User talk:Eyrian/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Uses of thermal lances in fiction

Transferring discussion to here from Thermal lance's edit comments:-

• 10:14, 13 June 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs | block) (2,074 bytes) (remove irrelevant section)
• 11:46, 13 June 2007 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs | block) (3,043 bytes) (Rv deletion of "in fiction" section, or please discuss)
• 17:29, 13 June 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs | block) (2,074 bytes) (remove irrelevant section; These consist of trivial references only, and add nothing to the understanding of the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.)

---

But this text is not an indiscriminate collection. Many pages about real technology have a section about their appearances in fiction. Anthony Appleyard 18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And I purge them whenever I find them. What good is a list of times they appear? That adds nothing to a user's understanding of the subject, it just clutters up the article. The place for those things is in the article about the fictional work; that's where the relationship should be linked. Now, what would be useful is a referenced section explaining how thermal lances have their capabilities exaggerated or distorted in fiction. A list of trivial references isn't informative. --Eyrian 18:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• But some other readers do want to read about where this or that real tool or weapon occurs in fiction. Those who see no interest in such matter can skip over it. It was only about 0.4 of a screenful. Anthony Appleyard 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have requested mediation here: see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance. I restored the section so that the mediator can see what the discussion is about. Anthony Appleyard 05:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Notability of Aventail Corporation

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Aventail Corporation, by Cquan (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Aventail Corporation seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Aventail Corporation, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Aventail Corporation itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Salting pages

Hi. I've noticed that you put {{deletedpage}} on Websmit recently. Have you heard of cascading protection? You can salt pages using that more easily; click on this link to find out more. -- King of Hearts 05:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mail armour

Hello, I checked with the person who originally posted my reference for that statement. It should be medieval and not modern. Mercutio.Wilder 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Portland fiction AfD

Hi- I want to apologize for my hasty phrasing of my vote. Re-reading it, it sounds very accusatory, which I totally regret. I think your nomination was very much in good faith. I happen to disagree with it, but that doesn't justify the way I phrased it to begin with… -Pete 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the note. --Eyrian 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Smallville (season 7)

It seems that after you deleted the page on June 21, it was recreated. They created a Smallville Season 7 page and then just moved the title to Smallville (season 7) to bypass the deletion. I put up a speedy tag, they took that down. I put up a prod tag and they claimed it was already AfD (which it wasn't).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They are using this AfD as an excuse to keep, even though the proper title has been deleted several times.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected it to the main show article. It's unlikely to require spinning off for awhile. --Eyrian 18:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing it with the Admin that closed the AfD on the other spelling. My point was only that it seemed hypocritical (not on any one person's fault) to say "it's going to happen, so lets have an article", yet we are deleted or redirecting movies that haven't entered production either. It seemed to side-step a deletion 3 days prior, when the informatin hadn't changed. Afterward, I just about didn't care. If it gets un-redirected, which I'm sure it will, I'm not going to even say anything. I think I've decided it isn't worth it to fight over the pages existence. Like you said, it won't require spin-off for awhile, they usually don't even announce titles for the first few episodes until about a month before release of the first episode. Even then, directors/writers aren't always announced ahead of time for the first few episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia removal

I agree with a lot of the deletions you have made to trivia sections, but you have also removed information that potentially was useful, like on the Nightingale article. It is good that you go out and remove useless data, but please think three times before you delete each item, and ask someone for advice, if you are not sure. I do not think this is a case where one should be bold. Mlewan 19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VNV_Nation_-_Futureperfect.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:VNV_Nation_-_Futureperfect.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigrTex 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:God_Module_Promo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:God_Module_Promo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Aventail logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Aventail logo.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't touch my article!!!! You sucks!!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reorgart (talk • contribs).

Non-free use disputed for Image:Susumu Hirasawa - Sim City.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Susumu Hirasawa - Sim City.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 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon RfC

Have you invited the other contributors to participate on the Lolicon RfC? So far only an IP editor contributed a rambling comment, and looks confused.

You can invite specific editors by leaving a {{ArticleDiscussion}} on their Talk pages. / edgarde 03:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind. I added a frame to the RfC section so that it the previous discussion would not be simply repeated in the RfC section. I would add a comment myself, but I do not know if other representative partices have stated their positions yet. / edgarde 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

DAMOCLES REMOVED

ANY REASON ? STEALTH RANGER

Please do not talk in full caps, it may be considered shouting and is bad style. Also, try to be a little clearer, what are you talking about? Finally, please sign your comments using ~~~~. Thank you. SalaSkan 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because it was an unreferenced bit of trivia. The sword of Damocles is a very popular metaphor, and simply using it doesn't merit mention. --Eyrian 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler in popular culture

Why did you revert this? SalaSkan 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a trivial entry, unreferenced to an independent source. The article is in need of a good cleaning, so I suppose I'll leave it until it can be tidied as a whole. --Eyrian 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Googling "wolfenstein 3d hitler" is enough for a source. Added one to the article. SalaSkan 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wallace Collection Termplate

I'm afraid this will not be deleted as there is no justification for it. Firstly, the usage of a template does NOT need to be referred elsewhere, secondly, when any template is setup of course it won't be used in other articles until such time that someone, somewhere, requires it. Also, it is specific, and prudent to have it in the Wallace COllection article, as Wiki convention requires not to have lists in articles, only prose.ImperialCollegeGrad 10:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the purpose of templates. Templates are pieces of Wiki content that are designed to be duplicated on multiple pages, with a central access point so that all changes are automatically inherited. Templates should only be created when they will be used in several places, and yes, there do need to be multiple such places. There is nothing wrong with the content, just the fact that it's in the form of the template. It's unnecessarily complicated, and makes the article harder to edit. Where else would the template appear? What other article would require a complete list of the collection's inventory? I certainly can't think of any.

Wikipedia articles most certainly can have lists when it is prudent. Some lists aren't permitted (such as those without any meaningful link), but the inventory of the collection is most certainly relevant.

In almost all cases, including this one, the question of deletion is not made by any one person. --Eyrian 11:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

About minor edit.

Yea i know that. I enabled minor edit by default in preferences. I hardly uncheck or look into it. Mostly i have no time to uncheck it because to prevent edit conflict. --SkyWalker 08:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, since most of your edits seem to be larger, it's best to change your preference. Nobody complains about too few minor edits, and it's best to err on the side of politeness. --Eyrian 08:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Aviom article

I recently placed an article on the site entitled Aviom. As a fan of their products I felt it useful to have this info online. The information I know to be accurate because I checked their site to ensure the data was right on.

I used the YAMAHA Corporation article and the SHURE article as templates and examples for putting the text in. I don't see how this could be considered Blatant advertising if its no different than someone did for the Shure Corp and Yamaha.

They are a great company that is making huge headway in their field with really cool products. People like Snoop, Felix D Kat, Trevor Lawrence, Alicia Keys, etc.. are using their stuff... its quite mainstream in that sector.

A Wiki article would give me and other fans a place to put info and links about their stuff and its use for our reference.

Pleas explain the deletion in light of Yamaha, Shure, and the 1000s of other articles done by people for companies they like. I will adjust and modify as needed to make it more in line with the Wiki standards - if I can see what they are in practice.

Thanks, -Jon

The key is to address the article from a neutral point of view. Glowing or breathless terminology has no place in Wikipedia. When a corporate article materializes out of whole cloth, littered with such words, it leads to an unfortunate conclusion. The fact that your username makes you appear to be affiliated with them makes it all the more suspicious. And yes, sometimes other articles sneak by; editors can't be everywhere at once. Please read a little about Wikipedia's core policies, particularly neutrality and verifiability; they'll get you started on what an article needs to look like. --Eyrian 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How can I get the raw wiki "code" back for it so I can do it over? I can see the article anymore to edit it. This is my first wiki article and I chose that username because that was the article on my mind. Wasn't really thinking down the road I guess. I hate to have to start from scratch. Thanks for the help. -Jon (can i change that username - or should i just create a new one?)

I'd suggest using a new username. Using trademarks or other things is discouraged. I suggest picking one more unique to yourself. I'll post the raw code to your user page. Also, remember to sign your comments by putting "~~~~" at the end of them. --Eyrian 14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, I will create a new username and write some very basic info about the company and I would assume a product list is not too much below that... I just wanted to get a simple page up there to work with... then add some stuff as I can get a hold of it. Thanks again. -Jon Aviom 14:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. Just remember, it's important to assert notability, as well. Otherwise, the article might get deleted again. --Eyrian 14:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your question

Your actions look reasonable to me, as does your level-headed talk page response to people disagreeing with you - although you may want to consider being a bit more explanatory in your deletion summaries (matter of taste, really). I note you have stayed away from controversial actions (such as closing "heated" AFD debates) but there's nothing wrong with that. If I may make a suggestion, especially if you do a lot of speedy deletions of A7/G11 material, I'd recommend to look over your own deletion log every now and then to see if it's all redlinks. If any of those pages has been recreated, that may be worth looking into - sometimes it's perfectly fine, sometimes it's salt time. Happy editing! >Radiant< 13:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dwayne Buckle Revisionism?

It is inappropriate for you to make or allow unproven allegations against a living crime victim in a wikapedia page.

Dwayne Buckle

You revised [without comment] back to a version citing -as fact- an allegation made during a trial by a defendant. i.e. That Dwayne Buckle went up to the woman who stabbed him and said that he was going to "F*** her" -is not proven and in fact the only thing that was proven was that he said "Hi" to them.

Although, the trial in question has it's own page. I truly suspect that you are biased in favor of the defendants -for whatever reason and are using Wikipedia as a means of advocating slander against this man who the most you can factually prove was a stabbing victim. 162.135.0.6 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are contrary to the citations, and, frankly, looked like vandalism. Anonymous users are constantly inserting "hi" into pages. Perhaps you should consider adding a citation before making accusations. --Eyrian 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

One can counter your claim that YOUR edits looked like vandalism. Furthermore by simply citing that an "Anonymous User" making an edit is page vandalism -then you are resorting to what is an "Ad Hominem Argument" -- you are not answering the content of what was edited rather than the context. That is -"Who" rather than "What". As for being Anonymous... your weakly excused reversion incited me to adopt this pseudonym... Some sort of thanks are in order... I guess. Anti Anti Anti 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying what I did was necessarily correct. Only that a suspicious, uncited change was made, without any summary. Surely you're not suggesting that such a thing is totally acceptable? If you had explained your change, or used a citation, that wouldn't've happened. --Eyrian 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor Fence

What do you have against Fence? Just curious. I am trying to expand wikipedia's coverage of arts and in particular contemporary poetry, but there is a huge amount of resistance. We have articles on random football players, but I've twice now been speedy deleted for articles on critics and poets I think should be covered. Formulafiftypoet 15:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. I just don't see why it's important. Not to say that I think it's not; just that I don't see why it is. If it meets the requirements in WP:ORG (again, reliably sourced), feel free to create an article on it. --Eyrian 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I thought you were remarking on Fence as a fellow poet (Fence is indisputably an important magazine in the "scene".) There are a lot of instant experts on wikipedia it seems! Formulafiftypoet 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, by all means, demonstrate this indisputable importance. It seems like a natural candidate if you're trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary poetry. --Eyrian 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have few allies! Take a look at the responses on the AfD: "I googled her, not enough hits". But I'll give it a shot. Formulafiftypoet 15:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fence magazine; we'll see what happens. Formulafiftypoet 16:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking good, but you should learn a little more about wiki code. Categorization/proper ref formatting (see WP:CITE) make an article look much nicer. --Eyrian 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD closed

Sorry I goofed. I thought that I had somehow knocked out the tag during my editing. --Kevin Murray 18:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Eyrian 18:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your suggestions

They've been real gifts from above. I'm going to take your suggestion for a Request for Comment which, I agree, is the only way. Regarding the "Right to Vanish," how would I go about doing this? If I read the article correctly, it said that I needed to contact a bureauocrat? Where might I find such a person?|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want, I can delete your user page. Changing your username will require a bureaucrat, yes. --Eyrian 19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd love for you to delete my userpage. I forgot that this info was ever there and never thought someone would one day try and use that against me. And I just want to let you know that I appreciate everything you're doing, alot. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Glad to be of help. --Eyrian 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've dropped it, see talk there. However, really if you want it gone you will need to get help from a bureaucrat as the first thing anyone at odds with you will wonder is who you are, and the user page history will be what they will check when they don't get an answer. I won't be bringing it up again, if you only edit the talk in a balanced way; if talk insinuates stalking or something, then I will have to add at least some reference to where some information came from. I leave dealing with how this is done in Eyrian's hands and a cooler head than us. 24.7.91.244 19:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if Eleemysonary Wikistalks me again and I report him again, that you will pop up and reveal this information? I hope that's not what you're saying; I hope I'm just reading it wrong.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are reading it wrong. I am saying if you further edit talk making it appear I stalked you, then I will have to show where the info came from - a trivial and obvious place to look. I said it was dropped, and it is - that was between you and I and had nothing to do with other users - I don't do blackmail. Though to be honest you can never fuully dump it, as down-the-pipe sites driven by wiki do not necessarily do any deleting as wiki staff can do. Please remember not to make the same mistake we all make - anything you write in wiki is for keeps. 24.7.91.244 03:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Girls_Under_Glass.jpg

I have tagged Image:Girls_Under_Glass.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rettetast 12:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding RfC

I took your suggestion and filed a RfC on the waterboarding article. I don't know if it's appropriate for an admin to make a statement, but since you edited it and were involved in the dispute to some degree I figured I'd at least let you know in case you wanted to make a statement. Thanks a bunch! |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ingo Molnár

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Ingo Molnár, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd edit

That must've been a mistake I made while scrolling or something. Instead of clicking the scroll wheel, I clicked the left button, or both at once. Thankyou for reverting that for me, and its a good thing someone else thought to restore my vote. Atropos 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)