This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.
Just so you know:
If article's are written in a different language then English, you should add the {{notenglish}} template and then register it to the pages needing translation list. If the article is not translated within reasonable time it will be removed. Of course, this should not be done in case its present at another wikipedia (CSD A2), or if it clearly isn't suitable for another reason, such as a copyvio. Not being English is technically not a reason for PROD removal. Also, glad to see some help on the new page list; It is a bit undermanned this evening. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, Excirial! I should have removed the PROD in favor of the copyright CSD, as I found the exact same text elsewhere. You're right- the notenglish tag should have been placed. I will make sure to do that now. Thanks for the info! Also, I try to do new page patrolling every day. It's fun! Basket of Puppies 18:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking the prod isn't necessary...Speedy deletion under G3 or A7? Ferrantino (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, after examining the entire thing again i can see what you mean - quite a lot of claims, which are certainly hoaxes. Tagged as G3 Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, maybe 'hoax' was the wrong speedy category but proposed deletion is certainly the wrong way to go. THe contributor obviosuly drunkenly made up a game with his mate and decided to write an article about it, your request for 'improvement' is pointless given that, because the 'sport' doesn't actually exist, the article can't be improved! If there is a better speedy category then use that, otherwise this is a hoax in the sense that the contributor is trying to mnake out that this is an actual sport. Please address. Regards, RaseaC (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It is indeed pretty senseless to wait for improvement, as it simply cannot be improved. However, the WP:NOT based rules are explicitly not included in the CSD based deletion criteria. Overtime i came to notice that some admins take that part of WP:NOT quite serious and therefore deny speedy deletion templates placed on such article's.
At most this article could be shoved under the A7 as it is a non notable activity. But certainy not under hoax; If i claim that i'm the world champion skiing and create an article about it that is a hoax, as i'm clearly not telling the truth. Yet this article doesn't claim anything that isn't true - im certain the game actually excists but it is just completely not notable. Careful with over tagging pages for CSD. The article was certainly created with good faith; so a PROD with a small explanation is much better for PR then smashing it with a CSD. The end results are the same anyway. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that aspects of it are clearly a hoax (I for one won't be looking out for it in the olympics, as suggested) and also that it clearly is not made in good faith (unless the contributor is incredibly stupid he knows what he's doing is wrong), in the same way that an article stating 'Johnny is cool' is not created with good faith either. I doubt there's a PR issue involved here, all this is going to do is give the guy a kick for half an hour and that's it. I would suggest tagging it with A7 on the basis explained above. Keeping it hanging around for a week just makes the project look stupid. RaseaC (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article was created with the thought "Wow, i made up a cool new game, i wanna share it!"; Keep in mind that while we may think it is stupid to even create such an article, some people have no experience whatsoever creating an article and assume that we just include everything (Some people reason that we would otherwise never have had 3 million+ pages). The same goes for all the 11, 12 and 13 year old creating article's about themselves stating they are "Add a load of positive words". I doubt they do it with bad intent, because they simply don't think about it. The only pages i really assume bad faith on are attack and spam pages.
If you wish to tag it as an A7, go right ahead. I generally don't have a quarrel with these kind of pages sticking around for a week; After all they are not linked anywhere and as they are made up, who is going to read them in the first place? :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Excirial. Thanks for the redirect and the welcome to the community. Cheers. (OrangeCorner (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Exciral. Also I was hoping you could show me how to properly reference an article. I've got 8 references I want to add to the Continental Union article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_union , however I'm not sure how to link them to the top of the article or add the 1, 2, 3, references in the article itself. If you can provide me some standard text for references that would be a big help. The reference pages I go to in edit mode don't have the text there they simply refer to Reflist2 or some other short description. Thanks for the assistance. OrangeCorner (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the best page dealing with references is the WP:CITE style guideline, as it contains several examples. To simply reference a website place reference tags around a website adress. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Excirial]</ref> for example, would create a reference to my user page. In case you wish to list the reference under a custom name instead of a website link, you can add a text after the link just as you can do this for regular links. For example, <ref>[http://company.monster.com/primavera Primavera company profile]</ref> would show up in the reference list as "Primavera company profile". Note that any form of text can be referenced, <ref>Brown, R: "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 51(78):46</ref> will work fine as well.
