User talk:Rejectwater/Archive 1

Reduce the Cruftcruft

Are you simply arguing about my article to "prolong the discussion" and generate more Cruftcruft? If so, that is inappropriate. Your reasoning on all responses so far has been hasty, and your research into the policies and guidelines cited has been shallow. If your user page is just a joke, and you intend to approach community responsibility seriously, then please research the rules more carefully. The way you are proceeding makes it seem that your user page is serious, and you simply want to create arguments and disrupt the creative process here on Wikipedia. --John (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate your act of good faith. I was getting rather frustrated and may have been oversensitive to the subtext of your page. After reading the Wikipedia:Cruftcruft page, point 2 seemed to be occurring (from Wikipedia:Cruftcruft#Ways to spot Cruftcruft, and because I kept finding material in the sections cited that disagreed with your interpretation it seemed that the policies and guidelines being cited were only token citations to avoid being called on points 3 and 7. I concede that in my frustration I had a much less civil tone than I like, and I apologize. That said, I still do not understand how the interpretations you and others have made are valid in light of the entire context of the rules cited, but my interpretation doesn't matter. If the traditional interpretation of the rules differs from the text of them though, I wish that the text would be updated to match--especially where the interpretation contradicts the current guideline directly. ~~sigh~~ Regardless of that, I can see that you are simply following the current interpretation, and intended no malice, so thank you again for your act of good faith. It may even keep me around long enough to learn the traditional interpretations myself. -- John (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to post on my talk page - I still feel that the rules are being over-interpreted in the direction of deletionism. There were sections of the guidelines that plainly show that this topic is fine. For example, in the actual guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people the category Category:Wikipedians by alma mater is referenced. Where has this topic been covered in secondary and tertiary sources? How is this topic notable? Where--other than here on Wikipedia--has this information ever been published before? I fail to see why Category:People by educational institution is fine, as is Category:Fictional characters by occupation, but a simple list (which is intended for less substantial categorizations) of Fictional characters by educational institution would be less notable as long as the list members are notable characters (i.e., worthy of their own articles in Wikipedia). If the interpretation that you and others are championing is valid, then perhaps some of these other lists and categories need to be cleaned out, perhaps the examples listed in the guidelines themselves need to be cleansed in favor of more notable examples... or perhaps the interpretation is a little over-interpreted and over-ambitious. Either way, unless the atmosphere here changes, I'm not likely to bother sinking my time into creating an article ever again. I have no interest in being put through this again, nor do I have the time for it. Deletionism and Inclusionism are both only good in moderation. This attitude of ignoring the text of the rules in favor of deleting an article--when the rule is to improve if possible and delete only if necessary--has left a sour taste in my mouth. ~~sigh~~ And again, I am getting too worked up. This is why I'll be putting WP aside. I hate when rules are twisted to suit an agenda, and while I don't feel that you specifically are doing this, I feel that the current traditional interpretation of the rules has been twisted to support a strongly deletionist viewpoint. Until that changes I doubt that I'll jump into this fire again. -- John (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

I didn't see anything wrong w/ the user page. It's a wide-wide world out there. someone is bound to get offended by something, that it no real reason to remove it. But hey, it's your user page. I just don't think you should feel bad about it. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Scott Campbell (disambiguation)

Hello Rejectwater. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Scott Campbell (disambiguation), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: its a redirect page not a dab page. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 07:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, cool, thanks for checking it out, thanks for letting me know. Rejectwater (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Malmö FF

Thank you for your comments, the issues you pointed out have now been corrected. Hopefully I will hear from an assessor soon, there seems to be little assessment activity on both Project Sweden and Project Football at the moment. Good luck with your own article!

