This is an Archive of my talk page from January – May 2006. Please do not modify it. Please post new messages at the bottom of my current talk page, here. Thanks! —Accurizer
Welcome!
Hello, Accurizer/Archive01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! I love Wikipedia and I hope you do to! Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 13:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:DATE. the display format is an option in user preferences. the actual format in the text doesn't really matter, if you've set the preference. it's some sort of international standard to go date-month-year, which is probably why someone changed it. Derex 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Films based on fiction books vs. Films based on novels[edit]
I appreciate your comments on the Italian band stubs. I intend to supply at least a little content for each of these stubs (and much more for some), but wanted to get them categorized first so I didn't lose track of them. Vineviz 15:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may have missed something, but the URL you give in the copyright violation notice for Alex Harris doesn't seem to contain any text that looks similar. Could you give more details of why you think it is copied? DJ Clayworth 15:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the article as possible copyvio solely because the text in the article contains a copyright notice, referencing that web site. I could not find the same text on that web site either, but the presence of the copyright notice seemed to be reason enough to post it as a possible copyvio. Not sure how else to handle it. The new Alex Harris/Temp article does not appear to have the same issue. Accurizer 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. That's a valid reason, and I would agree with it. I think we might get away with just removing the copyright notice in the article, given that the article author asserts he is the copyright holder for the website. I've copied this to the talk page also. DJ Clayworth 16:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Thanks for your help. Accurizer 16:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop recreating previously deleted pages. This is your only warning. --MarkSweep(call me collect) 18:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, it appeared that the template was vandalized to me. You should assume good faith. A quick glance at my activity would have revealed that my aim is to improve Wikipedia, not harm it. Has there been a community discussion on this of which I am unaware? Accurizer 18:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Accurizer. Thanks for your vigilant eye in tagging Macro processor as a copyright violation. I just wanted to let you know that, per WP:CP, you should blank the article when you tag an article with {{copyvio}}. This is so that the current revision (which is often mirrored and such) no longer has the copyvio problem. — TKD (Talk) 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Count room, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
I think that the information present in the article asserts significance. Please go through what has been written and discuss on talk page. I am not involved with the person so I believe my opinion should be neutral. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. The article is linked from a couple of places. If you can move the article without breaking the links, please move it. Otherwise, move it and let me know I have to fix the links. David Polinsky 02:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says I am too new to move the page. I would appreciate your assistance in doing this. Thanks. David Polinsky 20:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Many thanks for your message regarding the above article. I have placed it on AfD as the prod tag has been removed twice. The author has removed the synopsis that was copied from the Amazon website but there is nothing to replace it at the moment. He'll have five days under AfD rules to improve or delete it. Regards, (aeropagitica) 06:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I know about the 9/11 wiki. The reason why you can't find it from the main page of the English wiki is that it is a different wiki. Different rules apply to that wiki, I imagine. WP:BIO stands for the English WP and this negates in memoriam articles. You can point the author of the above article towards that Wiki with an explanation regarding its aims and objectives being different to the English wiki and suggest that it might be a better place to mention Ms Angell. In fact, I think that I will copy this correspondance on to his Talk page. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Accurizer! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators have been deleting articles saying it is nonsense; however, they leave other better constructed articles on similar topics. I feel you are targeting certain races particulary blacks. If I knew how to report you to the Wiki president I would. I feel I deserve an apology and want to know what you have against the African Race. I think you are very wet and stupid. I would link wet but that is nonsence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTA (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry if you feel that Wikipedia is discriminatory in deciding what articles are deleted; but I can assure you, this is not the case. Articles are selected for deletion based upon very specific criteria, please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Wikipedia content is not censored. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and every topic does not warrant an encyclopedia article. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for specifics. Also, personal attacks are not welcome here. You should read WP:CIVIL. Accurizer 21:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you tagged the page Image:Grant.jpg for speedy deletion with the reason "Unused image, companion article AfD'd with result being delete". However, "Unused image, companion article AfD'd with result being delete" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use WP:IFD if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle 15:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you tagged the page Image:Grant2.jpg for speedy deletion with the reason "Unused image, companion article AfD'd with result being delete". However, "Unused image, companion article AfD'd with result being delete" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use WP:IFD if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle 15:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stifle, thanks for your note on my talk page. I haven't done much with images up until now so I appreciate your assistance. I'm a little puzzled. Before tagging these with the speedy tag, I read WP:IFD which states:
"For speedy deletion candidates, use "db|reason". See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates, thumbnails, broken images, non-existent images, non-commercial, permission, no source, unknown copyright, and unused fairuse images." (emphasis added in italics.)
But, as you noted, I now see this is not addressed as a criteria in WP:CSD. There seems to be some inconsistency between these two pages, at least the way I am reading it. Do you think this is the case?
