User talk:Slakr

slakr's life is currently frolicking with chaos, so his activity and response times to queries will be highly variable. Leave a message and he will respond whenever he gets a chance— that is, assuming he gets a chance. Cheers =) zOMG!!! I need urgent assistance!!!1!! — banana? — kiwi?

---

Ideally, please use this link to post new messages at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)

---

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Click here to start a new talk topic

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Regarding slakr: Why did my page get deleted? Please see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? first. I have no idea what you're talking about. What's vandalism? If you received a warning from me and you're not logged in, you might have gotten an old warning I sent to someone who shares your IP address. On the other hand, if you've made recent edits and received a recent warning message from me and you genuinely believe that it's not vandalism, don't fret-- simply drop me a message below, because I could have simply made a silly mistake. :) Regarding SineBot: Why does SineBot keep signing stuff I've already signed? All comments should have a signature that includes both a link to your user page (slakr) and a datestamp (05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)) (per signatures - internal links). This is most easily generated by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your contributions, which makes something like "slakr 05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)". If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing. If you're still having problems after trying that, post a message below. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. I don't want my comments signed by SineBot. How do I get it to ignore me or my talk page? Please use one of the opt-out methods listed on its user page. SineBot forgot to sign something it should have signed. Usually this happens because the bot isn't sure if it really should sign something, so it defaults to not signing it (e.g., in cases of complex edits). It does this to avoid being annoying. Other times, a comment might be made when the bot is down for maintenance, so the bot simply never sees it. SineBot signed something that it genuinely should not have signed. Please let me know-- especially if you think it's not a one-time thing. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. Is SineBot's source code available? Not currently. I'm signing with four tildes (~~~~) but it's still saying I didn't! You likely enabled raw signatures. Open your preferences, click the "User profile" tab, make sure that "Treat the above as wiki markup" is NOT checked, and click Save; it should be fixed. If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing.

Hey sorry but i don't know what a tilde is, in spanish a tilde is an accent, since my keyboard is in spanish i don't know where to find that symbol, and you guys delete my posts for something as ridiculous as that? so my opinion isn't valid because i don't have a freaking tilde?

I don't understand what you want

I have read this site for hours and tried to comply with everything yet you deleted both my article and my talk page within minutes without even giving me a reply. I really feel I am wasting my time. How can I talk about a particular piece of software without you saying it is blatant advertising? There are tons of articles just the same as the one I submitted. Look here Game Engines. Am I not allowed to start with a "stub" at least? I can't finish one big article in just one day, just to have it deleted. I am really trying here but I think you're a little trigger happy with the Delete button. Some meaningful help would be appreciated. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLGX (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that you're clearly attempting to promote your software, and it's reflected in the article's tone and text—it's obviously promotional. Furthermore, it clearly fails our notability guidelines for inclusion. --slakr^\ talk / 03:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean to tell me that all the applications listed at Game Engines that are on Wikipedia have more notability? There are like a hundred of them. But none can say they support the Web3D open standards. I am trying to understand you but I still can't say that I do. I know you're busy and have little time for reply but so am I and I spent hours yesterday working on your site. Thanks, GLGX (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to nominate other articles for deletion. --slakr^\ talk / 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

please help me with my article

Article titled Nuqudy has been deleted by you on grounds of a lack of notability. How would you change the article? Khalil al-Rahman (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see "why was my page deleted". It needs to demonstrate notability and cite some verifiable, reliable, secondary sources demonstrating its notability. --slakr^\ talk / 03:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Grizzly Tobacco

Good evening, Slakr. Earlier today I created an entry into the Wikipedia.Grizzly_tobacco And for some reason, You have deleted it, I read what you had posted on the entry, And if I may, or if it is even possible, See the previous entry on the "Grizzly Tobacco" subject. Secondly, by what I read("(G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly tobacco)") Are you pointing towards, Because another person had created the page badly, It cannot be remade? My page was almost an exact copy of Copenhagen_(tobacco) Yes theirs is still open? What I am getting at is, What was wrong with it, And what would I need to fix.

