User talk:Kickstart70

If you wish to post a new topic here, please click here.

Archives: 1 2 3 4

Hi. I notice that you've reformatted this article.[1] I was wondering what the reason is, and whether this has been done for many other articles. It looks kind of cluttered and unusual now, with text sandwiched between the infobox and the Table of Contents. Any chance I could persuade you to restore the prior format? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Looks like you did it for both Sarah Palin as well as Political positions of Sarah Palin. The change for Political positions of Sarah Palin makes more sense to me. In contrast, Sarah Palin has a TOC on the la\eft and an infobox on the right, so there's really not much white space.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only undone the one at political positions of sarah palin, because I wanted to try making the image bigger and adding a template above it. I have not reverted the one at sarah palin, because I was hoping you might. As I said, the text is now sandwiched between the infobox and the TOC, which does not look good to me. If it's restored, then the infobox on the right will take up a lot of the white space.

BTW, I don't think your signature came out right in your recent Sarah Palin talk page comment.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you removed the list of Jennifers from Jennifer (given name), citing Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy. Which section on that talk page did you have in mind? The project did not achieve consensus on this matter. For the most popular names, I sought approval for a selective summary of most-famous people, but the example which I most liked (Sarah (given name)) has since been changed to a less selective list. I propose to revert your removal; otherwise editors will add the list on the disambiguation page again. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya...barring consensus, I've reverted back to the lack of list as discussed previously. I still stand by my decision that any such list is guaranteed to be flawed. How do we determine who is notable enough for listing? Current famous-ness? Why is Jennifer Aniston (one actress, listed) more notable than Jennifer Beals (another actress, not listed) or Jennifer Jason Leigh (actress, also not listed)? Is any actress more notable than a famous author (Jennifer Crusie, not listed) or an award-winning movie director (Jennifer Jako, not listed)? Basically, who determines this, and more importantly, who gets dropped off the list when someone "more notable" comes along? This sort of list becomes a popularity contest, with Wikipedia editors failing to keep to WP:NPOV by any edit of it. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't remember you from that discussion. Thanks for restarting it. I'd suggest that you might hold off from wholescale list deletions while we try again for a policy consensus. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your notability tag; a pizza chain in various places in Japan is clearly a notable subject. However, I replaced it with an {{expand}} to show that the article needs to be expanded. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.R. Guest. I added some references to the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work on this. Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide. Proxy User (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order for this to have a chance, I do think you're going to need to go through old AFDs and find examples of what the community has traditionally found non-notable and why. Guidelines can only describe what has been done in the past, not dictate what to do in the future. Good reasoning doesn't work without AFD precedent. I tried something similar to this years ago with my guideline for notability of royalty and it ended up stalled in limbo. Basing it on an arbitrary set of rules—no matter how sensible they are—dooms the project from the start. Check out the early talk history of that one for what not to do. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit difficult, it could have been either No Consensus or Keep, it ran for 4 days and 21 hours by my math, so I doubt many more people would have commented if it was extended. Best. MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You made a request at WP:HD, linking to an articles for deletion vote. I've removed it, because it per WP:CANVASS, as this is not the appropriate venue for soliciting for or fixing the AfD discussion. If you believe malpractice has occurred on the discussion, WP:ANI is probably the best location, but otherwise, please remember that AfD is a community discussion, and all editors are entitled to their opinion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the Help Desk is the wrong place for such requests. That venue is for requesting help with Wikipedia's guidelines, policies, general editing assistance, etc. As I say, unless there has been malpractice on the discussion itself, it's a community issue; please discuss it on a page like AN/ANI. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to make this comment, as Kickstart seems to want to break up the conversation onto multiple pages, but I wanted to throw in my two cents. First, although I wouldn't go so far as to call it canvassing, it was very premature to take this issue to the help desk - what are admins supposed to do about it? AfD is a process, and if you want to change the entire process, then pitch a fleshed-out alternative in the village pump. Otherwise, it is what it is - and nothing is happening at this particular AfD that is significantly out of process. Second, give it time. Third, have faith that the closing admin will take all arguments into account and weight them according to how well they match policy. AfD is not a vote, and closing admins are aware of that. Fourth, don't take it so personally when other people disagree with you or don't seem to understand Wikipedia's inclusion policies as well as you do. Tan | 39 17:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response....the split in conversation was just timing. I saw the canvassing change in history before I saw PS's post here. The problem is that I've seen this happen for weeks now, and very much not only on my Afds. I don't think it used to be this bad. Currently there's a massive volume of daily Afds and I'm assuming that closing admins are overwhelmed and unable to take the time to judge the contents thoroughly. I don't blame them, but it's exceedingly frustrating. Therefore, the appearance is that the Afds are becoming votes. --Kickstart70TC 17:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/cx2 - this is probably redundant now! :))Yes, I apologise, I misinterpreted one of the sentences on your post. I retract the canvassing bit. However, my point in itself still stands, that (from what I can see) no actual malpractice has occurred. A community issue is best discussed elsewhere, but please bear in mind that the Help Desk has quite a limited scope. It's there to discuss policies in existence, rather than as a forum to change them. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Ok, except I am not asking for the policies to be changed either (they are very good policies). I suppose what I need is a conversation on enforcing those policies, rather than editing them. --Kickstart70TC 17:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kickstart, may I respectfully suggest you help delete some of the crap articles at AfD instead of arguing with people who come to a different conclusion than you do on borderlines cases. I'm not saying you can't discuss or bring up points in the context of the debate, but I don't see a need to engage in individual battles or arguments with others when they don't agree with you. We're giving our best judgements. Or am I wrong? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where that came from. I don't think I've been anything but respectful and attempting to make Wikipedia a better place by my edits and ideas. Do I have differing opinions on the best way to improve things? Absolutely. And I'm striving to reach consensus without just leaving things as they are because I see things are not working as well as they could be (or should, were people following what consensus has already been reached). I am, and always have been, 100% willing to compromise. Unfortunately I'm not seeing the same from anyone else. FWIW, each time I've added an Afd, I've sought to give an opinion on two or more Afds that other editors have submitted. I'm not sure that I should be expected to do more than that. I guess, however, no one gives barnstars for strong opinions, even with the best of intentions :( --Kickstart70TC 04:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I don't think I phrased my comment very well. I did not intend it as a criticism. I was merely attempting to make a friendly suggestion and offering my two cents. I'm not telling you what to say, what to do, or how to conduct an AfD. I was just suggesting that you seem to be very invested in the outcome of your AfDs. I am absolutely not suggesting any kind of bad faith or that you haven't been totally respectful.

