User talk:KieferSkunk

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Deletion of Daniel Geduld Article

I would like to protest the speedy deletion of the Daniel Geduld article. The page has existed for quite some time and there was no opportunity to address your complaints. I believe that the significance of the article was there, that he is a voice actor and creator of an internet show that has been written about by NPR among others.--Dans1120 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the article because it appeared to contain no assertion of notability or any good sources. Upon further review, however, I've restored it and nominated it for deletion through the standard AfD process. If this article is to be kept, it needs more reliable, verifiable information from secondary and tertiary sources that prove this person is particularly noteworthy. Lots of voice actors don't get listed on Wikipedia because they've only had one role in a minor TV show, so unless there's something there that sets this person apart, this may end up going the same route. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! I hope it improves.--Dans1120 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dans1120 is the user dans on the Something Awful Forums, who posted this thread last night which prompted the nomination for speedy deletion. That editor added the following material to the article which violates almost every condition of WP:BLP:

reinserted the unsourced line, "Other entrepreneurial accomplishments of Daniel J. Geduld include a "pay-per-torrent" site, an original concept in which users pay to download torrents of movies that are otherwise freely available."

added the line, "Mr. Geduld is often fond of quipping, "I choose logic" when the subject of religion is the topic of conversation."

inserted the citation, "{cite web | title=Bad stand up comedy |date=March 20, 2006 | url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzvyp5b03zM | accessmonthday=November 5 | accessyear=2007}" for the unsourced (and WP:BLP violation) line "It is theorized that Geduld's marijuana bar was intended to host an audience that would, when under the influence, find his stand-up routine funny." Which had clearly been added by an anonymous user to defame the subject of the article.

And added the unsourced image -which is almost certainly a copyvio- of the subject eating a bug, then placed that at the head of the article.

His only vested interest in keeping this article on Wikipedia is clearly so he can continue to defame him. That editor has a history of vandalism in which he is often assisted by other members of the SomethingAwful Forums. Cumulus Clouds 04:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

For instance, 74.134.250.229 edited the article's talk page to read "this guy is gay." That same user edited your talk page with the comment "dans is a cool guy." This is probably an SA Forums user who has participated in the past with vandalizing that article. Cumulus Clouds 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, why didn't I modify the page when it was reverted. Before that, I simply added an uncopyrighted photograph, caption and a citation.--Dans1120 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I figured it would probably be best to let the article go through a more formal AfD so, if nothing else, it could get wider admin attention. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

With your permission, I'd like to report Dans1120 to ANI for his frequent vandalism. Cumulus Clouds 05:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need my permission to do that. I don't feel that anything written here is vandalism, though, so it's your call. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

dans is a cool guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.250.229 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna need more than that to go on. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wanna...

If you wanna tweak it to block email be my guest. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Look here. Thing about me is I'm not the greatest with explaining things a lot. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he's back again today and editing as notFnagton on your page Kwsn. Sorry you had to get involved in situation with such an intense wacko so soon after becoming admin's. Both of you. --Marty Goldberg 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[Finding Nemo 2]

I see you performed a speedy deletion on an article undergoing an AfD. While I'm sure no one objects, you may want to close the AfD: [1] Cheers! --Hyperbole 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I actually missed that AfD. Thanks for the notice - I see someone else took care of closing it. I arrived at the page from CAT:CSD and just speedy-deleted it without reviewing the AfD. I see that I was in line with the consensus there, but I'll make sure to pay more attention to those in the future. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Adverbs

I take your point about WP:NOT not providing reasons for speedy deletion; but as a fairly recent recruit to the RC patrol, I'd be glad of your advice. I have been concentrating on the {endless flow of) obvious no-hopers needing speedy deletion, and have several times found it hard to find an appropriate reason in CSD, particularly with:

1) rambling articles about nothing much, obviously unencyclopedic but too long for "nocontext", not about a person so not "bio", not quite incoherent enough for "nonsense".

2) school-project type definitions of things already thoroughly covered in Wikipedia. Is there, for instance, no CSD reason that would have fitted that "List of adverbs"?

The first time I tried a ProD, the originator promptly took it off again without amending the article. As the wording on the template says "you may remove this template if you object for any reason ... if removed it should not be replaced", ProD seems to me fairly toothless for newly created articles, whose proud authors are still watching them; then we are back to AfD, which seems a sledgehammer to crack some fairly trivial nuts.

Any advice appreciated! - JohnCD 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm pretty new to this myself, so I'm not sure how much advice I can really give. But in general, if an article talks about some person, group, company, website, music band, etc., and doesn't give an indication of notability, it qualifies under CSD A7, which states that an article must have an assertion of notability. WP:N further sets the bar for what kinds of sources and information will satisfy that criterion. A7 is pretty broad, so it will cover a lot of things that other criteria don't.

That said, "List of Adverbs" is a topic that really could only have a WP:NOT rationale placed against it. It might qualify for "no context", but the context is pretty easy to discern (it's an article about a part of speech). It doesn't really qualify under A7 because it's an abstract concept rather than a concrete entity the article is describing. And the CSDs specifically say that, by itself, any reason derived from WP:NOT doesn't qualify for speedy deletion.

