User talk:Mathiastck/Archive 1

Welcome

I have thus created my talk page. I added Mplayer.com to the page request page, and I'll try working on it myself. Perhaps as a subpage.

EDIT: Well someone else made the article for me, it looks great. Mathiastck 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Mathiastck/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for joining the coolest online encyclopedia I know of. I hope you stick around. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. Check out the simplified ruleset. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.

1. Write from a neutral point of view
2. Be bold in editing pages
3. Use wikiquette.

Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me on my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing 4 tildes like ~~~~. Always sign the talk page, never the articles.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the welcome :)

An appreciated welcome should be tempered by conformance to the Galic standard. A "Wikisession" is instead a Wiisession on Wi_ipedia, etc. Than_s! 129.2.175.110 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Mathiastck 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

I saw you editing Everything2's user page. If it is an alternative account of yours, it would be best to tell that creating alternative accounts is frowned upon in Wikipedia.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I was unaware! Well scratch that idea. Thanks. -MathiasTCK 12:00 November 14th 2005

Actually, I just read your link, and now I am less sure. I created the Everything2 account with the goal of using it to experiment with the idea of taking content from Everything2 and putting it on wikipedia, or vice versa. Anything I added to wikipedia from Everything2 I planned to add as subpages of the Everything2 user. That seems to me to qualify as a legitimate use for an additional account. Correct me if I'm wrong? -MathiasTCK 12:05 November 14th 2005

I didn't accuse you of sockpuppeteering. Now that I know the reason behind it, I agree that it is a legitimate use, though maybe you could have done the same with one account.--Shreshth91 14:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think motivated enough to use the Everything2 account. Everyone should feel free to edit it's user pages. Mathiastck 16:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Rereading this conversation you did imply I might have been socketpuppeting right? Mathiastck 18:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

mplayer

Hello! I created the page for MPlayer.com. Tell me what you think, or if you have any suggestions. Thanks! --Chroniclev 21:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you! Mathiastck 16:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

re: "christos experiment"

Hello. I agreed with your talk comments on Talk:Christos_experiment, just drawing your attention to it. Snickersnee 08:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! Looks like we won, mostly Christos_experiment. Yay. Snickersnee 04:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm basically a do nothing wikipedian. I participate a lot on talk pages, but edit and create few articles :) Mathiastck 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiplayer Mobile games

I am the editor for the article Multiplayer Mobile games and you have added a discription saying there are too many advertisements. let me know which one did you mean; the links to other wikipedia articles or the single link to a website. I am afraid somebody will delete it for such reason. plz give me some advice on what all should I do to keep my article there.

It's cool tell you what. I'll edit it myself, and we can discuss the edits? There is not such thing as the editor on a wikipedia article :) Just an editor. Mathiastck 06:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Keep in mind you could have avoided this if you used {{inuse}}. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I am currently embroiled in difficult email discussion with various academics who are also members of enigma. They believe wikipedia isn't citable. As this just proved, I'm not an experienced editor :) Mathiastck 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I'm still waiting to see this notability you speak of. If the article isn't made to state why Enigma is worth mentioning, then it will nonetheless be deleted for lack of notability. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold your horses! It's in the talk page currently. I just sent an email to the club, asking for help. Seriously these people have had a big impact on sci fi. They are the biggest sci fi organization in Los Angeles. Mathiastck 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok well, I have to get back to my day job in a moment. I'm no longer making major edits. I expect other people will flesh it out. Give them a couple hours or so, then have your way with it :) (I forgot to date this yesterday Mathiastck 18:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)_

Smashboards article

I was the one who put it up for deletion. I am a huge Smash Brothers fan, however that is possibly the worse article ever written. It almost entirly copied the SSBM article. You can rewrite it properly if you want. =) Valoem ^talk 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok. As long as it's not getting deleted for not being notable. I don't do much wiki editing at work, but I may get to it at home. Mathiastck 20:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What not do on wikipedia

I don't want to be excused of attempting a breaching experiment. But I'm also very lazy, and proper wiki editing is a lot of work. So whenever I go to an article that doesn't exist, and I think it should... I try to request someone create it.

