User talk:Tyros1972/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Ouokl

I'm desperately searching what "Ouokl" means, Wikipedia being my last ressource after having searched around the internet since yesterday and finding only sites in Turkish which I don't speak. There was an article titled "Ouokl" speedily deleted on June 19, 2013 >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouokl

May I ask what this article contained before it was deleted, please? Any information about the meaning of this word (?), acronym (?) or else would be appreciated. Thank you! Günter Kroll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.199.19.204 (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The article was speedy deleted because of A1 which is no context WP:ACSD. Other then that I have no further knowledge on it as I don't speak Turkish either. You could try asking the deleting admin for the name of the author who created the article and try asking him. Sorry I can't help further. Tyros1972 Talk 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thomas the Apostle

Realistically, both are a matter of editor discretion. If someone thinks there are too many pictures, they can take one or two out. If someone disagrees, they can revert the edit and start a discussion on the talk page. Same with unsourced material. Someone raised a concern about particular material and nobody took any action to rectify the problem. There's no hard or fast limits on either the number of pictures of the length of time something can be allowed to sit with an improvement tag. Some articles have been tagged for improvement for years. Some are tagged for things like notability and are taken to AFD only a couple of weeks later. There's no rule, per se, and if there was, people would just ignore it anyway. Ha ha. Stalwart111 00:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

True about people would ignore any suggested rules about it. OK I just wanted to verify with you on these issues as I didn't know. Thanks again! Tyros1972 Talk 00:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course, no problem! Glad to know a couple of other sensible editors have POV-magnets like Thomas the Apostle on their watchlists! Stalwart111 02:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I appreciate your consistent contribution to wiki Rumikhawar (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: New Media Rights

I thought you might see my edits - thanks for the thanks. I've made a few minor changes just to clean it up a bit. It probably needs more work and a few more non-blog type reliable sources to put notability beyond doubt. But it's getting there. You obviously worked out that you can just create articles, which is what I was going to suggest. I don't use AFC and have actually been pretty critical of it for a number of reasons. I've created about 150 articles and have never used it. But I have autoconfirmed and autopatrolled rights which makes it a bit easier. Anyway, good luck with the new article! Stalwart111 00:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes thank you very much for your edits. NMR are helping me free of charge on a dispute with a major studio on YouTube and I was surprised that they were not in wiki. I believe that are notable just have to find some better sources as you said. I dislike AFC as it is reviewed by a single editor and if they are bias or lack understanding they can keep preventing it. I wanted the article set up like it is and encourage editors to help make it notable. AFC takes this away. I honestly don't know why Wiki has that? I didn't realize creating a new article is as easy as using the search box and many new users won't either. Tyros1972 Talk 10:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, a pretty silly system there only so that IP editors have a way of creating articles, basically. On the above, just be careful about your relationship with the subject. A pro-bono-for-pro-bono arrangement might still be considered by some to be a conflict of interest, though that doesn't seem to be how the article came about. Just be careful, that's all! Stalwart111 13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that system should be abolished or if you use the wizard at the end give an option "submit to wiki" or "optionally submit for review" the way it is you are locked into it. I don't know who came up with it but it is not good. Yes I thought about that and that's why I just created the article as a stub (more to get it started) and don't plan to add much, that's due to time and my knowledge on the subject as well. I just felt that they are notable and certainly are for a good cause for all of us. Tyros1972 Talk 13:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Both sound sensible - your suggestion for AFC and your rationale for creating the article! Stalwart111 02:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much mate! Is there any place I can suggest the AFC issue? It makes sense not sure why anyone would object. Tyros1972 Talk 03:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I started what ended up being quite a contentious thread here. You can discuss it generally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation but be aware that people who contribute there are obviously AFC regulars and so criticising their project might not go down well. There are plenty of reasonable people there, but I would suggest treading lightly. Bigger stuff can go to WP:VPP and places like that. I think the objection would be that it kind of defeats the purpose of AFC which is to have editor review before publication. If you want a space to draft an article before submission, that's what userspace and your sandbox are for. I like it, and it makes sense to me, but then I'm one of those who think AFC shouldn't exist at all, so watering it down doesn't worry me. It might worry others. Stalwart111 03:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not hold back, maybe a bit rough but it is how I honestly feel and someone has to state it. I went and posted it on WP:VPP if you want to read and comment. It maybe harsh but I disagree so much with this whole setup. Tyros1972 Talk 17:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Very nice! When I have some time later today I might post a proper comment there. Well done for getting stuck in! Stalwart111 23:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks mate, looking forward to hearing your comment :) Tyros1972 Talk 23:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll give a fuller reply to this on the village pump, but just to allay fears, the AfC regulars are well aware of problems, both with technical design and reviewer experience, so you'll probably find criticism of the project goes down better than you might think. There's a recent discussion in WP:WER on the subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Some new editors desperately need the handholding that the AFC process provides; others are ready to hit the ground running. There is a place here for both kinds. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Then new users can use it as an option, the way it is set up now a new user cannot go through the wizard and opt out of review at the end, nor do they have the option to disagree with a rejection and post it to us for review. We should have the power NOT the AFC group, that is why we have AFD and our tags. We don;t delete articles that are not notable, we guide new users, post on talk pages and help them. We the Wiki Editors and Community are here to do this not one group. AFC has taken power away from us and we want it back as this is what Wikipedia has always been about. Tyros1972 Talk 14:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: AFC

