Jump to content

User talk:Fabrictramp/Archive 05

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Fabrictramp

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 13:49, 14 June 2009 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from User talk:Fabrictramp.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is an excellent reason for my actions...

... I completely screwed up! I completely forgot dead end was for outgoing links. I was cursing and muttering to myself about "stupid people using non standard orphan templates" that have completely bamboozled orphanbot and carefully replacing each tag (even making sure to keep the date). Damn, I'm sorry. Thank you for noticing my misguided rampage and for fixing some of them. How many did you catch? I must have tagged a couple of hundred over the weekend. I'll try to go through and self revert. DAMN! So where's my trout? That's gotta be a trout worthy stuff up! Cheers, Paxse (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you have that trout with a little herb butter and a nice salad. Sounds like a glass of your favorite beverage might be in order, too. :)
I only saw the two I mentioned, and then only because I went to this toolserver page to update the list of pages needing deadend tags and saw two had been visited by me before. Seemed odd, so I checked it out.
Don't stress too much about any you didn't catch, as they're somewhere in the toolserver list and will get retagged eventually. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Coincidently, I was working from this very similar toolserver page when I began to mass revert your tagging - doh! The herb butter sounds damn fine, I think I'll just go and get the G&T now. :) Paxse (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've closed 3 AFDs on minor league players thanks to you

I've heard you say in the past that you're not a big fan of NACS but due to your sourcing these articles, I felt it ok to close these despite a few "drive by vague wave" delete !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As the originator of the AfDs (I was wasn't I?) I just want to say that I think that is the right thing to do (admin or not), and I appreciate all the work that Fabrictramp put into these articles, all 22ish. kelapstick (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem on these Ron. You're the exception to my "not a fan" rule, because I've never seen you close an AfD without putting thought into it. And thanks for the appreciation Kelapstick. I wouldn't have gotten off the stick (pun intended) to work on this (insert some Daily Show type phrase here that alludes to the overwhelming number of articles that needed evaluation) without your great work on sorting the 200 articles in question.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
And to think I just got (figuratively) yelled at on my talk page for closing Trey Hearn early. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I respect DGG immensely, but sometimes he needs to lighten up. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
He tries to save articles. That's always a good thing. My position on the whole "7 days is 7 days is 7 days" thing is here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, and I think they were snowballable, even if it wasn't said in the closing.--kelapstick (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't like to say "snow" for AFDs with unwithdrawn "delete" !votes (even "drive by per noms") or for AFDs that are being closed anywhere within the neighborhood of of 7 days. Also, "snow" is overused in AFD, especially by non admins. It's only appropriate for articles where it's obvious to any reasonable person that the article is not going to be deleted (ie George W Bush) or articles that fall under WP:OUTCOMES if there are no arguments for deletion besides the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Haiku Poetry of Stevardo 56

Hi to Fabrictramp,Tried to delete ALL on my Talk Page but it kept on coming up again.Can you please wipe it all as I have pre-storaged it on a 3.5 floppy. Was intending to do this anyhow but your note motivated me, so thanks. Enjoying the use of the page and will endeavour to get more in as its good for my grey matter...Hi, Thanks Stevardo56 Stevardo 56 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "Gotten"

It's interesting to read still the American usage of the word "Gotten" This word is a hang-up from the past when the word must have been used widely in old English.It also seems to have been part of "Bible Speak" and there also is the word "Begotten" Gotten nowadays is rarely used in modern English as the word "Got" fits the part. Of course others will disagree.Stevardo 56 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of poetry etc

Hi to Fabrictramp and thanks for the deletions.I think i have managed to delete superfluous verbage also on my user page so i can start on a clean slate.(D.V.)Stevardo 56 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor leagues

Hi, I wondered if you would be so kind as to lend a second opinion to a discussion I've been having with kelapstick regarding these articles. I've worked on a few of them and, while they may not all pass the GNG in the strictest sense, it is my, humble (though biased because of my opinion on the policy!), opinion that, now they at least resemble articles rather than piles of statistics, they should be left where they are, regardless of their notability status. Of the five that I've done so far, I beleive 2, possibly three, have a genuine claim to notability aside from "I play minor league baseball", 2 probably fall slightly short of the GNG and the last is very dodgy- a note to which effect I've left by its link in kelapstick's sanbox. Kind regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could point me to the specific articles in question? I won't have much time today, but could take a look tomorrow. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles in question were:

