User talk:UsaSatsui/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Thanx

You made me feel better But what is the point of doing taht stuff they never freakin listen tom e especially Esanchez7587 User:SPBLU —Preceding comment was added at 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I dunno. Wikipedia is a lot more complex than it looks at first glance. All I can tell you is not to take it too personally, some people are less understanding of new people than others. Down to business, though: Have you read this page? Check it out, see if you can find a way to show the notability of the song...and be prepared to accept the fact it may not have any. Or at least have any yet...things could change when the video is released. Individual songs usually don't get an article unless they top the charts. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem

I have no problem with being wrong ;)
I actually get surprisingly few complaints about this, although I'm always expecting someone to take issue with it. I think it helps to have an overly descriptive edit summary, and to refer to WP:PROD as if to say "Hey, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them", heh. I must say, though, I do get frustrated with the amazing amount of people who attempt to enforce the policy when they obviously haven't bothered to read WP:PROD. Or maybe I'm being a little harsh... --Closedmouth (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Kleinstocks

Don't you think we should wait until 5-10-08 to get rid of it? Not now?Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to get rid of it. This article looks like it was merged a month ago and I think that was a good call. I really don't see the problem with a redirect. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Rickard Sjolander

• Where is the third person evidence or notability that this article should evidence or show me the AFD discussion on this subjectDwanyewest (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC).
  • per WP:PROD, if a prod is contested, then it shouldn't be re-added. It needs to be taken to AFD. Prod is for uncontested deletions. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Templi Kalendae

Could we possibly re-prod, per consensus on the talk page? I know it would be slightly a work of mercy rather than policy, but the original author/main editor, and the group themselves, very much desire deletion now, unlike in the past- and WP:RS aren't present anyway. Merkin's mum 02:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• It wouldn't work. The admin would see the previous AFD and not do it. Just re-nominate it or AFD. Note that if consensus is that there's enough notability for an article, there's not a lot that can be done. If all the contributors of the article agree to a deletion, though, you can try tagging it with a {{db-author}}. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We all do. There are no reliable sources, see [1]. Merkin's mum 11:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There you go, then. It's gone.  :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Wilson

Hi, my original intent was to move the actor page to Stuart Wilson (actor), then make the main page the disambiguation page. But after looking at the amount of links to the actor page compared with other pages, and doing a Google search [2], it does appear that he should remain at the main page. Do you agree? Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever you like. I was just doing the legwork, and thought the way I set it up works out better, but I have no strong opinions either way (given the choice, I'd leave it how it is) --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Marcus Fenix

An article that you have been involved in editing, Marcus Fenix, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Fenix. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ZeroGiga (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ted Paige

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ted Paige, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Paige. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Magioladitis (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Contesting needs a reason

"Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion." for WP:PROD which you gave me as a link. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep reading: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith.". Yes, they should leave a reason for removing the prod. They do not have to for it to be valid. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Are you sure this was not just a vandalism? I didn't give the user a warning because I couldn't decide. Moreover, as I read it it says "if someone removed the tag, after giving a reason, then..." The rest of the sentence implies to reason like "i hate this article", etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Prod is used for completely uncontroversial deletions. If someone disagrees with it, it's defeated (in fact, the tag itself says to remove it if you disagree). I don't think the removal was vandalism (and I checked to make sure he wasn't just going around deprodding stuff), and even if it was, you need to give the benefit of the doubt. There's really no point in pushing for a contested prod anyways, one request at DRV and the article is back. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In regards to List of Magic: The Gathering keywords backlinks...