I do think it's a bit unfair that you say no one is willing to compromise. In fact several restaurant articles haven't made the cut at recent AfDs and have been eliminated, including one fairly sizable chain. So cheer up! I was just trying to suggest that people reach different conclusions on the same set of facts. So give us a little credit for taking the time to weigh in and reach our own conclusions on the merits of deleting a particular article.

As a side note, I still am not clear on exactly which restaurants you actually think qualify for inclusion. Brasserie Les Halles has been the subject of cookbooks, is a fairly well established upscale restaurant of high repute in several cities with a substantial history, and is associated with one of the biggest foodie personalities on television. What more can we offer??? :)

Take care. Have fun. Sorry if I my poorly phrased insights (or lack thereof) caused any disruption. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your request in the "discussion" portion of Wikipedia "RhubarB', a photo of a 3-year-old rhubarb root ball is available at www.HighAltitudeRhubarb.com Enjoy.

Dear Kick: Did you ever find out any info on Jack Vaughan who did the cartoons for TMEN? Stan: [email protected]. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.61.132 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Latinlover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SpittingImage albumcover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see my reply in the Talk section of the Stock selection criteria article, as I need feedback from copyeditors with more experience and knowledge on this particular subject. Thanks!--Soulparadox (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:45px-Canada Maple Leaf.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Cordwoodhouse.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nightynight.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understood somewhere that you know something about that now down userfriendly website. If you still are or have contacts I could have a look at what's there. I'm an old sysop/sysadm, now retired with too much time on my hands. Thanks. Antti Anttir717 (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Subaru1999.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, low-res, no obvious use. Better files at c:Category:Subaru Forester (SF, 1997).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Steveston Fisherman's Memorial has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't question the memorial's importance but I don't see notability demonstrated for the article to stand on its own. I would say a merge/redirect to Steveston could work to then expand the fishermen village history mentioning this memorial.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – The Grid (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Chico the Rainmaker (Les Amis de Chico).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]