Jump to content

User talk:Taelus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Sorry about that

Ouch... You reverted my revert. Still, I see that you reverted your own revert afterwards, so no worries over the mistake. :) (Thats quite the sentance to say out loud.) Taelus (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Truly I am sorry. The screen updated just as my finger was already moving to hit the revert button, and I couldn't stop it in time. I'm gladly removing the warning notice and changing the section title so that hopefully nobody will think you are a vandal. Quite the opposite. Thank you for your vandal-fighting efforts. The tool I use is called Huggle. It's got a lot of great features (like revert and warn as a single button press), but once you click the button, there seems to be no stopping it. I'm still getting the hang of it, and there might be better/easier ways to undo occasional goof-ups like this. But until I figure out how, please accept my old-fashioned, hand-typed, sincere apology. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 13:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No worries, thanks alot for clearing it up! Taelus (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. I went back through the (so-called) documentation and found an "undo" feature that would have made fixing my mistake a single-button fix. I'll know better next time. Sorry again that you got hit with the side-effects of my learning curve. You were a good sport about it, too. :-) Since your user page isn't started yet, I don't know if you are one, but if you are, have a happy mother's day! (Otherwise, just have a good day.) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 15:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects created by merge...

{{helpme}}

I cannot find advice on what to do in this situation anywhere so I am rather confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Paper_Mario_series_characters&redirect=no

That page redirects to a section of another page which was deleted, and thus is eligible to be deleted under CSD:G8.

However when I speedied it I ran into a barrier I had been aware of anyway, informing me that a page with a previous history and talk which are valuable should not be deleted. However, it would also be wrong to simply blank the page due to the bad redirect as it would be confusing for other users of Wikipedia... Thus I have no idea what policy dicates should be done. It does create a wierd redirect cycle where readers may end up going from a game page to the redirect to the page which no longer contains a character list, back to the game page around and around... Please could someone inform me of the policy to handle this, as I am now rather stumped. Thanks in advance! --Taelus (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If a redirect cannot be speedy deleted, you should simply nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (RFD; see instructions there). An admin could merge the history to some related page but as the content seems deleted, RFD seems the best way to get consensus on how to handle the situation. Regards SoWhy 21:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks alot, I followed your advice and took it to RfD explaining the situation. --Taelus (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Patron Estates

Why was Patron Estates speedy deleted and how can I restructure my article to make it acceptable for public viewing on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppassword (talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Patron Estates was speedy deleted under CSD G2, as it resembled a test page. You can recreate the page, but consider not copying and pasting it from the sandbox. The reason your page was removed was because I presumed it was a testpage as you included all the content of the sandbox, including many blank test boxes and links and such. Consider checking the help available on the Community Portal for help starting your first page. Alternatively, if you need help, you can edit your talk page with a helpme tag and write your question underneath, and an experienced wikipedian will likely answer it for you after a small wait. Good luck with your future contributions, and welcome to the project. --Taelus (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fable II on Windows

Your edit summary for the revert said that there was lots of evidence stating that there wouldn't be a PC conversion. Did someone official actually say this or is this just rumour? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

On Lionhead's official forums: http://community.lionhead.com/forums/permalink/3293939/3293944/ShowThread.aspx#3293944
Therefore, without an official news post from them, I would say it is pretty much a fact that there is no planned PC conversion. --Taelus (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Just hadn't heard proof either way yet. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome. It's always hard to get concrete proof of claims like that because the developers themselves like to keep the door open. However until we hear anything from them I think we can assume that their policy stands at no PC release. --Taelus (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Darn. :P I have the Xbox version, but I was hoping for Fable II: The Lost Chapters. Oh, well, no worries. Thanks for the help. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Scouts Royale Brotherhood

