Jump to content

User talk:Ken g6/Archive 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RE: LucienBOT confused about en:HP QuickTest Professional

Hi, Ken g6. Thank you very much for the information and bot fixing. The problem, as you suggested, seems to be in ru:wiki. Well done. Regards, --Lucien leGrey (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy

Oop, sorry - I meant "BD", and not "DB". "BD" is the old form of the "Lifetime" template, which I got used to using and need to get un-used to. Must've been half-asleep this morning when I was editing. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 18:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

DTV

Yeah I hate when old threads remain. That's what started the flame war by Theavang, he responded to a 90 day old thread and attempted to make me look bad even though that was NOT my intention. Anyways I hope you're hungry, have a cookie or 2.

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

RE: Thanks!

Your so welcome, and thank you so much for the kitten :-), it cheered me up Maen. K. A. (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right...

In reviewing that block you were concerned about, it would seem that the user had a mix of both useful and useless edits. I had blocked him for a slew of vanity articles and photos about what appeared to be his garage band, but some of the other photos and jpegs were of a seemingly legit band. If you'd like, I can eliminate the block. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Ken, I have a question, you said that my picture violated something but I am not sure what I did wrong. Could you please explain? I will be happy to fix, I just don't know what's wrong with it. It's the NSC Picture under Concrete Industry Management page, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smbrown123 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

File:NSCSponsors.jpg

Thanks for your concern regarding File:NSCSponsors.jpg. I do have permission to publish. Would like me to have the company email you their permission? If so, please give me your email address and I will do so. Thanks! Smbrown123 (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial patch for Unreal Tournament

In the interest of avoiding a repeat of the edit war on Unreal, please have a look at Talk:Unreal regarding the addition and promotion of the unofficial 227 patch for that game. While the circumstances aren't exactly the same (namely, there doesn't seem to be a muddy COI issue at the forefront of your edits), the consensus among VG editors and administrators is that unofficial information should not be added to an infobox. Furthermore, as with any other information placed in a Wikipedia article, it should have independent sources if it is to be discussed in the body of the article. The mere fact that the patch exists (which is not in dispute) is not enough to warrant inclusion in the article if the claims regarding the patch are not independently verifiable. Consider the thousands of mods, maps, and other custom content that was created by the community for Unreal Tournament. To receive special attention by being mentioned in the Wikipedia article requires equally special noteworthiness; otherwise it is undue weight. If you would like further clarification from me or other VG editors, you can reply to me or post questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Thanks. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I just don't get whole issue of Reliable Sources. How is it that a journal article, in a publication that hardly anybody's going to read because it costs too much money or requires visiting a library, or both, in a journal which may itself be industry-funded, is more reliable than a blog post by a reliable blogger? And what do you call it when a contributor to a national publication posts an article on that publication's site, but labeled as a "blog post"? With the death of "old media", newspapers and such, I think Wikipedia's going to have to accept more blog references in the future.
For now, since I can't comprehend what is and is not considered reliable, I'll ask you. Is any one of these three pages a reliable source?
— Ken g6 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I won't argue the virtues of the RS policy with you, as that is quite beyond the scope of the edits in question. You can always bring up policy concerns on the respective talk pages, like Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. In short, however, the sources you posted would fail a reliability test for these reasons:
  • Self-published sources are generally not sufficient on their own; they can be used to fill in details but coverage of something must exist elsewhere in independent sources for it to be worthy of inclusion. That means, in this case, the website for a patch cannot be used as an independent source for the patch.
  • Sources that are user-contributed are generally unverified; thus a wiki will generally not be usable. Wikipedia of course is itself a wiki, and we cannot use Wikipedia articles as sources for itself.
  • Third-party blogs, fansites, and other personal pages typically fail reliability because they rarely have any journalistic standards with regard to fact checking or the tone of writing, i.e. they usually post whatever the owner feels like. These features run afoul of other policies like original research and neutral point of view.
What would be considered reliable sources are well-known, independent publications (and there is no preference for print sources at all). For example, IGN and GameSpot pages are typically the first sources that are sought for VG reviews. A list of other commonly accepted sources can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Munch Chicken?

Your munch chicken template is great, but how is anyone going to know that? Could you maybe, modify the chicken template to include that? The Arbiter★★★ 22:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Arbiter (talk • contribs)

Never mind, I've taken care of it. Template has been modified to a simpler {{MunchChicken}} The Arbiter★★★ 22:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ken_g6/Archive_2009&oldid=435740156"