User talk:Noian/Nov2008

This is in Wikipedia user space.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noian/Nov2008.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives (by month) @ User talk:Noian/Archives

Release notes

Hi, Noian.

Software changelogs (AKA release notes) are on a par with with READMEs, INSTALLs, and VCS commit messages. Most software articles don't include them, and they're easily linked to. In addition, they are lists rather than prose, and the articles I've removed them from have been flagged with cleanup tags that request list removal.

chocolateboy (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Talk

Please stop reformating/malformating/misformating/micromanaging &c. my talk page. Please consider pausing between posts.

chocolateboy (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not purposely "malformat" to disrupt the discussion, I merely reverted what I posted to the original formatting I put there, which was to add indents so that it would be easier to read what I wrote. I also reverted a edit conflict (too lazy/couldn't make heads/tails of the diff in edit conflict, so just went select all->copy->paste, and changed what you changed back afterwards). I also moved your reply in the middle of my reply, which I could have copied+pasted the specific paragraph you replied to, but was too lazy as it was right above it. Sorry if it offended you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly

How is him falsely saying he won a peabody notable. In my opinion this is very close to being an attack page. Removing per WP:BOLP Fru23 (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read BOLP? MediaMatters is not a reliable for a normal article, let alone a bio. Blogs, although sometimes good for normal articles are not reliable for bios, neither are youtube videos and recordings of a radio/tv show. Wikipedia is not censored but ill sourced, contentious "facts" are removed, ESPECIALLY from sensitize articles like bios. I, like many others do not like O'Reilly, but I can overcome that and attempt to be as objective as possible, just because you agree with something does not mean it has a NPOV and is well sourced. Almost all criticism pages are in violation with BOLP but this is one of the worst. The article should be outright deleted in accordance to WP:BOLP, it is a disgrace to wikipedia. Put your biases aside and actually look at the sources and content, and if you want, attempt to improve it. I will continue to remove unsourced and poorly sourced material, please refrain from further reverts. Message me if you have any further comments. Fru23 (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a single use account, I was been an IP editor for a while. I finally made an account after noticing my dynamic ips past malicious edits, I did not want to be associated with that. You are correct, I am more aware of wikipedias policies than most editors. Fru23 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan on nominating it right now, I know sourced criticism is allowed, I never said it was not. Please show me were it says it is allowed though I would like to see exactly what the guidelines are. Thank You Fru23 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links, I will go through them. I don't think IAR is a good example though. Fru23 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure MediaMatters is not a reliable source for bios . It is by far the most used source in the article. Fru23 (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A earlier talk can be found here. The consensus on the Hannity article was against it's use, Bill and Hannity are pretty similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive8#Media_Matters_for_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_1#Media_Matters Fru23 (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you. :)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I thought your advice to Dtiberio was well and kindly done. I fear my advice was presented poorly, and will not be heeded. sinneed (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting

There are no sources. I will get an admin if you continue this disruptive behavior. Fru23 (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I've reported him to WP:ANI for resuming the edit war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly sources Fru23. Also, I wasn't sure if you meant me or Fru, Baseball Bugs, but a quick trip to WP:ANI answered all, XD. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I got to the admin first, as he's been blocked for 72 more hours. I don't know if the sources are technically valid or not, but arguing it is supposed to occur on the talk page, not the edit summaries, which are like the "trenches" of an edit war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krom records

There's no need to add multiple DB tags to an article; it doesn't get it deleted faster :P. If there is already a CSD tag there, you shouldn't add another one. Ironholds (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, though. You can bring up 12 different reasons for deletion, but it only needs one, so the other 11 are superfluous.Ironholds (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crud, just saw your message, heh. No problem :). Ironholds (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate articles

I've speedily closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wixproj as redirect to WiX. The next time you see a duplicate article that's a plausible redirect, you should redirect it to the duplicate article. If the article name is an implausible redirect, then tag it as a {{db-housekeeping}} and provide the name of the duplicate article. A third scenario could be that the original article is misnamed and the creator of the duplicate article was doing a copy and paste move. In this case, tag the article with {{db-historymerge}}. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rude Intervention

Noian, you are very (in fact incredibly) rude in replacing a much needed (and laboriously written) article with an entirely inappropriate link. Had you taken the trouble to spend even a minute reading the article you would realize that fossil fuels is completely the wrong redirect for this article. Go look at the material covered in the one reference at the end of the article and you'll see just how inappropriate your redirect is. Please revert your redirect -- I'm not going to do it for you.

