User talk:Euryalus/Archive2

Please restore this article that you deleted under A3. The article definitely qualifies under that criterion but could easily be turned into a valid stub like I did here. I'll add the content if you undelete the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Restored per request. Can't guaranteee it won't be deleted again under A3, so it might be worth moving what content you intend to use to a userpage. Good luck with it. Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article! I've added content to the article and have placed a {{hangon}} tag. I don't think the article needs to be moved to my userspace since it has enough content to pass as a valid stub. Regards, Cunard (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just found this message from you.

Current revision as of 22:00, 1 November 2007

[edit] November 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Euryalus 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering how come i got this? i never even had a wikipedia account in 2007! and i definately never been on that page b4. Its abit late to ask about this cause apparently this was done 1 year ago but just asking how i got this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.49.197 (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your message. On 1 November 2007 this IP did this edit, which I then reverted as vandalism. People's IP addresses change over time, either every time they log in ("Dynamic IPs") or less frequently ("static IPs"). More detail can be found at IP address.

Probably, in 2007 this IP address was assigned to another user, who vandalised the above article. If you edit using an IP address instead of

creating an account

, you'll probably routinely receive messages or warnings meant for someone else. Of course you're welcome to go on editing without creating an account, but if you would prefer not to receive messages for others (and risk getting blocked if they vandalise articles), creating your own unique account is probably a good idea.

Let me know if I haven't explained this very clearly, or if I can help in any other way. And don't worry about the 2007 warning - it was long ago and no one will hold it against you especially as it appears it was some other editor. Euryalus (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to

Hello. When I went to save my block message on User talk:64.179.144.228, I got an edit conflict with your block message. Since I was the admin to actually block this IP, I replaced your message with my own. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that. We were both trying to block him at the same time. Euryalus (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. However it is kinda odd as it took me at least five minutes to do a couple of whois lookups and add the relevant template header to the page. Oh well, it all worked out in the end. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I had several windows open at the same time - the "block user" window, the "edit talk" window for the IP, and a few others. I clicked on block user then went to the "edit talk" window and posted the block message. It was only a while later, when closing some redundant windows that I realised the "block user" hadn't actually occurred as the user was already blocked. My PC is also not exactly lightning speed - for some reason Wikipedia (bit not other websites) has started to run very slow the last few days. But as you say, it all worked out in the end. Euryalus (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean when you talk about your computer not being lightening last: I am still on dial-up! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi I don't understand why you have deleted the entry only minutes after I added the {hangon} tag. This was obviously a work in progress. I was adding references to it while you removed it. It was far from being perfect but 24 hours didn't leave me too much room for improvement.

SLurg (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was a

copyright violation from here

. Most of it was a direct cut and paste from an apparently copyrighted source, which isn't acceptable for a Wikipedia article. I notice you've recreated the page, but the "History" section remains almost word-for-word the Astralwerks version.

Let me know if you disagree with the above, or if I can help in any way. Euryalus (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I've based the article on that text that was sent as a press release to journalist with her first CD, since it was quite factual. I was not sure if press releases are subject to copyright, but I guess it's better to start from scratch anyway.

Also, should I link the bio as a reference ? Or I should simply mention it in the External Links section ?

I was actually editing the page while you were deleting it, that's why it was recreated. You may remove it, I will rewrite on my User Page, and improve it until it meets the Wikipedia criteria (which is what I should have done in the first place...).

Thanks SLurg (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the response. The press release is a

primary source

as the content was most likely directly provided by the subject or by a source with a direct connection with the subject (her PR agency). You can use it as a reference for "descriptive" claims that someone could verify themselves if they wanted to (the example the comments on a book dustjacket can be used as a source for a plot summary, but not for the statement that the book is a bestseller). In this case the press release is a possible source for the fact the Urban Prop album never appeared (but not why it never appeared), or for the existence of the Return Of The B-Girl EP (but not whether it was successful).

If you don't end up using details from the release as a source for some minor piece of info, you might consider listing it in "External links" so readers of the article have somewhere to find out more. However, better than a link to the press release would be a link to an official website, if she has one. There are reasonably strict criteria for what should be an external link - see

WP:EL

for details.

The article hasn't yet been deleted again, so please feel free to go on working on it. If it is deleted let me know and I'll provide you a copy of the non-copyvio parts of it for your userpsace so you can add to it there. Euryalus (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should spend more time and consideration before deleting articles which users have put much time into. I feel like you needlessly deleted an article on the band "Kraak and Smaak", and now the largely popular band has no article, and there is no reasonable explanation why the article was deleted except for that it didn't meet "inclusion guidelines (insert useless reference number here)", which probably boils down to the fact that the band was thought to not be important or popular enough for an article, or that the article wasn't well written enough for the best around here. I think you should take more into consideration that admins are not "in authority" at all, and that you should consult others' views before you toss an article or two, and that you should write explanations for your actions which are more specific and meaningful, and which aren't quite as easy to attribute to simply taste.

134.121.124.138 (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The article that was deleted was three lines long. The first line was "Means crunchy and tasty", the second line was "Awesome band from Holland" and the third line was "best peformance ever:" with a date and location in Kansas. With respect, the article provided no information on the band at all, did not explain why they were

notable

and certainly didn't take its author more than 20 seconds to write.

The stated deletion reason included a link to

this, which explains the reason for deletion was the article did not outline why the subject was important or significant. If you want to create a new version of the article go right ahead, but it will need to include an assertion of notability beyond being "crunchy and tasty" or having once been to Kansas. Something about the band's history. its musical style or influences, awards or chart successes, that kind of thing would be good. The previous article contained none of these. Euryalus (talk

) 18:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008

The

talk

) 06:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Euryalus...

I checked User talk:VicoMaster daily since I left a message there. Now, the user has replied and requested to be unblocked. As you are the admin who replied before, I'd like to notify you about this. Thanks. --Mark Chung (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've watchlisted the page now, and will be interested to see what VicoMaster produces in response to Sandstein's suggestion. Putting his money where his mouth is, if thats the expression. Euryalus (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Euryalus,

Thanks for your note. Many apologies for my inappropriate response to your original concern(s) with the page, and thanks for your comments.

I just saw the new page tonight! Hopefully those with more finesse can work on it and make it all it can be. :D

Atsantes (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No need for any apologies - I know exactly what its like to have hard work on an article deleted. Its actually User:Fullobeans that deservs any thanks - he did the work, mostly using references listed here. And for no reason other than he became aware of the earlier deletion and thought it would add to Wikipedia to have a page on the Fagbug. So - I'm just the messenger, any thanks belongs to him :) Euryalus (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What a brilliant idea. You're really smarter than him/her! By the way, are you a inclusionist, a deletionist or a precisionist? --Mark Chung (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea was Sandstein's, I was just the person who previously declined the unblock. And I don't have a view either way on labels like inclusionist/deletionist. Euryalus (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.