User talk:Ezeu/Archive6

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Archive: 26 July 2006 - 19 September 2006

American Cliche on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of American Cliche. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathphoenix (talk • contribs) 26 July 2006

Category:Dictators

Someone has revived Category:Dictators. I noticed you were the one who carried out the actual deleting in the first place, so I figured you should know. I'm not sure what the policy is on recreating things already deleted by consensus. Anyway, I don't really want to get involved in that debate again (the guy who originally created the category [when it was first deleted] was rather uncivil, and my ego just can't take another political debate). But, I thought you should know. --Yossarian 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted it and left a message to the creator. It is a subject that evokes emotion from both those who want it deleted and those who want to keep it. I once argued strongly to have a similar category (Totalitarian dictators) kept, but consensus is clearly that categories like that are too subjective. --Ezeu 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A link to the CFD in the editsummary would have saved me a revert - something to keep in mind when doing a similar exercise in the future. Agathoclea 22:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to use consise and spot on edit summaries. --Ezeu 12:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What would be inconcise in Removed category per [[link|CFD]] instead of appearing like a POV vandal? Agathoclea 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"rm POV category" in no way equates, or appears to be, POV vandalism. It was my intention to point out that the category is POV, which I did. --Ezeu 14:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Black

Yes, it's obvious that the various "users" who insist that black=African are one individual, despite the lies to the contrary. The very fact than one of them spoke for all gives that away, along with the fact that they simply continue one another's assertions in identical literary style with not a single disagreement. Paul B 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --Ezeu 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard West

If you're gonna replace a redirect with a dab page, don't you think it would be a good idea to include the former redirect target in the dab list?! [1] :) No reply needed as I'll fix it now, cheers. --kingboyk 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not require exalted percipience to figure out that it was an oversight, and thus nothing to complain about, especially if one does not presuppose a reply. --Ezeu 12:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Blasian copyright

Okay, since I put the tag up there, I should be defending my position. Note that I think the content is fine and should be included in a rewritten form.

There's not much to it, really. It's a straight cut-and-paste from first four and sixth paragraphs of the article, right down to the out-of-context Bharati quote (which Bharati?) and the "inbalance" misspelling. It strips some words from the article (including all of the references and all of the quotes), but that's not enough to avoid copyright violation. Copyright itself is implicit and ColorQ has not explicitly given up the copyright in any statement on their website. In addition, the article doesn't even acknowledge that it copied the words from that site! It should, at the very very least, have a reference.

ColorQ itself has the policy: "By submitting an article or comments to ColorQ, you grant ColorQ.org a non-exclusive, royalty-free right to reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate and display this material on www.colorq.org or any other site that ColorQ may own." That means that all the rights for ColorQ's articles are ColorQ's, and any cut-and-pastes of articles to this site are copyright violations.

If you have no objections, I'll restore the notice up in a day or two (the wp:copyvio page is severely backlogged right now.) --ColourBurst 23:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections.--Ezeu 06:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Klippdassar

Please would you translate for me a word found in Wiktionary under nibling, namely Klippdassar. Characters in the Moomin series of books by Tove Jansson - small aquatic creatures, which chew off people's noses if they are too long for their taste. They enjoy doing the multiplication contests devised by the rather bossy Hemulen's Aunt. - Kittybrewster 14:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I had to look it up. Klippdass (plural: klippdassar), from Swedish klippa (rock) and German dachs (badger) synonymous (in Swedish) to klippgrävling (literally: rock badger), means Hyrax or maybe specifically Rock Hyrax. It seems the term klippdassar is no longer in wide usage as a reference to Hyrax. It is mentioned in an early edition of Nordisk familjebok, a Swedish encyclopedia. The klippdassar (or niblings) in the Moomin books that "chew off people's noses" is obviously something else. --Ezeu 18:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - Kittybrewster 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:68.110.70.158

it is against wikipedia policy to delete discussion data.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.70.158 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• It is not against wikipedia policy to remove uncivil and abusive hate comments. Such comments will be removed on sight, and the perpetrator of such abusive messages could be blocked by an admin, as I will do if you do not refrain from abusive behavior. --Ezeu 01:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment about Aviator Sports and Recreation article

The article, Aviator Sports and Recreation, was nominated for deletion in June and after a month of discussion there was no consensus and the deletion discussion was taken down in lieu of a clean-up message and talk page. The clean-up message and talk page have now been up since the 6th of July with only one comment made, in which the issue at hand was swiftly attended to within the article and correspondingly on the talk page. What needs to be done now to take the clean-up notice off of the article, as it has been a month since any remark for editing has been made? I would really like to see this article up without any notices, and will do what ever clean-up is necessary to do so.--rdt 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the clean-up tag – the article seems good enough. You could have removed it yourself, you are the one with knowledge of the subject. Anyway it is not up to me, someone may well tag it again. --Ezeu 15:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. I wasn't sure if it was proper etiquette to remove the tag myself since I was the original author of the article.--rdt 16:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Please present your point of view at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08_Black_people. Please provide all supporting documentation. Thank you --Jon Cates 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do so. --Ezeu 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Out Now Consulting

Hi, It seems to me that this article is a spam magnet. As you noted, it changed during or just after your decision. It was deleted on AfD last year. What about reverting to the version which you closed? Dlyons493 Talk 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I may deslike the article, but it being a "spam magnet" etc. is not a good enough reason for me to delete it. I must disregard from my own point of view. The arguments to keep are valid, and so are the arguments to delete. Having taken all into account, "no consensus" is the only viable option as far as I can see. --Ezeu 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article being kept, but I think there's a lot to be said for it going back to a short neutral version. Anyway, there's far worse articles floating around (unfortunately). Dlyons493 Talk 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playray (2)

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions. I agree with your reasoning but the AfD should be closed by an admin so that it's deleted properly. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be closed by an admin. I closed it properly, I am an admin. --Ezeu 00:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are and it's quite clearly stated on your user page, which I read (way too quickly) first. It was the speedy tag on the article that threw me. Sorry about that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Ezeu 01:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Teens_Transforming_the_Community

Hi there, you closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teens_Transforming_the_Community with a verdict of delete, shouldn't the article be deleted then? ;) Lomedae ^talk 12:32, August 12, 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Deleted now. --Ezeu 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

DataSynapse

Please tell me how the results (of the discussion to keep or delete the DataSynapse page) was delete? The copy was edited to remove anything that could be deemed an advert...did you notice that? --SHigdon 12:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The main argument was that DataSynapse fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). --Ezeu 18:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There were just as many arguments that it meets notability requirements. So, I don't understand how you can make that call. Did you read the entire thread? I think you made a mistake and it should be put back up. --Shigdon 15:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. The article was deleted after this AfD after which if was re-created, and should have been speedily deleted, but was given a second chance. I dont think I made a mistake deleting it again on the basis of the second AfD. You can take the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you disagree. --Ezeu 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob Marley/Archive1

Isn't Bob Marley/Archive1 redundant with Talk:Bob Marley/Archive 1? I wanted to tag it with speedy (G6) but then I realized you're an admin, so you could delete this if you agree. --Zoz (t) 17:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Uganda topics

Nice work. It looks much better. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

Uganda districts map

Thank you for the comments! I kept feeling that the article was missing the map, but I couldn't submit anything until I compiled enough correct information from the UN, Statoids, and the names already given on Wiki. Rarelibra 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

One quick note - I noticed that you removed the other map - it wasn't a duplicate, rather, the colored sections showed the four administrative regions that are referred to in the article. Also, I noticed that you made the map smaller, which makes it somewhat difficult to reference the numbers. My suggestion is we either get rid of the table/population info and put just a reference to the districts (by map number) - with the population info moved to each district page, or we eliminate the grouping into regions if we don't have something that the user can reference. I could always redo the numbered map with colored regions, if you'd like, rather than each district colored. Either way, I suggest to have the map a little larger for legibility. Rarelibra 14:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the map should be a compliment to the text and not the other way round. As it is now, the image is extremely large, especially for those with less than 1280 x 800 screen resolution. --Ezeu 06:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Project Syndicate

I rewrote the Project Syndicate article so that it is no longer a copyvio and added some links and categories. Could you please take another look at it and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Syndicate. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Akiek/ Okiek

Thanks for checking, but please undo your changes on Akiek vs. Okiek. These are intended as stubs to be expanded later. There is actually some distinction between the Akiek and Okiek peoples (although the difference is cloudy). See Ogiek language for more about why these should ultimately be separate entries, even though they have essentially identical stubs. Malangali 02:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You can undo my changes yourself when you write two different articles and not two duplicate articles with different titles. --Ezeu 02:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

black people

If you want to keep the entire .5 Mb discussion on the main talk page instead of on a linked page, then I will concede that. I restored the to do list, however, because no mortal editor can be expected to read the entire thing, which prints out to 128 pages on my printer. We need a summary. I invite you to contribute to it; I can't recall ever editing the black people article, so I have no idea what the dispute is about. --M@rēino 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a summary of the ongoing dispute, which is rather fragmented, would be good – prior to archiving the page. Since I have been involved in the discussion, I will try to write the summary. --Ezeu 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

African language Wikipedias discussion group

Ezeu, you may be interested in joining a new discussion group that focuses on issues relating to African language Wikipedia projects: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afrophonewikis Malangali 19:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Music of Africa

Thanks. Hope for a good cooperation. Unfortunately, summer hollidays are over, so my presence here is becomming a bit sporadic at the moment. Hope to have more time on the weekends. I am just working on some Article on Baganda Music. It is unfinished and will need some copyediting each time I have added something, especially since I am not a native speaker of English. Maybe you can watch it. Nannus 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Black billionaries

I did make a comment [2]. Spmething weird happened, but it's in "My Contributions". Guettarda 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

what's worng with calling it Black Billionaires & millionaires???

Kobrakid 19:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How many black millionaires do you reckon there are? Do you want to list them all in that article? --Ezeu 20:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to list them all, just the richest ones, and the ones with historical significance: CJ walker. We can also discuss general statistics about Black millionaires if we can find them. Or we could call it Black billionaires & centimillionaires (centimillionaire is someone worth at least $100 million, a term frequently used by Forbes)Kobrakid 20:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But in the mean time, lets keep the quarrel to one article instead of creating multiple duplicates. --Ezeu 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who wanted to broaden the title to the more inclusive "Wealthy Blacks" but this was rejected because it's not encyclopedic enough. Thus in attempt to help you with broadening the title of the article, yet pleasing those who want encyclopedic titles, I changed it to Black Billionaires & millionaires. I even rewrote the intro to include mention of Black millionaires and also created new heading like the Richest Black millionaires. Please think about it.Kobrakid 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to cleans things up. --Ezeu 20:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Decider

Hello, your closure of the above AfD is up for review at WP:DRV. Also, you forgot to sign your closing statement. Best, trialsanderrors 06:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Ezeu 12:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD comment

Hi Ezeu,

Thanks for the comment on the AfD. If the articles improve as a result, that makes me happy, too.

Best wishes,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"the decider"

Hello. I am not sure if you have been following the "decider" debate at talk:Bushism. It seems there was support there for recreating the page The Decider instead of the current redirect (i.e. undoing the merge decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Decider) since it appears that consensus now says it's not a Bushism. Not being sure of the correct procedure, I put it up on deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_26. There hasn't been much interest there, but someone says this is not a proper deletion review item and that if people agree on talk:bushism then we can just revert via the The Decider edit history. Is this true and/or proper? Thanks in advance. nadav 08:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If decider is refuted at Bushisms, and yet the term decider in reference to Bush has "exploded in popularity", and is therefore notable, then I beleive Decider should have an article. --Ezeu 08:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's true then that DRV is unnecessary and not the right venue for discussion? nadav 08:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not entirely true. I have left a comment at the DRV. --Ezeu 09:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Question on tagging suspected sockpuppets

Whatdoyou removed the tag that you added to his userpage (suggesting he was a sockpuppet of Editingoprah) more than a week ago; just out of curiousity - is it proper to not replace them? I would assume that the tag should be replaced, but since you're a sysop, I've decided to ask you. Picaroon9288|ta co 21:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is suspicion of sockpuppetry. Editingoprah has been the subject of sockpuppetry accusations a few times already. Although I strongly suspect sockpuppetry (at least meatpuppetry), I did not put back the sockpuppet tag because I do not have strong evidence. A checkuser was requested, and it showed that Whatdoyou, Editingoprah and Kobrakid are editing from the same geographical area, but from different ISPs. It could be meatpuppetry, but in any case, these accounts are not being used blatantly to violate policy. I have blocked one account (Shazzzamm) which I deemed as obviously a sockpuppet of one of the above named accounts, or a meatpuppet recruited to disrupt an ongoing dispute mediation (Shazzzamm was also abusive). Other temporary accounts, eg. User:Outsideopinion, I have left alone as they were obviously created merely to make a point and used only once. I am watching both Editingoprah and Whatdoyou closely, and neither of them have committed blockable policy violations except for being suspicious socks, and since evidence of sockpuppetry is weak, I suggest we leave their pages untagged until someone can provide strong evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Sometimes people game the system and get away with it, other times innocent people are wrongly blocked. This is a difficult case.--Ezeu 08:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to advert???