Reckless182 (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, I'm glad to be of some assistance, and thank you for your good wishes. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Check-up

Hello. I would appreciate it if you could give a peek into the newly-created article 6th Asian Film Awards. Any suggestions for improvement can be discussed at my talk page. Regards, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Detroit Red Wings records, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bryan Murray and Jack Adams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, DPL bot. Keep it up. Rejectwater (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

re Request for help with Peer Review

Hey Cirt, I appreciated your comments on the Peer review for List of Detroit Red Wings draft picks. I have just made a peer review request for List of Detroit Red Wings seasons, if you could review that page as well and offer your input it would also be greatly apprecitated. Thanks again. Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to take a look at it sometime soon, — Cirt (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to help you out in return and saw you have a peer review open for Fuck (film). I reviewed the article and found I have nothing constructive to add to the conversation. I don't understand why it isn't FA already. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks very much for the kind words about my Fuck (film) quality improvement project! — Cirt (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Query

Perhaps you could add those comments (above) about Fuck (film) to Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1? — Cirt (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done, as requested. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Montreal Canadiens seasons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portland Rosebuds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• You are on fire, DPL bot. Great work. Rejectwater (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer review comments

I've left some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Detroit Red Wings seasons/archive1. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2,000-yard club/archive1

I've responded to your issues about the article. Toa Nidhiki05 03:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Detroit Red Wings award winners may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |[1953–54

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I gave my support to you're article (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Detroit Red Wings draft picks/archive1). I was wondering if you would be interested on reviewing Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series, it is currently a FLC. This would mean the world to me, if you will be willing! SoapFan12 Talk page here 20:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have posted some comments. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have responded to you're comments. SoapFan12 Talk page here 22:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking about FLC

Hey Rejectwater, I believe it's time to resolved you're comments. Don't you think you should go by what delegate told me about the overlinking? If I prefer it being overlink, it will be overlink. Plus, my co-nominator is abousetly right: ″the visual look of the table appear inconsistent and potentially confusing to readers. A reader looking for just this year's nominees would wonder why some names were linked and others weren't″. SoapFan12 ^Talk 18:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't consider it to be resolved. Everyone who has commented on it, including you, has agreed that the table is overlinked. No legitimate reason why the overlinking should remain has been offered. The "visual appeal" argument does not hold water, and "this is way too much work for me" is a jaw-dropping response from someone who is trying to get this list up to Featured status. Get a delegate or equivalent third party to state, in the FLC discussion, why the overlinking can/should remain and I'll consider it resolved. Rejectwater (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Plus, it is a lot of hard work for me. Nvm, you just wouldn't understand. SoapFan12 ^Talk 19:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 said, the only tables that are greenlit for overlinking are sortable ones. Therefore, I have made the table sortable. Now, I think it's time to resolved you're comments. Also, thank you so much for reveiwing the article. This meant a lot to me! SoapFan12 ^Talk 20:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have put it back to a regular table, do you now consider it to be resolved? Again, thank you soo much for the review!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 23:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure why not. Rejectwater (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 12:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Switzerland Olympic hockey article

Thank you so much for your assistance with adding stubs for the players, as well as your comments. Would you be willing to support the article for promotion now? Please advise if anything else needs to be done. Anthony (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I added another comment. You wouldn't happen to have some time to review the Featured List nomination for List of Detroit Red Wings seasons, would you? Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Soitenly. I'll give it a looksee this afternoon when I have a little more time. Anthony (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Great, it needs a good looksee. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I forgot to say you're welcome. So here it is- you're welcome, it was my pleasure. It's good to see some more hockey articles making it to Featured status. Thank you for your help reviewing my nomination as well. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Silver Bridge

Greetings:

I made no additions to Silver Bridge concerning memorialization (nor Mothman).

- Leonard G. (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

See my page for the latest - Leonard G. (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Detroit Red Wings award winners may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ! scope="row" rowspan="4"|{{sortname|Sid|Abel]}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Detroit Red Wings award winners may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a red jersey with a winged wheel logo on the chest and a large "C" on the left front shoulder.]]]
• number 21 on his left arm and a large maple leaf shaped crest that reads "Toronto Maple Leafs".]]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

ALT images help

• Beck v. Eiland-Hall

Rejectwater, you were so good with the ALT images help for Fuck (film), I was wondering if you could help out with Beck v. Eiland-Hall?

ALT images automated review.

