User talk:Pak21/Archive7

Just so you know

I had the accounts disturbedrcool and immortallord but I only made new accounts because you kept on banning me. Now I relise that I may have made some trouble so from now on I'll keep the edits sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo legend 00 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Your're probably right unfortunately the beauty will have to go. I'll have a look for an image at flickr but I am certain we won't be able to a completely free image for this tall lady for some time. As for the image of the North Korean Dennis Taylor, Kim il jong, i had no idea that the image wasn't free. I am surprised that such "copywrighted" images are acceptable when we can get a free image of him . I thought you would have removed all these from that article too ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this mate I was kind of calling my bluff. Believe me I spent a lot of time successfully obtaining a free license of aesthetic looking Bollywood film actors from the website Bollywood blog which are a great asset to wikipedia. See Category:Images from Bollywood blog - I managed to negotiate a free license under 3.0 officially which took a lot of effort in contact with the director of Caledonian Publishing on which I was congratulated for..Occasionally I try to get away with an image or two such as Gabrielle which I like but I genuinely admit I shouldn't try to for the projects sake. I know about Kim Jong Il -of course I can't see him being availbale for photo taking in North Korea with all the repression and censorship. At the least though a rationale needs adding to these to make it more acceptable. I didn;t even check that image as I assumed it was free when it clearly isn't. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see all those pictures go, but you are clearly correct according to policy. In the interest of improving comprehensibility of future edit summaries, the word is "replaceable". Rracecarr 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUR expedited request

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied over there --Pak21 14:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with your recent edit

Thanks for flagging LandBlueBook.com as WP:CSD per notability requirement. I was going to do that instead of just the {{advertisement}} tag, but a recent wrangling with someone over my CSD'ing of their article has made me a little gunshy and less BOLD. I concur with your edit. Thanks! - Ageekgal 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SkiersBot find

Thanks for the 'heads up' on this. For some bizarre reason the Category:Fictional universe stubs‎ was included in the recursive list (a 'daughter' of) the Category:Comics stubs. As there was only one subcategory therein that could be strictly considered as a 'comics' related fictional universe, I have removed the link and the fict universe stubs won't be included in lists of comics stubs any more. Sometimes it's these 'goofs' that help fix things that aren't looked at too often (I would never have thought that fict universes would be considered as 'comics' by someone)! I'll go back on the bot tags and remove any that clearly fall into those other fict universes categories. SkierRMH 20:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notability

Could you please tell me why there's no sign of notability in one of the recent articles i've wrote? Thanks! --Eventempty 09:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting link

hi pak, i go to insert my site link in commodore 64 wikipedia, u delete my link. You work in Wos, i have tons of material similar, this is a conflict for you ? My site and my material are totally legal.

i wait a fast reply or i go to speack directly with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.219.177 (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this here. You have failed to provide any evidence at all that your site is legal. --Pak21 18:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Padua

No sign of notability, either in the article or via Google --Pak21 11:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pak, you've voted to delete my article about Ricardo Padua because it shows no sign of notability. I'm not the person in the article, but I know him. I think this article is interesting to the graphic designers community, particulary the portuguese / brazilian ones. This person works with names like Pink Floyd, Roxy Music, etc.. and a lot of people in the music industry. Concerning notability, RTPN (the portuguese international channel) have made an interview and a short story about him, telling about his works and he is giving a lot of small interviews in design newspapers. Unfortunatelly, not all of them are available via internet, and google is great but is it the method to show notability? If you search for Ricardo Padua on youtube you can watch the interview and the short story about him at RTPN. If you think the article should stay at wikipedia, please tell the other admin, because, as you've might noticed already, my english is not so good.

All good for you. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.41.102 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waxworks

Sorry, edit conflict. I thought I'd gone back too many pages in the browser and was conflicting with my own earlier edit, if that makes any sense. Anyway, I removed the links you listified as they didn't really seem to add much, especially the latter one, but add them back if you want. Cheers, Miremare 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tags

In reply to this comment. Strickly they can get blocked for it eventually...but only if they persist and blocking is the only solution. I prefer a gentler method of correction. I remember a new user I cut slack to rather than following policy. This gave him time to work out what wikipedia was about and turn into a constructive editor. Sometimes seeing if this is the case is worth a bit of AfD time. Luckily in this case the admin-delete button has intervened ! - Peripitus (Talk) 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

If you revert another user's edits, as you have done at Libero it is advisable to always give an edit summary to explain why you are doing this. If not, there is a chance your edits may be seen as vandalism. Thanks - Soprani 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like here or here? --Pak21 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libero

Linking an article to a redirect puts added strain on the system, when the simple correct pipe can be used instead it should be. And the terminology which you are using is not neutral, not most commonly used universally and most importantly in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions on articles in relation to it (for example we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Football). The slang American term for it is only used in articles which pertain to the USA only, such as that nations clubs, teams and players. - Soprani 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four-wheel drive in Formula One‎