Could you take a look at a version before the massive recent changes? Say http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouts_Royale_Brotherhood&oldid=294591240 ? That's after some edits that I did and before the massive increase. Let me know whether you think that fits the right tone. There are definitely a *lot* of things that the new editor added that I'm going to strip out.Naraht (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That version avoids the issue of weasel words, however the tone is still slightly off. It should be written to be more encyclopedic, informing the reader of notable information on the topic. Parts of it are just lists which will mean nothing to someone who does not already have experience with the topic. It would still need re-writing in that format in my opinion, but it is far better than the current revision which has large dodgy sections. Just ensure that it is informative and not confusing to a non-expert reader and it should be fine. --Taelus (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the Notable Scouts Royale Brotherhood Alumni section wasn't great, but it was a *tiny* bit better than nothing. I left it there in hopes it would get somehow improved. I've done much better on alumni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alpha_Phi_Omega_members) :)
I'm going to way a day or so to see if the new influx of information slows to something more reasonable. The SRB Jewels section should be deleted in its entirety, it *may* be appropriate to say "Scouts Royale brotherhood refers to the 12 points of the scout law as Jewels". The symbols are mostly up in the infobox (yes it is a Fraternity infobox, but it's close enough to a Fraternity, at least by Philippino standards. The History behind History and SRB/APO relations sections need to be severly trimmed, but its relationship to APO is a significant part of its history.Naraht (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning a possible RfC on RobJ1981

This essay [1] may be construed as a personal attack, yes, but it holds a lot of truth about RobJ1981's disruptive, deletionist editing style. I am collecting a list of articles where he conducts himself like that and am contemplating initiating an RfC on him. If you are interested in taking part, message me

BTW here is a non-comprehensive list of articles where he committed such behaviour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nuclear_Football_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bugbears_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Satyrs_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Three_Stooges_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Homelessness_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Australian_repeated_place_names
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trench_coats_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hippogriff_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_beverages_(2nd_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doctor_Who_spoofs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Syrinx_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shinigami_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ship_of_Lights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Nintendo_characters_(2nd_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johnny_Bravo_(character)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Idol_Hot_100_singles_(2nd_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samson_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rimbaud_and_modern_culture

I am going to refine the list into cases where he blatantly violated WP:ITSCRUFT in nominating an article, cases where he blatantly violated WP:ITSCRUFT for how he voted in various AfDs, and cases where he simply just followed a bandwagon (whether the bandwagon won the AfD or not) voting Delete/redirect per above. I have been going through his contribs and it appears he rarely actually adds content to Wikipedia, most of his edits (other than updating tags) are either deleting content from articles (though I must admit once in while his deletions are valid) or him nominating or voting for anything and everything to be deleted. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot say I have had enough experience with this person, nor with Wikipedia itself to take part in an RfC. In addition, whilst he did seem to be treating AfDs as somewhere where you aim to "win" in some of those links, and in the AfD I took part in along side him, I personally don't think charging into an RfC would be the right way to go. I would suggest both parties take a few days to cooldown, then have a discussion with him on his talk page. If he responds with attacks, or refuses to try and resolve any issues by talking, then go to RfC. If you have already done this in the past then sure, go for RfC. Again, personally I cannot comment as I have only seen him on an open AfD once. --Taelus (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I will probably start this in early July at the earliest. Apparently, this user has launched a Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Thegreyanomaly against me. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I have just spotted that. Best to take this to dispute resolution then. However, it was quite unwise of you to name the section as you did in your userspace. "Bad behaviour" ventures into the areas of assuming bad faith. --Taelus (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I accordingly fixed that Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Thegreyanomaly

It appears that this discussion is not over. An IP or two and Robfan have posted some messages about RobJ (which I personally agree with) that he might want to respond to. In spirit of staying away from RobJ1981 for a while, I was wondering if you could pass on the message to him to look at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Thegreyanomaly

