User talk:Corpx

Archive 1 Jan 07 -> Jan 07
Archive 2 Jan 07 -> May 07
Archive 3 May 07 -> Jul 07

Click here to leave a new message.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there (Unless explicitly stated otherwise)
If you start a message here, I will reply here (Unless explicitly stated otherwise)

Bush = Hitler?

Hello. I didn't realise I wasn't logged in before, so I'm logged in now.

Let's recap.

Equating George Bush with Adolph Hitler is fine but pointing out such a comparison is stupid is a personal attack is it? Bizarre. Let's see "Comment on content, not on contributors. " you told me. Well, I did. I called the comment stupid, which it was. I didn't call the commenter stupid, so your criticism of me seems rather ill judged - as it was a comment on the intelligence of the comment, rather than the person who made it.

The original commentator was the one defending the Nazis not me, saying they were only 'half bad' in effect. You might think that an intelligent comment, I beg to differ. Feel free to ban me, report me or complain to who you like. My integrity is more important to me. Stay cool. Nick mallory 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That warning was for this comment, which was later removed by somebody else. Calling a comment stupid is essentially questioning the contributor's intelligence. I'll gladly remove the warning, but isnt there a less harsh way to criticize ? Corpx 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

If you're going to delete pages you never read and bring in your friend MONGO to help vandalize wikipedia you're what's called a Vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsregistration (talk • contribs)

I dont even know who MONGO is Corpx 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Force Unleashed

The link I added to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed had information on the page that the Wikipedia article doesn't have, and has a unique FAQ and preview for the game, that the official page doesn't even have. Its a valuable resource for that page and I think it should remain as an external link. The link had remained there for a long time before it was removed recently. --68.61.92.212 01:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan sites like that are discouraged under WP:EXT though Corpx 01:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy blanking.

Per Jimbo's comments here --L^augh! 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should've put a link to that in the edit summary :) Corpx 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider that in the future. I might make a Wikipedia:Courtesy Blanking page too --L^augh! 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read about it and for this instance, I see no "cause harm to the subject (typically a person or organization)" by this being up Corpx 20:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't about whether the comments are harsh or not, so much as whether they could hurt feelings, and like Jimbo said, it's really no big deal. Afterall, if it needs to be restored, that's no problem. --L^augh! 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

I removed uncited info that was initially removed by another editor, but was readded by an anon. - See History of the page Corpx 04:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. Reputation ^Talk 04:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

wikipedia is an encylopedia. people want to learn about home exchanging. my post informs them about home exchanging. please leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yggep1 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Corpx 15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted?

Hi,

I was trying to add links to PDFs that people can print out to use as a reference in the external links section and you deleted them... Also links to the Hormone Foundation which explains the endocrine system - and how those specific diseases work (which are all within the endocrine system.) Other groups like medline are listed - and they tend to have their pages link to the hormone foundation pages, so I thought people would like to have the hormone foundation as a resource for furthering their research. On pages that are lacking, I have been adding some content and making notes of where to go back to later. I don't want to do all of this work to have it deleted. Now I'm blocked for 7 hours? I seriously am posting good info not spamming. What can I do?

Sarah Sarlafrock 20:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt block you, because I am not an administrator, but you kept adding the same links to every page. Maybe you should discuss the addition of links on a talk page before adding it to so many pages. Corpx 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD attention request

Not sure if this is out of order, but there's a somewhat contentions AfD (here) that has received little outside attention. Since the AfD was initiated, a number of single purpose accounts (likely sockpuppets) have started editing (and discussing on the talk page) the article; not !voting, fortunately. In any case, I wanted to see if some AfD regulars could stop by and weigh in. I'm not looking to sway !votes here—I haven't targeted deletionists; I'm asking editors that seem to !vote a lot on music-related AfDs. No reply is necessary but your opinion is valued. Pr 2.0 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont know enough about that stuff to chip in Corpx 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Marie Williams

I think that notability in general is a judgment call, if there is any basis, and if WP:V is fulfilled. I also think that I accurately reflected the consensus on that AfD, and that there was not the kind of gross policy violation that would justify a closer in overriding the consensus. If you disagree you are free to take the matter to Deletion Review or to start a new AfD -- i won't be offended in either case. I don't think Wikipedia would crumble without this article, but I see no valid reason not to have it either. I am aware that some disagree on principle in this sort of issue, but I don't believe their views are justified. However i honestly tried to asses the AfD, not to impose my own views. Do you think that I misread the consensus of those who actually commented in the AfD? How so, if so? DES ^(talk) 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Oh, I should add that I have come to distrust the google news archive as a proof of absence of coverage. It often seems not to include stories by significant news sources that can be found via regular google web searches if the stories are more than a few weeks old. In other cases storiese on the archive sites of significant news sources seem not to be found in regualr google web searches either -- perhaps they have disabled google spidering, as any site can do in the robots.txt file. So while google and google news can be excelant ways to find sources, i don't consider the lack of useful hits on google news persuasive of total absence of coverage. DES ^(talk) 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cmystudios

I speedy closed this discussion, as the article has already been rolled into this AfD by User:Shalom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but the article wasnt tagged for deletion since the AFD started. I think it'd be better to start over for it. Corpx 18:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Morgan

Where is his family? User:Michellekerchal

Its in the edit history. Corpx 06:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how is it uncited when it's seen By millions week By week--KingMorpheus 01:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have to cite it to an individual episode, without adding any kind of original research and without violating WP:PLOT Corpx 03:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

In the future, please as a courtesy, notify article creators of nominating their articles for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault Corpx 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I again urge you to consider spending some time improving articles as well. Imagine how many articles might be improved if you put the same effort into that as you do AfDs! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do improve articles. I guess I'm just impartial to articles about fiction. Corpx 01:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to focus overwhelmingly on AfDs, though. I looked at your contribs and noticed some "votes" even within the same minute, such as:

02:44, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Capp glossary (→Andy Capp glossary - D) (top)

02:44, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blast Arena Advance (D) (top)

02:01, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrisanthi Avgerou (→Chrisanthi Avgerou - D)

02:01, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isis in modern culture (→Isis in modern culture - D) (top)

02:04, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judas Iscariot in popular culture (→Judas Iscariot in popular culture - D) (top)

02:04, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pufferfish in popular culture (→Pufferfish in popular culture - D) (top)

To be honest, the rapidity of some of these and the incredible number that you participate in a single day does have me a little concerned that you may not be fully reading the articles and arguments and just "voting" out of principal, which is in part furthered by a number of the posts just saying something like "per Five" in almost cut and past fashion. Anyway, if you look at my early contribs from back in November of 2006, people took issue with so much focus on AfDs and doing them rapidly with similar arguments. So, I'd rather other editors not fall into the trap that I did. That's why I've focused much more effort on improving articles and limiting AfDs participation to a minimum. Anyway, as Eleonor Roosevelt said, "Learn from the mistakes of others; life's too short to make them all yourself," of something to that effect. Take care! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For almost every single "vote", I make sure to point out policy that I think the article in question violates. I dont see anything wrong with wanting to delete articles if they're in violation of policy. I'm not just saying "delete, because I dont like it" . I usually have a bunch of tabs open on 2 browsers during my "AFD session", so the time stamps may not be the way to judge my contribs there Corpx 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along these lines then, I thought I would ask you if there is a policy or guideline that states lists should be deleted in favor of categorizing their contents? Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, a guideline, seems to state that lists, categories and series boxes are to be used in synergy with eachother. It says nothing about deleting one in favor of the other. Since you advanced this argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rhythm guitarists, and since policy at WP:Deletion#Deletion_discussion states "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants should explain their opinion and refer to policy", I'm requesting information about the policy or guideline you derived this understanding from. Thank you very much. (Mind meal 03:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

