User talk:Zappernapper

This user may have left Wikipedia. Zappernapper has not edited Wikipedia since 25 April 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

I'm lazy..... what can i say, you know what to do

User talk:Zappernapper/Image archive - an archive of image warnings from bots.

Other comments are archived the easy way - with this page's own history (meaning some items appearing in the "Archive" may still be active here)

• Archive 1 (Day 1 - January 31, 2009)

Hi!

I haven't logged into Wikipedia for ages! thanks for the complement on the pictures of Twinkle! I would have loved to get a better picture of her to show her markings but unfortunately she was put down in February! It still upsets me a little but her memory will live on!

ELIOT2000 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zapper,

Thanks for taking the time to review the Dog article. I know its a big article, and it took a fair investment of time to look over carefully. I agreed with some of your comments, but I feel that a number of them were really nitpicky, and holding the article to a higher standard than GA There are a fair number of people who have completely stopped trying to achieve FA status because getting an article that last 2% of the way has become very difficult and time intensive, without adding much substantively to the article. Unfortunately, I feel that many of your criticism fall in this category. For instance, you failed the article on being sufficiently referenced. There are over a hundred references in that article, most used multiple times. At least 99% of statements that could be contentious are referenced. You failed it for 3 missing references: the statement that the domestic dog is a subspecies of the wolf--a statement that is supported by 80 of the 100 references, and is not contentious--and the fact that Bob Barker was an advocate of spaying, and a third that I haven't tracked down yet. That standard is not the standard laid out in the good article criteria. Focusing on these three marginal problems is myopic at best.

I'm not arguing with the decision--honestly, I haven't fully evaluated your review as a whole; I may completely agree with your final decision. The GA review process is supposed to be an intermediate point between FA--near perfect--and a crappy article, such as Dog behavior or Dog training, and serves two purposes: (1) to improve the article through a peer review process; and (2) to encourage editors to push for a higher standard. When reviewers are too myopic, and focus on the 2% of the flaws instead of the 98% of the improvements that editors put into the article, they undermine (2). That is why many editors have stopped striving for FA status. I think that is also why I will stop striving for GA status.

Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you felt i was being too "nitpicky", but AGF and trust me in that I do understand the difference between a GA and FA. You're response suggests that you did not understand (or i did not make clear) my reasons for failing the article, and you may not have understood the reasons for failing 2A.

Firstly, the article was not failed over three missing references. It was for the 11 seperate MOS issues, plus ref problems (including cite tags - which should have been taken care of before nomination), plus lack of coverage on expected topics (comprehensiveness is an FA issue, but a mention of these topics is necessary). Any one of these problems, by themselves, would have justified a Hold... but the three of them together means that this article was not ready for a GA nomination.

Secondly, the reason for requiring sources on those three statements in 2A is because when claiming that someone said something (as a direct quote or otherwise) you need to back it up with a ref. Look carefully and you'll see that each was attributed to some entity.

I would appreciate you not saying my actions are "myopic", that's a bit deragotory and unconstructive. I would love to see this article reach GA, and then FA. But to nominate an article that still has cite tags was poor planning. It shows that you failed to do Step 1 in the guide to nominating good articles. Rather than characterize my criticisms as "nitpicky", take the time to work on them. you'll find that you can learn more about writing a good article and it will help you in the future when you've gone on to tackle other subjects. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zapper, sorry for being too frank; I meant to be honest and constructive, but not derogatory. The point wasn't that you didn't have constructive things to say about the article that will help other editors improve upon it. The point was simply that your review scared away an editor that has made major revisions to this article, which is worth reflecting on. WP has a wierd community; Its essentially WoW or everquest without the monsters. People role play with their editor or reviewer or administrator hats on, and they lose perspective. No page, good, featured or otherwise, is a finished product; they are all in flux. People can throw fact tags into featured or good article because they are evolving documents. For this reason, my understanding was that one fact tag didn't count against the GA criteria. To support this understanding, see Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles:

