Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:45, 17 October 2007

I will generally reply on this page. If you expect a response, then watchlist my talk page. If I post a message on your talk page, I will watch it for a while, and I would prefer to keep the discussion centralised.

Please post any RFA thank-you spam here. I promise that I'll read it. Thanks.

Belated thanks

Thank you for the Barnstar of 2nd October! I'm collecting so many now it's starting to get embarrassing. Best wishes. Philip Trueman 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You deserved it ;) Melsaran 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah well! I'll accept that one must have been a duplicate. Philip Trueman 10:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the same barnstar was listed twice on that page, I hope you don't mind that I removed it. Melsaran 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Possibly we are at cross-purposes. Wikidudeman has awarded me two, a month apart - see my talk page. But one was on the same date as yours. (I suspect he gives them out in batches, once a month, to the most active anti-vandalisers.) Whatever. As I said, it's starting to get embarrassing - maybe I need to do something different, or to get out more ... Philip Trueman 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your comments at my RfA. I am not sure I'm going to pass so easily. If you really want to oppose me, that's fine, but there is a distinct chance that your comment could make a difference because you are a respected editor and don't have any history of conflict with me, unlike some of the others. I can assure you that I will not bite newcomers. I've had a long chat with Eagle 101 about this very subject, and I'm well aware of the need to give people a chance. The grizzly bear on my talk page is there because it's a beautiful featured photo, not because I want to scare people. - Jehochman 00:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a conflict with you (and wouldn't oppose for such a thing, because RFA is way too often abused by people who bear personal grudges against the candidate), and I respect you as an editor and wish you all the best on your RFA; however, I'm just not entirely sure that you will be careful enough not to bite newbies. We have more than enough admins who call every problematic newbie a troll and block them indefinitely without warning after a few non-vandalism edits, so sorry for my reluctance. I struck my oppose for now and asked you a question at the RFA, please enlighten me of your view on the issue and I may revise my opinion :) Melsaran 10:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of WP:RFARBCW

I have nominated WP:RFARBCW (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. After Midnight 16:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comments there. Melsaran 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Superpower

Are you able to correct the hatnote at this article? There's something "wierd" about it, but I can't quite put my finger on it (I'd still like to see the redirect in use though). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It could possibly be split into {{redirect|Superpowers|other uses|Superpower (disambiguation)}} and {{for|the superhuman powers in works of fiction|superpower (ability)}}, because the fact that "Superpowers" redirects to that page has nothing to do with "superpower (ability)", but the advantage of this sort of hatnote is that it takes up one line instead of two. It looks fine to me. Melsaran 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Roy beat me by about 5 seconds on that AFC submission, lol, and I tried to revert myself, but keep getting this stupid "Misplaced Pages has a problem" error. So thanks for reverting it for me! Ariel♥Gold 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Organic, Inc. rejection

Hi there. I was wondering if you had any pointers on how to make our entry more "encyclopedia like." I modeled it after several other agencies, so am not sure where we went wrong?

Of the sources provided, only one was created by Organic (our website). The others were all third party.

I appreciate you taking the time to review, and hopefully I can retune to acceptance. Thanks. Afreccero 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)ann 10 oct 07

Hi

I've started a discussion about the {{user}}-family templates - you don't seem to have created any of them (though i'm only about halfway through the list), but you did improve a number of them - your input would be appreciated. —Random832 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1974 Cincinnati Reds season

Hey there. I say you placed {{technical}} on 1974 Cincinnati Reds season; I created this article and felt I should explain it if you did not understand. In Major League Baseball, each of the 30 teams has played over 100 years of baseball (well, most teams) and we have agreed at WP:MLB to have an article for each year of baseball for each team. In my opinion, this article was pretty random, as there are probably around a thousand of these articles. It would be pretty useless to put this tag on every article, as if you read up a little, you could probably understand it more (and it would be a lot of tagging!). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks jj137 (Talk) 02:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, okay, but isn't it better to point out in those articles that they're about baseball? The article is currently written in a way too complicated manner and is hardly understandable for the layman. Perhaps this would help? I'm not sure I worded it correctly, so feel free to revert it or anything :) Melsaran 05:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, honestly, I think that is a very good idea. As a matter in fact, I think I will go around and place it on all of the seasonal article pages, because it does clarify a lot in just a short sentence. Again, great idea there. jj137 (Talk) 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:HAT

I asked a question regarding hatnotes over all tags and thought you could take part in answering it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to WP:HN because the discussion didn't finish. Can you answer the question there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I left some comments there, and the consensus seemed to be to place (permanent) hatnotes below (temporary) cleanup tags. What question do you want me to answer? Melsaran 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's on the very bottom of the page. I just want to tie up some loose ends, then we can officially update the guideline. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comment there. Melsaran 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