I've put the page up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Beck v. Eiland-Hall/archive1, and someone has raised a valid point about filling out ALT text.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck featured article candidate discussion

• Fuck (film)

Notifying you because you participated in the Peer Review.

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to address all your points and responded to them at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1. Perhaps you could help with the ALT info for the images, if that's your area of expertise? I admit you are probably much better at that than I. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Would it be alright with you if your comments were addressed for me to move them to the FAC talk page? I just wanted to make sure that was okay with you first, — Cirt (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that works too, thank you! I'm just not 100% sure the FAC delegates like using any sort of templates because when transcluded back on the main FAC page, in aggregate if used on all the subpages of current FACs, they tend to slow the main FAC page down, but that might only be for the "{{done}}" template, in particular. Thanks again for your help, — Cirt (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. The comments I made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1 should stay on that page. All the comments should stay. It's a permanent record of the FA process. As far as the resolved comments template, it's pretty typical over at FLC, not sure about FAC though. Worst case scenario is we have to change it. Rejectwater (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sure, no problems. Just curious, were you going to express an opinion about whether the article itself is worthy of FA quality? — Cirt (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to look it over again before taking that step. Rejectwater (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no worries, sounds good. :) — Cirt (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Any chance you would able to have another look?
2. I only ask because I just remembered your comments from the Peer Review: "I reviewed the article and found I have nothing constructive to add to the conversation. I don't understand why it isn't FA already. Keep up the good work.".
3. With contributions from other helpful reviewers including yourself, I believe the quality of the article has only improved since you made that comment.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Birl, but I will get to it. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sure, no worries! But what do you mean by "birl" ? — Cirt (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Busy in real life. Rejectwater (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay, me too, I totally understand. :) — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about FL nomination page

The FLC you asked about on my talk page was recently closed as a non-promotion and removed from the main FLC page. A bot handles the rest of an FLC closure, but it doesn't seem to have gotten to this one for some reason. I'll ask about it at FLC talk. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your help copy editing Fuck (film) on its way to WP:FA. Much appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, I was glad to help. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I have copied this to my user page so it can be displayed forever. Thanks again, and you're welcome for the help. Rejectwater (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, — Cirt (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hey. I was wondering if you'd be willing to provide some feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Gould (rugby union)/archive1? Understand if you're busy or unable to help, but would really appreciate any input. Thanks! - Shudde ^talk 10:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Will be glad to. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hi can you comment on this nomination. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I will see what I can do. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved

Hello Rejectwriter, I'm here to let you know that your unresolved comment "You have unbundled them, which is good, but it is still unclear which citation supports what information in the table. Each row..." in this FLC has been resolved so I guess you should put them in your resolved comments if you're satisfied, thanks.—FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Taken care of, thanks for the heads up. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment

As an active member of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, you should be aware that there has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment concerning how NHOCKEY will be interpreted. Dolovis (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Detroit Red Wings award winners/archive1

Hi Rejectwater. There are unaddressed comments at your FLC nomination. Could you please address them? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck peer review, again

1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James E. Norris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bruce Norris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

NHL Seasons

How exactly is indicating when a team made the playoffs with a certain color redundant and unnecessary? It's like that for all the other sports so why is it any different for ice hockey? ThatSportsGuy (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• it's redundant because there's a "Playoff results" column that lists whether or not the team made the playoffs and if so what the outcome was. It's very easy to tell which seasons the team made the post season as a result. The "unneccessary" bits were things like a definition for "TG" and color code for Presidents' Trophy, neither of which are applicable. Don't know what you mean by "it's like that for all other sports". There are a handful of Western Conference NHL teams that have this on their "list of seasons" pages (all non-FL), but it's redundant regardless. Rejectwater (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, removing Postseason GP, W, L, GF, and GA was a poor choice. That's valuable information and necessary to substantiate the totals shown at the bottom of the table. Rejectwater (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Rejectwater. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Detroit Red Wings head coaches – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 6. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Cool, thanks for the notice. Rejectwater (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)