But the current system for requesting articles is awful. So instead I just post something on the talk page of the non existant article. Is this kosher? Mathiastck 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I will now relink all my blogs together

Main personal blog: http://mathiastck.livejournal.com/

My favorite blog: http://discorapolitic.livejournal.com/

My favorite place to blog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mathiastck

This blog: http://mathiastck.blogspot.com/

My professional blog (I work at MySpace) http://www.myspace.com/mathiasbyproxy

My favorite fictional nation: http://www.nationstates.net/discoraversalism

Mathiastck 23:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Feature phone

Just to let you know, the proper way to add a stub is to the bottom of an article, not at the top. I know, it's wierd, but that's the convention. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks bunches :) I'm a long time talk page lurker, but I only started adding content a little bit on weekends :) I'll take all the advice you have time to give. Mathiastck 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CSD G8

Please stop from creating talk pages for non-existant articles. Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion G8 policy states that talk pages without articles can be deleted. As such I am listing all the talk pages without articles that you created for speedy deletion. For future reference please consider 1) making the article yourself or 2) request that it be created. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Woot! I've asked on about 7 pages about that policy, everyone has said go ahead and do it. I was sure someone would object but no one did :) Where can I go to discuss it? What page would be the right page to discuss that policy?

I create those articles at work, I don't have the option of devoting enough time to wikipedia to create articles there. The request process as it exists currently is a mess. I used to use it a great deal, but it's one of the least useful parts of wikipedia. I'm happy to do anything but use the requested articles process. How about stubs? What's your opinion on those? Mathiastck 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at WP:CSD_G8 it says "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere or notes that would help in creating an article. User_talk pages are exempt from this. Subpages (including archive pages) are only deletable under this rule if the corresponding top-level page does not exist." I believe I have left a very helpful link on every talk page I have created (when the article did not exist). Mathiastck 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In the future, I think I will use a talk page template like this: User:BigNate37/TM/Future article talk page Mathiastck 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, since you and I have been involved in the same material as a result of this CSD G8 vs. requested pages stuff, I've noticed most of your talk page edits are marked as minor. You don't need to do this; minor edits are typically reserved for spelling mistakes, etc. and if you are actually adding to a discussion, you can definately call it a "non-minor" edit. Anyways, talk pages are no serious affair, so don't sweat that too much. BigNate37_(T) 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate wiki advice :) I'll stop defaulting to minor I think. Mathiastck

NationStates

Ah, you play NationStates. That's cool, I used to too. Say, did you know that your derived term "discoraversalism" is sort of confusing? Instead of discovery and universalism, I thought about disco and ravers... a disco-rave would be a pretty scary thing, and a people founded on the principles of disco-raversalism would probably constitute a crazy, backwards, upside-down, hamburgers-eat-people sort of society. Anyways, its cool to see NationStates is still out there and still has its following. BigNate37_(T) 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's really confusing :) I made lots of enemies on nation states, they assume I'm a fan of Disco :) But I provide lots of links so anyone curious can quickly find out I promoting Discordian Universalism :) I've been fighting the copyright legislation on the NSUN tooth and nail. Mathiastck 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It never occurred to me but you are utterly right! Disco raver salism! I keep citing wikipedia to back up arguments I make in debates in NS, many of them hattttttttte wikipedia. There should be a wikipedia article just for good responses to common arguments about why wikipedia sucks. Mathiastck 22:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Write it in your usersubspace and put it in Category:Wikipedia essays. If you flaunt it on a few talk pages, other people may even begin to reference it. BigNate37_(T) 22:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea :) I will do that, eventually. I have a large laundry list of similar things to do eventually though. I have other essays ahead of it in the queue. I will start saving my pro wiki arguments though. Mathiastck 23:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hah, check out WP:RCO. Just found it. BigNate37_(T) 16:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Woot! It had to exist! Wikipedia has more knowledge then you can shake a stick at. The problem is finding it :) Seriously, we need better search. I use answers.com typically to get to wikipedia, just cuz it has good search. Mathiastck 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I sent a message to you on discorapolitic - maybe this is better

a liberal, atheistic, board game geek - a man after my own heart

I am at UIEvolution (as you probably guessed), but I am not working on the myspace project perhaps we will be working together at some indefinite point in the future

Rock on, which discorapolitic? My main "discorapolitic" site is at: http://community.livejournal.com/discorapolitic/ . I'm betting you were replying to this? User_talk:Robbiesmith Mathiastck 19:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Help needed on stopping vandals

Hi, Mathiastck. Someone from this IP (59.144.1.150) is missbehaving in the pages I edit and in the corporate information page of my company. I would like to avoid this ip from editing my pages or I doubt if he is a competitor. So what should I do now. Can you help me in this, please.

