User talk:Wwwwolf/archive2

This is the archive of User talk:Wwwwolf for the 1st half of 2006. Please don't add your comments here, use this link to leave me a note instead!

Ashida Kim[edit]

Shall we speak to admins and get Ashida Kims page deletedBatzarro 09:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, first of all, I don't support the article's deletion, secondly, it's been AfD'd twice already and kept both times, and thirdly, talking to the admins won't help because the AfDing is the proper way to get stuff deleted. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email[edit]

Hey,! may i have your e-mail? I really need to practice Finnish. Well, just if you're not very busy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N0thingness (talk • contribs) .

The address is right on the user page. Just note that I have a terrible way of replying to e-mail slowly and I rarely use it for random chatter (which is what Jabber is for). And I'm profoundly lazy. You probably find easier people to practice the language with elsewhere. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked out your user page.[edit]

So here's a message ;-) All the best. Keep on Truckin' and all that jazz... Bobak 01:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:wipes tear: thank you. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found your blog posting about Wikibooks[edit]

http://www.beastwithin.org/gamelessgame/articles/category/documentation

Ironically, it was because I was searching for a reference to the FF6 Wikibook I worked on. One thing I do sometimes is search for a wikipedia/wikibooks article in quotes on google to see who has referenced it: [1] for example, which usually comes down to forum posts or blogs who use wikipedia to illustrate things. Not much, but it's a start in terms of proving we're being used. Your blog was the only non wiki source citing any of the game guide wikibooks I worked on, but it's still kind of cool.

And I agree with your basic point about game guides being editable, I've submitted a few guides on gamefaqs, the biggest problem is that the guides there are never 100% exhaustive or accurate. A lot of guides print rumors or things they've never tested out--the collective knowledge of the system is impressive, but users have no effective way to correct each other's mistakes and fill in the gaps. A system which allows people to fill in those gaps and enhances the formatting with actual maps and cross-references would be amazing.

If Wikibooks every gets to be popular we'll have loads of problems with vandals of course, and if it's competitive or comparable to published game guides while using screenshots or something similar developers might get finicky. But currently it's just a nice way to build up a body of knowledge about yet another subject.--BigCow 22:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

esoteric programming languages[edit]

Hi, would you be interested in voting on this monster before I let it loose on AfD? Cheers, —Ruud 21:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Ritter Validity Evidence[edit]

The thing is, IMDb DOES back those sites up. Here are the links: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2091240/miscsites http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2091240/officialsites Also, if you type Christina Ritter Marie-Antoinette she does appear. Since Marie-Antoinette was also a person you can't even find much on the movie anyway without typing somelike else like "film" etc. It seems like you are kidding me with having at least 100 pages, because some people on here don't have over 20.

By the way I searched for some of the people on here and Eliza Bennett only has 51 sites that aren't all unqiue and she on here. Tatum McCann has only 7 sites she's on here, Darcy Rose Byrnes has less than 55 yet she is on here. So, in your argument you should dismiss the excuse of 100 articles and originality of the piece. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christina_Marie_Ritter"

The fact that IMDB backs the links is irrelevant. The fact that IMDB doesn't back up the roles in the movie/tv shows is what's so damning.

Also, don't bring up the other people here, as they're a completely separate discussion that needs to be dealt separately; if they're indeed irrelevant, we can go AfDing them separately too, don't you worry, thanks for finding that sort of material. Yet, Eliza Bennett doesn't exist, Tatum McCann and Darcy Rose Byrnes actually do have something on their IMDB pages.

And by the way, {{hangon}} is meant to be used while writing a reply to talk page; when you're done, please remove it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My stating about the other actors is due to a comment made previously that there must be 100 pages, which I knew must have been a lie. I feel that this page shouldn't be deleted. I have an e-mail from the IMdb Support Team that says her site will be fixed shortly. I had e-mailed them in my concern of the absence of her roles upon her page. That is why I am so adament about keeping her page.
- Well, meantime, please see WP:BIO. I don't think this actor yet satisfies those terms... and has, in fact, also been found lacking in those criteria in an earlier AfD discussion. Hence, it qualifies as a speedy deletion material, and even if it wouldn't, it would still face the same complaints found in deletion debate people went through earlier. And once again, please sign your comments (use the signature button in the toolbar above the edit box to insert --~~~~ after your comments). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia survey[edit]

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Neutrality Project[edit]

Hey there! Nice to see a friendly face on Wikipedia (I found Wikipedia through Exult myself, and you through that article and later through the Exult Fourms). I was just wondering if I could interest you in participating in my WikiProject, the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, which aims to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia through the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines. Thanks for reading! Wizardry Dragon 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiporn[edit]

Re: your suspicions......