If you consider this profile (which is on the "official athletics site of Arizona State University", so hardly independent) significant coverage (I wouldn't) it may tip the scales on Sogard and Davidson, but the other two are just sourced with stats sites, I wouldn't consider either of them to pass the GNG as is without additional sourcing per the GNG.--kelapstick (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added more sources to Sogard, along with a couple of external links that go to interviews with him. If it were at AfD, I'd probably be in the weak keep camp on him. Will look at the others as I get time in the next couple of days.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm striking out on Brandt. I added one more source, but that's all I found, which means notability is either hinging on the all-star appearance or the "minor leaguers are profesionals" thing. This would be a good candidate for redirect or deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I feel like I'm missing sources that are out there on Austen. There's not enough at present to pass GNG, but it seems like someone who got pitcher of the year in the VWL ought to have more buzz. True, the VWL is definitely minor league, but I do see a lot of guys there who are on the cusp between AAA and the majors doing some work during the off season, so I assume the level of play isn't too shabby. Perhaps someone like Hit Bull Win Steak will have a better line on sources for him.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Davidson has had his cup of coffee in the majors, so he passes WP:ATHLETE. Getting enough to pass GNG would be a bonus, but I'm too tired to look for it right now. I did add a source for the dfa, and more sources will probably pop up if he gets picked up by another team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've done what I can for the articles in question. I'd be the first to admit they're not exactly going to be FA candidates in the foreseeable future. However, they're there, they're not copyvios, defamatory or anything else so why not just let them be? Your casual RC/ RA/ NP patroller would be unlikely to prod them or send them to AfD. The only people who would would most likely be WP Baseball members or someone who's followed this mini- saga! Anyway, I stuck my oar into the discussion so I felt I should do what I can for the articles. I say just leave them where they are and see what happens. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 22:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in a rush to delete them. (Except that I do feel the Brandt article shouldn't stay in its current form). But in general, I can't agree with the "it's not hurting anything so let it stay" argument -- that's the thin end of the wedge. Next it's "the article about my garage band isn't hurting anything" and "the article about my cat isn't hurting anything". If WP:Notability needs to be changed, then let's change it. But ignoring the guidelines isn't the way to institute change, IMHO.
I'll also respectfully disagree that the casual NPPer would be unlike to nom at least Brandt for deletion. I spend a lot of time patrolling deletion cats, so I think I have a pretty good handle on what gets nom'd. (I was rescuing an article from speedy deletion when you left your message). Articles like these get nom'd all the time, some correctly and some incorrectly. That's why I like to get as many quality refs as I can into the article, instead of trying to rely on WP:ATHLETE, so that any incorrect deletion noms become blindingly obvious to non-baseball fans.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, a question about how you categorized these articles at User:Kelapstick/Sandbox. Except for Davidson, I can't find any evidence these guys have been on an MLB roster (either 25 man or 40 man). Can you link to a source for that? It would help the notability argument. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, that I found these articles while I was new page patrolling and have no ties to WP:BASEBALL (until now). I did prod a lot of them, and send to AfD some of the ones below AA. I agree with Fabrictramp, and in fact "it is not harming anyone" is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, for the reason posted above. And I have no problem with keeping minor league articles about players that pass the GNG, or either of the baseball standards (if one were universally adopted), and Fabrictramp has been doing a great job sourcing the articles that were up at AfD (that had sources available) and commenting on the ones that don't.--kelapstick (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know, it just seems a shame to see good faith contributions obliterated because it's been decided that they're not worthy, especially considering some of the crap I see patrolling! Having watched from the sidelines, I don;t really hold out much hope for a change in WP:N or either of the other policies, though it's worth raising the issue. If we can't keep them then, I suggest we prod all but Sogard and see if anyone objects. Sogard, however, I hold out some hope for, his claim to notability might be a little dodgy, but he seems fairly well known, though I know sweet fa about baseball, I can do a google search. He gets more coverage than the rest, even after you discard the blogs etc. HJMitchell You rang? 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The only one I'd suggest a prod on at the current time is Brandt. Davidson definitely passes WP:ATHLETE, so if you think he needs to go (and it sounds like you don't), then prod wouldn't work because I guarantee you that will be controversial. I also have a gut feeling that David Austen is notable and any lack of sources is a failure of my google-fu, so that would be better at AfD as well. (Again, only if you think he needs to be gone -- I don't think that one should be deleted).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree- they're a combination of the efforts a number of editors and, if it were up to me, almost all would stay. They're not the best articles on here but I've seen much worse! I think they contribute more to wikipedia than "my cat" or "my myspace band that no-one's ever heard of"- it's not unlikely somebody would look them up. I agree that Brandt is a bit dodgy and I'm sure there are others out there that are equally dodgy. The question is what do we do with them? To follow the "the article about my cat" line, they can't stay on here if they don't pass some test of notability. I'm more than willing to trawl through and make these articles resemble decent encyclopaedic entries but, frankly, what's the point if they're not going to pass these tests?

