User talk:Fma12/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fma12. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Here are some other hints and tips:

• I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
• When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.--Mariano(t/c) 20:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of peace and for the overall good of the Project, I'd like to suggest it might be fruitful to open a discussion with User:Maddox at Talk:Action Comics. Getting a variety of editors' opinions can only be helpful. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that'll be good; other editors can weigh in and maybe find some middle ground.

If you get a chance, come back and sign your post on my talk page. Looks better than those "unsigned" tags! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the cover to the DC Special Series article. It is greatly appreciated. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition ! I really enjoy contributing to comic articles Fma12 (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I see you've made changes to the logo size on several football articles, including this one. Is there a reason why? Cheers.  Omg †  osh  22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please explain. I've undone three on pages that I watch, but it seems like an unexplained and unnecessary change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I was expecting a reply here with a talkback temmplate on my talk page, but whatever. So you took it upon yourself to make a change to multiple football articles without first discussing it with either the copyright cabal, who have not seen fit to complain about this issue, nor with the football project. Is that a correct assessment? May I suggest, that you put the images back to their previous state on any articles where this has not already been done and seek consensus first? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it was vandalism, although I accidentally hit the Twinkle vandalism link on the Real Madrid C.F.‎ article, but when I noticed my mistake I undid it, but re-applied the change. I don't think you need to discuss your change on every talk page. You should talk about it with either the copyright cabal (I have no idea how to reach them collectively), since that's part of your proposition, or with the football project. I have started a discussion there: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Was anyone involved with a decision to make football club images smaller?. There's no need to defend your actions--you were just being bold--but do defend your position: explain why you think the logos are too large and why they should be reduced. I don't know that 110 pixels is the right size, but we can come to a consensus on any changes if needed.

As for the talkback template, try typing template:talkback into the Wikipedia search tool and you should be able to find it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I have visited the wikiproject page and left my point of view there (other wikipedians gave their opinions too so I hope that issue could be clearer for all of as, or at least a consensus be reached). Thanks for the template talk page info. As you see on your talkpage, it worked. Fma12 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month! 66.87.0.179 (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.12 (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fma12,

I recently created a new Wikipedia article. Please take a look. Feedback is appreciated! Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mtminchi08,

I recently viewed your article, it's been a great idea to write about DC inserts, so I think many people don't really have an idea of how important were those stories for the new upcoming series of those times. I'd also be glad to leave my contribution on your article. What about uploading a New Teen Titans insert preview image? From my opinion that story is the most representative of all (probably due to the huge success of that team group in the 80s).

About the content, I think that it is highly detailed and plenty of useful data for comic enthusiasts (I specially appreciate your effort to make the the each-issue information chart). I will go on with the image to DC inserts and then I want to start an article about recent event "DC Retroactive", detailing each issue and creative teams as well. I'm surprised that anyone else has written something about Retroactive stories. When I finish the article I'll let you know so your help and advises would be highly appreciated. Regards ! Fma12 (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello again,

Thank you once again. The New Teen Titans image is the most appropriate one to use for this article as it was both the first of the insert previews and it was the longest lasting of the series launched through the program.

I would be happy to assist on a DC Retroactive article! Just let me know when it's ready. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fma12,

I created a new article for Fifty Who Made DC Great recently. PLease take a look at it: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fifty Who Made DC Great. Again, your feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the cover to this article and for adding the sorting feature to the table. Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Birds of Prey artpromo.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To be frank, if the webpage you are taking the image from doesn't provide complete sourcing for the image, don't take the image for use here.

Most wikia do not require anything close to what is needed here, much less enforce the requirements they do have.

- J Greb (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Fma12,

I thought that you might want to take a look at two new articles which I recently created: Janice Race and Greg Potter.
Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I recently checked the independiente article, and I really want to thank you for your contributions. The article's current format was written by me back in 2006, and it barely had changes with the exception of grammar correction and recent history.

I hope you keep up with your good work! Y aguante el ROJO! Ricardoread (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of information missing on Argentine sport articles. I been meaning to do some work on them for the longest time, but I am not too good with research and finding sources.