The "future" section is based on something I read in a suppliment to F1 Racing magazine. I'll see if I can dig it out. I'm afraid I'm a lot better at finding information and writing articles than I am at citing my sources... Spiderlounge 19:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on Warhammer 40K

Sorry about that; I didn't see that note (i.e. "Note 5") when making my edit. I'll mentally file that away to prevent future embarassment. I am sure I am getting into nettlesome territory here, but has there been any thought given to some sort of rule like this? We use codices in the course of regular writing on the subject in the article, but quotes from Games Workshop merit their spelling? (I can't even bring myself to write it.) --Lloegr-Cymru^{£ ¥} 13:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message, I think calling them "books" might not be such a bad idea, especially as people keep telling me they're an endangered species! In all seriousness, I take your point about the "invented noun" idea. Anyway, as I said, I've filed the "Note 5" away in my dusty old library of a brain for future reference. --Lloegr-Cymru^{£ ¥} 14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Material

Pak21,

Hey just wanted to bring to your attention that this is not copyright infringement because NBC and News Corp (Fox) in their joint venture Hulu have partnered with MSN Video and AOL Video. See article below. Since I don't work for either, it isn't wrong trying to engage users in video, especially free videos.

http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/hulu-integrating-with-msn-aol.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfwg22 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogcatalog

Sorry if I am making a mistake but Blogcatalog is notable, I see mybloglog has their own page and blogcatalog is just as bit, has an alexa traffic rank under 1500 not far behind mybloglog and over 85,000 members.

Chris

Crkian (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trip pilots

The Trip pilots article was not part of the AfD process. It was deleted last week via the speedy process under the G10 criteria. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake. Do you have any suggestions as to what we should do with the page now? I did not nominate the re-created page via speedy G10 again because it was toned down from the original, deleted version. However I still do not feel the article is salvageable. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief heads-up

In case you missed it, it's entirely posible our old friend User:Disturbedrcool1 is back with a new puppet: User:The Immortal Lord 00. Hasn't touched any 40K articles yet (apart from joining the Wikiproject. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 12:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles by User:SeanMorleyRoxs

Hello, Pak21 ... you recently PRODed the article Tracey Morrison (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created by SeanMorleyRoxs (talk · contribs) about a fictional TV character ... several of this editor's articles about actors have been PRODed or speedy deleted as A7 ... OTOH, I did not touch any of their articles on characters ... perhaps you would care to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiel McNaughton, and possibly tag some of their other fictional character-related articles (since WP:BLP doesn't apply to them, I didn't flag them.) ... Happy Editing! —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 14:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO Link Spam!

Since when is FREE Stuff Link-Spam?

Look at the other external Links, quite some DO HAVE MASSIVE commercial ads and links, and offers for sale! My Site does NOT do so.

All content on my Link is 100% concerning Commodore Stuff, nothing else.

Would it make you happy if I scratch the "evil" MOS-CHIP Link?

http://www.computer-taeuber.de/mos/video.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.58.60.57 (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial links are not necessarily spam. Links to free material are not necessarily not spam; don't confuse the issue. Links added to Wikipedia must satisfy WP:EL, particularly with regard to why the information on the link is relevant to a general encyclopedia reader. I have made no comment on any other links. --Pak21 (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ilandi

My comments were made are on the AFD listing, but yes I should have made a more detailed comment. My only excuse is that I've been on Candidates for Speedy for the last three hours now and I'm pretty worn out. The creator of this article appears sincere about attempting to conform. I don't think this will save him, but it does earn him a few days grace. I am a fairly ruthless deleter/deletor (sp?) in general, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when they argue their case. Manning (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just saw that. I'm on my way over there now. Manning (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice bit of investigative work there. The article is gone now and I closed the AFD. Manning (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Undefined (disambiguation)

Hello, I've posted a rationale on the talk page. Please let me know if there's a better way to handle this? Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Kahu

AfD Help

Yo Pak, since you're very up on putting articles through for deletion, I wanted to ask your help on the "article" Iraqi Kurdistan and the United States. Aside from notability issues (I'm not sure what it's really supposed to be about...), it's unsourced, POV, and reads like an opinion essay. Not being any semblance of a deletionist myself, I'm not totally sure how to process it (and for that matter, would this qualify for speedy deletion?) and hoped that perhaps you could take a gander at it, "asking for a second opinion" -like. 'Preciate it! VigilancePrime (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it (and I even got the original author template). It only took me two attemptes to get the template right! Thanks for your help. VigilancePrime (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Actors and TV Characters

Hello again, Pak21 ... I'm tracking these NN fictional characters from Home and Away that were created by SeanMorleyRoxs (talk · contribs):

Tamsyn Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dr. Lewis Rigg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martin Bartlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've put a dated {{prod}} on each of them, but I was wondering if you would support an AfD for them if Some Other Editor should remove them ... I'm also trying my new Warn-fiction protocol. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must strenuously oppose this pogrom of fictional characters from Wikipedia. I know some would prefer if WP were the exclusive domain of academics and intellectuals but it simply is not. That these articles are poorly written and are of interest mostly only to teenagers is not, in my humble opinion, reason enough to delete them from WP. Ryan Albrey (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Ryan Albrey#Fictional characters --Pak21 (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come now. Everything is negotiable on this Wikipedia of ours. Articles that are likely to appeal only to teenagers, while naturally still being subject to all the policies of Wikipedia, should be granted more lenience than other articles. I am not familiar with the fictional character Pauline Fowler and I am going to guess and say you are not familiar with the fictional character, Morag Bellingham. However if I had to guess yet again I would say that Eastenders has broader generational appeal than Home and Away. Where do you imagine that one is going to find "verifiable sources with editorial control" on the subject of Morag Bellingham? However that lack of "verifiable sources with editorial control" ought not completely disqualify it from Wikipededia. Some of these articles you want to delete are of interest to a great number of people. I dare say of greater interest to a greater number of people than some of the more obscure concepts in Astrophysics that get articles of their own on Wikipedia. I feel the significant interest that people have in these articles ought at least party ameliorate the difficulty one has in finding "verifiable sources with editorial control" for said articles. Furthermore how can you say with such certainty that these articles have "no chance of being supported by reliable sources"? You demonstrate yourself with your Eastenders example that reliable sources CAN be found for fictional characters in a soap opera. What is your rush? If you wait a while somebody like me will take up one of these articles and improve them to a encyclopedia standard. Ryan Albrey (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a difference of opinion on Ignore all rules. I don't like to get into Wikipedia:Wikilawyering however I must observe to you that although NPOV cannot be trumped by Ignore All Rules because NPOV is not a rule at all but rather one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, Verifiability on the other hand is merely a policy, not one of the 5 pillars and it can definitely be trumped by Ignore All Rules when following said policy is to the impoverishment of Wikipedia. It is entirely in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia to ignore Verifiability when it is a candidate for Ignore All Rules but still keep to the intention of NPOV. Don't conflate Verifiability and NPOV. Verifiability is merely a tool for achieving NPOV. It is not NPOV itself. If I write an article about Morag Bellingham and I have difficulty finding "verifiable sources with editorial control", but I follow consensus among editors on the matter of whether or not she was an evil character or not then I have remained true to the spirit of NPOV. I am not sure how I have given you the impression that I am reluctant to abide by the consensus of the community. As for the Morag article we will see how it goes. If it remains on Wikipedia for long enough I will try to bring it up to higher standard. Ryan Albrey (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda Hunter DRV

Thank you for notifying me of this. The AfD link at the top took me to the first AfD, not the second. I changed this and added a new comment. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"manual" CSBot check

You can add a wikilink to the page you want to check to the "unprocessed requests" section User:CorenSearchBot/manual and CSBot will do the legwork when it gets a chance (usually 1-3 min delay). The result will be reported there. — Coren ^(talk) 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slashes of various orientations

Thanks! --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Pak21 ... while working on the {{Db-web}} template and Warn-web protocol, I got to thinking that there might be a use for a {{Db-fiction}} template ... if such a thing existed, would you use it in conjunction with the Warn-fiction protocol? Should it be more general than "fictional character", e.g., include "episode of a series" or any other fiction-related topics? Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwellers of the Forbidden City

Well, in case you didn't notice, you not only failed to make your point, but the article actually got deleted. Plus, the closing admin posted a long dissertation which will undoubtedly be used as fodder by the deletionists next time around. (correction - they're not waiting until next time.[1] BOZ (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC) ) Please, in future, exercise better judgment and don't do the deletionists any favors, because they already have enough ammunition already.[reply]

That said, I honestly wish you happy holidays, Merry Christmas, or whatever may be applicable. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pak21, you've been doing good work. I know how hard it is to have good content, content that even meets the notability guidelines, get deleted by the petty bureauocrat deletionists. I hope it helps to know that there are others out here who support you. I have my days where I just want to throw in the towel myself. I hope your wikibreak is a short one. Happy holidays of whatever sort you enjoy! — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll to merge "Alternative terms for free software" to "Free and open source software"

Can you please comment at Talk:Alternative_terms_for_free_software#Survey. Thanks. --Karnesky (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Moon Dogs (fantasy race)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Moon Dogs (fantasy race), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Moon Dogs (fantasy race) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Moon Dogs (fantasy race), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]