Jump to content

User talk:Wickethewok/Archive 2

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

AlmightyLOL

[edit]

This page needs to be locked down because three different RC patrollers have been reverting and two different vandals are still at it - I'm on the 3RR limit on it right now. If you've got admin powers, now's the time to throw down. KC9CQJ 07:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's on AFD, so no need to worry about reverting. Just issue whatever warnings and such. Sorry, not an admin. :\ Wickethewok 07:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey there. Could you take a peek at XYTMND when you get a moment? It would appear to be the same bunch as from AlmightyLOL but a more well organized page - but I still don't think it's terribly notable. I'm still fairly new at the AfD thing, so thought I'd see about another opinion. Thanks! Tony Fox 19:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Star on wiki comment.

[edit]

Thank you for your comment. My not so perfect idea was that the format of this wiki would be made so that other authors to D-Star would not be as afraid to make additions. The D-Star community which is small for one that is it came out in 2001 and since then the majority of the community seems to me to be more against than for D-Star. It's my judgment that they want thinks to be how they used to be. A metaphor that my CISC220 professor told me that the old ladies in the office are too afraid to give up their punch cards. Since my involvement in the QRZ community I have seen people discouraged by the new modes and that they would take over their space. D-Star is the only mode that I have seen that I feel would do just the opposite. Because it runs on the high bandwidth there is less likely that someone could send a message to another person clear across the state and have it interfere with people not knowing where or who was broadcasting that message. So I feel that with the help of wiki that this can encourage the use of less opinion and more hard fact. I believe that my friends in the HAM community have tried to do just that and if they come to wiki, their message will be heard and a new definition of what D-Star truly is will be known. I know that my message in both the wiki may sound like a sales pitch. I'm a sales man so I do tend to sound like a sales person. I'm hoping that someone in the community that understands as much as myself about D-Star that could possibly even mellow out even my own writing. So I do thank you for making your comments and I will make sure that your wiki sites purpose is made clear.

Thank you and 73,

we6jbo.

VandalProof

[edit]

I noticed you used VandalProof. Would it be ok if I used the program, VandalProof to maintain the D-Star page?

Thank you and 73,

we6jbo.

Welcome to VandalProof!

[edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Wickethewok! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 08:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I present you this barnstar

[edit]
The Working Man's Barnstar
I present you this working man's barnstar in recognition
and appreciation to your tireless efforts in the cleanup
of List of weapons in Halo 2 Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk

I Like Monkeys Page

[edit]

My addition wasn't a test. It was a genuine article. Do a Google Search for "I Like Monkeys". My article was intended to describle and provide information on the I Like Monkeys Internet phenomenon just like Wikipedia provides information on the Numa Numa Internet Phenomenon. I know you must deal with a lot of fake new articles, but this wasn't one of them. Please put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomodachigai (talk • contribs)

The first top two results both display the same story. Coincidence? On Google? Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and is fairly widely known. As I said previously, a portion of this article was even shown in a screenshot under the Word Perfect page. Tomodachigai

Quoted from WP:WEB "Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I'm not the judge of non-trivial, but I can give you hundreds of sites (multiple published works) that contain the same content (source independent). To name a few:

If you need more sources, I'm sure I can provide you with hundreds if not thousands more. I believe it to be an internet fad (of note) and if you dissagree, then put the Numa Numa up for deletion as well on the same grounds. -Tomodachigai

  • You can request an articles for recreation or whatever its called, don't quite remember - I'm really not interested in adding this to WP again, but maybe someone else will there. Wickethewok 04:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why WebMD and not other products?

[edit]

Here's the question... In the entry for personal health record there is an examples section. WebMD is listed without removal comment. Others have been marked for removal. WebMD is a commercial a product. In particular, the personal health record SELLS for an yearly fee. Shouldn't it be removed? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone@RecordsForLiving.com (talk • contribs)

No problem!

[edit]

Reversion:No problem! Thanks. --Xyrael T 07:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koudsi

[edit]

I was in the process of adding User:Koudsi to the Admin intervention page. Glad you did it. Hope he's gone soon, because he's driving me nutty. Zepheus 00:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, what a ridiculous guy. I don't think I've seen a guy get so upset about getting an article AFD'd before. Most of 'em just try absurd arguments without going straight to name-calling. Wickethewok 00:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dexterity Business Analysts

[edit]

Oops! I made a mistake with the title link. I'd wanted to link 'Market Researh KPO' and was reading up on the company called Dexterity- hence the goof up! How do I go about deleting the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poornima vijayan (talk • contribs)

Mtg media

[edit]

Thanks for the speedy delete notice. This is a repeat offender. It has been deleted before. Bejnar 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great redirect!!!

