User talk:Kotepho/Archive 01

Some anon's browser decided to escape everything when they left me a message. I'm too lazy to fix it. If you have a find/replace in a textarea feel free to do s/\\\\/\/g and s/\\'/\'/g. kotepho 20:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, hope this looks OK Ashibaka tock 03:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

♥ Kotepho 03:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Kotepho/Archive 01: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!

(A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 12:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for caring enough to {{subst}} a template just for me! I'm touched, really. kotepho 12:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. :) Sammysam 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's

Thanks for the link, The first problem was that I didn't realise it had already been on AfD. So then I didn't know how best to recover. Dlyons493 Talk 17:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not kicking me...

..as hard as I deserved for my comment on the GNAA page. Appreciated. Bobo . 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Letter to Kotepho

Dear Mr/Mrs/Miss

While going through the mmorpg list I notice noticed a game called RPG World Online. The game instantly caught my eye, being a huge fan of old school RPGs I clicked on it. I was reading description and found the game to be quite interesting. After finishing the article, I clicked on discussion link and what I saw angered me. You were wishing to delete this article because you felt this game was not \"important.\" What you find important, may not be important to others, and what others may find important may not be important to you. In my opinion the article was well written, had a good amount of info, unbiased (it has criticism page), it even pointed out what was unique about the game. It angers me when I see people deleting well written articles like these blindly because they about less known games. These players probably created this article in hopes to attract more players to this game.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are for learning, when I go to Wikipedia I don't want to learn about stuff I already have knowledge about, I want to learn about new things, even things that most people don't know about.

I hope you reconsider the deletion of the RPG World Online Article.

Tom Basin

I am not randomly deciding if RPGWO warrants an article. It does not under the guidelines and policies wikipedia has set forth. See WP:SOFTWARE and Wikipedia:Deletion Policy. If this page was put on AFD it would almost certainly be deleted. I am trying to give it the benefit of a doubt and ask that the contributors improve the article enough that it does meet our criteria. Also, why are all of the '\s and ''s now escaped? I would reply on your talk page, but you are an anon. kotepho 02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Lolicon

1) Why are you doing this? Just curious. 2) You argue well but you don't have a winning hand in my opinion. Do you want to take this to RfC. If not I am going to tag the image for deletion. Otherwise I'll open the RfC. Herostratus 08:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. Well right I don't have the flags to delete it but I was going to tag it for speedy... absent any convincing counter-argument, which I did call for. I got a counter-argument, not a really convincing one IMO but a reasonable enough one that a speedy-delete would be clearly inappropriate... right, WP:CV, I had not thought of that, and per your mentioning it I put an entry there under "fair use claim, request for outside opinion", good suggestion, thanks, we'll see how it goes from there. Herostratus 19:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...raised eyebrow...

Me thinks you are a clever user ;) T K E 08:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick to catch on, that's all...:) T K E 05:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominar Bishan

Hi, I merged it into farscape which seemed the appropriate home. Dlyons493 Talk 22:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd have deleted the lot, but opinions validly differ as to what an encyclopedia is. By all means revert back to original position if you feel the material is worth keeping. Dlyons493 Talk 22:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings on this. If anyone wants to maintain it, that's fine by me. On a different, and considerably more important, topic facty is certainly a word (the OED, for example, has usages going back to 1883) but the definition being given seems to me to be a non-notable neologism. Dlyons493 Talk 22:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facty

Hi, I don't have immediate access to M-W, but I'd be surprised if they were using the word in the wiki sense. The Colbert Report mentions truthiness and that does seem to have gained some currency, in Ghits etc, but I don't see facty. The word is a perfectly appropriate entry for Wiktionary under its accepted usages but I don't see the current article as being one of them. Dlyons493 Talk 23:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ible

The prod was originally placed to give the writer a chance to improve. He didn't. It has been in place for a while, but a vandal deleted it; however, after a few edits, the AFD and DB were added, which are unnecessary seeing that the prod was in effect. _-M ^o P-_ 01:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even when a vandal takes it off? Because usually vandalism is the exception to rules. _-M ^o P-_ 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My revert-sense seems to have had higher priority then remember-the-rules sense. Oh well, it is on list for AFD now, so no worries. _-M ^o P-_ 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verses

Ok, I'll stop the additions. This seems confusing though; the majority of the verses from Matthew have pages of their own, all of which include translations. Should all those pages be stripped of the verses? It seems like there should be a uniform policy on this.

Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for any trouble I caused. Carl.bunderson 06:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Independent Operability AFD

Oh, thanks for that! All done now. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 20:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]