Also, I noted that for "Mananddog.jpg", you placed an "orphaned fair use" tag. Would not this also apply to "Grant.jpg" and "Grant2.jpg"? If not, can you explain why? Thanks again. Accurizer 15:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The latter two images are tagged as GFDL, so they are free use, not fair use. You can still recommend them for deletion by listing them on WP:IFD. Stifle 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HOW ABOUT YOU LEAVE OTHER PEOPLE'S PAGES ALONE?[edit]
Okay You must leave this on your talk page as per Wikipedia rules. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and I've communicated to you.
Please do not remove comments made by other users of Wikipedia, as such action goes against Wikipedia policy. You may archive them instead and link to the new location if you wish to remove messages.
Stop being such a baby. I'm not attacking you. You keep removing valid comments from your talk page that apparently you are NOT ALLOWED TO DO based on the same Wikipedia rules that you refer to on the pages of others. Please stop removing comments made by other users of Wikipedia. Such an action may be considered vandalism and I may report you.
--The above was added by anonymous user 68.165.37.146 in response to warning messages I placed on the user talk page of CelticWonder.Accurizer 10:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I will take a look at them later today. Thanks for your valuable contributions to the Dalmatian article. Regards, Accurizer 11:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thnx 4 your invaluable support. I will need to listen to your wise words of truth as I do Wikipedia. Uh, I still don't know what I can do to improve the New Class program page. It's a rather specialized thing within Star Wars.
I am an editor, not an administrator. Information about administrators is available at Wikipedia:Administrators. If you have any other questions please feel free to leave a note on my talk page, or you could also contact any administrator. Regards, Accurizer 19:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you told me that there was a copyright violation on some material I did on macro processors (it appeared to come from a web page). Can you tell me the precise area, please, and which article?
rde42 18:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the information appeared on the following web site: [1]. The article was deleted by an administrator on March 9, 2006 because of the copyright violation. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ, it answers most questions that you may have about copyright issues. Regards, Accurizer 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I really can't be bothered to do it all again. The guidelines seem to indicate that I should have been contacted before deletion, but I was given no chance to comment. I appreciate that I should have included some copyright information initially, but summary deletion is a bit much since the copyright holder (me) was not asking for that. If I have to add it all again, and chase all that up, for what was meant to be a public service, then I really don't have the time. rde42 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted information is still available to administrators and it can be undeleted for good cause. Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy for specifics. Regards, Accurizer 11:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Accurizer. I am a member of the Wikipedia:Welcoming Committee. While keeping an eye on newcomers I noticed your message to User:Maestrotaku regarding the Ken Lloyd article. I think you should give these guys some time to establish the article and related articles. It appears they are japanese musicians and have even recorded albums and one of their members was or still is a member on Luna Sea. In the spirit of WP:ASG and WP:BITE, I think we should give the articles some time. Also it seems they are using computerized translation which could explain the grammar errors. If it turns out they are not notable or it is all false then we should speedy them. But again, I really think we should give them at least a couple days and I'll do some research over the next day or so to look them up on the web. Thanks --ElectricEye 17:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElectricEye! Thanks for your message on my talk page. I think the service that your committee provides is very important. I certainly have no objections to giving the authors time to develop the article further. In fact, I agree that the "{{importance}}" tag that you placed was a better approach in this case than speedy. (Although, an anonymous user has already removed it.) However, it is important to note, in the spirit of WP:AGF, I posted a welcome message on the users' talk page as well as a notification of the deletion tag. I don't think the templates that we use run afoul of WP:BITE, but if you feel otherwise perhaps we should talk about crafting special WP:UTMs to be used for new users in cases like these? In any event, I'm grateful that you volunteered to keep an "ElectricEye" on this article to ensure that it is developed to satisfy the inclusion criteria. See you around! Regards, Accurizer 19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Accurizer.
First of all thank you for your message and pointing these things out to me. You have certainly broadened my view.
I don't believe any warning tags were purposely designed to disregard WP:BITE. The intent is clearly justified. Tons of new users simply join Wikipedia out of obvious bad faith. But, I have noticed some RC Patrollers inadvertantly or carelessly misusing the tags on faithfully good new users.
For example, several RCPs have warned newbies with a higher level tag without ever having given a level0 or level1. In some of these cases, the RCPs warned newbies and threatened blocking for vandalism. When I checked the newbie's edits they had been done in good faith, although contrary to Wikipedia Wikipedia's various policies. Some of these new users became upset because they weren't informed on how to do things, instead they were repeatedly warned they may be blocked for vandalism and in at least one case I remember the RC Patroller actually bullying such a new user. And in the last 3 days I have seen at least a half a dozen or more new users quit in protest or simply not return, because of such "abuse".
