User talk:Aoidh/Archives/2013

Deleted Munzee Image

Please see article talk at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Munzee Hanky27 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I don't care about a specific referral link, I changed the QR Code of the URL again to something completely neutral. This now is the link to the Munzee Wikipedia article. I hope this is neutral enough! Is this now acceptable? If yes, please say so on the talk page or put the image you can find at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Munzee back into the article. Thanks Hanky27 (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

And Roll Tide to you too! Drmies (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your undoing of my revision 532725804

You wrote, "That's not a reference, that's WP:OR." Right you are! I should have realized that's how it would be seen – my mistake. Although actually... the reference was Appendix D of the Lord of the Rings. Another reference would be a Julian date calendar that numbers the days in a Gregorian calendar year. The only "original research" was being able to subtract one number from another. Is there a way to provide that information in Wikipedia without violating the "no original research" rule? - Embram (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I've tried it another way, supported by cited reference. - Embram (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at the appendices, but it appears to be original research to conclude something not directly stated using leaps of logic not given by a source. Open wikis are also not really suitable as reliable sources, so I removed that as a reference. - SudoGhost 23:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tried once more, using only direct quotations and giving specific citation, and using only text from The Lord of the Rings. In the sentence I added, all the information (including that before the semicolon) is from Appendix D, as cited at the end of the sentence. I also corrected a few things, for example the wrong chapter was cited for the "stretched ... like butter that has been scraped over too much bread" quote. Also, the names of Bilbo's parents as well as the year of his birth are shown in Appendix C, but the specific date is not given in the appendices (that's from the first chapter of LotR). - Embram (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Linux Mint

Sorry, I didn't check if the IP had been blocked or not. I've removed the protection for now, if he comes back I'll consider semiprotecting it instead. Bjelleklang - talk 15:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocking my IP was a little premature. Also, I wouldn't characterize my adding of unbiased information to Wikipedia as a disruption. Neverthless, I appreciate the level of discourse that you have provided. Although it seems we disagree, I mean you no disrespect as I believe we share the common goal of improving Wikipedia --The Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.172.4 (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I did not block your IP address, and had nothing to do with that, it was reported here by another editor and action was taken by an uninvolved administrator. - SudoGhost 05:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! :) - SudoGhost 20:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me

Excuse me your codding me, firstly FYI you do not cod me and simply say this source as false info, what's the big deal I thought every wiki article page must have a source without it it would be removed no? And besides TriipleThreat started it it first not me.--DisneyGirlovestacos1995 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the link of where the source comes from:

AND DON'T SCOFF AT IT AS FALSE USELESS INFO It's from a source and website where it originally came from.

I am not "codding" you, you have nothing to do with why it was reverted. The source you gave does not in any way support the information you added to the article. That is why it was removed. It's not enough that it has a source attached to it, the source has to actually verify the information. Nowhere does that reference say anything about upcoming films being distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. That's why it's being removed. - SudoGhost 22:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary source not necessarily unreliable

Hi, on MPC-HC you removed a reference to the blog of a MPC-HC developer claiming that it's no reliable source. As far as I can tell it that's an error, of course the developer of a software is an expert in the relevant field (= his software), and flagging his blog entry as type=developer blog in Cite web should be good enough for this primary source, IOW, better than removing the link. Disclaimer, I didn't add this reference, I only translated an existing link into Cite web style. Cheers, 89.204.138.20 (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources that comment about themselves are allowed, as long as the content is not unduly self-serving. I don't doubt that the developer knows their own software, but to claim that it's the first open-source media player to implement something needs a third-party source because its not just their own software they're talking about, but that's essentially a blanket statement that puts themselves above everyone else, and that requires a third-party source. - SudoGhost 18:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I also didn't like is the first and replaced it by was the first with type=developer blog. Well, let's hope that somebody honours your cn with something better or restates this business without using first ;-) –89.204.138.20 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Oldest Companies

Hi there. re: this revert - I have to say you were entirely incorrect about this specific edit - the German pottery company "Holland" should not, in any way, link to the article for the country Holland in this list. As someone who often edits in multiple tabs, your assumption of foul play solely due to this editing behaviour is just as disruptive. You should have checked each case before reverting. Cheers, Nikthestunned 09:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. Except that Holland is not a country at all but a historic region within the Netherlands. Just like the articles about these subjects say. Fnorp (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please remember to assume the assumption of good faith, so saying that assuming bad-faith is disruptive would be correct, but that's not relevant here.. "Foul play" was not assumed, people do inappropriate things all the time with the best intentions. With that specific edit, you're entirely correct however, I mistook that company name for another country field. - SudoGhost 15:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Description of warranty in jailbreaking article

Hi SudoGhost! You might be interested in this discussion: Talk:IOS jailbreaking#Warranty - it's about how to describe the warranty status of jailbroken devices, which you made some edits to back in November. Since it's a long discussion, here's a quick summary: Cantaloupe2 was concerned that the existing text was improper synthesis and changed it to new text, I'm concerned that the new text is improper synthesis, I proposed a version that tries to avoid synthesis, and I'm waiting for responses on this since I'm avoiding editing the article directly due to my COI. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind welcome

I've been of wikipedia for a few years, but I only contribute small bits here and there, mostly typos and vandalisms, but in any case it's nice of you to make me feel welcome. The cookies were delicious too... =) Cheers! King Klear (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) If you ever have any questions or anything feel free to ask and I'll be more than happy to help if I can. - SudoGhost 18:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Why was my link to JavaScript implementation of Binaural Beat generator removed from the Binaural Beats page?

Why was my link to JavaScript implementation of Binaural Beat generator removed from the Binaural Beats page? Is it not a usefull tool for people to experience what the beat is and experience different frequency binaural beats? Roos Michiel (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

External links do not belong in the body of an article, and the fact that it's a javascript program on your personal website means that it appears to fall under WP:ELNO. - SudoGhost 17:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Roos Michiel (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources/Counting Buddhists

You may want to consider Wikipedia:RS#Some_types_of_sources with regards to the reliability of textbooks as sources- particularly as most recently published textbooks are compiled and reviewed by pools of working scholars and reviewed in great detail before publication. To the specifics of the Buddhism article I agree that adding another data point from a particular source does not really advance the article significantly- better to await a scholarly consensus on counting Buddhists. Over time, however, the framing estimate that we provide in the opening paragraph should probably move towards being pulled from a few high quality tertiary sources, rather than a secondary (the state department study) and one book by a single author. Most likely a longer term project for that page, as high level changes tend to occur quite slowly. --Spasemunki (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that two different schools will have two different sets of textbooks that may contradict one another (even within the same country), saying something is a textbook does not automatically mean it is a reliable source without context or consideration. In fact there are Wikipedia articles about instances where textbooks may not be reliable sources (Japanese history textbook controversies, Biology for Christian Schools). I don't doubt that textbooks are reviewed before publication, but not always for the best reasons. All textbooks are not the same; merely being "a textbook" does not make it reliable for any given subject. I wouldn't use a Texas schoolbook on a topic such as Evolution without careful consideration, for example. This is especially true when someone makes allusions to having read a textbook, but doesn't actually provide any details as to what textbook it is. - SudoGhost 17:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply to ST post

