User talk:Icarus3/Archive3

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

This archive spans September 2006 through June 2008.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

B

Oh yeah, no personal attacks. (I was going to attack you) •S e an•gorter•^(Talk) 05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxipuss

Good afternoon, I would like to report that my article on The Malaysian Boxipuss, has resulted in wide research on the subject and I do have more information on the Boxipuss but I feel it will be rejected by you so i do not have the desire to add this to Boxipuss page, after your unacceptable rudeness. Dr. Alan Sieve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.29.9 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 November 2006

Your article was not deleted (over a dozen times) because of any kind of rudeness. It was deleted because it was an obvious hoax. We welcome any article on a notable subject with reliable sources. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 07:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Organi Studios

Hey, I saw that you put a {{bv}} template on User_talk:Organi Studios. I was watching this user, which is something I do when I notice a string of vandalism or vanity so I can check back the next day to see if anything new has to be reverted. When I checked the user's contributions to remember which guy this was, however, I only saw one edit that wasn't blatant vandalism. Do you remember if this user had blatant vandalism edits that were deleted, like starting inappropriate articles that were speedied? Mistaking WP:YFA for the place to start articles is unfortunately very common, so it's more of a newbie mistake than blatant vandalism. Anyway, I was just curious if you remember anything worse, or if it would be okay if I removed the {{bv}} warning for being overly harsh and replaced it with {{vanity}}. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine. Organi Studios has only made one edit, which was to replace YFA with what looks a lot like an advertisement, but I have no problem with giving the benefit of the doubt. Michaelbusch 20:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladin'

The members of the 4x4 community have and continue to severely vandalize this page. Its not worth the trouble anymore. I give you permission to move this to a speedy delete, if I may. Lets just get this out of here and save everyone a headache. Thank you. Jnonnemaker 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The horror! Marshmallow kills people

You are right. TWO (2) people choked on it. It is very important and encyclopedic. Yes it is the deadliest food on Earth. How about deadly pizza?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.118.35.197 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 December 2006.

Please read the edit summary I wrote when I reverted your edit. The section you removed may not belong in the article, but as it's disputed, it should be discussed on the talk page first. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please do not make bad faith edits to make a point. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why bad faith? I thin consensus in Wiki is clear. Marshmallows are deadly and it is very important and encyclopedic subject. You've convinced me. So I'm just trying to add more context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.118.35.197 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 December 2006.

He has now been blocked (at last!) on both addresses that he was using. Hopefully that will be the end of that. -- Joseph Sanderson 00:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not eaten my last deadly marshmallow yet (thanks to Wiki). I'm aware of it's deadliness now (thanks to you guys). Marshmallows aka Satans spawns will not get to me that easily. Boys you are doing great job of spreading the message of puffy killer awareness. keep it coming. But how about deadly pizza campaign? Pizza kills, man.

Yeah - something productive you say, like writing an article about deadly cheesburger? case was very simple - I've removed some fear mongering non-sense, and you and your fellows has rushed to the "crime" scene with vandal templates, reverts (not even reading what you are reverting), and slander - yeah playing Chuck Norris, vandal bashing Texas ranger is fun, I get it. But two can play this game.

"Chubby Bunny" is a real game, not nonsense, and all we said was that removing it should be discussed first. You weren't given vandal templates until you started acting like a vandal. If you thought that section shouldn't have been in the article, you should have participated in the discussion like a reasonable editor instead of throwing a tantrum. I won't bother trying to speak reason to you anymore, I just hope you'll stop wasting your time on something so silly. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars just because the idea that two people dying over choking on a marshmallow being significant in an article is just plain humourous. Thanks for the explanation. I certainly will keep an eye out for marshmallows out there that could potentially kill me. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 01:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undecylenic acid inputs

Hello Icarus3:

Thank you for editing my prior errors. I will do better next time if you tell me what's wrong with the references posted before removing my undecylenic acid additions. Castoroil101 03:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sources?

i am just curious why sources are necessary for the stub Chained dollars. Kingturtle 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be supported with reliable sources, partially to satisfy the verifiability requirement. The stub looks totally legit, so it's not as big a deal as when a word is suspected to be a neologism, hoax, etc., but I found the article while doing some new page patrolling, saw that it had no sources, and tagged it as such. Presumably, there's an economics textbook out there that could easily be put in as a source. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Did you make the name of Jimbo Wales in Aurebesh? Do you mind if you can do one for my page, User:Leor Natanov/In many languages, please?? Thanks!!! Leor Natanov 02:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on my talk page Leor Natanov 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!!!! Your are one of the best people in Wikipedia!! You just made my week!! Leor Natanov 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template images

Thanks for noticing. See my reply on my talk page.Cbdorsett 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! It works great and will save me a lot of time. Cbdorsett 06:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphatodraco

Icarus, could you please explain the tag you put on Phosphatodraco? How is it wrongly categorised? I cannot find any pterosaur articles categorised Tree of Life. Cheers. --Gazzster 10:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{ToLCleanup}} because the article would benefit from having a taxonomy box added, and also from having a little bit of cleanup (putting the reference in common Wikipedia format, in particular). I don't see any problems with the category; I used the Tree of Life cleanup template instead of the normal cleanup template because it's about a living (well, extinct now, but you know what I mean!) organism and would benefit from having a taxobox. I've just added a stub template to it, too. Don't worry, it looks like a great start for an article, those templates just give a heads-up as to what would make it better. They're there partially to attract the attention of other editors who can help to make those improvements. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank mate. I'll work on the T box and the reference. But I'll take the stub category away, because there really is nothing else known about Phosphatodraco, as far as I have been able to research. Cheers.--Gazzster 10:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dated templates

Just to let you know the -date templates are on their way out, as the standard ones now take MONTH YEAR default parameters: cleanup-date => Cleanup, wikify-date => Wikify, linkless-date => Orphan, unacat-date => Uncategorized. Rich Farmbrough, 21:04 10 January 2007 (GMT).

Poverty - please vote

I think the poverty article would benefit from this Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive --since you have help a lot with it please cast your vote.futurebird 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCommons Picture of the Year

I certify that I am the user who made the following vote:

281, 266, 53, 67, 194

--Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12.173.197.130

Why are you removing to picture I inserted. I am trying to make it better. You are a vandele. --12.173.197.130 08:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been repeatedly warned, over multiple (now blocked) usernames and IP addresses, by multiple users, to stop spamming images across articles. Your refusal to abide by the rules and community standards of Wikipedia shows that it is you who is the vandal. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 08:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome!

And thanks for the advice - I hadn't spotted the {{Blatantvandal}} template so will bear that in mind - I had wondered what the best way to tackle leaving warnings for multiple recent actions was. I don't necessarily have much to input for articles (but will correct things when I can), so my way of thanking the wikipedia community is to help out with vandalism or errors! sjwk 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned images

Well the easiest way to find orphaned images is Special:Unusedimages. There are over 100,000 unused images on WP and the number grows daily. Here is a step by step help list to get you started (I use Windows and Internet Explorer):

open this link in a new browser window.
this may take some time, a few minutes depending on server busyness
open the image by opening it in a new window so that the gallery of images remains separate (keeps you from having to re-open the gallary page)
you can jump to any image number (the 2100 in the url). The lower the number, the longer it has been since it was uploaded (not nessesarly orphaned tho) Also the higher the number you put into the url the longer it will take to load - as much as 5-7 minutes when you get to the 90000 mark.

A great tool for tagging images easily is User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. Have a read through the talk page of that user subpage and see how to install the tools in your session. The main features needed are the nominate for deletion, tag as an orphaned fair use, mark as move to Commons (for good quality free images) and the mark as redundant. The others get used occasionally. These tools make taggng images so much easier as it does the image tagging, notifying uploader and adding to the IfD page.

Also you can have a look at some of the project links I have on my user page (most are just searches that result in a number of orphans) but note these links result in many images that are used and should not be deleted - just an increased likelyhood of finding dead images.

If you got any questions, please just leave me a note on my talk page.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belginusanl

Excellent work! :) - Gobeirne 07:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girly girl

Hi. Are you interested in fleshing out Girly girl? PMA 03:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osteotome

Hallo Icarus3, I found you among the contributors to the article on the osteotome on the English Wikipedia. The article is a stub and I am not sure if the definitions in the first lines are correct. The osteotome (German: Osteotom) that I know was invented by the German physician Bernhard Heine in 1830 and was used for opening the skull. In my Commons gallery you can see the pictures that I uploaded, I have some more on my computer. The usage of the instrument can be seen in the Bernhard Heine article. My question: Do you know anything about the other meanings and types of this instrument? Hans555_talk 17:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyBlackBook

Article is NOT advertisement. It has neutral tone, and is cited by many articles (over several references, and news sources). This has been in an article for quite some time. There are numerous references, and sources cited. Google returns over 20,000 results searching on the subject "myblackbook".

This article has been removed from speedy deletion numerous times by other members and editors of Wiki.

The article meets all Wikipedia requirements, and is an educational encyclopedic entry. The article was put for speedy deletion over a year ago, and was saved after meeting the criteria of wikipedia.

