User talk:City of Silver/Archive 1

Ice Nine Kills

I've been following their career for a long time and I know their history quite well. I'm trying to help with the accuracy of this article as I am pretty much an expert on the band. I do indeed believe that they should have a page on wikipedia, it's been long overdue:)

Speedy deletion of attack pages

Thanks for your enthusiasm for nominating attack pages for deletion. One thing to note though, please blank the page to reduce the number of people who actually see the attack page between nomination and deletion. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it. I was wondering why, when I warned that guy, the warning was just a generic thing even though I included the article's name in my warning. Now I know. Thanks! Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that is why the warning was generic. I think that the reason it shows a generic attack template is probably because it uses the attack template rather than anything more specific and from what I can tell it doesn't take any parameters. My guess would be that creating an attack page is so serious that the warning doesn't need to be specific to the page.

The reason to blank the page is to protect the victim of the attack page from casual browsing of Wikipedia by people who might use it against them.--Mrmatiko (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I typed (well, copy pasted) this: "subst:CSD-warn|csd|pagename" (with brackets instead of quotes) and included the page name and changed the "csd" to the code "G10" and it wiped the page name. Which is fine. That's how it should be anyways. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Orc (Middle-earth)

Hi there. Since you've been involved in yesterday's incident with IP 68.205.7.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Orc (Middle-earth) I'd like to inform you that we're now discussing the matter on ANI. Regards, De728631 (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And I wander back here too late to do anything about it. The discussion is closed over there, and there's not much more I can do regarding deletions of an expert's claims (and accompanying snotty remarks) are called "good edits." Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice try

I don't recommend trying to reason with that user that keeps removing content from Small Soldiers pages. Nothing works. Virtually all their edits involve vandalism to Small Soldiers and related articles. Weird and kinda disturbing. I normally refrain from personal comments, but that person obviously has some issues. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See all the history of the page, that's why I gave him an only warning. The next step you should have done is a report to AIV. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Bart simpson rules

Why did you tag this guy's user page as a candidate for speedy deletion? Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 22:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not? It's a possible copyright violation, and it's completely unhelpful. See the user's useless addition to Smash Mouth in case you're wondering if they're here to help. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A copyright violation to use the name Bart Simpson in his username? I highly doubt it. Even so, tagging his user page for speedy deletion wouldn't delete his account. If you really have a problem with someone's username, there's a noticeboard for reporting that. I'm not sure which one, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 23:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And it's a userpage, not an article. My mistake. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 23:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Liberty Van Lines LLC

Just an FYI, we almost never delete user talk pages, see WP:DELTALK. In this case, I blocked the editor because their username is promotional, though they can feel free to create a new account or request a new name per WP:CORPNAME. I also replaced their talk page content with the block notice (so the advertisement is now gone). I just wanted to let you know, thanks. -- Atama頭 21:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Question, though: That page, even though it was a user talk page, was still not good and needed its promotional content removed. (It was tagged as such, with "Tag: Possible self promotion in userspace," upon its creation.) Should I just blank content like that, replace it with some antipromotional template, or anything? And where can I go to report problematic (i.e., promotional) usernames? Thanks. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Blanking is typical, yes. To report usernames that violate WP:UNP, you should go to WP:UAA. -- Atama頭 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

89.244.72.165

89.244.72.165 Now blocked from editing their own talkpage. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 23:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Careful reverting

Please be more careful in the future when reverting due to "unexplained removal of content",[ that the source supports the content it purports to support, especially for BLP-sensitive content. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The key word was "unexplained." That user explained their removal and I dropped the issue like a hot potato. I truly believe that you should not be allowed to remove anything but blatant, intentional vandalism unless you provide an explanation. Since there is no such rule (I don't think), people who do those kinds of seemingly drive-by removals without taking six seconds to explain what they're doing shouldn't be surprised when they're reverted. And that IP user who reverted on Evan Roberts's article would seem to agree, since they reacted to getting reverted by explaining what they were doing.