I don't really follow. Were they a logged in user? What pages? Need more info! Mathiastck 17:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See the smackall page. Somebody from this ip removed the website url and made it as broken link. And they are following me doing some irrelevent stuff. codetiger 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I can take care now. That person is my competitor who wants to put down the traffic to my site and this page smackall. So he often removes the links to my pages. And he often removes some kind useful stuff. codetiger 04:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So the proper procedure is to lodge the complaint first on the talk page. You may be certain he's a vandal, but we still assume good faith, and just ask him kindly to stop doing on the talk page. This also makes it easier for others to support you. If it goes on long enough that IP develops a reputation as a known vandal, I think. Mathiastck 19:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, You are right. I posted a kind request on his talk page. And there are already two such posts by some other users. And still I am waiting if he does it again another time. codetiger 07:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool Mathiastck 17:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Assume wikipedians are drunk

Seriously. Put up the with the fact that you have to tell them over and over aggain. The Association Of Intoxicated wikipedians needs better presentation!

Dude, what were we just talking about! Mathiastck 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Unitarian Jihad

Thought you might like to know this article has been nominated for deletion. If you like it (you liked it well enough to comment on the Talk page...), you might want to click over to the link and suggest reasons why it should not be deleted.
Septegram 21:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be strong support for it's deletion. I can handle it being merged into the UUA article. I've improved the article itself some, but it needs more listing of current events. I'm an Inclusionist and I support the meme, so I'm certainly in favor of keeping the article :) Mathiastck 15:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Template moved

Please take not of the template move ({{Future article talk page}}), see Template talk:Future article talk page. BigNate37_(T) 22:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nate :) Still loving the template. Seriously creating talk pages for future articles is my fav thing to do here :) Mathiastck 18:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Drat! What happened to the template? Mathiastck 15:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Redline

I used to go under the names Xanarki, Anarki, Zommer, X and others. My old fan site got so useless, I decided to take it down. I tried contacting both Atari and Beyond Games/SBI about a sequel or a download of something, but it's the same answer: "we got nothin" Xanarki 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they made a pen/paper/dice for Redline as well. (I went by MathiasTCK on MPlayer, was playing the demo even before it got released. Mathiastck 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Future_article_talk_page got deleted

I don't understand why articles are put through a deletion process without any attempt to discuss whether to delete the article in it's talk page. I'm now looking for an appropriate place to discuss the deletion of this specific talk page, and it's article. Here are the places I've found so far:

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G8:_Talk_pages User_talk:Mathiastck#Template_moved User_talk:RyanGerbil10#Deletion_of_Template:Future_article_talk_page Template_talk:Futureart User_talk:BigNate37/TM/Future_article_talk_page Template_talk:Db-talk User_talk:Nae'blis#Template:Future_article_talk_page

As well as some meta pages on related issues.

Mathiastck 15:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what you'll want to do in the future, since that template was deleted, is draft articles in your userspace at User:Mathiastck/futurearticlename for example. If you want to propose something for other people to work on that you can't do yourself, there's Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- nae'blis 17:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping for help understanding on what grounds it got deleted the first time :) I don't expect any version I draft will fare any better otherwise. Mathiastck 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In reply to your queries at my talkpage and then template's talkpage, the TfD (Templates for Deletion) discussion (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 19#Template:Future article talk page and User:BigNate37.2FTM.2FFuture article talk page and Template:Futureart was where it should have been discussed. I wasn't 'threatening' to delete the talkpage! I was pointing out as a courtesy, that the page would shortly be deleted (by someone or other) because it's a re-creation of a deleted location (CSD G4), and a talkpage without an associated article (orphaned, CSD G8).