How about merging some of the worst ones into a single article with a title to the effect of "List of minor leaguers who do not, on their own, pass the GNG"? Could that work? It would be a pain in the arse to make, though we could just copy and paste the best titbits from each one. It would, at least, solve the problem of what we do with them. HJMitchell You rang? 00:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So far a number of them have been redirected to articles such as Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league players. Not ideal, because the section will have to be moved when a player changes organizations, but at least it gives the reader a redirect leading them to a paragraph about the player. I have a hunch it was done organization-by-organization to keep the list from becoming overwhelming -- I wasn't involved in the decision, so I have no idea.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's better than nothing, I suppose. It keeps the information on here. How about an article similar to List of fictional United States Presidents which also raises a good policy point- how can we have an article on a load of presidents who never existed and not on a bunch of baseballers who blatantly do? Anyway, my point is that we could stick them all in there, dividing it by alphabetical order of name and redirecting them there so they're still searchable?

Could I ask a favour? Since it's gone half one in the morning here, regrettably, I must sign off. If you'd leave a talkback on my own talk page, I'd be grateful and I shall gladly resume the discussion at a more sociable hour! Until then... HJMitchell You rang? 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to bring it up at WP:MLB. I personally don't care where they're redirected to, just so long as it's a standard place that gets maintained once in a while. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd tend to agree with you. It might be a lot of hassle to change them round, as you stated, when the players move from one organisation to another, but it's better than nothing. At least the edit history is preserved for future use if it's needed. HJMitchell You rang? 16:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Listas

I saw that you use a list as script for AfDs, I tried to set mine up and couldn't get it to work...Do you have any suggestions? --kelapstick (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It took me a while to get the right configuration -- looks like mine is a bit different than what you were trying.
Mine is:
importScript('User:Quarl/util.js');
importScript('User:Quarl/wikipage.js');
importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu');
importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js');
I commented out the line importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css'); because it seemed to break other things and the script runs fine without it, even though it's listed as mandatory. Also remember that you need Twinkle installed -- IIRC, I needed it to be before any of the other lines for things to work correctly.
If all else fails, feel free to copy the contents of my monobook complete, and then start eliminating anything you don't like. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I have twinkle, but I use Google Chrome not firefox, I wonder if that is an issue, but I will try it. Thanks. --kelapstick (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That could be a factor. I tried Chrome for a day and it drove me nuts (short trip); I can't remember if the scripts worked in it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It's chrome, seems to be working now, too bad, I prefer it to Firefox, might just need to use it for listing AfDs I suppose :D, thanks! --kelapstick (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP and BOT

Dear Fabrictramp Can you please comment on the following:

"[edit] BLP unsourced tag in article on Albert Bitran I don't understand this tag since there is a References section in the article. Please explain or remove. Thanks. Bgoodnam (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

All the bot does is convert {{unreferenced}} to {{BLP unsourced}} on biographies of living people. The page was already tagged as unsourced before the bot edited it. As with any maintenance tag, you are free to remove it if its not correct. If you want to find out why it was tagged as unsourced, I suggest you ask User:Fabrictramp, who added the unreferenced template in the first place. Mr.Z-man 17:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)"

I would also appreciate if you could explain what is BLP and what is BOT. Thanks Bgoodnam


A BLP is Wikipedia shorthand for Biographies of Living People. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has more information on the special requirements for those type of articles. A BOT is short for a robot, an automated or semi-automated tool that carries out repetitive tasks on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Bots has more on this. In general, if someone uses an abbreviation here that you don't understand, type "WP:" (without the quotes) into the search box, followed by the abbreviation. Odds are very good it will take you to a page that explains the abbreviation.
You could certainly remove the unsourced tag, as there are sources in the article now (there weren't when I placed the original tag, and whoever added the sources didn't remove it). The formatting of the sourcing does need to be improved (see Wikipedia:Citing sources), and preferably changed to inline citations (see Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations), but I can't see that anyone would have a reasonable objection to you removing the tag. HTH.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assıstance Bgoodnam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.247.62 (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AWB

Please be careful when using AWB on articles containing {{Article issues}}. The current version of AWB has several major bugs with this template. I have had to fix several articles you broke today. --Pascal666 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I started going through your contributions fixing all the problems, but there are just too many of them, I do not have time. Per WP:AWB: edits made using this software are the responsibility of the editor using it. Please review all of your recent contributions and fix all articles containing broken {{Article issues}} templates. If you review my recent contributions you can see the kind of problems with your edits I have been fixing (usually just the word "date" added onto a parameter). Thank you. --Pascal666 00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I had time today to finish going through your contributions. As long as you use AWB version 4.5.3.1 or newer in the future you should not have more of this problem. --Pascal666 19:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. I thought I had caught them as I was making the edits (I already filed a bug report on this on Saturday), but obviously some slipped by.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Smellypits

Hi. Just curious why you flagged Smellypits with a level 3 warning. I don't see a level 1 or 2 appearing on it prior to your level 3 warning. Just two speedy delete notifications, which I didn't think counted toward warning counts. With my subsequent L4 warning (followed by your duplicate and then reverted L4--Sorry about that), he's on the verge of a block, but without L1 and L2, that's not actually proper. Am I missing something? Have a good day! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much a judgment call. Between the name, the history of inappropriate articles, and only one marginally useful edit in the history, I felt pretty confident that this user is fully aware of what he's doing. I try to bend over backwards when it comes to AGF, but when there's pretty good evidence to the contrary, I don't see a need to give them extra chances to vandalize.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Ok. I remember a couple years ago bringing something to the attention of the admins, and because the user hadn't been "properly" warned with the correct sequence of templates, my notice was ignored and I was essentially told to do better next time. Maybe things have relaxed a bit since that time? Because of that experience, it makes me a little nervous to report anyone now.
I double checked the pages on warnings to make sure nothing had changed since I last looked, and it's still okay to start higher than 1.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and FWIW, I only gave him a level 3 on the second vandalism. It occurred before the previous warning, so I didn't see a need to escalate the level.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Huggle automatically one-ups the level number and sends out warnings after 4 (as I discovered with another user who kept vandalizing Volcano). That experience taught me that it could be easy to break WP:3RR when using Huggle, because I ended up with 3 reverts to that article almost effortlessly and then reported it to WP:AN/I without realizing it. Now I check my contributions in a regular browser after each Huggle action just to figure out exactly what Huggle did so effortlessly on my behalf. Very cool tool, but very easy to abuse without trying. Is that why you use Twinkle? TW seems to have a bit more fine-tuned control to it. Thanks for the explanation. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've tried Huggle, and I prefer the slower, more controlled pace of Twinkle. I see exactly what TW is doing and I get to confirm. I keep Huggle on the machine for when I want that video game type thrill, but TW is more my style. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And now our friend is back vandalizing and writing about his band again. Blocked for 31 hours.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Voice in the Wilderness "Holy Scriptures"

I am the publisher of this work. I stumbled upon this Wikipedia entry by accident while searching something else, and in checking out the history, discovered that it was a former subscriber who created the entry. However, it was full of many irrelevant links, and factual inaccuracies. So I edited it by removing the inaccurate stuff. A few days later, after tweaking a few things, posted a version that was fully accurate, but also 'brief', with external links to further information.

As I now read your policies, I see that this is NOT a proper forum for the VW-edition to be presented in. An encyclopedia is a place that presents 'facts', not opinions. And facts, by definition, are either true or false. If Wikipedia is also, so to speak, a 'blog' where everybody can willy-nilly add their two-bits worth, this is not the proper place for the VW-edition to be described by people who don't know the facts.

The person who made the original post did so without my knowledge or permission. Please advise how to delete the entry. It does not need any further "internal links". What it presents is 'facts', and needs no further modification.

If you are a moderator, I'm sure you can find my e-mail address to let me know what's what.

Thank you, Paul Becker (pfbecker) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfbecker (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on the top of this talk page, I prefer not to use email to discuss Wikipedia matters. Frankly, it's a matter of transparency, because on Wikipedia there will be a public record of the discussion.
Yes, if the article sticks around, it does need the work requested by the maintenance templates. (Did you read the policies I pointed you towards on your talk page? You should also check out WP:COI.) Using a variety of IP addresses to repeatedly remove those maintenance tags is not particularly productive. In fact, it's a pretty good way to get blocked from editing.
You, or any editor, can propose the article for deletion. However, if the issues with the article can be solved by a rewrite, it's unlikely that the article will be deleted.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how, after I made the original corrections, no 'templates' appeared for several weeks. It was apparently "OK" that way. But then now, suddenly, the entry is not allowed to exist without them cluttering up the place. And somebody was apparently sitting there, as if 'waiting' for me to restore the entry to its completed form, and 'zap', they were inserted again. Who is 'vandalizing' the entry??? And no...I have always signed in as the 'same' userid. (Perhaps, the fact that I have several different dialup numbers to my ISP gives the appearance of a different IP??) Like I said...I am the publisher of the VW-edition. If you need to verify this, please click the external links and check out the originating website. There -are- no external "3rd party" entities that can add anything, by linking to them. The entry is complete enough AS IS. If this is not good enough for you-all (whoever "you-all" is), since I did not submit it originally, I will pursue its removal...by whatever means necessary.

Paul Becker (pfbecker) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.76.158 (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, feel free to propose the article for deletion. The instructions are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
Please don't see conspiracies where they don't exist. If you look at the main page of Wikipedia, you will see there are over 2.8 million articles. There are no where near that number of editors who patrol pages for needed improvements. But once editors see a history of things such as removal of maintenance templates, they often put the article on their personal watchlist, something you yourself can also do.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Also, since the article is semi-protected right now and you've mentioned several times you would like it deleted, I've added a proposed deletion tag. If you have a problem with that, let me know and I'll remove the tag and send it to AfD. HTH.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Re: I've added a proposed deletion tag.

Thanks! Paul Becker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfbecker (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wolfiporia extensa revisions

Hi Fabrictramp,

Could you please explain why you reverted the Wolfiporia extensa article to the revisions by Deli nk/Nawlin Wiki? Those revisions removed a great deal of relevant information and an image, with giving a reason. I have reverted the page to its full content. I would appreciate it if some rationale were provided if you or Deli nk or Nawlin Wiki choose to eviscerate it of its content.

Respectfully,

Trappem (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)trappemTrappem (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I did explain on your talk page two days ago. Did you not read the explanation? Or did you have a specific question you'd like answered.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi FabricTramp,

Sorry, I just now found your comments, and am trying to understand them. In my initial edits of this page back on 25-Feb, all I did was add more info, add an image, and corrected some typos. I did not delete any sources, maintenance tags, or anything else. I made the article more informative, factual, and well-written. The reversions to the Deli nk render this page factually useless, and certainly no more in conformance with wikification than my versions. I guess my specific question is what exactly am I doing that displeases the Wikipedia gods more than the fluff from Deli nk?

best,

Trappem (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)trappem

This is the difference between the previous version and your current version. It shows clearly that you did delete the {{primarysources}} tag, the entire external links section, the entire references section, and all the categories.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your time. I have restored the primarysources and categories tags. The reference section had nothing in it (other than separately captioned external links). Eviscerating an entire article based on these minor technical issues seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater however... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappem (talk • contribs) 01:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you some friendly advice here: repeatedly throwing around words like evisceration when it comes to article edits verge on incivility. And eliminating entire sections dealing with references are not "minor technical issues" here.
I'll again encourage you to read WP:OWN and take it to heart. At least three editors felt your edits to the article were not a net improvement, so you might want to reread the article with a very critical eye and see if it could be even more "informative, factual, and well-written". HTH--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Aces

