User talk:Reyk/Archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Reyk/Archive1, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

some General guidance.
Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Take a look at Consensus of standards
Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf ^melmac 09:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

USS Edmonds (DE-406)

Hi, thanks for tagging articles for speedy deletion. You made a good catch with USS Edmonds (DE-406), but please be aware that "This article is an incoherent personal account of an event that is not explained clearly." is not precisely a CSD criteria. Please check out WP:CSD for a list of the current criteria, and use one of those when listing stuff for speedy, that's really helpful for those of us working on clearing out stuff from that category. Thanks! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exploded fiber wood

I'd like to echo Ëvilphoenix's comments. Many people will argue over whether Exploded fiber wood qualifies under WP:CSD. Please look at what I did to Exploded fiber wood. This approach avoids distracting people with the cumbersome WP:AfD process (required if not speedy) and Wikipedia gets a new article that may be useful to someone. Please see Albert M. Wolters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 17 for an example of how consuming the AfD process can be. Good editing! -Walter Siegmund 07:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Walter. I'm still sort of starting out at Wikipedia and I've had a bit of trouble following what's happened to the "Exploded Fiber Wood" article since I tagged it. All I know is, the version I tagged was nonsense. It read: exploded fiber wood are woods which are exploded with a help of a bomb. (hydrogen bomb). Now I'm no expert in the wood chipping and pulping industry and to me that sounded like levelling a forest with a nuclear weapon. As it stood, it was nonsense. Or am I missing something? Reyk 10:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Patent nonsense

Please see Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. I haven't been around very long either, but I think the problem is that nonsense is a matter of judgement. We don't want content deleted just because one person doesn't understand it, so some editors are very strict in their criteria. The original content of Exploded fiber wood isn't really Patent nonsense. It isn't PN1 and it isn't PN2 because it does make sense, even if it isn't likely or useful. However, it is not verifiable. Unverifiable content is not a criterion for speed deletion, as much as we might like it to be. A sympathetic admin may delete it anyhow, but s/he may be reverted by another and that causes trouble. Anyhow, I encourage you to try redirecting items like this. When there is an existing article, it is just as easy as adding a speedy deletion tag, and it may result in less work for others.-Walter Siegmund 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting Reddy

Thanks Reyk for replacing all Reddy's with Reddys in Reddy article. Some anon guy/gal thought he knew too much english and changed all Reddys into Reddy's. :-) --Vyzasatya 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. It's funny actually. I saw one "Reddy's", changed it, and then realized the article was peppered with them. Reyk 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star

Thanks for the star!!! All the best, --MacRusgail 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone

Noticed you'd just passed the 200th edit. Thanks for your contributions, the maths is way over my head, but I appreciate the astronomy ones. Alf ^melmac 08:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Reyk 21:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions, the astronomy is way over my head, but I appreciate the maths ones. :) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Reyk 23:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drente / Drenthe

Thanks for your correction: the correct name of the province is indeed Drenthe, with an "h". It's a silent "h" in Dutch, and this is therefore a common mistake. I've moved the list to List of towns in Drenthe. Eugene van der Pijll 16:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Reyk 21:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kosuke Niwa

Yes, I will, as soon as possible.

Thank you for correcting the grammar problem on asteroid articles

It was a mistake. This work almost cannot be done by human, so I will try to write a bot to fix them when I am free. - Yaohua2000 10:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.

Spyware!?

Hey thank you for listening and reading my pain, and thanks for the adivce

i will see to it, to get this useless fool!/Geek/Nerd out of me pc

>x<ino 01:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spyware!?

nop, no point my dad deleted the profile and made a new one

i think he reinstall the xp

thanks >x<ino 01:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the American Civil War

Could you please revisit the discussion, read my comments there and consider changing your vote?

I think two reasons used to delete this are faulty:

This list includes information which would be lost if categorized. Categories cannot list the date and manner of death in a organized manner as lists do. Categorizing would lose the info.
Wikipedia is not a memorial doesn't apply as that rule is for people who do not deserve an article. These people played major roles in the American Civil War and therefore do not fall under the memorial clause of WP:NOT. They already have articles, and lists listing closely related people should not be deleted because they happen to be dead.

