User talk:Zetawoof/Archive3

This page contains archived discussion from User talk:Zetawoof. Please bring any new discussion there.

Xbox Handheld

You participated in an AfD for Xbox Handheld. I re-wrote the article as a stub and provided sources. Please take a look at the re-written article Xbox Handheld and comment at the AfD discussion [1] Alan Shatte 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, jimfbleak 09:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep! "Someone Set Up Us the Mop!"

Thanks for the support on RfA!

With the RfA complete and over, and a day to recover on top, I finally feel able to click a few buttons and write a few comments. Of those, there's about a dozen editors I hadn't come across before, whom I particularly want to write a comment to.

As a friend and also as an editor, you wrote. As both those - thanks. I hope to live up to the best of 'em all.

I've set myself up a user subpage to post questions when I need to check "what would other users do here?". I'll probably have a lot of those early on. If you want to watchlist User:FT2/Advice sought, I'd value it :) it's my first step in ensuring this new access gets used for the best when circumstances arise, and to seek advice from others.

Separate from all that, I look forward to seeing you round. What subject areas are you working on these days?

Keep in touch, happy editing in 2007, and once again - many thanks! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stoic atarian

I didn't block User:Stoic atarian, i only protected his talk page for keep removal of warnings. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject updates

I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 21:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Death of Marylin Monroe

I just want you to know that I dont appreciate you removing the articles deletion page when There was not even more than a few comments yet.I feel very strongly that the nomination should be put and unless you can prove that there was a consensus than it may return Rodrigue 17:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the closing comments, AFD stands for "Articles for Deletion", not "Articles for Merging". As neither you nor anyone else who commented expressed an interest in deleting the article outright, there's no point in discussing whether it should be deleted. Merging it to Marilyn Monroe would be a decision made through discussion on the two articles' talk pages. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kafka article

Hello,

Thank you for fixing the Franz Kafka Article. I don't have a clue what happened. I went in and did some text editing (like I've done many, many times before with other Articles) and, when I Saved it, the whole bottom of the Article was gone. I tried to fix it by reverting the edit but I couldn't get it to work. What could have caused this? Anyway, thanks again.

El dummo (aka Michael David 10:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What web browser are you using? If it's Firefox, what extensions? Some older browsers, and buggy Firefox extensions, will truncate articles longer than 32 kilobytes of text. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I'm a bit computer challenged, so bear with me. I'm using a rather old version of Internet Explorer which I know I need to upgrade and have been procrastinating on doing. It's time!

Thanks, again, and I'll be more careful with the long Articles for a while.

Michael David 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akita shepherd

Hey Zetawoof! or whatever your name is(Zeta by the way is a female name in Greek, are you male or female?) Is that what you do? Roaming in Wikipedia all day trying to find which articles you can axe? Haven't you got anythin better to do in your teen-illiterate life??Is that how you become an administrator? I ve got a suggestion for you. Instead of trying to delete other people's work why dont you write a line for an article, or two? Shame on you! Pardon my english, i am only Greek! Idiot! Wikipedia needs more writers not more beraucrats, workers, not commanders (its got enough of them, simply coz everybody wants to be one) My article deleted by an animal? whats this world coming to Sorry about my tone but your idiocy has made me angry

ps I havent made the breed up and the article is gdamn sourced

user:Spyros Pantenas

In that case, can you:

Reply on the AFD discussion page,
Expand the article to explain why this crossbreed is special, and
Provide sources that say something substantive about the breed?

Right now, the article just defines the breed as an Akita/GSD cross and claims that they are "quite an interesting mix". Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Giza.jpg

Hello, I've been trying to create maps of Egyptian cities using Google Maps. I reference this on the appropriate pages (for Image:Giza.jpg , please see Giza). If I use Google Maps to generate the original map, then I make modifications to the map, does this still count as a Google Maps copyright? And if the answer is yes, how can I appropriately cite the source in this case? Or is it totally prohibited? Thanks in advance for your help. --Lanternix 05:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - no matter what modifications are made to the image, it remains property of both Google and anyone else they're licensing the images from, so it's invalid for use in Wikipedia. You can, however, often get free images from NASA World Wind - be very careful, though, as only certain layers are public domain. (Their website says that the Global Mosaic, Blue Marble, and USGS layers are PD.) For more information, see the World Wind wiki. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help. I began a new style of maps for Egypt using an empty map that a friend of mine generated, then I put the names of cities etc on it. For an example, please see Image:AbuQirqas.jpg and let me know if this is now appropriate. Thanks again for your help. --Lanternix 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Quantum Realm

With due respect. Why did you do a redirect of this article just as I was composing it? No discussion, nothing. The speed is rather breathtaking. But, rather against the rules and guidelines. As for "notability", this is a subject that gets about 30K returns on a Google search. The subject matter is not included in the Quantum mechanics article.Pproctor 01:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert, or redirect it somewhere else. I'm just not sure that there's anything that can be said about the "quantum realm" that isn't already said either at quantum mechanics or somewhere else - it's not really an independent topic. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalised page

Someone replaced your user page with "Beware, this user fucks animals". I reverted it for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I'm honestly surprised I don't catch more flak than I do.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of zeta in his name. Look it up someday. :-) (Hi, Zetawoof. *secret-handshake-or-something*) -- Coren ^(talk) 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RapidWeaver

1. My changes to RapidWeaver contain useful content. 2. This article was in the process of being created in multiple saves, and was deleted way to soon after the initial creation. 3. IT IS NOT ADVERTISING FOR ANY COMPANY. ESPECIALLY NOT BLATANT ADVERTISING. I am not promoting any company, product, group, service, or person. I am unaffiliated. It is intended to be all inclusive resource. 4. IT IS NOT SPAM. Taylorluker 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think you're confused. All I did was close the MFD discussion after the page was deleted. I neither saw the page in question nor did anything do it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burrito

hello I wasn't vandalizing...Is not fair..you show the American style...but not the traditional MExican style..Please...you white Americans take everything and try to mess it up with your own crap...please....to be fair please put up the traditional Mexican version.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.64.242 (talk • contribs).

So write something about Mexican-style burritos. I will agree that there's a definite lack of information about Mexican burritos in the current article, but deleting half the article doesn't solve that problem. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images Image:Felidae.jpg and Image:Bearspecies.jpg

It is varied, some photographies I took them in the zoological one from zacango in Mexico and others (because in that zoological one they do not have many animal species) I extracted images from Web pages that they indicate "under free licenses" for complement my bearspecies.jpg and felidae.jpg files. Sorry. I do not write english very well. I wait for you could understand the message. Greetings Sergiodlarosa 21:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm continuing the discussion on your talk page. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Just thought I'd say hi (^_^)

PolarWolf has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the husky! :)

WikiProject Furry

Looking for something to do? WikiProject Furry is improving articles on furry and anthropomorphic topics, and we'd like to have you on board.

Our current goal is to raise Anthrocon, furry convention and furry fandom to good article status and beyond - but if that doesn't take your fancy, there are plenty of other articles to work on. Give it a go and let us know how you're doing!

You received this one-time invitation because you are a Furry Wikipedian. GreenReaper 23:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about that. won't happen again --PolarWolf 01:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. It's one of those non-obvious things, I guess. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Reverting me on Deletion review isn't fair dinkum, mate.... g'day to ya, fella. You drunk today or something?? --SpiritDispenser300x3 22:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know just as well as I do that listing George W. Bush for deletion review is purely disruptive. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep brain stimulation

Thanks for the cleanup; I'm embarrassed that I didn't notice it sooner.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cockeranian

I see you want that article to be deleted. Well I firmly disagree, as it is a very notable hybrid dog. And however unreliable The American Canine Hybrid Club may be, the information in reconition to them is still of substancial importance! thanks, 4.244.66.202 01:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Have a Spoofer

Just wanted to let you know that I blocked a spoofer of yours. Seems like they came back to an article you were watching.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I noticed (and reported on WP:UFA, too). Seems a vandal on that page is impersonating editors that get in their way. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van Ryswyk Theory

Hello, here at OneStep Studios, we are responsible for the creation of the "Van Ryswyk Theory" page. We please ask that you remove the nonsense tag from the page and that you let it progress normally and deletion free. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneStepStudios (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. It's utter nonsense. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

poodle hybrids

We seem to be losing the battle rapidly on several of these. People seem to think that any source is a sufficient source to prove notability. I feel your pain on the earlier group AFD. I thought users were reasonable enough to notice when articles are complete crap that serve as free advert space for unscrupulous breeders. Guess not. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Videu

It's a courtesy to warn the page creator that you've tagged a page for deletion. It gives them a chance to improve it, quite apart from anything else. --Dweller 12:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Furry fandom

I'm not sure it's acceptable practice to remove comments from Talk:Furry fandom as you've done. I agree, they are probably just trolling, but as long as the comments are not obvious vandalism, WP:AGF obligates us to treat them as reasonable edits and give them the benefit of the doubt. Yes, I also reviewed WP:DNFT and we are in a gray area which policy should apply here. But simply removing the comments could be taken as practicing the sort of selective editing and censorship that furry wikipedians are accused of, and for that reason I'm inclined to favor WP:AGF. --Mwalimu59 16:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I figure it, the chance that the comments were actually intended to be constructive criticism is next to nil. Comments soliciting help to make the article "incriminate those people" and expose "the bestiality of furries" are pretty clearly not intended to be constructive. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambox border breakage when near images

Hi Zetawoof. We now have a solution to the "ambox border breakage when near images" problem. Take a look at Template talk:Ambox#Suggestion by Dispenser and tell us there if it works in your browser too.

--David Göthberg 12:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon primate rescue

A page I just created is marked for deletion and I have contested it. I used content from another wiki page, which I have since deleted. The other issue was the use of "copywritten" material from the Oregon Primate Website. Since the text is material I wrote for the organization, there needn't be any issues about that. - And just in case there are any other issues pertaining to the content, you will notice I have listed in the categories other primate rescue and education facilities. (There are 12 other organizations similar to mine with entries in wikipedia)Nickleby98661 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually trimmed out the irrelevant content from Primate before the page got deleted - that wasn't the concern. According to the deletion log, the concerns were that:

The page fell under speedy deletion category A7: that is, it described a something (an organization, in this case) without explaining why it was notable.
More importantly, the page was a copy/paste of http://www.oregonprimaterescue.com/ and did not present permission. If you wrote that, that's fine, but you need to make it clear that you're releasing this content under the GNU Free Documentation License, and that you're authorized to do so.

Finally, with regard to the existence of other articles, remember that Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. There are a lot of articles in the encyclopedia which might in fact not meet our standards upon close examination. Just because one article exists doesn't mean that another similar one should. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard resolution independence

Regarding your edit: Mac OS X v10.5 04:14, 27 October 2007 Zetawoof "Developer technologies - Resolution independence was speculated, but didn't make it into the GM."

The other day resolution independence section was already removed from the "End-user features". Are you now saying that resolution independence (Quartz Debugger's User Interface Resolution and so-forth) are also missing from from the Leopard developer tools? Or perhaps there is no meaning full change since Tiger? (I don't have Leopard yet.) --Charles Gaudette 04:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's basically no change since Tiger. If anything, it's been degraded. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Regarding [3] and [4]: Though the article is clearly a hoax, that in itself is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Note that the speedy deletion policy does not consider "poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort" to be "nonsense."

But, given that the only other edit from this account was this, it looks to me like a vandalism-only account, and we can speedy delete all this as vandalism. (CSD G3) -- RG ² 10:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andean wolf and Susanne Hakenbeck

Hey Zetwoof

I writing in questions to You. Perhaps you will be know. Susanne Hakenbeck come back from Andes. What she doing there? She searched andean wolf or fossil track of living people? How is true!!!!

Take care. Caniche —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.138.98 (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SoT related AfD

Thanks for getting that underway. Best regards, Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corkie

Hello Zetawoof,

I have a question—You modified the Corkie article into a redirect. My idea was that "Corki" isn't mentioned in Dog hybrid, therefore I undid the modification of DragonflySixtyseven before.

However, now two more experienced users than I am, namely DragonflySixtyseven and you, want to have this article as redirect. Can you give me a hint why? (I think that missing references or sources should not be any longer a problem because the Corgie article has now two links as sources (which however to not proof all of the article's statements)).

By the way, I'm not in any way an expert on dog breeds (I don't even have four paws and a tail, woof...), I just detected the corki article by using the "random article" key.

