User talk:Warrush/Archive 1

Hello, Warrush, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Spellcast 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to List of trojan horses (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism, link spam, or test edits to the page. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 22:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warrush. You recently removed information about the death of 50's mother on the basis that it's "useless information", but I reverted it because that info is relevant to his biography. If you look at a featured article like Jenna Jameson, it also explains that her mother died when she was young, so I don't think that this type of background information should be removed, and it's definitely not useless as this had a significant impact on 50's later life as documented in multiple sources 1 2. Another featured article, Weird Al, also explains how his parents passed away. If you have any thoughts, just hit me up. Thanks! Spellcast 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chess thing was a userbox. You can find other userboxes by clicking these links. Runewiki777 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Remember always type in four of these ~ to sign your name.[reply]

Hope you don't mind my edits. Runewiki777 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You edited my edits on Jyotiṣa, claiming I was a vandal. Please verify the edits before you make such accusations.158.144.16.1 17:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the refs. See the talk page.158.144.16.16 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you please stop edit warring over the tags and use the talk page to discuss this issue. I will protect the article if this nonsense continues and then nobody will be able to edit it.--Chaser - T 17:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit may have solved the problem. Please comment on the article's talk page.--Chaser - T 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed. RuneWiki777 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like it! RuneWiki777 16:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for telling me about the userbox mistake!

Enjoy! RuneWiki777 16:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Runescape character is level 57. He has 336k. RuneWiki777

I don't want to sound like a noob or anything but, can I have some money in RS?

Hi. I have made a new signature for you! You can change your signature by going to your preferences. Check the Raw signature box by clicking on it. Then paste the code into the signauter box. RuneWiki777 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 <font color="00ff00">[[User:Warrush|War]]</font>'''<font color="ff0000">[[User talk:Warrush|rush]]</font>

Warrush'

The War links to your userpage while the rush links to your talk page. The rush doesn't seem to link to your talk page, becuase it is in your talk page, so it doesn't link.

Enjoy! RuneWiki777 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Deletiontools}} is a template that lists pretty much every deletion tool you'll need. Here is the criteria for speedy deletion ("Ax", also "CSD"), proposed deletion process ("prod"), articles for deletion process ("AfD"), and deletion review ("DRV"). --Wafulz 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked : Why remove? in Biomedical Chromatography. Please see [1] and compare. 82.169.159.161 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted some on CSD and have enlisted some friends to go through and remove all the copyvio--the same guy from the company added about 20 journals this morning, and all of them just the same way. I've already blocked him so he won't be able to continue. But most of their journals are notable, so I'm trying to keep the stubs until they can be properly documented.

In general, almost all peer-reviewed journals from major publishers are usually held notable at AfD (only two scholarly journals deleted there this year so far: one from a very minor publisher not in WP but noted for its low quality--and this was near the bottom, even for it; and another published from an institute where not even the institute's own library keeps it.) The usual secondary reference is journal citation reports and Ulrich's--Ulrich's alone doesn't do it for they list everything, but the information they list is reliable about circulation, who indexes it, how long it has been published, etc. all of which are factors relevant to notability. DGG 17:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got the wrong guy. I reverted edits by 204.239.110.250. View the diff. I assume this was a mistake, but I am working hard to keep vandalism off Wikipedia. I'm new here, so if I did do something wrong, please let me know. Please respond to this message on my talk page.  DangerousNerd  talk 18:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP. :)  DangerousNerd  talk 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!  DangerousNerd  talk 18:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you added the AfD for this aricle mistakenly to the top of the AfD for Do it. The page you listed for deletion already has a sppedy tag on it, so I'm not sure an AfD is necessary. I'm going to remove the mistaken AfD from the current AfD for Do it as well. Wildthing61476 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a CSD tag, just put a warning on the author's talk page. Since it's not being discussed, but proposed for speedy deletion, it just needs an admin to delete it. Wildthing61476 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, is there anything wrong? My logs show him blocked. Even his does. --soum ^talk 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Block history does not show in the page history of the user's talk page. It shows in the user's logs. Go to the user's talk page, and there will be "User contributions" link in the left hand toolbox. From there, you will have a link to his logs.

As for the talk page, generally people inform the user with a note on the talk page regarding the block, and possibly its duration. Thats what you probably were watching out for. But it is just a courtesy, not a part of the blocking procedure. And it is up to the discretion of the blocking admin. Some do not bother to put the note on school ips given the rate of vandalism and also because in almost all cases someone other than the vandal will get the message bar. Regardless whether the message is posted or not, when a blocked ip tries to edit, s/he will get a message saying the ip/username is blocked, the reason and the duration shown. --soum ^talk 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) --soum ^talk 14:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷

Hello, and sorry for the delay. Heres your userbox.