Hi mate, yes have been watching though have spent most of my WP time for the last fews days on what looks to be a sock-farm and related AFDs so haven't had a chance to comment. But I think it has moved to a good place there. It's an important concession and one I think will allow more experienced editors to create article with the assistance of AFC without being "boxed in" by the whims of a single editor (many of whom are less experienced than the editors whose articles they are reviewing, as was pointed out at VPP). We've had a fairly awful run of reviewed articles from AFC recently (as a result of a backlog drive from the looks of it) - good articles that were rejected with sub-par reasoning or no real reasoning at all and woeful articles that have been accepted, some of which were actually speedy deleted. I raised a couple of these at WP:WER and got some good responses. I think the result you secured was a good one and combined with good advice (like that from Ritchie and Mike above) and discussion, the whole thing has been a good step forward I think. Nice work. Stalwart111 05:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you were able to keep up with it as I think it turned out very well. Thank you for really starting it, I just enhanced it. I hope I remained professional and stuck to the subject and the objective, as one can get angry at times (we are after all human). What do you mean by a "sock-farm"? I know socking all to well so I only assume you mean multiple ones on various articles? It's not fun :( Tyros1972 Talk 05:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's where one sock-master cultivates (farms) a whole bunch of sock-puppet accounts for use on multiple articles, AFDs, etc in support of a particular campaign. In this case, it's someone creating multiple accounts to hide the fact that they are all one paid editor writing articles for clients from a freelancing website. Stalwart111 09:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining that, didn't realize how far some will go, but I am sure it has to do making quite a bit of money. Good job on that, hope you were able to stop it. Tyros1972 Talk 21:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, it ended up being a bit more complicated than that and in one case, for a very small amount of money. Some people will do very strange things. Stalwart111 08:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I am glad you were on top of it and took care of it. Indeed people will do some weird stuff for money and doesn't have to be a lot. Tyros1972 Talk 22:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Annoying Orange

The info i found this at was from cartoon network's official site you can even find their blog by scrolling down and find cool & new http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/ http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/blog/post.jsp?s=annoying-orange-comic-con-fan-qa


Series creator Dane Boedigheimer (Orange) was joined by Toby Turner (Neville), Justine Ezarik (Passion Fruit), Felicia Day (Peach), Rob Paulsen (Broccoli Alien Overlord) producers Tom Sheppard and Gary Binkow, Conrad Montgomery, and moderator Tom Kenny (Coconut) to answer fan questions during the Annoying Orange panel at San Diego Comic-Con 2013.

