User talk:Aoidh

Thanks

Thank you for helping to resolve the issue with Y26Z3, and the Lusitanic article. You have gone out of the way as a patroller, and for me I became too hot on it and I didn't want to dwell on the problem. Just revisited Wikipedia and saw the resolution. Thank you for all your help! Optakeover^(Talk) 19:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barn star

Thank you for the barn star, it's much appreciated. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Govind Kumar Singh

We meet again at Govind Kumar Singh which, if memory serves, is where we first met as a consequence of the User:Vermapriya1986 sockfarm etc around 15 months ago! I have warned and advised the new user but I had also previously opened a case at SPI concerning them. It seems fairly loud quacking to me - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vermapriya1986. Alas, there is quite a backlog at SPI and so it is taking longer to sort out than I would usually anticipate. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on the whole thing. I was suspicious that the user was User:Vermapriya1986, but the way they signed their name pretty much removed any doubt in my mind; I'd be extremely surprised if it wasn't the same user. - SudoGhost 23:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning out the trash on my talk page. LadyofShalott 04:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help. :) - SudoGhost 18:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Kongregate page

Greetings, SudoGhost. I believe you were the person who reverted my edits to the Kongregate page last time as well. I understand how the edits I made today were not notable, so I won't argue about that. However, I do not agree that my edits to the page back in November were "too detailed." There are pages for other online gaming sites that have an almost unnecessary degree of detail, a prominent example being Newgrounds. This may seem pointless to debate now because it's been eight months, but I did put a rather large amount of effort and research into revamping that page. My main point is that I don't see why the edits can't stay. TheLurkerMan (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it's WP:UNDUE to place that much focus on something that isn't covered by a single third-party source. That, and as articles should be primarily based on third-party sources, that level of detail in an article without third-party sources backing it up removes the article's focus on what reliable sources say, which runs afoul of WP:V. - SudoGhost 11:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrounds TheLurkerMan (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm discussing the Kongregate article, not some other article. There are almost 4 million articles on the English Wikipedia, invariably we're going to run across articles that have issues of some kind. That just means we need to fix those issues, not introduce more; I haven't been watching that article, but if you have issues with it discuss it on that article's talk page. - SudoGhost 12:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Atlanta Wiknic Sat June 30

Be there as detailed at Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 3, or be unencyclopedic!--Pharos (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Linux Mint

Concerning the edit you undid... Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, so if an editor believes a source is unreliable then they certainly ought to remove it or at least discuss its removal. And if it's not for an editor to decide, then who does decide it? Do we need sources to verify that another source is unreliable? CodeCat (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Because he removed the edit because he felt DistroWatch is an unreliable source, but DistroWatch isn't being used as the source. The PCWorld et al references discuss Linux Mint on DistroWatch. Those are reliable sources. DistroWatch isn't being used to support the information that was removed, but rather DistroWatch is the subject of the content, and reliable sources are being used to support that information. - SudoGhost 18:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So he didn't remove content that was sourced to DistroWatch, but content that was sourced to other sites that were in turn sourced to DistroWatch? No wonder I was confused... CodeCat (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at my edit summary, it was a little too vague, I can see why there would be confusion there. What I meant to say is that since multiple reliable sources have written entire articles concerning Linux Mint's ranking on DistroWatch, those reliable sources give the content weight, and makes the content relevant to the article. Concerns that DistroWatch is unreliable is immaterial to that (why wouldn't DistroWatch be a reliable source for page rankings on DistroWatch?) DistroWatch may or may not be unreliable, but that's not what is being used as a reliable source there. - SudoGhost 19:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Y26Z3 Sockpuppet investigation

Since you had involvement in the blocking of user Y26Z3 because of his edits at Lusitanic, I thought you'd be interested to know that I believe he has created a new sockpuppet through which he is beginning to make similar edits and is again lobbying for the deletion of Lusitanic. The sockpuppet investigation I started against him is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Y26Z3 Goodsdrew (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, looks like they were blocked and taken care of, and I reverted some of their edits. - SudoGhost 20:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

ZarilSake

Sorry about that ... I got confused about the timezones reflected by the timestamps. He's blocked now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's all good, I'm certainly not going to fault someone taking the time to handle AIV. :) - SudoGhost 03:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you were informed

Hi, not sure if anyone notified you of: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Wikiquette_violation_in_summary (not sure how you are involved though). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Blue eyes detail

SudoGhost, I appreciated your views on this matter, and your contributions to the thread. All the best. Tengu800 01:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Hello, I got your message about canvassing. Sorry, I'm a new user and did not know it was not allowed. Thank your for informing me. FonsScientiae (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Did you Remove ICEpdf from Article: List_of_PDF_software? - July 2012

SudoGhost, I noticed you removed "ICEpdf" from the mentioned article for "non-notable software" reasons. This doesn't make sense to me since the article is simply listing PDF software libraries on the market. Please explain why a list of software should only contain notable or third-party sourced software?

"21:34, 27 June 2012‎ SudoGhost (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,183 bytes) (-288)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 498762276 by DumbBOT: Rv non-notable software, needs third-party sources; article has none either." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnasser007 (talk • contribs)

Because the consensus is that software on that list needs to be notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you'll notice, each entry in that list has (or should have) its own article. If you disagree with this consensus, you're welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page, but short of a new consensus it doesn't belong on the article. Your software specifically was deleted via AfD; there's a consensus that it isn't notable software per Wikipedia's guidelines, so it doesn't belong on an article that requires notability in order to be listed in the list. - SudoGhost 20:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of content in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma

hello sudo ghost.please try to refrain from deletion of edited contents to the article on 'bodhidharma'.i am trying to reveal the knowledge i can get of the article from sources which i had revealed.It was a minor edit and did not see the deletion of your proposed content and you should show some consideration before deleting the context.i hope you value the knowledge known by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari147 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because it has been discussed extensively on the talk page, and sources differ on where Bodhidharma was from, so the consensus on the talk page is that we do not conclusively say that he was from a particular place, but rather discuss the differing views in the article itself. There is no scholarly consensus on his origin, so the article must reflect this. - SudoGhost 14:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all,i would like to mention that i did not took notice of the talk page.But what i have came across in various sources and articles are facts of bodhidharma originating from southern India and being a former king before becoming a buddhist monk and travelling to china.It seemed to me as injust to not include my known knowledge of him into the article as i was browsing through random articles and happen to come across this.However,i do take regard on differing views and sources of people and it can also be understandable that there are not valid sources to prove that bodhidharmar had originated in specific parts or countries and to use only available sources that have knowledge of this particular subject.It seems logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari147 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)