Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:09, 14 June 2012

This is Aoidh's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your comment by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the comment. Please indent your posts with a colon : if replying to an existing topic (or two colons :: if replying to a reply, and so on). For oversight requests please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Talk page archives (Auto-archiving period: 14 days ) 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024

Archives

2011Template:•w2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

message to SUDO GUY

Will you stop changing the tangled dude. no body is using proper English on that section and you are not helping. i am an american and i know what i am doing by editing it in an effort to write normal english so do not undo it again. thanks take care bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcherrybombx177 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

How was that not proper English? You have a lot of explaining to do. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's being reverted because it's inappropriate for a number of reasons. There is a difference between "proper English" and appropriate prose for an encyclopedia article. It introduces unsourced information (such as the email sentence), and reads like the back of a DVD case, not like a concise summary of sourced content. - SudoGhost 21:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It also appears to be a copyright violation of this source, which means you need to please stop hitting 'undo' and discuss it on the article's talk page. - SudoGhost 21:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Indigo children

The stupid raises it's ugly head once again. I tried removing the {{POV}} tag and was reverted - with further unnecessary tags added. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's that editor's MO. If they don't like something negative being said about the subject (even if its sourced), they'll try to reword it so that the statement is either minimized or made to seem as if it is a minority viewpoint held only by "skeptics", or they'll just remove it altogether. If that doesn't work, they'll throw up a "disputed" or "pov" tag to achieve a similar effect of trying to minimilize and cast doubt on the negative aspects they don't like. However, I will say that few editors are this helpful in making their intentions so clear. - SudoGhost 19:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The tags of OR in the body were actually good - the interview, which I managed to track down, didn't actually say indigos got their "powers" from reincarnation (the term used was "old soul", which could be interpreted that way). Since the whole topic is nonsense, the best approach in my mind is simply removing it. Which I've done. The whole thing is a colossal waste of time, ugh. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I must have missed the {{OR}} tags; looking at the history it looks like they were sandwiched in between a few other diffs. I agree with removing the whole section of text, that solves a whole mess of issues. Given the nature of the article, I think the article should be more stringent on using secondary sources from here on out, per WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY. - SudoGhost 19:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

List of child prodigies

Hi. Do you consider for example this an unreliable source? Maksymilian Sielicki (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing there verifies anything that would indicate an individual being a child prodigy. - SudoGhost 15:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

NuttX RTOS

SudoGhost, you placed a COI tag on the article that states 'A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject'. What is your basis for this? If you are referring to me, I am not a NuttX developer nor do I have a direct connection to the NuttX project. If you are referring to my using the software, that is definitively not a close connection. If you have no evidence and made the tag based on pure speculation, please remove the tag. MicromintUSA (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion board is the NuttX forum. Users post questions about the RTOS there. Posting on the forum does not imply a close connection with the the subject or its creator. If there is other evidence, please state it. Otherwise the COI should be removed immediately. MicromintUSA (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You use NuttX as a selling point for hardware, including it as a demo, how is this not a vested interest in the article's subject? You appear to have a close connection; there was no article on this subject, which may or may not have reflected on customer decisions to purchase products. This gives the apearance of a conflict of interest, especially when you then go to the NuttX discussion board and ask them to !vote to keep the article for you. - SudoGhost 21:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That is absolutely ridiculous and representative of your flawed logic. Our controllers use ARM processors and also run Linux. That does not imply we have a close connection to Linux nor do we have a vested interest in the Linux Foundation. The same goes with all other operating systems that work with ARM processors and run on our controllers. According to the ARM article in Misplaced Pages in 2011 there were over 15 billion ARM processors in devices all over the world so there are many many operating systems running on them that would also run on our controllers. You crossed the line by making baseless accusations. I demand that you immediately stop these false accusations made without any evidence whatsoever. MicromintUSA (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not an apt comparison by any means. It would be no different than specifically mentioning a specific minor linux distro as a selling point, creating an article for it and then canvassing the distro's discussion forums when the notability is questioned. In that case, you would appear to have a close connection and vested interest in the linux distro. It is not a "false accusation" to say that this gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. - SudoGhost 22:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That is yet another flawed argument and could even be regarded as an attempt to thwart free expression. Yearly I post in over a dozen forums. I have a right to an opinion on any topic whatsoever. That does not imply a close connection to a topic. You have absolutely no authority to block my right to free speech. MicromintUSA (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, yes it does imply a close connection. In fact, on Linux-related articles, I myself have a "close connection" to the subject simply because I'm a Windows fan. You don't have to have an official relation for it to be a "close" relation, per WP:COI.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Free expression? Block your right to free speech? I'm sorry, but that's the biggest stretch I've ever seen on this talk page; I'm honestly astounded. Pointing out that a possible conflict of interest means that editors should review the article to make sure it adheres to WP:V and WP:NPOV is nothing more than exactly that. I'm still scratching my head as to where this "block my right to free speech" bit came from. - SudoGhost 22:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection to the AfD due to the massive meatpuppetry that's been occuring there. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ZenBuddhism Template

