User talk:Redsky89

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Redsky89. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Especially to the WP:DOY articles. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits to DOY articles.[edit]

Thanks again for your contributions to the DOY articles. I have noticed you deleted 'ice' from hockey player. It is generally phrased as Ice Hockey player to disambiguate it from other forms of hockey. Just a tip. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 19:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that but everyone refers Ice Hockey as just Hockey its fine I leave feild Hockey because its the only one that's different.Redsky89 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
That may be so, but as a consensus and to keep a standard, Ice Hockey is used. Also please sign your posts using ~~~~. Thanks. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 15:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
ok if its gonna be a problem I'll top doing that sorryRedsky89 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
No need to apologize, you are doing a great job, just providing tips to help your editing out. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 16:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Matt Gunther[edit]

I know you wanted to verify his death as "truth" due to his HIV status, but the reliable source must explicitly verify his death. IMDB is unreliable and must be an "external link". However, if you are still concerned, try WP:BLPN then. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

how is IMDB unreliable?Redsky89 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The essay, WP:IMDB, says that it is generally unreliable due to the user-submitted status. WP:external links, the guideline, says that user-generated sites are unreliable, as well. --George Ho (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Quick note: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive146#Kip_Noll, Talk:Kip Noll, and User talk:HWWilson can help you how to consider every person "possibly living" without calling a person "deceased". According to WP:verifiability, "verifiability" is the main principle, not "truth". "Truth" is not a substitute for "verifiability". --George Ho (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Invitation to the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy[edit]

CVU Academy.svg
Hello, Redsky89! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and we would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Callanecc (talkcontribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 18:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Declined G10[edit]

Unless I am missing something, there was no reason to tag the article Vital Information as an attack page. I have therefor declined the G10 speedy deletion. These are meant for articles that need to be immediately blanked and removed in it's entirety due to the harm it may inflect on an individual. Kindly Calmer Waters 05:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to tag it as attack page. did you even look at it? their is no sources at all on that page and therefore should be deleted.Redsky89 (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Then the possible solutions would be to attempt to find sources, challenge or remove any material that is false, propose it for deletion, or submit it to AFD; however, no current sources would not be a valid reason for deletion in itself unless it was a BLP. I would suggest taking a look over WP:BEFORE, WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD, and yes I have read it or I wouldn't have declined it. Calmer Waters 05:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hemophiliac (band)[edit]

I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Hemophiliac (band), as the article was discussed at Articles for deletion in the past and per policy is permanently ineligible for proposed deletion. Additionally, the deletion rationale you gave, "no sources what so ever" [sic], is a valid concern for any article, but it is not in and of itself a valid reason to delete that article. If you still wish to pursue deletion, feel free to open another AfD, but I recommend going over WP:BEFORE and the arguments made in the previous deletion discussion (linked from the article's talk page) before doing so. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wilson Kettle[edit]

Hey man, delete the article if you see fit to do so. In the meantime the article is referenced and it was created in 2006. --HJKeats (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Aad Nuis[edit]

I removed your PROD tag here because it stated who the person was, and what made him notable. I also added a ref as well. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not the date, just the title[edit]

Malavita WAS retitled to The Family. I am not making it up, look into it yourself if you really don't trust me. Defender miz (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I know I fixed the title after I reverted it maybe you should look at the history before you go off on someone. Redsky89 (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Theaudience image[edit]

Hey, nice to meet you Redsky89. Can i ask why you removed the image with this edit? Thanks Jenova20 (email) 08:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

because that image is of an album cover not the band. the information on that file says that it is to only be used on that albums wiki page other uses will be a copyright violation. Redsky89 (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I see...I never noticed the album wikilink further down. Thanks for explaining Jenova20 (email) 08:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice work[edit]

You've been doing some great looking with with the Days of the Year category (adding information about people and expanding the births/deaths) and I just wanted to mention that it looks like great stuff. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY () 18:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Long overdue for your diligent work on the DOTY articles EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not vandalism in my opinion[edit]

I realized that you have messaged me about various edits I have done on years in film articles. You have claimed that what I have done is considered vandalism. I do not think it is vandalism as I am only trying to add more detail and information to the articles. Maybe you could tell me what is wrong with these edits.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything but I should at least get some sort of reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.21.226 (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

it doesn't fit the format we have for those pages the fact that it was reverted once should of given you that idea. it is unnecessary to have 2 sections for studios. Redsky89 (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
There isn't two sections for the studios, there is a section for distributors and production companies, like on the film's articles. Also, there have been various ways that the film charts have looked like, so I don't think that the way that I did it was the wrong way, it is just a different way. Also, Wikipedia is supposed to give as much information as possible (hence the name The Free Encyclopedia), so why is it considered bad that I'm doing just that, giving as much information as possible. This is why I think this website should go back to the old format for film articles where the rank, title, studio, actors, directors and gross appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.21.226 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
well too bad that is not how the pages are suppose to be first of all people could just chick on the film link to see all that information. second most of that information is already listed under the release dates why would we put it twice on the same page? we are not suppose to over link the article also we had a discussion a while back about trimming the articles because they were too long. Redsky89 (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your restoring[edit]

Do you have any strong reason of your restore, ignoring consensus?  Revi 17:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

9 people opposed the merge and only 6 people supported it that means the consensus is to keep the article. Redsky89 (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
See WP:SPA, looks like IPs have single-purpose of keeping her article. Also, single IP has !voted 3 times... Special:Contribs/Ayowuddupkris only has edits on talkpage, which indicates it is Single purpose account.  Revi 17:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


Edit war[edit]

It appears that you are engaging in an edit war with User:Deb (February 3, February 4, etc.). Please settle whatever disagreement on content you have. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ignore this. We've both explained our position on the Talk page. Deb (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Alright, but when was this discussion to limit held? I'm not seeing it anywhere. Or is this just your personal enforcement? Rusted AutoParts 17:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

it was discussed last year here. Redsky89 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

More Date articles[edit]

I fdn't know why you undid the addition of people with Wikiarticles to February 7 here. Your edit summary said "removed non notable people". If you want to suggest that they are not notable then you should take their articles to AFD. Don't remove them from lists based on your opinion of their notability. Meters (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

they were removed because their pages are underdeveloped wiki stubs please see the discussion here. Redsky89 (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I was not aware of that discussion. Meters (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Redsky89: please stop restoring deleted names with the explanation "We have already removed enough names". This is not a valid edit summary rationale. Quis separabit? 21:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
NO because the people you removed are notable and have a lot written about them I removed people who are lesser known and have smaller wiki pages. if your going to make it a problem then just remove everyone because this is getting really ridiculous Redsky89 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not going to be goaded into an edit war with you. If you have complaints take them here and maybe it can be sorted out. However when you intentionally overlook a specific comment, say "Jean Muir NOT a singer", and you restore precisely that incorrect info, then you are not editing conscientiously. Quis separabit? 05:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
then how about we don't remove anything until we figure out what is and isn't notable. Redsky89 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, dude :) Quis separabit? 05:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Margaret Fitzgerald (supercentenarian).jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Margaret Fitzgerald (supercentenarian).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Talia Castellano.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Talia Castellano.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)