I made it to that Reno Aces game we were talking about, the park is awesome...If you ever make it out to a game, don't waste your money on decent tickets, they have standing room with general admission (or any other ticket) behind the left field wall, and is one of the best seats in the house. Also a pretty cool "mound seating" area in right field, bring a blanket and sit on the grass. Great park for a family event.--kelapstick (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed the park! That's what I love about the minors -- rarely a bad seat in the house without paying MLB prices.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Animas-La Plata water project

I have described the real history of the Animas-La Plata project, and, although there was discussion posted about whether it should be deleted because of a non-neutral point of view, the consensus was, "Keep it." Yet I see that the prior, "official" description of the project has been reinstated almost immediately, without reference to the discussion of my article, and without having retained a single word from my article.

Mine contains citations and quotations from United States Supreme Court and Court of Claims decisions and is 100% true and factual. The official version contains only self-serving propaganda referring back to "source documents" created by the same interests who benefit from the project, so that there's this circular back-slapping going on, and no real information communicated. That was even more true with the prior "official" version which my version replaced.

It appears that you've removed my post not because it is not factual, but because you don't LIKE the facts, which describe corrupt official acts which I have documented in the past. I can put more sources into the article, if failure to source completely is your problem with it (although you haven't said it is). I haven't done so only because I don't know how to make the link. I'll get help with that and put them up.

Can you state for me, please, in plain English, what you need me to do? Also--and no disrespect intended--please tell me what authority you have to remove my posting in its entirety and replace it with the "official" version. Is it your position that U.S. Supreme Court and Court of Claims decisions are irrelevant?

Thanks,

parsimmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsimmon (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A few corrections. I did not remove your post today, it was an [IP editor]. My only involvement today was to warn you again about violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. My only edits to the article were in March, in an attempt to save it from deletion. Yes, the article was nominated for deletion as a "Blatant opinion piece.", however it's a mistake to think that the consensus of keep was to keep your version -- every single editor who argued to keep the article mentioned that the previous version, not yours, was preferable. The version you describe as "official" was reinstated almost immediately because of this.
Yes, citations from court decisions are great, and could really add to the article. However, phrases like "the so-called Animas-La Plata Project", "taxpayers are being required to fork over a billion dollars", "a huge boondoggle", "nothing but a racket" and many other phrases you've used in the article are in no way neutrally worded. You also have a number of unsourced allegations about people and organizations in the article, which violates another Wikipedia policy.
To answer your question of "please tell me what authority you have to remove my posting in its entirety and replace it with the "official" version"... I'm not even sure where to start with that. I did not remove your posting in its entirety today (although I did in March, because I removed all the unsourced material). Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so the IP user who reverted back to a previous version has exactly as much right to do so as you had to remove in its entirety other editors' material on April 27 and today. This is something you agree to each time you click "save page". And there is no such thing as an "official" version of a Wikipedia article. However, there are several core principles of Wikipedia which all editors must adhere to, one of which is Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution."
My suggestion, in plain English, is to take a few minutes to carefully read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially the section on undue weight, impartial tone, and attribution. Then discuss any proposed changes on the article's talk page, or even better, ask any of the editors who are listed as active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality for a review of any proposed changes first. That way you can improve the article and get a more balanced perspective into it, without worrying about any bias of your own you may have missed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted userbox

I noticed the creator and suggested WP:DRV. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article