Hello Ezeu, You removed the link to "Zaiko Langa Langa" film from the articles "Zaiko Langa Langa", "Papa Wemba" and "Rumba" with reason of "Spam" and "Link advert". Could you please explain what you mean by this? These link are refering to documentary films. Since when documentaries are spam? Or advertising matters? We find on wikipedia article externals link that are much more commercially oriented than the documentary film sector, especially African one, don't you think? But maybe you have better reasons, what are precisely your concerns? I will revert your changes, but will be very please to remove it myself if you give us convincing agumentation about your censorship or if we can bring this discussion on a larger audience to decide. Waiting for your answer. Thanks. Papa Rumba.

A links to a commercial website with the sole purpose of selling a video, is spam. --Ezeu 09:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer Ezeu. The "sole purpose" of the link I added is not to sell a "video", but to give an access to a 52' documentary film that has been broadcasted by major TV channels and is, as you probably notice, very much related to the article. In your logic we should remove all the references of any books that are not given for free. The site is giving access to 3 minutes of free video, it doesn't force any buying, just signal the existence of a film and give the opportunity to access it easily. Did you have a look at the "philosophy" of the site? It is far from a commercial enterprise. By the way, the "sole purpose" of making documentary film (not video) is not essentially to make money. If you believe so you have been terribly misinformed. I very much encourage you to try doing one yourself one day. You might be surprised by how much relevant information one can put in it, that sometime even an excellent article couldn’t give. So your definition of spam, which is pretty different than the Wikipedia's one, doesn't seems very accurate to me. The link might be "unsolicited" by you, but the existence of the film, as well as its content might, we believe, be interesting to other who are interested by the article. If you disagree with that, I believe we should enlarge the discussion to a wider audience to decide. Regards. Papa Rumba

Irrelevant of how high quality and interesting your DVD is, the website is selling a product, and you are trying to use Wikipedia as a venue for advertising it. If it looks like spam, and smells like spam .... --Ezeu 18:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ezeu, Documen.tv IS NOT SELLING DVD's!!! Check the facts before taking mesures such deleting references. Please have a look at the site. It just gives an indication where to find the DVD on a different site that is a very known book editor, probably already cited in numerous Wikipedia articles, if you have another source of DVD they will be very happy to add it as link on their page. Documentary films are as relevant as books, we believe, specially when it comes to a group of music. Documentary films are also much more difficult to find than books. "Spaming" is sending MASS of unsolicited link with no consideration of how relevent is the recipient nor the content. The "look" and the "smell" doesn't stand for a definition, working for Wikipedia you should know. But "Spaming" is a very convenient excuse also to discredit others without much other argument. Do you really believe that the site Documen.tv is making a so enormous commercial benefit from adding a link on Wikipedia that You should stop it? And even if it was the case (Don't worry it is NOT the case) do you think that documentary films is such an evil commercial entreprise that it should be stopped? Wake-up, we love Wikipedia, but we don't considere it as the ultimate advertising spot!!! This conversation is getting ridiculous. Do you want me to ask documen.tv to remove the link to buy the DVD? Would that solve your (I guess moral) reticences? Papa Rumba

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

Kipsigis

Hujambo, Ezeu. You reverted a few problematic edits at Kipsigis, but this recent edit still stands. I think it is a good faith one, but it introduces a lot of unsourced information, aside from hugely inflating the population number. I always find it difficult to decide what to do with this sort of edits, although I would tend to a friendly revert in this case. What do you think? — mark ✎ 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sijambo Bwana. It is just that the population figure 1,800,000,000 seemed a bit over the top. That anon editor also changed "genitals" to "wieners", so I did not take the edit seriously. But yes, it is difficult when unsourced but plausible information is added to an article. I usually check the editors history to see if they are making serious edits elsewhere, and if not, I revert their additions with the edit summary "reverted unsourced edit", which sometimes feels like a silly thing to do if the rest of the article is also unreferenced. Not an easy issue to deal with in any case, expecially if one cannot find a source to verify the claim. --Ezeu 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I see you were referring to an earlier edit. Sorry. Well, I'd prefer to revert that edit, but I will will first try to see if the facts are correct. --Ezeu 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How to Pronounce Waragi

I added a comment to the discussion page. I think it's with a hard "g" sound, not a sound "j" sound. Is that right? Interlingua ^{talk email} 23:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Most often it is pronounced wărăge, but I have aslo heard the pronunciation wărădje. --Ezeu 09:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  It might depend on the region too. Here in Rwanda people most usually say it with a soft g. SteveRwanda 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)