The place to discuss its deletion, if you feel it wasn't given a fair hearing, is Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, it's very unlikely to be undeleted, as Wikipedia simply doesn't have a tradition of having talkpages without associated article-content. Instead, we're meant to add a new item to the Wikipedia:Requested articles pages. This is probably (I'm hypothesizing/extrapolating) to keep things centralised, and to prevent spam/vandalism at talkpages that aren't as heavily watchlisted as articles might be. If talkpages without articles could be made, we'd almost certainly end up with literally millions of orphan-talkpages, with editors claiming that "I need the notes here, and am working on the article, and it'll be notable when I'm done, honest!" type thing; a huge potential for abuse.

Like I said, I'm on your side! I kinda liked the idea, as months ago I had placed a few notes at Talk:Jurgen Gothe, which subsequently got deleted (and ditto for a few other talkpages I'd left notes at). But I agree with not ignoring the 'approved process', as there are almost always darn good reasons for them, so in the future I'll leave notes at the Wikipedia:Requested articles pages, or make user-subpages to keep notes/drafts on.

Hope that answers everything, if not ask away :) (replies here are fine)--Quiddity 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Quidity, I really, really appreciate the response :) I'm rereading G8 now at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, and it does clearly state: "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere. Subpages (including archive pages) are only deletable under this rule if the corresponding top-level page does not exist. Exceptions to this are user talk pages and talk pages of images on Commons." I recall it being worded, and interpreted very differently last time I checked. I'm betting that Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion is where I should go to participate in discussing the merits of talk pages designed to assist others in the creation of new articles :) Thanks! Mathiastck 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Either there, or one of the Village pumps, but admins will be watching the CSD talk page, so should be able to assist. Good luck :)

(I'll leave Template talk:Future article talk page alone till it pops up on my watchlist again :) --Quiddity 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again quid. I'll start investigating the Village pump. I've never been there before. Mathiastck 02:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Crossposting

http://community.livejournal.com/discorapolitic/17295.html

The wikipedia policy on talk pages is my current pet project, so I'm gonna crosspost here what I'm blogging about:

Future_article_talk_page_got_deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mathiastck#Future_article_talk_page_got_deleted

I need help. I used to participate a lot on wikipedia. Someone made a template designed to be used on talk pages. That template got deleted.

The premise was, if you are trying to create an article, you create the talk page first, and set this template. It describes the process I'm describing here, your goals, methods etc.

This is a gray area of wiki policy. The problem is, talk pages are less patrolled, so can be more easily spammed.

I promote this method anyway, because if this template is used, it's easy to mass delete every page using it. Which is what happened :)

Since it is that easy to do... it's clearly not that big a problem.

The problem it solves is there is a big barrier to entry in creating a new wikipedia page. If you do it wrong the page gets deleted, and there is a big barrier to recreating a deleted page, (many recreated pages are deleted automatically).

Anyway if you use wikipedia, I need your help. Forgot to sign: Mathiastck 17:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

You wrote I'd love to talk with you about talk pages, their role, purpose and limitations some time

Sure. Let me start by saying that I think user talk pages have completely different purposes than article and other talk pages, a distinction that isn't well enough laid out in Wikipedia policy. I'd guess you're interested in article talk pages; what's on your mind? -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am most curious in the attitudes and policies of active wikipedians towards article talk pages. For what different, major reasons do we delete article talk pages? I've been examining the policies as thoroughly as I can, but I don't really see the rational behind the policies. I can see deleting talk pages if they are being abused, but I haven't found that to a significant problem in my experience. Am I just not seeing it happen? Mathiastck 15:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Article talk pages are never deleted unless the accompanying article is deleted; then they are, always - I think that's the policy, though I could be wrong. By "deleted", I mean the article is totally removed, not moved or a redirect put in place.

I'm not sure how admins handle talk pages when they put in a redirect at the article rather than totally removing it; I suppose this depends on whether they think the talk page is constructive or not, and (perhaps) on whatever semi-automated software they use (which may suggest or make it easy to kill both pages simultaneously.)