If you don't mind, the Bochini article really needs some work. I did add some information and pictures in the past when it was a stub, but it has been untouched ever since. Cheers! Ricardoread (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently working on Bochini article. I will take some text from the Spanish wikipedia (which has a complete information and statistics), appart from searching more info in reliable sources on the web or "El Gráfico" magazine. I hope to do a good job. Of course i will be glad if you want to help me.... ;) Regards ! Fma12 (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the references. By the way, the existing nfl reference link no longer works, so if you're feeling energetic, there's lots more work you could do! Thanks again and keep up the good work! YBG (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Turner draw.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have added some information to the image and I hope this works; My original purpose when uploading the photo was to show an artist at his work space, which I consider according to the subject of the article. Moreover, the reason why I uploaded this photo was that I did not find any similar free image of that style to illustrate the biography. But if you consider this is not enough to qualify for a policy of rationale use, tell me if I need to add further information. Otherwise, it is an administrator who will finally decide the destiny of the image, I guess. Thanks Fma12 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the fact that the subject is no longer living. Hope that helps. YBG (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I' m sure that the fact M.Turner is no longer living will help. Thanks for your collaboration.Fma12 (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not see the date of death in the article. I believe the rationale for this image usage is stronger now. My only remaining concern is that I do not believe there is a strong enough rationale to keep both File:Turner draw.jpg and File:Mturner mfox.jpg. Per nonfree use criteria 3 and 8, only one image is used if it can convey the same amount of information as multiple images. File:Turner draw.jpg has a stronger rationale compared to File:Mturner mfox.jpg. Perhaps the former could be kept and the latter removed. Thoughts? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think that File:Turner draw.jpg has a stronger rationale compared to File:Mturner mfox.jpg so the first could be used as infobox image instead of the existing photo. I agree with your position. Fma12 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, and I have removed the deletion tag from File:Turner draw.jpg. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The article Banco Rugby Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sources are all self published. No coverage in third-party sources. Subject fails notability guidelines.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you have proposed the Banco Rugby Club article for deletion, what I consider a wrong nomination for those reasons: 1) "Sources are all self published": In the case of Banco, such as other minor rugby teams in Argentina, it is really difficult to find information beyond clubs' webpages because rugby union is not a popular sport in Argentina, and the media does not usually cover them. 2) If this page should be deleted, all the pages about minor rugby teams in Argentina should be so. Take a look at Torneo del Interior, Torneo del Litoral (or even Torneo de la URBA leagues: most of the articles of those teams are stubs.

With my respect, I think you should search more information on the web about this club (and see by yourself the lack of information about this team) before proposing for deleting the article. In fact, I did it with no good results apart from the official website. Nevertheless, I added some more references (mainly from Argentine rugby sites). Fma12 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You've actually illustrated the problem here in your own argument. Wikipedia has a guideline called the "Notability Guideline" (read it here: WP:N) that specifies the minimum criteria a subject should meet in order to have an article on Wikipedia. The general guideline is that we judge notability based on non-trivial, third-party coverage. So in the case of this rugby club, they should be the subject of articles in newspapers, magazines, or third-party websites. The website of the club itself is not third-party. The fact that this club hasn't been covered in any kind of media indicates that it fails the "notability test"—the club is not notable, and therefore the article on them is not supported by our guidelines.

Your second argument is that since other clubs have Wikipedia pages, this club should too. This is a logical fallacy, and in fact, there's an essay that explains why this argument is invalid. Please read WP:OSE and especially the second example in the "Creation of articles" section. In fact, I'll check the other team's page—if it's as unsourced as this page is, I'll nominate it for deletion too. Sorry, but these are the policies by which Wikipedia operates... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

On another article... would [1] be a good source for Marista Rugby Club? I don't speak any Spanish and Google isn't doing a good job translating it either. But I think the club is mentioned in the article? What is the article saying? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said you before, you could contribute with the Banco article instead of nominating for deletion. From my point of view, there are other articles about rugby teams of Argentina that are brief... why are you focusing on Banco? You seem to be a little obsessed with that article in particular.

About Marista RC, if you think that [2] may help to Marista Rugby Club article, edit it and include the information yourself, so I won't do this for you. The main subject we are discussing about is Banco, not Marista. If you nominate it for deletion, please put the tag on all the other Argentine rugby teams articles that are marked as "stubs" so all of them could be deleted according to your personal position (which in fact, I don't agree with). Fma12 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't contribute to the Banco article, because I can't find any reliable sources that discuss the club. There is nothing for me to add to the article. Since the existence of the article is not supported by Wikipedia's policies, I have nominated it for deletion. The thing that I'm not sure you're understanding is that you can't just use any web page you find as a source for a Wikipedia article. For example, self-published sources are very rarely used in articles. The club's own web page is 100% a self published source. So it's not considered a reliable source for the article.

I'm not on a crusade against Banco... I'm looking at many of these articles, and to be honest, I don't think most of them would make it through an Articles for Deletion debate. I asked you for help with the Marista article because you seem to be interested in these kinds of articles, and I can't read the webpage I found, since I don't speak Spanish. I thought you'd be willing to take a look and let me know if the web page I found was enough to show that Marista was notable. But if you're not interested in helping, I'll probably nominate the Marista article for deletion too.

