User talk:Korath

Archives may be found in this page's history:

Sad to see you go

Oh no, sad to hear that you won't be back. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Thankyou for informing me that I should not un-nomanate articles that are nomanated for deletion, as I did not know prior to you informing. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Print

I've reverted your redirect, as Blue Print (the Atari game) isn't about Blueprints (the architects drawings). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The game's from Bally Midway, and if an article were written on it, it would belong at Blue Print (video game). Like Blue print, Blue Print should redirect to its primary topic, with the niche item (which doesn't even have an article) linked from Blueprint (disambiguation). Certainly the redirect's better than the redlink this substub is going to turn into. —Korath (Talk) 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, but perhaps better to wait until it does get deleted......?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White-label product

I'm sorry, but I don't see how the edit by 80.179.211.220 on the article is spam. It's a real subject, and the referenced article talks about white labeling, and expands the subject. And it's most certainly not a minor change.

I'd love to hear your opinion on that, but in the meanwhile, I'm returning the change.

NetHunter (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it in the context of that ip's contributions, and 87.69.68.111's, and likely others - 100% of them are to either promote that site or remove mention of its competitors. (I don't remember for sure whether it's the same site behind Financial games (AfD discussion), Trading games (AfD discussion), Financial tournament (AfD discussion), Trading competition (AfD discussion), Financial gaming (AfD discussion), but I rather suspect it is.) You may also want to speak to User:Hu12, who initially removed it. —Korath (Talk) 04:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dot Hack page bug

Everytime I try to edit dot hack... it reverts... DotHackFan - User - Creator 03:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DotHackFan (talk • contribs)

File:Numanumanewspaper.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Numanumanewspaper.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting My Library from the list of JS libraries

Do you have any idea what you are doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.8.72 (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though you clearly do not. The way to challenge a deletion discussion is at deletion review, providing independent, reliable sources to verify its content, not by spamming external links into every vaguely-related article you can find. —Korath (Talk) 09:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That two-year-old deletion discussion is irrelevant today (and really was then). Why are you adding SWFObject and removing a library that has a much better Flash module? Because _you_ have never heard of it? Do you know anything about browser scripting at all? If not, you need to stop making snap judgments about which scripts are notable. If jQuery is notable, then My Library must be as jQuery is downstream from My Library in terms of ideas. Get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.8.72 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes, other stuff does exist. jQuery is a priori notable because it's actually been noted by reliable sources people independent of it. But that is irrelevant to the subject at hand—unlike the deletion discussion, in which sourcing was attempted and failed. You claim My Library is notable? WP:PROVEIT. Otherwise, you're on a short road to a block. —Korath (Talk) 15:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, let me come at it from another angle. List articles like List of JavaScript libraries only have entries that either have articles on Wikipedia, or a reasonable expectation that there will be an article in the future (which is why there are some redlinks there). My Library doesn't have an article, and there's no current expectation that it will - any such article would be immediately speedy-deleted because of the prior deletion discussion; and essentially the only way to get that deletion discussion overturned is to provide significant coverage in reliable source that are independent of the subject. The author of the previous article didn't provide any; the editors at the deletion discussion weren't able to find any; and I haven't been able to find any either. (Not least because the library's name makes it impossible to google.) All you have to do is to provide such sources, and I'll push it through the bureaucracy to get the article restored for you. —Korath (Talk) 17:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. It has been widely discussed on Usenet (and other Internet forums). Usenet is where programming is typically discussed.

Google "My Library" + Javascript. Or "Browser scripting library" and note it is #1 (and has been for years). I am NOT a spammer. I know the library is as relevant (or more) than what is currently listed here.

And what is a reputable source? Ajaxian?! Those bums didn't post an article because I said their site sucks (and it does). So that's where we are at. Make no mistake that My Library is notable (and very well-known at this point). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.8.72 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did try "My Library" +JavaScript; the first hit is indeed for My Library, as are a few of the others, but the overwhelming majority are still unrelated. The second hit typifies these: "I have been working on a new JavaScript Library. ... My library is heavily influenced by..." I wasn't able to find anything that was both clearly about My Library and what's considered a reliable source on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources describes what's accepted as reliable sources at Wikipedia, and the relevant section of the page is Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper), which covers Internet forums specifically and is usually cited when talking about Usenet.

Getting this article through Wikipedia:Deletion Review citing primarily Usenet would be extremely difficult; I would need to be able to point at specific Usenet posts written by independently-published authors, as per the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper). This isn't something I can reasonably do; not only do I no longer have direct access to Usenet (and I've always found Google Groups' interface so clumsy as to be unusable), but, with no more than a name and possibly an email address, I can't distinguish between a published author (whose posts could be cited) and a competent but unknown programmer (whose posts could not), since JavaScript is not my field.

The situation is worsened since the guideline that governs article inclusion is not specifically Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but Wikipedia:Notability, which essentially states that not only do the cited sources have to be reliable (per the Reliable sources guideline), but they have to by independent of the subject. This would exclude even published authors' postings if those authors had contributed to My Library. On the other hand, if something they've written about My Library has been independently published (in dead tree form, on a website with independent fact-checking, etc.), the involvement of the publishers is sufficient to make the source independent. —Korath (Talk) 07:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

Hi, Korath. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

You responded to an undeletion request with the statement "It was deleted by Stifle as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi Kappa Pi (fraternity), where C.Fred, whom you so blithely attack, argued for its retention."

Could you please provide diffs for the attacks you have identified. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twtter Applications Mod

Any insight about why you deleted the Prognosticator entry to the Twitter Applications page? Jarnarcos (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I wrote in the edit summary, Prognosticator should have an article before it's included in List of Twitter services and applications‎. This list has been particularly prone to spam links, so we've strictly applied the article-exists-first requirement specified in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #20, and Wikipedia:Write the Article First. The alternative was deleting the list entirely, as was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter services and applications.

Short version: write an article at Prognosticator, referenced to third-party, reliable sources, first, and then include it on the list of applications. —Korath (Talk) 22:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent systematic removal of Bitcoin

Hi there, I am interested to hear why you appear to have taken it upon yourself to systematically remove all reference to Bitcoin from the pages it is referenced by. prat (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages are Electronic money, Peer-to-peer, Alternative currency, Crypto-anarchism and ISO 4217. The only one that could be questioned is the latter, and the justification for adding it is that currency code redirects there are present. prat (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Crude-EU25-colored.png

Thank you for uploading File:Crude-EU25-colored.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retired

Are you sure you won't be coming back? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]