Could you please not remove them until the DRV is closed? Once it's endorsed, I'll be happy to go remove them all myself. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Might wanna try poking an admin or two to get it closed. I've tried a couple, but I don't think any want to touch it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll see if anything can happen with that. It's already listed as a backlog, so I'm not sure why nothing's happening. GlassCobra has a thread going at WP:AN here, and I've explicitly mentioned the List's DRV there. Should be done soon. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's been overturned to no consensus. See you 'round. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Configuration integral (statistical mechanics)

Hello UsaSatsui. Please consider restoring my PROD tag on the above article. Since it has never been CSDed or PRODed, it is formally eligible. The editor who removed the PROD was a sock who is now indef-blocked. He was systematically undoing all my edits, so I doubt he has any good-faith interest in this particular article. Since there is a chance the editor who created this article originally is not currently active, this is a normal use of PROD. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Point taken, I reverted myself. But it doesn't look like you're actually pushing for a delete from what I make of the prod...--UsaSatsui (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is essentially a fork of a well-known topic, so its removal is logical. I was trying to provide a way out for the creator. If he can show that his usage is widespread (from any source besides his personal opinion), then keeping it might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:UsaSatsui/Save Toby

Done. Neıl 龱 07:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you
  • It looks much better - I have made a few edits to help get it up to scratch. There needs to be some kind of section on the media coverage the site received. Drop me a note when this is done and it will be good to go. Neıl 龱 09:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's almost ready. Can you find a review o fthe book? DGG (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you both. I don't know why a whole section needs to be written about media coverage, but you're right, it should be mentioned. As for a book review...I'll look for a "real" one. Most of what I found about it were blogs and the like, and on Amazon, it's pretty much evenly split between 5 star "It's funny" and 1-star "It's cruel" reviews. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not necessarily a dedicated section - but something about media coverage in the article would help it greatly. You might find this helpful. Neıl 龱 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Niiiiiiiiiiiiice. Thanks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the heads up on the {{prod}} template.

Also, thank you for rvv on my userpage. Someone isn't very happy that I don't let them post their spam links all over the extrusion page. --Wizard191 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag templates

Hello again, UsaSatsui ...

Well, it looks like {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-editor}} are being embraced and used, as witness the populating of Category:Flagged articles and Category:Flagged editors by Some Other Editors. :-)

There also seems to be support for {{Oldprodfull}}, and I'll probably become more active in patrolling Category:Proposed deletion and Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed, as opposed to New pages patrol.

BTW, I just activated WP:FLAG-MOVIE, and added Movies as a (Guideline) for the flag templates ... it also made sense to have {{Selected filmography}} populate Category:Flagged articles as well ... do you agree?

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{05:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)}

{{oldprodfull}} is good, and I should probably start using it...I just wish I knew what the "full" stood for. So as the creator of the template, tell me: what does it stand for? As for the flags...I don't get them. Are they supposed to be substitutes for prod when you don't feel like a delete is proper? I don't think I'll be using them. Also, if you're checking prods, might I recommend WP:PRODSUM? It's a very helpful tool, particularly when looking for improperly added prods, duplicate prods, or prods that have been re-added. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh! Well, one day I discovered {{Oldafd}} and {{Oldafdfull}}, and there was already an {{Oldprod}}, so it "made sense" to use that name, i.e., it documents the "full" history of its being PRODed (nominated, seconded, and contested) ... besides, it was the middle of the night, and I wasn't feeling very imaginative about the name.

"And now you know ... the rest of the story!" :-)

The flags are for an article that you might want to PROD or CSD, but it's still just Too Early in its development to tell ... basically, you want to keep an eye on it for a few days, and also bring it to the attention of Some Other Editors who might have more interest and knowledge in the subject, and who are willing to "lend a hand" in either (a) getting it fixed up, or else (b) getting rid of it.

Let's say you encounter a newly created article about a local band ... they might satisfy WP:MUSIC, but this is some newbie's first article, and they have absolutely no references, but just a link to the band's MySpace page ... in the spirit of WP:BITE, you don't want to tag it for CSD or PROD the same day it was created, but you feel that it should be flagged for closer scrutiny in a few days ... by placing the article and the author in Category:Flagged articles and Category:Flagged editors, they are also brought to the attention of other editors.

Specific essays like WP:FLAG-BAND and WP:FLAG-MOVIE provide "stencils" of {{Flag-editor}} and {{Flag-article}} that can be copy&pasted with the appropriate (Guideline), while WP:FLAG-BIO contains additional stencils, like one for {{Articleissues}}

It's a matter of personal inclination and choice to use the "Flag, then tag" methodology, but my experience is that the extra level of bureaucracy is worth the effort if it helps retain a newbie editor who might otherwise give up in frustration because their stub articles keep being deleted before they can finish them ... OTOH, the flags can also help to identify disruptive editors or articles that are being recreated after legitimate deletion.

Hey, they're not for the obvious "Kill it before it grows!" kind of article, but for dubious articles that might just need some more time and attention ... they'll be listed in categories for other editors to review as well, so you don't even have to add them to your Watchlist to be reminded to check on them after a few days.

Does that clear it up for you? — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Update on Flag templates

Well, it looks like this CfD has killed Category:Flagged editors, but Some Other Editor will have to depopulate it ... and they're also trying to zap {{Anon-sig}} <Heavy Sigh!>

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{22:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)}

Images

Right, the image policy is not as complicated as people make out.

1. ) If you took or created the picture yourself, or someone else has released an image and stated it is free (ie, licensed into the public domain, GFDL, or Creative Commons), it's fine to upload and use as you like.
2. ) If it is impossible to get a free image (not difficult - impossible), you can use a fair use one.
3. ) If you upload a fair use image, it must have a rationale. The rationale must explain WHY the image is fair use, name the article(s) the image is used in, that it cannot be replaced (and why not), and where it came from.

Logos are fine to upload, but are always fair use, so must include a rationale. To see what a good logo rationale looks like, go to a page about a major company (say, Microsoft, Ford, Apple Inc, Coca Cola, etc), click on their logo, and copy that rationale.

The book cover would also be uploadable under fair use, and could go in the article section that includes the book. Again, a rationale needs to be included; just find an article on a popular book (one of the Harry Potter ones or something) and copy that raationale, changing it as needed. It helps if the article text discusses the cover of the book, but it's not vital.

Images from the website - one or two website screenshots would be fine, providing each screenshot is tagged with the correct tag ({{Non-free web screenshot}}). Let me know if you need any more help - if you want to upload the images and let me know, I could also check them for you. Cheers. Neıl 龱 11:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, fair use images of people are permitted, but only if it were impossible to obtain a free image. Typically, and unfortunately, this means if the person were dead. (Although, it could also - and has - been argued it's legitimate fair use if you wanted to show, for example, a footballer who has since retired actually playing, or an actor in a famous role)

This goes the same for animals. As I believe Toby is now unobtainable, a fair use image for him would be fine, with a good rationale. Neıl 龱 13:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unobtainable? But Toby's not dead (as far as we know... ;) ). Okay, I'll use that info for great justice. Thanks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, good luck. Neıl 龱 13:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Both look okay to me. Neıl 龱 08:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of soft redirects

I would personally prefer that soft redirects be handed as redirects. But so far I have been unable to get any consensous together for that to be the case the couple of times I have tried to get a discussion going. Actually, I've been hard pressed to get much interest in the discussion, let alone consensous. So, absent such consensous, the old status-quo pretty much stands that soft redirects are to be handled as articles, not redirects.

Thus PROD and AFD, not RFD.

As I said above, I would personally prefer them to be treated as redirects, but the will to do so is simply not present. Treating them as redirects would enable R# speedy on them, especially R1. It would precluse A3 speedy, which is a battle I have to fight over them every now and then. And it would mean RFD for the troublesome ones, instead of AFD as currently. But, until/unless I can get enough people to care long enough to get together something that resembles a consensous, it is simply not to be, and the status-quo remains.

None of this is to contest your deletion of ZOMGROTFLMFAO. That one needed to go one way or another. But I wanted to let you know my reasoning for using PROD on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I had no idea that soft redirects were supposed to be treated any differently. Do you have any examples on where it says they're supposed to be treated as articles? Anyways, if nobody is interested in the discussion, I suggest just treating them as normal redirects. If nobody complains, the new consensus is reached, and if someone does, you've started the discussion.  :) (and you know, that's the first time I've managed to push a miscelanious" speedy delete through).--UsaSatsui (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This all built out of the A3 CSD comment above. A3 is No Content. Soft redirects have no content, and occasionally get A3 speedied. I pushed for a wording change to A3 speedy to preclude soft redirects, and got one, maybe two responses. Responses were favorible, but with only one or two, it was far, far from a consensous. I also tried a Village Pump discussion, to a similar non-response. So they continue to be occasionally A3 CSDed, and I continue to raise a stink whenever I catch it happening. I will fight against an A3 CSD of a soft redirect on even a bad soft redirect, because of the principle of it. Allowing soft redirects to ever be speedy deleted for a CSD reason that applies to every single soft redirect is setting them all up for potential speedy deletion. let me go discussion link hunting. BRB. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive7#Article for deletion - an early breif discussion in the saga of soft redirects.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omglolwtfbbq - an AFD discussion on a soft redirect
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 34#Soft redirects - Village pump discussion attempt that suffered from a lack of interest.
• Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 28#Proposed change to A3 - My abbortive attempt to get a CSD A3 wording change. Abborted for lack of interest.
• User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive7#FOAD - someone who intensely dislikes soft redirects, and thinks all should be subject to A3 deletion.

There's the history as it stands. After the CSD discussion I pretty much gave up on getting any interest in changing things, and accepted that they would be treated as articles, not redirects, with the exception that I would (and will continue) to oppose A3 deletion of soft redirects. More commentary in a few minutes. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on where to go now, as discussing with you has fueled me up for another attempt. I'm willing to tilt at this windmill at least once more. :)

A new way to attack this that occurred to me after your comments. It would be to go at it from the SR side moreso than the general population side. Specifically, editing the SR page itself to reflect the intention that they be treated as redirects more than articles. I'm thinking along the lines of starting a thread on the talk page of SR, letting the thread go for a week or so, and assuming no opposition, then I would be WP:BOLD even given a lack of interest and make the changes to reflect the intent. A week would give anyone who wants to oppose a chance, but given the lack of interest I've encountered in the past, I'm not expecting much suppost, let alone opposition. :) Then, with the SR page showing that they should be handled, and especially deleted, as redirects, assuming that those changes stand for a period of time, they become precedent. Does that sound like a viable path forward? - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Um...yeah. I haven't ever seen anything that implies a soft redirect -should- be treated differently from a normal redirect. It certainly makes sense that if they meet the criteria for R1, R2, or R3, they should be speedily deleted, and should be discussed over at RFD if not. You should absolutely focus on the "treat them as R1" side and not the "don't treat them as A3" side. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

I said after a few more "keep" votes; a unanimous set of 6+ or more keep votes bypasses the need to wait the full 5-7 days. However, you are right; it is inproper for me to close a discussion I am involved in. Ironholds 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

new friends

Oh yes, I make large numbers of friends on wikipedia! Something about csd'ing their vanity pages and reporting users with inappropriate usernames seems to annoy vandals! Can't think why :P. Thanks for picking up on it :).Ironholds 13:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reunion place names

Hey! No worries about letting these AfDs play out if that's how editors want to handle it. Thanks for bringing this up. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sure thing. I know you were just being bold, but I think admins need to be careful when they do that. Sometimes, when trying to do the right thing, they circumvent process a bit. Thanks for keeping an open mind about it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Prod dates

Sorry, I thought it was better to update the dates when I corrected the prod at Daniel Sterling. No harm intended. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nah, no worries. Always better to leave them alone, though. Five days is plenty of time, no reason to give more, plus a prod can always be declined by an admin or overturned at DRV. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD for Template:Anon-sig

Hello again, UsaSatsui ...