- That's complete rubbish Wwwolf :-) How can I prove that I am a distinct user to your satisfaction? Englishgirls posted on wikiporn and by doing this drew my attention to this debate. I'll update Mediawiki when I have time but less snottiness till then please! --Jjj uk 20:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry, I believe you both based on Englishgirls' explanation, and I know the argument was weak. It's just that sockpuppetry is a big problem in AfDs, and makes me kind of paranoid. I'm sorry if it caused any stress. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless Online (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hi, Steve block placed a convincing argument in favor for deletion on the linked deletion request which cites WP:V in saying that the content needs to be verified with third-party content. Just letting you know. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1942[edit]

I see you voted in a 1942 mod AFD vote. Well you may be interested in the List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD. Bfelite 02:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furry userbox[edit]

Do you happen to recall what the proper phrasing is supposed to be in the Furry userbox? It currently has a direct to Lunacy and says users should get help. This needs fixed.(I ask you as you were the first name I recognized on the list and you've been around a while.) Tony Fox 21:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can always check the template's history and revert the stuff. Someone seems have already done that. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, glad someone else caught that. Looks like a popular bit of sneaky vandalism. I'm still learning the reversion thing. Thanks! Tony Fox 15:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday![edit]

Ashibaka would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Ashibaka to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wwwwolf/archive2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Good morning! Ashibaka tock 06:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, good morrrning and thank youuu for remembering. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some questions to your RfA. When you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you would take a look at them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youuuu! ::big wolfy smile =) :: --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a sysop![edit]

Hi, Wwwwolf/archive2, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Please also add your name to WP:LA =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wikipedia, how much do I love thee. Hopefully, I'll be able to get on with these duties soon. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I add my congratulations. --Runcorn 19:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to congratulate you on your recent success. Best of luck for the future! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, folks, thank you =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats![edit]

Even I didn't support you, I think you will be a great admin. :) LINUX ERIST@ 23:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Linuxerist sez. Congratulations, I think that one really was a no-brainer. -- Captain Disdain 02:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My congratulations as well. Cheers! Tony Fox 17:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks, everybody =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Thank you for these amazing words of wisdom. I will keep these in mind. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Master Debate[edit]

Hey, whilst I'm actually agreeing with deletion, I've replied to your countering of my original concerns about cited "worthy" modifications on Wikipedia. If you wanna continue it, I'm happy to keep replying. --86.128.14.79 13:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: not empty... List of new religious movements[edit]

Please see WP:CSD#A3 the empty tag is supposed to be used for that criterion. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title.

Is there a better template? I ask because I intend to do this section next Ste4k 12:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er... there's quite a many "List of (foo)" articles, and I don't think CSD A3 is meant to delete those. Lists that merely list stuff are better served when turned categories, that's true, but the reason list articles exist is that they can provide additional information on why something is categorised, and how they're related to each other. And this particular list does have content beyond just listing names, as is plainly seen, so no, A3 doesn't apply. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Maybe that should be added to the policy then, too, because the way it reads now, in WP:NOT as well, the whole idea of Wiki not being files is defeated by having such a list. Ste4k 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can always bring up the issue at the talk page if you feel the list should be turned into a category. But remember, sometimes, lists are better than categories, and sometimes categories are better than lists - it depends on the case. Personally, I think in this case a list is kind of warranted.

And whatever you do, if you run into what seems like a well-maintained article of any kind, don't ask for hasty actions just first - discuss things over. In this case, if you want the list to be gone, it'd probably be better if you put it in Articles for Deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMR article[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback on the Master of Marketing Research article. After reading your feedback and more research, I do agree it's not a CSD. And, I'm not going to PROD or AfD. I do disagree with some of your assessment however. IMHO it does read like a dictionary article and does lack context, especially for non-US readers. There are only two articles that link to it and it has zero references. It's not at all clear (from the article) when the degree was established, how many universities grant it, how well respected it is, whether it is US only or a degree used in other educational systems in the world, etc. It is (again, IMHO) a very short article and I do feel a bit "bitten" by you. But that's ok, I'll get over it :-) I also do appreciate the feedback as I realize that CSD was the wrong tagging. I've now tagged what I believe is, in fact, appropriate: it needs expansion, references, links and an assertion of importance. So, I've learned something from you, and thank you for that. Brian 22:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Btball[reply]

History of Madrid article[edit]

Hi, thanks for your slightly condescending message on the history page of this article. However, if you took the trouble to look at the article in question, you might see why it should be a candidate for deletion in its current form. It appears to be a direct translation from the Spanish version using an internet translation. As a result, it is unreadable and even gibberish in places. For example:

