User talk:Starbox

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

This is Starbox's talk page. In case you haven't noticed.


Hello, Starbox! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Well, it seems like someone finally noticed me.

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Awesome'ish[edit]

Hello Starbox. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Awesome'ish to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I can't find the specific templates for speedy deletion. I can't put a reason for speedy deletion is what I mean.

Use {{Db|reason=reason}}. Samwb123Please read 22:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (edit conflict):You can go to your user preferences and under "gadgets" install Twinkle, which allows you to pick from a menu of choices. Otherwise, see WP:CSD.  fetchcomms 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(Another edit conflict) The advice you were given first is wrong - if you are going to do New Page Patrol, which is a good and useful thing to do, it's important that you read WP:CSD carefully - that's the master page about speedy deletion - and only use the tags described there. There is more good advice at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. I would be inclined to advise doing it manually for a bit before you start to use Twinkle, so that you know what you are doing. It's a pity there isn't a speedy for unsourced neologisms like that one just now, but there isn't - WP:CSD#G3 comes nearest (vandalism or hoax) but it wasn't really either. Looking up, I see it has turned to a red-link: another admin disagreed with me. Well, I shall not mourn it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

More advice about speedy tagging[edit]

  • There is some advantage in using the more specific speedy tags: db-person, db-band, db-corp etc, rather than the generic ones like db-a7, as they provide a more specific reason for deletion in the deletion log.
  • The template that appears on the article page includes, towards the bottom, a warning which you should normally copy to the talk page of the article author. Otherwise s/he doesn't know what has happened, thinks s/he probably pressed the wrong button, and often just puts the article in again.
  • If it's a new contributor who has never had one, it is good to add a Welcome paragraph before the speedy warning - it makes it less BITEy, and gives links to useful places like WP:Your first article, so the newbie may learn how to do better next time. {{Firstarticle}} is a good one to use. There is a funny inconsistency in the system: some warnings - those for db-g3 and for PROD - will automatically add a welcome if you put them on an empty talk page; the others don't. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Templates[edit]

Hi Starbox, It's good to see another NewPages patroller. I'm a beginner myself, and i think this page will help you a lot: WP:CSD. This page has all the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, and you can use them for reference. Also, Like JohnCD said, it's a good idea to leave a message for the user on his talk page. Keep up the good work! Shashwat986 (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Beaver Testicles[edit]

Hi Starbox, I noticed you recently nominated Beaver Testicles for speedy deletion. You used the correct criterion (in my opinion, anyway), but I'd just like to remind you that it's good practice to let the article creator know their article has been nominated. It might not necessarily be the case with this one, but in certain cases the editor can go back and actually improve the article (providing references and such). Cheers, XXX antiuser eh? 20:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

MS Antivirus (malware)[edit]

Hey. All of this text you're adding to MS Antivirus (malware) is currently unsourced. Do you have any reliable sources to back up these claims? If not, I'm going to remove them. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this could count as original research, but for a while, I did have one very reliable source: my own infected computer. Yep, all that stuff I added is what happened to my computer; maybe some of it could be deleted, or at least moved, if you don't agree with me. S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that counts as original research. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Crap. Should've at least gotten a picture. S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
A picture would've also been WP:OR, as its contents cannot be directly verified. Sorry to be such a stickler for the rules... :/ — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm starting to wonder how the heck you're supposed to get non-original research. S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You use secondary sources like newspaper articles and such. Read WP:RS for more. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
But what if the people who made them did original research? S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I mean, at some point there's a point where we have to trust the people on the other end. Wikipedia:V#Reliable sources says:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles, and citations are needed to direct the reader to those sources to give credit to the writers and publishers. This avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications.

Kinda long-winded, but gets the point across. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK then. (Now I just have to somehow get the stuff I said published in a reliable source, preferably without reinfecting my computer. Dang. New topic, please.) S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (Oh, and I added some other things to the page quite a while ago that may be unverified, and they weren't taken out.) S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Starbox, I stumbled upon a page you tagged for speedy deletion, being a New Page Patroller myself, and I've seen that you did not inform the creator of the page that you had nominated it.
You might want to use WP:TWINKLE that does it for you. ^________^
Keep up the good work! ^___^ Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC) WELL...apparently it doesn't work with Internet Explorer, which I use, and I like doing these things manually anyway (as I just did). Thanks for notifying me though! S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Ruw[edit]

Hello Starbox, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Ruw, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. →Στc. 20:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Darn it. When it said "This does not apply to schools. See CSD A7" I thought it meant "Use CSD A7 instead". Sorry. ._. S*T*A*R*B*O*X (Drop a line!) 20:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]

Information.svg Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, are people noticing me today. Thank you for telling me this. S*T*A*R*B*O*X (Drop a line!) 20:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Emaline[edit]

Hello Starbox, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Emaline, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This article is about a name, not a person. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Agh! Why can't I do anything right today? >_< S*T*A*R*B*O*X (Drop a line!) 22:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Luz Pavon[edit]

Hi Starbox. I've declined the speedy deletion you suggested, as there are some assertions of importance, and some citations to third-party sources. Please keep in mind that speedy deletion is only for the most uncontroversial of deletions. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I also remind you please to use appropriate edit summaries when you tag something for deletion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why can't I do anything right any more? S*T*A*R*B*O*X (Drop a line!) 19:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Starbox! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released[edit]

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Article notability notification[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, NightMare (scareware), has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "NightMare (scareware)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 20:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer Security user status[edit]

Hello Starbox,

I would just like to inquire on your status on WikiProject Computer Security as the list of WikiProject Computer Security/Members is going to be improved to list active and inactive users.

This is update is being done according to a request for comments on the WikiProject Computer Security talk page. Be sure to state your status at the User status section in the WikiProject Computer Security talk page before the end of four weeks as this will state your status as inactive in the project if not done before then.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Starbox,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)