<quote|'[Look for'] cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags/>

The point wasn't that you didn't have sufficiently reason to fail the article. Like I said, I think many of your points were substantive and on point. The point is that too many of them were so trivial that they send the message that an editor would need to spend many hours nitpicking over whether references go after periods, and a myriad of other silly things that substantively don't affect the quality of the article. Normal editors who simply want to improve articles won't do this; the only people who will do this are the hard-core wikipedians who are fighting for social capital, looking for barnstars and wanting to put another GA or FA feather in their cap. The WP equivalent of leveling up. Is that really what we want to achieve?

I didn't mean to berate you; I meant to encourage you to consider the POV. If you still completely disagree with me, no worries; I won't bother you on the topic anymore. Thanks again for taking the time. --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps my review was a giant monster that scared someone away, but it wasn't meant to be, and i would suggest to that editor that they not concern themselves with commas and periods but instead work on the problems with prose and coverage. Everybody has their own things they like to do on wikipedia, and i'm sure you could still focus on the other aspects of the article that need work. I have gone ahead and contacted editors at WP:TYPO and WP:GCE to help with those "nitpicky" details so hopefully you can instead work on the coverage issues and tracking down sources for your attributed claims (Humane Society, Smithsonian, Bob Barker, and Drew Carey - checking out those articles might be a good starting point). I suggest you also try seeking help with the other reference problems in the review. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps I was too hasty in my assessment. If there are people out there who's passion is commas, that's great :). My real interest is in substance, and your review did bring up issues of substance which I'm happy to focus on. When I found the article, it was really poor. It was a half good, half POV article on how people view their dogs. My goal was to make it the best public source of information on the topic. As it was, I think it met that standard, although it can of course be improved. As long as someone is willing to do it--or rather, enjoys doing it, I suppose fixing the "nitpicky" things is a valuable service. If this is truly the GA standard, then I still can't say that I care whether the article ever meets all of the criteria. But I do appreciate the substantive criticisms, and hope that others will be happy addressing the formal concerns. Best, --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing your substantive changes (specifically adding information on the topics i noted were missing), and hopefully you can address some of that "Problem prose". One editor has already come forward and started making changes (although s/he failed to notice any punctuation errors... bah), and i have perosnally gone through and made quite a few fixes. I do hope though, that you still strive to meet all the GA requirements. Idiosyncrasies aside (perhaps my distaste for parenthetical prose in articles), following the MOS and standard punctuation/spelling/grammar is important to an article because it elevates it to a point beyond your typical hack-job. It lends credibility and authority to the article - are you more willing to trust something riddled with bad speling and punctuation, or something that looks like the people writing it were able to put two sentences together correctly? Again... I eagerly look forward to an expanded article -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get it done by Monday. MSJapan (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit complete. MSJapan (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not having specified the names. I was concentrating on the culinary aspect of the section more than on the scientific side. The rats in the ricefields in Southeast Asia are "Rattus argentiventer". I have not been able to find the scientific name of the rat species living in the rice growing region of Valencia, close to the Albufera around the 19th century. The rat-eating habits of the people of that area were mentioned by Vicente Blasco Ibañez in his novel Cañas y barro. Xufanc (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Fancy rat/archive1 until it was archived earlier today - sorry. I just replied to the questions there, and think it should be OK for GA. Good luck, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello saw your comments, my apologies for the delay... Was pretty busy. I have added my comments. --Bluptr (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to review it now but I am sure someone will pick it up.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your question at Talk:Bates method/Archive 9#Lede section, no, you did not miss subsequent discussion; Ronz seems to be referring to his reply to me in that same section. As long as he doesn't put up a tag or try to substantially change the lede, I don't see any point in pressing him to explain anything. At this point Seeyou seems like a greater threat to destabilize the article. I'm convinced that if that drawing were included, its caption would be a point of ongoing dispute.