WP:NOT says no to "list of loosely associated topics". In my opinion, that's a list of loosely associated topics. It'd be like creating a List of quarterbacks or List of point guards, when Category:Point guards and Category:American football quarterbacks exists. Corpx 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you start adding that rationale when voting along those lines, so that others will have the chance to further critique such reasoning. In the very section you mentioned, it states that "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". In the case of someone being a quarterback, please see List of 2006 National Football League quarterbacks and List of 2005 National Football League quarterbacks. In the case of football, the quarterback must be notable, which if they perform in the NFL they are notable. Musicians have no "league" in which they can be associated. They perform in genres and on specific instruments for which they are notable. I am very interested in your response, because I don't believe the comparison between sports personalities and musicians are at all the same. Also, what policy or guideline are you using that states that when a category exists dedicated to something specific that a list cannot also exist? It is just that i continue seeing arguments for deleting lists and placing them in categories, and I'd like to know what policy states this should be practiced.(Mind meal 05:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The list of 2005 NFL QBs is not a list of "loosely associated people". There is a set # of people who played QB that year and that's it. There is a strict criteria for inclusion into that list. For the guitarists, the pool of candidates is everyone who ever was a "rhythm guitarist". The policy is WP:NOT#DIR, which says WP is not for "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The List of American Football Quarterbacks is a much more comparable example because that would also be a list of everyone who ever played the QB position. Corpx 06:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree List of 2005 National Football League quarterbacks is not a list of "loosely associated people". I do not agree that musicians that perform rhythm guitar are "loosely associated". What else does a musician have to be notable for but for their technique and genre? I would like you to explain how a rhythm guitarist is not famous for playing rhythm guitar, using WP:NOT#DIR as the guideline? If the issue is that an individual may not fit the criteria, then that individual artist should be critiqued, not the entire list. It just does not sound right. Also, I still would like to know what policy states that lists should be deleted in favor of categorization. That is something I am even more troubled by. All of this smells of WP:POINT. Are you saying musicians must be categorized according to their respctive genres and styles by year? If so, you are advocating lists that will have duplicate information over and over again, and will be completely unmaintanable. (Mind meal 06:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not questioning the notability of any of the artists. I'm just saying that the list is a violation of WP:NOT due to how loose the inclusion criteria is and in such cases, a category should be used. I'm saying to delete this list, and tag each artist on the list with Category:Rhythm Guitarist Corpx 06:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have selected a very narrow portion of policy that simply does not say what you say it does. It states that "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". So you must be arguing that these guitarists are not, in fact, notable for playing rhythm guitar. That is the only argument that could be made here, because the very section of WP:NOT you keep referencing states what I just quoted for you. The list topic is musicians who perform rhythm guitar. That criteria for inclusion is far from loose; in fact, it is rather precise and defines greatly who can and who cannot appear there. It is not like List of guitarists, which is much more "loose". You are effectively advocating that one delete any list of musicians by style or instrument given your quite peculiar view on policy, and I will be considering seeking outside (nonpartisan) opinions on this matter so that we both might learn what policy actually says in this regard. Do you have consensus for your take? Right now we are arguing about whether a rock does or does not exist. Surely it either exists or it does not, and so it is with opinions on what language in a policy means. (Mind meal 06:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ryan Wehrle AFD

I left a delete vote that you should read in the AFD, as his Google hits are irrelevant in this case, (almost all minor league players and college baseball players get the same amount of Google hits) and this prospect isn't special (20th round pick). Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Connell66 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.

Attempted Edit

Corpx Please read below

Dear Editor,

I attempted to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BF2 on 28 July 07.

I wanted to add material about Battlefield 2 (BF2) and was warned, "Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia".

I was trying to provide readers a consolidated visual list of BF2 maps. I attempted to add the following link:

www.spartanwarfighters.net/3mid/6maps/maps.htm

I believe the content is appropriate.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated,

Richard

Login: Sfscriv —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfscriv (talk • contribs) 07:41, 28 July 2007.

This is a content issue, and thus we cannot actually comment on it. The best solution would be to contact the editor who warned you and discuss it with him. If you are unable to reach an agreement, then comment here and we'll do our best. But do talk to the user first.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 09:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it polite, of course, and remember that most editors are (quite rightly) strict about ELs and some are more or less strict than others. Adrian M. H. 09:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests"