User talk:Krakrjak

AMD Userboxes

A friend of mine on Wikipedia, has suggested that we put all of the AMD Userboxes into one template and then let it's user, customize it to their needs, since you are the creator of the AMD Opteron userbox, I would ask you if you wanted to be a part of this ? Don't worry if you don't want to do any of it, I shall take care of everything. Please respond as soon as possible ! Rugby471 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stir

Hello. If you are unhappy with a deletion, the first thing you should do is ask the admin in question politely the reasoning for it. Mistakes do happen on both sides, either you or the admin may realise that, and work out a solution. If you disagree with the reasoning, the correct procedure is to take it up on Wikipedia:Deletion review. What you should not do is post angry messages on their talk pages. Remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. That said, the article itself need a lot of work to conform to the policys of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Claims of "wide critical acclaim", "cemented themselves" and "unbelievable rendition" either need to be cited or re-written to be more neutral. (I'll add this part of this comment to the article talk page too, so other article editors can see it too) Regards, MartinRe 10:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! If the original were restored I would not feel slighted. I was not aware of the DRV process until after I left the comments on JIP's talk page. I felt that he violated the "speedy deletion" policy and was wrong. We are now in the review process. If this version of the page violate NPOV that is fine, restore the original and let me (and others) expound upon it. Krakrjak 10:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include claims about incorrect deletions in Wikipedia articles. Read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: Wikipedia articles should be encyclopedia articles as such, they should not talk about Wikipedia's inner workings. JIP | Talk 11:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Item in question has been removed by another user. Krakrjak 11:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. Would you mind removing the comment from the article talk page too, I'll add a note to the deletion review, which should suffice. (I don't want to remove the comment myself, as removing other people comments from article talk pages is very bad form in my view). I've done a little work in trying to tidy the article, but it needs a lot more input though. Regards, MartinRe 15:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Krakrjak 08:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that :). Regards, MartinRe 17:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note, that even if the review suggests that the article is not a speedy delete candiate, it may validly get nominated as a WP:AFD where the pros and cons will get debated. If you haven't done so, have a look at WP:MUSIC. Most importantly, that notibilty claims must be verified. BTW, have you read all the links/information in the welcome message you removed earlier? MartinRe 15:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have read them. I seem to have gotten off to a shakey start. And I apologize to JIP for being so harsh. It was a remark made in haste and I hope to rectify it and see this page through the formal process. If the page dies after AfD review then so be it. Krakrjak 08:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little shakey, yes :) A couple of point that might reduce the shakes in future:

Don't take things personally, and always assume good faith. I would highly recommend that you apologise to JIP on his talk page, being that was the place the heated comment took place.
It's not a good idea to change your comments on talk pages, especially once they've been replied to. If you say something you're rather not have, it's better to ~~strike it out~~ rather than "change history".
If it fails, afd, it fails, but I'm hopeful it should stay with the recent improvements and references added.
When creating a new stub, if all you have is a few details, it's better to work on it either outside wikipedia or in a user subpage until it gets to a stub size length. I've seen it happen before, someone started an very short article, and spent the next few days defending it from speedies and afd's when he'd rather have been improving it. There's no hurry, but a few more days gathering the info before creating the article could save a lot of time in the long run.

Hope that helps, Regards, MartinRe 12:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your note to JIP on his talk pages, thanks for that. MartinRe 07:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentoo userbox

Greetings,

I just noticed you created a Template:User gentoo userbox, today. However, I had already created Template:User OS:Gentoo a while ago. I did not remember to list the box in WP:UBXCO at the time, which no doubt aided in the confusion. Being that the new box is redundant, I would propose that we VfD it, or perhaps alter it into a redirect for the older one? (do redirects even work with templates?)

As a side note, you will notice that I did not use the Gentoo logo in my userbox, due to WP:FUP. It would certainly have looked better with the logo, in fact I made a RFC in that regard in the template's talk, with some quotations from the Gentoo Logo usage guidelines.

Capi 14:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates most certainly work as redirects. I'm not opposed to blanking mine and putting a redirect to your older one. I really should have checked the User OS section first. I will also post on the talk page. I think you are right that the logo usage in the template is fine. I didn't even hesitate after reading the logo usage. Krakrjak 02:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looking at the links to the new template, and the links to the old one, perhaps it would be better to just list the new one for deletion (instead of using the redirect) and edit WP:UBXCO to refer to the older one? Since only really our own 2 user pages include either of the templates, and with all the recent commotion over userbox templates and there being too many, etc. Capi 12:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem for me. I'll ~~replace the in the template and~~ update my user page. I'll support a deletion of the duplicate userbox. Krakrjak 21:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've just listed the new template for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User_gentoo. Capi 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Jared W!!! | Write to me, why don't you? 11:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, welcome! Netkinetic 06:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Krakrjak 10:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drop by my page sometime! (Delete this comment when you do.) You might find a userbox you can use. Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. 08:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Accomplished. I don't have all my userboxes done, but I have a bunch!!! ;) Krakrjak 07:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]