The article still meets the criteria of Wikipedia. Resorb 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for deletion, but the final decision is not in my hands. It is currently being discussed at WP:AFD, which is a different process from speedy deletion. AFDs involve a discussion period for wikipedians to consider the merits of the article and come to a consensus as to its fate. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you may do so at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MyBlackBook. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Icarus3. Thanks for welcoming me and for all the helpful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasHabifMD (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing needed on marshmallow article

Requesting sourcing is not a WP:POINT violation. I am trying to abide by my understanding of WP:V, because I find reason to challenge the information involved. The practice of toasting marshmallows is almost completely obsolete, due to the dangers involved. Some older editors may remember it from their own ancient childhoods, but for everyone else, the information in question is false and may lead to accidents. That's why I think the claim should be sourced. NBSTVM 04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do my best to assume good faith (as per Wikipedia guidelines) despite my personal incredulity as to your sincerity, but the unbelievably over-the-top nature of the comments you have left on Talk:Marshmallow make that a pointless formality in this case. While the onus of evidence is usually on those making a claim, toasting marshmallows is such an incredibly common practice that you might as well ask for a source that the sky is blue. You are certainly free to provide a source to support your claim that this is a widely abandoned practice if you want to maintain your position. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Vestey

Greetings, Icarus3. I removed your speedy tag from the article Edmund Hoyle Vestey as I recognised the name as being somebody who was a member of one of the most notable families of the 20th century, which created and owned one of the biggest meat trading companies in the world and was one of the wealthiest families in the world (second only to the Queen here in the UK). I guess that the author both inexperienced (fewer than 200 edits) and was writing it from scratch, and had not got very far when you placed the tag on it 14 minutes after he started it. Anyway, I picked up the article a few hours later (he had placed a hangon tag on it) and have expanded it. I may do a little more work on it but I trust that it is adequate for now. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviews

Happy New Year, Icarus! Since you've assessed quite a few good articles and contributed to them, I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might be of some help in critiquing them:

Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments will certainly be appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

If you have the time, it'd be great if you could review those articles and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Thanks, and a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus3 DONT EVER AGAIN POST ON MY TALK PAGE!

I HAD TO VOMIT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Seagal (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAST WARNING! IF YOU POST ON MY TALK PAGE AGAIN I WILL REPORT YOU TO THE POLICE FOR SEXUAL HARRASMENT!

PLEASE KEEP AWAY FROM ME AND DO NOT APPROACH ME ONLINE. S Seagal (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am choosing not to remove these personal attacks from my talk page, though doing so is permitted. Note that these are the comments that this user is responding to: Warning for recreating deleted material and Warning for the first personal attack left here. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Icarus3! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence POV

Hello Icarus3, the best explanation I've seen for the reason to not include "Grammy-award winning", or any other type of award mention in the opening sentence was by Spellcast, said here. I hope that helps. Acalamari 20:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I noticed that you revert a lot of vandalism. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to make vandal-reverting a bit easier for you? Acalamari 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twins

Hi Icarus, many similiar sites. I think it works better on its own page, as someone will probably expand on the subject at some stage. Here is one such link, taken at random [1]. tx! 78.19.174.181 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mdsummermsw for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw this ridiculous affair... Like you, I've decided to keep an eye on it and only bother replying if it isn't tossed out first as WP:POINT or bad faith. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled ROGUE

Why am I triple-plussed unsurprised to find out that you don't know that. --Jtdunlop (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you provided a diff so I knew which edit you were talking about... If I made a typo, it was probably because it was late and I was tired. If I accidentally spelled it as "rouge," then I was most likely thinking about that particular typo as I find it rather amusing, and it became an instance of "don't think of an elephant" (meaning, if someone tells you not to think of one, that in and of itself makes it so you do). But I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to point out an error so I can avoid it in the future, but are instead angry because I warned you for vandalism... --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond (rapper)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Diamond (rapper), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

help

Can you explain why I got your message. I have never heard of the user you are talking about. I am new to wikipedia. There are many people that use our internet at our public location. --Usaman101 (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belginusanl

Thanks for the clarification here. I fixed the error in VanTucky's template too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfR withdrawn

I withdrew my CfR on Category:Female wartime crossdressers. Please see the Category talk page for discussion. Whistling42 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity

If the publication of record of a college/university isn't encyclopedic, what is? We're not talking the NAU Ultimate Frisbee Club here, we're talking about an actual dead-tree student media publication with an established history of high-quality journalism. Barring thermonuclear war, its reports will be cataloged and archived as the university's first draft of history long after Wikipedia itself ceases to exist. FCYTravis (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your arguments on the AfD page, not on my talk page. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 09:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lumberjack AfD

Did I really come across as being uncivil? I thought I was addressing things in a rather factual manner ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were, just barely. I was more concerned that things looked to be heading in that direction. Maybe they wouldn't have, but I figured it would be better to play it safe and comment on it now rather than waiting to see if it did get to that point. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.