As for "abuse" of talk pages, while in theory the abusive comments on a talk page could be removed, my experience is that this is rarely done (and I'd argue it probably should be done more). The exception is clear libel or exposure of personal information: see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, where admins go in and delete (technically, hide from regular users) every version of a page that have the problem information on them. But even then, the talk page remains, showing the most recent version that doesn't contain the offending information.

Finally, to some extent the attitude of regular Wikipedians to article talk pages is irrelevant when it comes to deletions - only an admin can delete a page (of any kind), and I know of no noticeboard or other forum where users can make a request that a talk page be deleted in its entirety.

If you know of counter-examples to what I've said, I'd certainly be interested. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Aren't there a few different processes whereby things can be deleted? Mathiastck 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should always delete the talk page if we delete the article? Do you think there are acceptable reasons and uses for talk pages created before an article? Mathiastck 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are three different processes for deleting articles: speedy, prod (5 day automatic if not objected to), and AfD.

Generally an article is deleted because notability has failed to be established - that is, a decision has been made that the subject isn't expected ever (well, within a reasonable amount of time - see WP:NOT - WP is not a crystal ball) to be notable. Given that decision, it doesn't make sense to keep a talk page around.

Interesting. A lot of the pages I've tried to create have been technical terms. I think they were judged notable because the admins hadn't yet heard of them :) Mathiastck 15:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As for your last question, see Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Setting up a talk page for a future but not yet created article?. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 01:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I have removed your userpage from several article categories. These categories are for organizing articles only. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 16:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool deal thanks! I am reminded that my user page here is treated like an encyclopedia entry. Funny how kids are changing web forums these days. Mathiastck 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My todo list

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voodoo_Debugging&action=edit

Mathiastck 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Conan O'Brien does American Gothic.jpg

Hello, Mathiastck. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Conan O'Brien does American Gothic.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Mathiastck. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ilta Sanomat front page Conan and Tarja.gif

Hello, Mathiastck. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Ilta Sanomat front page Conan and Tarja.gif) was found at the following location: User:Mathiastck. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

game?

Please stop making Talk:Horeshoes. I don't know what your purpose to this is. If you want Horseshoes to discuss "horseshoes and hand grendades", bring it up at Talk:Horseshoes. ··coelacan 08:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate to me why I should do that.  :) Mathiastck 09:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Horeshoes is probably not a useful redirect as it seems to be a very uncommon misspelling. But in any case Talk:Horeshoes isn't going to be read by anyone who reads Talk:Horseshoes, and those are the folks you presumably want to be communicating with, unless you're just trying to make a WP:POINT. ··coelacan 09:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Conan O'Brien does American Gothic.jpg

Hello Mathiastck, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Conan O'Brien does American Gothic.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Mathiastck. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 11:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the bot didn't go ahead and remove the image, but I've done so now. You can learn more about our non-free content policies at WP:NONFREE. ··coelacan 23:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good troll

I do love redirects. Everytime anyone makes a spelling mistake when searching for an article, they should improve wikipedias search algorotih by planting a redirect there, to the more appropriate page you find when you correct your spelling and improve your search. Mathiastck 06:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, did some Troll delete the last set of redirects I threw up? Mathiastck