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I dropped him a message asking whether he agrees to the idea of you two avoiding each other. If so, then it can be marked as resolved. If he doesn't wish to respond any further, then it can be left to go stale. I am however worried about the comments of both the IP and Robfan, as the pair have only made edits regarding to the alert, or reverting edits he has made. However, I will assume good faith in their edits, and I just hope that Rob himself does as well. --Taelus (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I will avoid him. As for the IP and Robfan: I personally think they are just single purpose accounts to stir up trouble. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Resolved

I have marked the issue as resolved. Happy editing to you both! --Taelus (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My Sincere Apology

Sorry about the revert, it wasn't on purpose. I've been harassed by this user for the last 10 minutes and reverting heavy vandalism. My Huggle was going slow and I click the revert button on the wrong page. My apologies, thanks for telling me, your opinion counts more than you think and if you feel I made a mistake, please tall me;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 15:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, be careful with being too trigger happy with templates, as they can be very confusing to new users and those on shared IPs if the diffs are not obvious vandalism! Thanks though for your vandal fighting efforts, and all the best. --Taelus (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm usually very lazy about giving thanks for cleaning vandalism from my userpage ... but having a little bit of extra energy today, THANKS! :) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller cleanup

The AfD discussion said that page needs a bit of cleanup, so I have begun working on that. I have converted the list into a sortable wikitable for one so that it is standardized with other Wii lists. Please give input on what else should be fixed

--Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Much appreciated. Netalarm 02:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome, happy editing! --Taelus (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Kamen Ryuki RFD

I can assure you that there are no links to this name on external websites because the redirect was made less than 48 hours ago and never existed on Wikipedia until it was made by the individual discussed here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Taxi game

Hello Taelus, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Taxi game has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(First, look for refs , such as reviews of the games, per WP:BEFORE)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

(Link for myself for ease of finding again): User_talk:DGG#Please_can_you_clarify_about_your_change_to_Taxi_Games --Taelus (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry thing...

I removed this rant by the anonymous IP from my talkpage, this shows by its own admission that it's the same user.

So it's the same user. It claims that the text it repeatedly improperly removed from the article was impossible to check or verify, yet it's right here on Wikipedia. I have no use for lazy whining. If someone without the honesty to sign up or sign in repeatedly makes bad edits, (like you said there is a distance between IPs,) to look as though it's two different editors, that's a sockpuppet. I don't owe apologies and don't care to defend myself to such users. Nothing against you, you're doing your chosen role here and I understand that, do whatcha gotta do. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The user admits that they made one edit from an alternative IP address which was also them, however this is not enough to paint them as a sockpuppet. They were likely away from home in another city, and still wanted to contribute via another computer and connection. If the user is making bad edits, don't lower yourself down to their level, continue to edit with civility. Thank you, --Taelus (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fable II Citation

Thanks for the reply (and sorry about taking so long myself). I suppose what really confused me is... what was a PlayStation template doing on an article for an Xbox exclusive? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 16:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a group nomination, and involved Xbox related links too. Specifically, it was the link to Xbox Achievements, which requires a windows live account to view. --Taelus (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical cleanup process

Sure, the more the merrier! My only problem now is whether we should all do one article at a time, or have each member work on an article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft (series)

Great work so far on this. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Taelus (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

The WPVG Newsletter (Q3 2009)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 5 — 3rd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2009, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

Hello

You recently chimed in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (4th nomination). Since that time, many 3rd party sources were found and added. This is just a note to see if these additions would alter your thoughts on the articles Deletion nomination, as you indicated sources were your concern. Hooper (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So I see. Struck vote to Userfy, and changed to Keep. --Taelus (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

regarding your tag of Obstacle problem as too technical

Hi! I noticed you tagged this article as too technical. Could you please explain in what sense you think it is so? Thanks, RayTalk 16:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The lead section could explain slightly more clearly the prerequisites of knowledge for the subject per WP:MTAA suggestions. Perhaps it is only me, in which case feel free to remove the tag, but by following the blue links in the lead section they don't really explain exactly what area this is related to. Perhaps the fact one of the early points of relevance to the article is a redlink means that I am missing out on something? --Taelus (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah. I'm at something of a loss. The obstacle problem is part of a rather specialized field, and I feel that the problem statement is really only accessible at an advanced undergraduate or graduate level. But it's possible somebody else would be able to satisfy your concerns better, so I'll leave the tag up. RayTalk 19:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Please be sure to keep to what the source(s) say(s).