MfD

Please consider withdrawing your MfD nomination of the military history coordinator page. I can understand in theory the rationale for your nomination, but a consensus is already clear that the current governance of that project is working well and there is no reason for a change. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The project is working, yes, but I think that we should avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and that this page actually adds little value to the project. Nobody has presented a substantial argument other than "the wikiproject is successful so don't argue with them", so I don't see why we should close the discussion prematurely. There's nothing wrong with letting it run a little longer. Melsaran 21:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the MfD has been closed in the meantime by someone else. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(to Melsaran) I disagree. A user said that, due to the project's size, some bureaucracy is necessary to keep the project together and assure the continuing quality of the articles within their scope. Fighting this system isn't helping Misplaced Pages. Please consider discussing these things with the coordinators or other members of the project before nominating them for deletion. --Agüeybaná 21:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I see why you disagree, and I think it would be healthy if we had the opportunity discuss this in the MFD; however, since Raul654 decided that discussing this page for more than one hour is detrimental to the encyclopaedia and harms our project, we don't. Melsaran 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the subject is really the internal workings of one particular project, don't you think it would make more sense to perhaps post it where it is directly relevant, on one of the talk pages of the Military history project, rather than nominating the page for deletion? If it is a strictly internal structure, as it is, the members of the project can delete it by consensus at any time. Also, basically, very very rarely do MfDs on subpages of active Projects even appear, let alone win approval. Alternately, maybe posting on the Village pump page might work. But, honestly, if what you wanted was real discussion of the issue, I think you chose what may well be the single worst possible way to try to raise it. John Carter 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't link to my talk page in edit summaries

There is no reason for that except to try and harass me. Turtlescrubber 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What? I linked to that discussion to "justify" my revert. I am not trying to harass you, actually, I was trying to discuss my revert with you rather than engaging in an edit war. Melsaran 23:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know...

...What are the requirements for adminiship? Thanks. Goodshoepd35110s 22:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to read this for a rough guide on RFA and what the average community standards are. You are currently a little too inexperienced to apply, but if you continue to contribute in a positive way, get a good grasp of policy and look at some of the tips I gave you on your talk page, you'll have the required experience in no time and you can reapply in a few months :-). Regards, Melsaran 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Goodshoepd35110s 22:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Template repair

Thanks for the help. :) I'll have a look around at my other templates to see if any others are fixed like that so I can repair those as well. --Moonriddengirl 12:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zerg

Greetings, You have recently placed a comment on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zerg. This AFD is closed, perhaps you should place it on the comment page instead? Fosnez 06:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I hadn't seen that it was closed, how stupid. Thanks for reverting it. Melsaran 08:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

Sorry, Yes It was a mistake. Still sleepy :). Half-Blood Auror 09:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A few comments...

First off, biting every single opposer at AfD is not helpful in any way. Secondly, you're missing the mark with this comment: "It's okay if it relies only on primary sources, since Blizzard is the only one who can confirm information about the Dwarven race (anything from secondary sources would, by definition, be original research)." Secondary sources comment upon what the primary sources say. This is akin to IGN saying in a game review that "you can move around using X, Y, and Z.", when the game manual from the developers says the same thing; it's not original research. Secondly, secondary sources are necessary; see the nutshell of WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." David Fuchs 19:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said at the AFD: If a secondary source would write something about the Warcraft Dwarves, then they either have that information from Blizzard (which makes it an indirect source, which is useless when the primary source is also available), or they made that information up themselves (so it would be speculation or original research). In your example of "you can move it around using X, Y, and Z", if the game manual said it and IGN said it, it's better to use the game manual in the article, since that's a direct source and IGN is an indirect source (after all, IGN got it from the game manual). And secondary sources are indeed necessary on articles on (for example) a company, a band, a website, etc, but not on a sub-article of a notable subject that has been split off using summary style, since they are not independent topics (WP:N speaks about "a topic is presumed to be notable if (...)"). Per WP:FICT: Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. (...) In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Melsaran 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And the Troll, Dwarf articles are subarticles of subarticles. Looking through WP:SUMMARY, I can see no reasons why these subjects merit their own articles with such a great amount of detail. But whatever, my main point is that it's generally not a good idea to object to everyone's delete/merge votes. David Fuchs 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I feel too strongly about these articles. Lots and lots of valid articles on fictional subjects are deleted each week mostly because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments like "fancruft", "not a game guide", "not interesting", "more suited for Wikia", etc, and I tend to plead in favour of keeping them. Melsaran 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

While that may be true, it's similar to RfA candidates and supporters going after every 'oppose' vote; if you make your point once, I'm sure that the closer will take it into account. Besides, they're hardly likely to change anyhow. David Fuchs 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I will try to cool down for a while. Cheers, Melsaran 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot request

Would you be interested in fulfilling this bot request? Your bot has been approved for tasks such as this.

Thanks! — madman bum and angel 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm running it now. See Special:Contributions/MelsaranAWB. Cheers, Melsaran 09:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And so shines a good deed. Many thanks, Mel. - Mtmelendez 09:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Patrick van Aanholt. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 217.158.3.3 12:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC) - Hey, I've contested the deletion, notes can be found in the appropriate place as per the Deletion Review guidelines.

Okay, let's see what responses you'll get :-). (Note that I didn't delete the article, as I am not an administrator, the deleting admin can be found here.) Regards, Melsaran 12:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Block from ArbCom

Melsaran,

This is a note to inform you that I have blocked you as a suspected sockpuppet, per evidence from the CheckUser tool, and after discussion with the rest of the Arbitration Committee.

If you wish to comment on, or request the removal of, this block, please e-mail me the Committee at large (on arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) or me personally, and I will forward it for you.

Yours,

James F. (talk) On behalf of the Arbitration Committee

16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of whom?Backsigns 17:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am currently contacting the Committee about this matter. Melsaran 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sean

Hello,

I assume that the reason for the disambiguation page for Shawn only lists those with the name of Shawn, because that is the page for Shawn. Perhaps a disambiguation page should be made for Sean? Also, on the disambiguation page for Shawn, it says it is also a derivative of John, yet it (Shawn) does not redirect to John? Tabor 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)