Hi Fabrictramp, I see you reinstated Lucifugum? It has been deleted after AfD and then speedied a couple of times--there is nothing new under the sun. The article still relies on highly unreliable sources and is being pushed and repushed by SPAs who, by now, are getting a bit disruptive, and whose final argument usually is a. "you're trying to destroy metal" or b. "we know this scene, you don't." Please have another look at the article and its history. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dear Fabrictramp. It seems to me users Drmies and Blackmetalbaz simply don't like this band and try to "destroy" this article "at any cost":). But please first ask these guys to prove the notability of the following bands: Diaboli, Clandestine Blaze, Deathspell Omega, Xasthur, Black Funeral etc. If these bands are notable then Lucifugum is notable also. In other case all these articles should be nominated for deletion together with Lucifugum's article. At least it will be fair. Thank you for your help.--Black pauk1488 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard this band, so I don't know if I like it or not. Blackmetalbaz has pointed out to you, no doubt, that Wikipedia has a policy that undercuts your "proposal": Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (and Lucifugum is not a high school or a geographical feature, for instance.) Feel free to nominate any of those articles you mentioned for deletion, or, better yet, find reliable sources to prove the notability of Lucifugum. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks like Drmies doesn't respect administrators and their decisions. Probably, he thinks he's more educated of them all. Yes, Lucifugum is not a high school but Darkthrone and for example Nokturnal Mortum are also not schools or geographical features. --Black pauk1488 (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Black pauk1488, you might want to be a bit more careful with your comments, because they are bordering on incivility towards Drmies. Also, please do not use edit summaries such as "This article has been recreated with kind permission of administrator User:Fabrictramp". It implies an approval of the article which I explicitly did not give. Since you did not address any of the issues as far as I can see, I'm strongly tempted to apply a G4 speedy deletion tag myself. (And may do so).
And I have applied such a tag. Also, Black pauk1488, do not move pages by copying and pasting the content. That destroys the edit history. Instead, use the move tab.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Drmies, you might look at my userfication comment at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Lucifugum.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Since nothing has happened to the article, as far as I can tell, to increase its verifiable claims to notability (but I don't have access to the deleted version, so I can't do a point-by-point comparison), I'm afraid we're heading to AfD again sometime soon if the speedy doesn't go through. This article has a long history, with reinstatements and socks and personal attacks (not so much toward me, mind you, until now). Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Fabrictramp. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. I see I've stumbled into something a little bigger than a trivial speedy decline. I have a habit of doing that! HJMitchell You rang? 23:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I got curious and googled it. How would this fit in with WP:RS?
I know squat about metal, so it might be best to ask someone who does know something about the sources. :) All I know is a recreation when I see one. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll ask around! It's idle amusement if nothing else! HJMitchell You rang? 00:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've found two others, so I've put hangon on the article and requested a little more time for someone to determine how useful they are. I'm reluctant to remove the speedy tag since, procedurally, it's correct and I took the last one down and edit warring is not high on my list of priorities. Just thought I'd explain! HJMitchell You rang? 00:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Because of GFDL issues, it might be best to have the Lucifugum article deleted, do the improvements at User:Black pauk1488/Lucifugum, and then move it back to Lucifugum. Looks like Lucifugum was already deleted, so the first part is done. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Pasig Christian Academy

oh!sorry,but I'm just editing Pasig Christian Academy because I'm a student of this school.and I Almost there for 10 years on that school.sorry, but just respect my editings...thanks --User:Jpuligan 12 4:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

People will respect your edits a whole lot more if you respect copyright law and consensus on what should be included in the article. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#What_not_to_include for why the faculty list keeps getting deleted. You've also been asked several times not to include copyrighted (and non-encyclopedic) material such as the school hymn. Since you continue to add this material after being warned repeatedly, I've blocked you from editing for a week. Please take this time to read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines and WP:COPYVIO and take them to heart. I'm sure you can be a valuable editor, but you need to follow the rules.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Chicken wing tackle

I'm tempted to push for deletion of this article. Thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about Australian Rules Football to know if it's notable or just a case of one event. I had thought it was made up, and was pretty shocked at the number of ghits. Would a merge somewhere (perhaps to the player?) be appropriate?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking at gnews hits, this is a term that's been used for at least several years with multiple players, so merge to player doesn't make sense. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL could be of help here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the response and for looking into it. I guess it just needs better sourcing. It sounds kind of cool and has a cool name, so I'm happy to have it stay around. I was sad for example when the made up one day non-sport of snowbagging ("skiing" with garbage bags on your feet) was deleted, but it didn't seem to meet our guidelines. Silly guidelines! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Vicci Laine Article

Hi, I have added the links to the above page. Thank you for the suggestion. I also deleted the box requesting links be added. I hope that is ok. Thanks for the help. I am new here and trying to make this the best page possible for her. Baileysmom (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Vicci Laine page

Thank you so much for the "minor formating" you did for this page. I believe so much in how this person lives her life and what she does for her community that I wanted her to have a great page and, you have helped to make it better! Thanks again for your help. Baileysmom (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnegat Fund Management - nominated for deletion?

