User talk:UsaSatsui
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My First Archive! Hooray!
My Second Archive! Yahoo!
Some Quick Notes
- If you're about to leave nothing but a template on my talk page, please don't. They irritate me. I'd much rather get something typed out than copy/pasted. If you must slap a template down, please also include a personal message.
- I keep an eye on my watchlist. If any pages I still am concerned about are put up for an XFD, chances are I know. I appreciate that you're bothering to give me notice, but I probably don't need it.
- Since you came here, I'm going to assume you want the answer to your question or concern here. If you want a reply on your talk page (or somewhere else, even), just ask and I'll go there to comment.
- If it's about a prod I removed, go and read WP:PROD carefully before coming here to argue about what it says. Make sure you read all of it. Honestly, your time would be better spend setting the article up for AFD rather than fighting for a Prod that won't go through (and can be overturned at WP:DRV in a matter of minutes).
- If you need help with anything, I'll do what I can for you. Unless you're a jerk. If you are, forget it.
[edit] Thanx
You made me feel better But what is the point of doing taht stuff they never freakin listen tom e especially Esanchez7587 User:SPBLU —Preceding comment was added at 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I dunno. Wikipedia is a lot more complex than it looks at first glance. All I can tell you is not to take it too personally, some people are less understanding of new people than others. Down to business, though: Have you read this page? Check it out, see if you can find a way to show the notability of the song...and be prepared to accept the fact it may not have any. Or at least have any yet...things could change when the video is released. Individual songs usually don't get an article unless they top the charts. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No problem
I have no problem with being wrong ;)
I actually get surprisingly few complaints about this, although I'm always expecting someone to take issue with it. I think it helps to have an overly descriptive edit summary, and to refer to WP:PROD as if to say "Hey, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them", heh. I must say, though, I do get frustrated with the amazing amount of people who attempt to enforce the policy when they obviously haven't bothered to read WP:PROD. Or maybe I'm being a little harsh... --Closedmouth (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kleinstocks
Don't you think we should wait until 5-10-08 to get rid of it? Not now?Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to get rid of it. This article looks like it was merged a month ago and I think that was a good call. I really don't see the problem with a redirect. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rickard Sjolander
- Where is the third person evidence or notability that this article should evidence or show me the AFD discussion on this subjectDwanyewest (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Templi Kalendae
Could we possibly re-prod, per consensus on the talk page? I know it would be slightly a work of mercy rather than policy, but the original author/main editor, and the group themselves, very much desire deletion now, unlike in the past- and WP:RS aren't present anyway. Merkin's mum 02:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- It wouldn't work. The admin would see the previous AFD and not do it. Just re-nominate it or AFD. Note that if consensus is that there's enough notability for an article, there's not a lot that can be done. If all the contributors of the article agree to a deletion, though, you can try tagging it with a {{db-author}}. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stuart Wilson
Hi, my original intent was to move the actor page to Stuart Wilson (actor), then make the main page the disambiguation page. But after looking at the amount of links to the actor page compared with other pages, and doing a Google search [2], it does appear that he should remain at the main page. Do you agree? Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever you like. I was just doing the legwork, and thought the way I set it up works out better, but I have no strong opinions either way (given the choice, I'd leave it how it is) --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Marcus Fenix
An article that you have been involved in editing, Marcus Fenix, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Fenix. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ZeroGiga (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Ted Paige
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ted Paige, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Paige. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Magioladitis (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Contesting needs a reason
"Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion." for WP:PROD which you gave me as a link. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep reading: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith.". Yes, they should leave a reason for removing the prod. They do not have to for it to be valid. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure this was not just a vandalism? I didn't give the user a warning because I couldn't decide. Moreover, as I read it it says "if someone removed the tag, after giving a reason, then..." The rest of the sentence implies to reason like "i hate this article", etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Prod is used for completely uncontroversial deletions. If someone disagrees with it, it's defeated (in fact, the tag itself says to remove it if you disagree). I don't think the removal was vandalism (and I checked to make sure he wasn't just going around deprodding stuff), and even if it was, you need to give the benefit of the doubt. There's really no point in pushing for a contested prod anyways, one request at DRV and the article is back. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] In regards to List of Magic: The Gathering keywords backlinks...
Could you please not remove them until the DRV is closed? Once it's endorsed, I'll be happy to go remove them all myself. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Might wanna try poking an admin or two to get it closed. I've tried a couple, but I don't think any want to touch it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it's been overturned to no consensus. See you 'round. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Configuration integral (statistical mechanics)
Hello UsaSatsui. Please consider restoring my PROD tag on the above article. Since it has never been CSDed or PRODed, it is formally eligible. The editor who removed the PROD was a sock who is now indef-blocked. He was systematically undoing all my edits, so I doubt he has any good-faith interest in this particular article. Since there is a chance the editor who created this article originally is not currently active, this is a normal use of PROD. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken, I reverted myself. But it doesn't look like you're actually pushing for a delete from what I make of the prod...--UsaSatsui (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- This article is essentially a fork of a well-known topic, so its removal is logical. I was trying to provide a way out for the creator. If he can show that his usage is widespread (from any source besides his personal opinion), then keeping it might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:UsaSatsui/Save Toby
Done. Neıl 龱 07:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you
-
- I agree it's almost ready. Can you find a review o fthe book? DGG (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you both. I don't know why a whole section needs to be written about media coverage, but you're right, it should be mentioned. As for a book review...I'll look for a "real" one. Most of what I found about it were blogs and the like, and on Amazon, it's pretty much evenly split between 5 star "It's funny" and 1-star "It's cruel" reviews. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it's almost ready. Can you find a review o fthe book? DGG (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
Thanks for the heads up on the {{prod}} template.
Also, thank you for rvv on my userpage. Someone isn't very happy that I don't let them post their spam links all over the extrusion page. --Wizard191 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Flag templates
Hello again, UsaSatsui ...
Well, it looks like {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-article}} are being embraced and used, as witness the populating of Category:Flagged articles and Category:Flagged editors by Some Other Editors. :-)
There also seems to be support for {{Oldprodfull}}, and I'll probably become more active in patrolling Category:Proposed deletion and Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed, as opposed to New pages patrol.
BTW, I just activated WP:FLAG-MOVIE, and added Movies as a (Guideline) for the flag templates ... it also made sense to have {{Selected filmography}} populate Category:Flagged articles as well ... do you agree?
Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- {{oldprodfull}} is good, and I should probably start using it...I just wish I knew what the "full" stood for. So as the creator of the template, tell me: what does it stand for? As for the flags...I don't get them. Are they supposed to be substitutes for prod when you don't feel like a delete is proper? I don't think I'll be using them. Also, if you're checking prods, might I recommend WP:PRODSUM? It's a very helpful tool, particularly when looking for improperly added prods, duplicate prods, or prods that have been re-added. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Heh! Well, one day I discovered {{Oldafd}} and {{Oldafdfull}}, and there was already an {{Oldprod}}, so it "made sense" to use that name, i.e., it documents the "full" history of its being PRODed (nominated, seconded, and contested) ... besides, it was the middle of the night, and I wasn't feeling very imaginative about the name.
- "And now you know ... the rest of the story!" :-)
- Heh! Well, one day I discovered {{Oldafd}} and {{Oldafdfull}}, and there was already an {{Oldprod}}, so it "made sense" to use that name, i.e., it documents the "full" history of its being PRODed (nominated, seconded, and contested) ... besides, it was the middle of the night, and I wasn't feeling very imaginative about the name.
-
- The flags are for an article that you might want to PROD or CSD, but it's still just Too Early in its development to tell ... basically, you want to keep an eye on it for a few days, and also bring it to the attention of Some Other Editors who might have more interest and knowledge in the subject, and who are willing to "lend a hand" in either (a) getting it fixed up, or else (b) getting rid of it.
-
- Let's say you encounter a newly created article about a local band ... they might satisfy WP:MUSIC, but this is some newbie's first article, and they have absolutely no references, but just a link to the band's MySpace page ... in the spirit of WP:BITE, you don't want to tag it for CSD or PROD the same day it was created, but you feel that it should be flagged for closer scrutiny in a few days ... by placing the article and the author in Category:Flagged articles and Category:Flagged editors, they are also brought to the attention of other editors.
-
- Specific essays like WP:FLAG-BAND and WP:FLAG-MOVIE provide "stencils" of {{Flag-editor}} and {{Flag-article}} that can be copy&pasted with the appropriate (Guideline), while WP:FLAG-BIO contains additional stencils, like one for {{Articleissues}}
-
- It's a matter of personal inclination and choice to use the "Flag, then tag" methodology, but my experience is that the extra level of bureaucracy is worth the effort if it helps retain a newbie editor who might otherwise give up in frustration because their stub articles keep being deleted before they can finish them ... OTOH, the flags can also help to identify disruptive editors or articles that are being recreated after legitimate deletion.
-
- Hey, they're not for the obvious "Kill it before it grows!" kind of article, but for dubious articles that might just need some more time and attention ... they'll be listed in categories for other editors to review as well, so you don't even have to add them to your Watchlist to be reminded to check on them after a few days.
-
- Does that clear it up for you? — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
