Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 31 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at Beeswaxcandle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi,this page is not a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, It is just a tool for users to learn more about it and Blu-ray player software, just like Microsoft Office. I would appreciate any tips on rewriting it. User talk: Bella.show May 14 2013. —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a cookie. Rd232 talk 20:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was recently wondering if there was a "Have a cookie" barnstar. Close enough. I'm nabbing the source code. :  } Thanks, Basalisk. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at your recent spamublock of User:Kwnyc who has been renamed to User:JDWilliams through CHU. Your block of the prior name was done at the same time of the rename so it spilled over to the new name which is not a username violation. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I was about to look into it further but got called away from the keyboard. I've unblocked the renamed account. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why did you revert my change? The change was factually correct, zinedine zidane is not french, he's a french national, but ethnically algerian. My edit was factually correct, therefore you should not have reverted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all I disagree with you. He was born in France, and held French nationality his whole life. He never lived in Algeria, and as far as I'm aware never held Algerian citizenship, so to call him Algerian is obvious not accurate. But that aside, even if you are right about him "being Algerian", you still need to provide reliable sources to verify this (you'll note that there are already 3 references supporting the claim that he is French). I understand you may feel strongly about this, but Wikipedia is not the place to write stuff that you "know is true" (see WP:OR. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is a Berber. His name is zinedine zidane. He doesn't look french or european and his His father is an ethnic algerian, and so is he himself. I can't source his family tree. According to himself in this article, he references to himself as Algerian Berber. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2004/apr/04/sport.features, to quote him: "Despite pressure from lobby groups, Zidane has never commented on the war in public or on his Berber origins; but he is clearly pleased that this identity should not be overlooked in the English-speaking press. 'My family are very proud of me, but I am very proud of them and where they come from. I am proud that they come from Kabylie. It is a special place and my roots there are important to me. We used to go all the time to my father's home village when we were young. But now, it's like Marseille and La Castellane: even though I want to go back it is difficult for so many reasons.'

The Zidane family legend is that when Zinedine's father, Smaïl, left the family village of Taguemoune in the remote hills of Algeria, he came first to Paris and, like many of his compatriots, headed for the tough northern districts of Barbès and Saint-Denis"

What more source do you need? Nationality as an identity is about as useful as toilet paper flushing down a toilet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no real argument for calling him french. He's as french as you'd be mozambiquan, if you acquired a mozambiquan nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing having Algerian heritage with actually being Algerian. And yes, if I had Mozambiquan nationality, I would be Mozambiquan. What you're saying is like saying I'm Tanzanian because somewhere along the line some of my ancestors came from there (which is true of everyone, as that's where humans originated). Even if all of this were not so, you're still just talking about what you think you know, which is original research. The point of Wikipedia is not to report "The Truth" according to your own knowledge, but instead to report what reliable sources say. There are already three such sources in the article which claim he's French. I'm not saying that he does not have Algerian heritage or that he isn't proud of said heritage, but by the definition of the word he is not Algerian. He was born in France. He has always lived in France. He is and always has been a citizen of France and nowhere else. He is French. That's what the article reports. If you want to change that, you're going to have to establish consensus on the talk page of the article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which definition are you refering to? So people become a different ethnicity by acquiring citizenship, by what logic? The source i put up above is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides you being obviously partial towards the civic definition of identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By any commonly used definition. Look it up in a dictionary. We're not talking about someone "acquiring" a new nationality. He was born French. He has never held any other citizenship. The source you provided is indeed reliable, but even that doesn't claim he's Algerian - it just says he's proud that his family come Algeria, which I don't deny. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's false, that is a civic definition of identity. That's something you don't mention. Because you obviously haven't done your homework. I'll refer you to the word http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civic and http://books.google.se/books?id=tTc8Pt8mX6wC&pg=PA27&dq=Civic+national+identity&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=TZOaUb_kL6fd4QTPwIGwDA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Civic%20national%20identity&f=false, you have no way of defending your argument without conceding to the fact that you're using a civic definition of identity, which isn't universal, just civic 176.10.208.167 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try typing "Algerian" into that dictionary site. You'll see it's "of or pertaining to Algeria or its inhabitants" (fails, since he's not Algeria or and inhabitant of Algeria) and "a native or inhabitant of Algeria" (fails, since he is neither). It's a far stretch to call him Algerian and not at all a far stretch to call him French. I have nothing more to say here. If you want to change the article you're going to have to gain consensus via discussion on the talk page. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You gravely misrepresented the definition in merriam webster, Here is what it says, quote "Algerian [ælˈdʒɪərɪən] adj (Placename) of or relating to Algeria or its inhabitants n (Social Science / Peoples) a native or inhabitant of Algeria"

Stop distorting information, he's a native by blood, nativity doesn't change by living or being born in another country. 176.10.208.167 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user MarkMysoe is still socking and evading block by making disruptive edits in Kevin-Prince Boateng (not only there). He is doing the same thing as before, adding content not covered by sources or partially covered. For example in April he added unreferenced number of assists to statistic table[1], I removed them as no reliable source was given (they shouldn't be included per consensus at WikiProject Football anyway[2]), but he quickly reinstetad them with a link to non-reliable, user edited website transfermarkt[3], but a point is that number of assists on transfermarkt for most seasons was totally different than numbers he added to carrer statistics table. This is a classic example of his disruptive edits, adding a source that doesn't support the content in the article.

I also checked his earlier edit[4] and the same thing here. He added two awards for him in honours and named them "Premio Gentleman: 2013 (Special Prize Gentleman of the Year Gold Cup)" and "Premio Gentleman: 2013 (San Siro Gentleman Award Serie A)". I checked the source and it says that Boateng was only awarded by the 'Gentleman against racism'. I'm so sick of this user disruptive editng and got no time to check the rest of his contributions in Kevin-Prince Boateng, but per summaries all IPs started with 31.127.x.x, 31.126.x.x and 178.99-111.x.x should be his. I think that article should be semi protected to prevent socking at least from IPs.--Oleola (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this is him, but I can't do anything about it as I'm far too WP:INVOLVED. What I suggest you do is take all this evidence and start an SPI report. Make requests for page protection as needed. Revert the changes that are unsourced. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know why Felix Kjellberg was deleted. I mean, he is one of the most subscribed channels on YouTube, and I don't see Smosh or the Fine Brothers deleted, hes probably considered more popular then The Fine Bros because he has more subscribers. Would a PewDiePie page be possible to have created? I just want to check with you and see if you've changed your mind considering his rise in popularity. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (Updates)}

01:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Wikipedia has its own set of rules governing what we should write articles about. Subjects have to be notable to warrant their own articles, and this is governed by the reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. Having "lots of YouTube subscribers" does not make a subject notable - this is an encyclopaedia, not a chronicle of internet fads. All of this information is linked in the big red edit notice you will have been confronted with when you hit "edit" on this page.

I haven't looked at those other pages you've linked too, but even if they're not appropriate, their existence is not a good reason to include yet more inappropriate content.

PewDiePie has previously been created, but was deleted for the reasons I've outlined here. He's just a guy who has uploaded some videos to YouTube - he has not had any lasting impact. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really should look at those pages, it affects the topic a lot. He is also considered a celebrity. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (Updates)}

01:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. This user is back at re-adding images that he was asked not to by several editors. Can you please take a look? Thanks, — Abhishek  ^Talk 16:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I want to say is that you're not doing yourself any favours by edit warring yourself - which you are to a mild extent. I have blocked him for one month because of his past history of edit warring and sockpuppetry, as well as the personal attacks aimed at you in his edit summaries, but I also have to warn you not to edit war. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I have edit-warred over it. But this guy just drives me nuts completely. I guess the best thing to do is stay from interacting with him. — Abhishek  ^Talk 16:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that, I've certainly been sat in your shoes fuming at another editor. But as you said, the best way to deal with it is either to discuss it rationally or walk away. It makes it harder for people to defend your corner if you start making mistakes yourself. Let me know if there are further problems. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've already agreed on the zinedine zidane page that it should be more neutral, that was a compromise. Why are you doing this bullcrap and undoing edits? 176.10.208.167 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your eurocentricism is intolerable. We had a 2 day long debate and members agreed to keep the matter neutral, just because you're not convinced, doesn't mean that you have the right intervene and do you please. 176.10.208.167 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing right there, is lying. We had a discussion where four editors other than me showed up and couldn't even believe you were trying to argue he was Algerian and said he was French. One editor said he could see some benefit in more neutral leads to footballer articles in general but didn't know the best way to implement it. So I don't know which discussion you had where "we agreed" to change the lead but it wasn't that one. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I want to create a article about a war with pictures and a toolbar showing flags,commanders,and losses. how do I do that? Tipu Sultan Rules!! (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not going to reply to the Felix Kjellberg deletion and tell me what you thoughts are when you read those links? I've got a list of some YouTubers:

Youtube Channels/Real People Duos: Smosh, Fine Brothers

Youtubers/Real People: Freddie Wong, Shane Dawson, Ray William Johnson

Considering these people have their own articles and their just "some people who've uploaded videos on YouTube" I think a PewDiePie/Felix Kjellberg page should be created too. I'm not a fanboy of him, I just think he too should have a shot at getting his own wikipedia page. I only made a new topic because its been a week or so and you've replied to other topics but not the previous one.

☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (Updates)}

22:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I did reply to the section. After my reply you made another post which was pretty vague and open ended, and certainly wasn't phrased as a question, and so I didn't comment further. Again, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. There has already been a deletion discussion about this particular subject and there isn't anything else to address. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not getting what I am trying to tell you? You said you didn't look at those pages, I replied saying it affects the topic a lot. I waited a week and you didn't reply. I then posted another topic considering you would actually answer it. You did saying this. These people are "just some people that posted some videos on YouTube, they haven't made any lasting impact". The same goes for PewDiePie/Felix Kjellberg, but why do they have pages and not him? If you think they're too "inappropriate" or whatever then you can go ahead and delete them too. The have the same rights that PewDiePie has, and its not fair. Have another discussion about it and actually look at the god damn pages. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (Updates)}

23:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No one has any rights on Wikipedia. No one has a "right" to an article. PewDiePie was deleted because the subject is not notable. I couldn't care less about those other articles; they don't have any impact on PewDiePie's notability. I'm not going to look at those other articles. I'm not going to restore PewDiePie. If you think the other articles are inappropriate then nominate them for deletion; you don't need my help for that. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said if you thought they were inappropriate. You said PewDiePie is just a person who just uploaded some videos on YouTube, he has not had any lasting impact. The same goes for these people. Why is it that they have articles and not him? I am seriously annoyed with your ignorance, unless your job as an admin is hard, which it could or could not be. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (Updates)} 03:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to answer your question, but you just don't seem to be acknowledging the fact that I am answering. You're asking me if the other pages are appropriate - I'm saying that:

1. I don't know as I haven't looked
2. I'm not going to pass comment as I don't intend to look
3. It doesn't matter anyway. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not my question. I'm telling you that these people fit into the same category as PewDiePie. He is the 6th most subscribed channel on YouTube, got here and you will see that all these people are "just some people who have uploaded some videos on YouTube, they haven't had any lasting impact". I'm not saying to delete them, but they are all still here and not deleted. If you would get off you high horse and look at the god damn pages? Just look at the list I gave a link to in this reply. You would save a lot of time and arguing. Its not that hard. And give me a reply once you've read them, don't say you're not going to either. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (Updates)} —Preceding undated 23:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to accomplish here? Why are you so desperate for me to read those articles? If you're trying to demonstrate that they're all the same as PewDiePie but haven't been deleted, and therefore PewDiePie should be restored, you're wasting your time, because it makes no difference. If you want me to delete those articles, go ahead and nominate them for deletion. If you're just desperate for me to learn more about YouTube culture, I can tell you that I have more important things to fill my time learning about. I'm not going to read those articles. I'm not going to restore PewDiePie. You need to let this go. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want them to be deleted, I'm just saying they're the same as PewDiePie but haven't been deleted. I just asked you to read the articles (Or atleast look at them) and tell me if you had changed your mind. You still haven't, and you could've saved a lot of arguing by just doing so. You don't want to fine. And yes I apologize if you are busy, and just to leave you alone is there anywhere I could go to discuss the restoration of PewDiePie/Felix Kjellberg.

Just get that he is the 6th most subscribed channel on YouTube which has the Alexa rank 3. Sorry for bothering you, just tell me where to discuss this and we're done. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (Updates)}

22:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please show me what you deleted. I am interested in seeing what ever there is about this institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webvip (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I'm afraid I don't know what article you mean. There's no deleted article at that title; are you sure that's what it is called? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]