User talk:Torc2/Archives/2007/December
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you for taking the time to research and reference the facts in the Super Audio CD article. As long as facts are well-researched, and as long as changes are not being reverted without fruitful discussion on the talk page, we will be able to make this a better, more neutral, better referenced, and all-around more encyclopedic article together. Samboy 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
PLease read WP:OWN
Please read WP:OWN. In particular "Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time". I've noticed that you have a habit of reverting edits in Super Audio CD that you consider negative towards this format. For example: [1] [2] [3]. Please do not revert without discussion on the talk page. Samboy 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- If what you enter into the page is objectively incorrect or unsupported by your own source, I will continue to revert them to the correct information. I'd also point out that, as far as WP:OWN goes, your edits have far outnumbered mine, you are less willing to admit the mistake or a lack of authoritative sources, you are the one promoting a specific POV. I don't know why you started throwing WP:NOR around when I've never even come close to adding original research to the article. At most I've provided sources that suggest the information you've added is incorrect. I also added the article to the RFC list, although there has already been a third party pointing out flaws in your information.Torc 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
PATCO
Hi Torc2, thanks for taking an interest in the whole ongoing PATCO saga! We disagree on what should be done with the pages, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate your opinion, and look forward to finding an amiable solution. Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-) Torc2 19:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
AIV
Thank you for making a report about 216.85.253.148 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! WODUP 08:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Ron Lynch
A tag has been placed on Ron Lynch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Ridernyc 10:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Ron Lynch (and protecting it against some guy who requested speedy deletion -- which was ridiculous). I added some templates to it to make the article show up in even more places. Some biographical info, like date of birth and colleges attended, would be handy; they seem hard to find on-line, though. White 720 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist and rewrites. I added in more external links that list Michael Crawford or his articles as resources or programming resources. I hope they are enough to convince people of his notoriety. Thanks again. --Thomas Hard 23:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Socks
If you notice any more Nintendude socks, hit my talkpage. I've dealt with this editor in the past.--Isotope23 talk 20:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Will do if I see any. Torc2 20:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Check talk pages and block logs before reporting
Thank you for making a report about 72.25.100.203 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. In particular, this IP has been neither warned nor blocked, in contradiction of your report. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- My fault. I copied the wrong IP address. 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Center of the Universe.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Center of the Universe.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Built to Spill Caustic Resin.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Built to Spill Caustic Resin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Good Catch
If it isn't him it is a copycat.--Isotope23 talk 19:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Mother Hips
Apologies, but have to say 'brain dead' was a bit harsh!Paste 19:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, my fault. I meant that comment towards myself, not you. Torc2 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, made me smile!Paste 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comics and comic books
I see you've moved or had moved List of films based on comics and List of television programs based on comics to the comic book versions. This wasn't an uncontroversial move (the section you used in the move request) as "comics" is the Comics Project's preferred default name as it is far more general - "comic books" are a specific form of comic book and are often used to largely refer to American comics. We have been working on renaming and reworking existing entries to be more general so this is a step backwards and is technically incorrect. I've asked for the moves to be reversed but thought I'd drop you a note to explain why.
If you want to propose a move then feel free to follow the usual channels but I would oppose it for the reasons given above. (Emperor 14:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
- Its technically incorrect because a lot of the comics aren't comic books. Granted comics can include comic strips but these are usually dealt with in their own sections, hence the hatnote (although technically if things looked too thin one could be merged into the other). I suspect a longer lead would help clarify the inclusion criteria. (Emperor 14:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
Dependent clause
I think I have understood now what is going on. You are arguing with me about formulations on a page which is part of Category:Syntactic entities, a subcategory of Category:Syntax and Category:Linguistic_units. Therefore I expected you to have at least a passing knowledge of the fundamental distinction between syntax and semantics. I have come to suspect now that you have never even heard of it. This would explain what looks to me like an obstinate refusal to understand obvious facts.
Please, for once, follow the links to syntax and semantics and read what it is about. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- First, I don't appreciate your tone, especially on my User Page. You are no longer assuming good faith and have lost objectivity. I suggest you step away from the article for a few days and let the RfC do its work. As for categories: you do know that categories are supposed to reflect the content of an article, not dictate their content? And that the entire content of an article does not have to fit within the category that has been ascribed to it? Torc2 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Cyber Monday
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cyber Monday, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Monday (2nd nomination). Thank you. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 09:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: What was that?
Weird. I didn't do that intentionally so I have no idea how or why that happened. My only edit was that the bootleg DVDs on eBay should not be noted. --Endless Dan 21:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review on Raccoon Police Department
An AfD in which you commented has been brought to Deletion Review, You may wish to comment there. [4] DGG (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The best course of action would be to ask for the AfD to be reviewed at deletion review, which I would encourage you to do if you disagree with the AfD closure. Personally (just so you know) I take no offense at having the closure reviewed, and think it is almost always better when more folks get eyes on an issue. Pastordavid (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, will do. The deletion review page just said to check with the admin who did the AfD before requesting a review, so I wanted to make sure I did that. Torc2 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. And thank you for your civility and friendliness about this. Many who object to a deletion are somewhat ... less restrained. I appreciate it, and, in all honesty, am happy with whatever is decided by the consensus of th DRV. Pastordavid (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Clone High edits
I know I did resort to name calling and I fully understand why it's wrong. However, this edit war has persisted for months, nearly a year, now. I have had the page semi-protected and that worked for awhile but somehow, this user seems to find another IP address to use. It's becoming extremely frustrating. If you can provide proof in any way, that would be useful. I have not seen those characters in the show unless the user is believing that he or she is seeing these people in the backgrounds of scenes. TrackFan (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want to see the article deleted either but I've seen it happen with other pages. It's bound to happen. Hopefully, not soon. Yes, thank you for assisting me with resolving this problem. I just want to reach a compromise and let this issue finally end. TrackFan (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Your post
Hey, I thought I'd drop by and let you know I answered your post at WT:VAN. Peace, delldot talk 10:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)