Are you being truthful or just mocking my post? RAP (talk) 21:06 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to be humorous; if it came across as mocking I apologize, it certainly wasn't the intention. - SudoGhost 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha. I see. RAP (talk) 00:09 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Vaslav Nijinsky

Your edit here. I'm not concerned about the "line 19" edit. However why did you change information in the paragraph concerning the planned 1970 film? In particular, 1) remove the alternate title; 2) change "planned film" to "uncompleted film"; 3) remove the citation. The primary source citation confirms that the would-be film shut down during pre-production. As it never began production it cannot be said to be an "uncompleted film". This is relevant and worth noting because the IMDB has a page dedicated to the project claiming that it was unfinished. Several other wikipedia articles also contained inaccurate information about the project that I had to correct. - Fantr (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why that happened. I only removed the reference, I didn't intend for any of the other things to happen; I'll revert it and try again, and hopefully everything else will remain intact. - SudoGhost 01:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I think I do know what happened. I think I accidentally edited a previous version of the article instead of the most recent one, which caused all of that. Sorry about that, I'll keep a closer eye on that in the future. - SudoGhost 01:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's okay. I'm glad I AGF and posted to your talk page! Cheers. - Fantr (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Georgia

Thanks for the catch on Georgia "demographics."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Imprisoned Spies

This page is a requested articles and it seems to be fairly similar to what you have here: User:SudoGhost/Sandboxes/List of Imprisoned Spies. Perhaps you would be willing to transfer the list here over to the new page. I am hesitant to do it myself as I am unsure of Wikipedia Guidelines in this respect, as in simply copying and pasting from one page to another. Please feel free to contact me about anything or let me know if you would like some help from my end.DaltonCastle (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It still needs some work but I went ahead and moved it to List of imprisoned spies. I honestly had forgotten that it was something I had been working on. -SudoGhost 23:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriare reversion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Ferguson (musician) closure

As someone commenting on the AfD, you should not have undone the closure. It was backlogged and a number of sources were added after it's AfD. This satisfied a number of the delete concerns and favored a keep. The article is well written and conforms to MOS. Please revert your undoing of the closure and either take it up with an uninvolved admin or renominate it. --DHeyward (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it works, and "conforms to MoS" is certainly not even a keep rationale, let alone reason to close a discussion; that is your determination, so it appears you closed the discussion based on your preference, not based on the discussion itself. "A number of sources were added" also suggests that you essentially closed the AfD using your own reasoning and not by the discussion itself and that alone is casue to revert the closure, especially given that most of the discussion (and delete/redirect rationales) took place long after those sources were added. More importantly, the closure itself was not permitted per WP:NACD; it was not a clear consensus by any stretch of the imagination, and such discussions are for admins to close. So no, I will most certainly not restore an inappropriate closure. If anything, your response above just reinforces that you should not have closed that AfD, because you closed it based on your own opinion, as opposed to any consensus. Let an uninvolved admin close it as is appropriate, or if you disagree and believe that you should be allowed to supervote (based on your rationale above, that appears to be what happened), take it to WP:ANI, but AN/I typically doesn't support contentious non-admin closures. - SudoGhost 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I didnt believe it to be contentious as the "keep" rationale, the article, and the notability requirements were met (7 - prominent local artists). They were met by the addition of local sources to notability which were the main concerns of "Delete" votes. You undid what should be an obvious keep. There are reasons to delete poorly written articles with bare notability and close "votes", but this is not a vote. Consensus based on policy was a clear a keep. You also didn't like the outcome and should not have undone it without an uninvolved third party. Closures by non-admins are allowed, reversion of closures are not. Get an admin to undo it if you feel strongly about it. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, you used your opinion as a rationale for the closure as opposed to the actual discussion, and apparently discounted discussion which you disagreed with, instead using a poor rationale of "a number of sources were added after it's AfD". As the majority of the discussion and rationales took place after those sources were added, that's not cause to discount the parts of the discussion with which you disagree (and "conforms to MoS" is meaningless in an AfD discussion, and more importantly was never brought up, so apparently was a supervote). The lack of "local sources" were not a concern brought up by anyone, so again reinforces the fact that you should not have closed that AfD since you essentially used your own opinion as opposed to any discussion that took place. You made a bold closure which was reverted due to the issues with your closure. Again, if you think that you should be allowed to supervote and close contentious discussions despite Wikipedia's guidelines saying not to, by all means please take it to WP:ANI and let someone else tell you this, but if you continue to inappropriatly close discussions in this manner you may very well be topic-banned from doing so in the future. - SudoGhost 17:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You are creating a straw man argument. I assessed each comment in the deletion review against policy. I found no valid reason why he didn't meet criteria 7 (and 10, 11) for musician biographies. They were sourced. "Well written" is in the sense of not being a hagiography or appearing to be promotional material or a BLP violation. Once I assessed the arguments for and against notability, the only remaining policy was the well written aspects that concern the items above. At worst, it could be closed as a "no consensus" keep but it favors a "keep" keep by a large margin. --DHeyward (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at the definition of straw man, because you didn't use it correctly. You summed it up pretty well actually. You saw no valid reason why he didn't meet certain crtieria. That is not how discussions are closed , they assess the consensus, and the criteria and every other reason you gave was entirely absent from the discussion in any way, let alone created some sort of consensus. Your definition of "keep by a large margin" is exactly why you should have not closed that discussion, given you you ignored discussion you didn't like, created rationales that were never brought up, and cane to your own conclusion independent from the actual discussion. That is why it was reverted, and why you should not be closing those kinds of discussions. You also need to understand the difference between WP:V and WP:N, "they were sourced" is not part of the notability guidelines. Your rationales were not reflected by the discussion, and in fact were never even brought up once, that's why. It was reverted, becausethat would have been appropriate as a keep rationale, not as a closure, because it was nothing more than your opinion. You're not going to convince me that your opinion was some sort of consensus, because every time you respond it becomes more and more clear that your opinion was what drove your reasoning for closing the discussion, not any sort of consensus. - SudoGhost 22:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

When you start off with "you used your opinion as a rationale" and then proceed to argue why that was wrong, it's a straw man argument because that's not what I did. And yes, if you look, one of the Keep comments discussed local sources which he de-emphasized but it was valid for criteria of inclusion. I listed the 3 main items that I saw as reasons for keep based on the arguments, policy and references. They are now listed in the AfD discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The wording used was "Although much of the notability is local", because it was the exact opposite of WP:MUSICBIO 7; local sources typically do not demonstrate notability. This is different than being well-known locally, and that's a very important difference; local sources do not come anywhere close to equating to "most prominent of the local scene of a city", nor did anyone come even close to suggesting such, quite the opposite in fact, even from the keep rationales. So yes, the WP:MUSICBIO 7 thing came from the same opinion that the WP:MOS thing came from: your own opinion. They certainly were never discussed. You may not beleive you used your opinion, but when your assessment fails to reflect a single thing in the discussion, and brings up things such as the manual of style, that's a huge red flag that it was not closed based on any consensus. That is not a straw man as you demonstrated it every time you tried to explain yourself; it's not very convincing when you attempt to dismiss those concerns as a "straw man" as opposed to actually addressing what was said. Ignoring the fact that I already addressed why that's inaccurate, it ultimately doesn't matter because you should not be closing those types of discussions. Period. The fact that you have to make that kind of assessment means that the close is not something you should be doing. That's the point, and that's why it was reverted. Short of you changing the actual policy regarding this, it was inappropriate and that's why it was reverted. It doesn't matter what kind of argument you use to justify it, it also doesn't matter that it was flawed and used your opinion any more than it would matter if you did it perfectly, you are not permitted to do so. If you don't believe me, I'll say it for a final time: take it to WP:ANI and let others tell you this, because there's nothing more to say on the matter; your explanations have already demonstrated that your opinion of the matter is what influenced your actions, and more importantly it isn't a close that non-administrators should be doing in the first place precisely for that reason; they have not demonstrated that they are capable of doing so, and it causes much more of a problem that it intends to solve. - SudoGhost 05:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Request regarding Aakash Institute and AESL

Dear SudoGhost, thanks for suggesting me to not violating Wikipedia norms. You can check that I always did activities as a reply or reaction, never initialized wrong things from my joining Wikipedia to till date. A single user Skullbaron and few IP addresses are regularly trying to do unethical things and as a reply I had to protect my article. I request you to please apply "page protection" at both articles so these group of people/IP addresses stop doing intentional activities.

I remembered that you had nominated "ANTHE" article for deletion and in AFD discussion, the consensus was MERGE it with Aakash Institute. And the same part of content from Aakash Institute is regularly deleted by either Skullbaron and few similar IP addresses. Please do needful if you can. Satya563 (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill of Rights

Hi, you have commented on this article in the past, United States Bill of Rights would you be willing to comment again? Thanks. USchick (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits on Bodhidharma

The accounts of the origins of history of Bodhidharma have only two possible origins.The Indian and Chinese version comment him a Pallava Prince, only the Japanese version claims him to be a Persian.

Why cannot we have both as his history is just mythical and they are TWO of the ONLY possible origins?

If you cannot have Tamil People or Persian People there, it is also not feasible to have categories such as Indian Zen Buddhists, Indian Buddhist missionaries, Indian expatriates in China, Chan Buddhists and Chan patriarchs too by the same argument.

Either we add this one or remove them all.--CuCl2 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page and get a consensus one way or the other then, but "either I get the category I want or I'll take them all away" isn't a convincing reason to include it. - SudoGhost 16:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe.But you see, if he did not originate from the Ancient Tamil Country, I do not see why he must be categorized like the ones above such as Indian expatriates in China.All these categories more or less certify his origin as a Tamil and on that grounds I'm including the category here.Its not that you can have all but just not mine up there, when they are all of the same substance.--CuCl2 16:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to revert it and ask again that you get a consensus first, but I see that someone else already reverted your edit. The category isn't "People who we believe to be Tamil", it's "Tamil People". Given the differing views on that matter, I really don't think that would be an appropriate category. You are more than welcome to open a discussion on the article's talk page about the other categories, but at face value I'm not seeing anything you've listed above that warrants an immediate removal, but if you feel they don't belong discussion is always helpful for improving the article, even the categories. - SudoGhost 00:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

TV

Well, if you payed attention to the rest of TV records on Wikipedia as I do you would find your hasty Undue claim would negate personnel listing for all TV stations wouldnt it. But that would be a bit idiotic since the personnel listed are only the Anchors, Reporters and Meteorologists that run the news on the said stations and if you stopped to look at my contributions or asked why I was making a major revision you might have learned something. I am a leading data researcher in this industry and you arent making contribution a desirable process. Take a look at TV records to see what I mean about personnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricdesan (talk • contribs) 20:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what other articles do, those probably shouldn't have lists of names either if they aren't supported by reliable sources. It also doesn't matter who you claim to be, that doesn't suddenly make the content appropriate and is completely irrelevant here. Unless third-party sources are found for a name that shows that the name is relevant to a summary of the subject, those names don't belong on those articles. - SudoGhost 20:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy right violation

Hi,

I am not sure where the copy right issues are. I actually provided proper citations for all of them. Can you pointing the copy violations out for me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakewind (talk • contribs) 03:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've apparently just made an ass of myself, but I saw something that wasn't there and apparently got mixed up. I'm really sorry about that. - SudoGhost 03:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Don't worry about it. Lakewind (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

108 (number)

Hey SudoGhost,

I'm not normally one to moan, since I find nothing to moan about, but looking at your recent undo here, I'm wondering if that's stretching it a bit, because if you follow that stance then we might as well remove "There are 108 Code Crowns in Digimon Fusion." and the bit about Sekirei under Pop culture... Thoughts?

Many thanks - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 20:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's a third-party reliable source that shows that it's relevant enough to include in an encyclopedia article that's one thing, but otherwise it's just trivia. - SudoGhost 20:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash‎

You do realize the only way to stop all the crap on that article is to get two people topic banned, right? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping it doesn't come to that, but that's ultimately up to them. If this back and forth "edit-warring instead of discussing" thing continues though, it might have to go to WP:RFPP and get the page protected so that there isn't any edit warring; maybe then discussion will take place. - SudoGhost 02:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That might be the best thing at this point. I commented on the article's talk page as I was requested by one of the involved parties to give a third opinion, and we need to resolve this so everyone can move on. I hope you're still willing to put forth your time, as I don't think I can mediate such a long-running dispute by myself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think anything short of a topic/interaction ban is going to solve anything there. Even if whatever is going on now is resolved, it will pick up again in a few days like it is now, if previous examples are anything to go by. - SudoGhost 12:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

I did not remove anything on the Heroes of Might and Magic page. I added alot of stuff and changed some minor stuff (such as changing the "Anthologies" header to "Anthologies and special editions". Torr3 (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You may not have meant to, but your edit removed most of the article. - SudoGhost 14:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, excuse me. I see that now. Wikipedia was being glitchy, not appearing correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torr3 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. That does seem to happen sometimes. - SudoGhost 05:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the kind welcome. I enjoyed the cookies! Regards, Amateurmetheus (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, if you have any questions or anything feel free to ask and I'll be glad to help. :) - SudoGhost 01:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of Alert, Nunavut

Thanks for requesting the page for semi-protection, I was fighting that vandalism on my own until you came. They are actually talking about me on that site! CheersThe Grand Cenobite (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello SudoGhost

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=pendergrass+georgia&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x88f5e4a98edb1e43:0x4f227446f61d28bd,Pendergrass,+GA&gl=us&ei=MZ-WUarnL42m9gTByYGoBg&ved=0CJUBELYD

Here is Pendergrass, Georgia's city limits as up to date with Google, a very reliable source.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=jefferson,+georgia&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x88f5e27abe34f7d3:0xe5cb9f2234e18b1b,Jefferson,+GA&gl=us&ei=ep-WUcLJGYSm9gTf74HAAw&ved=0CLwBELYD

Here is Jefferson, Georgia's city limits. Clearly the company is headquartered in Jefferson, Georgia, not Pendergrass. Zip Codes are not city limits and will never be a reliable source for city limit distinguishing. Many cities, a ton of cities have zip code issues and some cities don't even have a zip code at all, only proving that Zip Codes are not used for city limit distinguishing and only for the purpose of mail distribution as said in the zip Code and Johns Creek, Georgia articles.

Greenguy2942 (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Greenguy2942

Do you have a reliable source that says the company is not in Jefferson? There are sources that say it is, and I don't see any contesting that fact. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, not the conclusion you reach by looking on Google maps, especially when your conclusion doesn't reflect the sources. - SudoGhost 21:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

...also what is "especially since i've worked for the police department" supposed to mean? Why would that be relevant in any way, and what point did you have in making that comment? - SudoGhost 01:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your warning to PeterWard Alpharetta

What you said is a point of view, SudoGhost, but Christianize and civilize are perfectly acceptable in British English as well as in American English, and, indeed, are rather better. See Oxford spelling. Moonraker (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already replied on his talk page. I never said it was "unaccaptable" and I'm well aware of Oxford, but that doesn't matter; articles shouldn't change from one spelling to another simply because we think another type of spelling is "better". - SudoGhost 17:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary at Druid refers to WP:ISE, which goes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling, but I can find nothing there which prefers "British English with -ise" to "British English with -ize". Your WP:RETAIN link goes to Wikipedia:RETAIN#Retaining the existing variety, which sets out a policy which strikes me as rather arbitrary, based on the first non-stub revision and so forth, but looking at the history of the Druid article it had an overwhelming preference for "-ize" at the stages identified, and also for years afterwards, so WP:RETAIN supports "-ize" in this case. See for instance here, here, and here. Moonraker (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Popularity

Well, if DistroWatch doesn't equal to popularity, we could just simply rename it to something better instead of removing the whole thing? --Gaming&Computing (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not unless reliable sources show that a DistroWatch page-hit count is relevant to the distro; if not then that kind of WP:UNDUE emphasis should not be placed on on user-generated content, especially when it's user-generated content that you can just buy your way into. - SudoGhost 16:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. What are your personal suggestions? (I'd really like this data from DistroWatch to be published on Wikipedia) --Gaming&Computing (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Buddha". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 June 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Coincidence

Well, well, isn't this a coincidence? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added User:111.223.132.1 to the investigation. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Buddha, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

New to Wikipedia: How do i post without it being counted as spam?

It was my belief that figures such as market size are counted as being "objective prose". Please inform me how I can post without it being marked as spam, I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Also, my apologies if this is not how I am supposed to contact you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbp426 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not the "market size" that's the concern, it's the fact that all of your edits appear to have been made solely to promote a single company's website by inserting it into numerous articles. This is especially true given that your account was created a few minutes after the edits of 208.48.253.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). That IP address follows the same pattern of editing and geolocates to Cleveland, Ohio which is where this Freedonia Group's offices are apparently located. If your focus is on the data, you can include it by providing references not related to Freedonia Group, since that's the issue. If, however, your focus is on inserting that website into articles, then that appears to be a conflict of interest and isn't something you should be inserting into Wikipedia articles. - SudoGhost 16:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I did not realize that what I was doing was in violation with Wikipedia rules. I will cease this immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbp426 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013

You're invited. Please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 5. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

KABC Anchors

What do I need to do to prove that the anchors and weather anchors etc... are all notable people at KABC? They are the face of the organization, how is that not notable? It is also very helpful when people who want information about them, which newscast(s) they anchor etc... Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Such a list of names must be of people relevant enough to the article that it warrants mentioning them. That relevance is demonstrated by meeting the criteria at WP:LISTPEOPLE. Does it matter that John Doe is an anchor? It might indeed, but reliable sources determine that. If reliable sources don't show that it's relevant then it doesn't help improve a reader's understanding of the subject to know that a random name is associated with the article, and only serves to distract from relevant information. - SudoGhost 22:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What makes Marc Brown, for example, notable and not David Ono? They are both "weeknights."

"For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." I would say that since over one hundred thousand people watch these people every single newscast, they are famous, which means they are notable which means they get a check for that and there is already a source that says they are a member which would indicate, they meet the requirements to be "listed as people." Aviationspecialist101 (talk)

Honestly, the Marc Brown article needs some serious work and probably wouldn't survive an AfD. However, how many people supposedly watch a program is absolutely not how notability is established. Notability is established by reliable sources, not claims of being "famous" simply because someone watches the news and they just happen to be part of that broadcast. "Worthy of notice" has to be shown with reliable sources, not speculation. The relevant part of WP:Notability (people) is that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." - SudoGhost 03:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Potential RFC/U

I am interested in opening an WP:RFC/USER on the conduct of User:Baboon43 due to long running issues of incivility and edit warring. Back in April, you warned the user about edit warring. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance#Qualification, I would like to ask you to consider endorsing the RFC/U; you may view it at my sandbox. If you agree, you have my consent to make changes to my sandbox as needed so that this RFC/U can be filed properly. It is my hope that this community effort will encourage the user to reevaluate his approach. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In the event that the interest does strike you, this has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43. I am just doing the rounds and letting previously involved editors know. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Batman

Thanks. Replied at the talk page and also at ANI with other examples of copyvio. He also has some serious problems with his sources - not just fringe stuff but I can't understand how some of his sources could back his edits (I've discussed this at Talk:Kariong, New South Wales where he has again reverted me and replaced his material). Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, there's all kinds of stuff going on there that I wasn't aware of. Just to clarify this, I certainly wasn't suggesting that I thought you were lying or anything, but I didn't want Lionhead99 to feel like he was being ganged up on or something without him even having a chance to explain what was going on. - SudoGhost 11:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think you were suggesting I was lying - I understood you to be doing what you say you were doing. He's left a huge mess behind to clean up - a project has been set up for it. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit

The page you linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight actually supports my contribution. Please read what you link to carefully. Or is this just because you are still angry about the GNU/Linux debate and just want to make me angry.Sonic12228 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE does not support the addition. If the information is so critical to the overall topic that it warrants mentioning it in the lede then it needs more than a source from the FSF, as such a source is unduly self-serving. - SudoGhost 19:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Undid revision 563371092 by KhushbooVira why

Hello,

why did you Undid revision 563371092 by KhushbooVira

You think it is Not a reliable source, but for many things the website is a reliable source.

Please undo your action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhushbooVira (talk • contribs)

Just because a websites is created does not make it a reliable source. I don't know which of the websites you're referring to since you inserted a few that were all created by the same person or organization, but none of them are reliable sources on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 05:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to enjoyfestivals.com website which shares all details about all festivals around the world and it is reliable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KhushbooVira (talk • contribs)

It is most certainly not a reliable source, why would it be a reliable source? In fact many of the entries on that website appear to be copied directly from Wikipedia, which makes it even less reliable as it creates a circular reference. - SudoGhost 07:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 Bodh Gaya blasts

Dear Sudo, Recently I saw your edit in 2013 Bodh Gaya blasts.From your profile I came to know that you are member of WikiProject Buddhism. I believe this article is very important for WikiProject Buddhism as well. I have been taking so much efforts to develop this article in neutral point of view policy. But Fut.Perf. claimed disruptive editing for the crucial information of attack warnings This. Above all Fut.Perf. seem to be happy in edit warring rather than discussing. Could you please look in to the matter of attack warnings? could you please intervene and develop that section? Many thanks.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hybris

Either fix the wording of the whole sentence (“Linux” twice with different meanings is awkward) or keep it as it was because the use of the term GNU/Linux is technical in that case, not POV. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It most certainly is POV, not least of all because there is not a single reliable source in the article (and elsewhere, from what I could see) that uses the term in any way, so to suggest that such a term is somehow more technical and therefore preferred when describing the article's subject appears to be WP:OR. - SudoGhost 18:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The very first paragraph of Linux talks about “main supporting user space system tools and libraries originated in the GNU Project”. If you believe that glibc is not a main system library, I cannot help you.

I have no emotional attachment to the term “GNU/Linux”, however it is the common name for Linux-based systems that are explicitly powered by glibc and absolutely no other libc implementation (like in this case Bionic).

Personally I find the sentence still kinda awkward… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's actually the opposite of the WP:COMMONNAME, according to the reliable sources in the article and the countless discussions on the Linux talk page, all of which reach the same consensus on the matter. I also never said nor suggested in any way that "glibc is not a main system library", so I truly don't know what you're talking about there but it is irrelevant in any case. - SudoGhost 07:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Which reliable source states that the term "Linux" refers explicitly to glibc-based Linux systems? --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion archives at Talk:Linux for that answer, as it has been explained in more detail there then I care to have to repeat. On the other hand, which sources support your assertion that "GNU/Linux" is the more technical term when discussing the subject? None of the ones in the article say anything about this, and I couldn't find anything elsewhere that suggests this. - SudoGhost 13:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care for ancient discussions that were not about the technical difference between GNU/Linux and Bionic Linux. So either fix the sentence to be in non-awkward wording or leave the article alone and bother someone else who's interested in discussions… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "bothering" others on my talk page, I'm interested in making sure the articles reflect the sources. Given that you've avoided to answer the question I asked, I'm going to assume it's because you were unable to find a single source to support your claim. If what you were saying were so accurate, you'd have been able to show that instead of strawman arguments about glibc. Please don't ask questions if you're "not interested" in the answer. - SudoGhost 15:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even look for sources because you were the one who broke the sentence. Fix the sentence or leave my article alone. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not your article, and the change made it consistent with the sources. - SudoGhost 01:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Making friends

You've been making new friends lately, haven't you? Good luck, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

IMDB.COM

The info at IMDB.COM is correct. The info on the site is researched. For the info about Rick Still has been checked and it is correct. what is your proof that it is not correct.208.54.4.215 (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an internal guideline that defines what qualifies as a reliable source. The relevant section for this is WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper), which specifically calls out the IMDB as failing to meet the guideline. A better source is needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

America

Just so you know WheelerRob has taken it upon himself to start censoring your comments. I reverted him but I felt you should know. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and for reverting it; I probably wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't pointed it out. - SudoGhost 22:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

CS Gas

Apologies for what seemed like a spam link to PubMed; I am new to this editing process. I have corrected the situation and removed the excessive details of the reference. Thanks. NS80 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not the details that are the issue, it's that every edit you've made appears to have been done to promote this Sivathasan individual. It gives your edits the appears of reference spamming. I would recommend taking the reference to the talk pages of the individual articles instead of putting them in the articles and discussing with other editors whether or not the references are appropriate for the given subject. - SudoGhost 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

WBSC (AM)

The nominator has withdrawn the AFD, yours is the only delete !vote all others are speedy keeps. All keep votes are based on experience with common outcomes of AFDs on this subject. Reverting a non-admin closure on the subject is bordering on disruption to make a point, please reconsider your revert.--RadioFan (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The keep votes are arguments based on an inaccurate assumption with no basis in any Wikipedia guideline or policy and expressly contradicted by the relevant notability guideline and thus have little to no weight in the discussion per WP:CONSENSUS. I don't think that an editor that closes an AfD on an article they created should come to another editor's page accusing them of anything close to WP:POINT, especially as your "non-admin close" was inappropriate to begin with. - SudoGhost 02:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I reconsidered your revert for you. Since the nomination is withdrawn, it's a speedy keep. Also, please read WP:NMEDIA for all notability rules for radio and television stations. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately your revert was equally inappropriate per WP:SK. If you are unable to understand what qualifies as a speedy keep then you should not be closing such discussions. I see you have taken it to User talk:Drmies, so don't take my word for it. - SudoGhost 02:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Do let me know when you have read WP:NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have read WP:BCAST. Not only does the article fail to establish notability even through that, it also does not make your inappropriate close suddenly appropriate. If that's the best argument you want to make, make it on the page itself, but that doesn't come close to justifying speedy keeping the article. - SudoGhost 02:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does. That and the consensus built over many different AfDs (all were Keeps, by the way). So, yeah, radio and TV stations have established and inherent notability built on consensus. Sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's really odd, because WP:ORGSIG specifically and in no uncertain terms says the exact opposite concerning inherent notability, and WP:BCAST doesn't come anywhere close to saying anything about inherent notability, and those are both based on consensus. So...how about you try that again? - SudoGhost 02:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to. Radio stations and TV stations have established and inherent notability built on consensus accepted by the community. Sorry, but you are in the wrong here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You're saying one thing and the guidelines you're citing are saying the opposite, so I'm going to go ahead trust the guidelines on this one since "I don't have to" reads a lot like "I can't", and the guidelines can and do. I can see why you'd want to shut down the discussion without having to justify keeping the article if this discussion is anything to go by. - SudoGhost 03:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Arrogant, aren't we? There's no "I can't", it's "I don't have to". Obviously you know very little about consensus, since you are showing it. Radio and TV station articles have been put up by misguided editors, they are always shot down. The radio and TV article notability subject has gone before the community, it was decided in multiple WP:AN and WP:ANI discussions that the articles are notable. There is inherent notability with strong established consensus. Since you are wanting to have said article deleted, it's up to you, not me, to prove the article doesn't meet consensus and notability. You can't, that's why you are having a POINTed arguement (with some arrogance and snide remarks) on two different pages. I don't have to prove consensus or notability, because it has already been proven. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that consensus specifically and unambiguously says "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists." I also know that you're saying the exact opposite, yet are unable to demonstrate that, insistent instead that you don't "have to". Saying the word POINT doesn't help you at all as it doesn't apply in the least, and calling me arrogant while claiming you don't have to show any proof for your wild claims is kind of odd. You're saying I'm in the wrong but haven't shown a single reason why that might be so, yet you've consistently been in the wrong quite demonstratably with both speedy keeping the discussion and your ideas about inherent notability that are directly contradicted by actual consensus. It would help tremendously if you'd show what you're saying. I know you don't "have to" but Wikipedia also doesn't "have to" give that opinion any weight, so for your own sake please try to show what you're saying, since what can be shown says that you're wrong. - SudoGhost 03:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You do know that you just spun everything I said to you back at me, right? Not much of an arguement. But, since I'm having a really good day, could be the weather I don't know, I'm gonna humor your "I don't take anyone's word" nonsense.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KSBZ
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KNWC - Do read the closing remarks.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTMU
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHJG-LP
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CFMX-FM (Kokoya) - This shows that non-notable (or hoax) stations are deleted immediately.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUMM - Yes, that's a real callsign.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WSHR
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBGU (FM)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBCJ - An example of stations with a license (past the "license to cover" stage) are notable (Note: WBSC made it past that stage).
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBNY - Another example of that.

I went back to 2010, so those are the AfDs for radio stations that I am aware of. There could be more, but probably not.

Now, on to the AN/ANI threads:

• ....which I'm still looking for, bear with me.

You might also want to read up on the following: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Media. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You have an odd definition of "spun everything I said" since your comments are wildly inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I've "spun" nothing you've said. You've also got a whole lot of nothing there in that list. How an individual AfD closes means nothing in regards to how another AfD closes. You don't have to take my word for it, check out WP:ORGSIG and WP:BCAST, they say the same thing. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Media also means less than nothing, that other AfDs often close a certain way does not create inherent notability, nor does that page suggest anything of the sort. Nothing you've provided comes anywhere close to supporting your claim that radio station articles are inherently notable; they are not. Closing remarks on a non-admin closure on an different article do nothing for that claim. Everything you've provided supports the claim that such articles are very often kept, and that's not being contested, but nowhere does that come anywhere close to suggesting that notability is inherited or that articles do not need to show notability. Nothing you've said refutes a single thing I've said concerning this, in fact it only supports what the guidelines say.

I'm not suggesting that most radio station articles are not kept, you can find 10,000 AfDs and it wouldn't change that. What I am suggesting is that notability is not inherited, and that articles are not kept simply because they are of a radio station. This is supported by WP:BCAST, the guideline you yourself cited, and WP:ORGSIG, which specifically refutes your claim in very clear and direct language. There is no inherent notability in these articles, such a suggestion is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no consensus that such articles have inherent notability. There is a consensus that specifically points out that they don't. So when you say that radio station articles are inherently notable I can say with certainty that Wikipedia consensus itself says you are 100% wrong. Linking a few AfDs that have resulted in a keep do not somehow change this. - SudoGhost 04:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

See, this is why I didn't bother. You are presented with proof of consensus and notability and you refuse to acknowledge it. Though, I think it is more you refuse to admit you are wrong. Look, you are 5 to 1 !vote wise, strong established consensus and inherent notability are on my side in this. So really this entire discussion is moot. In about 4 1/2 days, the AfD will be closed as a "Keep", as it should have been tonight. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I see proof of exactly what I said, and nothing more. What has not been presented is proof that such articles are inherently notable, in fact evidence to the contrary was given at the beginning. A few AfDs closing as keep is evidence that those AfDs closed as kept, nothing more. That this needs to be explained to you is troubling, and that you don't seem to grasp it after the fact even more so. Wikipedia consensus is that these articles do not have inherent notability. This is laid out in very clear English at WP:ORGSIG, and expanded upon at WP:BCAST. That you disagree means nothing and WP:CONSENSUS favors coherent arguments based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and your ideas about inherent notability fall far short of that, as they are 100% inconsistent with Wikipedia consensus. Switching to meek about "voting" don't really help you as it is not about numbers, and that kind of comment only serves to highlight the lack of strength in your argument. You have been asked to back up your claim and have consistently failed to do so, so there's no point in continuing this discussion that's all you have; Wikipedia consensus carries more weight than your demonstrably false claims. That the 5 members of WikiProject Radio Stations believe that this article about a radio station should be kept is both unsurprising and unconvincing, especially given the very poor rationale used to justify keeping the article. - SudoGhost 05:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, you have been shown the proof you asked for and dismissed it, you have dismissed everything, because obviously you can't admit you are wrong. You have been shown consensus, you have been told these articles are notable, you dismissed it. So, since you refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong and that I am right by saying the article is notable, I refuse to entertain you any longer. In 4 1/2 days, you will see that what I said about notability and consensus were true and I was right. Hopefully you will be man enough to admit you were wrong then. Until then...Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you really think that a few AfDs closing as "keep" somehow means that all such topics are inherently notable, despite Wikipedia consensus saying otherwise in no uncertain terms, then you are more than welcome to bring that up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) and get an actual consensus, but you wouldn't be the first to have tried to change that consensus and failed. Until that happens, it's not me, but Wikipedia consensus outright that rejects your claim that radio stations are inherently notable. If you want to change that, bring it up at the talk page of the actual guideline you're arguing against, because showing a few AfDs doesn't demonstrate "inherent notabilit", that's absurd. If you don't think it is, try to change the consensus, see how far that gets you. Good luck. - SudoGhost 06:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem adamant about the inherent notability but did not bring it up where that might be shown to be true or not, I've gone ahead and started that discussion here. - SudoGhost 09:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A rehashing of a re-re-rehashing, should be fun. Anywho, I'm extremely surprised that you changed your !vote to "Keep". I would be interested in what you think needs to be added (reference wise) to the page so that is has a "strong case for notability". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually looking now. Highbeam might have some references that won't turn up in general searches, so I'm about to look through there now. There's going to be a lot to dig through though, since WBSC is used for a lot of things, including this, which makes narrowing it by location difficult too. - SudoGhost 09:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's also used for the World Baseball Softball Confederation. I ran into several articles about that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the results on Highbeam are either about the Western Baptist State Convention or the television station, I couldn't find anything related to the AM station on Highbeam. That's not to say more sources don't exist elsewhere, but I figured since I had highbeam access I'd see what I could find there. - SudoGhost 11:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Try searching for "WBSC-AM", "WBSC Radio", "WBSC 1550", "1550 WBSC", and "WBSC" "Bennettsville"....with the quotes (the last one being two search terms together in one search). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No luck on those, with or without the quotation marks. I only looked on Highbeam this time though, so I'm not saying there aren't any elsewhere, only that I couldn't find any sources on Highbeam for the article. - SudoGhost 20:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

JediKnights.jpg revert

Really? What's wrong with it? No macroblocks and lower resolution despite the increased size for obvious reasons. It doesn't go against any guidelines. I don't want us to enter in another edit war, so can we please leave this be? LusoEditor (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC #3, and you were told this before you even changed it, so I don't know why you're surprised. If you disagree, you are welcome to get a consensus for your change per WP:BRD, but stop edit-warring to include your problematic changes, because they will not stay no matter how much you edit-war to push them. - SudoGhost 00:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

AAA EXcllence.jpg revert

That is Buford High School's logo. Trust me, I'm a student there. I am completely positive. Can you just leave this be, please? It'd be greatly appreciated. SirCadogon4 (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC) SirCadogon4

It doesn't appear to be the school's logo, and the reference doesn't support that claim either. It is certainly used on a website associated with the school, but that doesn't make it the school's logo any more than any other image found there. - SudoGhost 02:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I go to the school! Dude, it really makes no sense that you're deleting information on a page that does not concern you. Like, you don't go there. I mean, what's up with you changing it all up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirCadogon4 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't help to speculate on what "concerns" others, but it's being removed because it's not verified that this is indeed the school's logo (which is unlikely). Is it an image used by the school? Yes, but that doesn't make it "the school logo". I could just as easily claim that one of these two are the school's logo, but just because an image is used by a school doesn't make it the school's logo and just because I'm "pretty sure" that might be the logo doesn't mean it is. A source needs to be given to verify that what you're saying is accurate, because readers should be able to look it up for themselves and see that what you're putting into any article is accurate. You shouldn't have to take my word that this is the school's logo just because my personal experience makes me believe it is. Likewise, you going to school there is not verification of what you're saying. If I tried to add a logo without a source, other editors could and should remove it until I could verify what I'm claiming, and that's why it's being removed from the article. - SudoGhost 21:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerning real estate sources

Why have I been told to remember to sign my name? Have I forgotten to do so somewhere?

Also self-published or not, a realtor's page from a country that needs to be established as measuring in acres or perches is a perfectly reliable primary source, the most reliable kind. Learned that in high school and college doing journalism. An article citing a realtor saying that perches or acres are used would be less reliable, a secondary source. Surveyor792 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia it doesn't quite work that way. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Your use in this edit is a good example of why; that website doesn't come anywhere close to verifying that "this unit is still used today in Sri Lanka". In fact that website appears to be saying quite the opposite of what you put into the article, as it only seems to use "rood" so that foreigners can get an idea of what a perch is. Real estate websites are not reliable sources for this sort of thing; if a unit of measurement is used in a country, you need a reliable source that specifically says that. - SudoGhost 23:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"[T]o a lesser extent, {. . .] primary sources" Your own quote states that primary sources are acceptable sources. Without primary sources, there wouldn't be any secondary sources to quote!

How can you read the same exact page and not discern its meaning? I am starting to become very annoyed at these incessant reversions. Do you have a personal bias here?

"In Sri Lanka an old system of measurement is used for land. The ‘Perch’ and ‘Rood’ are old British/Imperial measurement systems."

From the realtor page. It clearly states that the perch and rood are old Imperial measurement systems and that in Sri Lanka they use an old system (the Imperial measurement system).

If you aren't familiar with the system, can you explain to me why you feel qualified to edit it?

I wouldn't stick my neck out and get involved, say, in an article on women's fashion. Yet you feel qualified to summarily delete changes made in good faith citing reliable, primary sources from the countries in question.

Are you serious in saying that someone needs to read the SAME INFORMATION, WRITE A BOOK ABOUT IT, before I can cite it here?Surveyor792 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have to "discern the meaning", that should probably tell you that it isn't a very good source, which is why "primary sources" are not preferred over secondary ones. In any case, the website does not support your edit, and so it was removed. I have no doubt your edit was made in good faith so I don't know why you said this, but edits can be made in good faith and still be problematic for various reasons. The source does not support the content, that is why I "feel qualified" to revert the edit. You don't have to be an expert on a subject to see if a source verifies the statement, and this one does not. I would advise that you find a source that verifies the statement, preferably something better than random real estate websites. - SudoGhost 23:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sudo! Thanks for picking up the ball here. Just a word (unnecessary, I'm sure!) to the wise: User:Surveyor792 is an obvious sock of banned User:ACWMeas, and (judging by his level of experience) probably of other accounts too. So please don't let him decoy you into 3RR or anything else he might use against you. He's already accused us of being meatpuppets, which is good for a short laugh. I'm going to sleep now, confident that he will have been indeffed by the time I wake up. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears that User:ACWMeas was blocked (not banned) for their username, so it's not really sockpuppetry as their block notice specifically states "You may simply create a new account", which is what it looks like. - SudoGhost 00:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The two of you both seem actively involved in deleting my hard work. Can you explain your qualifications in editing these articles, besides having a computer with an internet connection?

I'm not trying to get anyone banned. I'm trying to correct and add to articles that are grossly inaccurate because they all seem to be written by male computer scientists in their twenties.

What the fuck does a "sock" mean? And why do you keep removing and reverting my edits? Are you saying you are NOT involved with SudoGhost? The two of you seem to have nothing better to do than to revert every SINGLE ONE OF MY POSTS HERE. Keep it up with the personal attacks and insinuations here, keep being a piece of shit, scumbag, it's clear YOU are in the know about proper conduct and protocol here.

It's been explained with each and every edit why they are being removed, between that and this discussion it's been explained; there's no need to keep asking why. WP:SOCK will explain what "sock" means, and WP:NPA will explain why it's not a good idea to write the kind of comment you just did. - SudoGhost 00:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes, you are quite right. I meant to come back and edit that error, but got sidetracked. What happened to sleep, that's what I want to know. G'night, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fedora Derivates, Fusion Linux

Fusion Linux hasn't had a release since December of 2011, that being the case what reason did you have for reverting my changes which in my view correctly added it to the list of inactive distributions (those which haven't had a release in 12 months). The latest release available on the Fusion Linux download page shows a release from December of 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vontux (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Lists like that are for notable derivatives; given that anyone can create a derivative of Fedora, an entry need to show that it's worth mentioning. To warrant inclusion in the Fedora article, an entry should ideally have its own sourced article, and external links do not belong in the body of an article. I don't doubt that there was a release from December of 2011, but simply having a website and an iso doesn't warrant a mention on the Fedora article. Such an entry needs third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject showing relevance, an entry with just an external link to the distro's download page doesn't show that, and that's why it was removed. - SudoGhost 18:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fusion Linux was already in the Derivatives list, I simply moved from the list of the active derivatives (the spot in the article it was already in) to the list of inactive ones. Perhaps using the Fusion Linux download page was incorrect, but I also used Distrowatch as a source for the same information. Is Distrowatch not an acceptable source? Based on your argument, instead of simply reverting my change, you should have removed Fusion Linux from the article too.Vontux (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I missed that, but you're right that it doesn't belong there either. I've removed it from the article. Regarding DistroWatch, it doesn't show notability because you can just buy your way onto their website, which gives them a vested interest and therefore they are not an independent third-party source. - SudoGhost 19:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for this info, the discussion on this article was informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vontux (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Joefromrandb and I have edit warred"

That comment is quite inaccurate and needs to be retracted ASAP. While I reported Joefromrandb for edit warring, I reported him for edit warring with a third party pbp 13:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you felt the need to put this section's header in quotes, but nothing anywhere close to that was said, so it's not a quotation of anything I've said. I've said nothing inaccurate as far as I can see. I can see how you might interpret it that way, but I never claimed you were edit-warring with Joefromrandb so I will not retract my opinion "ASAP", as it has not changed nor do I feel it's inaccurate. - SudoGhost 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You said, "Not only are GabeMc and pbp guilty of the same edit-warring they're accusing Joefromrandb of". That's a direct line from your view. I'd appreciate it if you left my name out of it and/or provide diffs of said edit-warring (which don't exist, cuz it never happened) pbp 13:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've provided a link at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb elaborating on your edit-warring and how it's not much different than what you're accusing Joefromrandb of, which seems to be the theme of that RfC/U. It's too late to "leave your name out of it"; scrutiny of your behavior is what you signed up for when you decided to open an RfC/U. - SudoGhost 14:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

buddha birthplace

hey i would pls request u too not write purported birthplace of buddha under the picture or believed to be the incarnation of vishnu as these things are considered to be true with no doubt by vaishnavas and Buddhist i went to the bethlehem page to see if something similar was written under the pic where jesus was born (purported ) and it wasn't so pls respect the feelings of vaishnavas and Buddhist and refrain from using words which doubt the faith of these religious groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanhanda (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources in the article do not present a scholarly consensus that this location is the birthplace of Siddhārtha Gautama. The Wikipedia article should not present an opinion as fact when there are differing academic opinions. That you believe it to be accurate does not mean the article should reflect only your opinion and disregard the rest, hence why it is worded the way it is. - SudoGhost 03:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment

I must have misunderstood your comment and I am on a vacation (real one) right now so I don't have the time to go into it, but I'm sorry for the accusation that you were not taking the evidence seriously.--v/r - TP 01:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I probably could have been a little more clear on that point, but it's all good. There's no need to apologize, but I appreciate it all the same. Now go enjoy your vacation! - SudoGhost 08:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for information

--Joecaruso123 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Discharges

I have a J.D. and 26+ years service (Army, field grade). The discharge happens at sentencing at the court-martial, then the prisoner goes to Leavenworth and serves the sentence as an inmate (not as a soldier). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I also served in the Army, and have asked someone I know at the USDB for clarification. I'm reading over the relevant parts of the UCMJ now to see if there's some kind of clarification on this, but I've got a 2-year old running around and it's not exactly easy reading. :) I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong" at all, just that we should be sure before saying "former", and especially in the way it's worded. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 13:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The discharge appears to be the one thing that isn't executed right away, it's reviewed first. So whether he is discharged and a civilian while at Leavenworth or not, it's fair to say that he isn't discharged yet, given that the sentencing just happened (and I just noticed it's on the Main Page...) - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 14:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Went out for a quick breakfast and returned to find your reply. Yep, there's the technicality of the review and Bales could try to appeal. There will no doubt be a review of the life sentence (without parole versus the chance of parole), but it's near certainty that the dishonorable discharge aspect will not be overturned (he admitted to the murders and pleaded guilty to them). Still, as long as the technicality exists, we should hold off on it. Bales will be a "former" soldier soon enough and have many decades behind bars to reflect on that. What a sad and sorry waste of his life and the lives of the villagers he killed. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: Note my post at the bottom of the Talk Page to clarify the issue for any readers who come along and follow the thread. Also, I noticed just now that someone has already added "former" to the lede again (it's been reverted by ThaddeusB), so it's likely to be a recurring problem... plenty of folks who understand little about the process will continue to be confused by press reports that Bales was dishonorably discharged. I think we should fix that by replacing "soldier" with "staff sergeant" in the first sentence, creating a simple long-term solution that isn't dependent on when the ACCA/CAAF review process is complete. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hindsight being 20/20, I can't believe I didn't think of changing it that way, given how obvious it looks now. Thanks for changing it, it looks a lot better that way. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 04:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I certainly didn't think of it first time around either, and must admit I initially approached the issue with too simplistic a viewpoint. Thanks for collaborating and working it out... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Cookies!

Thank you very much for the welcome and for those chocolate chip cookies. My favorite! I am still very, very much a n00b at this editing thing, so thanks also for the pointers on doing it right. AKeenEye 05:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKeenEye (talk • contribs)

Article Gautam Buddha

I did the revision after going through the talk pages where i can find a kind of war among it being based in either Nepal or India However as some people suggests Ancient India, Hindu religion's scripts mention Lumbini as Bottom of Himalaya parvata where the King Suddhodhan ruled; It is not just the listing on UNESCO world heritage site which claims Lumbini as birthplace of Buddha, There are more than enough details and facts to support this evidence and prevent vandalism in this Wikipedia article. Referring what a travel company's website keeps cant be used as a reference in Wikipedia; referenced should have some research. Joseph the writer (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things...first see WP:NOTVAND; just because you disagree with content does not make it vandalism, and secondly that you refer to "a travel company's website" suggests that you haven't actually reviewed the sources for the information you removed from the infobox. - Aoidh (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel this may be useful.

{{Uw-xfdpersonal}}

ViperSnake151  Talk  21:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Change of name

Hi! Why the change of name? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This was originally the name I had wanted to use on Wikipedia but it was taken, so I came up with User:SudoGhost instead. Eventually I found out that you could usurp a username under very specific circumstances, so I tried and was able to. - Aoidh (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2013

You're invited! Please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 7. To unsubscribe from these alerts, please remove your name from this page. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Luttrell

I have detailed, in multiple talk sections, for multiple entries, why the criticism section I removed from Marcus Luttrell's entry should not be contained within an entry devoted to the person of Marcus Luttrell. A particular editor has cut and paste that EXACT same criticism into three separate entries, the entry on Luttrell, the entry for his book Lone Survivor and the entry for Operation Red Wings. The criticism in question deals wholly with claims Luttrell made in his book Lone Survivor. The very specific nature of the criticisms makes such a section ill-suited for the entry on Luttrell. Whoever wrote the section I removed from the Luttrell entry actually uses the name of a critical book Victory Point in the title for the section. Victory Point, written by Ed Darack, is wholly devoted to an examination of Operation Red Wings, which is the subject of Luttrell's book, Lone Survivor. This should make it obvious that such criticisms don't belong in an entry for Luttrell, rather they belong in the entry for Lone Survivor. Furthermore, as my discussions on multiple talk pages make abundantly clear, the problems with the criticism section go waaay beyond the question of whether such a section belongs in the Luttrell entry. There are problems of bias, source quality, plagiarism and the dishonest padding of references. On multiple occasions, I have stated why I have removed criticisms related directly to Lone Survivor and Victory Point from the entry on Luttrell. If the criticism section, as previously written, is repeatedly reinserted into the entry on Luttrell, I will continue to delete it. If this necessitates the need for some sort of consensus, so be it. But the criticism section, as written, is simply unacceptable for the Luttrell entry.74.134.160.246 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi. I just make an occasional minor edit, once contributed a "seed" anonymously on a technical topic. A couple of years ago I decided to get myself an account, but I'm not too active.

I mostly use English Wikipedia, but if you need "feet on the ground" in Lisbon, Portugal (I'm a local who got around a bit), just whistle.

Thanks.

Ableal (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on how to split article Senran Kagura

Hello, you're invited to express your views about this topic on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

About how the IP added the Aqua Massage. How probably is not considered a type of massage, considering theres no hands on the client, just Water jets go on the paitent while keeping them dry. 98.114.104.129 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

I dont want an edit war. but isnt there a "you can use the sandbox in template:uw-vandalism1 and template:uw-delete1 Dreth 21:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

uw-test1 included "please use the sandbox" when the template was created in January 2007. The mention of the sandbox in the other templates are recent additions. Even template:uw-test3 includes the word "please", so given that a level 1 template assumes good faith, I'm not seeing a real cause to omit it here just because a new addition to a different template doesn't include it. If anything, those other templates should be corrected, not the other way around. - Aoidh (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Trying to use the sandbox template and work with my parameters - perhaps I've done it wrong? The picture was way too small. Could go to 300 px maybe. Still learning.-MELISSA BOWER 15:28, 19 December 2013

Ryan Gage

Hello. You you deleted my edit at The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. There is a article about this actor at 3 ather wiki's. I think it's better to be red. You don't think so? (i'm sorry if my english is not perfect, it's not my first language). Cheshin61 (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)