If you want to participate in the deletion discussions, I would encourage you to do so. But be aware, my arguments for deleting these articles are not my opinion, instead my arguments are based on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia which I have linked to in most of my replies to you. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I'm participating in the deletion discussion, at less on Banco article. You can nominate as much articles as you want, in fact you could start nominating all teams included in Torneo del Litoral, for instance. Moreover, there are many Argentine football articles that are stubs; take a look at Primera B Metropolitana teams, and other low divisions of Argentine football. And tag all of them if you wish. Nevertheless, I would prefer you choose other way to collaborate instead tagging articles. Per example, have you tried searching Banco RC articles on the web?... then giving me the link you find so I could translate it into English. This would be more helpful than nominating, I think. Fma12 (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To be totally clear, I'm not nominating articles because they are stubs, I'm nominating articles because they are not supported by reliable sources. Any - reliable - sources - anywhere. I have searched the web for any reliable source that could be used to show the notability of Banco RC, but I can't find any. I don't know what you want me to improve the article with, when you admit yourself that there aren't any reports of this club in the media. The fact that the media doesn't cover this club is proof that it is not notable. And if it is not notable, then Wikipedia guidelines say there shouldn't be an article on it. The role I choose to play is the person who makes sure the articles created follow the guidelines. The Banco RC article doesn't.  :( Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There are things that you have not understood yet. The articles DOES have reliable sources: 1) club's official website: I consider an official site a reliable source (written in a neutral tone, of course); 2) if this is not enough for you, webpage www.rugybtime.com refers to the club and the league (Torneo del Oeste) which Banco takes part of; please take a look at the website (although the language is Spanish, you can identify the club and the league); 3) Unión de Rugby de Cuyo is another RELIABLE source (this is the association which Banco is affiliated to). See the link: [3]. To finish: I did not say the media does not cover Banco RC (in fact, rugbytime.com covers all Argentine rugby including Torneo del Oeste); I say that the media does not cover Argentine rugby in general because football is by far the most popular sport in my country. So be free to tag all the articles that I suggested you before, if it makes you feel better. I prefer to contribute to WP creating articles or improving others (as I did with Marista and other clubs). Different ways to understand what WP is, in my opinion.

Moreover, I will take your nominations seriously when you tag all rugby and football articles that don't have "reliable" sources according to your point of view. Fma12 (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We really seem to be going around in circles here. I do understand that

1. you believe that the club's official website is a reliable source. I disagree with that assessment. I believe that the club's own website is a self published source. A self published source is simply a source published by a source about the source. It is not a third-party site. A third party site is one which someone who is totally unrelated with the subject, publishes an article about the subject. If they had ever been in the local newspaper, that would be a third-party source. If there was a website that carried rugby news, then they would be a third-party source. But the team is not a reliable source on itself. I've shown you the policy on this, WP:SPS, and you don't challenge my argument. You just say I don't understand what you are saying.
2. You say that rugbytime.com is a reliable source. I haven't even checked to see if they are or not, because the only page used as a reference is to a listing of their results amongst 10 other teams. This is what we refer to in Wikipedia as trivial coverage. Trivial coverage is also described in a Wikipedia guideline, WP:TRIVCOV. If rugbytime.com did a feature-length article on this team, then that would not be trivial. But the page listed in the Wikipedia article is trivial.
3. You say that Unión de Rugby de Cuyo is a reliable source. I am unable to judge that because there is no reference to Unión de Rugby de Cuyo in the article on Banco RC. The Union is listed as an external link. When I follow that link I see more trivial coverage. We've proven that the team exists, but not that it is notable.
4. You continue to say "articles on other clubs exist, delete them too". I have said before that this is the exact argument outlined in WP:OSE. It is a logical fallacy, and it is not an argument that has any weight here.
5. Finally, this argument is mainly consisting of both of us saying the same thing over and over. Another guideline is outlined at WP:ICANTHEARYOU... I think we both need to take the advice there. Unless you specifically adress the points I have made and rebut them with new information, I don't think continuing this debate has much purpose... neither one of us is going to change the other's mind. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it does not seem that we can reach a consensus, but at least it is proven that both teams (Marista and Banco) exist, and the Union de Rugby de Cuyo is the association that regulates teams and competitions, although you sound a little skeptical yet and don't want to recognise the sources cited, limiting to describe them as "trivial". I don't absolutely agree with that, obviously. Good decision not to follow this discussion. Fma12 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Banco Rugby Club is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco Rugby Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, there are people that don't have better things to do that nominating articles for deletion instead of contributing to improve them... I have post my reply on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco Rugby Club, and I also left my points of view above. Please be free to edit Banco Rugby Club in order to make a better article... I'll be glad if you go ahead with that, that's what WP was conceived for, I guess... Fma12 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)