User talk:Valoem

Leave a new message.

Re: Shanghai Joe AFD

Valoem, please check Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 20. Thanks. --Howrealisreal 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi (re Shanghai Joe's AFD)

It's going to WP:DRV, so ask me there, no point in duplicating things. Short answer, being mentioned it's verifiable, not notable. Proto::type 16:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox sports league

Hi there. I put singles back as an optional parameter on {{Infobox sports league}}. There's some wacky but well-worn syntax involved. Check it out. Cheers. Rolando 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect and Sprotect2

I saw this edit which you added {{sprotect}} after {{sprotect2}} was already on there. It's really unneeded to have both, so it should be one or the other :) Sprotect2 is mainly for long-term sprotected articles/talks/etc. where sprotect is better for short-term as the template is really ugly looking after a long time of being on there, see George W. Bush for a good example. Cheers! semper fi — Moe 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that little lock is tricky :) Thanks for using sprotect2 (only reason I say that is because I created the template :p) Cheers! semper fi — Moe 00:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Woody Allen image

You said: "I tried to upload an image of Woody Allen Image:476px-Woody Allen - statue.jpg from Wikimedia Commons to Woody Allen, I'm not sure if I did it properly because when I viewed other Wikipedia pictures that reference wikicommons I do not see any text on the edit page. Also I can't find the template for: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below", I was wondering if you could tell me how to upload a picture from Wikicommons for an article? :)"

Unfortunately, I don't know how to do this. However, my understanding is that you don't need to do this except for an article about to hit the front-page. The point of Wikicommons is to share such content amongst the various Wikipedia projects, so you should just be able to reference the image in the commons. --Yamla 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

MLG Thank you

I have completely backed up Team Final Boss, Team Carbon, and True Karma with references and will do more in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

MLG Categories

Electronic Sports Teams could just be any old team, but competitors compete at tournaments —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.73.4.150 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Because

Electronic sports teams and players have not met the wikipedia rules until recently —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Also

Think about the literal meaning of Electronic Sports teams, are you talking about NBA Live's Chicago Bulls team or your friends clan that has tournaments in his basement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Players

I guess I fall under an electronic sports player category as well, even though I don't compete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) 01:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Bank of America, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

MLG articles are up for deletion

Ignorant folks are listing MLG articles up for deletion because they refuse to understand the notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Looking for input

Hey there. Not too long ago, you were involved in the AfDs centering around Major League Gaming. I would appreciate some input as I believe there needs to be some sort of consensus on whether or not the notability of these players meets requirements for Wikipedia. Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Nakedweaponfilm.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing your username

Hi. You should probably check out Wikipedia:Changing username; they will be able to help you. I can't do it myself, as I'm not a bureaucrat. Best of luck, and happy editing! --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicken and Rice

Thanks for the heads-up. I think a redirect to 53rd and 6th will suffice. --Merovingian (T, C) 03:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Questions regarding the ability to view deleted articles

I went ahead and looked at the deleted edits. Here are the references used in the deleted version. I hope they can help you.

<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.timeout.com/newyork/DetailsAr.do?file=features/168/168.feat.eat.txt.html | title=Raise a Glass to The Winners of The 1998 Eating & Drinking Awards | publisher=[[Time Out|Time Out New York]] | date=December 10-17, 1998}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | url=http://travel.independent.co.uk/americas/article321947.ece | title=New York: Fun in the city for the kids | date=October 23, 2005 | publisher=[[The Independent]]}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | url=http://events.nytimes.com/mem/nycreview.html?_r=1&res=9A04E0DE1639F935A15757C0A960958260&oref=login | title=Joe's Shanghai Restaurant Review | publisher=[[The New York Times]] | date=April 26, 1996 | author=Ruth Reich}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | url=http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/joes-shanghai01/index.html | publisher=[[New York (magazine) | New York]] | accessdate=November 15, 2006 | title=Joe's Shanghai Restaurant Review}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite book | title=Best Food Writing 2003 | editor=Holly Hughes (ed.) | author=Calvin Trillin | publisher=Marlowe & Company | date=Oct 1, 2003 | ISBN=1569244405 | pages=207-8 | url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1569244405&id=MuTdaoC7Qo8C&vq=joe%27s+shanghai&dq=joe%27s+shanghai}}</ref>

Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on it later today. Kingturtle (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know -- I think that ability is limited to admins. Try asking on WP:AN. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your question

I didn't answer because I don't have an answer. I'm not sure if it's available to non-users or not. It wasn't at one time but now I have no idea. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 14:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe's Shanghai

I've restored the old versions. --Merovingian (T, C) 18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --Merovingian (T, C) 19:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen

Please watch who you accuse of vandalizing a page, especially when you accuse me of being "sneaky" when I actually identified and explained why I deleted the information. The infobox is for the theatrical release of a film. If a film is released theatrically with different cuts (like Alien (film) was, then you would make not of the various run times of the film. ALL films are edited for time, and most films nowadays come with an "uncut" or "director's cut" version. That does not change the fact that when originally released there was only 1 run time. The various cuts (which do not even exist yet) are already mentioned later in the article, at their appropriate placement. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's all good. I'm fine with disagreement, but when I saw the comment about vandalism... Anyway, I completely understand about missing the comment in the history, because I accused another editor of accusing me of vandalism, because the two of you had vaguely similar names and they were near each other on the page history list. Again, there are no hard feelings, and I hope we can work together on pages in the future with less confusion :D. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Delingha

This issue has been fixed. Need more information though.