Hi. I changed the lay-out of the ZenBuddhism-template, but I don't know how to align the topics to the center of the column. Are you able to fix it? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look and fix it. I'm assuming you mean horizontally centered? - SudoGhost 20:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I slapped some <center> tags in each collapsible field, but only as a temporary measure; it feels a bit sloppy to do it that way, so I'm going to do it a better way after I grab some food. - SudoGhost 23:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Woody Harrelson

I received your message about the "Woody Harrelson" edit. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what am I not understanding? What is it that you object to?

- Is it the addition of the fact that he plays the piano? (Does that broadcast episode, publicly available, not count as a “source”?)

- Or is it the part about his singing badly (where I commented that this is possibly for comic effect)? I’d be happy to re-write or remove those few words, if you feel it’s too subjective. (But it's clear in the context of the episode, that he sings badly. That's part of the point of the scene.)

However the fact remains: Woody Harrelson can play the piano. And this is shown clearly in the episode, which I have referenced accurately.

I am not an expert here on the policies or procedures, but I do frequently edit and contribute to articles. Thanks for your patience, and please don’t block me. I am not a vandal.

101.229.85.234 (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is WP:V, among other things. He played the piano in an episode, but does this mean he actually plays the piano? I know that sounds like an odd thing to ask, but odder things have been staged before. The content needs an inline reliable source supporting it, meaning that if you say he plays the piano, you need to provide a reliable source that specifically says he plays the piano, the fact that his character did it on an episode doesn't show this. For the "His singing is not good" part, that is an objective opinion, there may be someone that thinks it sounds good for whatever reason. It may be true that the intention was to sing badly, but the article cannot say his singing is not good anymore than it can say he is the best actor ever. These are opinions at best, not facts. - SudoGhost 04:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(I clicked "edit" to reply here. Is this right?)

I am a pianist. I can tell you, based on that footage, that Harrelson plays the piano himself. His body movements correspond, and the keys he plays on that piano exactly match the audio. I have perfect pitch, and can even tell you that he's playing in E minor, G major, and A major. It is not merely his character who plays the piano; there is no doubt whatever that Harrelson himself is playing, and that the audio on the soundtrack is not a later overdub. I understand entirely what you mean: actors frequently mime badly playing an instrument (it's usually piano or guitar), when it's patently clear to anyone, let alone someone who can really play, that it's just miming. But this is not the case here. The aural/visual evidence is right there in the episode. (You may say that's not a proper source, but in that case, I would contend, neither is a published book: writers can lie or be wrong, etc.) The evidence is there, for those who can understand it. My understanding of the music in that episode is no less than your understanding of any given printed source.

So, if you don't like the parts about his singing, I can remove that. How about I re-write the sentence, and re-post it the edit? Would you be ok with that? It's an interesting aspect of Harrelson's ability which doesn't appear anywhere else online, and perhaps this old "Cheers" episode may be the only filmed evidence of it. (I don't know - I'm not an especial Harrelson fan, and certainly haven't watched his entire oeuvre. I just noticed it in that episode - being a pianist myself - and thought it was interesting.) Most actors can't play their musical parts themselves (there are so many examples, but a few include: Geoffrey Rush in "Shine", Adrien Brody in "The Pianist", and Paul Newman in "The Competition"), so it's interesting to see an actor who can. Clint Eastwood plays jazz piano very well, but that's well-known. Another example of an actor who could play was Clifton Webb, as shown in "Mr Belvedere Goes to College" (1949). (I mean to check if that’s online actually, but haven't done so yet. He plays in D minor, in that film, I can tell you.)

