User talk:Yousou/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Re: Re-Linking Playstation (console) games
At least about half of the current PlayStation game articles would be great.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- You can find a list of games here: List of PlayStation 1 games. KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Attack
Hey, you flagged this edit for speedy deletion, which is right, but please use {{db-attack}} for this type of page, and blank the page. Thanks for patrolling new articles! — Timneu22 · talk 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Now my article is good. ArkadiuszEurope (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a common joke
Icedink sounds like I STINK
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornflakesjamie (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Annealing by Short circuit speedy
Are you sure that this article is actually CSD A1 material? It looked to me like a possible copyvio and a cleanup issue, but really I see that criteria as applying to things that don't make any sense or would be misleading without context. This article was about an industrial process, and could have used an introduction, but is far from nonsensical. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- (Reply was on my talkpage) You may want to re-read the criteria. A1 refers to articles which do not even identify their subject, in that the reader has got truly no idea what the article is referring to. We do indeed have a criterion for things without any assertion of notability, at A7 and A9. However, it is limited, and non-criteria 5 and 6 deal specifically with such cases. What should have been done with this, it seems to me, is a cleanup tag and perhaps a listing on AfD. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- (Reply was on my talkpage) We could always use new page patrollers. I myself am an RC patroller (which is how I found that this was done). However, it is very important that the job be done correctly. The objective, of course, isn't to prevent the creation of new pages, but to prevent the inclusion of absolute unsalvageable garbage, spam, and libel. It is crucial that the processes be followed. It is your job as a new page patroller to fully understand the criteria for speedy deletion as you apply them; they are not intended to substitute for AfD. All the speedy deletion criteria do is provide a means to take care of articles which absolutely should be deleted now without question. If the content should be deleted but does not meet these criteria, it must be listed at AfD. Yes it is a process, but discussion and process is important here. I cannot stress this enough: you cannot stretch the definitions of the CSD simply because you don't feel like opening an AfD discussion. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- (Reply was on my talkpage) Hey, it's really no problem, and I'm not going to bite you ^^. Just make sure you read the criteria carefully. I remember, once upon a time, speedy deletion was considered exceptional rather than common. The difference between AfD and speedy deletion is really, really simple. We have all decided on a number of things which can be deleted immediately without an AfD discussion, and these things are all listed at WP:CSD. Everything which doesn't clearly fit at least one criterion there cannot be speedily deleted. I think the thing I'm trying to say here is this: the cost of an AfD discussion and due process isn't the exception, speedy deletion is. It is a specific exemption from the due process which is the norm on Wikipedia. I don't mean to discourage you, though. The reason we have those criteria is (mainly) because the things they apply to are objectionable enough that we want them dealt with now. Cheers and have fun with the new page patrol! --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The article clearly and by a good margin meets notability requirements, and it's been further improved since you tagged it for speedy deletion. I have removed the tag. In the future, please take the time to read the citations and familiarize yourself with the topic before causing disruption and unnecessary work for editors who otherwise would use their time to improve articles. Leifern (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved this from speedy to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raine De Vant), as the author objected and some limited notability was asserted, if not shown. I seriously doubt that the article will survive. Herostratus (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Antisa Chwitschawa
Hello Yousou, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Antisa Chwitschawa, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Theleftorium (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Source
Why is Fox not a good source. Your personal opinions are no reason to undo my edits, which are NOT in anyway bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.49.109 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Airborne Reference Issues
Hey, thanks for fixing that for me. I was pretty sure I read the process for reflist insertion correctly, but I guess I put the reflist in the wrong place. I appreciate your time and I'm going to try to fix the Airborne page up until it's legitimate. When I found it it was all messed up. If you love Airborne too your contributions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! BrianSfinasSSI (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Problem
There seems to be a formatting problem with references. On the article zoophilia and the law, the reference section from Template:ZoosexualityLaws encompasses not just the citations from the template, but the article as well. (Which means that there ends up being a reference section in the middle of the article.) Do you know how to fix this?35th4gv834 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think I fixed the problem using a "noinclude" tag.35th4gv834 (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Kep, Cambodia
Hello Yousou, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Kep, Cambodia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Oppose speedy. All cities are notable, and the article is not promotional at all. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
1977 in British television
I reverted you as I've always believed it's important to find a reference whenever possible. But I'm curious about this. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's right to add references in this case as it's not really a disambiguation page, more a list of events and programmes. If you look at some of the later Years in Briish television articles they are much better referenced, and it's useful to be able to find out more about something. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there YOUSOU, VASCO from Portugal here,
Regarding your message: yes you are correct, unfortunately, bad reaction on my part. But i just can't stand those kids doing what they do, even though i know it's all reversible.
