User talk:Wafulz

Something Awful

You're right-- IIRC, PayPal dropped them because of the porn forum. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

re John Rex

I have attempted to discuss this matter with the contributor (see talk:John Rex) previously. Perhaps a third party comment there (from you) might help? LessHeard vanU 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have noted (and thank you for) your comments on the talk page. The contributor, an old school scholar, needs helping toward providing a decent little article - I hope/think it is worthwhile. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition of the tone tage to Peter Maffay

Hi Wafulz. I was just wondering if you could clarify the addition of the ton tag to this article for me please? It states that the article is not written in the formal style of an encyclopedia article, yet the article entered on the English Wiki is a direct translation of th one on the German Wikipedia, which is where I translated it from. If you could suggest to me some ways in which the article needs improvement, or give me some guidance as to why you added the tone tag, it would help me to reform the article and bring it up to standard. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 12:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the information you left for me with regards to this article. I realise from reading the bits you left just why you say that its not written in the formal style. I don't have monopoly on the article, so please feel free to change anything else you don't agree with within the text. I will change some of the stuff you told me about and if you feel that there is anything else wrong, feel free to help and review the article once the things have been changed. Once again, thanks for your help and input. It makes my life a lot easier! Thor Malmjursson 15:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Political cults

It should be obvious that there is no way to come to a compromise on this. If you go to the article "Fred Newman" you will see that the username Babydweezil has been engaged in the most extraordinary antics to censor and control all information regarding the Fred Newman organization (aka Social Therapy and the International Workers Party) and its leaders. Essentially, this individual or group of individuals suddenly erupt on an article with aggressive, nonstop attacks, apparently hoping to win control of the article through sheer intimidation. (The group in question used similar tactics in invading liberal social action organizations in the 1980s to try to seize control and drive away anyone who disagreed--today we are merely seeing an Internet version of such tactics.) The problem of cults engaging in such behavior on Wikipedia has a long history (see the articles on Lyndon LaRouche circa about 2 years ago) and one for which Wiki has yet to establish workable means of amelioration. So be even-handed if that is your choice; I just wanted you to know that this is not a typical Wikipedia dispute.--Dking 21:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Marc Lepine

Thanks for your very helpful improvements and corrections to this article. I often don't quite know how to best achieve things! --Slp1 01:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, the Wikisource link was actually a complete fluke. I just though "Hmm... maybe this will work" and huzzah, it did! --Wafulz 01:40, 17 January 2007(UTC)

The article Greeks does mention this in the opening paragraph. I'm not aware of a scholarly distinction between ancient Greeks of Italy and of Greece proper, therefore your theory is just a personal point of view. Miskin 12:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay-Z

Check the discussion page of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.149.61 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for assistance in Reverting Vandalism

Thanks for helping to stop recent vandalism attacks[1] on the Green Hope High School article. Your help is much appreciated. Nimur 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia

It looks like the deletion police are trying to circumvent a previous AFD again. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. As you voted keep, could you cast your vote again? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

You seems to be interested in participating in RFA sometime in the future. I'd like to point out a couple quick notes:

• Low Wiki talkspace edits: This is crucial, I can guarantee the first oppose vote will be on this if you submit an RFA at this moment. You've joined several WikiProjects, so participate more in project discussions would be a start on getting your wiki talks up (especially Ice Hockey! Coming from another Canadian =P). It seems that you haven't posted in WP:VP also. This might also be an issue, as some user may oppose your RFA on that.

• Interaction with other users: It seems to me that majority of your user talk is on warning users and other non-encyclopedic issues. This is not a big deal at all, but some users might question you on that.

On a last note, one of the most important factor on deciding an RFA is "why do you need the tools". You are very active in participating in WP:AIV, WP:AFD and occationally WP:RPP. But if that's the only ones, then it might not be enough (too many RFA states that they merely want to help out with WP:AIV and WP:AFD backlogs, and the response is usually "Adminship is not just about those"). This is just for perfection.

Overall, you've shown consistency, appreciation and understanding of policies (per AFD discussions and review, I haven't look at them but I am assuming they are reasonable since you have a lot of them) and good quality on editing articles (Both Dominik Hašek and Sidney Crosby have FA potential). Very all-round user! If you can improve your edit count on Wikipedia talkspace to somewhere around 100, I'd be the first one to nominate you. Remind me when you are ready :) Cheers! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 19:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Fight Paris logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fight Paris logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

New York Botanical Garden

Hi: Sorry it took so long to respond to this. In answer to your question, yes, we own the copyright to that material I posted, my team and I wrote it ourselves. My sincere apologies for not meeting the manual of style guidelines. We'll research that and resubmit it. Our intention was to give a broader listing of The New York Botanical Garden then what is currently on Wikipedia right now. I am probably not the most tech-savvy person to be doing this. We do have a fact sheet about the Garden. Might that be a better document to add on as an addendum to the current entry? Thanks again for your feedback.

You wrote: Hi, you recently added a lot of copyrighted text to the article on New York Botanical Garden. As the PR person from the place in question, do you actually have the permission to copy this text under the GNU Free Documentation License? (Either way the text will have to be rewritten to an extent to meet our manual of style guidelines and neutrality policies). I've reverted the edit for the moment until you can clarify the copyright status. If you want to contact me just add a message to the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. --Wafulz 23:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kikstad" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikstad (talk • contribs)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Solar_Empire. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

My last RfA/me

Hi Wafulz! You opposed my last RfA in late November 2006. There were opposes citing civility and inexperience with policy. It's about 3 months after that, and I think I've gained more experiance in policy and more emotional stability on-wiki. Recently I've been doing a bit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam stuff, though this last week I haven't had a great deal of time. Anyway, I was considering an RfA in a month or two, and I wanted to ask a few people if they had any recommendations as to what I should to or criticisms over the last few months. Thanks for reading! ST47Talk 01:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

random

Sorry, but I just don't see the point in randomly deleting articles. Or it seems random to me. Yes I understand the notion behind notability (I did do history back at school :-) ) even if the WP page makes no sense (what's new?), but that doesn't mean I have to like or agree with them in relation to how WP plays with them. They seem fundamentally flawed at times. I don't particularly care either way if Solar Empire is kept or deleted (I didn't create the initial article though I did edit it somewhat to correct things) but I do care that it's a fully formed article and it's being deleted because a bunch of people who've never heard of it can't find suitable sources. If you like, take a look at SE history, I can't but maybe you can. You'll see that originally it was filled with lots of names of people and clans (I think someone was trying to pat themselves on their back), and even though one of those names was mine I tidied it up to make it into a more suitable encylopedia article.

As to being incivil - I know what that means and you don't need to point to the WP entry for it (why am I not surprised there is an entry?) for it. I do it when I'm peeved. At least I apologise for it at the same time (doing so at the same time is pretty uncommon in my experience). 81.106.142.175 01:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I pointed out the incivility is because you're doing it. Apologizing at the same time doesn't do anything - it's the equivalent of "Don't take this personally, but you're really stupid." Don't be incivil when you're peeved. Don't be incivil at all- it's better to just take some time to go for a walk or watch some TV, and then to come back and reply.

Unfortunately, we don't base deletions on how much work was put into the article. We base them on how many secondary sources are available. Every game has lots of names and peoples and clans. In fact, every single online game I've played would fall under this category. However, only one of them ever had an article, and I understand perfectly that it's due to a lack of reliable sources. If nobody can find suitable sources, an article will be deleted. Sorry. --Wafulz 16:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concept but that doesn't mean I think it works for these things. Many significant online presences will not get "reliable secondary sources" and therefore will not be documented in WP. I don't see why the notability requires for web stuff are so overly strict - it's not like WP has a finite amount of pages or something. 81.106.142.175 21:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is an encyclopedia, meaning everything has to come from a secondary source or a reliable primary source (ie a census). If we start making exceptions for one thing, then we have to make exceptions for everything, and the whole slippery slope becomes a mess. --Wafulz 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)