101.229.85.234 (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't take your word for it, it has to be verified by a reliable source of some kind, because readers need to be able to verify for themselves that what you're saying it true by checking the source that supports the information. - SudoGhost 07:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't understand. The informtion is verified at a reliable published source (i.e. the episode itself), so readers can verify it there for themselves. What am I not understanding about your definition of 'verifiable'?

Have you actually seen the video yourself?

If not, is it fair to reject evidence without having examined it?

If you have seen it, then clearly (sorry) you lack the ability to understand it. So is it fair to reject evidence based on your inability to understand the source? (Yes, understanding music may be a more rarified ability than understanding English; but to extend this idea logically, surely in that case a user could reject another user's verifiable printed English source, on the grounds that he can't read English or by claiming that the source may have been faked ?)

And if you say that you don't have the video available, so you can't appraise it, is that not the same as my not having a book to hand, that may be cited as a reference in a bibliography?

Further, I notice in the "Legal Issues" section in this same article, there is a comparable paragraph referring to a video that "appeared to show" Harrelson doing something. Why has this not been removed? Or is it therefore acceptable if I re-write the piano section to say that Cheers "appears to show" Harrelson playing the piano? (But this would, however, be utterly ridiculous, since it does show him playing the piano, not merely appearing to play.) (To extend this idea, one could say, for example, that the film Zombieland "appears to show" Harrelson shooting large numbers of people dead. Of course he doesn't actually shoot people dead, but the film does appear to show it.)

I offered to remove the part about singing, and leave only the informtion about the piano playing, but you didn't respond to that. If I do this, will that be acceptable to you? I'm just trying to understand what distinctions you make here between what you allow and not, and how it must be worded. It's not consistent or logical.

(I just checked the preview of this post. My IP address seems to have changed - I don't know why - but it's still me.)

114.86.227.2 (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing one

You issued warning to 2 editors for edit warring. I think you missed one (who I have had the same type of altercations with previously, he stops at 2 reverts but often act as part of a group in edit wars): --Useerup (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I honestly thought I was looking at a back and forth between only two users, but looking at the page history I have no idea how I missed that. Seems resolved in its own way; the image the IP was shooting for was deleted under G7, which sits with me kind of funny, considering who the author was. I can't view the image anymore though so maybe it's not what it looks like, but it seems like an odd way to stop an edit war. - SudoGhost 06:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Green Lantern's Powers and Abilities

First I The Multiverse (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC) would like to say Green Lantern can't create Kriptonite and many powers on there are very Questionable. Second off I did give a reason for deleting what I did.

It did not say "create Kryptonite", it said "simulated wavelengths, such as kryptonite". They aren't one in the same, and the source is not "wrong", Kyle Rayner's ring simulated the effects of kryptonite in that comic. - SudoGhost 01:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I The Multiverse (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC) checked out that comic and did not see where it say's/shows that , and thats not the only thing I siad was wrong I also siad refs need to be put down for some powers plus some are questionable.

Please respond to my post because I don’t understand why you can’t see that some things there are questionable, and unverified. The Multiverse (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Green Tara

SudoGhost, please more specific. You have deleted several links. The only one that seems to be self-promoting is the first one of the ones you deleted: Tārā: Buddhist Goddess in Green and White - from ReligionFacts.com. Even that one offers some valuable info. I am researching Green Tara and all of those links are helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.6.187 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The links all fail WP:ELNO for one or more reasons. Misplaced Pages articles are not meant to be a collection of links, and sites such as open wikis are specifically mentioned as links to be avoided. Essentially, the links have to have a good reason to be placed in an external links section, or else it doesn't belong in the article, and if they run afoul of ELNO, then they typically don't belong in an article. SudoKamma (SudoGhost's Away Account) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

hello

can you take a look at the article Adal Sultanate and Talk:Adal Sultanate the user Middayexpress is reverting work that is sourced and misrepresenting them also he wont accept the fact that the capital of this sultanate was first Dakar even though i have given him many sources and the article itself says so already. Baboon43 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do would probably be to bring this up at WP:RSN or to open a WP:RFC. - SudoGhost 00:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability: NuttX RTOS