Brought to you by, The shop. Enjoy! RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 18:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry sir, but I cannot legally under wikipedia standards place a proper image of Slipknot. It's not "fair use" therefore it is "illegal". RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 19:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've never requested a second peer review, so I'm not sure if there is a separate tag to use. In general, for a peer review you put the tag {{peerreview}} on the talk page of the article you'd like to have reviewed. See WP:Peer Review for more info. Karanacs 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ive put this up for peer review under the biography wikiproject. Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review The explanation of how to do it yourself is on the page and is easy to follow. Woodym555 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Computer science. If you haven't done so already, please stop by the project talk page to see what the other project participants are up to right now. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe it was vandalism? The BGH was definitely open before 1991, because I was born there in 1989... 80.41.236.177 14:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't vandalism, It is unreferenced. See WP:ATT under the title, Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. And here is the edit summary of the article. Warrush 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well - will the edit be accepted if I add [2]? 80.41.236.177 16:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, be sure to add it. Warrush 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Roy L. Pearson, Jr. are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WLU 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, its still funny as hell. Warrush 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the man's obviously got issues, we're just not allowed to say it on the talk pages :) WLU 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then were the hell can we laugh out loud without getting reverted?Warrush 17:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend Uncyclopedia or WP:HUMOR might have some other stuff, or perhaps WP:JOKE. WLU 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still looking for adoption? I'd be happy to offer what help I can. WLU 16:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. Now I have to figure out what that means for me... At this point, if you've got any questions, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to help. WLU 16:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think the following tag has to be added to your user page, {{adoptoffer|WLU}} or this one if you'd prefer: {{adoptee|WLU}} I've modified my user page accordingly.

Second, I totally recommend popups to speed up vandalism reverts and generally being insanely useful.

Third, that's pretty much it. I'm here if you've got questions and I might drop you a line if I notice one of your contributions is iffy or could be improved. Depends on how much time I've got to kill. Aside from that, drop me a line on my talk page if you've got questions and I'll do my best to answer them. I'm on wikipedia daily, usually 5-10 times per day with either minor/major edits or checking my watchlist, so you should get a pretty quick answer to your questions. Other than that, I've been through arbitration, mediation, requests for comments and nearly a year of plain ol' editing. If you find any of my comments or advice to be too heavy-handed let me know and I'll adjust - text-based communication is notoriously prone towards conflict. WLU 16:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't use it because it requires a type of software? My knowledge of computers and programming is pretty minimal. I was under the impression that it was an internal-to-wikipedia thing, but if you know better then don't listen to me. Something to do with javascript I assume.

It is, I just figured it was a regedit thing. I've tried to do it but it doesn't seem to work. Warrush 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind its working. Warrush 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The error message is systemic - sometimes wikipedia just craps out. I think it's 'cause they're doing something to the servers. Today seems like one of those days. It'll go away, usually it's not that long. WLU 17:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some related points - doesn't matter as much if it's your talk page, but generally the talk page guidelines discourage mixing old and new comments and the suggested format is to only add comments and replies below any pre-existing comments. Natch there's people who don't follow this and certain pages (such as AfD discussions) where this isn't followed as much. Also, there's two ways of spacing comments - every successive comment adds a colon to the start of the line, resetting itself when the comments get way too indented. Second way is to have every person take a specific indent and stick with it. I prefer the second, though I use both. Final point - if you use three tildes (~~~) it signs just your name, five (~~~~~) and it's just the date. Sometimes it's cleaner to use just the shortened version or timestamp. WLU

Skimming through your contribution history, I notice you delete a lot of external links. A suggestion - rather than using an edit summary with the word 'spammer' in it, a more neutral way is to use 'remove as per WP:EL'. And I see you've recently found out about the template messages - they save a lot of time. Aside from that it looks like you're picking up stuff pretty quickly so I'm not so sure how much help I'll be. One thing you might find useful are the Citation templates and Reference generator which make referencing info a whole lot easier. WLU 17:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally if it's uncontroversial, I (and this is just me, others might have other things to say) assume good faith and let it stand. If it's unsourced but reasonable (or I know that it's true), I just let it stand. If it's unsourced and a bit of a stretch, I add a {{fact}} tag to the individual comment or an {{unsourced}} {{sources}} {{citations missing}}or {{refimprovesect}} if it's the whole article or specific section. More templates here. If it's extreme, I move it to the talk page with a note like this. My rule of thumb is, just because I don't know doesn't mean it isn't true, but as soon as someone challenges a fact, it needs to be sourced. It's the line between spending all your time looking up sources for everything and letting crap stay on the page. Of course, if it's blatant vandalism it should be removed. WLU 18:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that when it's about a person, WP:BLP applies and the standards for proof are much stricter - anything that's not reliably sourced must be removed. Also, don't forget to sign your posts. WLU