First of all, I want to thank you for voicing your support at the TfD for Template:Anon-sig ... it's really not a hassle since I've got that ungodly long string in a scratch pad file where I can copy&paste it.

My second comment was about the death of Category:Flagged editors, although Category:Flagged articles remains intact ... I guess that's just another example of "Good idea; bad decision!" ... I was WP:BOLD, but it didn't survive consensus ... I may not have pushed the corner of the envelope very far, but at least I got as far as the sticky stuff near the edge. :-)

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{21:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)}

Alan Cabal

Hi: Would you kindly provide your opinion about the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_3#Alan_Cabal for the article about Alan Cabal? Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Hi: What do you mean by got any you didn't add? Did I miss some or do you mean because I wiki-fied a few articles? All the mentions were originally there I've just been wikifying them which I think is alright. Best, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Oldprodfull (redux)

Hello again, UsaSatsui ...

I noticed in your intro for this page that you sometimes contest PRODs ... do you know of Some Other Editor who could modify an existing bot to automagically add an empty boilerplate of {{Oldprodfull}} to an article's Talk page?

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{17:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)}

• Nope. And mostly, I remove already contested prods, so... :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding minor edit

Hello, I recently added an External Link to Jar Jar Binks. This link was based on a new, if minor, web phenomenon related to the subject of the article. I have restored the link, but I am only an infrequent Wikipedia editor and in no way married to the article in question, so if you believe the link is inappropriate or too unimportant to stand, I will bow to your obvious experience. Thank you for your time. — 69.134.122.144 (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• The article doesn't even -discuss- the "Jar Jar, you're a genius" thing, and it's only 4 days old anyways. That's why the link shouldn't be there. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood. My thanks. — 69.134.122.144 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Burns Mall

Hello there! Thanks for the contact. I'm struggling for time at the moment, but I felt this necessary - you are right that a sock puppet is involved, but this is a chronic offender with a new sock every day. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th). I won't oppose you if you feel the need to unprotect it, but I standby the action I made this instance. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  18:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:prod

Sorry dude! Been working on some double-secret wiki-stuff, and the normal, non-secret wikistuff :P. So what've you been up to then? Ironholds 20:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

George Colbran deletion review

Hi UsaSatsui. Thanks for commenting on the George Colbran article at the Deletion review/Log/2008 July 22. I have a question about process. You said I should ask for a copy in your userspace so you can work on it so it can be included later on when notability can be demonstrated. I will take your advice. If I create a new reworked article, with new content, does it need any review before it is placed in mainspace? Or do I just create it, put it there, and see what people think? Thanks, --Lester 10:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Technically, the new article doesn't -need- a DRV unless the article is salted (protected against recreation, and it's not in this case). It's usually a good idea to ask a few people if the article is OK before you bring it back in, though...I would recommend at least asking the deleting admin and/or the userfying admin for their opinions...they're most familiar with the article and can probably give you more informed opinions. You don't -have- to ask admins, but they tend to have the most experience. And yes, if you want a broader opinion, you can re-list it at DRV with a link to the draft...bringing a draft -always- helps your chances, and can encourage people to work on it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your advice, UsaSatsui. --Lester 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

prod and redirects

Re this edit: I didn't find anything about redirects not being prodded in WP:PROD. At any rate, just wondering on what this is based. user:Everyme 13:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it: only articles may be proposed for deletion. user:Everyme 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dance Gavin Dance (album)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dance Gavin Dance (album), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance Gavin Dance (album). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Péter Gulácsi

Yes, just a little frustrated. TBH I knew you'd see it and reinstate the prod or AfD it, but I was just so pissed off - I think I've had to take five articles to AfD this week because anonymous users have removed the prods without any explanation... Anyway, cheers for taking it to AfD - I think I'd scream if I had to go through that again! пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV of an IfD