Hi SudoGhost, I know you've been very active in the AfD discussion for the NuttX_RTOS article (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NuttX_RTOS). Since time is running out for that AfD, I thought on asking you to check my last changes and comments to the article regarding notability, at the bottom of the AfD talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpcarballo (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop editing my addition or undoing!

Look, I just want to add these. I have these from my own knowledge and everyone keeps wanting me to add a source. And you keep going on and deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach4997 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your own knowledge is not a sufficiently reliable source.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't "just add them", you have to add a source, your personal knowledge is not sufficient, because readers need to be able to verify the content for themselves with reliable sources. If you don't add a reliable source, any editor can remove the content, adding it back without reliable sources is edit warring, and if you continue, you will be reported and likely blocked for edit warring, so instead of reinserting the content, please discuss it on the talk page or find a reliable source. - SudoGhost 00:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine then, go ahead and report me so I can get removed so I can just stop expanding this encyclopedia that "Everyone can edit". I had sources and i guess ill just keep my knowledge to myself. And for someone that has nothing to do except reject someone elses addition on a small freaking article then ill just not add anything. I kind of wanted to share those two things on 42 (number) because im fascinated by the occurrences of it. And I guess I cant share that. Because i thought it was cool. And Im only what 15? And Im a noob and have a little bit of a clue of what im doing. So Ill just stop. Since im causing so much trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach4997 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

This is quite confusing to me. I appreciate your kindness in reaching out. I believe we maintain a ton of great material for wikipedia from our publishing archives. The Michael de la Force page has been a bit difficult to figure out. Would you assist in creating something that is acceptable to the users? There are a lot of images on wikicommons. Or could we roll back to where the changes started today? Again, Thank you so much for your kindness. Lmpartners (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael de la Force

Could you advise how to bring this in line with community standards?

There are some reference photographs stored at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/Special:Contributions/Lmpartners

With much appreciation. Lmpartners (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately images uploaded to Commons cannot be used as reliable sources, because there is nothing to verify the authenticity of the image; reliable sources should be used instead. Looking at the article, it doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements, notably WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO, and without reliable sources that can satisfy these requirements, it's likely the article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion, where the notability of the subject would be discussed, the article would then be kept or deleted as appropriate. Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources should give you an idea of what constitutes a reliable source, and you can use either Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or ask myself or other editors if a particular source is reliable. For example, Misplaced Pages consensus has determined that IMDB is generally not a reliable source, and the paper.li reference appears to be a primary self-published source, and neither of these references help establish any notability for the article's subject. - SudoGhost 03:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Thanks for your tips, mate. ~> Arpabone (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Baburam and Terrorism

You are advised not to remove sourced points related to Baburam and his terrorist background. Please make wikipedia aritcles complete by writing about the entire background of a subject rather than by trying to be selective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack of All, Master of None (talk • contribs) 20:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, so long as your personal advisement runs afoul of WP:TERRORIST, it will not be heeded. There is a discussion on the article's talk page. In light of both WP:TERRORIST and WP:BRD, I suggest you discuss it there before reinserting the edit; the material involves a living person, and unless the issues with the edit are resolved the edit will be reverted for this reason. - SudoGhost 01:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic for Atlanta in June

Hi SudoGhost. I would like to invite you to help plan the Atlanta edition of the Great American Wiknic this June (you could update Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Atlanta) :) Also, please confirm any preliminary details at Misplaced Pages:Wiknic#2012 Wiknic.--Pharos (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hakuun Yasutani