--OutlaW1211 (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Typically if the community decides via a deletion discussion that an article should be deleted for a particular reason via consensus, in order for the article to be re-created it should fix the issues that led to it being deleted in the first place. In this instance, consensus believed that it was clearly promotional in nature, and in the most recent incarnation, the exact same deletion rationale would have applied, especially with phrases like the following, "The legendary Grizzly flavor with a crisp, smooth finnish," "A satisfying and crisp wintergreen tobacco," etc. Furthermore, it could have just as easily been deleted due to it being blatantly promotional.

Please see our policies and guidelines, our conflicts of interest guideline, and our spam guideline.

As far as other articles go, you're free to nominate other pages for deletion, however, you should be sure that the pages in question do, indeed, violate our policies and guidelines otherwise your request will likely be declined.

--slakr^\ talk / 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

laptop for all

hello there,

I wonder how not to accept Laptop for all initiative as an important subject and definition since it is very important to the Palestinian community. Such initiative is a nationwide one and could be replicated worldwide for the poor.

I kindly ask to re-upload the page, if you want , please advise of the changes you want me to make to make it live.

thank you in advance; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdmanager (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting your cause. Please see our notability guidelines for inclusion, your first article, and the conflicts of interest guideline. --slakr^\ talk / 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

why did u delete my page

What the hell did my page do it was for information reason u asshole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichgo245 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 December 2010

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Your article, We Over Laugh, did not meet our notability guidelines for inclusion, and although it might be "for information," as an encyclopedia, we're not an indiscriminate source of information. Also please note that personal attacks are also highly frowned upon in the community, as we value civility, so while I don't really care if you believe I'm an asshole, I'd highly suggest that you avoid calling others one, as well. --slakr^\ talk / 03:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't delete bthebusinessnetwork for the sake of modern business and improving social commerce!

Please re-consider the deletion of bthebusinessnetwork www.bthebusinessnetwork.com. The website lowers production costs and fossil fuel consumption of the business that use it, because it is a free online office where people can send each other work files, work on them, and discuss them individually, or in groups at the same time, anywhere in the world. The website also provides people with links to all the government websites (state and federal) that allow them to create their own business and pay their taxes online. This website IS significant in the world of business and it should be recognized by Wikipedia.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch39everts (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's blatantly promotional, lacks any credible assertion of notability, and is an obvious conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. Also, when discussing an article, please avoid wikispamming it. Please see our policies and guidelines for more information. --slakr^\ talk / 03:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

10:41, 29 December 2010 Slakr (talk | contribs) deleted "IClothing" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD G11), was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something.)

Hi Slakr,

I recently put up the iClothing page which was deleted. I have since rewritten the page to more closely follow the wikipeda guidelines and would like to post my new content up. How do I go about doing this?

Afpdb10 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as the article no longer meets other speedy deletion criteria, you can simply re-create it. If it does, however, it might be deleted again. --slakr^\ talk / 07:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

bthebusinessnetwork

Hey, I was checkin out the bthebusinessnetwork.com site and i think you shouldn't delete the page that was made for it. it looks like a pretty good site and i think it could end up being a really big and impportant thing for businesses. you should actually make an account and check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neolava2191 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I should note that single-purpose accounts, sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry are all strongly discouraged practices on Wikipedia and will frequently lead to blocks for disruption for abusers. --slakr^\ talk / 07:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ray Tenorio

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, and would enjoy some help with the page of the Lieutenant Governor-elect of Guam. The USER: Scanlan, continues to input biased information, which is verifiable, but I believe to be defamatory, considering Ray Tenorio goes into office in a few days. My edit is Neutral, and does not put Ray Tenorio in such a horrible light. Please help with this.

