User talk:Scottywong/Archive 1

Speedy Deletion of List Of The Shak Episodes

I have been very patient with this issue and you agree that it is no longer a canidate so could you please delete the warning box above the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt-tastic (talk • contribs) 06:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt-tastic, the article has not been listed for speedy deletion. It has been nominated for deletion and its fate is currently being discussed by Wikipedia editors. Until the AfD is closed, the warning box on the article cannot be removed. It will be removed by the admin who closes the AfD. SnottyWong talk 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Pit Bull GA review

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to review the Pit Bull article and provide constructive comments. Astro$01 (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't Hang

Since one editor said "Delete except the charting ones", and they'd all charted, I had to interpret that as a keep. This tipped the balance over in combination with the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. I was very aware that if we had deleted articles for songs which charted in the Top 10 Billboard, then they would inevitably be re-created, and probably in a worse state than the existing articles. It is, as I said, an editorial decision whether to redirect the articles to their parent albums. However, I altered the AfD close to reflect the fact that it was a split consensus. If you wish to appeal this at WP:DRV, please feel free. Black Kite 12:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review: "Existence"

First, you don't need to reference plot section, see Pilot (30 Rock) for an example. Second, the whole production section was referenced by the audio commentary which is a reliable source and common when referencing production information. You have given one of the worst reviews possibly, not because you did not pass it, but because you did not give a "good" review. Therefor either you review it again or you get someone else to do it. --TIAYN (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing in another reviewer, who will give a thourough review... okay? --TIAYN (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but such reviews as this should no be possible. I'm removing your edit on the GA nomination page. --TIAYN (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is obviously not GA status. If you're looking for comments on how to improve it, get a peer review. Otherwise, it's not worth the time of a GA reviewer to thoroughly review the article. Show me another GA article that has 3 total references, with the main reference (used for 95% of the article) being an audio commentary from a DVD movie. Feel free to apply for a reassessment if you feel it's necessary. I would work on getting some real references in there in the meantime.

Also, please don't delete the cleanup tag on the article without discussing why you don't think it should be there on the talk page. SnottyWong talk 16:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Pilot (30 Rock) has 38 references. Existence (The X-Files) has three. I don't think you should be using that article as a comparison. If you have issues with my review, add a comment to the review and apply for a reassessment. Don't delete it. SnottyWong talk 16:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is their a guideline out which is against use of three references?, if soo please show me! This one had only five and it still passed. Even if their are few references, you can't just not pass it!! You can't just pass an article because you believe is should be more references. The article only needs to be referenced, and have over one reference. --TIAYN (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My argument is not solely that you don't have enough references, it's also that your references are poor quality. Can you find a transcript of the audio commentary on the DVD? Otherwise, who is actually going to buy the DVD and listen to the audio commentary to verify that your article is accurate? Second, your reference on the Nielsen rating is from an X-files fan site, not a reliable source. Third, your last reference has a link that doesn't point directly to the data you're referencing. I wouldn't even rate this article as B-status. Furthermore, I'm tempted to apply for a reassessment of Without (The X-Files), as I wouldn't have passed that one either. SnottyWong talk 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

First, an audio commentary is commonly used in these articles. So live with it.

Second, your right. The Nielsen ratings are referenced by a fansite, but the site has not been proven faulse by any reliable sources. In season 1-7 articles, most of the articles are commonly referenced by a book, such as Things: The Official Guide to the X-Files Volume 6.. The Problem being that their does not exist such a book for season 8-9. Being that the sites nielsen data has not been proven faulse or inaccurate by the reliable sources. It should and is a reliable source.

Third, the source has been used that way on a toons of other articles. And it is impossible to give a direct link to the source. This has been used on such articles as "Adrift" and "Two Fathers". To find the page, follow the instructions found on the reference!

--TIAYN (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to duplicate everything you post on my talk page on the article's talk page, then why don't we just have the discussion on the article talk page, ok? SnottyWong talk 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but remove the verify banner until the discussion is finished --TIAYN (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. The cleanup tag is marking this article as being in need of references (which it obviously is). Once you can make an argument that it is largely referenced (using high-quality references, and not using WP:OSE as your justification for not referencing certain sections), then the cleanup tag can come down. SnottyWong talk 16:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything is referenced! Your problem is that their are not enough references, but that is a whole other discussion. --TIAYN (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave me alone... --TIAYN (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Head's up

Hello, I recently decided to take on your GA Nomination of CobraNet. Review is likely: Today or tomorrow. Just to let you know. --MWOAP (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the heads up. SnottyWong talk 23:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

how was paperback a hoax?

Did you try the program? Because it works, wait never mind I'm to apathetic to bother this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warll (talk • contribs) 07:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Wait, you really did think it didn't work? The program works, I wouldn't have made an article for it if it didn't. You seriously think that a fax is the the upper level of scanning and printing capabilities? Theres a reason why the author recommended that you use a scanner that can scan at three times the DPI you printed I on. Are you really this computer illiterate? Not to mention that this means to delete articles without proper research. You know that image that was in the article? That was compressed copy of the file I scanned and recompiled of the program's binary. Compressed because the original was 300MB. You can try it yourself, but that would be too much work wouldn't it when you could just delete away, right? Oh and I sure hope you do not expect cilicty now that you have confessed to destroying work based solely off of your whim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.171.197 (talk • contribs)

Warll, nice try. Did you forget the part about how the "official website" of the program lists the program as a joke? Even in the unlikely event that the program actually does exist and function, it still doesn't come anywhere close to satisfying WP:GNG or WP:SOFTWARE. Therefore, it was either a hoax or it was a self-serving advertisement for a non-notable software product. In either case, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. SnottyWong talk 12:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled across the speedy deletion page as I was about to create (re-create?) the page myself.

The comment at the beginning of the official page was self-deprecating humor. (eg. Here is my latest software, sorry it's such a joke) The combative tone of the original editor not withstanding, The program does exist and works, it's pretty neat. If you want I can post screen shots (Might even be useful for the article in question).

I disagree with the arguments about this software being non-notable. All just my humble opinion :) Feel free to do what you will.

Thanks! 74.125.59.73 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Produce a few independent, reliable, verifiable sources that assert the notability of your software and I won't have any argument with someone recreating this page. SnottyWong talk 18:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of original article for Anthony Shaw

Hello you have just REVERSED the restoration of a vandalized page for Anthony Shaw that was vandalized on 20 November 2009 but NOT picked up by Wikipedia. Please can you review the ORIGINAL article and my recent edit to confirm that I was reversing the damaged caused on that date. In short what happened was a NON-FAMOUS UK blogger with a similar name HIJACKED the page on that date replacing an article on the director with an article about himself. I am also UK based and believe me the UK blogger is NOT famous here. He may be famous to a few friends and a select few thousand people (spam bots?) who are sad enough to follow him on Twitter the UK blogger doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article as he has done nothing of note, however the person who's page he hijacked is actually famous. So please review and revert your own edit as you've just restored the damage. Many thanks!

Your reversion was deleted because you accidentally deleted the AfD template on the page when you were restoring the non-vandalized version of the article. Only admins should remove AfD templates. In any case, upon further examination, it appears that your edits were made in good faith, and that the AfD nomination for this article was never completed. I have reverted to the non-vandalized version of the article, and finished the AfD nomination for the article. Thanks for heads-up, and sorry for the confusion. SnottyWong talk 13:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you. Yes I realized my mistake about the AfD template. Appreciate the restore of that also as it needs to be reviewed. As an admin please can you ask for this page to be locked or watched for now as I have a feeling that the NON-FAMOUS guy will attempt to damage Wikipedia again, thus best to ensure he can't for now whilst Google etc re-index the page. Thank you. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Anon

I'm not an admin, but I'll watch the page until the AfD is completed. SnottyWong talk 13:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, should be an admin as your doing a good job ;-) Have a great weekend! Many thanks 212.183.140.33 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Kenji Yamamoto (Composer/arranger) nominated for deletion

How is it decided whether or not a song is notable? I assumed since Kenji Yamamoto has composed or arranged such a large number of songs (most of which I haven't gotten around to translating from the Japanese Wikipedia page), he would be considered notable enough. I mean, Kenji Yamamoto (the Nintendo composer) has only 17 works on his page, while this Kenji Yamamoto can have about seven times that (if I add the rest of his work). Also, what does "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" mean? Linkdude20002001 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very clear on its policies about the notability of many different subjects, including songs and composers. If you're looking for the notability of a song, take a look at WP:NSONGS. The more relevant criteria for this situation, however, is WP:COMPOSER and, to a lesser extent, WP:CREATIVE. Also, regarding your question about self-published sources: self-published sources are ok for sourcing information about a topic, however, an article must have at least a few citations from independent, verifiable, reliable sources in order to establish notability. Self-published or questionable sources cannot be used to establish notability. Take a look at the general notability guidelines. SnottyWong talk 02:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So, would adding links to website pages about him (like MusicBrainz) be a good idea to help show nobility? I'm having a hard time thinking of what websites are independent, verifiable, reliable sources. I know there's an interview with Kenji in a soundtrack booklet, but that probably doesn't count, huh? Linkdude20002001 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good sources would be newspaper or magazine articles about Kenji, which were independently written by a disinterested party (i.e. not just a regurgitated press release or ad). SnottyWong talk 02:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Safe Climate Act AFD

I noticed that you said the article's notability appears temporary. That is a misconception. While our conception of what is notable might change over time, that same time does not have an effect on the bill or act. It's notability is determined based on media coverage in political impact. This might be easier to determine over time, but the actual notability won't have changed. In short, it is not temporary: it's either there, or it's not. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why my vote was a Weak Delete, because it was a judgement call. It's unlikely that anyone will remember or care about a failed bill in 50 years. Feel free to add your opinion to the AfD if you disagree with me. SnottyWong talk 13:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hi Snottywong, I don't particularly appreciate being referred to inappropriately as a "suckpuppet" with a "master". Please keep your unsubstantiated comments to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlingpearce (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Right. So you're just a new user who happened to stumble upon a random AfD and made that your first and only edit. I believe that. After all, there are tons of brand new users who dive right into AfD discussions right after they create their accounts. SnottyWong talk 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, I've been using Wikipedia for quite a while and the article in question was the first time I felt obliged to create an account and attempt to make some productive comments. Hence, I read into the AfD process and made my comments. I understand that I may still not completely understand the notability and crystal ball specifications, but wanted to try and contribute to the community. I hope, for Wikipedia's sake, that I quickly encounter more constructive and helpful people (in AfD's and other talk pages) and that I can continue to add my small voice to the din of those too quick to judge. --Sterlingpearce (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CSD G4 and TIHUS - The International Hindi-Urdu Script

G4 can only be used when the article was deleted as the result of an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion. It is not intended for use when a previous deletion was a speedy deletion or a prod. Please review Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4. In this case, I am unable to find third-party references online, but perhaps offline references may be available. It might be better to take the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion -- Eastmain (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't see that. That's wierd. So if an article is deleted from AfD and re-created, you can speedy delete it, but if an article is speedy deleted and recreated, you can't? Doesn't seem logical. SnottyWong talk 23:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Concern

Snottywong, I'm concerned by the spam tag that you added at User talk:Rbedrosian. This user appears to be an obvious academic, who creates some of the reliable sources which we use on Wikipedia. This is the kind of editor who should be nurtured and encouraged, not slapped with a warning template. Would you please consider reverting your spam template on their page? --Elonka 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Response on User talk:Rbedrosian. SnottyWong talk 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have replied there as well, though I also strongly recommend reading (or re-reading) WP:BITE. I do appreciate that you're trying to help out with patrolling Recent Changes, but I think you jumped the gun a bit with this editor. Perhaps it might be better to work in some other areas of the project, than issuing warning templates? For example, there's lots that needs to be done at WP:CLEANUP. Or check some of the articles at Category:Articles that need to be wikified. There are plenty of articles there that either need minor edits, or just need someone to check to see if the {{wikify}} tag needs to be removed! Any help that you could offer there, would be greatly appreciated.  :) --Elonka 01:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Gymtops

I'm not promoting anything. Gymtops.com is a historical on the walkout shirts that fighters wear during any given event, thus my external link would be valid. It's probably about the same as when users post a listing of which fighters cam out to whichever song. I am aware that Wikipedia uses nofollow so it wouldn't matter in the searches, but my data is historical data on the fighter and can be used as a reference. So atleast I should be added to the reference section at most.

Thanks,

Jay

P.S.

Please do your research before you deem someones content not appropriate. Don't be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymtops (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Gymtops, give me a break. First of all, your username is Gymtops, and the only contributions you've made are to add external links to gymtops.com (need I say more?). Second of all, gymtops.com is a website that apparently documents the clothing that athletes wear, and provides links to buy them from other (presumably affiliated) sites. I have done my research. Your content is inappropriate. I'm not biased. Please read WP:COI before continuing to add external links to various articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopeida, not a place to advertise your website, and your website is not an informational source by Wikipedia's standards. SnottyWong talk 20:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

about my article

the article i typed is from vikram publishers physics manual. and that book has full of correct information.what's wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanth338 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You added content at the very bottom of the article, below even the references and footnotes, and the content you added was irrelevant and out of context. Try adding relevant info into the body of the article. SnottyWong talk 12:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article status

Belated congratulations on good article status for CobraNet --Kvng (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad I was able to get it done before life got in the way and had me move 3000 miles away for a new job... Haven't been able to contribute much lately, but I'll probably be back eventually... SnottyWong talk 23:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Place Your Input

could you please place your input into the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendal Nagorcka, I am not telling you which way to sway,howver I would appreciate a expericenced editor like yourself providing a input to the case