Thanks for your attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butanone

Did you get the information? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

indices of refraction

It is nice that you are adding indices of refraction to some chemical pages, but the information does not belong in the body of the article. Instead, as with similar facts, you should put it in the chemical information box. --Pmetzger 05:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User 203.94.152.2

You gave this person their last warning two days ago, and they've just come and vandalised my user page (reverted). Just so you know. Reyk 07:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this was their only edit in three days, a short block won't achieve much, and a long block isn't justified. Let me know if he comes back. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hodge v. The Queen

Yup, that was a typo. Looks like I pressed "enter" too soon. Any chance you are able to move it back? I can't seem to do it. Thanks. --PullUpYourSocks 03:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuggeting

NUGGET (AfD discussion)

You based your opinion merely on the presence of a load of schoolchildren defending this article. Please re-visit both the article and the discussion. Please also visit Talk:NUGGET#Cleanup and consider adding the article to your watchlist and assisting in the effort to keep the article clear of unverifiable additions and original research by schoolchildren. Uncle G 15:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. I only decided to vote because of the sock puppets getting my attention. That my vote is delete has to do with the (non-existent) merits of the article itself. Now, I've gone back and looked at the article again, and it's still not worth keeping, so I'm not changing my vote. Reyk 21:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PUS

I've changed my vote on this AfD to keep, based on evidence of radio play, record releases, and tours that leads me to believe that this band is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 02:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna Fight?

Bob Vander Plaats and Jim Nussle are perverted American political whores. Chet Culver is my candidate for Iowa Governor. As an Australian, you must defer; or rather you prefer Americans imposing their political views upon you? Nussle's divorce was sordidly public; he is an adulterer, and 2nd wife Karen is the homewrecking slut who currently works the K-Street stroll. --FourthAve 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All these things you are saying about Nussle and Plaats are personal opinions and prove to me that I was right in adding a {{POV}} tag to the Plaats article. In any case, I fail to see how my nationality has anything to do with my opinion. Now, if you'll kindly take your vitriol elsewhere. Reyk 06:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's Bob Vander Plaats, and "Vander Plaats" is his last name. So, you concede that Americans have every right to intrude on all Australian political campaigns, and may impose their views upon y'all? You are out of your gourd. The Bitch Karen Nussle is the classic homewrecker-cum-trophy-wife. Am I gather you are pro-homewrecking? Pro-Adultery? Pro-Ten-Commandment-breaking? Anti-Truth? A pathological liar? A George W. Bush lover? A typical American Republican? Clearly, you love George W. Bush and all he stands for. I should report you to the Austrailian CIA as a fifth column. --FourthAve 05:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath and calm down. You've clearly got a big bee in your bonnet about the American conservatives. That's fine. Privately I agree with you. You'll see on my talk page that one of the things I dislike is our Prime Minister- a twitching, cringing little puddle of slime who happens to have his head so far up GWB's backside it's hard to see where one man ends and the other begins. But I'm not about to start adding comments like that to the John Howard article, because it's my personal opinion and does not meet the standards of objectivity required by Wikipedia. Reyk 09:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hussey

It might be better to wait till the Test is over before updating the stats :-) Tintin 23:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Maybe. Reyk 23:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

Just saying hi. Always heartening to see someone else has taken up the hard fight against the listcruft. Think we could get a wikiproject for it? The Literate Engineer 00:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should, if we can get enough similarly minded people together. I also want to see if this discussion can be reopened. Thanks for stopping by, it's always good to hear from people who think listcruft is bad. Reyk 00:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing Glenmore Park redirect

Thanks for fixing the Glenmore Park redirect - I saw it was wrong, went to fix it, and you'd already done it! ;-) I don't suppose I could interest you in about 10 minutes of dull, repetitive, Wikipedia-improving clicking? :-) If so, on User:Nickj/sandbox there's a whooping big list of redirects for Sydney suburbs... I'm currently doing the leftmost column, but everything in the 2 rightmost columns should be added a redirect to the thing in the first column (e.g. North Auburn, New South Wales should redirect to Auburn North, New South Wales ). Please feel free to add some if you're interested, but if you're not I completely understand :-) -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll do a few here and there when I get a bit of time. Are you going to do locations in other states as well? Reyk 01:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Also there's a table now at Talk:List of Geelong suburbs. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 03:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! I reckon I'll do the Geelong redirects and then come back to Sydney. Reyk 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I've also added List of Melbourne suburbs/table. By the way, I think the middle two columns can be left as red (unless you really want to do them), but I'd recommend doing the two leftmost and the two rightmost columns first, as they're the ones that tend to cause to the most problems and/or be the most commonly used. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks for reverting my user page