I'm advising all participants in the IfD discussion for the Image Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg that a subsequent DRV was filed here. Your participation is welcome. Dreadstar † 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Popcorn(game) contesting of notability

Would you be editing the article to add notable citations/references, or no? Also, looking through the history, it seemed it might have originally been created by a single purpose account who also worked on the page of the developer (although I can't jump to conclusions, and that is irrelevant since others can improve it). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can't, actually contribute meaningfully, but I do remember seeing articles about the game oh-so-many years ago. And hey, if you disagree, AFD away. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

PROD shouldn't be used on redirects?

Where does this come from? --NE2 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As my problem is somewhat related, thank you for putting the CSD tag on Tratamento Mecânico Biológico. I was looking for the proper template but didn't find it, so I used prod. De728631 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's a generic speedy delete template where you can fill in a reason: {{db}}. "Write-your-own" speedies usually don't go through, but I think this one was an obvious case. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

TLC

You simply aren't listening. It has nothing to do with the image's inclusion in the article. It is not being deleted just because it doesn't meet WP:NFCC in that particular article. Now I'm not going to break WP:3RR, but reconsider before you add useless images to a section solely for context. Alientraveller (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's been a lot of talk about this (follow the DRV link on the image page), and people have generally agreed that the image -does- belong in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because it illustrates a particular scene in the movie. It's probably in the wrong place in the article, but that can be fixed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Dumbth

There's plenty of context here. Even though the definition of the term isn't given, we know that it's a term from his book, which is referenced. CSD:A1 is for articles where we can't even figure out what the subject of the article is. Here, we know what it is, though the information is obviously incomplete. There's already a PROD on the article and frankly, I don't see what the rush is. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hiya. Just thought I'd drop by and let you know that I've responded. Sorry for not doing so sooner, but sadly my work had me in on Saturday to fix something that shouldn't have been touched in the first place. C'est la vie. Kylu (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationales for screenshots used in Abandonia article

Thanks for the heads-up, I've added the rationale for Image:Abandonia_title_page_screen_shot.jpg now. To answer your questions:

• The ownership of copyrights to the screenshot may be attributed to multiple parties:

• The person who designed the layout is an employee of the Studentis group. Personals unknown, altough Kosta Krauth might be able to provide them.
• Studentis Group is the owner of the Abandonia brand.
• The site itself is still under the ownership of Kosta Krauth (as far as he explained it to the staff, that is).
• Copyrights for the icons used in the news items belong to the current copyright holders for each individual game and are used on the site without permission.
• Copyright for the text of actual news items is unclear. It may be transferred to the site owner, or still remain in the hands of each respective author.

• If you want, I can e-mail you with contact data for Kosta Krauth. Mind you that at present the surest way to reach him is by phone.

Regarding the rationale for Image:AR-screenie.png, Tom Henrik Aaberg is an administrator of both this site and the original Abandonia. He may have been acting with a permission from the copyright owner, but apart from asking Kosta directly (and taking into account that he might not recall the matter at all after two years) there is no way to confirm it. I am not part of the Reloaded staff, and Tom Henrik is to all purposes inaccessible (I've recently attempted to contact him about a different matter). --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Frencher

Is this guy running some kind of fantasy-baseball-league game with radio personalities, then altering Wikipedia to match his game? That's what seems to be going on, but I don't want to go further until I get a reality check from you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly have no idea if that's what he's doing. I know is that none of his stuff checks out, except to his own personal blog...it's blatant enough for me to call it G3. User:Danngarcia has been dealing with him more than I have, so you can clarify things with him, but from this user's edits and contributions, I'd say he's just a hoaxster. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Prod

Sorry, I wasn't aware of all the rules for Prod. In the future, I'll look at the pages more carefully. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Granada Forum