To display references, simply create a header called "References" and add {{reflist}} under it. This template will automatically create an overview of each reference in the text. Hope this helps, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being the first to welcome me to Wikipedia. I hope to contribute in the areas of my interest and grow the knowledge base of this community.
P.S. I enjoyed the cookies.
P.S.S. Do you know how to edit images. I need to update a Map for the Continental Union article, but I don't have a image editing program or the skills required. I'm working to improve the article now, but if you could make the changes to the map to include the Common Wealth of Australia that would be a big help. Thanks man.
Best Regards,
Orange Corner
(PS: The user thanking you created a new page, Marek69 to express his thanks. I am merely relaying them :) )Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orange Corner, You're very Welcome. I hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia. If there's anything I can do to help you, please let me know, I would be very happy to assist.
Kind Regards and Happy Wiki-ing :-) Marek.69 talk 16:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Thanks also to you, Excirial, for relaying Orange's message. Cheers :-)) Marek.69 talk 16:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fernando Silva (footballer born 1977)
Your Coreva-Bot added an unreferenced tag to the above referenced article...GiantSnowman 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically taken the article includes an external links section which is, par the WP:MOS and Wikipedia:External_links#References_and_citation, not meant to include references used in the development of the article. Because of this Coreva does not take these external link sections into account when placing that template; Instead it checks for <ref> tags and References headers. If it finds either it will not tag the article.
OK, fair enough then, seeing as it is test bot I just thought I'd let you know in case it affected your plans. As for the external links, I have fixed the NFT template. Cheers, GiantSnowman 21:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, good you mentioned it, thanks! Geez, if i forget that at every bug report im pretty sure people eventually wont bother dropping me a note anymore. One of the problems with Coreva is that it checks for a rather large amount of issues to tag for, which at times creates some complex situations. If i did ignore on external links headers this could provide false negatives on quite some article's. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:nofootnotes
Can I suggest a bit more care with this footnote?
When articles are tagged {{1911}} or {{JewishEncyclopedia}} or some other out-of-copyright source, it is a pretty robust indicator that the whole thing has probably been lifted verbatim from that source.
When that is the case, is {{nofootnotes}} really appropriate? Far from the sources being "unclear", a quick comparison with the cited work will as often as not reveal the source for every single word.
Can I therefore suggest you get your bot to be rather more judicious with articles that have templates like {{1911}} or {{JewishEncyclopedia}} ? Jheald (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, Coreva will now check for these templates (And all their aliases) and will ignore tagging an article for references and footnotes in case they are found. My thanks for the notice, as i was not aware of the excistance of these templates, leave alone what they signal. One of the main issues a bot such as Coreva has is that there are exceptions regarding each maintenance template, which have to be coded before Coreva understands the exception - as in this case that it should not tag 1911 and JE templates article's for references. Then again, i did not even know so myself so it would have been impossible to add before you notified me. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
I know this is awfully late, but congratulations on being a BAG member now! If i hadn't been on a non voluntarily wikibreak the past three months i would have said this a LOT earlier. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the belated congratulations :). It's good to have you back on-wiki :). - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doves
We used to get the most wikkid Doves from this Lebanese guy whose brother ran a strip joint. Just sayin' :) Crafty (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For now i prefer my new icecube's which i saved in fridge though :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't any substantial history here. I didn't know J existed until October 30; the "history" you refer to occurred last night. This is the normal time frame for taking concerns to ANI; especially because his most recent alteration of another editor's post occurred within the last few hours. Durova352 16:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, thanks for the clarification Durova. I was kind of afraid i stumbled into some form of tangled conflict where several editors didn't really appreciate each other's presence and thus started some form of feud on ANI (As in: He did that to him because he supported me previously). Guess this is due to reading several accusations made by Chillum and Ottava regarding each others reason to comment on the issue- and this detective im reading in between edits isn't the best way to counter such idea's will not be the best way to surpress idea's about intrigues. Glad this isn't the case though. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Isn't it a relief when, occasionally, the plot doesn't thicken but thins? Now I'm off on a happy errand: Roger Davies has spotted an error in Library of Congress bibliographic records; their staff has just confirmed his correction. They confused the identities of two different Edwardian field marshals. So I'm off to do housekeeping because the image got promoted to featured picture. Cheers, Durova352 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And i guess ill be improving Coreva'sregexes for now i guess, still a few false positives to iron out. Best of luck, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