How is it transferring from web to TV? Turner – It seemed like it was going to be less easy than it is. Everyone we work with is so passionate about what they do.

Ezarik – We’re so used to doing it all ourselves.

Toby, when you’re acting do you have to talk to nothing? How does that feel? Turner – Usually I just talk to a dot, but I use the imagination thing

Kenny – They can’t run down to Ralphs and get an orange?

Turner – Budget cuts!

Is Marshmellow a boy or a girl? Boedigheimer – Yeah, what is the deal with Marshmallow?

Binkow – We’ll reveal it in season 5.

What’s your least favorite fruit? Binkow – Cumquat

Montgomery – Kiwi

Paulsen – Cherimoya

Ezarik – I just recently tried passion fruit. It’s not good.

Sheppard – I like all fruit except the ones I make cry.

Turner – Did you know cashew comes from a fruit? And it tastes bad so stay away, Americans.

Boedigheimer – I gotta go with pomegranate.

Will Orange and Passion get married? Ezarik – Season 5.

Sheppard – We have a song coming up that addresses that.

Boedigheimer – It may happen.

Does Cartoon Network have any plans for an Annoying Orange movie? Kenny – What do you guys think? Should we make a movie?

(Applause)

Toby, what was your favorite episode to be in? Turner – I like the one where I’m in a giant robot and I’m just shooting missiles and everything. It’s a great way to channel my aggression.

Toby, will you ever actually read the script? Turner – I read it real fast after they start recording.

sorry for not having you understand, and thank you - Aozz101x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.209.231 (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Even though that is official blog, that isn't a reliable source to state in fact that they have renewed the show for all those seasons. The statement he made is not official, we need more then that to verify that someone will get married in season 5. Tyros1972 Talk 01:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, then i will wait until a real source is announced, thank you

- Aozz101x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.209.231 (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes we need something official from Cartoon Network and other reliable sources, then we can add that. Thanks for your help and understanding. Tyros1972 Talk 01:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Groening's inspiration

Tyros1972, the cited article says Groening confessed to being a fan of prank calls but prefers to characterize the relationship between The Simpsons and the Tube Bar calls as "creative synchronicity." This does not amount to proof that the Simpsons gag is based on the Tube Bar calls! But in any case, saying that the calls "were suggested as the inspiration for" the gag doesn't make sense. Suggested by whom? To whom? Wukai (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

How does one define "creative synchronicity"? I define that and other mentions in the article such as Groening admitting to know the calls that it was obviously based on them. I think there is a little doubt for anyone who knows both the calls and the Simpsons episodes as many names are the same. Groening isn't going to outright admit anything with the chances of being sued over it. Tyros1972 Talk 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting to my version. Wukai (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Anne Delong (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed your teahouse invite...
  • The simple answer to your question is... this lot of crazies. Yeah? There is no control and that's kind of the problem, but also kind of the point. Rather than concentrate all of the power over what is included (and what isn't) in the hands of a competent few, the power is disseminated to the many, few of whom are competent. I think the ideal would be to work very hard on making those many a lot more competent, or restricting that power to a few until they are. But I'm not sure that will happen. Stalwart111 09:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah pretty much though I have had a few people agree and one outright endorse. Can't you add something to the discussion? Maybe it will help as you have a lot of good ideas and I agree with you. I also think it probably do much good but worth a try. Tyros1972 Talk 10:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

/* Personal life */ I am currently 63 years old.

Greetings Orange Mike, Great Wilderness is a 501 c3 CA nonprofit that does conservation work in Ecuador and Venezuela. We help people help nature and are working to save rainforests in Ecuador. We conduct parrot communication research in Venezuela.

I can send you irs info on Great Wilderness if you need it.

Best regards,

Vicki Breazeale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicki breazeale (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi I am confused with this message. Are you looking for Orange Mike (an admin)? I am not him and really can't help you with this. Tyros1972 Talk 12:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you! Thanks for your message. I am just trying to be correct and advance knowledge. Best regards, Dr. Bug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicki breazeale (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyros1972/Archive_5&oldid=1138912600"