found in other articles. The terms "debt money" and "debt-based monetary system" are only used by non-economists and conspiracy theorists. The articles debt-based monetary system, debt money, and debt-free money were used to push a certain POV, hence they should be redirected or deleted ASAP. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there's clear opposition to just redirecting it without consensus. WP:NPOV states that Wikipedia articles have to be neutral in their coverage of a topic; that doesn't mean that Wikipedia can only cover topics that are neutral. If a certain term is totally POV, biased, and practically propaganda, it still can have an article if the term itself has been notably used. Of course, that also means that that term shouldn't be used by editors in an unrelated article outside of that context, because that would be pushing that POV. Why don't you try proposing a merge, or at least a mention of what you're saying in the article? If you can find reliable, independent sources that state that it's "only used by non-economists and conspiracy theorists," then people will probably agree to give it a mention in the article. But just redirecting or deleting articles without consensus or reliable sources supporting your reasoning goes completely against how Wikipedia works. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to claim there's a consensus, keep in mind that Timothymak and Karmaisking are likely the same person. I'm going to report him for suspected sockpuppetry (in the past, he owned the sockpuppet, Maktimothy). If an article is propaganda, it should be deleted. Surely, you have to agree Wikipedia is not political propaganda. If the term is referenced, for instance, as a political slogan, like Culture of corruption, then yes, it makes sense. But "debt-based monetary system" presents the false claim that fiat represents debt. Since that claim is false, it ought to be removed. Since I am having difficulty getting the article redirected and\or deleted, I'll edit revise the article to account for the term's political, pseudoeconomic undertones.

I cannot find sources to prove something "doesn't exist" in academia, because that's negative proof. The burden is on the arguer to find proof for his claims. Find a reliable source that demonstrates economists don't study unicorns. Does that mean, therefore, if I post the words, "Economics is the study of unicorns," you'd suggest we keep it until somebody finds a source to debunk it? Of course not. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]