I deleted one redirect you set up as it redirected to a non-existent page. Also all these redirects you are setting up are redirecting to redirect pages. If you are going to set these redirects up make sure they go to the final article page Troll (internet) or where ever it shoudl be going and not to another redirect page. Double and triple redirects don't work. Ben W Bell talk 07:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you weren't deleting the halfway steps I would have done as you have requested already. Can you let a redirect live at least as long as a single users average wikiession? Mathiastck 07:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love your advice on where the final step should be in that case though :) Mathiastck 07:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you are setting up a lot of unnecessary redirects, and even some you have set up seem to go to the wrong place. For instance Internet-Troll shouldn't go to Troll, but to Troll (internet). There are other editors deleting what are seen as unnecessary redirects. Ben W Bell talk 07:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm an Inclusionist. I'm creating redirects because if you follow the saga above, it's a lot easier then A. Requesting Pages, B, Creating Talk Pages. Besides, all redirects do is improve search. What's the problem? Mathiastck 07:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of your redirects need looking at, they link to other redirects. This actually makes things worse. If you create a redirect make sure it actually goes to a proper article and not another redirect page. Ben W Bell talk 07:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I have stated how my redirects improve wikipdia. How do they make them worse? Mathiastck 07:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of your redirects are double redirects, which are not good. They don't help as someone clicks on them and they don't get an appropriate article, just another link to click on. Double redirects are bad and need to be fixed and removed, this is why every time a page is moved it is clearly stated that all double redirects should be checked and corrected. A redirect should go direct to an appropriate article, not to another redirect page. For more information on why you shouldn't have these double redirects please read WP:Redirect. Ben W Bell talk 07:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You have demonstrated how my redirects don't improve as much as some god redirect that automatically knows the right final article. I do go back and correct my redirects, and at the very least they help me, and any wikipedia interested in imrpovign wikipedias search. I agree Double redirects are bad and need to be improved. Each redirect goes to my best guess at the time of the appropriate article. I finish each edit before navigating to a new page, thank you very much :) Mathiastck 07:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I appreciate your enthusiasm and your good faith effort to improve the place. It's truly appreciated. As a suggestion, you may want to make sure the redirect doesn't go to a redlink and that the redirect points to the correct article. You can always open the redirect link in a new tab or window to make sure you're not creating a double redirect. That would help reduce deletions and complaints. Cheers and happy editing! Vassyana 08:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem of timing. You seem to be assuming I edit wikipedia using multiple windows, or I use the back button, etc. Those are unsafe assumptions. Mathiastck 08:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I made no assumption as to whether you did or not. I made the suggestion that you should. Double redirects will be deleted or corrected by other editors. Careless redirects increase the amount of work to be done. Please take care in creating redirects, checking them if necessary. Be well. Vassyana 09:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm not argue about whether the will or won't, I've got enough evidence of that on this page. I'm trying to pin point the wiki policy that those deleting double redirects feel justifies deleting, when they could just as easily be correcting them. It seems like clear cut Deletionism. I see deleting double redirects as increasing the amoutn of work to be done. A double redirect reduces button clicks, per user. I agree policy should be against them, but not in favor of deleting them. IMPROVE!

Mathiastck 09:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Soft Redirect

OK I'm in love with Soft Redirects :) meta:Redirect
This page is a soft redirect.

Meta Redirect Policy

Purposes of a redirect

   * Allow access in the case that a pagename is provided:
         o which is an alternative term for the subject
         o which is a term for a subtopic (in this case one may use a redirect to a section)
         o which uses alternative capitalization and hyphenation
         o which uses alternative spelling
         o which has a common misspelling
   * Provide a way of conveniently going to a page (shortcut)
   * Keep links to a page active after it has been moved (even if internal links are updated, this still applies for external links)

[edit] Special purposes

   * Conveniently linking indirectly to a page, without the need for a Piped link. However, a piped link is in some respects even better than relying on a redirect, see Comparison with piped link.
   * Allowing a link title independent of the final link target; one creates a page whose name is the desired link title, and which redirects to the desired target page. See e.g. w:Template:Ft, containing ft, with the page w:30.48 cm redirecting to w:Foot (unit of length). The link title "30.48 cm" informs in the hover box about the unit "ft" even without following the link to the article about this unit. See also hover box for another technique with a similar result.

Mathiastck 07:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect carefulness

Okay can you please stop messing around with these bad redirects, you are sewing confusion through Wikipedia with double redirects, redirects that don't go where the reader would expect them to, and creating pages that mimic Wikipedia policy pages (such as the Wikipedia:Faction which uses the Wikipedia namespace instead of the article namespace. Ben W Bell talk 07:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not messing around. How on earth do double redirects cause confusion? They reduce user clicks in a great many cases. Is that not our goal? Can you give me a specific example of a redirect that you feel "caused confusion?" Mathiastck 08:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm behaving in the manner I expect wikipedia to behave. When I type something into a search box, and it does not lead to a page, THATS A BUG, I can fix that bug RIGHT THEN AND THERE by throwing up a redirect. You seem to be complaining it's a lazy edit, that does not consult an oracle to find the right place to redirect. I say you are much lazier when you delete them, rather then correct them. Mathiastck 08:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you make the redirects right the first time? Grandmasterka 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You should make the assumption that this user is editing wikipedia from Opera Mini. Why can't every user only make perfect edits? Mathiastck 01:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you're going to create useless redirects that without even taking a second to make sure they point at the right article, and then make everyone else clean up after you? Wonderful. That'll make everyone a "deletionist", and likely earn you a block for disruption. Then we won't have to clean it all up. Grandmasterka 07:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Useless redirects