We can't put our own interpretation in the article... that is wp:SYNTH. The conclusions need to actually be in the statements in the generally wp:reliable sources. Placing our own wp:original research into the articles is a Bad Thing. There are examples of both these problems at World of Warcraft.- Sinneed 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, but why would their shares drop in value? Whilst I understand WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, surely the reason why their shares will drop in value is because the ban will cause their subscriptions to fall... This is even implied in the two references provided. I don't think it is original research to reason that having a subscription base of 5 million players being banned from resubscribing would result in a drop in subscription figures overall... The fact that the chinese authorities did say that current subscribers may no longer be charged does directly imply that they will be unable to subscribe. I have done no original research, I am merely conveying what the two news articles I referenced say and imply. --Taelus (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Please read the source carefully. wp:SYNTH, wp:CITE
You are not presenting information in the source, and removed critical information that WAS in the source.
Yes, it is true that this new addition is confusing. The source has oversimplified, and your interpretation of the source appears flawed.- Sinneed 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me be clear "imply" in "I am merely conveying what the two news articles I referenced say and imply" *IS* wp:SYNTH. We don't get to infer. The best we can do is present that the source SAID and let the reader infer.- Sinneed 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I am content with the current article revision. I posted my final comment on the relevant talk page, happy editing to you, sorry for any trouble I caused you with misunderstanding policy. --Taelus (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
"I think I might just be a bit too sensitive for tough editing though" - I doubt it. I was probably just too rough/brisk. I apologize for that. We have all had our hard work tossed out (and if we thought it was wrong, we would not have added it), so I know I feel at least some of your pain, and am sorry to have caused it, right or wrong.
As to policy, please accept that I am quite capable of being very very wrong. I can only promise to do my best, I am just an ordinary editor who likes to edit a lot.
Thank you, and again my apology for chopping your work out. It would indeed have been better to pick it up, find a home for it, edit it, instead... but I just didn't see a home for it I was willing to work it into. Your perseverance resulted in a good addition to the article, and I thank you for it.- Sinneed 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your efforts too, I am glad that at the end of the day we have both contributed and improved the article, and I guess that is what counts :), happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

G-loading

I was thinking of G-loading in the sense of crashworthiness or high speed maneuvering. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 12:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Barnstar

Thank you! I thought it'd be a lot longer before I got another barnstar. I can be quite tetchy sometimes and sarcastic most of the time and I figured that would count against me. Obviously not. Thanks! --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How to get Steins;Gate to GA?

Hi Taelus, first of all, thank you very much for assessing the article so quickly! I had not expected the turnaround time to be so fast.

Since the article was not up-to-par for GA, I was wondering what changes would be required for the article to get it to GA status? Or should I relist it for GA assessment request to get some feedback? Thank you for your time. --Remy Suen (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't assess the article against the GA guidelines as there is a separate project for that. Check out WP:GAN for good article nominations, you may be able to get ideas of where to improve the article from other similar articles which are currently in, or have been through the process recently. I am afraid I cannot comment much on the article's potential for GA class as I am currently not experienced with rating/writing articles above B class, and don't want to get involved until I have learnt the behind-the-scenes process a bit better. Still, your welcome for the assessment, and I wish you the best of luck with all your editing! --Taelus (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want my personal opinion of the article however, I think that it could use re-arranging slightly before you take it for a GAN. The sections "Internet radio show", "Manga" and "Music" could benefit from being re-arranged and expanded if possible, perhaps with a supporting image if appropriate to improve the style of the entry. Perhaps "Internet radio show" and "Manga" could be made into subsections of a "Related Media" section, along with the "Music" section. However as I said before I am not an article assessment expert, and thus this is only my personal ideas. Hope they help! --Taelus (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. I knew about GAN but was wondering what was the difference between asking for an assessment on the project page or on the GAN page. Now I know. The "Related Media" idea sounds good to me. I haven't found too much information about those topics so having them as standalone sections seems a little weak at the moment. Thanks for the suggestion and happy editing/contributing to Wikipedia! --Remy Suen (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

About the "V" RfD

I think that we've been taking our discussion a bit far afield from the usual "redirect for discussion" er... discussion, so I thought that I'd start a discussion here to follow up (note that: 1) I'll watch your talk page as long as this continues and 2) as is probably obvious I somewhat like to talk... I won't be offended if you don't reply, but...)

One point that I wanted to make right away is that I appreciate you stating "I understand your arguments and see your point". Not to wax philosophical but, I think that we can all agree that one of the primary issues in life is that others take our opinions seriously, so it's always nice to see someone say something similar to your statement (that's a round-about thank you, just in case that wasn't clear :D).

That you stand by your opinion is perfectly acceptable to me. What's "unacceptable" to me, in at least some manner, is esentially the fact that I don't quite understand the principle that you're standing firm with. I mean, I hear you (as in, I've read and understood what you're saying); I guess that what I'm failing to see is that I don't see what we as Wikipedia editors could do about it. I mean, in an essentially theoretical sense, if we were to worry about the consequences/perception of our actions by the outside world then that could essentially paralize us as editors (not that we should be flippant about it, but I don't think it should be our first concern). Personally I think deletions should be a very rare occurrence (I would be willing to bet that you couldn't find many more "inclusionist" editors then I), but this seemed to be one of the instances where it was useful to me, at least. I'll hardly cry if the end result is "keep" therefore, but the fact that I did personally go out of my "comfort zone" to start this 'redirect for discussion' probably makes me a bit sensitive, here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a complex topic indeed, one which I wouldn't attempt to extend across to AfD for example, as at the end of the day we do have guidelines which we must maintain ourselves regardless of external influences, however with redirects I believe it is something that is cheap, simple and easy to provide. I am myself a great opponent of misleading and potentially confusing redirects, however in this scenario I find the link to disambiguation the most helpful option. However I will admit I have no experience with the subject topic, and thus I would not understand it from the perspective of a "cult follower" as you described in the RfD. Perhaps it will be misleading/confusing for them, whilst for others it is seemingly normal. This sets us up in a difficult situation though... I feel sorry for the closing admin. Whilst I believe the redirect has use for some, you may be right in that it causes confusion for others... But what do we do in such a scenario? It sets up a situation where no matter the outcome, one group will suffer, and the other will gain. I know we usually act on "net positive" outcomes, but this seems very close to call. --Taelus (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting... I completely concur/sympathize with your view when I allow myself to "role play" the (forgive me) 'uninformed third party'. rather then that being a knock on you (which I wouldn't at all be surprised to hear a complaint about) I personally tend to see that sort of comment as a knock against my (lacking) communication skills. As I attempted to convey at the RfD, this particular case presents some unusual circumstances. There was a series in the 80's, and there is a new series that has just started now. The Series from the 80's has a bit of a "cult" following who, while I'm fairly certiain (and, I'll admit, hope) most of them are watching the new series, I'm betting that some are more supportive of the original. Of those in either category, I wouldn't be surprised at the "fanboy" element desiring to point the redirect to either series. That's really what prompted me to request a deletion for the redirect.
All of that being said, there is also a basis in the more general policy for requesting a deletion. The WP:DAB and WP:NAME documents both suggest that the article name in question (the name that doesn't use parenthesis) is "wrong" for Wikipedia. That's what, aside from my concerns above, made me think that requesting deletion would be worthwhile in the first place. Being a principled inclusionist (If I had my druthers, deletion wouldn't be allowed at all on Wikipedia...), this was a pretty tough decision for me, so I hope that you'll understand where I'm coming from in seeking to understand the predominant 'keep' votes.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
It is worth remembering that the majority of readers of Wikipedia will be part of the "uninformed third party". We will see what happens at RfD. Whilst the naming policies there do dissuade such naming, the redirect name doesn't fall under any of the core "reasons for deleting a redirect" either. Although of course, concensus is what counts at the end of the day, as policy may change. Also do not worry, your communication skills are excellent. --Taelus (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Weird, I hadn't even noticed that had happened. I have no idea how it happened either, but I'd like to apologize regardless. At least you caught it and restored your comment though.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
No trouble at all, I assumed something wierd had happened because if you look at the diff, half the RfD is highlighted as "changed", when it has infact remained the same. Very odd. --Taelus (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

RE

The reason why I did that was because my section could not be shown the bottem of his talk page. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to make sure, have a good day! --Taelus (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Age article- Shale voiceactor.

(Conversation copied from User talk:Thejadefalcon for ease of finding again)

Heya, I would just like to point out that the citation for Geraldine Blecker voice acting Shale does not actually support the claim, as it states that they were a voice actor for "Dragon Slayer", not "Dragon Age: Origins". Link for your convenience.

As of the current revision it has been removed and replaced with a different voice actor, however as you previously reverted such changes I thought I would raise this to you for your information. Hope this is helpful, happy editing! --Taelus (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmm my google searching didn't clear up the confusion, there seems to be universal confusion about the voiceactor. Some claim the credits at the end of the game say Shale was voiced by Geraldine Blecker, but imdb disagrees, and I cannot find any alternate sources yet. The majority of google results for the term Geraldine Blecker Dragon Age seem to be forum topics dicussing this confusion so they are not helpful. Also, the imdb entry for Geraldine Blecker's popularity/page views are up by 6400%, so I suspect this is widespread confusion. Perhaps Bioware will give a listing somewhere... --Taelus (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • As if to add to my woes and confusion, I found the credits section in the European Dragon Age Origins manual. It does not list Geraldine Blecker under the voiceacting cast... But it doesn't list Barry Ellis either. However, it does list Greg Ellis as a voice actor. --Taelus (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
She just responded. It seems to indicate it was Dragon Age.
Hi David,
Many thanks for the tip!! Just made the appropriate changes!!! When I did the recordings in March, we only had a working title for the project. Haven't even heard the finished product myself yet - but it sure was a fun thing to do.
Nice to know that somebody out there actually reads the fine print (references)!
Best to you,
Geraldine xxx
Would that be cite enough (doubt it)? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Once the web page used previously has been updated, I don't see why not. Nice work getting a response btw! --Taelus (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It's been updated. Spelt wrong, but updated. xD --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess we will just have to wait on a secondary source listing the credits then. Secondary sources are better anyway... I did another quick google sweep and couldn't find any credits for the DLC sadly. --Taelus (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I sent another e-mail and got this back.
It was me!!! Producer was a lady called Ginny McSwain and we recorded at Technicolor Interactive Services in Burbank.
Gosh, it would be nice now and then to get a credit!!!
Take care and all the best,
Geraldine xxx
Ginny McSwain is the correct name. 'Twas her. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, we can source it anyway with this information, and use a secondary source to compliment it once one is available. The other voice actor doesn't have any references supporting them either except imdb which is notorious for being incorrect. --Taelus (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Just thought I would thank you...

