User talk:Kraftlos/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Replied

Ping. :) — R² 14:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Veystracut14

Hi! Based on Veystracut14 (talk · contribs) talk page, it appears that you have reverted a vandalism made by him on Sam Concepcion's page. Well, I just want to let you know that Veystracut14 (talk · contribs) is back. He vandalized Concepcion's page again, and I undid his edit. But since I anticipate that this could result to an edit war with him as it had almost been two weeks ago if were not reverted by an admin soon enough, I just would like to report this user. This is perhaps his third time (even more) to vandalized Concepcion's page as it can be seen through the page's history. I thought he stopped already, but then he's back again. In addition, this user seemed to have register here on Wiki for the sole purpose of vandalizing Concepcion's page as that had been his only contribution here on Wikipedia. He may be a sock puppet for all we know. But regardless, I just would like to report this user because I only want a decent page for Concepcion. Hope you can help us with this problem. 98.207.162.197 (talk) 98.207.162.197 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

CC-RCC Mediation Page

Your suggested procedure for moving forward seemed to risk re-opening the discussion on the Compromise again - which is why I posted saying we shouldn't do this. The mediation is about the agreed package of changes including the article name change. Because of the need to clearly specify at the top of the article that the Church's actual name is NOT RCC, the other parts of the compromise text are only acceptable, with the name change. So we need to keep the debate very tightly to the fact of the name change without complicating matters and letting certain people re-start all the old arguments again. Sorry if this didn't have exactly the desired effect. Xandar 00:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought we were close, but I kind of knew this debate was inevitable. This may be an oversimplification, but it seems to me that we have four main dissenters: Charlaude, Afterwriting, Soidi and Gimmetrow. Carlaude and Afterwriting appear to have certain specific reservations, but would be open to compromise. I don't see any indication that the other two have any intention of agreeing to less than 100% their way. I suggest we engage the first two and attempt to address their concerns, I cant see use getting everyone to agree.

Ironically, Soidi was the one who first invited me to participate in the discussion in the months before the mediation, its funny that I've changed my mind yet he still hasn't budged. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review

HOW'S MY EDITING?

Please review me!

After my first quarter-decade on Wikipedia, I thought it would be good to get some feedback on my editing and participation. Any and all feedback is welcome, even if its something I don't want to hear. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My link:

Getbackers link.. "Its generally inappropriate to include a forum as an external link unless its the subject of the article. Also, ANN reviews are considered reliable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC) "

It is the subject of the Article. It provides more info on Getbackers. How do you say something is reliable and something is not? By the sites popularity or by the CONTENT ITSELF? You can check my content by viewing Getbackers and it is reliable. And besides some of the content in Getbackers main page in ANN was added by me. 122.164.104.185 (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of popularity. Web magazines, paper magazines, newspapers, etc have an established editorial process which includes fact-checking, oversight, etc. A forum post is self-published and doesn't have such controls. The exception would be "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" which doesn't appear to be the case. An with regard to the ANN content, this is precisely why it isn't considered a reliable source, because anyone can request changes; we only consider the review/magazine side of the site to be reliable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My content is not an opinion/review rather it is established fact which is shown in Getbackers episodes. I've listed the tiny details many might have missed while viewing the episodes.

And if non-magazine side of ANN is not reliable then why is the link to ANN's Getbackers main page in the external link? 122.164.104.185 (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, this is your forum post? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the entire content, every bit of it, was written by me. 122.164.104.185 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please restore my link? 122.164.104.185 (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you really shouldn't be trying external link something that you yourself wrote, its a conflict of interest as you also have off-site motivations for promoting that link. If you think there's valuable information there, try to work it into the article (where appropriate) and provide references to the manga/anime. Also, because you wrote it, it is by definition a fansite, which is also strongly discouraged in external links. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote it myself but look at the content, it is just minute episodal facts. All you require are a pair of eyes to confirm it. And I have no intention of promoting that site since registration to that site is curtailed. It's just an Archive. You can even check out when that forum was created, it was more than a year ago. I request you to please consider and restore my link.

122.164.104.185 (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You aren't a recognized expert who has been published in reliable third-party publications, so no I don't think that really counts. As for ANN, the main articles on ANN and its magazine Protoculture Addicts are run as a regular publication and are generally considered a reliable source by WikiProject Anime and Manga. The encyclopedia, while useful, is more like Wikipedia. It can be useful for finding other sources, but it itself shouldn't be used as a reference. In the case of External Links it doesn't necessarily need to be a Reliable source, but it does need to be credible, and as one of the leading English language anime web sites, it is relevant as an external link, as would IMDB in some cases.

In any case, there is no consensus to add your link; so if you think you have good information to contribute, go ahead and help out with the article once your ban is lifted. I can't see the other editors agreeing to add your link. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, the facts in my link are credible. Are you gonna throw away credible info just because it isn't in a popular site? Isn't wikipedia about sharing credible information.. its just one link.

And that's because no one knows about the details of the info. If you agree to it stating the credible reasons then the others may comply. 122.164.104.185 (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Credible, as in credentials. An author is credible by their reputation and career, where they are published, what their area of expertise is. There are well-known authors and academics that publish articles on anime and manga, those are the sort of people that would be an exception to this no forum/no blog/no self-published sources rule. If you have good information, then you should look to add it to the article. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not give a list of links on a given topic. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying an author who isn't known but gives reliable info is not credible info? It's just one link which is like the encyclopedia for Getbackers. The problem in giving it here is it is in a FAQ format. And you said popularity doesn't count but now your saying "one of the leading English language anime web sites". My link is external as well and the only difference between my link and ANN's main page is ANN is popular. Kraftlos please consider.. 122.164.104.185 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a popularity contest, its about reputation. ANN has identifiable authors who are mostly journalists or other experts in the field, it also has an editorial policy that is openly viewable. The site is a publication, a forum is at best fansite unless, like I said, the post was from someone who fits the criteria I mentioned above. I'm logging off now, and no I'm not going to reconsider. You appear to be more interested in promoting your forum than you are in building an encyclopedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about references but External link of ANN. The main page Getbackers is updated by ordinary ppl not editors. Anybody can change the info there. My link is external as well, and the only difference between my link and ANN's main page is, ANN is popular.

I already said this has nothing to do with promotion. Will you stand by my side if I post the FAQ in the wiki article although FAQ format is not the norm in wikipedia? 122.164.42.42 (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't see a compelling reason to make an exception here. If you want, you can try to talk about it on the article's talk page. I think you'll get the same response. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to your charge that I was promoting my site. And again.. "We are not talking about references but External link of ANN. The main page Getbackers is updated by ordinary ppl not editors. Anybody can change the info there. My link is external as well, and the only difference between my link and ANN's main page is, ANN is popular." 122.164.41.207 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying because you're unwilling to add the relevant material to the page, rather than link. I suspect you just want people to go to your forum post. If you were interested in the article, then you'd he looking for ways to add content there. And I'm aware how ANN encyclopedia works, I add stuff there all the time. "External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." - WP:LINKS Right now we have a minimal links, 3 official web sites, and two links to a comprehensive list of actors, directors etc. They're all meritable, as up until a few months ago, we were using ANN for referencing; but its borderline as far as reliabilty, so by community decision we no longer use it as a source, though in many cases the external link is helpful (like I said, in the same way as an IMDB link is - not perfectly reliable, but comprehensive and from an identifiable source).

Also from WP:LINKS "But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." Not only is this your post, but you've identified yourself a moderator. You are in no way impartial. Usually when there's an exception, it will be obvious to many people that the exception should be made. When its one editor saying yes and 3-4 others saying no; its pretty clear that this is not one of these cases. Of course your posts are directly related, but I could bring up probably fifty fansite links with good/ok information on GetBackers. I fail to see how this fan forum post qualifies as an exception. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Of course your posts are directly related, but I could bring up probably fifty fansite links with good/ok information on GetBackers." Please show me another site which has that much amount of detail and information on Getbackers' subtle plot. If you show me that I'll withdraw my appeal.

"External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Comeon.. we have 10's of external links for other Anime. Adding just a single link would still be considered minimal.

""But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." Fair enough.. you seem to think I'm just promoting my site, but it's my content with it's painstaking detail which I'm fighting for to get it's rightful place. If I get another guy, who isn't all the above which you mentioned, will it be ok? 122.164.40.72 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:PROMO --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009

The current edition of the newsletter is available at {{WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/July 2009}} .To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. John Carter (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for reverting vandalism on my talk page.   ■ MMXX^talk  06:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to be of service! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Naming Conflict Problem

Having just dealt with a year long row on the Catholic Church name, a user is now wanting to radically change the Wikipedia Naming Conflict guideline, particularly with relevance to cutting the section on self-identifying names. If this went through, it could bring the whole issue up for argument again! Not many people are involved in this proposed change, which could cause hundreds of hours of havoc and edit-warring. It would be useful for people to comment on Kontiski's proposed change, or state whether you would prefer policy to stay as it is, at. Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict Xandar 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the heads up! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Yasunori Matsumoto Great Teacher Onizuka Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu Naruto Chrono Crusade Akemi Okamura S-CRY-ed Sorcerer Hunters California Pizza Kitchen VT4 Charlene Choi Antimony pentafluoride Akio Suyama Ranma ½ Angelic Layer Scrapped Princess Shadow Minister Kimagure Orange Road Kiddy Grade

Cleanup Last Exile Baroque Works Hunter × Hunter Merge Franky (One Piece) already merged Cipher Pol Skypiea's Priests Add Sources Straw Hat Pirates Fansub Lex Lang Wikify Odex Gad Guard Jenny Kwan Expand Blood+ Trinity Blood Michelle Ruff

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings!

Greetings Kraftlos - just caught up with what's going on at Talk:List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations and am sorry not to have been around to participate in the AfD. Just for the record, I think the article in question represents just the kind of stuff Wikipedia needs to give it the edge over other resources available on Internet and, contrary to the opinion of many of my colleagues, it is precisely for that reason I recommend it to my students as a first-choice source of information.

The easiest thing in the world, and possibly never more apparent than here at Wikipedia, is nit-picking and when someone has taken a decision one way or another, it is next to impossible to make them reconsider - they will only go even further in their desire to prove themselves right.

As a newcomer to the article - and the issue at stake - I'm a bit lost and don't really have time to plough through the literature, and so am not really in a position to offer any advice as to how to improve it. I would therefore welcome any advice/suggestions/pointers as to what is more pressing. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, for now I would just keep the page on your watchlist and check on it from time to time. When we have a good idea of how we're going to procede, I'll know more about what we're going to do. I want to get the article to the point where it is no longer in question. I think the user that nominated it for deletion was just being lazy and didn't want to improve the article themselves. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, will do. --Technopat (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflict page

Pmanderson has reverted the original text of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict page twice more to an unagreed version. I have uused my three reverts, so can you, or someone else please revert the page to its last version by me - which is the long-established original text? I have asked for page protection, but it is important that the guideline is not compromised. Xandar 20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can do. Its kind of hard to discuss a proposed change when the previous version is a moving target. Just FYI I already served him a 3RR warning this morning, so we can go that route if we have to; there's also an active arbcom report about his actions on some MOS pages. you can find the link on his talkpage. Anyway, I'm mobile for another 6 hours of so, but I'll do what I can. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Xandar dissents, as always; please try to explain to him what the present proposal is. If he continues to dissent, should we go ahead to get wider input? you know my alternative. If he dissents from that, there are other means of dispute resolution available. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• You appear to have changed your mind since this edit. On what grounds? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that normally RfC's do require someone to propose a change. That said, I think asking which philosophy of naming is preferred would be equivelant. So to be thorough, we'd have two RfC's, one to gague opinion and one to change the policy. That's a compromise. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And personally, I prefer the self-identifying names as the policy stands now. I just want us to work together and not argue. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I may have seen more than you have; all RfCs need is an issue on which comments are solicited, and the two RfCs which I recall as matching competing drafts failed to settle the issue. One collapsed over the writing of the drafts, and the other was hijacked by the extremists - both resulting in bad feeling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, the two-draft RfC will really cause more problems than it will solve; not to mention the wasted time. So what we really want is either a question or a proposal. That will at least give us a better idea of what the community preferrs. The two RfC idea was just to first get an early answer to the question, then the second to address specific wording. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Arbitration

You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E --Rockstone (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Images for upload pages.

A few tips that you might find helpful:

• Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions.
• The project's discussion board is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like the watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.

• Article submissions that need reviewing can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is also a useful list which is maintained by a bot.
• You might wish to add {{AFC status}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox.
• Several of our members monitor an IRC channel #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect and you are most welcome to join in.

Once again, welcome to the project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

AFC

I don't think that length should have anything to do with articles that get created per WP:AFC. When an article is accepted we should just add the stub tag, and put it as a stub class. Just some thoughts SparksBoy (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has spent a lot of time at AfD; I want, to the best of my ability, to spare the author a trip to AfD. True, a stub tag could be applied to the article, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a couple paragraphs with references. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re. AFC

Could you slow down a bit? Us in #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect are finding it hard to keep up, and, honestly, are disagreeing with some of your decisions. It would be great if you could either slow down, or stop in and talk with us a bit. If you're interested in AFC, it's a nice place to idle anyways. :) Thanks in advance, and happy editing. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I dont' know how to respond to that. I'm moving at the pace that I feel appropriate to the task at hand. I know I missed that duplicate article but that doesn't mean that all my decisions have been rushed. I'll consider that IRC channel, but I very rarely use IRC. Lemme finish what I'm working on now and I'll respond more fully to what you've said. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Whilst we honestly greatly appreciate that you are trying to help out, please remember -we're here to build an encyclopaedia. When reviewing submissions, the first thought should be, "is there any possible way that we could write a verifiable article about this topic"?

If the answer is yes, then the correct response is to either write it, or leave it to somebody else.

If it as emphatic no, then a decline is appropriate.

Anything in-between should be left to others.

I honestly hope that this helps. Please keep up the good work.  Chzz  ►  00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the basis for my choice between accept, hold, and decline is this:

1. If the subject is notable and it is demonstrated on the page, I'm inclined to accept.
2. If the subject is apparently notable but is not sourced or poorly sourced, then it goes on hold with some constructive comments.
3. If the subject is not notable, my searches cannot account for any reliable sources discussing the subject, then it is a decline.

I don't think this is any different from what the instructions indicate. I wont leave an article to someone else unless I'm genuinely confused by the submission. Though I'm new to AfC, I'm not new to notability and referencing issues. I have been working with AfD's for some time now, so I'm not unfamiliar with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I'm inclined to do the review myself even in grey areas rather than leave work for someone else to do; that just seems lazy to me.

It looks like the two articles that two articles we disagreed on were Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Somporn_Juangroongruangkit and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GENIVI Alliance. The later was a total blow it and I should've caught that. I'm a bit confused as to what you think I did wrong with the first one. And in the disagreement I had last week, I still stand by what I said. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that there are disagreements is useless here. I contacted you with a request to slow down. It wasn't entirely you, but the channel was being flooded by bot updates about edits. We had trouble keeping up. Chzz was trying to go over and review your edits, but was, as I said, having trouble keeping up. It's important that we able to review them quickly, and efficiently fix any mistakes or lapses of judgment in order to maintain a new editors interest in writing articles. I'm not saying you made many mistakes, but some reviewers feel you made some, and this affects not only us, but more importantly the new users or IPs. Also, I saw you log on to, and then log out of, IRC. It'd be cool if you idled there; get some dissenting opinion, promote some discussion. Or just useless banter. Anyways, sorry for the inconvenience, I didn't want to insult you or anything. Thanks, Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I idled for a couple hours and now that I've seen how easy it is to get on, I'll probably idle there whenever I'm doing AfC. My past IRC experience has been with programs like mIRC which I tend to think are more trouble then their worth; I really like the web interface.

Anyway, in retrospect I'm not really offended, I just don't like the idea of having to wait for people reviewing my edits, it just seems foreign to way things are usually done here Wikipedia. The way your message came across to me was like "hey, new guy! your screwing everything up! Stop!" Like I said, I'm not offended and I'll idle on the channel when I'm editing so we can discuss things, but you might want to take a different approach. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't mean to come across as anything but just making a comment. In the past we've had IPs who barrel through things, and create huge backlogs at, say, WP:AFC/R. We've had to ask them to slow down, because we want to make sure everything is going smoothly. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess that should also be a lesson for me to work harder at assuming good faith and not take things personally --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Pull the other one

it plays Jingle Bells. Check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Evangelion for more. :( --Malkinann (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm confused. >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to receive a barnstar relating to my civility in the Evangelion articles, as I have been rather frustrated there of late. I wasn't sure if you weren't pulling my leg by giving me the barnstar or were unaware of the other discussions taking place around those articles. Therefore, I suggested you pull the other leg, as it plays Jingle Bells.  ;-) --Malkinann (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was aware. Getting frustrated is normal, I just think that you're handling the situation rather well. You are good at sticking to the issue at hand and remaining civil. ^^ --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

David R. Smith

In the future I'll do what every other lame submitter does, write a piece of garbage and link it to a google search. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Successful submitters don't do that. Meeting these sourcing requirements is to your benefit, as it prevents the article from getting deleted later down the road. By the way, congratulations on your article! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

PS, AfD is not a proper way to improve an article. When people do that they get scolded by the community. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to stop the bad habit. In fact, I see people nominate articles for deletion because they want it improved. I tend to stay away from AfD, though. Still, it does look like an effective way to get a group of passionate editors motivated to improve an article... --69.225.5.183 (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, hold their feet to the fire. I started working with Article for Creation because I got sick of AfD. Anyway, good luck with your article! --05:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

memory geometry

Suppose you're buying memory for a computer that has an Intel 82945 chipset, and you read: Non-ECC memory only Non-ECC memory only ⎯ 256-Mb, 512-Mb and 1-Gb DDR2 technologies ⎯ Only x8, x16, DDR2 devices with four banks and also supports eight bank, 1-Gbit DDR2 devices. This article explains what those terms mean.

Also, several stub articles can be merged with this one.

That said, what kind of sources are you looking for? The http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/mainboard/ram-faq-2006.html Ram FAQ seems to cover your criteria. Googling also led to http://arstechnica.com/paedia/r/ram_guide/ram_guide.part1-2.html and http://www.dlhoffman.com/classnotes/csci330-s02/slides/csci330-06b/csci330-06b.PPT Would those be better? Just saying "those don't work" doesn't really help. Also, what parts were difficult for the general audience to understand?

--96.241.202.243 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with this is that the article is about memory geometry when none of the sources are covering memory geometry as a primary topic; rather they are almost all about memory in general, which Wikipedia already has a number of articles on. My advice is either locate some sources that are talking specifically memory geometry or perhaps refocus the topic a little bit. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd avoid using FAQ's as sources. Look for reliable third-party sources such as trade publications or books (like those that are used in Error-correcting code article) rather than downloadable documents from web sites. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In and of itself, memory geometry is not an interesting topic, and as I said, this article would allow several stubs to be merged with it. Also I would not prejudge the "RAM FAQ". It is not in a Q/A form, it is a short but relatively thorough guide about memory, and the primary subject of the ppt I linked above is memory geometry. Error correcting code is a very large topic, Memory Geometry just describes memory banks, bit-depth, device width, memory device rows, and ram density. Five organizational terms that are used to describe a very simple, very limited thing. It's not something that is at all interesting on it's own, and the majority of coverage is as a sidenote when discussing topic that's actually interesting.

I suppose I could tack this on to part of the Random-access memory page as that's the direction you seem to be leading me.--96.241.202.243 (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... you could also inquire for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing; see what organizational scheme other people think would work best. My goal in working with AfC is that when an article is eventually created that it is solid and doesn't end up at deletion. If you can find enough coverage of the topic, then it would probably fine; the goal here is just to find where this topic fits best. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's

Hello Kraftlos, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here [1] Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 01:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Morrison

Hi there

First you say that regina leader post doesn't have an article but it does it has a full B1 story article on Maryann and her accomplishments in the date said. I even have a copy the story myself!! Has her picture and all.

Pokernews.com is totally a verifiable resource we are talking about Poker here - this is NOT a fan site but it is the news source online most used by the poker industry. Has no ownership to Maryann whatsoever.

Readers Digest had a story about Maryann and women playing poker that was on their top cover in that issue.

how can you say that sportlinglife.com didn't cover anything about her when it was verifying the article about the tournaments and women's poker club. Ditto for Arizona press.

Her book is on amazon and all over for sale on the internet.

Should I just send readers to google her name for all her accomplishments?

about.com is not a verifiable source?

I need someone's help with this - its just ridiculous I have seen way worse articles on the internet and surprisingly seen her publication Woman Poker Player Magazine and her book cited as resoruces for articles you have on here!!!

Pokergalz (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also Kraftlos,

The subject has tremendous impact on women who play poker. Through her initiatives she has encouraged thousands of womentthat they can play poker its not just a man's game anymore. She is responsible for creating all sorts of ideas that encourage women to play in historically a male dominated field. All this started in 2003 before the poker boom and carried on from that. She was the first person to do many things for women and poker, including the first television women's only poker tournament in North America, the ultimate poker challenge. The first magazine catering to the growth of women and poker Woman Poker Player Magazine which was in existence for 4 years. and so on. She also has a book published women's poker night: stories and strategies from the Feminine Side of the Felt. And even though she is Canadian she was contracted to do the book by an American Publishing Company, Kensington/Citadel PRess in NY because of her expertise and notoriety in this field. Ditto for Time magazine, the BBC radio show, Reader's digest and countless newpaper articles and radio interviews.

I cannot edit the article actually it will not allow me too - it aonly will allow me to edit the sources which I did after the other reviewer's comments so they have been changed. In essence what I left is precisely the best unbiased reference for poker which is pokernews.com and a huge site as is pokerpages.com. About.com actually cites three of Maryann's accomplishments as top resoruces for womena nd poker and indeed they are. I did removed links that contacted press releases and so on.

I do need help with this article as this needs to be documented and it does belong in wikipedia on behalf of women all over who enjoy poker and didn't have a place to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokergalz (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to mention one thing before my reply: "Notability" on Wikipedia has a special definition. It isn't notability in the dictionary sense of the word, I'm not saying that this topic is trivial or unimportant; it is simply a matter of whether or not reliable third party sources have given a subject coverage to meet the inclusion guidlines. If a topic hasn't been given such coverage, then it is usually pretty hard to create an encyclopedic article.

Also, anyone can edit any part of the page. You don't appear to have any blocks on your account, just hit edit and work away.

Anyway, like I was saying the bar for a topic's inclusion on Wikipedia is whether the subject has received significant coverage by reliable independent sources, it is irrelevant whether there are worse articles on Wikipedia or whether this author's book has been used as a source. It has to be demonstrated that Morrison herself has been the subject of significant coverage; this excludes her being interviewed about a different topic or being briefly mentioned in an article. If notability has been established, then you can bring in other sources such as a few primary sources or sources that are more brief.

For the Regina Post story, I was unable to turn up that article on the newspaper's own site or on a news search, however if you can find a direct link to the article then that source is probably usable. Pokernews does not appear to have any transparency in its editorial process. The articles don't mention who the author is, and the site doesn't appear to indicate who the editors or reporters might be. In short, it doesn't have the hallmarks of a reliable source. This goes for all the sources that I mentioned as not being reliable; simply being popular or big doesn't make them reliable.

Sportinglife is a reliable source, but only quotes Morrison about female poker players, not about her. It doesn't talk about her outside that one quote. I don't see about.com anywhere in the sources.

Anyway please don't view me as an adversary or someone you need to convince. I'm just trying to help you get your article onto Wikipedia. Doing the hard work now, will prevent it from getting deleted later down the road and will ensure a solid base that you and others can work from. Let us know if you need help! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Last Exile GA categorization

Thanks for the GA review, Kraftlos. I'm wondering why the article is listed under the GA category of "Visual novels, cartoons and manga" in "Literature" when Last Exile's primary work is an anime. It seems previous GAs whose primary media is anime is listed in "Animation" under "Theatre, film and drama". Arsonal (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your right, I was looking at Lupin III and Fullmetal Alchemist as examples which are manga first then anime. I'll move it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty

I have engaged a procedure for amending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty.

• See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Tang Dynasty.

Naturally, the process requires me to notify you. --Tenmei (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hong Kong Optical Fair

I noticed that another editor had created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hong Kong Optical Fair, which you had declined. I added some references from reliable sources to the article. - Eastmain (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it appears that this is a publicist for HKDTC, they've been regularly pushing these articles onto AfC and not responding to any feedback. I sure hope they start including sources, to this point, only one article has had any independent coverage. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Though this article looks decent now, I'll pass it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Afc question

got your message that my submitted article on a welch plug "has not meet" [sic] your standards for submission. I could tell from that sentence alone your standards are very high. You said that the article needed third-party references, which I know, not all wikipedia entries have, and which I actually DID include. A welch plug is apparently somewhat common parlance in german and australian motorworks. However the phrase is almost unheard of here in the states. I had to do rather extensive research to even discover what I was trying to replace on a german carburetor. When I finally learned, and after seeing countless unanswered questions on the same subject on the internet I thought a wikipedia entry would help more than a few people. I even saw incorrect answers in chat forums in which people were told by a mechanic that they needed a new welch plug, and they asked in the forums if this was a legitimate car part, only to be answered INCORRECTLY by people that 'they have worked on cars for 30 years and never heard of a welch plug' and that it 'sounds like the mechanic is trying to screw you'. I'm sure those people will be happy when they are broken down on the side of the road a few months from now that their search on wikipedia for "welch plug" contained no such entry, as if to confirm the correctness of that other poster's ignorance and idiocy. My submission was accurate, and it would actually help people who are trying to determine if they are receiving good or bad information about the soundness of their cars. Granted, it mostly applies to foreign cars, and its a part that takes a long time to go bad, but the numbers of people driving a car with a welch plug SOMEWHERE in it is certainly in the millions. If that "has not meet" your standards of notability, I don't know what "has meet" it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.26.147 (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for following on this submission. I don't see the text you are referring to with "has not meet" so I can't address this but I can tell you a little more about welch plug submission. One of the core content policies for Wikipedia is verifiability which requires that all information in an article be taken from reliable sources, not just written in by knowledgeable editors. Additionally, for a topic to exist on Wikipedia, the creator must demonstrate that that topic has received significant coverage by reliable independent sources. The only link on the welch plug entry appears to be someone's personal web site and no other sources are provided.

This appears to be a difference of language. This name is almost unheard of in English. Here are my two suggestions, in order. 1. Attempt to find an alternate name for this part. If this part is known by a different name, then it might already have a page about it. If this is the case, then you may consider requesting a redirect at redirects for creation. 2. If no such article exists on Wikipedia, then you will need to find several reliable sources which discuss this topic and build an article from that. Once these improvements are made, you are free to resubmit the article by placing a new template at the top of the article.

I'm sorry if you think my standards are too high, but these are the standards which are used on the English Wikipedia; so by meeting these requirements now, the article will avoid deletion later on. Thanks again for following up and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Geez, just google the phrase. I Googled it and got 411,000 hits. They are virtually all in English. It's not incredibly common in American, but it is clearly an English phrase. When I say not incredibly common, I mean it is fairly common, even here, as most Tecumseh motors which are pretty common here, have one in them. Anyways, I requested it be linked to the misspelled term Welsch plug which I did find on wikipedia. That term is misspelled but is phonetically spelled the way welch plug is pronounced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.26.147 (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, don't ask me to do a google search. Any regular Wikipedia editor will usually do multiple searches when determining when the viability of a given topic is in question. It actually bothers me so much that it's on my list of pet peeves (see #9). At any rate, we don't determine the viability of a topic based on google hits. I'm glad you found somewhere to put in the topic though, just keep in mind everything needs to be sourced. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Elfen Lied

Just saw your note in the opening and ending themes in the Elfen Lied episode list. It's not much, but I managed to come up with some references for Lilium. There's probably more in the DVD itself if we can get ahold of it. Cheers! --112.203.37.34 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and the help! Usually people just message me to complain lol. Thanks for the help, I kind of lost my interest in the articles for a few months, but now I'd really like to get this thing in shape. There seems to be plenty of material to work with. Anyway, I didn't see those sources you mentioned, but if you can, go ahead and add the material to the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Trey D.

Hi, I am the creator of the Trey D. article (currently with review on hold), I didn't have an account on wikipedia when I did it but I figured I might as well create one since I think I can find a few more things I can add to the global encyclopedia.

Over the last several days I've been trying to find better sources online for the article as you suggested but I can't find anything that I can say it's better than what I found initially. I guess that 10 years ago things weren't so widespread like today.

Unless there's a way to track down the guy, or the record label, and ask them directly, I guess the solution would be to remove the biography and just leave the first sentence and the discography? It would be a "stub" article, but verifiable. Should I do it?

NeoGenPT (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:BLP is pretty strict about what you can put up on articles about living persons. Does he have his own web site? That would be a valid source, though if possible try not to use info from a social networking site. Otherwise, just stick to what you can get from reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On all the websites I looked around I couldn't find any references about him beyond 2000 or so, seems like the guy vanished afterwords. I couldn't even tell you if he's still alive if you asked me. :p Any way, I removed the biography part. I don't think he's got a website of his own (or at least I couldn't find it).

NeoGenPT (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bridging the Rift Foundation

Just saw that the article had been declined. Your rationale was "cleanup and more refined sourcing". Would like some clarity on that statement because it is rather vague. Any help is appreciated and thanks for reviewing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.40.35 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Hi Kraftlos, we are discussing the sex abuse paragraph here [2]. I am trying to get some past editors to come to the discussion so we can discover what others think. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this again. I was just looking at that conversation. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Special Barnstar
		For taking the time to review both Last Exile and Twin Spica for good article promotion, I award you the Special Barnstar as a gesture of my appreciation. Congratulations! Arsonal (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! These two were my first GA reviews, so I'm glad that they've gone off without a hitch. Thanks for the barnstar and good luck with your next article. ^_^ --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Greatcoat

Hi Kraftlos, I saw the HG tag and there was a detailed edit summary... 118.90.109.178 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just thought the article would look better if it was slightly longer. It's a stub, but it doesn't hurt to stretch it a little when it's this size. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, its like saying that navies usually wear black and air forces usually wear blue: its a superfluous no-brainer, and its adds nothing valuable (hence my deletion). I think the article is as long as it can get without references, given what more can be said on the topic, like various linings (satin, silk, red, green etc) and cuts and so on. 118.90.109.178 (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, no worries. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

unexplained change

The change on fcps was made because the article is NOT neutral the way it has been changed back to by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I know you don't like the way it is now, but you can't just removed content that's been sourced to reliable sources. Instead you need to find sources that express the opposing point of view and add to the article using those sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AfC

Thanks for telling me (I'm still kinda new to this). About the Grynch thing, I meant that he should use the sources other than Myspace, but I guess I didn't say it clear enough. Also, I put those on hold because I thought that they had potential (notability, etc.) but weren't completely done yet. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to decline them (I was told also not to decline WP:DEFACTO articles regardless as well) so I put them on hold just in case. Anyhow, thanks for the advice, and I will try to be a little more thorough!  fetchcomms☛ 18:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, you did do the right thing though. If you are having trouble making a decision about an article, sometimes is appropriate to put it on hold so other reviewers can take a look. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Okey-dokey! Thanks again for telling me :)  fetchcomms☛ 15:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bomb Iran: A Musical Parody

I am not aware of any third party references or articles about the version of "Bomb Iran" written by Dana Michaels and Tom Rivers in Anchorage, Alaska, since 1980. I've been unable to find anything on the Web, either. The reason is probably because the copyright owner of the tune, "Barbara Ann" issued a cease and desist order to them, after their parody got considerable radio airplay. At that point, they had to stop promoting the song, so there was no more publicity for it, as far as I know. But it's only one of (at least)three different parodies using the same tune. --CalWriter88 04:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalWriter88 (talk • contribs)

Left another suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bomb_Iran:_A_Musical_Parody. It probably wouldn't be a bad stub article, but I wont feel comfortable creating such an article without checking the sources myself. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bomb Iran

Thanks, Kraftlos. I checked the "Barbara Ann" song page, and it doesn't mention the parody version by Michaels and Rivers, which I think deserves acknowledgment as much as the others. I'm sorry none of the 1980 articles about it are on the Web. I have the clippings, and could scan and e-mail them to you (next weekend), if you need proof of what I've written. --CalWriter88 22:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalWriter88 (talk • contribs)

The University library near where I live has the newspaper on Microfise back to 1980, but I'm not sure when I can get over there. If you have them handy that'd be fine, otherwise I'll leave it on hold til I get over to the library. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they only have archives back to 1983, so I can't confirm. If you don't mind sending me scans or decent digital pictures, I'd be fine with creating the article. Or you can always go with adding to the current Barbra Ann article and bypassing the review. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of PoPoLoCrois characters

The article List of PoPoLoCrois characters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, unsourced, unwikified plot content.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Love Hina

I have responded to your comments on the review page. I believe recent promotions and articles which were rewritten to keep their GA's should show this isn't a problem in this case. Thanks for the review. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

My RFA →→→

Dear Kraftlos, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot sourcing

To respond to your concern with lack of sourcing on the plot information of Love Hina, it is generally understood that the plot comes from the primary source. The policy on primary sources indicates that "an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot or plot elements", but it does not require it. For books such as Halo: Contact Harvest, it is clear what is the primary source as there is only one book. For Candide, citations are interspersed throughout to source statements which may be construed as synthesis. I think the problem we face is that when dealing with serial works, it becomes more unclear which specific work certain summary parts come from, and that's something that we haven't considered. The Illuminatus! Trilogy (originally a serial work) is an older FA, but no one has challenged the fact that its plot summary section is unsourced. Arsonal (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright! Your explanation makes sense and I didn't even know where to start to look for this information. I might consider an RfA on how to treat plot sections of serial works, but I'll have to research the issue a while first. Thanks for following up on this, and I'll keep in mind what is currently stated in policy when I do other GA reviews. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elfen lied 03.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Elfen lied 03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fairfax County Public Schools

FYI - I have protected the Fairfax County Public Schools article from editing due to the current content dispute. Please discuss the issues on the talk page and attempt to reach a resolution there. Requests for specific edits to the article can be made by and adding a {{editprotected}} template to the talk page after demonstrating consensus for the change. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a doctors opinion on touching and one that is sourced in the existing sources. After I did that it was reverted back repeatedly. I asked for page protection because there was no reason given for the reverts that addressed the actual changes. Do you see a reason that the addition should not be in there?

I am not going to get into the coi, issues, etc. I kind if take it as a personal attack that you even asked me that as I feel my edits have only been neutral. I am more concerned about WP:BITE 71.91.18.218 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 71.91.18.218 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Since already discussing this on the article's talkpage, I think we should keep the discussion there so we don't duplicate our efforts. :P --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the procedure when an editor won't state the reason she/he is against a change and just keeps bringing up personal attacks? Can he block a change by saying that a 'consensus has not been reached' by simply refusing to state his reason he is against/for a change? My change (regarding the 'doctor' under FCPS, no contact rule is completely neutral. So what do I do? 71.91.18.218 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything I would consider a personal attack. I suggest we just wait and see what happens when the page protection expires. If an edit war starts again, admin action may be required for disruptive editing. Be sure that you don't participate in an edit war, see WP:3RR. Otherwise, this just needs to be worked out on the talk page. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop

Ok, but it is also like that in the Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) article. There are tons of citations in the beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.84.185 (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's best not to use other anime articles for comparison as they're all at different stages of development and quality. One example you might look at is Serial Experiments Lain which is one of the few series articles to become a Featured Article. We also look to the Anime and Manga manual of style for our direction on series articles. though it's rather long and detailed, it's pretty helpful. Evangelion and Cowboy Bebop are both C-Class, which means they're still pretty rough; they both need a lot of work so your help is appreciated! --~~

Glad to be of assistance! If there's anything you could think of for me to help besides the given recommendations, please feel free to let me know. There are a lot of peacock terms in the beginning of the "NGE" article, so if you want to go ahead and remove those, that would be great! Thanks for your advice and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.84.185 (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, a lot of the NGE articles have a lot of drama among the regular editors, so I try to stay out of it. >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

/me sighs

If I include the terms without references, everyone will jump on me as a crazed fan that should be shot like Old Yeller. If I include the terms with references, people will still criticize me as cherry-picking or flimsy sourcing. If I include the terms with a lot of references, now I'll be criticized for stuffing the intro and overdoing. If I don't include the terms at all, I do readers a massive disservice by omitting the out of universe context. I can't win!

'Shuzan held up his staff and waved it before his monks. "If you call this a staff," he said, "you deny its eternal life. If you do not call this a staff, you deny its present fact. Tell me just what do you propose to call it?"'...

--Gwern (contribs) 19:45 21 January 2010 (GMT)

Seriously, it's like they like the C-Class articles and don't want them to change. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, Serial Experiments Lain has been demoted... so let's see our example would actually be Tokyo Mew Mew. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In the context of an edit philosophy made explicit on your userpage, I find myself wondering about the extent to which I have routinely conflated references and explanations?

Your more nuanced view seems to be something like links ≤ references ≤ explanatory prose?

I wonder if simply acknowledging your hortatory list becomes a challenge to create one of my own:

1. Yes – Verifiable sources: everything must be sourced

2. Yes – Consensus: in WP decisions, consensus rules

3. Yes – Time: Not everyone has it

4. Yes – Civility: No matter what transpires, keep in mind WP:Good Faith and don't presume bias or malicious intent

5. Yes – Communication: Open and clear communication equals progress, sloppy or no communication equals conflict

6. Yes – "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing."

Some of your sentences which were especially compelling, e.g., "Use links as references, not as explanations." In other words: "[e]xplanation through clear reasoning is the key to better understanding." --Tenmei (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate it. The list was first brought about by some of my early conflicts with other editors. I've since updated it, but I didn't want to forget what it's like to be new to Wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, your time and your consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?"

Please contact me using Wikipedia's e-mail function. --Tenmei (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Participation

Kraftlos/Archive 2 - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you reluctantly did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope there's no hard feelings and good luck with being an Admin. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

reply to question

Ja, my pet who unfortunately died recently :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunakeet (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 February 2010

My condolences, I know how that feels. I'm on parakeet #4, you get attached to the little guys. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom process

Is this something you need to know? Your name is included in a new posting at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Noticeboard#Discussion/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Tang Dynasty? As for what happens next, we'll see? --Tenmei (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As you know, ArbCom remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty implied a multi-step process; however, no protocols for confirming mentors were suggested. In the absence of specifics, User:Mattisse/Plan was taken as an arguably relevant procedural model. Accordingly, a draft plan and list of mentors was e-mailed to each ArbCom member and redundantly posted at WP:AC/CN. This seems not to have worked.

I have now sought "approval" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Tang Dynasty. This message is necessary because the standard template requires me to confirm notifying you. --Tenmei (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom member Coren has suggested, "It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made ...."

I will follow-up with an e-mail; and I'll explain that John Carter has been inexplicably off-wiki since late December. --Tenmei (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Is there a small misunderstanding about the phrase "topic ban"? In this context, I interpreted the phrase as a barring me from editing a single article only. If I am wrong, it's an error with consequences.

"1.1) Tenmei is restricted as follows:

(A) Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty ...."

It could be that the term "topic-banned" was a mistake? In December 2009, there was no question that I'd wrongly edited this specific article. Since June 2009, the edit histories show that I have added nothing to the article or to its associated talk page. In compliance with ArbCom's restriction, I am planning to avoid this article for six months; and, as I understand it, your question will only become relevant in September 2010?

Potential problem. Does it matter that I did edit Foreign relations of Imperial China in September and October 2009. Does the term "topic-banned" encompass the diplomatic history of Imperial China? I didn't recognize this as a potential problem. Thank you for asking a question about a potential stumbling block I didn't see at all.

If the term "topic-banned" refers to something other than just the one, small article about a geographic area in central Asia and a Chinese dynasty in the 7th-8th centuries, I need to know what it is. For example, would there be an arguable cause for complaint if I were to edit Horses in East Asian warfare? --Tenmei (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Problem?

Halito, you wrote to reformat article that was done. What reason did you decline the article? If there was any other problems that need to be fixed, that can be done. Let me know your thoughts.67.235.129.179 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't the one who left the comments. This is a bit confusing; you can see in the page history that Fetchcomms reviewed your submission and placed it on hold. It also looks like Eastmain did some work on the references. I declined the article because it had been several days since the article had received any attention. The article looks fine now format-wise, you will just need to make sure the subject passes our general inclusion criteria. Someone will be by to review it soon. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Koffing and Weezing assessment

Why was Koffing and Weezing failed B-Class due to referencing? The article looks very well referenced. I think it needs more Anime and Manga info, but that's a different issue. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Myself and another assessor took a look at the article and came to the same conclusion. The referencing category includes both referencing and the sources that are referenced. I believe the main issue is that there are a few non-reliable sources and the bulk of the sources are game guides. It needs a few more independent sources that cover the subject. The real-world sections should also be expanded if possible to balance the in-universe information. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if I follow. If this is about the "Pokemon of the Day" article being in a FAQs, the writer of the FAQs is an IGN editor, and the Pokémon Project has agreed it is reliable. If it isn't this reference, then please say which ones are problems. Also, if the "real world section" means reception, then it will never be as big as the in-universe info, and doesn't need to be. I believe you are holding the B-class bar a little high. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What I'm looking for here are strong third-party references that cover Koffing/Weezing in detail without being part of some comprehensive guide. Being pokemon of the day on a site that's going to eventually feature every Pokemon isn't really going to cut it. Being listed in a game guide or pokedex is also inadequate. I like the character creation information, that's the stuff that needs to be in this article, but I can't see this getting to B-class without more solid references that discuss the subject in detail ("significant coverage" a la WP:N).

Also keep in mind that B-Class varries from project to project. Wikiproject anime is far more stringent with its B-Class criteria mainly because we don't have an A-Class. As B-Class is really the project's last check on the content before it goes into external assessment (GA and FA class) we try to tighten everything down. In short, a B-Class article should be getting close to a GA. So please don't be offended that our rating doesn't track with the other projects. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Zeng8r Removal of very important information

Hi, Zeng8r removed articles which had been applied to history of Tampa. This is factual information and was also confirmed by the Oklahoma Nation, that Choctaws inhabit Tampa, Florida, which was Fort Brooks. My grandmother lived their it is near the Garrisons and the Train station. There is also a body of water which has to do with the Choctaw Sea. I would not add anything that is erroneous to build on an untruth, that is not my style.

It is also biased in my opinon since Zeng8r wiki page establishes he live there.

Calusa is Choctaw. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30146125 http://www.sanibelhistory.org/calusa_history.htm

We would appreciate if here would return the information to the place it was input. Yakoki(Thank you)! 67.235.129.179 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Addin new page

I dont know what happened but I tried to add a new page. Choctaw Language to clear up the issue about the word calusa. Also provide very supporting and compelling links and books. thank you for your attention to this. I certainly appreciate it!!!67.235.129.179 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How mentoring will work

As you know, Roger Davies seeks more information from the mentors about how mentoring will work.

I hope these words will help "prime" the pump. I believe that what can be done in pre-planning has been accomplished. We will be figuring it out together as the future unfolds. A restatement is straightforward:

• An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of Leujohn in Hong Kong.
• Fasten in Germany suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an experiment derived from salutary premises which I posted at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unanticipated Consequences, especially the words of a famous German:

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; however, a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change. This is useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.

The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In resolving these seeming contradictions, the mentors' points-of-view are essential. Together we will discover otherwise unrecognized alternatives.

In the context of this specific issue, Xavexgoem has agreed to be a non-public mentor. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty encompassed User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly. Xavexgoem's experience in mediation will help remedy an arguable deficit in the composition of our small group. Core policies are the tools at hand; and Xavexgoem agreed to help connect the dots in hopes that it could benefit more than me.

Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work? --Tenmei (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Citing your words

Kraftlos -- As you know, I paid close attention to your comments on your userpage. I favorably cited one of your sentences at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Tang Dynasty#Response to Risker:

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

Thank you for the time and thought you invested in drafting this helpful phrase. It would have taken many more words for me to try to say the same thing; and I doubt that the result would have been as effective.

Please contact me via e-mail so that I can add your name to the Mentorship Committee mailing list. --Tenmei (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Smartphone rating

For the Smartphone article and WP:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment what rating did you have in mind? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just hoping someone could take a look at it, it's listed under three Wikiprojects and none have assessed the article. I do assessment over at WP:ANIME and the occasional GA review, so it looks to be to be somewhere between C and B-Class, but I'm not a member of the project so I was hoping someone who has more of a computing focus could assess it and see what's missing, what's good, etc. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh?

I got a message from you on my talk page about some article I wanted to create or something, but I never did anything of the likes...--213.168.109.88 (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Template for deletion

Friendly heads-up {{Imagemap}} is deprecated and nominated for deletion. It has been superceded by changes to the File namespace and I wanted to let you know, since you have a transclusion on your userpage or user talk. If you need to respond to this message, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion It is being nominated for deletion because it is redundant to the File namespace; this template doesn't do anything that can't be achieved with text in articles. Your alternative is to use "[[File:Example.jpg|link=Link title]]" instead. I have done this myself. Feel free to comment at the TfD or on my talk if you need something else. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elfen lied 03.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Elfen lied 03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring task force

Kraftlos -- This text could be added to my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification?

Doing nothing is an option; but what is best? My deference and patience during the six months in which ArbCom dawdled was unrewarded; and silence appears to have defined me as a dupe. Now I have endured an further three months in limbo. ArbCom radicalizes when its mission should have been to encourage quite opposite goals. --Tenmei (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplementary statement

In Afghanistan, an American mentor watches a graduation ceremony for women who learned to raise bees and chickens as part of a women's empowerment program

A task force is established to work on a single defined task or activity. Drawing lessons from the photo at the right: If wiki-"mentoring" is at all like teaching Afghan women to raise bees and chickens, delay produces neither honey nor eggs.

A "mentoring task Force" (MTF) for me is a more topical or timely name than "mentorship committee." The word "task" emphasises our short- and long-term objectives; and the identified volunteers have been waiting too long to begin addressing specific tasks-at-hand.

The most widely publicized examples of on-going mentoring are linked with the phrase "task force." For example, NATO's Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) are an important part of its contribution towards stabilizing Afghanistan. Australia's military programme in Afghanistan has been re-named Mentoring Task Force (MTF) concurrent with deployments in 2010. The Canadian mentoring programme in Afghanistan appears controversial precisely because of allegations that the Harper governent is waiting too long to get started — see Matthew Fisher, "Canada may have painted itself into corner in Afghanistan," The Gazette (Montreal). March 12, 2010.

A Google search for the phrase "mentoring task force" produces a range non-military hits, including an American Anthropological Association report in 2009 which ends with the words "Don't Drop the ball."

I do recognize that this is a pivotal time for ArbCom as Wikipedia's future development unfolds; nevertheless, my role requires me to reiterate: "Don't drop the ball."

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. ArbCom wants comments from prospective mentors. --Tenmei (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring by example

As you know, I adopted your words as my own. The next step is to try to move beyond parroting, e.g.,

ARGUMENT (DGG & Tenmei)
¶ A

•I joined Wikipedia do improve its quality.

•I recognized it would be a slow process.

•It does not surprise me that it is not faster, and I thus have no reason to get angry because I had misjudged he difficulty.

•I am, however, beginning to get exasperated at those who would prevent me and the others from improving it."^DGG

NON-RESPONSE (ArbCom = Carcharoth)

Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so.

DISCONNECT

•Both DGG and Tenmei complain mildly about a TIME SINK which explictly, directly and significantly inhibits the on-going process of working on articles which we call "encyclopedia building."

•Carcharoth, who is assumed to be expressing views which are congruent with those of ArbCom colleagues, not only ignores the exasperation — the sense of frustration is enlarged when implicit acknowlegment is married to dismissive rejection.

¶ B

We have serious content problems, but they to a considerable extent are inseparable from the inherent problems of any project like ours that operates without editorial control:

•the need for truly competent referencing

•[the need] for understandable writing

•[the need] for balance in coverage between and among articles

•[the need] for avoiding promotionalism of people's individual viewpoints

•the need to [for] updating every article in Wikipedia in a regular and reliable manner."^DGG

In other words, "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." — Kraftlos

.

It is ironic that:

•DGG's words were drafted in a distinctly different context than this thread, but the summary of core issues is fully congruent with the Tang Dynasty case.

•Disputes with Tenmei display recurring patterna and common elements, e.g.,

—>Dictum = disputants' ipse dixit assertions unsupported by reference sources

vs

—>Syllogism = Tenmei's statements informed by sources which are explicitly referenced

•DGG expresses opinion about articles with no reference sources.

In other words, "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." — Kraftlos

Comments?

If you're interested, see also User talk:Tenmei/Subpage Mentorship-A?

Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing advice

Kraftlos -- You may not know that PMDrive1061 agreed to be a non-public mentor.

With regret, I have to report that today's attempt to reach out for help was unclear:

A. I intended to ask for comments here about the use of formatting as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

B. Also, I wanted to invite PMDrive1061 to consider posting a comment at the active ArbCom thread.

Instead, my words were construed as puzzling. I tried to restate my purpose and questions here.

Do you have the time to take a look at this? Can you offer suggestions about what I might have done differently? Can you propose plausible modifications in the formatting or in the wording?

Thank you for your helpful posting here and here. --Tenmei (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say one of the biggest problems with your communication styles is that you tend to write very long posts. Usually in a conversation there is some back and forth; which is easy when people write 3-5 sentences in their reply, when you have half a page of text it becomes difficult to see an overarching point. I would suggest writing shorter responses, use fewer quotes, and just in general not try to summarize the entire situation each time you reply to someone. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notice my revised "2nd try" message at User talk:PMDrive1061#Mentorship — only 8 sentences + 2 quotes? It is shorter and thus better? It seems to me that I've not explained enough.

Your reasoning is a variant of less is more; but in this context of initiating a working relationship, I would have thought that less is simply less. In other words, less would seem to be too little?

Like my "1st try" message, this is also puzzling but in a different way.--Tenmei (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's really a matter of focus. It's easier to have a focused 5 sentence comment, than a verbose 5 paragraph comment that basically says the same thing. All I can really say is that it's a matter of practice, as you go on you get better at saying what needs to be said, and leaving out what's not important. Try not to write like you're talking, start with your basic point or question and fill it in as needed. Does that make sense? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Stan Romanek

Just a note that we are discussing an action of yours regarding the article on Stan Romanek which you created via AfC. It's not a big deal, but you might like to comment. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. Sunray (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

.hack articles

I've been thinking for the list of .hack characters article, we should just turn it into various different articles. Like list of project .hack characters and List of .hack Conglomerate Characters that way it would be easier to list the characters. And characters that appear twice, we could just give them a note like. Kite also appears in .hack conglomerate series or the other way around. What do you think?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think I suggested something like this a while back and people shot me down. I think the problem is that people have real-life identities and online identities. Some characters have multiple online persona. Personally, I think because most the story occurs online, it wouldn't be out of line to ignore the offline persona except maybe a mention on each character's entry that they're the same RL person as so and so. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Junhachi and I had a conversation here Talk:List_of_.hack_characters#Split. I still think Gameworld is more appropriate since with the exception of Liminallity and OnlineJack, all the stories take place primarily online. And since we describe works from a real-world perspective anyway, it wouldn't be that strange to list the significant real-world characters in with the online ones. And we don't have to list every character that appeared in the series, just the important ones. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I just left a message in the article. but like i said, it can be explained and it's better because characters like Kite wont work so well if we say who he is in the real-world considering he has mroe than one depending on the series.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For now, would anyone object if i format the characters article like this for example?:

Main Characters

The World

The World R:2

The World R:x

Minor Characters

The World

The World R:2

The World R:X

and remove all characters that don't have a description? i would put it in the talk page, but i usually dont get replied.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry have been kind of taking a breather from WP. I think that will work. Let's organize it that way and see what happens. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah i understand, i added a new different proposal that i think would work better than my last one.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Tenmei mentorship

Your input is desired at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Tang Dynasty. Arbitrator Risker has posed a number of questions relevant to the mentors, and members of the committee would like to see them answered. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your sensible contributions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Your patience helps me to be patient too.

This is not developing in ways which seem reasonable; but there it is -- an odd mystery. I hope that frustration will not cause you to withdraw. --Tenmei (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I contacted each ArbCom member who commented on the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread -- Smith, Coren, Davies, Risker, Carcharoth, SirFozzie, Hersfold; and in addition, I reached out to two others who commented on another thread on the same page -- Newyorkbrad, Shell. This modest effort engendered three vague, unhelpful responses:

1. Thanks for the note. We are close to deciding what to do here, so a little bit more patience and thanks for being so patient so far as this has indeed taken some time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2010
2. This is being discussed. I think I'm going to stand where I am on this, but we will see how others think. SirFozzie (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2010
3. Just in case you hadn't noticed, I haven't actually commented on your request at all. Your comments were very confusing themselves and you seem to have set up a confusing mentorship system with a large number private and public mentors. In my opinion, this is not going to go well, but as I was not around for the original case, I am deferring to the judgement of Arbiters who were there for the case and can hopefully understand a bit better what you are proposing. Shell ^babelfish 00:17, 27 April 2010

I construe Shell's comment as a suggestion that I contact each ArbCom member who participated directly in Tang Dynasty. I will give this some thought.

In each "ping", I explicitly invite ArbCom to explain to you and the other identified "mentors." For redundant clarity, my words were these: "please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me." Was it necessary to underline these words?

ArbCom's core error is two-fold: (a) failure to answer direct questions from me; and (b) failure to communicate with you. WP:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship projects your role as some kind of ArbCom agents; but any evidence of constructive engagement is missing. This is an ArbCom-created stumbling block we need to acknowledge. --Tenmei (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Motion proposed for the mentorship of Tenmei

Please be advised that voting has commenced on a Motion concerning your mentorship of Tenmei.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought...

Hi, you might face less badgering in RfAs if you provided a link a link yo your admin criteria. I think some of them are a little high, but (having read them) I can understand them when you put them in the context of Pastor Theo. As I say, just a thought. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been kind of waverying between linking to it and not linking. The benefit of not linking is that I don't get the drive-by criticism of everyone on an RfA board, and my thought would be that people that were really interested would find it as its at the top of my talkpage. Then again, the benefit of linking would be it would clarify what I was expecting and I might get some constructive criticism. As it is, I'm still working on the criteria and format of the page, so I'm not exactly prepared to put it out there. But I leave the link up more for people that are interacting with me on my talkpage rather than people who have seem me elsewhere. I do see your point though, about alleviating some of the confusion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:

1) Tenmei (talk · contribs) may edit Wikipedia under the guidance of his self-declared mentors (Nihonjoe (talk · contribs), Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Coppertwig (talk · contribs), Leujohn (talk · contribs), Jmh649 (talk · contribs), McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs)). The period of mentorship will last six months from the date on which this motion passes, although it may be extended with the agreement of Tenmei and one or more mentors. Tenmei is strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from his mentors regularly. Should they deem it necessary, Tenmei's mentors may return to the Arbitration Committee for clarification of any editing restrictions or questions with respect to the terms of mentorship. Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.

2) Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:

• Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion. (The six-month period will commence from the date on which this motion passes.)
• Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia, except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Discuss this

Thank you for sticking with me during this slow process. --Tenmei (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If you need help, just ask! :D --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I sent you e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Motto of the Day

Hi there, Kraftlos! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I'm wondering if you have time, could you look at List of Case Closed characters and tell me which character sections should be merged or characters to be removed based on the B list criteria? Thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 20:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed at with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

7's block

User talk:7/block. Quite an interesting story, really. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 06:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!

Kraftlos - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring

Your passive oversight may be needed at Talk:Shinto shrine#Revert. I am posting an alert on the talk pages of the others in the mentorship group; however, I anticipate that none of you will need to intervene.

If something does develop, I agreed in months ago to be guided by Leujohn's active mentoring lead.

The contributions history here + an old dispute thread at Talk:Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū#Top three shrines cause me to guess that this is precisely the kind of problem which calls for a heads-up. For more background, see also here

In response to an early-2009 dispute, I created Hakozaki Shrine, Usa Shrine and Modern system of ranked Shinto Shrines. The research which went into developing these articles informs my reaction to an otherwise trivial edit here. The small change suggests that this may have something to do with pre-1947 State Shinto ranking.

From 1871 to 1947, the Kanpei-sha (官幣社) identified a hierarchy of government-supported shrines most closely associated with the Imperial family. Included in the highest ranks were these three:

• Usa Shrine, Usa, Ōita—Kanpei-taisha (官幣大社)
• Iwashimizu Shrine, Yawata, Kyoto— Kanpei-taisha, 3rd among the most highly ranked Imperial shrines
• Hakozaki Shrine, Fukuoka— Kanpei-taisha

Before 1947, the mid-range of ranked, nationally significant shrines or Kokuhei Chūsha (国幣中社) included Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū at Kamakura, Kanagawa.

Maybe nothing will come of this, but I will invite Oda Mari and Urashimataro to watchlist Shinto Shrine. We'll see.

Thank you for your investment of time and concern. --Tenmei (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fist of the North Star: The Legends of the True Savior

Hi I would very much like to help edit the Fist of the North Star: The Legends of the True Savior page. I posted a message there under the discussion tab, basically I want to detail the plot descriptions, but please check on that message. I would appreciate it if you gave me your approval. Thanks 65.34.215.76 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I was out of the country until this evening and wasn't online. I've replied at the talkpage. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow up. Using your advice, I made an edit to the Yuria Den portion, please view my edit and let me know if you approve of my way of writing, if so I will continue detailing the other films this way. Please post a message on the discussion page of that article, so I will be sure to see it. Thank You65.34.215.76 (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

List of people with the longest marriages

Stop it, man: that's no vandalism at all. 62.235.130.95 (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about vandalism. Are you vandalizing pages? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You reverted all my changes to this and called it vandalism in fact. 62.235.130.95 (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right. You are just changing numbers on the page and not explaining. Also blogspot is not a reliable source. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting without explaining is what you are doing right now: stop it immediately, pal. 62.235.130.95 (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you need to explain your edits using an edit summary or they can easily be mistaken for vandalism. I've reached my limit on that page so I wont be doing anything more today. Make sure your sources are reliable and provide an edit summary and everything should be fine. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and understood. 62.235.130.95 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference check

Can you do a reference check for Vampire Master Dark Crimson and Xenon (manga)? Vampire Master Dark Crimson has been published in French, Spanish, Italian, and German. Xenon has been published in French and German. I deprodded both of these articles as there was a good chance that they have received French reviews. Thanks. —Farix (t | c) 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Good news

A couple of good things happened today: A minor edit here reminded me of an article I created in 2008.

Елисеева is Russian for Elisséeff; and it caused me to remember writing about Serge Elisséeff at Harvard. It will take time for me to figure out how to explanation about why this seemed helpful.

A more immediate consequence was the opportunity to enjoy effective collaboration. I worked with In ictu oculi in improving the text of William George Aston and Kim Chae-guk. This was a very small illustration of what I hope to encounter whenever I log on to Wikipedia. Good news is good to share. --Tenmei (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you're getting better at interacting with people! That is good news! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The aspect of this day's work which I want most to emphasize is the collaboration.

A. I found an enigmatic Cyrillic citation in support of an obscure sentence here.

B. I responded by providing a context with a hyperlinked to Cambridge's Department of East Asian Studies here.

C. Then I invited feedback here.

D. In response, In ictu oculi tweaked my writing and added additional citation support from Russian sources here and here.

I'm I want to emphasize two things: (a) the step-by-step, back-and-forth progress and (b) the results which were achieved by working together. --Tenmei (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elfen lied 03.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Elfen lied 03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I have added a Outside view by Tenmei at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. I would very much appreciate your impression, especially

(a) if you can suggest a way to improve the clarity of the writing and/or

(b) if you construe any part of the diff as insufficiently moderate and forward-looking.

As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. --Tenmei (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please consider commenting at User talk:Athenean#The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. --Tenmei (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken

My computer's broken right now. Hopefully I have it back up and running soon. Until then, my editing is going to be fairly sporadic. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. In the meantime, I'll continue to be guided by your Yogiism -- the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. --Tenmei (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare RfA

Hi Kraftlos - I've fixed your link to your admin criteria at GorillaWarfare's RfA. Connormah^talk 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Teeninvestor

Please notice what I have posted here. I wondered about inviting Teeninvestor to comment; but I was uncertain about how best to go about it. Roger Davies suggested here that one of my mentors might be willing to notify him.

This may not be necessary nor appreciated. Who can say? If it appears to be timely and reasonable, would you post a note on Teeninvestor's talk page? --Tenmei 03:56, 18 August 2010

Nihonjoe notified Teeninvestor here. --Tenmei (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Mainspace is my focus on-wiki...although after I finish thanking everyone, the percentage will likely have changed considerably! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist

Please take note of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Requested move discussion at Talk:Eulsa Treaty and watchlist Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Requested Move, especially in the context established here.

I endorse Nihonjoe's summary of the substance of my scrupulously mild comments.

I am especially eager for your close scrutiny of any further comments about the role of mentors, if it develops an issue. --Tenmei (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Currently in the process of moving. I wont be regularly available on Wikipedia until I set up my connection at the new place. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak is over, I'll hopefully be getting back into a regular editing patterns. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of INetCapture - iPhone application to capture the web

A tag has been placed on INetCapture - iPhone application to capture the web, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete away! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Creating a disambig page for Bote

Hi Kraftlos. Thanks for doing the review on my AfC for Bote: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BOTE

I'm not sure, but it is possible that you may not have seen the (hidden) comment that I put into the disambig article explaining my rationale for creating a disambig page. This is what I had there (between hidden text tags): (<!--"I am attempting to create a new Disambig page here, because I found the current page that returns when one types "BOTE" or "Bote" into Wikipedia a confused jumble. It looks like a full-blown article that is about the use of the term "Bote" in the legal realm. But upon closer inspection, it is a hodgepodge of (unsourced) claims about that, as well as a few pointers to other possible uses. Not sure that all three uses should stay; but that is what is there today as I found the article. And I'm representing two of the uses here. Cheers, [[User:N2e]]" -->

So in short, I am proposing creating a new disambig article, one that would then point to both of the existing Wikipedia articles on BOTE/Bote. Thus, I think it is an appropriate article for Wikipedia.

Of course, the existing article on the historical legal concept, would need cleaned up as it is presently about multiple topics. After the dismbig page is up, it would be appropriate to begin cleanup of the extraneous topics in the Bote article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not really good practice to make another article on the same word and just capitalize the title. I think if Bote has unsourced claims, then it should be cleaned up, turned into a true disambiguation or whatever. We don't need to create a second page. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I'll be glad to do that. I thought it might not be allowed to do what you suggested: turn an article page into a disambig page without having a page for the substantive part of what the article was about. N2e (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take a second look at it, it might be worth moving the legal term to its own page and having a disambiguation be at the main page since there doesn't really seem to be a dominant use of the term. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that was my point in the original suggestion I made for a disambig page. But after your second look at the AfC, I just went forward with your decision, which was unchanged from your first review. Bote is now a single page, and a disambig page, which also contains all of the specific info about bote as a historical legal term as well. So I am done working on bote now and have moved on to other articles/subjects/etc. Wikipedia is a large and rich canvas for making a editorial contribution. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lost article

I received notice that the article Lellingeria was created, but i can not find it. What happened to it? 128.171.106.250 (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I found a way to get to it without using the search box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.106.250 (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The original article had ""'s in it. It should just redirect to the correct article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your questions on my RfA

Hello! I'm there to inform you, that I have answered your questions on my RfA. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 04:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for letting me know! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

re "amygdala script"

II have resubmitted this article, making it less of an "essay" and more 'encyclopedic'. I appreciate the feedback, and indeed agree with you that it was too essay-like. However I was confused by your statement that, given the fact that the term was first introduced in 2010, sources shouldn’t be older than that year. My understanding of sources is that they should serve to validate statements made in the article. In this article much of the research that underlies the term was done before the term existed. Analogously, an article on "quantum mechanics" could be expected to reference research that provided the basis for that term years before the term itself was introduced. Also, I was unclear about your comment that my sources needed to be reliable. I think that almost without exception my sources were peer-reviewed main stream scientific journals. Many thanks for your consideration of this. TimothyBStokes (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

need a little more information

I got your email, but it does not mention the name of the deleted article you wanted a copy of. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd that no sources were found for this, it sounds like a hilarious game. Anyway, there's a copy for you at User:Kraftlos/Boris Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What they didn't say there is that it was made by Microsoft around 1988 (at least I'm pretty sure it was them). I don't have any hard evidence, but I think Microsoft would like to forget that game and they're covering it up. None of the DOS games web sites have any listing for the game. I grew up right next to Microsoft, so maybe we just had some crazy game that didn't get a very wide release. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kraftlos. You have new messages at TheFarix's talk page.
Message added 10:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Raruto

Raruto itself isn't a manga but it is a parody of a manga, and I used the "anime and manga" banner because Naruto does not have its own project, and I wanted the series to be in a project that would tie itself to Naruto. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Per the project scope, we don't cover non-Japanese comics, even if they're heavily influenced by Japanese anime or even parodying it. If you still think it should be covered under the project banner, please get a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Anime and manga first. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is and are

Hello... you may or may not have noticed yet, but I have had to revert your changes to the NBA articles. There is a long-standing convention on Wikipedia regarding how cases involving teams are written; I'll try to find the examples I dug up when last this issue arose over a year or so ago. Beyond that, however, a change of this nature would need to be discussed and consensus derived on a wider scale than just the talk page of one individual article, as it potentially affects thousands of sports articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This is simple english. Unless there is an obvious consensus such as a RfA or MOS that states it as such, simple grammar changes are fair game. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you will have to give me time to find the appropriate references. If I recall, the difference of opinion is in regards to how to treat a team, whether in the plural (as a group of individuals) or as a unit (as in the entity). --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The general rule—at least as far as common sportscaster usage—for American teams is to treat them as plural. Teams like the Thunder and Jazz are exceptions, but for any team with a plural nickname, plural usage is clearly dictated. Even the NBA uses this: from the media notes for the most recent Thunder game:[3]

• "The Trail Blazers have won six of the past eight meetings overall against the Thunder and the last three in Oklahoma City."
• "Portland has won three of the past four games overall against the Hornets…"
• "Through the first few weeks of the NBA season, the Thunder is finding a great deal of success from the charity stripe. In seven games, OKC is shooting a league-best 87.3% from the free throw line."

Usage in articles complies with this: the lede for the OKC Thunder article refers to the team in singular; all other teams are treated as plural.

—C.Fred (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It is simple English, indeed. And the convention in American English (and Canadian, too), is that sports teams with plural nicknames take plural verbs, unless the city alone is being used as shorthand for the team. This is easily seen in any daily newspaper sports section, such as the one from today's The Record (Bergen County) that is in front of me. C. Fred's examples are the essentials of it. oknazevad (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC) PS, Singular nicknames aren't all that straightforward, either. While the example above uses the singular for the Thunder, the plurals are often used for the Colorado Avalanche, for example, though that may be influenced by the "Avs" short form often used for that team. oknazevad (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was pretty tired and cranky last time; I should've handled that a lot better than I did. I've looked at the Associated Press Style guide and found that for most collective nouns, a singular verb is used; but for sports teams, it mandates plural verbs. So seeing as most of the reliable sources are going to be using plural verbs for teams, it seems like I'd be fighting uphill to try to change the articles that are based on these sources. I also see how it could be a case could be made that teams are a single name given to a group of individuals, so in that case it wouldn't be so weird to use a plural verb. Anyway, I guess I never thought about this before, sorry to waste so much time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, chalk it up to a learning experience. I think the convention's origin has its roots in the idea that it would sound odd to the ear to use a singular verb with a word like "Giants", for example. Ah, the peculiarities of language.oknazevad (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)