I am not aware of the guidelines and policies that dictate RCP activity because I have chosen to not get involved in the obvious vandal war. I would rather build a peaceful environment by making new users feel welcomed and helped, and by practicing patience so they may learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And ultimately I believe I can help minimize the damage (vandals/etc) with my approach by preventing the creation of new "enemies."
It is a very complicated social phenomenon that needs more study to understand, but I think you see what I am getting at. If not, just ask what I mean and I will try to explain.
I hope to have time to continue what I am doing and also get involved with WP:UTM if the Wikipedia community accepts what I may have to offer in the UTM/RCP effort.
When you did your revert, you also removed some changes that appeared to be valid. I have added those back in. Vegaswikian 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vegaswikian! Thanks for your message on my talk page to let me know about the changes you made. Actually, when I did the revert, I did not make an effort to retain the new link to United States because I thought it was redundant; being as the article states it was a Nevada-based company. However, I don't think it hurts either way. Regarding the Fortune 1000 category, I reverted it because I thought (perhaps wrongly so) that the category would not include former Fortune 1000 companies such as Caesars Entertainment. In any event, it was nice to hear from you. I've noticed your contributions many times; you and I seem to work on many of the same articles. See you around! Regards, Accurizer 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You raise an interesting point about it being a 'former Fortune 1000 company'. I'm not sure where to even ask how to handle that information. When I added it back in, I was not even thinking that it no longer exists. However, I think its worth noting that it was in the index at the time of the merger. There is a similar problem with the Category:Gaming Hall of Fame. That adward was to Park Place and not Caesars. But since there is no article for Park Place, this is the only reasonable home for that important note. Vegaswikian 20:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were clicking on the "[edit]" link that appears within the article at the beginning of each section (in these articles, it was the "External links" section.) This link should be used when you want to edit a section of an article, not the whole article. The "edit this page" tab at the top of the screen should be used when you want to edit the whole article, or the introduction which does not have a section heading. Hope this helps. Regards, Accurizer 18:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Accurizer. You're right, I was. Thanks for your help! --CSC22 18:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there are five alumni from Delbarton who had been on the Duke lacrosse team. I think that the national level of attention does make the individuals -- and their connection to Delbarton -- notable. The facts must be presented objectively, but should be included. Alansohn 17:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has Wikipedia graphic designers in the community then can create an image of sheerlegs and gyns. I could send them the original pictures from the book? see my talk page, thanks for your help Janno 21:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is in response to the above and the question you posted on my talk page. I think you could revise the introduction to begin with a broad overview of what these things are. For example, you could say something like: Gyn is a wooden device similar to a pulley that was commonly used on sailing ships in the 18th century to lift elephants. (Of course, I don't know if this is true, but hopefully this will give you an idea of what is needed.)
I agree with you that pictures would be very helpful to these articles. Take a look at Wikipedia:Images, it provides some recommendations on where to find images suitable for use in Wikipedia. Also, you can request other editors to help at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. If you have any further questions, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Happy editing! Regards, Accurizer 21:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering about copywrite tag? What was the reasoning for putting it up, especially on a short article, or stub rather, such as that. Thanks.--Gephart 06:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I listed this article as a copyvio because I found it to be a copy and paste from the web site that I identified. In retrospect, I should have nomiated it for speedy deletion under CSD-A8, but since it's more than 48 hours old, it seems too late to take that route now. In any event, since it's been tagged since April 15 and no one including the author has made an attempt to rectify the problem, I hope it can be deleted at this point. Regards, Accurizer 11:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly the edit I was thinking of as vandalism, and I had replied to the individual regarding that exact edit. I think that this is part of a pattern where users vandalize a page and then revert it, either as a test or to be able to send someone a link showing that one point the page contained their vandalism. These ofetn appear as an edit pair or as a sequence of several edits. I have a huge number of schools on my 2,900-page watchlist, and the number of vandals from IP addresses and new users is staggering. Thanks for chipping in, I often see you cleaning up and dealing with problems on the many pages I've been working on. Thanks again! Alansohn 13:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm familiar with your quality work and knew that there had to be more to the story than met the eye, which is why I looked into User:Hunthearin's revision history. It's important that anyone looking at your talk page and User talk:Hunthearin see all of the facts. Please keep up the good work. Regards, Accurizer 13:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Accurizer. Give me a shout if I'm wrong or if you're finished with it, and I'll vaporize it. Cheers! ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. Thanks! ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The message was from me. Sorry it was in the wrong place. It was just to say thanks, Accurizer, for your helpful and courteous reply, which is in sharp contrast to the unnecessarily impolite and inaccurate comments of others at the same placeJim Wade 23:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re. deletions, moving pages and merger context Thank you for these comments. Firstly, I have tried to avoid copying my blog pages when I realized this was not permitted. Secondly, I would like to ask you whether or not Wikipedia's policy guidelines will permit my contributions to be merged wherever possible into the list of Newfoundland and Labrador communites? Thirdly, your editing practice, whilst undoubtably based on Wiki premises, is not at all helpful in the real world context of the small Labrador coastal communities. Sir Wilfred Thomas Grenfell a great legendary missionary worker along the coast many years ago, correctly forecast that the growth of tourism would be crucial in helping the communities to survive and prosper. Whilst I appreciate that Wikipedia and all that it stands for most probably cannot concern itself with such matters as net outward population migration, I would ask you to take the above context into your merciless editing practices so that Wikipedia is accurately and effectively responding to the real world. Llewelyn
Note. The above was directed to RHaworth and me. It was in response to articles that I prod'ed, which the author (Llewelynpritchard) de-proded, and RHaworth subsequently moved to the author's user space. RHaworth replied here. Accurizer 11:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you tagged both of these pages for speedy deletion due to being copyright violations. I wanted to let you know that I have removed the speedy deletion tags. This is because copyright violations can only be speedily deleted if they are from a commercial content provider (see WP:CSD). Websites in the .org TLD are generally not commercial. Thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia free of copyright violations! Stifle (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self: The discussion regarding the adoption of this policy is here. Accurizer 23:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Accurizer! There are two potential policies I can see here.
One is that all the non-speedy dud articles could be userfied by RC Patrollers rather than AfD'd, perhaps with a Wikipedia:Articles for mainspace process (Newbies! Post the link to your finished new article here and an experienced editor will review it, clean it up and move it for you!) perhaps tacked on to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page with a template to tell the newbies where their article now is and what to do next. I would think that might get a fair bit of support, especially from the Welcoming Committee.
The other is the idea of restricting the ability of new users to post articles, similar to the restriction on moving articles that already exists. This has a lot of merit from an RC/CSD point of view. But I doubt the community would agree to it. When Jimbo introduced the "anons can't make new articles" software change, the screams echoed around Wikipedia for months as people complained that the change was anti-Wikispirit, WP:BITE-worthy, discriminatory etc. Also, it caused a whole new job for others at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I would imagine that this proposal would cause the same shrieks from around the 'pedia and would increase the workload at WP:AFC further.
So I'd say policy one has a 60% chance of success, whilst policy two has a 20% chance of success. That isn't to put you off, though! You might like to first propose the idea on the WikiEN mailing list, although that can sometimes be a bit of a free-for-all so do it when you're in a good mood and plan to stay that way! Alternatively, Wikipedia:How to create policy might be a start. Neither of these are quick, mind you. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 09:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For fixing up and making my first contribution looking good:) (Theodore Levitt)
Sincerely Bagdad-Bob
Question regarding school entries re: Beverly Hills High School[edit]
Hi.
I wanted to know if non-official school newspapers, such as the Beverly Underground, is even allowed to be added into the entry under Newsservice of the Beverly Hills High School article?
Isn't a school's page supposed to be a factual, and officious, representation of the school, not alternative factors?
I want your judgement on this one. Delete the sentence about Beverly Underground or leave it?
Hi, this is in response to the question you left on my talk page. I think the answer depends on whether or not the on-line newspaper is already notable. Of course, this is fairly subjective and since I have no connection to the school or its community, it is difficult for me to ascertain. In general terms, if the newspaper constitutes a ranting by a handful of students and they are simply trying to gain notoriety by having it mentioned in Wikipedia, then it should not be included. But, if the newspaper has a large following and it already notable, it should be included. As to where it should be addressed, if at all, I think it makes sense to place it in the "News services" section. Alternatively, if the newspaper is largely a criticism of the school, it could be mentioned in a new section, "Criticisms". However, since it is not an official publication, it certainly should not be mentioned in the infobox, as one editor tried to do (which I reverted). I hope this is helpful. Regards, Accurizer 14:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the future, I would definitely stick speedy delete tags on pages such as Goemaere101 instead of nominating them for AfD. — ßottesiηi(talk) 23:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate tons of articles for speedy deletion, but in this case, I don't see a WP:CSD that seems to apply. I tried to prod it but that didn't work. Which CSD criteria would you apply? Accurizer 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have probably put the patent nonsense tag on it. There's probably a better one though. — ßottesiηi(talk) 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accurizer, I need your help. See the entry "Moe Jaffe." Thanks!
APace361
Provided a proper copyright release is received, as noted on the article's talk page, it should not be deleted. I've looked at the most recent version, though, and it will need some work to satisfy the WP:NPOV policy. It should not read like a memorial. Accurizer 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Accurizer! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