Hi SudoGhost. Could you take a look at Hakuun Yasutani? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a user who keeps blanketing a critical section, without any edit-summary. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I missed this section somehow; I only just now noticed it. Looking at this edit, I can see why someone would remove it, calling someone's political views "extreme" in that way does suggest a particular point of view. Also, statements like "the tone of his comments frequently rose to the level of vitriol" don't have any sources directly supporting it that I can see. I'm not saying removing it was the best way to handle it, but the section could certainly be rewritten slightly in a more neutral way, removing what isn't supported by reliable sources. But then again, I have no prior knowledge of this article's subject, other than what I'm reading right now, but as its worded it seems to suggest a particular point of view, which would perhaps need additional reliable sources to verify that this point of view is widely held. - SudoGhost 15:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi SudoGhost. We've solved the problem. Halfmonk didin't know about edit summaries, and I have considerably changed the contents and tone. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir Conflict

Please notice I have already discussed the edit on talk page and provided reliable citations. ThanksTruth4all (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC) The edit has been discussed in talk page with including Darkness Shines and was still deleted by Darkness Shines citing inaccurate although the sources are verifiable and correct.Truth4all (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Lusitanic and User Y26Z3

Dear SudoGhost, I am bringing the matter between Y26Z3 and Goodsdrew to admin's noticeboard due to both of them breaking the 3RR, but I am with Goodsdrew on this as he was removing poorly-referenced content and provision in the 3RR is given for such reverts to be made. Please also look at the talkpage section and do make a comment there to explain to Y26Z3 regarding your points made in your revert edit description. Regards, Optakeover 00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just checked edit warring section of admin's noticeboard, Goodsdrew has already made a report. I'll add to it. Optakeover 00:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the talk page. The editor has made nine reverts on that article in the past 24 hours, in addition to the four on the other article, that's a bit much. - SudoGhost 00:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have made my comment at . Please do take a look at it and if required, clarify any information as required. Thank you for your help. Optakeover 01:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link regarding what is and what is not vandalism. I'm going to look further into what exactly it is called. However, as a person with portuguese descent, I am offended by the reference to a fake term called "Lusitanic" and it needs to be stated that it is not in any dictionary or encyclopedia. I look down on the editors of Misplaced Pages severely for providing a fake term and I will be letting others in my community know of this. Thank you again for the link to what is and what is not vandalism, (Y26Z3 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC))

Y26Z3, we don't care what you think, what your community thinks, or what the Portuguese thinks. We don't care if it's your parents who said it (no offence), or that the President of Portugal said it. So long as you can't give me a concrete source which says word for word that 'Lusitanic' is not a recognised, we will not accept that piece of information.

Sudoghost, the incident has been resolved with the blocking of both editors for 48 hours because they both really did revert-warred. Hah. Optakeover 10:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hah. (Y26Z3 (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

Did I not tell you about my community? (Y26Z3 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

Would you mind properly getting rid of the vandalism?

The name of the band is "30 Seconds to Mars", not "40", so the page needs to be moved back to that title. I tried it, but it won't let me • GunMetal Angel 22:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it wouldn't let me move it for some reason, but Earwig got it. - SudoGhost 22:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I just noticed. I guess you changed "Uranus" to "Mars" to partially get rid of the vandalism • GunMetal Angel 22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he made quite a mess, moving a few dozen pages, so there's quite a bit of moving that had to be done. - SudoGhost 22:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

42

I received this message:

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to 42 (number).

The Misplaced Pages definition for "reliable source" is: The word "source" as used on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings:

           the piece of work itself (the article, book),
           the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
           and the publisher of the work 

I represent ALL three of those provisions and the citation was a page from the ACTUAL published work. I am not sure how the referenced "edit war" came about.