On further reflection I consider you a jerk and a hazard to responsible Wikipedia editing. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind language. I was merely being WP:BOLD and trying to follow the advice in the section above on articles that cover overlapping subjects, which I will be discarding now as I see I'm doing it wrong. I reverted it as fast as I could after your message though (was working across multiple tabs).ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Noian, sorry to be so rude with my language, but I guess I got the message across. The advice to be bold has its limits, and deleting articles wholesale is one of them. As looie496 pointed out you should first have engaged the article's author and try to reach some common understanding. If after that you feel that the author is a hopeless loser then it might be appropriate to get more drastic. But you don't just dive in and delete articles willy-nilly. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon based fuel

Hi; I looked at that page while patrolling new articles, and it seems that you have redirected it to a non-equivalent article without any discussion or attempt to contact the author or even a meaningful edit summary. That's an extremely hostile thing to do, you know? (The article was very problematic, but that doesn't excuse handling it this way.) looie496 (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted yourself -- thanks. looie496 (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was just trying to be BOLD and Fossil Fuels was the first page I found when looking for any articles on the subject that possibly already existed. Thank you for you language though. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent Vice

Hi Noian

You jumped in very quickly (i.e., while I was still in the middle of putting in links and sources) and marked this new page as a possible Copyright Violation but you didn't follow through and add it to the Wikipedia list of Copyvios which is the the very first thing it tells you to do in the box you added, nor did you send an alert to my User page, which it also tells you to do.

There is a precedent for quoting an excerpt from a Publisher's catalogue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Day (see the first heading on the Discussion page)

I'd appreciate it if you'd follow up with what you're supposed to do when you make an intervention like you have, or else remove the alert so that people can continue to develop the page on Inherent Vice. with best wishes Abaca (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cole

I never heard of this man but then found that he is cited in several print magzines and internet articles. I've added stuff after your tag and found more. After I am done, then you can figure out if the tag is ok or not. Marlinette (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NN archive

...so the archive stuff should be on the "talk" page, not the "article" page of the Archive 1?--SasiSasi (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a jep, got it now.--SasiSasi (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You lived in N.andover?

Cool, what year did you graduate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warfwar3 (talk • contribs)

Sitting Shiva for the Holocaust

Noian: The article has an enlightening message. How may I post it on Wikipedia without mentioning the author? Can I repost the article with her name appearing at the bottom as the author, and would that format comply with Wikipedia's rules? It must be realized that the messenger (Rita Corriel) has an illuminating message to the troubled times we are living in? If mentioning the author's name and background triggers automatic deletion, can the article aka message be permitted to be posted without making mention of the author? Kindly advise. I realize it's somewhat of a Catch 22 situation: Which is more important -- the messenger or the message, and accordingly, which one needs to be sacrified inorder to appease Wikipedia's guidelines? Dommartin99 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous

[1] WP:DTTR Viridae ^Talk 04:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. They may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not consider it rude themselves. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." and WP:DoTTR.

Point taken though.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UAA report

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. However, your report has been removed due to the username not violating policy, or not being blatant enough for a block. Please remember you should only post infringements on this page if they are so serious that the user needs to be blocked immediately. Others should be discussed with the user in question first, for example using the {{Uw-username}} template. A request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. Thank you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refuu

Hope you don't mind but I've changed the speedy tag to {{db-bio}} from patent nonsense as this is actually about a Danish rapper with no notability asserted rather than nonsense, although using Danish clearly doesn't help! Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule Chicken

Hi and thanks for your comments. The term "Chicken Schedule" is a bona fide term extensively used in the software development industry. I have conducted a search in Wikipedia but did not find a reference to it so I decided to create an entry for it. I have provided a scholarly citation (which is one of many-you can confirm this by doing a search on Google books). I also used the reference to the movie because this was one of the first documented instances for the usage of "chicken" in this context. Finally, I added the Dilbert entry to show just how common this practice is.--Apelbaum (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Wainwright - The One You Love

"The One You Love" is a song, not an album. Whataworld06 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of One Story the movie

An article that you have been involved in editing, One Story the movie, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Story the movie. Thank you. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Comment

noian, simplify please. I am no expert. Empiresj1 (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

Just because a slang term for Prognathism happens to offend you does not mean that Wikipedia should not help people learn the correct medical term. That's not a very neutral point of view, in my opinion. In fact, the reason I created the disambig was it was hard to find the actual name for the term, so when we finally did, I wanted to help future knowledge-seekers by creating a disambig. --TIB (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of monkey-face in article, assumed Original Research. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hey, a barnstar of my very own! Thanks a lot. As to marking the pages with the 'hoax' tag -- I had originally done so with the biographical one of those two, but it got deleted (along with a prod tag, IIRC). For the piñata one, I thought I'd leave it for a couple of days, see if anyone else tagged it (which no one did: how much stuff like that do you suppose manages to sneak under the radar and into the encylopedia?). I suppose you're right I should have hoax-tagged so while listing them for AFD, but the process for AFD listings is complicated enough without additional things to remember: it took me the best part of a month to sum up the courage to tag that one for deletion. But that's that: my AFD virginity's gone for ever, and it hardly hurt at all. Aille (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]