That means this particular article kinda falls in a bit of a grey area, and in cases like that, I either don't touch it and let a more experienced admin handle it, or I convert the CSD into an AfD or PROD, as appropriate. Since you said you tried PROD already, AfD is really the only remaining alternative.

Hope this helps. I'm learning as I go along, so if you were to ask me this again in a couple months, I'd probably have more info for you. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion proposal follow-up

Thank you for taking the time to speak to me on my talk page about the Corning (Amtrak station). I certainly do not wish to interfere with consensus, but the speedy deletion process would not have allowed time for any consensus to be constructed. I should have told you of my actions on your talk page, sorry about that, and I thank you for extending the courtesy that I failed to extend. Cheers!--MrFish^{Go Fish} 03:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) For future reference, if an article is nominated for speedy-deletion, you can place a {{hangon}} tag directly below the CSD template, so that admins are notified that you intend to improve the article. Note that this may not save the article from being deleted, but in "edge cases" like this one, it would probably help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD:A7

Hi. :) I came upon an article you had tagged for deletion by criterion A7, The Story of a Noble Family. I just wanted to remind you that A7 is specifically very narrow and does not at this time apply to films. There is a somewhat current conversation (gone a little dormant as such conversations do) about expanding A7 to include the products of speedily deleted individuals here, in case you'd care to weigh in. Meanwhile, films will have to be addressed through PROD or AfD unless they meet other criteria. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll pay more attention to that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

smile

99.230.152.143 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.

Atari 2600

Another problem for you to take a look at. An anonymous IP (which today also registered as Tokchief) keeps removing the "Notable Games" section (5 times in the past week). Originally it was a gallery section, which (when correctly removed) I put back just the info. Then I trimmed down the list and kept it at just games that had actual references on their notability, and provided these references. These include 1UP, GameSpy, and the AtariTimes - all well known verifiable reference sources. Now I could see even possibly putting it in to more of a paragraph format, if you think it makes a difference. But this guy's repeated removal of referenced material and taunting in the edit summaries is getting a little ridiculous. --Marty Goldberg 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged the section with {{prose}} and added some commentary to the Talk page about it. That should hopefully help. The other editor has a point that there's no real context in that section (despite the references) to indicate why those games are notable. Prose will help, and will also make the section more encyclopedic. I don't see anything else that really needs to be done at the moment, but if he continues to delete the section, politely ask him to discuss on Talk first. Also be aware of WP:3RR - that applies to you as well as him. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion on this, how can we as an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral present information that says these games are somehow "notable". There is no authority on decided what games are notable for this platform. --Tokchief

Also it should not matter if I edit as my IP address or not. The point still stands. --Tokchief —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokchief (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tokchief: Please review the WikiProject article guidelines on notable content, as well as the notability policy itself. There is a case for calling out at least some of these games because they had significant cultural impact on the industry and/or community, or the console's success, or any combination thereof. We don't hit POV if we explain the notability in terms of objective facts, such as sales numbers and review scores. We DO hit POV if our justification for putting in a particular game is just WP:ILIKEIT. Does that help? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanian Chess Championship

Please see Talk:Albanian Chess Championship Voorlandt (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

64-bit

Your even hand is needed again, over at 64-bit‎. There's currently a discussion going on at its talk page, and Theaveng keeps removing referenced paragraphs and rewriting the intro paragraph (into personal opinion) against this discussion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a note for User:Theaveng asking him to stop using the edit summaries as a place for discussion. I'll keep an eye on it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, someone else had already warned him on his page regarding another thread. He just removed references again as well. This guy is really emotional, gets personal in his writing (look at the recent C64 edit history), and really tries hard to ignore or reinterpret the standard way of doing things on Wikipedia. He won't come up with any references to the contrary, just keep re-editing things to his personal opinion. He even tried rewriting the entire entry lead to 64-bit to support his view because I had cited a section of it in one of my edit summaries. I told him he needs to provide references to the contrary and not just edit on personal opinion. I'm almost ready to cite him for his attitude and conduct over at the complaint board. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen his name come up in related discussions before. He's received a number of warnings - might be time to ask for intervention from more experienced admins. If/when you make a report, link me to it - I'd like to read the discussion so I can be more effective in situations like this in the future. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Now he's gone and made changes to the Jaguar article to support continued edits at the 64-bit article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And he keeps making repeated edits there directly against the Jaguar's own developer manual. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the entire Jaguar section from the 64-bit so it stops his continued disruptive editing, and the discussion is just focused to the talk page there. However, he's still continuing the disruptions at Atari Jaguar claiming the developer's manual Atari released is a not a valid reference to the hardware because its "biased". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, if you feel that his edits are disruptive, take it up at WP:ANI - there's not a whole lot I can do about this at the moment. (I do not really have the time right now to police things, and I also don't have the experience.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

*pokes*

So...it's been at least a month now..how's adminship been for you? Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not bad! I've done a whole bunch of speedy-deletes, mainly, and I've continued helping with discussion and done a few admin-style reverts. That part has been kinda fun and is along the lines of the sorta gnome-like work I like to do. But as you can see from above discussions, I'm getting asked to personally intervene in a few things where I don't really have the experience or expertise to do so. That can be a little frustrating, but I'm sure it comes with the territory. Doing my best to learn as I go, though. :) Thanks again - I really appreciate it. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)