Meanwhile, a large majority of that page is uncited, yet remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.71.113 (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

a tribute to something notable does not inherently make that tribute notable. There were way too many trivial entries on that article, so it was trimmed down to those that are notable in some way; simply being verifiable isn't sufficient, otherwise there would be literally millions of entries that would belong there. Therefore the non-notable entries were removed. The entry in question was a trivial mention in a non-notable book, unless one or more independent sources can be used to show otherwise. - SudoGhost 10:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Saban troll

Bell Canada has told me they have yet again enacted their Acceptable Use Policy against this individual. But they tell me this every time he edits.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Schengen

Hi, there is no argument against my change on Schengen. The guy who started the revert war, I messaged him to understand his concerns, although he reads my comments, he doesn't respond. What should I do now?--Camoka4 (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me you're kidding. You've made seven reverts today, why would you have to do that if there was no disagreement about the edit? (and yes, it's painfully obvious that the you are the IP editor, given that you've edited from the same area before). What you should do, is stop reverting, and discuss. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page, you need to stop and get a consensus for your changes instead of edit warring. - SudoGhost 23:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, L.tak (the person who has trouble with my edit) is non-responsive although he reads my messages on his talk page. how can I find a consensus when the other side has no argument and is non-responsive? --Camoka4 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The talk page has an ongoing discussion with several editors, L.tak is not the only editor that disagrees with your edit. L.tak's participation is not required, but that doesn't make the discussion on the talk page null, consensus is still required, and from what I'm seeing on the talk page, the consensus is against your edit. - SudoGhost 23:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

History of the Internet

Hi SudoGhost, got yr msg on my talk pg re my edit to the History of the Internet article. I posted a comment about the claim i removed on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:History_of_the_Internet#Why_was_content_.5Bcontaining_alleged_stats_on_.25_share_of_info_transmitted_via_the_Internet.5D_deleted.3F The claim is not supported by the cited pgs in the cited source - and I posted a link to a UCSD paper which contradicts that claim. I came to that article looking for exactly that kind of info, so if the original cited source has that info on some other pages, I hope you/someone will update the History of the Internet article asap. But as it stands reverted, the claim in the article is unsupported. Gorkelobb (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the talk page explanation, only the lack of edit summary preceding it; I've reverted the edit. - SudoGhost 19:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Aquarians Gospel link

Friend, If you look at the link added to the Misplaced Pages article on the Aquarian Gospel, I think you will agree that it conforms for the standards set forth here in the third section:

"What can normally be linked

1. Misplaced Pages articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below. 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply. 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

I think you will find the link both relevant to the article and a useful addition to the reader's knowledge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarakananda (talk • contribs)

I did review the website, and I strongly disagree. It is only marginally relevant to the article, and you've been inserting this same website across multiple articles, seemingly to promote the website as opposed to improving Misplaced Pages. Please be aware that continuing to add spam external links is vandalism, and please discuss the links before reinserting them. Thank you. - SudoGhost 03:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of date URLs

Friend, I apologize if my external site postings have violated current Misplaced Pages protocol. I have not posted much since when I joined Misplaced Pages in 2004, when things were not so stringent.

I would like your opinion on how to deal with out-of-date links, that is, ones whose url has changed. I would like to change them to their current url, as I have done with a few recently. But due to your reaction, I hesitate to act lest it mistakenly be seen as an improper action. What are your thoughts on how to go about this?

Tarakananda (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the section you posted above. - SudoGhost 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not about adding links, but updating years-old links. What are your thoughts? Tarakananda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.123.91 (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The links still don't belong for the reasons given above. I didn't revert them back to the out of date version, they were removed altogether. - SudoGhost 02:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am speaking of other years-old links. How should I deal with them? 75.161.123.91 (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Best response to external link spam?

Thank you for welcoming me to Misplaced Pages; you made me crave chocolate chip cookies. :) Since you offered yourself as a resource to answer questions, I'm going to take advantage of your kindness. I removed an advertising link from the Tuxedo article by User:Hellomotorr, who hasn't made edits on any other page. I looked at WP:VANDAL and, according to the "Spam external linking" section, this behavior doesn't count as vandalism unless the activity continues after a warning. Because I'm still new, though, I don't feel qualified to issue warnings yet. Until I feel comfortable doing something like this myself, what is the best way to request assistance in addressing this situation? Calathea (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do in that situation would be to place {{subst:welcomespam}} or {{subst:uw-spam1}} on the editor's talk page. If they continue to insert promotional links, it'd be best to then try to discuss it with them, asking them to discuss it on the article's talk page. If they continue further, I'd say then place {{subst:uw-spam2}} or {{subst:uw-spam3}} on the editor's talk page. If they continue after a uw-spam3 warning, it'd very likely be considered vandalism, and you could report them to WP:AIV. Of course, each case would vary, but this would be a basic and general way to go about doing it, and actual discussion goes a long way. Hope this helps. - SudoGhost 23:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Of course there are pre-existing templates, which makes things a lot easier. I see you've already placed a note on the editor's talk page; hopefully that's enough to prevent this behavior from recurring. I now feel better equipped to handle a similar situation in the future. Thanks a bunch! Calathea (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Linux Distribution