[edit]

I was just looking at bubble gum rapper to see what the best response might be and you created a redirect that fit perfectly! Just noting the great work. Kukini 14:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genpets

[edit]

MY CHANGE

[edit]

sry he is just my friend i was just checking out wikipedia... can u send me a message explaining how to do all the complex stuff i my prefrences so i can help out this site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemistryal (talk • contribs)

Hi

[edit]

Progressive Dance music

[edit]

I see you don't surrender, eh? What else can I do to show you that electronic music is not electronic dance music? Did you ever realize that no university in the USA regard electronic music and the music for dancing as the same genre? Are you aware that this is not a music magazine? Are you aware of the meaning of the term encyclopedic? Are you aware of the difference between idiomatic expressions, slang and encyclopedic (formal) language? Are you aware that most of articles claiming to deal with electronic music subgenres are unsourced or grounded only on independent websites? Brian W 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Umm, I agree with you (I think). Are you sure you're debating with the right person? Because I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion either way. Are you referring to something in particular.....? Wickethewok 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to your last posting at my talk page, I'm tired. I do not care at all. None cares of these underground genres. "Old Electronic music" and "New Age" fans do not need and do not use Wikipedia as primary source. New "electronic music" fans, simply ignore or really can't understand differences and proper analogies between genres. So, there is no point to fill this gap. Though there are thousands people sharing my "point of view", there is no way to involve them in a "battle" against younger Wikiusers. Feel free to do what you want. Wikipedia is only a stupid game, I'm no longer interested in contributing on these topics. Usually, users that remove dispute templates are immediately banned, but these harrassers aren't yet. Maybe Wikipedia is theirs and none else has to touch their toy. Enjoy it. I'll no longer contribute on music genres. Bye. Brian W 18:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dealing with electronic music genres is definitely sticky business as everyone has their own opinions and views on the subject. Also, there is not as much academic work in this as their could/should be, thus creating a lot of debate on this subject. So, yeah, this is certainly nothing to quit working on, just try to be less abrasive towards other users. Wickethewok 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(L)

[edit]

I think we should try and work things out. Spaing's Taing

xxxxxxxxx

Not an advocate of keeping everything/anything

[edit]

Thanks for your note... I'm not an advocate of keeping anything/everything. If it not verifiable, not written from a neutral point of view, or is copyrighted, I'd agree with a deletion. I think the notability criteria are way, way to high as applied by many users; I think some users are too tightly bound by something, what holds them back is not something I've identified yet. Perhaps they see some value in being listed in Wikipedia; I do not, I think the value comes from other places, like being linked to, or well reviewed by respected people, or by being visited a lot. Perhaps they have trouble breaking out of the paper straightjacket. In any case, Wikipedia is not paper is policy, and WP:BIO is not. snug 18:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well stated. The only thing I am asking is that you include more than just "WP is not paper" in your AFD comments. That way, other users can better understand why indeed you think an article should be on Wikipedia (eg. why its encyclopedic, etc...). Specifically, how "WP is not paper" applies to the situation at hand. Thanks for taking the time to respond.  :) Wickethewok 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neurotypical article - parodies

[edit]

I noticed that you removed two parodies from the neurotypical article. I haven't put them back in (though I do feel that they benefit the article), but for some reason you only deleted two out of the three parodies. Could I suggest that either the remaining external link ("Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical") is removed or that the others are added back in. I haven't removed this link because I want to know why you didn't delete it, I expect you just didn't notice it was a parody. Raoul Harris 07:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, indeed, I did not realize it was a parody. Are there are real (non-parody) sources using this term? If so, I think it would preferable to include those links. Thanks for the heads up! Wickethewok 12:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 411mania

[edit]

Hello,

411mania is definitely a notable website and deserves to be listed. The site is mentioned specifically in the Internet Wrestling Community articles (as one of the significant members) and in the Scott Keith article. The site has received global press from the Metallica prank awhile back which is easily verifiable by doing a search (I can provide you information if you'd like). The site is also behind only Dave Meltzer and Wade Keller (also listed on Wikipedia) in terms of IWC members with influence in the industry. Contacting ECW, TNA, or any indy promotion will verify that. The online feud with WWE wrestler Matt Hardy is also easily verifiable. The statistics are also easily verifiable. The date the site was formed may be more difficult to prove but it does date back to August of 1996, I can easily have hundreds of readers verify that if needed.

Please consider all of this. If you'd like further information, please contact me.

Many thanks, Ashish Pabari —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apabari (talk • contribs)

Ruby Flower Records (I think)

[edit]

Thank you for your comments on our new label. Perhaps is better to get back in few years time- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.54.97 (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hi there mate just wondering why you are removing the links I put in. They are relevant to the sections, since I've started a new prog breaks forum I thought it would be a good way to get noticed across the genres.

Am I breaking some sort of Wikipedia code by doing this, do I need to "contribute" articles etc to add links?

Cheers Stu

  • Hey, Stu. Typically its a bad idea to add links to message boards unless the message board is very popular. IDM is a good message board (though I haven't stopped by in awhile), but usually external links to forums is inappropriate. I hope this doesn't turn you off of Wikipedia at all - there is a lot of work that needs to be done in electronic music! Wickethewok 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boards

[edit]

Hi mate, yep I appreciate that the IDM forums my not be overly popular as of yet, I hope that I didn't violate any wikipedia terms & conditions mate, I was just trying to expose the forums to some more people! Apologies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartmckeown (talk • contribs)

Deleting

[edit]

You wrote: Relax there, California-person. No need to get all worked up. Just because something is similar in content, doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. For example, a list of weapons in Halo or the plot of Warcraft III is far more relevant to than lists of every single unit/structure/everything (of which there are very many!) in Command & Conquer.

How is the wapons more relavent in Halo. It is similar to units and building in a rts game so it should also be deleted. Listing every weapon is same as listing all units and structures. So it should be deleted along with the C&C units

And I am calm it is just my choice of words I use There is no restrictions on what words people can use on the talk (as long as it does not attak another specific user)

Cs california 01:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crrruft

[edit]

Thatnk you for the kind addition to my cruft page! Proto///type 15:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson chu, Jae Dougall

[edit]

Why do my articles have notices of deletion on them? i read on the deletion notice that you may remove it when you fix the problem, can you please tell me what the problem is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrison Galleries (talk • contribs)

Best way to go about it...

[edit]

Well, all the AFDs I've been starting, while very much on articles that should be deleted, are also building up a bunch of precedents. Warcraft is definitely the Wikipedia cruft champion, so the best way IMO would be to pick away at the most gameguidey stuff first. As it's so big, and has a lot of mythology and characterization, I've no problem with the lists of locations, characters etc. Proto::type 06:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Individual Counter-Strike maps

[edit]

Just wanted to inform you of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Individual_Counter-Strike_maps (July 17, 2006). I'm alerting everyone who had more than 2 edits in one of the previous AfDs. Kind regards, David Bergan 19:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zergling

[edit]

Pretty sure you meant "unencyclopedic" in your nom, here... -- nae'blis (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Smith

[edit]

While I disagree with your views on Geoge Smith (I do not propose to make pages for every member of Lennon's family - just the four key members who had an profound impact on his life [mum & dad who were absent, George and Mimi who cared for him]) I must agree that Menlove Ave. is very funny.--Crestville 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you provide some sources stating his importance in Lennon's life? As it is, I don't quite see why he is any more important than any other famous person's parent/guardian. Wickethewok 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do as soon as the sun goes down and I can do some research. Ray Coleman's book goes on and on about him. Not too many other famous people are in a position for thier parents to influence their work, save maybe musicians and writers, and George got him interested in music and his death was a massive blow, effecting Lennon's character and thus his music. I'll have a rummage around some time.--Crestville 15:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Menlove Avenue

[edit]

I am still laughing at your Menlove joke, as I have been stupid to not to notice it before! I think I am in the line for the people who "can´t see the wood for the trees" award... andreasegde 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamecruft

[edit]

Dear Wickethewok, I recently came across your and Protos' fight against gamecruft on Wikipedia and although I welcome any effort to improve Wikipedia, I cannot really see why many of the deleted pages would not fit in Wikipedia (although some of them are clear candidates for deletion). First of all, I do not understand why you specifically fight against gamecruft. All your arguments also apply to cartooncruft, televisionseriescruft etc... Take for example the page Homer's Triple Bypass. I know that it is not totally fair to compare between subjects, but in this case (lists of episodes/characters/etc of a series vs lists of maps/characters/etc of a game) the comparison seems relatively fair.

Taking into account that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, I think many of those articles (given that they are verifiable, but for most lists that is obvious) deserve to stay. After all, in many cases multiple editors contributed to them, they are verifiable and notable to a significant number of people. This all only of course, as long they are not obvious guides to playing the games.

That brings me to an interesting remark that was made by an anonymous user on Protos' talk pages about the Chess game. He listed some article on Chess on Protos' gamecruft page and although they were removed again, he does have a point. The exemplary article Sample chess game is an outright guide on how to play chess. Would love to hear your opinion on what to do with such articles, as they would have to be deleted according to yours and Protos' guidelines. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, these articles are being discussed on a case to case basis right now. I'm not a big fan of TV episode listings either, as you are correct about WP not being TV guide. I wouldn't call Sample chess game "exemplary" at all - its written with highly inappropriate tone and I do question whether it is "encyclopedic". Wickethewok 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to give chess leeway with regards to strategy and detail, as its been around for over 1000 years and there have been thousands of cultural publications and references specifically on strategy. When Starcraft has been around for that long, has thousands of books written on its strategy, and had as much history, then I am perfectly willing to reconsider. While StarCraft and chess are both games, chess has significantly more verifiable information from secondary sources. My main disagreement is that you work under the assumption that since StarCraft and chess are both strategy games and thus they are equal in stature. This is simply not the case. Chess' impact on society, game theory, and longetivity is far beyond that of StarCraft's, which is where (imo) your argument breaks down. Wickethewok 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but see, that changes the essence of the argument entirely. Essentially, if that logic is to be applied, the WP:NOT policies should not be applied to these types of arguments, because the policy against "how-to"s doesn't address history or notability. If that is the case, we should consider the articles on the merits of their notability alone. Chess is obviously more notable than Starcraft, in the same way that the character of Hamlet is more notable than the character Rosie from Lord of the Rings. The problem is that notability is not the primary argument being used in the AFD discussions; they are simply described as game guides or gamecruft, with frequent appeals to WP:NOT. The only effect of that type of discussion is to confuse the debate; articles are being nomimated for the official reason of being "how-to"s, with the unofficial reason being that some editors believe that video games as a medium are not currently notable enough for encyclopedic coverage. 129.61.46.16 17:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • I am simply stating that I find small/trace amounts of what could possibly construed as "how-to" as acceptable for subjects as historically and popularly relevant as chess. Please sign in/register for an account btw. Wickethewok 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just passing through and have found this particular discussion interesting, that's all. I might register eventually, but for now I'd just like to participate in this discussion. As far as "small/trace" amounts go, check this out:
Rules_of_chess
Chess_strategy_and_tactics
Pawn_structure
Knight_(chess)
Fianchetto
Rook_(chess)
Queen_(chess)
King_(chess)
Endgame
Checkmate
Castling_(chess)
There are few topics on wikipedia that offer more "cruft" by the definitions of "gamecruft" than that presented by chess. 129.61.46.16 17:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • There have been countless independent research projects into chess and its strategy. This is just simply not the case with StarCraft. Also, please sign up for an account - its easier to keep track of conversations that way (thanks!). Wickethewok 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but many of the (very old) above articles are wholly unsourced in their current form. By the video game AFD precedents, they fail WP:OR and WP:V. Personally, my belief is that it is still possible for an article to be verifiable even if no sources are currently listed, but that is not the precedent which is being set down. Also, there are many independent guides on how to do a lot of things, including chess. Under the interpretation WP:NOT being used, however, none of them belong on wikipedia, including a simple description of the move radius of a pawn. 129.61.46.16 18:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]

The problem with listing all these articles individually for AfD is that they sometimes pass and sometimes they don't. If they do not get deleted, in many cases they are relisted some time later (which disrespects the outcome of the earlier AfD). In my opinion it would be better to try to work towards an official policy or guideline on what is and what is not acceptable on Wikipedia for videogames rather than deleting random pages and sections. The current WP:NOT is clearly not sufficient, because we keep having this debate over and over again with each AfD listing. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If they are verifiable, great - at the beginning of an AFD you have 5 days to verify at least a good portion of the information. But, usually, most of the stuff in these articles isn't, which is why they aren't sourced, even when under threat of deletion. I, too, would like to develop some standards/guidelines, but this takes a looong time to do so (and possibly never). So, until then, case by case basis is what I am going by. I personally don't plan on re-nominating any article that is voted "keep" or even "no consesus" until after a substantial period of time, not that I've seen any video game articles as of late be outright "kept". The only time I feel re-nominating an article for AFD is outright inappropriate is if it was voted on recently (except for procedural AFDs of course). After a substantial amount of time, I am not against reconsidering the encyclopedic value of any article. Wickethewok 23:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that these are articles all are perfectly verifiable. They are put up for AfD because they are gameguides (which depends on POV) or fancruft (which is not policy nor guideline). If they are truely unverifiable, its ok, but that should be the only reason for deletion in these controversial situation. Also, I agree with you that relisting for AfD is suitable if enough time has passed. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Holden

[edit]

Your actions to surreptitiously delete a perfectly good and needed disambiguation page at James Holden by having it "moved" have been noted. This is a clear violation of the GFDL. I would not have put in the dab page in the first place if it was not necessary. — Dunc|☺ 18:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re message

[edit]

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Proto/gc. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Wickethewok 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it non-sense it is a list of game cruft materials and those contain elements of gameing and strategy? please explain yourself

Cs california 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User Proto wrote:

Hi Cs california

Hi, thank you for your message on my talk page! Please add any gameguide articles to my gamecruft to be deleted page, which is at User:Proto/gc. I think many of the pages you suggested are already on this list. I can't delete every game guide article in one go, and am working my way through them systematically. Thanks for pointing out these articles. Regards, Proto///type 18:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how is it vandalism if I added some pages to a list? are you vandalizing my wikipedia page with spam?


Cs california 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alrite, I suppose, but keep the mess to a minimum, maybe in a second section? Anyways, I didn't realize he had given you permission to do so. So apologies for the reverts - it currently has your additions in it now. Ah, well, I suppose Proto will sort it out when he gets back from vacation... Wickethewok 01:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jeigan

[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up, I've completed the deletion now. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmines AFD

[edit]

"IP addresses should not vote in AFDs..."
This is wrong in a couple of ways. Firstly, no one should be "voting" in deletion discussions because, hey, they are discussions. Secondly, input from all and sundry is welcome at any time, and people are free to stay as a pseudo-anonymous IP if they choose to. Closing admins have plenty of practice at sorting out the wheat from the chaff. - brenneman {L} 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, apologies, usually I put quotes around "vote" whenever I use that on AFD as I do realize it is not, in fact, a vote. I simply use that word for lack of a better term, which is why I usually remember to use quotes. For your second concern, you are right and I misspoke. For users with dynamic IPs it is often difficult to see who is who, which can possibly cause confusion and disrupt debate, though I do realize that admins of course can distinguish between the wheat and chaff (word of the day for me!). Also, I like to be able to call people by something when discussing something controversial, instead of "IP-MAN" or "he-who-is-without-name". By no means did I mean to misrepresent a WP policy and I will attempt to word my preferences/reasonings less ambiguously in the future. I have corrected my comments. Cheers and such! Wickethewok 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

[edit]

It seems our paths have crossed a few times of late, and you seem to be a level-headed, involved, relatively experienced editor. Would you accept a nomination for adminship? (ESkog)(Talk) 07:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ESkog would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact ESkog to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wickethewok/Archive 2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

commenting

[edit]

I wanted to comment on the removal of World of Warcraft articles but I guess I do not know how to add my two cents. Where do I learn to post comments properly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyde v (talk • contribs)

Spurious AFD nominations

[edit]

Why do you persist in nominating game/anime articles for deletion? Just because you personally dislike them and consider them fancruft is not a valid reason to remove them from Wikipedia. Jtrainor 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assure you I have nothing against video games. If you have read my nomination along with my comments on other game-related AFDs, you will see that I am simply trying to implement Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and no original research as well as keeping Wikipedia a source of encyclopedic content. I would ask you to assume good faith. I want what is best for Wikipedia as I am sure you do as well. If we disagree on what is appropriate content thats fine, but I assure you I haven't nor will I never nominate anything because I "personally dislike" it. I'd also like to point out that I try to avoid using the word "cruft" when possible, as I realize it is definitely a POV thing. Wickethewok 19:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zerg Hydralisk AFD???

[edit]

Hello, my name is Deevonimon534. You recently added my contribution to the Articles For Deletion list and I was wondering what the reasoning was. Thank you for your time. --Deevonimon534 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a rather lengthy debate over this subject here. Consesus was that articles for individual video game units is not appropriate for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia and is more appropriate for gaming specific locations such as Encyclopedia Gamia or Strategy Wiki. Note that If your article was not deleted, it was merely redirected. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Wickethewok 04:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, unfortunately, make the post before reading the above discussions. After going through them I can understand how my entirely fictional contribution might not have been in the spirit of the Wikipedia. Had I realized that Egamia existed I probably would have chosen that as a more appropriate place for the article. Speaking of which, I wanted to know if you had read the article and saw anything that might need changing. I was trying to make it look as encyclopedic as possible but it was the first article I have ever written for Wikipedia. Thank you again for your time. --Deevonimon534 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, in my opinion the article was well constructed as far as tone and NPOV go. Sometimes it gets a little caught up in the subject and seems to forget that Hydralisks are fictional, especially in the "Hydralisks and health risks" section. While it wouldn't meet WP's standard for WP:OR and WP:V imo, it seems like it would be a good start for an article on a gaming wiki. I would say that overall its good work, especially for someone new. As far as writing articles for Wikipedia, I think something important to focus on is that all information must be verifiable by citing reliable sources. I have found in my time on Wikipedia that many article problems can be avoided in the first place if sources of information are referenced. Your article is still in the Wikipedia history of course if you would like to "trans-wiki" it to another site: (here). Wickethewok 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Cunningham syndrome

[edit]

Hi... I noticed you voted delete for Fonzie syndrome... care to take a look at this one? These made-up TV-fan "syndromes" are getting out of hand. Thanks... wikipediatrix 20:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added my opinion to that AFD. Note that while I'm sure you have good intentions, other editors might interpret this as "spamming" for "votes" on AFD. Just thought you should be aware. Wickethewok 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary New York Nightlife

[edit]

What other word besides "legendary" would you recommend? The editor from Arizona apparently appears to be totally ignorant about New York City nightlife when she should be focusing on articles on life in the desert and cacti. Please advise and I will make the necessary changes, however, deletion of this article would be wrong. I am providing as many references as possible to validate this category.--XLR8TION 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Notable Figures/Venues in New York City Nightlife"? What do you think. That wouldnt violate a POV. It would also give the Arizona editor more time to pet her Gila Monster. --XLR8TION 04:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe... though there is still the problem of objectively determining who is a notable figure in NYC nightlife. Also, what do you have against people from Arizona? Wickethewok 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable can signify that their revelance is a result of news generated by scandal, an event, or word-of-mouth. For example, Kevin Aviance made national headlines in June when he was attacked in NYC by gay bashers. Bianca Jagger will always be remembered for her legendary birthday party at Studio 54 when she entered the club on a white horse and nude men as her guides. Madonna will always be known for her days at the now defunct Danceteria and the style came from it in the mid-1980s. Also, I do not have anything against people from Arizona. I just dislike ignorant people in general. I am not saying that the editor from Arizona is totally ignorant, however as a native New Yorker and a resident still (something that is extremely rare nowadays) it would be wrong for me to tell her who she should put on a famous Arizonans list (if she ever created one) because I have never been to Arizona nor know anyone from there. That's all. --XLR8TION 04:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, everyone is invited to participate on every subject on Wikipedia. This allows for a broader scope on article content. Anyways, how big of an event is required? Certainly most major bands/musicians would have had some significant event at some point in NYC. In any case, I'm interested to see how others feel on this subject. If you would like, I would encourage you to add your thoughts to the CFD nom: here. Wickethewok 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I mean a big event it is an event that becomes part of popular lore such as Bianca's birthday party at Studio 54, Diana Ross' concert in Central Park 1982, and Madonna's surprise performance at the Roxy in 1997. Those events still have people talking after many years. --XLR8TION 05:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a favor

[edit]

I would count it as a personal favor if you would take a moment to breathe before adding commentary on AFDs (especially the game-related ones) that might be viewed as terse or incivil. You seem to be editing a lot of them lately, and I wonder if your responses are getting shorter and appearing snappier - I've seen a couple instances lately that made me want to reconsider my first-support vote on your RfA. However it's not a pattern, just a few isolated instances (the double-digits-before-Godwin-posts stands out), so I figured I'd drop you a line first. Cheers and good luck. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very well, I suppose you're right. I just get a little irritated by being called a Nazi by editors who appear to be unfamiliar with certain Wikipedia policies. Thanks for dropping me a message. I'll try not to let the Nazi-name-calling get to me.  ;) One reason that my responses have probably gotten shorter, is that I feel I'm repeating myself a lot in many of the AFDs as of late, so I've just been dropping in relatively brief versions of my opinions and letting other editors take the lead. A few editors seem to believe that its just a select few other editors who think we should get rid of unverifiable/original research video game material, so I'd rather not hog all the conversation. In any case, I'll probably resume the long-winded orations on unencyclopedic material and original research soon.  :-P Have a good one and thanks for dropping me a message! And of course thanks for your first-support vote, most important one imo.  ;)Wickethewok 16:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you succeeded after all. Remember: with great power comes great responsibility. Oh yeah, and don't close AfDs you commented on. ;) -- nae'blis 15:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappy

[edit]

I'm very unhappy with your successful effort to delete all the World of Warcraft instance articles. Your vision of what the Wikipedia should contain and my vision are very different. I think the Wikipedia is big enough to include things that aren't in other encyclopedias - especially articles on elements of popular culture which have no academic background, scholarly book support, etc. I'm sad and disapointed that a great deal of work, some of which was done by me, has been lost. I think that while there is a difference between topics like Erwin Rommel and Molten Core I personally think the Wikipedia can usefully contain both. Thanks to your efforts, my future contributions to the Wikipedia will be significantly reduced. Small loss in the grand scheme of things no doubt, but still, count me as someone who has been seriously disenchanted with the Wikipedia thanks, in large part, to your efforts. Cglassey 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I felt these actions needed to be taken in order to get rid of material that violated some of Wikipedia's core policies, such as WP:V and WP:OR. I encourage you to continue to add material to Wikipedia as long as it is readily verifiable and hopefully has some reliable secondary sources backing it up. If you ask an administrator (such as the one who closed the AFD), he or she will be more than willing to undelete any article for you so that you may Transwiki it or keep it for your own personal use. You are correct in that what makes WP great is that its different than other encyclopedias; however, it is still an encyclopedia and I am willing to do what I feel is necessary to ensure its integrity as a source of verifiable information. I wish you well in future contributions. Wickethewok 01:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Vasquez

[edit]

I rewote an existing article on Veronica Vasquez however there is another article on the site that is extremely poorly written and was abandoned. Is there a way it can be submitted for deletion?

The article is Veronica Vazquez

The article I transformed is Veronica (singer).

Any suggestions would be apprecriated. --XLR8TION 05:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator!

[edit]
"I pity the 'foo who vandalizes on Wock's watch!" Highway Return to Oz... 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, new admin! Highway Return to Oz... 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hip, hip, hooray on our newest admin! Way to go, W! :) Hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 16:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

[edit]

You're now an admin. Use your new powers for the good of the project and have fun helping out. Be conservative using them, especially at first, and re-read the relevant policies before taking action. Feel free to ask myself or other experienced admins if you're not sure, and I'm sure you'll do fine. Again, congrats - Taxman Talk 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations in becoming an administrator Wikethewok! Though we haven't met prior to your RfA, I checked out your contributions before throwing in my two cents and I followed your RfA a bit, so I'm confident in saying that I think you'll become a terrific administrator. Cheers mate! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 16:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! You seem like a nice guy which is important. Well done. And don't forget to delete Einstein on sight ;) Tyrenius 16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, definitely. Thanks! Wickethewok 16:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on your new status. Let us know if you need a hand with something! Best wishes,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your promotion, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian - Talk 01:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and sorry for the rant. Do well with the mop -- Samir धर्म 05:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! ViridaeTalk 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. --Bhadani 13:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and do let me know if I can ever be of assistance. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wickethewok/Archive_2&oldid=1094582566"