Really? Worked on mine. Are you just using the popups link? It won't work for external links, and the 'here' one above is considered external - have to click on it. If you are clicking on it, I have no idea what's wrong. Here it is as a wikilink, otherwise it's the last section of the Applied behavior analysis talk page. WLU

Sorry, my stupid I misunderstood which link you were referring to. I've corrected the link, though you can also get there through WP:TEMPLATE WLU

I don't know what you were really asking. I figured that you wanted the wikinews spam thing, so I signed you up. And by the way, 700 edits in a month is great, TAKE A WIKI BREAK. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

[micromanagement]

Looking at your edit here, in my experience anon IPs aren't worth putting effort into unless you get a serious dialogue somehow - there's a trillion possible anon IPs and to address each one takes a lot of time. Plus, if they're motivated to contribute, 99.999999% will create a userID. I usually stick with warning templates, they're faster, civil and anonymous. Just my opinion.

[micromanagement/]

Also, have you looked over at the AFD pages? Seems like you might enjoy them and if you've got lots of spare time, they could use the help. See also Category:AfD debates.

As a final point, I don't know if you want to change it or not, but having point 5 on your talk page kept as =Hello= rather than ==Hello== kinda messes up the formatting of the page and makes it look like (to other contributors) all messages below that one are a continuation or sub-point of the original one. WLU 13:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I always find it funny when people ask questions like yours. The difference between an admin and you are a couple extra tools. THAT'S IT!!! Check out WP:ADMIN for more info, and WP:ANOT too. Anyone on wikipedia can do just about anything, so BE BOLD in your changes! Vote! Or more accurately, Reason! because AFD is not a vote. The only thing stopping you from making a dent in AFD debates is lack of familiarity with policy. If you're going to be involved in AFD, make sure you read the cited policy and especially the AFD policy, which will lead to a whole bunch of sub-policy and a horrific nightmare of endless wikilinking. It's fun! There is very little you have to be an admin to do on wikipedia. I've argued with admins before, and probably insulted at least one. They're just people with more experience and a butt-load more edits. And hopefully more familiarity with policy.

For an idea about how not to approach and AFD debate, this was one I was involved in. Here's some don'ts:

1. Don't nominate something for deletion because you don't like the user who created the page
2. Don't treat it like a vote
3. Don't be sarcastic in your replies
4. Don't forget to have an explicit, bold typeface opinion on the deletion
5. Don't be a douchebag and treat it like a conversation
6. Don't forget to fully follow the AFD process
7. Don't forget to cite policy
8. Don't forget to use bullet points and sub-points
9. Don't feel like you have to keep your old votes. Change it and strike-through your old vote
10. If someone does change their vote, don't be a douchebag and kiss their ass
11. Don't forget to sign

Here is a good AFD (in my opinion). If you learn from my mistakes you won't have to look back and regret being an idiot a year later. WLU 14:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way to run with it :)

Note that this one could be a bit more civil as it may not be useless to the creator of the article. But meh, they probably aren't on wikipedia anymore.

Make sure you don't WP:VOTE, reason. Also see WP:AADD, which I found very useful in reducing my contributions to AFD unless I had something new to add. WLU 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. See here - self published sources are out. Can't even be included as an external link, unless it's the Myspace page of the person the wikipage is about. Even then, it's dubious. The only real exception would be if it is a biopage, and it is being used to justify something banal about the subject - their height, address, a quote perhaps. If you're still on AFD debates, myspace would not be a useful source - in order for Myspace to be used on a wikipage, the person must already be of sufficient notability that AFD isn't a serious consideration. WLU 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here I would say there is a difference between not meeting notability and failing to have WP:RS - failing RS doesn't mean something needs to be deleted, but failing notability does. The only source being myspace and the failure to meet notability are two separate issues. If that was your intention, your statement is ambiguous and the mis-interpretation is mine. Also, you should sign the post.

If the constant monitoring is getting on your nerves, let me know and I'll lay off. WLU 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for it...

