User talk:Nixon802
My Talk
[edit]Ok, this is where you drop me a line.
No spam.
No flames. If you have legit conversations I will not delete you.
Please separate your message from the others with a LINE
Like so. Thx.
Remove the slander on Shocker Toys or they will seek further actions against you and Wiki!
I will remove all information reguarding Shocker Toys. :)
BTW - thank you Admins for protecting Wiki against 'edits', but I am prepared for this information to NOT be on my page now. You guys rock.
--Nixon 19:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Stikfas. I have no association with Stikfas or ShockerToys. My changes and Ad flagging was made as a result of what happened with various other pages in regards to product lists. As for a negative point of view on the product, again I do not have one; Infact I own several of each product. Both the Minimates entry and the Shockini entry were edited for listing their products. Why does Stikfas seem exempt to this ruling? I know from reading your thread over at the Stickfanatics forum your are not happy with me adding the ad flag to your page, and thats fine, however opinions differ and I was told by several Wikipedians that posting a list of products on an entry was not acceptable at all. Adycarter 15:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah! Sweet Dialog! How I love thee!
Thank you Adycarter for engaging in dialog.
These are the facts - Shocker was tagged not because (or JUST because) of his product list, but because he included a MSRP in it. This brought scrutiny from a dedicated WIKI editor, and with scrutiny - yes... I agree product lists are on the border and NOT very useful in WIKI.
I personally did not LIST the products.
Other contributors did, and they made good arguments for it. So when I redesigned the site, I kept the list. I think we should get a debate going in the TALK page of STIKFAS Article so that if/when the kits are removed, people will see why.
Where things went wrong
My "issue" - is that just because something happens in another entry (that is poorly written and concieved) does not mean that one should run around to every site in WIKI and delete their content.
The tagging of advertisenment looks like "retribution" and not an honest need to see Wiki be a more informative site.
THIS IS HOW IT LOOKS:
You have NO info on your USER page
You have No documentation of your devotion to WIKI or of your involvement in "cleanup".
...and you cruised over to the STIKFAS article after talks with Shocker about "why can't WE have a list... STIKFAS DOES!!!!" I saw the FORUM posts and took screenshots. I know this to be NEAR the truth of what happened.
What you don't know is that the Shockini entry is [NOT VALID]. It was deleted by commitee and has not done anything as a company to really change it's VIABILITY as brand, and therefore deserving of "note". I know stating this makes some people mad, but it's just a fact. Shocker himself re-created the Wiki entry (we ALL know what his Adelphia Cable IP addresses are) and THAT TOO is a violation of the WP rules of conduct.
Wow, bet you didn't expect me to write this much HUH?
I am sure you mean well, and if you are interested in WIKI you should spend some time volunteering with clean-up, deletions, and article authoring. It's a great way to learn wiki-code and help contribute to a REMARKABLE research tool.
IN THE END - the listing for any article should not be about product placement... it is about that "person"... they are reading a forum, or a news bit, or see a product on a shelf... and thay say to themselves... "WHAT IS THAT?" - they get on the internet and WIKI it... and find an entire range of things to explore.
And that leads me back to Kit listings... The argument made to me was that "What if a Firefighter glides into the site and sees just a picture of a Soldier... or a robot. It doesn't MEAN anything to her. But if she sees that they have a fire-fighter theme then THAT would cause them to explore deeper... and not the mere listing of "products"...
Perhaps when we disscuss the revision we will list the THEMES separate of the kit-makeup. This may have to happen. But lets have it happen in an environment were we are discussing things... not cutting and slashing recklessly.
Thank you for reading --Nixon 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
POST SCRIPT: I visited the MINIMATES article, and it looks great. Listing releases in articles about "collector's items" seems like a VIABLE practice, and had I seen any debate on the matter, I would have voted that the MINIMATES site looks fine to me.
--Nixon 14:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:STIKFASBETA.JPG
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:STIKFASBETA.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.
Thanks,
I'll toss these on when I get a moment... I'm still learning the ropes.
--Nixon 15:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Nomination of Kootikooti for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kootikooti is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kootikooti until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Darkwind (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)