I would probably re-add the Meir Schneider Youtube link now if not for the GA nomination. I think it's fairly clear that it is legitimate as far as copyright is concerned, but its presence or absence is not that big a deal. However, the assumptions Ronz was making about it bothered me. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added two photos from a source I had previously neglected to check for such. The article probably has enough pictures now to pass WP:FA, but other factors would likely prevent that.

I'm sorry that Seeyou is doubting my good faith. However, I'm not going to tell him/her to AGF as I think that's counterproductive. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This FA nomination seems to have similar issues. I'm going to keep an eye on it and see if it gets passed. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any thoughts regarding what, if anything, to do about this? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zappernapper, I appreciate your help, but PSWG1920 should explain. Sorry to say but it is very hard for me to believe PSWG1920 really wants to improve the article on objective facts. Check the information in this link about what Bates said about the ciliairy muscle which influences the lens of the eye. [1] paragraph 4. Further discussion here or on my talkpage. Seeyou (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to use the image on Wikipedia.

http://flickr.com/photos/rwilhelmsen/2059888681/

I haven't figured out how to change the settings on individual photos yet, it's never been an issue. If this note is permission enough, great. If not, I'll investigate further over the weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.98.202 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck if you decide to go for FA. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Hereby awarded to Zappernapper for extraordinary work and tireless efforts in getting Fancy rat promoted to Good Article status. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've changed the license on my photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/moocat/3020012127/?edited=1 to Creative Commons. You can use it in your article. And thanks...I never heard of the term 'stotting' before! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.51.76 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reverts were of the edits of the person stating that he wouldn't have premarital sex because noone in their right mind would. I don't understand your comment "pls don't refer 2 good-faith edits by established users as vandalism + check WP:GRAPEVINE)" - the edits I reverted were by anonymous users, not established ones. --Mjrmtg (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why there wasn't an option similar to Year option 2 in Month-Day. It's because previous RfCs and discussion show a clear lack of support for it. My attempt (yes, I'm responsible for most of the wording) for options 2 was to try to come up with an attempt at a consensus position, based on the results of the "detailed RfC". If you had spoken up earlier....

I hope this doesn't violate the rules, but the poll talk page doesn't really seem the appropriate place to leave a comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you might remember from the pokemon project.I was wondering how you got your name to link like that?I would love to add Old English Letters with Two words behind it.Linking to my Talk and contribs.Thanks, Ive been wanting to do that for a LONG time.PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ 14:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. That's nice work you did on the Pokemon convert template. In this diff you added some explanations that include a template loop. Is there any way to avoid the template loop? For example, couldn't the output be unsupported second parameter?

I understand the need to warn for possible errors. It is in connection with my regular housekeeping cores on Category:Template loop warnings that I write you about this.

Good luck! Debresser (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No progress with that so far? Debresser (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you upload a pic of torchic and put it on my subpage that im creating an article about him on thanks. Peace Out-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also for Ivysaur at User:Permethius/Sandbox? Thanks. Peace Out-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive created the articles.Ivysaur And Torchic-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 11:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there as per email on flickr - i have changed the licensing on my image http://www.flickr.com/photos/julesandjez/274495654/?edited=1 so that you can use it on the site - I LOVE WIKIPEDIA so very happy to share. However I don't require you to credit me as the photographer as I use my flickr account for family/friends with pics of kids so don't want to give lots of people access to all my albums - is that possible?

Thanks,

Juliet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.195.234 (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bulbasaur (Pokémon), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Bulbasaur. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chunsoft (Pokémon), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Chunsoft. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Magneton (Pokémon), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Magneton. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nintendo (Pokémon), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Nintendo. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pikachu (Pokémon), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Pikachu. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Onix (Pokémon), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Onix. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Slaking (Pokémon), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Slaking. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 year, 11 months and one week ago, you commented on an AWB feature request ("What links here", especially for images), which I think I can now finally fulfil. I was just wanted to check whether this was still a problem or whether there was already some sort of fix in place for it. If you have no clue what I'm blithering on about (and I wouldn't blame you), see this. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that one too; it might be surprisingly complicated actually to get an end result that was half decent. We'll see though, the FR hasn't gone anywhere. Give it another couple of years and we'll be onto a winner. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sandboxtest2.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have tagged the inclusion criteria that form part of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) with {{where}} template. With regard to the following can you explain why you have done this?

Directories and databases are examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

Note that this wording has been cribbed from Note 6 of WP:N, and is already in use and widely accepted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, i tagged it with {{where}} b/c i was actually unaware of that little nugget squirreled away as a ref on WP:N, and i appreciate you taking the time to draw my attention to it. I have been a regular editor on wikipedia for several years, and thought that i was familiar with WP:N. Given that the main text is referring to WP:NOT, i would assume that the directories and databases it is referring to are those like the phone book, with such an incredibly large scope (all people in that geographic region) that individual members are only loosely connected. It might be better to use wording like:

"Some reliable sources, like directories and databases, are indiscriminate collections of loosely connected members, it is recommended that articles should not usually rely on these types of sources to establish notability."

Feel free to remove my tag, and perhaps wikilink to that section of WP:N.

(extra ranting, read if you like) To be honest, it is difficult to keep up with all the conversations on just WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR, that to be asked to also be aware of the minutiae of their supporting guidelines is a little inhuman. And we could both attest to many editors on here who would feel that coverage in a reliable source has satisfied WP:V, so guidelines be damned - i generally challenge the notion of that wording, and even WP:N, as being widely accepted (remember the hue and cry when it was upgraded from essay?).--ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You make a valid point in this regard; I think note 5 does not fully explain itself. Your wording has its merits, but I recall an exchange I had with another editor (Masem) regarding the term "indiscriminate collections of loosely connected members" which makes this term problematical. He argued something along the lines that lists of characters or episodes should always merit their own standalone page on the grounds that they were not indiscriminate, but that they were part of a set of fictional elements that should have their own page on the grounds that this would provide comprehensive coverage of a topic. I have therefore amended WP:FICT#Inclusion criteria as follows:

Coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; some reliable sources, like directories and databases, mainly summarize secondary sources, and should not be used in place of secondary sources to establish notability.

I think this follows your train of thought, but is less likely to be disputed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, the reasoning for using those other terms is because i feel character lists are not indiscriminate. I was more referring to a fictional database that decided to list every fictional character ever created, or databases like IMDB being used as the only 3rd party source to say actor X played character Y (or as the only source for info on episodes). However, if a third-party were to write an exhaustive encyclopedia on a fictional subject and that source was deemed to be reliable (i.e. it was truly encyclopedic in nature and not full of speculation or original fiction by the editor) i think it should satisfy our needs to be a specialized encyclopedia, and we could write articles based heavily on that source - although still not exclusively. I don't tend to think articles should be written if they can only be sourced to one book, site, etc. I think that making the claim, "Coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability..." is too bold and would never have agreement, it sounds too contradictory to the sentence from WP:V that our threshold for inclusion is verifiabilty. i find it only necessary that as a guideline we recommend articles to not rely on some kinds of databases and directories as the only source because it calls into question that actual notability of the article. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, if the content of a list is not supported by reliable secondary sources (if only in the main article), then that suggests to me that it is indiscriminate listcruft without a rationale for inclusion. A broad rule of thumb might be that if, say, a list of characters is not the subject of coverage in an article about a notable topic, then it is indiscriminate stuff. I am not sure how else you can distinguish between listcruft and geniniely encyclopedic coverage.
With regard to the argument that coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability, if only because Wikipedia is itself a tertiary source, and because tertiary sources tend to be summaries of secondary sources, such that it is very difficult to agrue that their coverage is not received third-hand so to speak, from a secondary source. Summarising a tertiary source is the equivalent of summarising a summary, and is the equivalent of hearsay from a legal perspective.
In theory some "Encylopedia of..." type publications may contain commentary from from reliable secondary sources (say an expert opinion of the editor), but I think this is an example of a secondary source being "embeded" in a tertiary source that might be allowable as evidence of notability if the expert opinion can be clearly distinguished from the rest of the tertiary source.
For these reasons, I think it is necessary to be bold, and a recomendation not to use tertiary sources as evidence of notability invites Wikilawyering. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you're arguing that the subject does not merit inclusion (is not-notable) despite it's non-trivial discussion in a reliable third-party source only because that source is tertiary? while our other guidelines already say one should not depened on such sources for high levels of detail, they do not cast them off as irrelevant for establishing notability. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it is the subject of non-trivial discussion in a reliable third-party source, then it is clearly a secondary source (such as commentary from an expert editor), even it is embedded in a tertiary source. Same goes for primary sources; sometimes you get commentary from an expert with, say, embedded as an introduction to Classic texts such as The Prince, which are often the best source of criticism, analysis and context. Although the publication itself may be a primary source, the commentary (such as the introduction) may be classed as a reliable secondary source. However, primary and tertiary coverage on their own do not impart any notability per Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am wondering what phrasing you are interpreting as saying, "...tertiary coverage on [its] own do[es] not impart any notability..." - please keep your quote relevant to tertiary sources. it seems to me that WP:OR is discussing content and prose, not suitability of inclusion. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean: I may have over stepped the mark. I have amended the wording in accordance with the footnotes in WP:N as follows:

Note that all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

Please feel free to amend this if you feel it can be improved upon. I have copied this theread to WT:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, nice job with the Pokedex template. Its really nice and easy to use. Second, thanks for reviving Blastoise. I fixed it up alot and made it worthy of being out in the open. One of my goals is to make the articles on the Pokemon species better. It seems this is your goal as well. Would you like to join this taskforce? Also, when you get back, can you do whatever changes you were going to make to Blastoise? I don't want it to disappear. --Blake (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, cutting down the in-universe information wont do anything to save the article. You have to find stuff to fill up the "Reception" section. Thats the only thing you can do if you want the article to live. I found something that said Blasoise was in The Simpsons Game, but couldnt find a reference for it anywhere. --Blake (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added a {{huh}} template to WP:FICT#Inclusion criteria regarding the following statement:

• "Non-trivial real-world coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail using the real-world or out-of-universe analysis as the primary frame of reference, and no original research is needed to extract the content.

The phrase no original research is needed to extract the content has been lifted from WP:GNG, and has been in use for quite some time now. What is it that you are unclear about? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{huh}} as I presume you are happy with the provenance of the this term. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Zapper, but I've really tried arguing with you and so did Artichoker, and all you did was run around in circles without considering the points pushed really at all. The template is unnecessary in my opinion and at least one other person's. If the VG project agrees with you that it's fine I'll back off it, but I'll resolve it through that rather than try to debate it with you. There's enough in policy to support that motion, and I'd rather get additional opinions. Sorry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i wouldn't characterize my actions like that at all since i made concessions and retooled the template. if you had been able to provide a proper example, your point would have been made, but you didn't - and even then that doesn't mean a better solution doesn't exist, ala the OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguement. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zapper, there's more than a few things wrong with your statement. First you're arguing that the voice actors are exclusive to the anime...but they're not. Jigglypuff's and Mewtwo's voice actors have still voiced the characters in the games, including Super Smash Bros (in Mewtwo's case, full on dialogue for Pokemon Puzzle League). I'd have to do research on the others, but there are probably other cases like that if I dug around enough. Every other video game character article is in a similar state: if there's a voice actor, it's listed and noted where despite the format, given that many voice actors will reprise their roles for the games still (such as Tifa Lockhart and several others). Lastly it's really not that confusing a template. I really hope this point gets through because I'm tired of arguing this with you dude.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i challenge your assertion that Mewtwo had a voice actor in Pokemon Red and Blue as the template as-is currently claims. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to meet that challenge. Returning to my example of Tifa (or if you want a GA, Cloud Strife), there was no voice actor in the original Final Fantasy VII. However it's still listed just fine without incident. Mario had no voice actor until a later time either, same for Reptile (Mortal Kombat). And so on and so forth. This is the case with countless video game articles. The prose is what works out when the voice actors were done. And if that doesn't float your boat you can note in the infobox body just fine when said character had a voice actor/actress. Pokemon is not a unique case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i never said pokemon was unique for the aspect of voice acting... i just noted voiceacting might be better handled with the different template. pokemon is still unique in the fact that these characters gained their notability outside of games as well. All these examples you've given are still characters that became notable through their video game appearances alone, while it could be argued that the video games gave rise to the cartoon in japan - a single year divides them, and here on the english wikipedia, if we look at the pokemon franchise in the english speaking world, the two media were released within the same year. These other characters you say pokemon are just like have not played a major role in a cartoon running for 12 years... --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on Blastoise. I count three reverts. Now cool it and stop being disruptive. Instead, continue to participate in the discussions on the talk page. Artichoker^[talk] 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the merge proposal, by admission, is not a discussion, it's meant to be a vote which is a "very bad thing". --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AttackScreen.