Re: Opinion

I'd rather not comment on the discussion itself, since you've asked me to do so, however I'm open to answering any questions you have about the relevant policies and all. Note I'm not accusing you of canvassing; it doesn't look like you've gone on a posting spree, and your message isn't biased either way, but I'd still rather avoid posting in the discussion just to be on the safe side. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of any such sites at all, and don't think I'm familiar enough with it to be of much use. Thanks for the offer, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing re Airi & Meiri AfD

Issue has been addressed on DAJF's talk page. The admin above had been the question was in good faith, unbias, and not canvassing. Valoem ^talk 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

TossGirl

Hi, Valoem. Here's that Dong-A Ilbo article that was a dead link.[1] I see right under the title "《‘여제(女帝)’ 서지수." "Empress Seo Ji-soo", so "Empress" must be sort of an official nickname for her in Korea. Haven't had time to do much searching, but I'll do more later. Hope it helps! Dekkappai (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Martin Andrews

He has been restored. I've added a couple of citations, but I really didn't want to steal your thunder, so i think I've left those you found for you to add.

Inbound links to the article are restored btw. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

What's up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisAF (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, too. TravisAF (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it's up to you to discuss it.

As I've stated, I'm simply following a consensus that was apparently decided on some time ago. It's good that you're opening a debate on it though; that's all I really want. If you a consensus can be reached to change it back, then knock yourselves out. You should probably post it a WP:COMIC, too, that's sort of the 'official' page for this. I'm just following what has been decided; if that decision changes, my actions will change to mirror it. I'm not being malicious or anything. HalfShadow 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...Now that I look it over, it wasn't so much decided upon as 'one guy changed it and nobody argued the fact'. At least two of them were admins, though. I would have thought it would have been a bit more 'official' than that. Still, having a discussion couldn't hurt. As it is, I'll simply leave it as it is for now; the validity of the redirect seems open to interpretation (boldness aside). Sorry, I thought the discusion concerning the decision would have been a bit more serious. Or longer. Or (frankly) at all. HalfShadow 17:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Rollback

Hiya. I've added the rollback flag. Please remember to use it only for vandlaism. You can learn more at WP:RBK or feel free to ask me. Pedro : Chat 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen characters

I mentioned it on the WikiProject Comics talk page, and had support for the bold merge; you'll have to look through the archives for that. The characters would not have substantial articles on their own, and in such cases merges into a single article are preferred. There's very little secondary source information on the characters, aside from the possible exception of Rorschach, which is why his article was left separate. In fact, the characters article was somewhat of a test to see whether or not the characters even required pages separate from Watchmen, and currently both of the articles have the same information. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed in your talk page comments that you said that the merges meant we lost "a lot of citable material". Actually, no. I did extensive research on the series when rewriting Watchmen as part of its Featured Article Review back in October, and as a result what's contained in the Watchmen article and the companion Characters of Watchmen article is the sole extent of reliable factual information available on the characters. It may be hard to believe, but that's all there is that actually is available. What was done away with by the merging was the extensive and inapporpriate in-universe plot summary detail with no context, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines for writing about fictional topics.WesleyDodds (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That AfD preceeded the merge by a number of months. 23:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you object to the merges then there are a couple of courses of action:

I left some thoughts on how to go about getting the sections to a point where they would have to be split off on Talk:Characters of Watchmen#what. However, as mentioned above there probably isn't much more to be added.
You could open this up for debate - the simplest thing would be to start a {{split}} discussion and see what the consensus is.

Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Re: Cleanup on Poker articles

I think paragraphs are easier to read than dozens of one-sentence paragraphs, which is primarily why I merged them. It also makes the article not appear artificially long; some of the articles would need a couple of pages to print when one would do, for instance. They look messier when there are several one-sentence paragraphs. Gary King (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball z

Hey there, I see you are trying to resplit the dragon ball's articles again. I already tried, but the freaking anime project won't do it. They think wikipedia revolves around them. And I know we have a lot of support, it's just that they are more consistant. What can we do? Ricardoread (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: TBDevilRays2009

Generally, accusations of sockpuppetry should be made at WP:SPI, particularly if you want administrative action on them. I'd also point out that TBDevilRays2009 has never been directly blocked; he was caught in a checkuser block for unrelated vandalism. That said, I'll take a look at it, but I'd very much prefer you file a formal SPI report. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, MuZemike has already filed one. I'll make further responses about this there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nemu64

Deletion review has endorsed the deletion but I have placed the article in your user space at User:Valoem/Nemu64. Please feel free to work on the article in your userspace but it will need a fresh DRV before you can move it back to main space. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Valoem/Nemu64

User:Valoem/Nemu64, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/Nemu64 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/Nemu64 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Eric Buchman

I notice you are one of the editors on this article. I just added some text and refs to help reinforce his notability as a pro player. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool thx I'll see if I can add some more information. Merry Xmas :) Valoem ^talk 14:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, enjoy the new year!-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Gary Faulkner, American Vigilante

Valoem, I recently created a page for Gary Brooks Foster (bin Laden Hunter) that has been deleted by Marcus Qwertyus. The justification for deletion of the page was a debate over the validity of the entry. I noticed you were in favor of keeping the page. There were three votes to delete and four votes to keep. The debate seems to have swung in favor of keeping the page, yet it was still deleted by Qwertyus. I am new to Wikipedia and need your help. Is there anything I can do to get the page up? Why does Marcus Qwertyus feel the urge to delete pages on a whim and prevent the open exchange of information? Thank you, STEGASAURUS REX (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Inception plot

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Looking at it now, it seems worse than I left it. Of course, I did leave it. I realizes I had to wash my hands of the entire thing. Amidst the calls to cut it down to about 800 words, despite the fact that the version that would do that ended up gutting the plot and leaving it incorrect, and other users blowing it up to ridiculous length, there wasn't much I cared to do anymore. I feel that some users were trying to make a comprehensive and brief version, but I didn't see anything happen while I was there, and I didn't think it was an argument I could make on my own. A word of advice, though, when dealing with the 800- word types: If constraining a movie plot results in the plot being grossly misrepresented, per WP:IGNORE, ignore the rule and go ahead with a reasonably longer plot for the betterment of the article (and Wikipedia as a whole). That's what I can give you. Good luck trying to fix the mess. :| Luminum (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it could use a bit of trimming, if you want to go through it first. But either way, if you feel it should be moved, then do so. At least it's been on the talk page for weeks, haha. Everyone's had their chance to look at it. I won't push it, for sake of being accused of pushing my own version. I'll watch and if it needs support, I'll chime in. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the plot down and fixed a few things at User:Millahnna's sandbox: User:Millahnna/Sandbox//Inception_Plot#StoryLuminum (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Phil Ivey. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | active blocks | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs | abuse log) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "If you looks at my edit history you will see that I am a long time user and that I have tried every options with the IP editor. I am find it disrepectful that I have been blocked. I am clearly acting in good faith"

Decline reason: "I'm sorry, but edit warring is edit warring. The edits were not obvious vandalism, but rather formatting changes. When some reverts your changes, you must discuss the issue with them, not undo their edit repeatedly. TNXMan 16:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)"

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. Note that misuse of the unblock request procedure may result in the removal of your talk page editing privileges for the duration of your block.

Valoem ^talk 15:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Request reason: "Actually I did discuss it with him. If you look at history of the account you can see that he reverted the formatting from a long standing version. Please see all edits prior to the edit by User:2005. He change the original format to a more convoluted version. I attempted to discuss his reversion which is visible on BOTH his talk page and the discussion page. On top of that I am an editor with a long history of edits yet you have given an unknown IP editor equal credit as me. Please explain why I am blocked. I reported his improper revertion, and asked for the page to be protected yet you have not assumed good faith."

Decline reason: "Edit warring is never the proper way to resolve a dispute. The only exception to WP:EDITWAR is reverting blatant vandalism. In the future consider requesting page protection and/or dispute resolution instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)"

I should add that repeatedly mentioning that you are the more experienced user actually weakens your case. You should have known better. I see that you did actually request page protection, but you continued to edit war anyway. That makes this look even worse. And on top of that, you warned them for vandalism when in fact you were having a very mundane content dispute. I don't mean to go on about this but this is one of the lamest edit wars I have ever seen. It's a very minor difference in a section title, and now both of you are blocked because you couldn't stop warring over it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I did report everything, however it is vandalism because I specifically told him that his version is confusing. I told him if HE is to REVERT to please discuss and explain. When he refused to discuss the situation it became apperent that he was acting in bad faith. (and yet the page is not protected is there something wrong with my logic?) Valoem ^talk 16:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. What he was doing was not vandalism, so there would be the flaw in your logic. Vandalism is editing done with the specific intent to harm Wikipedia, it's not just any edit that you personally don't like. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dandalos Poker Info Box

I noticed you added the poker info box for Nick the Greek. I was wondering why. It doesn't seem to add anything to the article and since he's deceased it never will (at least with the information currently in the info box template).Kanapapiki (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A Prophet

Valoem, I don't think you have support for your extended summary. Please be kind enough to honor the sentiment expressed that your plot summary is too long and detailed. And again I thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to correct the incorrect name. Thanks for catching that and your interest in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To claim there are no objections is a lie. And it's a laughably obvious invention. I'm sorry my idea is better than yours, but it's just one of those things. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that your edit was rejected more than once in the last ten days. I'm not sure who you think will believe you when you claim there weren't objections. Do you know the word 'disingenuous'? I agree that Geoff B's alternative leaves something to be desired. My proposal is sensible and I'd like your help making it as good as possible. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your credibility just went to zero. Now I feel free to ignore your disingenuous nonsense. That's all cleared up. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Contents