![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
I appreciate your piping in regarding the Adam4Adam and enjoyed your Love Shack DYK. Most of all, I hope your Wikistress level is low! Shaundakulbara 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Appreciate your reply. I hate conflict so bad, that it makes me shake, but I love calming things down. Can I humbly make a suggestion? As a sign of good faith revert the tag yourself and then start a new discussion of the contentious edit, adopting a really neutral position? If your concern was that the change was made without consensus, people might actually chime in if they a) can clearly see the problem without needing to check loads of diffs and b) don't feel like they're stepping into a fist fight. I know this won't seem a very attractive option, but I think it'll work. And leave you looking like the good guy... which is nice. -- Dweller 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice talking with you, as always :-)
I'm actually trying to like whack down a nail with solid logic (and a touch of maths). So like, please bear with me. Unless you happen to be a professional project manager, and are toying with me, of course. In the latter case I'll whack you with a cluebat ;-) -- Kim Bruning 15:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking really small steps, because I don't know how numerically agile you are. I hope I'm not insulting you by going too slow. -- Kim Bruning 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be forum shopping; my previous comment stands. For the last week or so, you have been persistently making false accusations and personal attacks about me all over the wiki, and that includes both so-called mediation requests. Basically, any recent discussion with you boils down to you namecalling rather than making actual arguments. Several people have pointed that out to you already, but you apparently feels justified in attacking people you consider disruptive. If you are willing to retract those accusations and attacks, and to stop making them in the future, I'd be happy do discuss our disagreements. >Radiant< 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MCPHSlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't care about this idiot politician, but we have WP:LIVING and WP:RS here, and we dont want wikipedia be sued for defamation, do we? Tabloids cannot be valid sources, since it is impossible to separate truth from lies in their print. `' mikka 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Honey-nut-cheerios-box.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Embraceyourshadowpromo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yo Jeff. Sorry I bawled you out over measurements, but while I take such things as stylistic infelicity and even so-called "bad grammar" in my stride (except when they're perpetrated by people who obnoxiously criticize it in others), spurious precision in measurement <span class="ghastly_cliche">is one of my pet peeves</span>. If I continue adding my little changes to or comments on the Turk, you will of course develop a mighty strong hatred of my guts. (Or rather, you'll redevelop it: you must have experienced it over old Kroger.) But you knew what you were getting into: after all, my loathsome personality is well known hereabouts. ¶ I'll return to the Turk tomorrow (my time); I've had a long day today. -- Hoary 10:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the further delay. A goofy proposal forced me to waste a lot of time today.
It may take longer than I hope or even than I rashly promise, but I'll go through the Turk again, in what I hope is a constructively vicious way. This is definitely FA material; don't rush it. -- Hoary 10:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw your comments on [1]. I idn't understand what element you want to change or felt doesn't reflect consensus. Could you explain this to me? Thanks AndrewRT( Talk) 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh nuts. I feared that might happen. -- Dweller 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's to a return, when you are ready, of course. If it's any consolation, look back through old RfAs and such and see if there are any names that are around now. Ephemeral springs to mind. Maybe it will get better one day. Bubba hotep 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You were good for Wikipedia, man. I guess that's not always a fun thing, but despite some loud detractors, you were really appreciated here. I personally think you'll be back. Everyone needs a break now and then though. -- W.marsh 02:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What a disgrace, nothing less. Not that I or anyone can blame you in the least, but damn, it'll be a shame to see you go, even if we rarely interacted. Well, whatever your new hobby is, I hope you get the credit you deserve for it, for once, and I hope it's devoid of losers fixated on finding scapegoats.
Milto LOL pia 09:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've seen you around on the Wikipedia namespace talk pages, but I hadn't realised the contributions you had made. Congratulations on those. I hope you will be back sooner rather than later. I don't share your pessimism, and I hope that more articles are included in the long run than excluded. Carcharoth 10:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, you never did follow through on that threat to make heavy use of my ability to undelete pages; hopefully you'll consider reconsidering. -- nae' blis 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I handled myself in a less-than-stellar way regarding the "notability" guidelines. I still expect a resolution, but I let one person in particular get to me, and I won't allow that to happen again. If I pissed you off at any point during the proceedings even though you weren't directly involved, please accept my apology. I expect better of myself, and you all know I'm better than that. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You sad, sad man, unable to shake the monkey off your back... Huzzah!
brenneman 07:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You and I are in agreement on DRV. The world will end soon. -- Elar a girl Talk| Count 10:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words on you userpage. You are definitely my favourite nemisis ;) And if you are still interested in my jacobites, I've cobbled together another one Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany-- Docg 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comments on this article. Thanks for defending it. I agree with your assessment that it has highly notable content. Just wondering where the actual article went. I thought the decision was to keep the article? See discussion here: [2] Thanks. Lafem 08:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What exactly would you like to mediate? And is the other party willing? This hasn't moved into the experimental phase yet, but considering the favorable responses so far the situation looks promising. Bear in mind: no guarantees. Please reply at my user talk page. Durova Charge! 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_8#Miss_Nude_Universe I'm getting a bollocking for what seemed to me to be an utterly no-nosense speedy deletion. My head is reelling a little bit, and I don't want to prejudice you, but can you have a look? Am I utterly wrong here, or have I just made up from thin air that speedy deleting something like " Einstien was a patent clerk." can be ok even if there could be an article there if only it got some TLC? Am I rambling? - brenneman 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
G'day Jeff.