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the VG project talk page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jynx-black.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokebox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you weren't discouraged from editing because of the Blastoise incident. Since then, we have done alot like making a Mr. Mime article, an unpublished Abra evolutionary line, and gathered alot of reception on Pokemon. It would be nice if you could join us again as we attempt to get all the species articles to GA-Class and then start making articles like Snorlax and Lucario. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Capromys pilorides.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Capromys pilorides.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Images of Pikachu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Pokémon images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 11:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Bevers.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. T H F S W (T · C · E) 23:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from my talk to user:Xenobot/R#WP:RODENT. –xeno^talk 14:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, since the last time I contacted you(October 2009), we have split off so many species. See the before and after of {{Pokemon directory}}. Much of this is possible due to New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs)(old "A Link to the Past") and Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) finding reception for so many of them. I have personally gotten Charizard and Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam to GA status. I also wanted to let you know that Blastoise actually has a good amount of reception found, and with some fluffing of it, could possibly be notable. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's nice of you to contact me again and i am happy you are working well with AL2TP and Kung Fu Man. I personally do not enjoy working with people who define consensus as a vote, and are not interested in any viewpoints contrary to their own. it would appear that wikipedia is moving away from trying to be an encyclopedia about everything, and i have learned that it's best to not waste what spare time i have writing pages of arguments that go essentially ignored. cheers! --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Campbell hamster.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —innotata 19:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokeconvert has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Why did you merge all the Callosciurus species into the article of the genus? I think some of them have enough text to have a separate article. Furthermore, the many taxoboxes look very bad in one article. Was there a talk about merging? -- Sanyi4 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you meant to subst {{CURRENTDATE}} in the {{merged-to}}s for the squirrel merges that you did. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TMNTDonatello2007.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Category:American poets because it has been superseded by Category:20th-century American poets. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect P:POKEMON. Since you had some involvement with the P:POKEMON redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect P:POKE. Since you had some involvement with the P:POKE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Pokémon portal components requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Rodents barnstar
		For creating WikiProject Rodents and getting Fancy rat to GA status, you get the very first WikiProject Rodents barnstar! --Nessie (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copied/text has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 20:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Calphotos/url has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 09:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Rodents/EZ assess has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Images from DangerMouse indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. --TheImaCow (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect List of Pokemon items has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 6 § List of Pokemon items until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy rat has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect or redirects you have created has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 14 § Confusing Pokémon Redirects until a consensus is reached. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television-screenshots of Pokémon has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Images from Pinky and the Brain indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 00:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]