Can someone site an example of a useless redirect I have created? In every case I made my best effort to determine the right place to redirect the article too, without leaving the browser window. What algorithm are you suggesting I follow instead? Mathiastck 07:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti troll bias

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Anti troll bias, by DMacks (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Anti troll bias fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

double-redirect to nothing that seems relevant...nothing about bias or having prime label as "good" or "bad"

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Anti troll bias, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Convert trolls

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Convert trolls, by Samtheboy (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Convert trolls fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

r1

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Convert trolls, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK

Ok, you can copy and paste, but can you also tell me how I can make a userbox saying i'm a conservative, because it says on your you are a liberal. Dom58! 10:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What I would do? You can click on the edit link of my profile. Don't hit any other button on the page after that, don't save etc. but while you're in the edit screen, hit control A, select all, and grab my profile. Then paste into a good text editor, today I'm pushing Textpad. Once there use seaRCH, (F5 in Textpad, Control-F most anywhere else) for the unique string of the user box you want to emulate. Find it's wiki snippet, copy it, paste it into your profile :) If you are temporarily mislabeled as a liberal, on your next edit just fiddle with it, try just switching it to conservative.

If you pick a popular thing to steal, there is a good chance the user box you are looking for already exists. Mathiastck 10:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. I asked around a lot, someone else should make a George Bush version of {{User Bill Clinton}} for you. Mathiastck 10:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Do you support George W, or not? Dom58! 15:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose his exectuion. I suggest we start the 3rd Clinton Term Mathiastck 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with having political interests. I don't want to promote him, I just feel he is greatly misunderestimated, and i want a userbox on my page saying how I support him. Is that a crime? Dom58! 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, GWB invented the word "misunderestimated" Wikidan829 15:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thnks anyway. Look at this that i created.

This user is a political conservative.

Do you really hate me? Dom58! 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist

User:Mathiastck/Blacklist

Deletionism

OK here is a good example. I'm, stuck on this. My first 4 guesses were wrong. Where should Deletionism lead? Right now I'm leaning towards:

" meta:Deletionism
This page is a soft redirect. "

Perfect Edit

Um, this user is incapable of making the Perfect Edit. I often have to visit a page several times over the course of a Wikisession before I can create a page that won't get Speedily Deleted. I'm not an idiot, I think yall are just setting the bar too high. Can you describe to the editing environment you assume I'm in? Mathiastck 01:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Your creation of multiple redirects has been disruptive and the creation of double and other mutliple redirects is disruptive to the project, as well. Please stop making redirects such as "deletionist", "rocketfish", or other such ones that you have created that have nothing to do with the pages you made them direct to. Instead, please edit articles, as further forms of disruption may get you blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Woot! Someone gave a specific complaint :) You are saying I setup a redirect that had "Nothign to do with the pages" I directed the user to? Can you tell what redirect you think would be better?

Rocketfish is the only maker of wireles computer keypads I am aware of. I'm not a good enough editor to successfully create an article that won't be speedily deleted regarding Rocketfish. Where should Rocketfish lead, and why?

Thanks

Mathiastck 14:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Rocketfish I was unaware of, but several of your redirects were cross namespace redirects which are speedy deleteable, some were double redirects, others were triple. Soft redirects are essentially the same. Those are for when you want to direct to another policy page that exists on another project. For example, Wikipedia:Don't be a dick is a soft redirect to meta:Don't be a dick, which is a different Wikimedia project. Your other soft redirects were essentially unnecessary. Please hold off on creating any sort of redirect, unless they're relevant to the page you're redirecting to (alternate spellings, common ideas that cannot be accurately covered in their own article).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I make sure my redirect is not useless? Mathiastck 08:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If they are linked to somewhere before your user talk page. Perfect Edit linked nowhere but your user page, and Good Wikipedian or Lazy Wikipedian were redlinks that I just removed (they really shouldn't have been there in the first place). Please use Special:Whatlinkshere to see if the redirects are necessary in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How are you determining what redirects are necessary? Every time a user, seeking an encylopedia article, is lead to a page that does not exist, some redirect is needed. What else is the purpose of a redirect? Mathiastck 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need dozens of redirects from overly-specific descriptions to more general pages when that general page has no content relevant to that specific description. Consider lots of ADJECTIVE PAGE links to PAGE, where PAGE doesn't talk in particular about ADJECTIVE. A half-way intelligent searcher who can't find a multi-word expression would look for those words individually. Especially if many of those words have meanings on their own, just string those meanings together, no? DMacks 06:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not create double-redirects

No, really. Don't. Please stop creating them. This edit of yours set Pencil-neck geek as a redirect to Freddie Blassie, a page that has always been a redirect to Fred Blassie. You did it many hours ago, so don't plead "I use one window, you caught me in the middle of a few edits". I see also that shortly thereafter, you set Pencil neck geek as a redirect to Geek...that's pretty confusing for a slight punctuation difference to lead to two different places, especially since it's the non-hyphenated form that appears on the hyphenated-form's ultimate redirect target. DMacks 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sqaub

please do not post nonsense like sqaub, or your changes to Columbidae - I see you seem to be having other redirect problems above too. Jimfbleak 18:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Um what was nonsense about squab? I was just in the process of putting my references in.

"A young (about 4 weeks old) domesticated pigeon that has never flown and is therefore extremely tender."

http://www.epicurious.com/cooking/how_to/food_dictionary/entry?id=4728

Mathiastck 19:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah duh, I mispelled it at least once, it's squab not sqaub. Mathiastck 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the tone of the above, I see the error now, and i should have assumed good faith. I've repointed the link to Rock Pigeon, the species that is domesticated and bred for eating. Jimfbleak 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

None needed. I really do have good intentions on wikipedia :) I'm increasingly finding that I have a different vision of it though. I understand that we need to make it very easy to undo changes that harm wikipedia, however I think we're being just a bit to broad about it. A lot of things are ruled illegal because it appears possible they will be abused. However it's a fine line between encouraging abuse/encouragin new users. Right now I think the barrier to entry is too high on the creation of new articles, or to request new articles. I think it's way too high on the creation of new redirects, or talk pages created in good faith towards the creation of an article.

Wikipedia search sucks. However it would be easy to encourage users to improve it. Mathiastck 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Tag

Is there a wikipdia tag for a page to display a reference to the Open Directory Project entry of the same name? I think wikipedia should also be a directory, it includes a directory of itself at least. Anyway, if it's not a directory, perhaps it should link to one? I figure every page should have a link to a better site for the things wikipedia is not. Mathiastck 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Winchell

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Winchell, by Chrisd87, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Winchell is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Winchell, 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 Winchell 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 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think Winchell it's own wikipedia entry, but it did deserve a wiktionary entry. I forgot the {{hangon}} template, so I instead tried to conveny the same message by what I left on the talk page. It got deleted, now I'm tryign to figure out what I did wrong. Standards sure are rising in wiki editing, I can't create anythign notable it appears. Mathiastck 18:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, if {{hangon}} shouldn't be used for talk pages, what should be? Mathiastck 23:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason Winchell was deleted is that the page only contained a redirect to Wiktionary. Wikitionary contains no such page. Mallanox 10:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Discorporation

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Discorporation, by Useight, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Discorporation is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Discorporation, 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 Discorporation 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 00:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred Blassie vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fred Blassie, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RFerreira 05:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think you're talking about Fred Blassie popularizing the term Pencil Neck Geek? It appears he even had an album by the name, Nothing but a "pencil neck geek."

http://www.answers.com/topic/nothin-but-a-pencil-neck-geek

Mathiastck 15:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Hello, Would you like me to archive your talk page? I noticed that it was quite full and cluttered. Please reply back on my talk page

Thanks

--The-G-Unit-Boss 21:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude that would rock. I'll keep a local backup now of course. Mathiastck 21:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again on that, I'm also grateful for the cleanup of my main userpage that occurred, I raided info boxes poorly. Mathiastck (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)