I'll keep an eye on sources more. That was a failure on my part. But I'm still going to view absolutely any unexplained removal of content with plenty of skepticism and a fast revert hand. For every situation like that, there's tons of no-explanation removals that are entirely inappropriate. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis

They're the same thing, FYI. It's good to tag socks with either of these sockmasters because they're the same. Both are considered masters.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for YouTube

An article that you have been involved in editing, YouTube , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JC Rules! (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Friedrich "Fritz" Braun

Hey can you help me? Go take a look at my talk page because someone is trying to get rid of Eva Braun's fathers page. Being the father-in-law of Adolf Hitler is inportant in my mind (I'm NOT a Neo-Nazi)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankonno (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like, since you turned that page into a redirect to Eva Braun, you're not interested in using reliable sources to establish Fritz Braun's notability. He really doesn't have much notability, anyway, so maybe this way is for the best. And I most certainly didn't call you a Neo-Nazi or any other such thing. Did someone else do that? SilverCityChristmasIsland 23:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, no I did'nt want you think I am because I said "Being the father-in-law of Adolf Hitler is inportant in my mind". As in my mind, meaing I like Hitler or something like that. Well the page was going to be deleted anyway so I wanted to make the searcher get some information out of it. --Frankonno (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Some people might think you're being a little too defensive about the possibility of false accusations; not me, though. I understand where you're coming from and hope you don't have to deal with any sort of crap like that. SilverCityChristmasIsland 21:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay. I wanted to added that in because I'm a cousin of Eva Brauns and don't want anyone to think I'm like her husband. --Frankonno (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OG Mack Drama

wasn't deleted as a result of a discussion - I speedied it. I've declined your G4, but if you want to try another category, you're welcome. (Last time was A4.) Peridon (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; it wasn't deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, but there was still discussion that took place. I agree that G4 wasn't the best criterion to go with, though. That said, the article is top-to-bottom junk and is ripe for CSD. Why not just nominate it again? (I just nominated using G11.) SilverCityChristmasIsland 21:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

G4 only applies to AfD (RfD, MfD, WhateverfD). Not CSD or prod. Doesn't matter how many pages of discussion - if there wasn't a fD involved. no go. Nonsense is another limited one. 'yutcuytviuyiu' or 'penguin three nail ultramarine voted ostrich' would both qualify. If it reads as English (or any other language - beware of that), and is coherent, it's not nonsense even if it is total drivel. (To test for other languages, simply copy a sentence into Google without quotes. You can find copyvios that way sometimes too...) Peridon (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's moot, now. I could be wrong, but I don't see how it passes G11. SilverCityChristmasIsland 22:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments on User talk:193.234.247.50

193.234.247.50 is a dynamic IP Address, with its assignments being decided by the broadband service provider. So the comments on that you made the user page of this IP, while valid, donot apply to every user of this IP. Letting you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.234.247.50 (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you were offended in any way, I apologize. My warning stands, though, and it warns two different groups of people: Vandals are warned to stop, and good editors are warned that they could lose the ability to edit should they continue to insist on editing from an IP being used for vandalism. If five people from five different computers vandalize from that IP, it's going to get blocked, and any good editors from that IP won't be able to edit. Good editors can avoid this problem by getting an account, which comes with the added benefit of getting ownership of good work. SilverCity 18:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

MotorStorm (series)

Apparently, the same user who deleted the information I recently added continues to revert yours and my edits. And honestly, I can't see any spoiler tags anywhere in the article, so I'm not going to continue reverting it,s ince this would result in an edit war. Feel free to do something about this situation regarting to the anonymous IP user. JMBZ-12 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If they refuse to discuss (those screaming edit summaries don't count) and they are removing spoilers, that is a policy violation. The user knows it and if this continues, it's vandalism. Reverting vandalism doesn't violate 3RR, so you should be good to do it. And for that matter, a third editor (X201) reverted for the same reason and it hasn't been touched in two days, though, so I wouldn't worry about it. SilverCity 20:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)