Self-promotional articles

Hi Snottywong, I was just reminded that I wanted to do something about the X-parameters article, as it seems to be WP:SPIP, WP:OR, WP:COI and perhaps WP:NN (since only recently invented). So I was reading up on the necessary procedures only to discover you'd already tackled this one in December. From your talk-page it seems you take an interest in this sort of issue, so could you give your opinion on the acceptability of the article Abbotsford Virtual School? My attention was drawn to this when the propriator added his name to Hutchinson (surname). Thanks, --catslash (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular cat names (2nd nomination)

SnottyWong – Thanks for your concern on this deletion. Two sets of thoughts follow:

• Your presumption that I didn’t read the AfD, article or sources before I made the close has been based on the idea that you knew what I was doing (or had been doing), prior to the close.

Also, we must consider that the history for the AfD shows that you posted a closing template, and then posted your decision a mere 7 minutes later. We can only assume that it took you 7 minutes to read the approximately 3000 words of opinions, look at all of the external links and sources provided in the opinions, interpret the consensus, and write your opinion. From this we can assume that you skimmed over the !votes, didn't look at any of the sources provided, and cobbled together a (fairly ridiculous) closing statement which you (thankfully) later struck through. Clearly, you knew which way you were going to close the AfD before you even started reading the !votes (and it's clear you weren't reading the AfD prior to posting the closing template, since you were editing a different article only 5 minutes before you posted the closing template).

— SnottyWong, Mike Cline talk page, 02:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I find this to be a pretty powerful skill on your part, even though you got it wrong.

• • For the most part, I review every AfD, every day, from the day its posted, until the day its closed. Admittedly, not every AfD is compelling reading, and a few get skimmed pretty fast. There are AfDs (such as this one) where I follow the daily line of reasoning fairly closely. I don’t choose to close a lot of AfDs but when I do close one, I am familiar with the discussion, article and sources. For the most part, the AfDs I close come from the Old AfD discussion list, as this one did. In other words, Afds that 1700+ admins haven’t chosen to close yet.

• • As for the idea that posting a closing template just 7 minutes before posting the closing templates indicates that I didn’t read the Afd isn’t very good logic. (I am surprised it took me 7 minutes to post the close.) I always post the closing template as step one of my closing routine merely to forestall edit conflicts while posting the close. It is merely a flag and is totally unrelated to any need for time to evaluate the close.

• • As for my editing an article 5 minutes before I closed this Afd (apparently the real clue that I didn’t read the Afd), the explanation is rather simple. I monitor an extensive watchlist on a second browser tab. When I noted a bit of vandalism on the Yellowstone article, I rolled it back.

• You have used the term Votes

Especially in the case that there were 9 delete votes and 5 keep votes, there ought to be a compelling explanation for why the Keep's reasonings were more sound than the Delete's.

• • AfDs are not votes. Plus it was fairly easy to evaluate the deletes since 4 of the nine were essentially: Per Savonneux (including yours), whose main point was that the subject was not based on reliable sources (refuted I believe by JohnWBarber). The other deletes (except Chris’s) dealt mainly with usefullness and silliness (not reasons for deletion). The Keeps on the otherhand, made the notability case and the case for sources (especially JohnWBarber). When you factor in the fact that the article was a Keep in a previous AfD, I believe the Keep decision was correct. AfD is not cleanup nor a place for a lot of subjective discussion about usefulness.

I know you do not agree with keeping this article, but that is not why I posted this. I just wanted to explain my routine. I will apologize for the frivolous comments made when first closing this AfD as they were inappropriate but will go unexplained any further.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. That article is completely ridiculous, but I really don't care enough about it to argue. SnottyWong talk 21:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about you at AN/I

Here [1] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

re Comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cement in Africa

Snotty - You said: "Completely pointless and silly are not reasons for deletion." -- Shouldn't they be? in response to my Keep argument. Maybe you should try and get those reasons added to the list here: WP:DEL#Reasons. Then they could legitimately be used as a deletion arguments.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I figured those reasons would already be covered by WP:COMMONSENSE. SnottyWong talk 18:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixing in the Food Industry

You commented on a similar AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixing in Consumer Products. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire

You like being a bit of a jerk don't you? I am going to tell the teacher on you if you don't delete her first.--Milowent (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Taking the actions you described in User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire is disruptive editing. As such, I've rolled back all of them, even the !vote for keeping Upstate New York, because of your expressed bad faith. Were I not already involved with you on one discussion, I would have already blocked you for disruptive editing. I'm going to be starting an ANI thread for future guidance, and until that's resolved, you are expected to contribute to that thread, rather than attempting to !vote in any more AfD's of any articles flagged for rescue. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)