-Jeff

User: Mrgates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgates (talk • contribs) 06:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Dave (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Pong! Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 07:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK rules change

Hi Slakr. I noticed you changed the DYK rules change template. I'm not sure if you've been following the discussion at WT:DYK over the past couple of months, but reviewing another nomination is now one of the requirements along with the existing requirements regarding article length, creation date, etc., so the change you made was not quite accurate. Perhaps we can work out a phrasing that's less "demanding" while still being clear that the requirement exists? 28bytes (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody was complaining about the wording being too harsh in #wikipedia-en-help, and I agreed with their complaint. Consider: we avoid using that kind of language on any guideline/policy page, because they're exactly that—guidelines and policies that, technically speaking, can be ignored if the situation permits. Granted, I'm not involved in DYK at all, but again, it's a sort of lax-rules-throughout-the-community sort of thing. On top of that, psychologically it's usually ideal that people think they have a choice when following a rule if you want them to follow it in order to avoid psychological reactance—especially amongst people who would otherwise happily follow the rule (i.e., DYK regulars). That said, if you truly believe that the wording should be harsher, I won't interfere should you/others decide to change it back. --slakr^\ talk / 04:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not intended to be harsh (although it may have come across that way), just intended to give folks a heads-up to a new nomination requirement. I'll play around with the wording a bit and see if I can get the heads-up across in a more friendly way. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, it's really just a suggestion. Now that I'm thinking about it, though, we don't have anything else similar to a participation requirement anywhere else in the community (that I know of), so DYK would be the first place such a requirement would be enacted. --slakr^\ talk / 05:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote it to (I hope) be more friendly. Let me know what you think. The requirement itself is one of the few DYK proposals (out of something like 20) in the past year on WT:DYK that actually got near-unanimous consensus to implement. With WikiCup kicking off January 1, it will be interesting to see if this helps us keep ahead of the nominations and be able to get them reviewed quickly. Nothing's more irritating to a nominator than having their nomination languish unreviewed for weeks, and then someone finds a serious problem with it. Hopefully we'll be able to cut down on that with the new requirement. 28bytes (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, for competitions and stuff, make whatever rules you want; people don't have to participate in the competition to create content anyway. :P I'm just saying that when it comes to the wording of any "rule," people who want to follow the rules will more likely follow them when they're given the much-less-favored and much-less-popular option of not following them, as well. This particularly applies to those targeted by the rule—that is, DYK veterans. When presented the choice of either helping to review or not posting DYKs (i.e., an absolute rule), there is a significant danger that they'll actually choose the latter and not post a DYK if they simply don't like to review or don't feel like reviewing DYKs on a given day. Furthermore, for those who are more "content creators" than "content reviewers," a creator will be more likely to give a sub-standard review just to meet the minimum requirements of the rule. If, on the other hand, you encourage them to choose to help by reviewing (i.e., not force them to) by using strongly suggestive language that it's a community norm, then they'll be more likely to take it upon themselves as content creators to help in the review process, but they won't ever have to truly make the choice between creating and reviewing. Furthermore, in instances where they have a small about of time, either to review or create, they're still able to create without worrying that their creation will be discarded on the technicality of having not submitted a review.

You can apply the same logic to other areas of Wikipedia. We don't force article creators to review afds before creating new articles, nor do we force people to participate in featured/good article reviews before creating/nominating featured/good articles. We encourage people to be bold in creating things, and then engage in the review process if there's disagreement. In particular, this is our way of trying to avoid the 1% rule and keep content flowing. The trend also extends to real life: we don't force people to be film critics before creating films, for example. As a general rule of thumb, you can always find plenty of critics, while finding good creators tends to be much more in demand, so bright-line rules (and wording suggesting them) that aim to increase review at the cost of decreasing creation should be very carefully considered and reviewed in order to ensure that neither creation nor review suffers too significantly as a consequence.