To date, you're doing pretty well barring some minor civility stuff (word choice mostly, not insults). And I can't really criticize 'cause I do pretty much the same thing if I suspect vanity, spam or vandalism. Though I am a bit concerned with your burgeoning problem. I usually update mine at 500-count intervals. WLU 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, Once I hit 1000 ill stop. Hopefully. Warrush

No you won't. You think you will now but come the time you'll just start replacing regular reference with reference templates. Makes no difference on the page, you will know the difference. Wait until you start a to-do list on your user page. WLU 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One link? Amateur. Mine never gets shorter. I'm going back to work now. WLU

Note that if I'm not around or it's a complicated question, you can always add the {{helpme}} template to your talk page and someone'll try to answer your question. I just used it, and you might find it handy too. WLU 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still on wikipedia Grasshopper (Padawan? Do you prefer Star Wars or oriental nomenclature)? How would you like to do me a favour. I'm blocked from doing anything myself because of my arbitration hearing, but there are a couple fixes that could be made here. For one, the weird K is messing up the section heading, for another, the section title should not be linked, thus (third bullet down). Final corrections would be to move the ]] to the left in [[Parafollicular cells]] (i.e. [[Parafollicular cell]]s instead) and change [[parathyroids]] to [[Parathyroid gland]]. The last two changes make no substantive difference aside from having direct rather than redirect links. I think there's a policy somewhere but I couldn't be bothered to find it.

Note that I may be temporarily banned for this for violating my arbitration agreement, I'm not sure what the arbitration/arbitrators will have to say about monitoring someone but squealing to someone else about their contribution. If anyone shits on you, well, let this be my statement that it's my fault. Also, if you're uncomfortable with it, don't do it. WLU 14:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually more than a little uncomfortable with this request, so I'm rescinding it. Also pursuing a voluntary ban for the next 2 days, so I won't be on-line or available for questions. Look for my return in the east on Saturday. WLU 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's about me, not you. You know how some people think before they do? I tend to do, then think, then try to undo. Anyway, no voluntary ban (well, there was a 1-second ban but it hardly counts). It's more about demonstrating that I understand my actions and their implications than about being punished. The voluntary ban was more to help me get some work done, but apparently the wikipedia community doesn't care if I waste time so I must needs use willpower instead. *sulk* My apologies for almost getting you involved in this. However, the points I made above about what I see as the problems with the Thyroid page still stand as things you generally want to avoid. Plus, if you do get involved in an arbitration hearing, don't be a douchebag after the fact and try to finesse your way out of the ruling. WLU 16:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regards this, remember that just because something doesn't have a source, doesn't mean it MUST be taken out. If the information is true, or reasonable, there's not much reason to remove it. This is how I interpret WP:AGF (only remove it if it's an extreme claim or you know it to be incorrect), and it could be ideosyncratic. Now, I don't know the specifics of the game itself, so I could be 100% out of line here and the anon IP just threw in a bunch of vandalism that you're reverting. If this is the case, all you need is RVV not a policy citation. WLU 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(old reply) Looking over the history a bit more, I'm just not sure. It could be vandalism if the information is incorrect (which I don't know). If you know it's true but badly worded, I'd just edit it to be more readable and with appropriate tone. If you know it's blatantly false, revert with the message RVV and that's it. If you aren't sure, AGF. Also, the message you left on their talk page looked home-made, did you write it youself? If not, where'd you get it from? Personally, I'd have used either {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or {{subst:uw-test1}}, but I'd also probably have checked the user's contribution history. Not knowing anything about the game, I'd say it looks like a 12-year-old wanted to add stuff but didn't bother trying to keep it in line with WP:5P. You could also have cited WP:NOT, as in not an instruction manual. WLU 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I violate WP:AGF? I wasn't harsh on him, I just reverted and told him where, and how, to make or edit an article. I've never played croc so I guess next time just leave it standing and tell him/her to add some sources or put the fact template on it. Warrush

I'd say possibly a bit, not quite a violation but you could have AGF but re-written it. Reverting is easier, but it also limits the expansion of the page. There's definitely some wordsmithing that could be done, you could also have moved it to the talk page with a note about the tone. I don't think sources is really a problem (you're never going to get sources for something like basic game content), I think it's more WP:NOT. Also kinda crufty. Have you seen WP:NOT? It's sublime and very handy.

Only other advice is don't write your own vandalism templates, it takes up way too much time :) I'd say you done good. WLU 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not against Wikipedia rule to remove warnings...it's frowned upon to remove warnings from one's own page, for sure, but I removed both yours and my prior warning because they were inappropriate and provided an explanation.

I initially warned for this edit, but it's clear to me now that the editor was simply trying to do this, removing what was an extra album template on the right side. It was a good edit done clumsily the first two times. As such, I removed the warnings and added a welcome template. I think you should remove the warning you just re-added as it isn't really necessary.

I hope that clears things up. — Scientizzle 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look at that link: see the two album sidebars? You restored the second one...That's clearly what this editor was trying to remove, but probably grabbed an extra "}}". It's certainly an argument that the anon IP should have used the preview button, but I'm confident this was a good-faith edit. — Scientizzle 22:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go back to that article and combine the ever-so-slightly different info in the two boxes. — Scientizzle 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you removing your warning. I've changed the templates on that page to a reasonable end--it's less redundant now. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! — Scientizzle 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]