I don't understand why you want to delete this article. It makes no false claims. Asks no one to invest. States only facts. And the article appears to be under construction. Can you lay our in English (not Wiki shorthand) where this article goes wrong so that its contributors can make proper amendments? --Djbarnes (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The deletion page has a link to the issue, which is Wikipedia:Notability, especially Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, you should take some time to read WP:COI.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coppell Copperheads

Yup, spotted that and corrected it.. in all the other ones. Doh. Thanks for picking up on it :). Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm sure you'll need to do the same for me one day. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt Duke (musician) Article

Hello, I see that you protected the deleted article Matt Duke (musician) on March 9, 2009 and it can no longer be recreated. I understand there were instances of copyright related issues with the page, as well as consistent recreation of the page after a deletion discussion took place. However, most of the core issues with this page, including the fact that the page did not display any reason for notability for Matt Duke and the lack of credible sources to support the information on the page, would no longer be an issues if the page is allowed to be created again.

I am not sure what copyright issues caused the previous deletion before yours, but upon my proposed re-creation for the page, I can assure you that many credible sources will be cited (including references and features from Teen Vogue, MSN, Perez Hilton, ABC News, the Columbia City Paper and others) and copyright infringment will not be an issues in any way. Also, Matt is now signed to a notable record label, Rykodisc, which is owned by Warner Music Group, so I feel two years after the first article was created, he is now definitely a more established artist at this point and has achieved the required notability for Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration, I do hope you decide to release the protection on this page so this artist can finally have a decent article created about him. Dr3w05 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you create a version of the page at User:Dr3w05/Matt Duke (musician), making sure that you address the issues from past deletions, especially the lack of sources and not meeting the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. When you think it's ready, put a {{helpme}} tag on your talk page (note the curly brackets) and have an experienced editor look it over. Once it's ready for main space (and only when it's ready), put an {{adminhelp}} tag on your talk page, and any admin who comes along can move it over for you. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I will definitely get on this. Dr3w05 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Herron

Found anything new on this guy? If you have I'd be happy to withdraw. This may sound silly with all my AFD work but I really don't like deleting stuff. Also, can you review John Drennen? Another article on a minor league player whose speedy deletion I declined. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I may not have time today or tomorrow, but for sure by Wednesday I can take a look. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Haven't had time to revisit Tyler Herron yet, but I did take a look at John Drennen and added a few sources there. That one's tricky (and would be controversial, so declining the speedy was definitely appropriate). On the keep side, we have first round draft pick, South Atlantic League all-star (which I didn't add to the article), and lots of sources available. On the merge to Cleveland Indians minor league players side, we have the fact that first round draft pick being notable is a minority position, the SAL is class A ball, so an all-star appearance giving notability isn't widely accepted, and other than the North County Times article, most of the press is due to the homer off Roger Clemens, which is not a unique event (Clemens gave up 363 in the majors). If this came up to AfD, I'd be in the merge camp, but I probably wouldn't bother to nominate it myself. Hope that helps a bit. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Another thought: User:Hit bull, win steak is brilliant at finding baseball sources. If he's around, he might be willing to give it a look. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I took another look at Tyler Herron and didn't find any more. :( --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

new entry

Hello,

I see that you have helped delete the "widwi" entry from wikipedia. Can you please explain to me why widwi should be removed or what I missed to make it qualify to stay? I don't see how it's an less relevant then the many other websites defined in wikipedia.

Thanks for your help.

- Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprice88 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The article didn't show how it met the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (web), particularly Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. (You might also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF.) HTH! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, you should spend some time carefully reading WP:COI. Wikipedia really isn't the place to be advertising your web site.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is my site, but I am not put it up for advertising. I will review the posting rules again, but I don't see the harm in leaving up the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprice88 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fabrictramp/Archive_05&oldid=296352370"