Best regards --Cyfal (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, my concern was that there isn't any evidence that the "corkie" is a notable hybrid. With a few hundred widely recognized breeds, the number of possible crosses is ridiculous; any article on a particular cross must demonstrate some sort of independent notability. Although there were two sources on the article, both of them are ones which we've previously determined to be useless: dogbreedinfo.com has a single "boilerplate" page with the same text for every crossbreed, and the American Canine Hybrid Club turns out to "recognize" any breed for a small ($5?) fee.

There are a lot of recognized breeds - I think the AKC recognizes 200 or so. As such, there are a lot of potential crossbreeds, many of which a name can be constructed for. However, most of these crossbreeds are of little interest. By "interest", several things can be meant:

Breeders who specifically produce crossbreed dogs have interest in the crossbreed. (Note that just because dogs of a given description exist doesn't mean that there's anyone specifically producing them. Accidents happen, and sometimes people come up with clever names for them.)
News coverage. (Incidental mentions have caused some confusion in the past, though - only articles specifically about the breed "count" here.)
Breed fancy clubs.

Hopefully this helps explain the situation. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your extensive answer. I see—about 200 breeds makes 39,800 crossbreeds... and also thanks for your further explanations on the two sources and on "interest". I still have somewhat a problem that Corki now redirects to an article which does not mention the Corki. Should we instead modify the redirect to point to List of dog hybrids and add Corki there? (The other solution is of course to put Corki to the AfD list.) Well, I leave this now to the dog experts... Thank you again --Cyfal (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, a redirect to an article which doesn't mention the redirect is slightly more useful than having no article at all, in that it at least gives the reader some idea of the context of what they were looking for, whereas a nonexistent article gives them no information at all. The reason that neither dog hybrid nor list of dog hybrids lists the Corki (as well as any number of other hybrids) is that there are - again - simply too many names to list them all in any useful fashion. (We used to try to maintain a list, but it got massive and was, in any case, impossible to keep verifiable.) As it stands, list of dog hybrids is maintained simply as a list of hybrids with articles about them, and is probably redundant to Category:Dog crossbreeds anyway.

Short version: Redirects are cheap. Might as well keep one. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. --Cyfal (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan articles

Hey Zetawoof, thanks for nominating all these fan articals for deletion. I’ve noticed that the cruft is getting out of hand on Wikipedia. To help deal with this problem I’ve proposed a Fancruft sorting and cleanup taskforce at WP:COUNCIL/P. I thought you might be interested. Cheers, --S.dedalus 23:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really interested, thanks. It's probably worth mentioning that my primary concern with those articles wasn't as much with their subject matter (some of which might be worth mentioning elsewhere) as it was with their content (which was composed significantly of plagiarized text). Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks anyway though. Yeah, modern music articles get edited so infrequently that plagiarism often isn’t caught quickly. --S.dedalus 02:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod on Quintephone

Greetings, Zetawoof. I don't quite see how your skepticism concerning the Quintephone has to do with deleting the article. There are two sources in this article, one which is a PDF file that talks about the different types of musical instruments (including quintessence), and the other which is a paper released in June 2007 about new musical instruments. A quick Google search brings other information about the instrument such as:

I would suggest you express better arguments when suggesting the deletion of articles, for this one seems to be a personal case of skepticism. If the article has no source, feel free to point that out; if the article contains PoV's, feel free to point that out as well. Have a nice day. 41.250.34.216 (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less than impressed with those sources. The NYU paper only mentions quintephones in passing (section 2.13, "It is proposed..."). I can't read the other reference listed, as I don't have access to it.

My concern is basically that the quintephone doesn't appear to exist as a commonly used instrument. Most of the references I can find all refer specifically to the "Immersed Music" performance - your first and third links both refer to that concert, and the second one appears to be a French translation of snippets from Wikipedia articles. (Certain phrases appear almost verbatim from hydraulophone and quintephone.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not make your arguments for the prod right. One way to make your arguments valid would be to put "This article does not appear to have sufficient reliable sources." However, the current argument is "OK, this is really rather ridiculous. [Personal point of view] Ideas don't make sounds; [To be sourced] this seems like a really convoluted way of talking about electronic music. [Then, according to you, the style and tone should be edited, not deleted]". It seems to me like those arguments only illustrate your personal skepticism concerning the subject of the article, and do not relate in any way to the deletion policy. I respect your opinion; however, I find your arguments for the deletion of this article invalid. Have a nice day. 196.217.238.57 (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]