I hesitated before placing that protection for just the reason you mentioned. A range block should now solve the problem. I've reset the PROD date so it now has more than five days. Feel free to remove it entirely if you like, of course. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reprodding

I didn't propose for the deletion of that article. Someone else did. I only reverted some edits because there were some bad formatting. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

{{prod2}}

RE: this message. Bizarre indeed, and thanks for the info. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nile Ranger

Sure it was: WP:A7 (bio): non-notable bio with no assertion of notability. "He might play with the big guys someday" is just another variation on WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point; I left the more wordy stuff there because I figured it meant something to those who speak more fluent jock-speak than I. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Now useless prod-related templates

(moved here from User talk:Doug for unified discussion) I found these templates: {{Produserpagewarning}}, {{Produserpagewarningwelcome}}, and {{Produserpagewarningwelcomeother}}, relating to prods on user pages. They probably should be deleted. I tried to nominate them for TFD, but...well, it didn't work. Can you take care of them (preferably by nominating them, but if they qualify for speedy somehow, go for it)? --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Done there was a problem with the code that was in the instructions for subst templates. I've fixed it. You may wish to comment.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking to images (and categories and interwiki-pages, etc...)

If you want to link to (for example) example.jpg, but not have it display, put a colon before the namespace (in this case, image:) like this: [[:Image:example.jpg]]: This gives you: Image:example.jpg

You can do the same with categories, that way you can link to a category Category:User en without including that page in the category, for instance. If you wanted to link to my talkpage on the French Wikipedia, you'd use fr:User talk:Kylu, since without the colon, you'd have an interwiki link under the toolbox on this page... which would make people think that the French version of your user talk was my talkpage there.

I hope that's of some help. :) Kylu (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

C.O.D. (song)

Thanks for deprodding this article and very unhelpfully telling me to bring it to rfd. What is rfd? Why didn't you do it yourself? This is one of the most pointless, meaningless articles on Wikipedia, created for no reason whatsoever, and I have to jump through untold irritating hoops to get rid of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's not an article, for one. For another, I don't support deleting it. But don't worry. With an attitude like that, you're sure to find lots of people who are willing to help you (RFD, by the way, is Redirects for Deletion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was previously an article and was deleted. The orphaned redirect was created as some kind of an idiotic, puerile protest at the original article being deleted. It's happened before, it'll happen again. But you support that, so it's fine. I'm not worried, I never have a problem finding people to help me do things, people who don't trawl around Wikipedia doing half a job wherever they go. Thanks for clarifying the RFD. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, with remarks above like "Unless you're a jerk. If you are, forget it." then it's clear that we both have an attitude, so let's not pretend I'm alone in that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I only have an attitude towards people who deserve it. And yeah, that's a better target for the redirect. Have a nice day. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_5#Moral_weakness_.E2.86.92_Homosexuality

Ah damn, really didn't think about that. Thanks for your advice, I've still got a fair way to go with learning the different deletion processes! If you need anything, don't hesistate to ask. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Need Advice About Sharon Stone

There have been four recent attempts by anonymous users to delete, without comment, the entire(unflattering) section on Razzie Awards from Sharon Stone's page:

• 88.15.54.91 9/10/08 two attempts (rolled back same day)
• 88.15.188.35 9/10/08 one attempt (rolled back same day)
• 88.3.63.52 8/29/08 one attempt (rolled back on 9/5/08)

The section is very well documented and factual, and all four attempts have been rolled back by various editors who discovered the attempt (two by myself). I've never been part of an edit war before, and do not relish the prospect. However, I believe that this material is fair and relevant and that it belongs in the article. I believe the anonymous uncommented deletion attempts are dirty pool, but have no idea what to do. What is your advice about how to handle the situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnickel (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have any. If they're anonymous deletions without explanation, then they should be reverted out of hand. If it's a content dispute, it should be handled on the talk page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)