That said, this is just my $0.02. :P

--slakr^\ talk / 10:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Very well put, and I can't say I disagree with any of that. Interestingly, "decreasing creation", or more accurately finding some way of decreasing the inflow of nominations, was one of the things proposed to deal with the review backlogs, although (fortunately, IMO) that one didn't gain consensus. Though as you say, fewer nominations may be a side effect of the quid-pro-quo requirement; I hope it won't be a big one. 28bytes (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I was the complaining editor on IRC :) and I think the wording as it is now is much better, less "you must must must", more friendly to the "volunteer" idea. I don't know exactly how this will be enforced (if I wrote 5 DYKs in 2007 and left for three years, do I need to review one? How would anyone know how many DYKs I have? Is a single hook with five articles one credit or five? etc.) but I think a little leniency if someone is unable to review another nom and assuming good faith that most users will help review hooks is good. Thanks both, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I think you and slakr are both right that the original text was a little... dictatorial. As for the nuts and bolts of implementation... there have been some lengthy discussions that touched on those questions, and the consensus was to allow hook-for-hook reviewing, i.e. even if you self-nominate six articles wrapped up in one hook, you'd still qualify by reviewing a single-article hook. I think there were about four tied straw polls before that finally got settled. I think most of the DYK'ers are going to be pretty lenient about it anyway, because even if only half of the nominators actually provide a useful review, that will still be a great ease on the reviewing burden, and those of us who review more than we nominate can easily pick up the slack. 28bytes (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Top Priority: Error/Bug

IF YOU ARE NOT THE OWNER OF SINEBOT, THEN PLEASE ERASE THIS MESSAGE NOW. IF YOU ARE THE OWNER OF SINEBOT, THEN SINEBOT SAID, "YOU MUST SIGN YOUR COMMENTS/EDITS WITH FOUR TILDES BY TYPING A SIGNATURE IN THE EDIT BOX." I DO NOT KNOW WHICH 'EDIT BOX', THEREFORE I WILL NOT AND SHALL NOT SIGN. IF I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NEED TO SIGN (LIKE THE WORLD IS, WILL, AND SHALL, END), THEN PLEASE OPEN AN ARTICLE TITLED 'How to sign username' IMMEDIATELY IF YOU ARE AN ADMINISTRATOR, OR REDIRECT ME TO A LINK OR SITE THAT HAS A SIMILAR OR SUCH NAME OR SITE IF YOU ARE NOT AN ADMINISTRATOR. PLEASE HELP IMMEDIATELY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.14.81 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me make a few things perfectly clear:

1. I don't get paid for this; I'm a volunteer. This is a non-profit organization. Therefore I decide what's top priority when it comes to the things I create in my spare time. Millions of other people, including me, give you the same respect, too—you just don't realize it. After all, we don't come to your happy place and tell you how to spend your time, so please extend the same courtesy when it comes to me.
2. When visiting the happy places of others, you have two choices: abide by their rules and their guidelines or don't. If you choose not to follow their rules, you'll likely be asked to leave. Granted, in certain situations, it is absolutely necessary to ignore those rules and guidelines, but for the rest of the time, including this particular situation, they should be followed, mainly because the people that live in the house say they should be followed. For example, if you go to a friend's house and one of their house rules requires that you "leave your shoes on the table," then you have two choices: leave your shoes on the table or don't enter the house. If you can't figure out what the "table" is or what "shoes" are, then either you will choose to learn new vocabulary words or you will find yourself outside of the house by chain of events.
3. On the internet, typing in ALL CAPS is the same thing as shouting in real life. What you just did is akin to entering a complete stranger's apartment and shouting—in their face and at the top of your lungs—that you have an ultimatum: either they tell you what "tables" and "shoes" are by creating a plaque on the wall detailing the definition or you'll force your way into their house anyway—rules be damned.
4. Everything you want to know about signing is already in the signatures guideline (the "plaque" you demanded), as you were informed by the bot's message.
5. Judging by your general approach, to avoid being asked to leave in the future, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly the civility guideline. Also, when posting messages on talk pages, you should get in the habit of posting them at the bottom of the page—regardless of how important you think it is—and you should avoid editing the comments of others. It's a "house guideline" of ours.

Hope that helps.

--slakr^\ talk / 09:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

KLAS Enterprises, LLC

Excuse me, Slakr, but you are wrong. I created a stub for this company that is referred to elsewhere in the Wikipedia (did you bother to check the links?) with the intent to get back to it later and flesh it out, and you speedy-deleted it. Your remark that it was "blatant advertising" is way off. This is an important company doing extremely valuable research. I have no affiliation or personal stake in this company, just happen to know about their work. I have been a contributor to the Wikipedia for some six and a half years, have made thousands of contributions and have created many articles. I urge you to undelete the article and give me a chance to get back to it and add more information. Pasquale (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If I may quote from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." Pasquale (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)