You're very welcome, I'm glad that the discussion went well on the talk page (not all do unfortunately) and I really do appreciate your efforts to improve the article, and especially bringing important information to it (that news about China was pretty big stuff). -- Atama頭 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft (series)

Just wanted to thank you for the excellent work you're doing on this. It's been a long time coming. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a bit of a challenge when I first looked at it and compared it to some of our featured series articles, because the multitude of genres makes popular sections such as "Common elements" difficult to do. I think it is coming along nicely section by section now though, especially after the page split which moved the in-universe stuff elsewhere! --Taelus (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Dragon Age (Shale)

I noticed the actor's resume earlier (and the reversion of my revert). I actually e-mailed the other person to query it. After all, two Dragon related games with two characters called Shale? Seems a bit of a coincidence. Thanks for the message though. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It may be a coincidence sure, but we can't really use it as a citation when it doesn't actually support the fact. Crazier things have happened, I guess it's time for a google search to find out! --Taelus (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That's why I didn't fight whoever reverted mine. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
See my talk page. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Replied on talk page. --Taelus (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
See again. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
And again. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Miss International 1982

Hello, I replaced the redirect with a stub and would appreciate your take on that alternative at the RFD, assuming that the nom is fine with it in any case.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I replied at the RfD. --Taelus (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding MoS edits to Dragon Age: Origins

Hello, thanks for your edit to said article which brought many things in-line with the manual of style. May I ask, did you use a tool such as autowiki browser or similar to do so? I only ask because your change of the date format shown in the review section of this diff causes the sentance to become grammatically wrong. This has since been corrected and is no big deal, but I thought I would point this out just in case you are using a tool to perform such edits and have not noticed this potential issue. Again, thanks, and happy editing! --Taelus (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Taelus! Uh... could you be more specific? As you might've guessed, English isn't my mother tongue. I can't find the error I made, I would like to know what I did wrong though, so I won't make the same mistakes in the future. I actually don't use any tools for editing, are they any good? Kind regards, --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is the segment:

Old- By the 12th of November 2009, Bioware announced

After change- By the November 12 2009, BioWare announced (The word "the" should be taken out with the MoS date change)

Anyway don't worry about it at all, I was merely wondering if you were using a tool which was making the mistake. I personally don't use auto-editing tools except for handling AfDs and other tags, as they can make some mistakes when handling a batch of edits. Anyway, thanks for your time, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Taelus, sorry for my late reply. Thanks for pointing out my error. I'll be more precise in the future. Thanks, and a happy editing to you too! --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009


RFC discussion of User:CarolineWH

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of CarolineWH (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH. -- Paularblaster (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Just to keep you informed. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I put my view on the RfC talk page. I am too unfamiliar with RfC methods to know what to do on the main page yet however, I don't think I am involved enough with the dispute to be part of the group "filing" it, yet I don't think I am completely uninvolved and thus cannot give an outside view either. Still, hope my comments help. --Taelus (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

Thanks a lot for the quick review. I appreciate it. I don't have time to create a proper response to it just as yet (at a library right now, so I'll have to do it at home tonight). However, I can say that I have taken most of your suggestions on board and I realised that I forgot to mention my recent contributions to WP:UAA. Thanks again and I'll leave a proper, more thought-out response on my editor review tonight. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 13:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, glad to help. --Taelus (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've added my response now. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with the vandal whose "article" I "deleted" (it was about two paragraphs of garbage on Characters of Halo). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all, happy editing! --Taelus (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for answering my question! This clears some things up. I think that the site in question is now notable enough, but the page is protected now. How can I request it be unprotected so I can move my draft when it is done?

Again, thanks, I was a bit confused. --Cyclone103 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To unprotect the article, you may wish to ask the admin who protected the page, and link them to your draft. However, please do note that they will only unprotect the article if they feel the notability concerns have been addressed. The admin in question would be User:RHaworth, you should contact them via User talk:RHaworth. Happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Re: RfD

You do realize that discussions remain open for 7 days, right? :-) So there's not a 10-day backlog. Killiondude (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I should have phrased it better in my edit summary, I meant that the log extended back to 10 days, thus creating a backlog as its 3 over the 7 day count. Thanks. A 10 day backlog would be pretty bad after all. :P --Taelus (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

RfA Thanks

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taelus/Archive_1&oldid=1141383928"