No problem. Maybe next time I can block the guy who does it. Vote here. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Thanks for the support on my recent RFA, which concluded with a vote of 64-2. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:07, Dec. 17, 2005

My pleasure. Reyk 21:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid articles

Yeah, I noticed that too and I have fixed most of them. However, some articles, especially the ones in the asteroid group categories, are still wrong. I might fix them soon.--Jyril 12:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toni-Ann Byfield

I note that you voted delete for the article Toni-Ann Byfield. I can reassure you that this was an important event. I have since cleaned up the article, added more information and included a reference. If you would like to reconsider your vote, please take a look at the changes made. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The event was important, Toni-ann herself is sadly not notable. Unless someone can turn this article into an article about the event rather than the person my vote stays delete. Good work on the rewrite though. Reyk 09:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of trojan horses deletion vote notice

Thanks for your vote for the list of computer viruses. Please consider voting similarly for the list of trojan horses as well. Thank you - A-Day 00:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. I had meant to vote on it but forgot all about it. Reyk 02:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! A-Day 03:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stalinists

I'd like you to take another look at this list. It has been shortened considerably (at least at this moment) and I have tried to make the criteria clearer. Sometimes good lists go bad but that doesn't mean we have to delete them. Gazpacho 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete my ManchVegas page

Neologism. No evidence that anyone ever actually uses it. Reyk 06:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Google "ManchVegas", brainiac!

Okay, I phrased that badly. I should have said that the article provides no evidence that this term is in common, widespread use. Encyclopedia articles need to be verifiable and their subject has to be, in my opinion, important enough to merit an encyclopedia article. If you want to rewrite the thing, I will reconsider my position but a handful of hits to websites doesn't equal notability AFAIC. Reyk 06:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_city_nicknames_in_the_United_States#New_Hampshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NH_Manchester

There are at least two references to it here in the Wiki, I recently edited them only to include the link to the page (that is now marked for deletion).

That's a good start, but it would be best not to use Wikipedia as its own source. I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but the possibility for abuse is too great. Imagine if someone came along and wanted to establish some new word just for kicks. They'd only have to insert a reference to their pet neologism in a few articles here and there, start a new article devoted to the word and then say "Here's a reference, here's another one, and here's one more." That's why, generally, sources for articles are from outside of Wikipedia. Reyk 06:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the heading issue. I wasn't thinking about that.Nhprman 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Reyk 07:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm a newbie. Don't bite too hard! (5. Thou shalt not bite the newbies.) ;-) I'll try not to bite, either, but maybe this once, just a little -- can we keep the nickname of my city if it's as long as we can keep this: Bugoff or this: Acnode? Both of these creations of yours are valid, in my view. So are popularly-known nicknames. Nhprman 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the lateness of my reply. First of all, I hope I have not been too harsh- I seldom bite but I have been known to bark occasionally. You've brought up some good sources in the AfD debate, and I think you should expand the article to include them (I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Fuma to come back). I was wrong about the term not being in conversational use at all; I saw that the first few Google hits were vaguely dubious-looking websites and assumed that's all there was to it. Combine that with the fact that the artice doesn't even explain what the term means or what it refers to, and I just bundled it in with the other neologisms we get. Most of those deserve a swift death. Hang around AfD for a while, you'll see what kind of stupid neologisms pop up and you'll understand why it's so easy to make the mistake I did.

Regarding your point about length of articles, I don't think length really matters that much. Certainly a good article about an interesting subject will probably be quite long, but I have seen some exceptionally good articles that were short because there simply wasn't a lot to say about the subject. I've also seen terrible long-winded expositions about pointless topics, covered in excruciating detail. Usually these are about TV shows, bands or computer games. Hehe. Anyway, it's no use pleading for ManchVegas on the grounds that it's longer than an article I wrote. The thing's got to stand or fall on the quality of its content rather than the quantity. Right now it's still a pretty poor article but if you rewrite it according to the info you've found I can see it moving from my "Yuk" pile to my "OK" pile. Reyk 10:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. I was kind of being snarky, if you know what I mean by that. It was late, in my time zone, anyway. I've been too busy to update the article, but I will, probably Saturday (tomorrow.) Nhprman 16:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]