The population of the city grew with the progress and peace lived from the arrival to the throne on Fernando I SAW. In 1787 pimer is made official census of the city, that gives faith of the existence of 156,672 inhabitants in the city. Nevertheless, the city, restricted by near 1625, does not grow in consonancia. That made raise the prices of the houses, as well as that were built in any hollow available, increasing this way to the insalubridad and the hacinamiento. However, the most underprivileged population not even could aspire to miserable cuartucho inside close, settling down outside her. Miserable suburbs to the south of the city arise from this form, like those of ' ' Injurias' ' and ' ' Peñuelas, and some more decent, to the north, like the one of ' ' Chamberí ' '

Do you think this should be on wikipedia in its current format? That is why I nominated it for deletion. Thanks Jdorney 18:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but bad translation is not a reason for speedy deletion. There's criteria for that. I agree the article needs a really giant big massive cleanup of the machine translation; that's what the cleanup tags are for. If you prefer, you could always nominate the article for Proposed deletion, or put it to Articles for deletion, though I think it may be likely spared because the topic may be notable - unless nobody bothers to fix the article, that is, in which case someone might ask for mercy killing and hope to start the thing over if someone's inclined. As for "should it be on Wikipedia in its current format", I can only say "yeah, but definitely with 'please fix this crap' disclaimers on top of the article"; Deletion process is not for cleanup, it's for thermonuclear strikes against topics not worthy of their own articles, and an absolute last resort option. You may have noticed that vandalism is not appropriate in Wikipedia either, and we don't, as a rule, completely delete article revisions containing the vandalism, either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like someone just pasted machine translation atop a perfectly good article; I reverted it back to the earlier version, and added request to Talk:History of Madrid. I hope this is a bearable compromise, and a good illustration on why you don't mess with article history just because some good-intentioned but not very successful soul comes along =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok point taken. Good work. Jdorney 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orcyno.ogg[edit]

I believe I've been able to play .ogg files before on the version of Winamp I have installed, but I could be mistaken. I only tried to play Image:Orcyno.ogg because it didn't have the speaker icon that most other .ogg files have on Wikipedia (cf. Image:Kosciuszko.ogg), so I thought maybe it was corrupted. When it wouldn't play, I assumed that my hunch was correct, so I marked it for deletion. If you can play it, then obviously it's just a software issue on my end. —Bkell (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overheard conversation from User talk:Bigtop[edit]

Apologies for overhearing, if you can call it that, but I noticed the following message:

You tagged this user page for speedy deletion for being "nonsense". That would be the CSD A1 criterion. However, A1 only applies to articles (Main name space). Currently, the only criterion concerning user pages is owner request. If you object to the contents of the user page, please voice your concerns to the user in question, and if you prefer, use the other usual routes beyond that (Miscellania for deletion and, only after spectacularly failing that, the extremely scary arbitration people.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't actually true. CSD:G1 is patent nonsense and it applies to pages in any namespace. However, User:RonH is not patent nonsense and thus not speediable. CSD:A1 is short articles with little or no context. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. Shouldn't be reading the big lawbooks in state of inappropriate caffeination levels. =) Thanks for a good reminder. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article[edit]

Cheers, thanks for the explanation! I've just read WP:CSD. I want to make this a good encyclopedia. If you can help me that would be appreciated; I'll help you in return too! --Whithulme 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy biography Kiera Halliday[edit]

User:Calton moved the puppy biography User:K84lfc back to Kiera Halliday where it will inevitably be deleted with the comment "Revert inappropriate userfication". I had originally userfied the article, but User:Calton disapproved. I noticed that you had commented on the article at User talk:K84lfc. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism continues[edit]

Now she's adding this nonsense to other pages. [2] and keeps recreating it after multiple final warnings.--Kchase02 T 11:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks.

Yes, I understand. I should use the "preview"-button much more. It's an old habbit pressing "Save" just to see how the article look likes.

I think my English in the "Sandnes Ulf"-article isn't perfect, so I would appriciate if you could correct my erros (especially the prepositions).

I'm seeing that my Sandnes Ulf-picture do not have enough information. How do I fill in more information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norvega (talk • contribs) .

I'm replying on your talk page. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lord el zilcho[edit]

You know, WP:SSP is only for users who are not administrators and who can't block users. If you fell that a user is a sockpuppet and it falls into the sock puppet policy and the blocking policy and is valid, then you should just block. Just a heads up! :-P Iola k ana|^T 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But I really wasn't that sure (even with such overwhelming evidence). But thanks anyway. Apologies if this was silly. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Ei pentele, paljoon sitä näemmä ehtiikin e2:n ohella.. *cough* that is, thanks for deleting the image. It'll be an actual vote incentive picture for a while yet, putting it up here in the first place was pure recklessness on my part. *Slight hug as per user page* --Kizor 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]