Thanks for your attention, keep up the good work, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Mohamed Nageib
Hi Yousou. I know Mohamed Nageib is a very short article, but the fact that he is stated as playing for a professional football team that is in the Egyptian premier league is a credible claim to notability, on which basis I've removed the csd A7 tag. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Users removing content from their own talk-pages
Per WP:BLANKING, that behavior is explicitly allowed. Please undo you changes to User talk:MadonnaPenguin. I'd say "and retract the warning", but it's probably irrelevant in this case as the user is headed towards an indef-block anyway. ~~
Done per advice.Yousou (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Altered speedy deletion rationale: Swift taxis & private hire
Hello Yousou. I am just letting you know that I deleted Swift taxis & private hire, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
Hi Yousou/Archive 1. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY (TALK) 19:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Alderwasley School
Has an ex pupil with a grudge who has spend the last year or more trying to make himself or his mates the head. Please use caution when approving changes. Someone else has reset your change. Just a note of caution. Victuallers (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
RE: Winston Reid
Well all you had to do was use the clear references I gave you and no be so pedantic. A little politeness will stand you in good stead. Please try to remember this! --Egghead06 (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Darlington F.C.
Hello. Just to let you know that Darlington F.C. was put on pending changes to try and stop the edit war that's been going on since forever. This basically involves an anon editor putting back their version of the article instead of the MoS-compliant, sourced, reasonably accurate version, and has resumed since the perpetrator got back off a 3-month block. The edit you approved was said perpetrator, so be careful another time :-) keep up the good work, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping an eye on the Intelligence quotient article.
I see you reverted an I.P. edit that blanked one section I had just added to Intelligence quotient. I will be working on that article for quite a while, trying to restructure it and add sources, and I appreciate you keeping an eye on it. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Why did you revert the contribution on Sugar?
I disagree with the undo you committed on Sugar (see [1] ). Was this a mistake, or did you notice something I missed. I undid the reversion in the meantime. // Cachedio (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, both of you have it wrong. The problem is that this is a cut-and-paste from History of sugar (hence the bracketed numbers rather than actual cites); there's no reason to keep expanding this section, since we have the main article about the subject. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Revert on Charles Darwin
Can you please explain the reason for this revert and edit summary? I do not follow the article particularly closely and must be missing something here. VQuakr (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- (Reply was on my talk page) Please note that I was not the author of my change but I noticed the revert and felt it was unwarranted. Please re-read Wikipedia:Reviewing#Reviewing_process as the reasons you gave for the reversion are not consistent with this proposal. If an edit is "very good" but still needs improvement, it should probably be re-edited rather than reverted. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- (Reply was on my talk page) I wasn't harsh. Please consider using a more descriptive edit summary when doing reversions of good faith edits. You also may want to consider using template:talkback to notify other editors as the conversation is easier to follow when it is in one place. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Tottenham Hotspur
Hi. I noticed that you've accepted a few pending changes over at Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. The problem is that William Gallas hasn't yet officially joined the club. Until this is confirmed, perhaps you could reject any additions of his name to the squad list rather than accepting them? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It has been my understanding that the links at the beginning of each line in the List of named tropical cyclones are not intended to point to any particular storm, but to the disambiguation pages listing all of the storms under that name. That is why I have been linking them through the intentional disambig redirect. Please let me know if I'm wrong about this. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am very familiar with DPL, havin been one of the most active participants in that project over the past five years. Intentional disambiguation links to articles are permitted, so long as they are piped through a "foo (disambiguation)" redirect (see WP:INTDABLINK regarding 'pages that contain lists of words or names'. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks from the GOCE
| Thank you very much for signing up for the Guild of Copy Editors' September Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two years, to the summer of 2008! We're going to need all the help we can muster to reduce the backlog to a manageable size. We've set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog, and getting the total under 5000. To do that, we're going to need more participants. Please invite anyone you can to join the drive! Once again, thanks for your support! If you have any questions, contact one of our coordinators—ɳorɑfʈ Talk!, The Raptor You rang?, or SMasters (Talk). |  |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 20:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC).
Counter Strike
Tell me specifically what is wrong with my edit about Counter - Strike that you undid it.
--Master Hitsugaya (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I edited the Counter-Strike reception section with information regarding sales totals. Why would you remove this addition? It was entirely factual and was, I believe, necessary to show why the sales figures are so low for CS and CSS. I will edit the article again how it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.5.250.117 (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Arlene Ackerman
Hello Yousou. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arlene Ackerman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4 doesn't apply - the result of WP:Articles for deletion/Arlene Ackerman was "no consensus". It has since been deleted A7, but in view of the history I think if challenged it should go back to AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
PlayStation
I have been trying to promote the PlayStation article to Featured Article for awhile now, after I gave it a major revamp a few months ago. Recently I managed to reach a milestone by promoting it to good article status. So I would appreciate any assistance in promoting it to FA, thanks.KiasuKiasiMan 06:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Lewis Hamilton
Hi. I believe your recent edit reverting my edit made on this article is incorrect. The ref name tags in the article are overly used, as, in many cases, there is only one reference in the article to online sources where "ref name" is used and so is therefore not needed. Thanks Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 18:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- None of the ref names removed had substance elsewhere in the article, so in my opinion they should be removed, such as "split" and "BBC News British Grand Prix" occur as ref names only once in the article. Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 18:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- How do you "review it". The other editor and I left an adequit edit summary for our edits but were still reverted. Thanks Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 18:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
GOCE drive has begun
| Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. --Diannaa (Talk) 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC) | |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 03:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC).
Non-Latin Usernames...
...are okay per policy. What I sometimes do is run them through Google Translate to make sure they're not offensive/promotional/etc. Tckma (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |