User talk:Calathan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hello, Calathan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Okay, a minor problem is with putting a user page into a category. It shows up twice. Once as "fishing cat", and once under [[1]]. Why don't you just submit your changes to "fishing cat" and if you're not sure, then discuss them on the talk page. If you are sure, but wrong, it'll work out. There are also histories and archives to work from, not to mention the fact that you can (and should, unless it's like a typo) preview your work before you save it. I see no reason to duplicate things here. 09:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I just copied over the entire article without thinking about it. In retrospect I should have cut out the part that puts it in categories, but I didn't even think about it at the time. Anyway, I ended up just using the page to learn about how the taxobox works and how to use citations. I never got around to making changes that I wanted to copy over to the main article.
Also, I know you were trying to help, but I found your comments kind of condescending. Welcoming someone with the raw basics after they have already been here for a year just doesn't feel welcoming. Sure, I made a mistake, but that doesn't mean I need to go back to square 1. Calathan 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm retracting that comment. I was just annoyed at the time that you assumed I had intentionally put a page in my user space into a category, rather than accidentally doing so. I no longer think your comments were condescending. Calathan (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madoff Investment Scandal[edit]

Good job with the request. I think that is the right way to handle this, given I apparently exercised my previously reserved right to completely screw up my edits (or splits)! Thanks.  :) Newguy34 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trash (manga)[edit]

Actually, merge and redirect decisions should be discussed via another venue, as AfD discusses whether an article requires deletion; thus, decisions to merge or redirect often default to keep. Hope this helps clear it up, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've commented at the AfD. I've tried to give some kind of an idea of what sources (not I) are the authors (and authorities) behind the list of societies, ethnographers and significant quotes, merely presented (by me) as an easily navigated table. It is extremely old news and uncontroversial among all branches of science (but still occasionally challenged by a few more extreme ideologues).

There are two real issues (I think): reader surprise and volume of information. I'm very keen to hear mature ideas about how to deal with those.

There is also the issue that because anyone can (and should be able to) edit Wiki, it is a real matter of conscience for some people to "erase any memory of patriarchy" (or at least something like that). That's a POV we absolutely must express, but not by actually condoning editing aimed at censoring any documentation of patriarchy.

I'm a Christian, but I work hard to document other religions positively and fairly. I think Adolf Hitler did awful things, but he must still be documented. I don't think patriarchy is as evil as some people suggest, in fact I don't think it's evil. But my view, just like other editor's views, is irrelevant.

Wiki is a team. I can provide sources. I can do some work in discussions. But typically people break the rules and seek to silence sources I provide and logic I present as though these are somehow tainted by bias in my personal opinions (which people can only guess, since I've not published them).

This topic is one of many that really tests the Wiki system: does it have the guts to live up to its policies? If a scientific result is unpopular (like the Earth going 'round the Sun) will it cave in to public opinion? Please be part of Wiki being Wiki. If the sources are there, we gotta acknowledge the POV without fear or favour.

Best Alastair Haines (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional deer[edit]

I know it's somewhat silly, but I thought you might be interested to see what I've done with the article "List of fictional deer", which you helped to save from "nominated for deletion". Ironically, I had nothing to do with the article until then. I hope you enjoy it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of history's strongest disciple kenichi chapters[edit]

Sorry for the confusion — I thought this to be a list of local organisations, i.e. chapters, of some society with the name of History's Strongest Disciple Kenichi. No context was provided; otherwise I wouldn't have been so badly confused. Feel free to recreate as long as you provide context for the article. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry; well, perhaps you can recreate it anyway :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I realize I'm going out on a limb, but further investigation indicates to me that the last seat of that line in Virginia, before transferring to Alabama in the early 19th c, had been in Powhatan County - a county that was named in honor of the Powhatans, but was never their actual residence, being rather to the west of it. A look at an online genforum further suggests to me that some traditions perhaps confused or misremembered this fact over time, to suppose that that particular tribe directly made up part of their real native ancestry. This is actually not that infrequent, it seems like the Powhatans were sort of popular, eh?! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FF 8[edit]

OK - will do. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 02:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prod tag[edit]

Those were the only two. Thank you for pointing out that the policy allows even a page's creator to remove a deletion tag; while that seems so antituitive to me that I hadn't thought to check, I'm now aware of it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 112[edit]

I'd disagree. The page was re-created by a user who has made only one edit (that one), so is hardly reliable. The page was full of rumours and so I would find that a valid reason for removal of info. The pages that keep popping up lately are UFC 111, 112 and 113 and they are just rumour-mongering pages that have zero credibility and need deletion and salting. The events are 6 months off anyway! Thank you Paralympiakos (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I do hope you're not just removing PRODs, and that you'll work to improve these unsourced articles. They're quite spectacularly bad right now, and should be deleted, unless you are willing to actually work on them, and source them. UnitAnode 06:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


can you please show me where MOS-AM discourages people splitting articles?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so what if it discourages splits? it does it in a good way, it discourages meaningless splits. articles holding almost the same information really shouldn't be split. it's like wanting to split the anime adaptation even though it's a carbon copy of the manga. but if the anime has significant ifnormation and is too large to fit in the manga article, then it would splitBread Ninja (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not make articles because they have the potential. We add information, refs, citation first, before making the article.

And no, there are article that become too large, for example characters. Also if it's not too large, it can still be split if it is notably different. if not, and is not too large, than it stays. pretty simple.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uhm...nohardly two sentences will make an article notable, and if they exist, they are probably being preserved at the moment and could be moved to wiktionary. Still, when it comes to notability that's where the general notability guideline comes in. i'm not going into DBZ. but, an article has to be considerable long enough to be kept. either way, our goal is to make articles to feature or GA status. If there is enough information that can split the article than yes is can be split despite the size issue.

you simply are thinking it that in order to split it needs to be considerably different AND the article is too long for it to stay. which is wrong, replace AND with OR.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that would be called preserving, if it's preserved for a long time and so sources have been found than yes, and no they don't have to be "long", but they do have to have substantial ammount of information to be kept, if it isn't it will probably be moved to a sister project of wikipedia or get deleted. usually it moves to wiktionary if it's just two sentences. You can't have two sentences for an article and say, "hey more info will come in later". Please look at WP:NOTE.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to his Talk page and see that his editorial arrogance has continued, in relation to Longhorns & Londonbridges. I believe he should no longer have a formal editing role, assuming that it is possible to censure someone on Wikipedia in this way. I would be interested in your opinion.

Dreadarthur (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like TenPoundHammer has made any edits since I posted on his talk page, but I do see that he wrote several other rude edit summaries earlier in the day. I think it would be best to wait to see if he responds to the messages on his talk page before doing anything. Calathan (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your good catch, saving Abandoned footwear. A picture with a boot would have been best but please accept this headgear in its place. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Calathan. You have new messages at TheFarix's talk page.
Message added 14:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Re: BLP[edit]

I actually requested the help of User:Alpha_Quadrant and he went through my contribs and he said there was nothing wrong with the tags that I placed. Dusti*poke* 19:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Calathan. You have new messages at Plad2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:Proud Scrum[edit]

Oops, sorry about that. I usually just look for citations. Are you sure that bands aren't biographies? WP:BIOG has a task force for bands and musicians, so I thought that bands were included in BLPPROD. But maybe not. Sorry again and thanks. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)[edit]

Ah, I'm embarrassed now ^^ I was indeed confusing "support votes" with "points". Thanks for explaining it to me, and sorry to trouble you about it :(. --Paaerduag (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Actors Wiki[edit]

Re: Giusy Di Martino and similar: It's a slum, compared with WP, but if all else fails, Voice Actors Wiki] on Wikia is at least a caring home for VA articles. Anarchangel (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for pointing out my mistake, lol sorry about that! >_< Didn't realize.

I should have discussed on the talk page the reason for the article move. And yeah, I'm aware that the talk page didn't move, there was some error or something when it tried to move :P I'll be more careful next time! Thanks for pointing it out to me.

Smileagefan15 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DCI Cheese[edit]

With respect to DCI Cheese, I'd missed the redirects note at WP:PROD. That's a very good point about search terms. --Trevj (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Wars episodes[edit]

Thank you for your concern. I was merely trying to WP:PRESERVE the nascent episode list by redirecting it to the main article on Sakura Wars, which noone will try to PROD, as an episode list would be part of a complete coverage of Sakura Wars. I look forward to any help on additional sourcing or translation of the episode list, or working towards the creation of an article for Sakura Wars (TV series). --Malkinann (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the main Sakura Wars article is such an inappropriate place for the episode list, then please feel free to be bold, edit the encyclopedia and make a better one, where it is unlikely to be deleted. I've added a list of anime reviews to Talk:Sakura Wars, I hope that helps. --Malkinann (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You're right that I missed the previous PROD on Teppei Fukushima. Thanks. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 04:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamichu license expiration[edit]

Thanks for adding a cite about this to Kamichu's article. The news about that was a surprise to me, and I didn't take it seriously when IP user added something about it, which is why I reverted that edit. Musashi1600 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About replies[edit]

Sorry about this, believe i can unchain comments and reply only to a certain portion of them. Understand. Page is blocked? Have admin made a final decision or will be reopened? [2] :) Reikasama (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network[edit]

Hi Calathan,

Thank you for taking the time to explain the nature of the Anime News Network to me. I will be sure to treat only ANN's encyclopedia and not ANN itself as uncitable in the future.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Apologies. I did restore contested Prod; late at night, though. Regards Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback from Allen4names[edit]

Hello, Calathan. You have new messages at Allen4names's talk page.
Message added 07:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]


Most likely it was a twinkle glitch. Don't know what causes it. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re About WP:RETAIN[edit]

Hi! Thanks for the comment, but I don't agree. WP:RETAIN says clearly: "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." This is exactly what happened when the article was moved from the UK title to the US title. Smetanahue (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we seem to read the guideline the same way, only that when I came upon the article it was called Arrietty, the British title. A while later somebody else came upon it, and, for whatever reason, decided that the British variety was inferior and moved it to the US title. If it was was wrong of me to undo that move, what you suggest would be that I'm disallowed to move an article between English varieties, but if somebody else does it, that is allowed, and the article should not be moved back. I mean, you can't "come upon" an article in the middle of a move, you always come upon it under one title or another. What I reacted to, and which made me act, was that the existing variety had not been retained since the last time I came upon it. Smetanahue (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about that. The point of the guideline is to decide on one definitive variety and stick to it. It's very clear that the first established variety is the one to use, not the one that happens to be in practice the 11th time, or what it might have been in my case, you come across the article. If what you say would be applied the guideline would be contraproductive, it would be free for anyone rogue enough to change back and forth between the varieties, but not for others to interfere and stop it. Smetanahue (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you that the reversal wasn't desperately needed, and perhaps a more humble person than me would have let it be. I apologize if I've been rude. But as far as the guideline goes it's very clear. Smetanahue (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question[edit]

I attempted an answer to this question. The best place to go is WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Calathan (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for that, I've deleted the other two. If there had been any reasonable possibility of a longer debate taking matters in another direction I might have relisted it or kept it open for longer, but frankly... BencherliteTalk 15:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

restoring unreferenced content[edit]

I am not interested in your red tape on templating. What matters to me is that you restore unreferenced content. You are actively defending a claim that there is an antipope known as "John Paul III". You are editing Wikipedia's main namespace, so you are expected to stick to our rules regarding encyclopedic content. If you have evidence to back up the claim you are defending, kindly respect WP:BRD and WP:TALK to explain your position. If you do not wish to make such a claim, stop restoring unreferenced content when challenged. Anything other is disruptive behaviour. This is an encyclopedia, and disrupting encyclopedia content is ever so much worse than stepping on maintenance geeks' toes over "disrupting" some obscure internal rule on templating. I will thank you if you now stop interfering with encyclopedic content on which you quite clearly do not even pretend to have the first clue. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Children's anime and manga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Del Rey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Calathan. You have new messages at TheFarix's talk page.
Message added 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Farix (t | c) 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref questions[edit]

Hi Calathan - after I wrote back to you on my talk page I realized a couple of related reference questions I had that maybe you could answer.

  1. I went to read the unreferenced tag page - so external links count as sources in terms of using the unreferenced vs. refimprove tags correct? I find a lot of articles that are tagged unreferenced and only have external links. (both BLP and not).
  2. If the only sources a BLP has are unreliable, can it be BLPPROD or still just use PROD? Same question with using unreferenced vs. refimprove.

Thanks so much! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Calathan

I saw your comment on Talk:2012 in film. I disagree with what Grapple X and Phil Bridger have done to that page, regarding the link of countries of number 1 box office films. The link on that page, Lists of box office number-one films, will frustrate readers to go to List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United States and List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United States that they have to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page to get there, not to mention that it only has each country in different years on Lists of box office number-one films. And they deleted the number of box-office in USA and Canada, Great Britain and Australia from the box-office table. I disagree with this move because it will frustrate the readers that are trying to go List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United States and List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United States and not learning more about the number of box office numbers in cretain countries in box-office table.

We need to argue about all this. Graple X, Phil Bridger and others don't know what they are saying and what they done. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong preference about how the linking to those lists is done. I personally think linking to either Lists of box office number-one films or to indivdual lists is fine. Calathan (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, based on what you said, I think we should have indivdual lists rather than have Lists of box office number-one films because it will be easier for anyone who would want to check number-one box-office films in their country. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should find a way to get the box-office numbers of each large market countries, such as US, UK and other countries back in 2012 in film to avoid any biased issues. Because Lists of box office number-one films only lists countries in different years and we should be specific about the years in each film that was released in the year of film articles, like 2012 in film. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helo Calathan, I would like to inform you that I have started a peer review of Kotoko (singer). Any input and feedback will be appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Calathan. You have new messages at Knowledgekid87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JoJo characters[edit]

I noted my removal of the content at the AFD so there was really no reason to restore the content fork.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I tried to merge the two AFDs (Death of Adrian Donohoe and Adrian Donohoe), but didn't do it correctly, evidently. Thanks, one less page on the watchlist. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Afro-Asian Cup of Nations pages[edit]

Thank you for merging the three past Afro-Asian Cup of Nations pages. I came here only two month ago (although my username was registered years ago), and I am only interested in establishing an encyclopedia of football (tournaments). As to the policies of wiki, I did not read much. Before I edited Afro-Asian cup, only three editions had details. I found the details of other editions and added them. So at first I thought it was redundant to keep those pages. I was not aware of the redict/merging policy.... Anyway, thanks again for the redirect. FootballStatWhore (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Two days ago I opened up this formal move request based on the suggestion I initially made at WT:ANIME. As you contributed to the original discussion, your input is welcomed at the new one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Heartstone (artifact) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heartstone (artifact) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartstone (artifact) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content has been unsourced since its inception and flagged as unsourced since 2009. I hardly see how removal after 4 years of being tagged is "immediately". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURO. The fact that when all unsourced content is removed there is no context is a sign that rather than the BURO of AfD, it should be SPEEDY deleted under A1. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
putting an AfD tag on an article does not prevent it from being edited and does not exempt editors from WP:BURDEN. do you have a source for any of the material that had been tagged for four years as being unsourced before it was challenged by removal?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your basis for violating WP:BURDEN is that crap should stick around for 7 more days and force multiple editors need to spend their valuable time weeding through complete dreck that you your self have no intention of attempting to improve to participate in a WP:BUROcratic show trial.
Wikipedia is far better served by that effort going to actually productive work on the encyclopedia. But thats where we are now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback would be appreciated[edit]

Last month you commented in an informal peer review on the Federal assault weapons ban talk page. I have written a draft "Context" section in response to that and a formal peer review done since then. Would you please give your feedback on the draft? It is at

Thanks. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about notability and split-worth in WP:ANIME[edit]

you're invited to the discussion.Lucia Black (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Garrett[edit]

Hi, it's me, Kyleoconnor. Why I keep messing up on the deletion of the Morgan Garrett page is that I'm using an iPad. That's all. Kyleoconnor (talk) December 12, 2013 (UTC)

Wes Welker mistake[edit]

I can't believe I messed that up. Funny thing is I know he's in Denver now, but my mind must've still been on last season (2012-13) when the Patriots lost to Ravens in the AFC Championship. Thanks for catching that. Moviemaniacx (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ogasawara Shōsai[edit]

I noticed you recently removed the BLPPROD on Ogasawara Shōsai's page. It was my mistake assuming Ogasawara Shōsai was still alive. I suppose if I would have down more research I would have realized that...whoops! Anyways, do you think the article holds enough weight to keep? I am tempted to PROD the article because it fails to provide any sources, links, etc. The page literally has two sentences which read:

Ogasawara Shōsai is most famous for killing Hosokawa Gracia to protect her honor when Ishida Mitsunari attempted to take her hostage. Afterwards he and the rest of the household then committed seppuku and burned their mansion down.

Let me know your thoughts. I won't PROD the page if you disagree. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for pointing out the prod issues[edit]

I usually am quick to notice if someone put it on someone who died-somehow I didn't this time though ha ha. Well again thanks! Wgolf (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Categorization of anime films[edit]

All films should be categorized directly under categories like Japanese films, including all anime films, as can be seen on top of these categories. If you disagree, you should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. I wouldn't be against these categories being container categories. Don't worry about adding the categories back, I'll do it. -Cattus talk 14:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that. I don't think I agree with categorizing things that way, but since I don't know of the reasons behind it, I'll bring it up at WikiProject Film. Calathan (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS/ It probably should be a V.O.S. (band). But it really just needs an AFD. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Calathan moved page Talk:V.O.S. (Korean band) to Talk:V.O.S: Correct spelling, and diambiguation should be done with hatnote) (undo | thank)
In my view this was an unhelpful move to readers. We don't disambiguate by missing dots. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The PRODS of people with dead links[edit]

Well I've seen others do that as well, plus the ones I'm finding are some unotable people (That I've also put some on AFD and just plain prods for) Wgolf (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Well they should at least have a normal prod, the ones are people that are actually unotable volleyball players apparently. I kept them unprodded for a while until I did some look around on guidelines and saw that quite a few were deleted for that. Wgolf (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC) BTW-I'm changing a bunch now, thanks. Wgolf (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-I do wish I could change some of the AFD's to just plain old prods though ha, as there were so many that I'm not sure if all of them can even get votes! (I am changing most of them that have BLP prods, unless if its an expired one or will be sometime today as in those cases it is kind of useless to change, and I'm sure I'll miss a few) Wgolf (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in Jimbo Wales talkpage[edit]

I made a mention of you regarding the previous AN discussion at Jimbo Wales, if you feel i misinformed Jimbo Wales, or forgot to mention a specific detail, i urge you to respond and clarify. Other than that, i hope this isn't a bother to you. If you feel an additional opinion would make a difference, i urge you to give it. I believe it just takes one to really put things into perspective. Lucia Black (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

one point i would like to say that it would help if the wikiprojects I've been involved weighted in. not just WP:ANIME (which i don't see were notified either). I would, if i could. The only reason why i responded was due to procedural opposes that needed my opinion if there was a chance for support. Lucia Black (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain myself, I skimmed your last comment because at a glance it looked like a request to close the RfC (which I was answering). It was right after I closed the RfC that I read it fully and thought I had made an error and that you had closed the RfC already.

That's not something I'd object to - but I thought to refactor your comment so that someone else didn't make the same mistake.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Tóraí (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boat Race[edit]

Just a couple of points of clarification (although I wish you all the best with your quest to remove The Boat Race from ITN/R):

  • " it is a competition between university clubs and is primarily of interest only in the United Kingdom" not true, it's a rowing contest, which started in 1829, between the second and third oldest university in the world, and is broadcast in 160 countries.
  • "The Boat Race seems to be the only thing there that is neither professional nor international in nature" not true, the event is broadcast internationally and has, since the early 1900s featured rowers from around the world, most notably from Yale and Harvard.

Not that it matters, with our readership and editorship being predominantly American, this will be consigned to history. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for the record[edit]

just to let you know that i openly admitted it was a mistake. And i've admitted it time and time again within WP:AN that i made a mistake on Ghost in the Shell article. WHich is why i didn't ask for the ban to be completely. I was topic banned from all ghost in the shell related articles, including one i've been openly productive (Ghost in the Shell (video game), and Stand Alone Complex series). I merely asked for it to be reduced to just one article, the article in question. especially so that there would be no WP:OWN issues. Lucia Black (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

legal advice[edit]

I see your objection to the proposed deletion of Legal advice, stating (in the editing summary only) that this discusses a "concept" rather than a "term". This sort of sounds like a distinction without a difference, but of course, your right to object to the deletion is not subject to limitation, and you could end it there.

I'd prefer to engage "interested parties" such as yourself on this subject. I've made at least a couple of comments on the legal advice "talk" page, but there haven't been any responses.

OTOH, perhaps it would be better to just nominate it for deletion, even if there's not a consensus about this being a violation of WP:NOTDIC, there are other objections, and deleting this page may be preferable to extending its misery. But I try to be a reasonable person, so I invite you to use the talk:Legal advice page to elaborate on your support for the page and possibly address some of the concerns that have been raised about it. Fabrickator (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP prods[edit]

Okay well I use to not do that but since I've seen so many other articles getting deleted even with the EL's to the IMDB with no refs it started to seem like that it was what would happen. (Though if the EL's are to FB/Twitter/Linked in I would still put up the BLP prods) it seems the admins all have different attitudes to what can and can't be a blp prod almost...Wgolf (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Such as this one put on by someone else that is up for a BLP prod Deep Pal-but yeah it is getting confusing as some admins aer deleting them even if they have refs on another language wiki!Wgolf (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Pantacles of Athens has closed[edit]

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantacles of Athens discussion has closed as a consensus "merge." The closing admin, SamWalton, identified four of the 40 articles for further talk page discussion whether they should be merged to the list or maintained as stand-alone articles: Talk:Dandes of Argos, Talk:Philinus of Cos (athlete), Talk:Oebotas of Dyme and Talk:Eurybus of Athens. Your input is requested on those article talk pages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my mistakes i will try but that its true?? Because a person of those page are not notable and it is considering to propsed for deletion,Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). nomination or what else a tag. But those redirects are included in Reality and thanks for your recent editsMarkHerson (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol[edit]

Hi. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but with NPP being such a complex task, I wouldn't be too quick to encourage newbies with barely 100 edits to be doing NPP. It might be perhaps more appropriate to suggest to them that they do something simpler such as Counter Vandalism first, but even then they would need 200 mainsoace edits before they could even enrol at the WP:CVUA to learn all about it ! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

I'd like to thank you for un-redirecting Ren'Py. There now even more secondary, academic, and scholarly sources that could improve the article, but I can't add them due to my obvious WP:COI. I thank you for recognizing that the sources exist. For the record, Ren'py redirects to the Visual novel engines page, which is probably incorrect. — PyTom (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Re your comment on Dilemma of Determinism. We have a situation where it was previously agreed the article be deleted. We now have a more or less single use editor who has reinstated it without agreement or substantial change. Are you saying the whole AfD process has to be gone through again? If so I suspect that a month or so later another single purpose account will be set up to create it again. ----Snowded TALK 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: Prods of well-know brands[edit]

I am totally fine with AfDs; just wanted to remark that what is a well-known brand in a part of the world is totally unknown-of a name elsewhere. In both cases, I didn't get the impression those are anything but regional-level companies, and such are not always notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Beal prod[edit]

Just to double-check - is that really the case, that an (even completely different) recreation of an article cannot be prodded, if a different, earlier version was deleted by an AfD? WP:PROD says that prodding "must not be used for articles PRODed before or previously discussed on AfD", but that seems ambiguous: an article with this title has been discussed on AfD, but the article text never has. Is an article its title or its text?

Prodding seemed the most efficient way to clean this up, when it couldn't be speedied, but if you think it needs an AfD I'll nail it up. --McGeddon (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Fußballspieler[edit]

thank you for your comments at the DRV for Infobox Fußballspieler. now that it has been overturned we can clearly see that the version of the template that I created never worked when left unsubstituted (i.e., the error message shown when left unsubstituted). Frietjes (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. However, I was unable to add the article to the day's Afd page. Is that something only an admin can do? Africanarchist (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the discussion to the log page. I'm not sure why it was not letting you save adding it to the page. You don't need to be an admin to add the discussion, but maybe you need to be autoconfirmed? Calathan (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One item doesn't make any list. There exists Category:Fashion photographers. I'm the third editor, who tries to remove the trash and we are told - not this way. Which way?Xx236 (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the list has been speedy deleted, but in general when an article isn't eligible for prod, the way to go about getting it deleted is to use AFD. If you place a prod tag on something and you see red lettering in the prod saying that a previous AFD exists, then that usually means the prod is invalid and you should instead start another AFD. Calathan (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DePROD of Renglish[edit]

You objected that the PROD was out-of-process due to a previous deletion discussion. That's correct, and it's reasonable to do that even while leaving {{notability}} tag in place. But that deletion discussion had a consensus to delete, based on lack of notability, a problem that the current article apparently still has. So I'm curious why you not convert the PROD to a {{db-g4}}? DMacks (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add a db-g4 tag to the article for two reasons. First, since I didn't see the older version of the article, I didn't know if the new article had the same content as the deleted article, or if it was new content on the same subject. An article can only be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G4 if the content is basically the same as before (i.e., if it was copied and pasted from the old article, with no more than superficial changes). If someone writes a new article on the same subject, then speedy deletion criterion G4 doesn't apply, and the article needs to go through another AFD to be deleted. Also, I didn't add a speedy deletion tag or take the article to AFD myself because I wasn't proposing the article for deletion myself and didn't have any opinion on whether or not it should be deleted. In order to know whether or not the article should be deleted, I would need to do a search for sources myself and determine whether reliable sources exist that would support having an article. I didn't want to do that since I have no interest or pre-existing knowledge on the article subject. I just edited the article because I regularly look at Category:Proposed deletions needing attention and remove any invalid prod tags I see. When I do that, all I'm usually doing is letting people know that the articles they've tagged with prod tags aren't actually eligible for deletion by the prod process. It is up to the person who wants to delete the article to determine if it is eligible for speedy deletion or to make the case at AFD that the article should be deleted. I'm just letting them know that prod wasn't the right policy to use. Calathan (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and I saw the same problem at the same time, which appeared to be a circular use of WP:A10. The real problem with the older draft is either WP:A7, musician with no credible claim of significance, or biography of a living person with no references. Either way, the duplicate will be tossed as A10, and the original will be either thrown out somehow or improved. (She might really be a notable pianist, but she isn't the best source on that.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion discussion[edit]

I heard you had an objection to the deletion for Marvel Super Hero Adventures: Frost Fight on the talk page for List of films based on Marvel Comics'. Would you like to take part in this discussion here? --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't express any opinion that would suggest I have an objection to the deletion of that article. I was aware of the deletion discussion but decided to not participate since I don't have any opinion on that article. I was only expressing an opinion on what information should be included in List of films based on Marvel Comics, and whether or not the separate article is deleted doesn't change my opinion on what information should be in the list. Also, please read WP:CANVAS. Your comment over at Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics asking for people to participate in the deletion discussion was fine, since it wasn't specifically trying to recruit people to vote in one way or the other. However, your comment here seems to be trying to recruit me to vote specifically because you think I would want to keep the article, which isn't acceptable according to the canvassing guideline. Please don't do that in the future. Calathan (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Yukari Mononobe[edit]

Hello Calathan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Yukari Mononobe, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:CSD#A11 requires that the article plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally. Suspicion is not enough. Let the AfD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was that since the article says what the creator of the fictional character was thinking, the article creator must be the creator of the fictional character. But it is fine to let the AFD run its course. Calathan (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Calathan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

for trying to make Wikipedia less of a "F--- off newbs, this is my little kingdom and here's Rule 136 Section 34 Subsection B to prove it" kind of place. I wish you all the luck in the world, and I hope some day you and people like you can actually batter down the Iron Bureaucracy. (Then maybe you can start on the Collaborative Feudal League of Warlords who corrupt then maintain "their" articles as propaganda pieces. (^_~) )
- Strangely, such editors have a heavy tenden(tious)-cy to actually be quoting a rule that contradicts them from an objective point of view.
2001:558:600A:5B:3552:477F:31AA:33CD (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Calathan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Calathan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Strongest currency" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Strongest currency. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Least-valued currency unit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]