User talk:Minutae

Welcome!

Hello, Minutae, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Qjuad 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of M. Maurice Hawkesworth

A tag has been placed on M. Maurice Hawkesworth requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me how you come to the astonishing conclusion that a producer and songwriter who worked with severel of Denmark's biggest bands and made two albums that were chosen as among the year's ten best albums by the country's biggest radio station is not notable! --Minutae (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Said the Shark

A tag has been placed on Said the Shark requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sytten

Hi, Minutae. Thanks for your edits on the Sytten article. It's usually better to add remarks to an article's talk page rather than leave them hidden in the text. Most editors won't find those hidden comments, whereas the talk page promotes discussion. Actually, next time, feel free to be bold and add corrections and references. Cheers — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken and duly noted, thanks! --Minutae (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbate-a-thon deletions

Hi, until you can provide reliable sources to support to content you wish to insert we need to stay with the reliably sourced content we have. I'm quite happy to discuss how sections could be reworked but simply mass reverting numerous changes to a less acceptable varsion is considered vandalism. If you continue you may be blocked. Please discuss any reliable sources you have on the talkpage before reinserting. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 01:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you are the one who is basing massive edits on wild, completely unsupported speculations and hence you are the one who will be blocked! --Minutae (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm citing the actual group website which coordinates the event and keeps records and posts the world records. That is among the best sourcing available. You are welcome to try to have me blocked but it would likely be wiser to simply work on finding reliable sources to support the content you wish to add. -- Banjeboi 17:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've cited a website which perhaps claims to keep and post records, but doesn't seem up to the task. In the present case, a more reliable source is available if you understand Danish. It's hardly unique for Americans not to know what's going on in Europe. I've replied in more detail at the article in question. --Minutae (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That website is the group that started and coordinates all the events; they page currently lists an upcoming event for the end of July. It would seem to be a regularly updated site. And now that I've searched just for Copenhagen information I see that the record is not 222 times but 94; and "come to come" is about how far a participant travelled to get to the event. I'm removing those as unneeded trivia. -- Banjeboi 11:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are doing incredibly bad research: The 94 number is from 2008, the 2009 number is 222, look again! The "come to come" issue has nothing to do with me. --Minutae (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can direct me where on the Masturbate-a-thon.com website the 222 orgasm record in Copenhagen is cited I will be quite happy to reconsider - on Wikipedia we go by verifiability not truth. -- Banjeboi 23:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the article's discussion page. Please go there. On my discussion page, we go by the truth. --Minutae (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above discussion, the official US Masturbate-a-thon website has been updated, confirming that my claims and edits were 100% correct. I've updated the Wikipedia article accordingly. Funny how people who scream loud threats about blocking me invariably turn out to be in error. --Minutae (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Ababadjani

Hi, Minutae. I noticed your comment at the Porn project on the deletion of this article. It's pointless to try to get any kind of sympathetic reaction from the Porn project-- They're the people to go to for help in deleting something. I trust what you say about the subject, and a look at the AfD shows its closing was absolutely ludicrous-- ~~besides~~ the nominator, who is on a self-announced "Crusade" to delete porn-bio articles,[1] (though he's deleted FAR less than the leading voices at the Porn project, which is very telling) ~~there was input from only one editor, and that was a "Keep".~~I must have looked at a different AfD closing here, not this one And no concession was made that the subject is outside the Anglosphere, and that foreign language sourcing may have been available. Anyway, I think your best bet is to forget about getting any help from the Wiki-bureaucracy-- they're the people who created this absurd situation where articles on notable subjects are routinely thrown out-- and just put together whatever good sources you have, write your own well-sourced article showing the subject's notability, and post it. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that, it's all news to me, very interesting and good to know! --Minutae (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Minutae. When I first came here I saw similar things going on with the Japanese industry, so I just made it my pet project. You might want to do that with the Danish, if it's of enough interest to you. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Ababadjani (3rd nomination). Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! --Minutae (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Minutae! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Marcelle Perks - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Ole Søltoft - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Pubococcygeus muscle. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You were told multiple times *NOT* to add the information, as it is not within the consensus in the talk page. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 15:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, hothead, it's not unsourced, it's just that Nutriveg has trouble with the English language. I was in the process of making the sourcing even more obvious, so that even Nutriveg can understand it, when you interfered! --Minutae (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Nutriveg is referring to "rules" that don't exist. To my knowledge, he holds no authority here. --Minutae (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but who does hold authority here in your eyes? And why are you blatantly attacking him? "...trouble with the English language?" Calling me "hothead?" Perhaps someone with "authority" can point you in the right direction. Would you like to bother the arbitration committee? How about the Jimbo? Go ahead and read this and maybe you can post a more non-attacking version of your commentary later on. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling you a hothead, Duncan, because you make comments on cases before bothering to look properly into them. There was no unsourced or original content, as you claimed. And noting that communicating issues arise because a user has trouble both understanding and writing English is not an attack, it's simply a statement a fact. Facts seems to be something you don't focus on much, but I've no doubt there are many rules and principles you and others can hide behind to prevent you from dealing with that sort of criticism. All things considered, calling you a hothead was the polite version. --Minutae (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, I am not interested in anymore of your rambles. If you indeed have a problem with the way we come to agreement around here, then that's something you need to discuss elsewhere. For the record, I do not appreciate being called a hothead, nor do I think it is appropriate for you to think the articles are not important. I suggest that you harmoniously appease the situation next time by just simply being civil. Thanks. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop making fly-by edits and hurling unsupported accusations at people, I'd have less reason for calling you a hothead. As for "simply being civil", you still haven't apologized for accusing me of adding unsourced content, when in fact I had added four sources for just two lines of uncontroversial information (a movie plot) and even added a fifth source, much more than is normal for such information here at Wikipedia. --Minutae (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Pubococcygeus muscle

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:Minutae reported by User:Nutriveg (Result: Protected). The warring in this case was quite blatant; please don't make a habit of it. See WP:Dispute resolution for some better ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the AN3 report, Nutriveg has claimed that three other editors support excluding the material, and you are the only one in favor. In that case, please consider dropping the matter. If you agree to stop the war, the article can be unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only two people were arguing against me, one more or less agreed to let my edit remain after I took his criticism into account and rephrased it accordingly, the other used completely bogus arguments, calling my one example a "list of trivia" etc. I can find no mention of this discussion on the page you link to. My edit was factually correct, sourced and in line with tradition at Wikipedia. So now a majority of two can overturn everything Wikipedia stands for? --Minutae (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Woodman

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Pierre Woodman, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The documentation you provided as a source for the claim of the alternate name for Woodman is not acceptable per WP:RS. Please do not add this material again. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of derviative works templates

As the leading editor in terms of edit count of {{Dracula}}, I am alerting you to the discussion about the use of derivative works templates in author bio articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates. We are discussing whether they should be removed from or collapsed or left alone in the author's articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 4 May 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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Minutae. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Said the Shark for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Said the Shark 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/Said the Shark 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. - TheMagnificentist 10:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Minutae. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Minutae. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lego Star Wars: Bombad Bounty for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lego Star Wars: Bombad Bounty 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/Lego Star Wars: Bombad Bounty until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.

BOVINEBOY2008 00:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jessica Nilsson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jessica Nilsson 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/Jessica Nilsson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Cutlass ^Ciera 16:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nilsson

Hi! I see you replied to the note above, asking you to participate, which you indeed did. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Nilsson was already closed, though, and since it's confusing to understand decisions if we edit them after they've reached a conclusion, we ask people not to do that.

But don't worry – the decision was that it indeed seems possible to write an article about Jessica Nilsson, and it was already closed as "keep". So the result you wanted had already been achieved. /Julle (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]