The article clearly says "A Linux distribution is a member of the family of Unix-like operating systems built on top of the Linux kernel" and ANDROID IS!!!! So you are contradicting the article if you say Android is not a Linux Distro!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcms2330 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying Android is not a Linux distribution, reliable sources are. According to this source: "Although the platform built on top of the Linux kernel, according to Google Engineer Patrick Brady, it is not a Linux distribution. It does not support the X-windowing system nor does it use the standard Linux libraries including the Gnu C Library. In fact, the C language is not even officially supported."

and Ars Technica: "Although Android is built on top of the Linux kernel, the platform has very little in common with the conventional desktop Linux stack. In fact, during a presentation at the Google IO conference, Google engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux."

Reliable sources, including individuals that created Android, say it is not a Linux distribution. Therefore unless you can provide some compelling evidence to the contrary, it doesn't belong per WP:BURDEN. - SudoGhost 14:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

CDIA edit

Hello - earlier today you removed an edit I had posted to the CDIA+ section of CompTIA's page within one hour of me posting it. I had added a comment about the word Architect in the designation was originally ArchiTech. You cited BURDEN as the reason. I suppose I could just go home and find the little card they sent me when I got the certification in 2000 and then scan it in for you.... or maybe you could just do a Google search on the exact phrase: Certified Document Imaging ArchiTech and look at the first hit. I will leave it to you to undo your removal since I think that is your responsibility for removing something you likely know nothing about :) Bclamanwiki (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't my responsibility, the onus is on you. I would have been glad to, but since I apparently "likely know nothing about it", you can do it yourself. Telling someone they "likely know nothing about" a subject is incivil and doesn't exactly make anyone want to jump up and do what you request. But before you reinsert the material, you may want to read Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources, because scanning a card isn't considered a reliable source. - SudoGhost 18:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for being a little ornery this afternoon but it is a very specialized subject and that is an old term. I wasn't aware that citations were needed for every description on wiki ... however, I have found a reference to it that doesn't seem to be trying to specifically sell an exam for it so I will undo the removal but add the cite. Thanks.

Bclamanwiki (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ankheg (AfD)

Hi ! As you participated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons), I thought you might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination), another D&D monster.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

While I have commented at that AfD, please see Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. I notcied that you only made these comments at the user pages of editor's that !voted delete at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons), which strikes me as very inappropriate. Because of this, I've made a comment at the AfD openly directing all of the users to the second AfD's discussion, in the future that would probably be the best way to make other editors aware of a related AfD discussion, to avoid any appearance of canvassing. - SudoGhost 21:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that, it is probably a better way to make the AfD visible to future !voters (even though individual notifications are not prohibited by WP:CAN), but all the other !voters in Afanc had already !voted in Ankheg, it just happened that, at the time I write, those who had not were delete !voters, but this was unrelated to the notifications, I would have equally notified keep !voters who had not already contributed to the Ankheg AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at Scottywong's page. It seems we're heading toward a DRV, then. I can't open it right now but I will certainly take care of it in a few hours or tomorrow...Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

An apology

Hello, SudoGhost. I apologize for my response to the comments you left on my talk page. It had not even crossed my mind that you might take it seriously. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What should I do now?

Ok I proposed something on talk page. What should I do now? What happens if no-one responds?--Camoka4 (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why dont you answer? If I made an edit on the article you would revert it within seconds, if I ask a question, you don't even reply.--Camoka4 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)