I'm as surprised as you probably are that this song doesn't seem to have generated any particularly good sources. That said, if anything turns up in German (or Dutch) I'd be happy to translate and see what it's saying. I'm saying this because another Lordi-related AfD netted a review of the single auf Deutsch but precious little in English. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Make Way for Ducklings. Can I ask why you don't think the tag should be removed. The user who added it did so with his second edit and gave no reasons. His userpage reads: "NOT A SOCKPUPPET OF WILLY ON WHEELS BUT I KNOW WILLY!" Surely the tagging was disruptive vandalism? WjB scribe 00:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Two things: First, there appeared to be at least a weak consensus to delete to me. Second, count how many of the sources even mention Gregory Kohs. Then count how many of those actually talk about the person and not his website. None of them do. The article is about the person, not his website, otherwise it would be at MyWikiBiz, and the discussion would have been different. Feel free to go back to DRV if you disagree. -- Core desat 03:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be getting very aerated about this one. I see from RFAR that you have been under a lot of stress recently. Its showing. I thought I ought to mention that to you. Try Rooibos. Its really refreshing and has no caffine. -- Spartaz 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't intend to rehash the entire dispute for you. I've found you, to be honest, impossible to deal with in a logical manner in that dispute (although you at least were always mindful to remain civil and mostly good-faithed in the discussion, something I've come to greatly appreciate from my encounters with user:Ghirlandajo).
To summarize, my feeling is that you uselessly levelled up a massive amount of ruckus. Despite your claims to it in the arbitration request, it was not your "pushing [of] the issue" that "eventually gained tangible consensus" for it. The consensus was there to begin with. You at best tightly focused that consensus on defending the page as a guideline (admittedly, making it clearer and completing it with examples in the process, but I expect it would have come around of itself) and polarized the whole issue.
If the case is accepted, I will present what I believe to be evidence, but I really don't want to start the whole thing over with you. I might not have appreciated your attitude then, but right now I've put it behind me since the matter itself is pretty much settled in a way I believe to be in accordance with the wiki spirit and our policies. Circeus 01:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hipocrite/stalk 195.225.104.228 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Psst and did u sea tihs? somebody quite different 07:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.
We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. -- Kevin Murray 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the request from WP:RFAR pending the outcome of the mediation. If either of you wants to reinstate the request, please let me or one of the other clerks know. Thatcher131 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain your opinion on the current admin backlogs a bit more? On the adminship survey, I try to say why I feel the backlogs are bad: they actually encourage admins to make quick decisions instead of slowly thinking about the merits of each speedy deletion case. To give an example, this morning I started my computer and for the first time in weeks, CAT:CSD was at below 50, giving me time to actually research and fix two of the items in the category instead of just deleting them to get rid of the backlog. If an admin has to delete one band vanity article per day, he'll have time to think, research, and nominate at AFD. If there are 50, chances are that the admin won't think, won't research, and won't want to cause another backlog at AFD and just delete a borderline article. Kusma (討論) 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's hard for me to imagine I could make any argument you've not heard before, but to me this makes sense: Verifiability is about the information that's in articles- it must be verifiable from a proper source, right? Well, think of "notability" as just meaning "this subject has enough verifiable information about it that a non-permastub encyclopedia article is a possibility." My birth certificate and various other public records make my existence as a person verifiable- but there's no way a sourced encyclopedia article could be written about me. Any "article" about me would just be directory information, therefore I'm not notable. Sure, you could hunt me down and talk to my friends and neighbors, but if you have to do that sort of first-hand detective work to hunt down useful information, the subject isn't notable. If other people have already done this first-hand detective work and written about the subject in a proper source, the subject probably IS notable. Does this make any sense at all? Friday (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
(tired of indents) Maybe we're just quibbling over wording then, instead of actually disagreeing on what this means. Altho my memory tells me that we've disagreed in the past in specific cases over what's "trivial" or not. Oh well- I'm not sure we're moving forward here, I just thought I'd throw out this idea. I can't tell what, if anything, we actually disagree over at this point. Friday (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
A long time ago, on the article sports car, someone was trying to come up with a consensus definition among editors on what exactly counts as a sports car. This is inappropriate because it's OR. If the term does not have an exact definition out there in the world, it's not up to us to invent one. We should just say what the experts have verifiably said and not take it further than that. To me, this is very nearly the same issue as us deciding amongst ourselves that a blurble is notable if it's more than 10 feet wide. We shouldn't be making up that sort of criteria, we should rely on what the sources say. This is why IMO many of the subject-specific guidelines skirt OR and should be avoided. As for why strictly local sources may be considered trivial, I see this as a matter of choosing our battles. We have enough trouble maintaining good content as it is. If we open the door to articles on every grade school spelling bee winner, our job will become way more difficult, by sheer volume. Also, remember that the goal of the project is, broadly speaking, educational. It's hard to imagine the educational value of an article on how many speeding tickets the Podunk Police Department gave out last month. So to me, generally excluding purely local-interest content is mainly a cost/benefit concern. We're already way broader in our coverage than any other encyclopedia has been, and while this is a good thing, there is a difference between an encyclopedia (even a very broad one) and an indiscriminate collection of information. Friday (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't normally quote, but I didn't want to lose Friday's statements. At the beginning of this discussion, Friday wrote:
More recently, Friday wrote:
IMHO, Friday, this is the problem with confusing the common definition of "notability" with "verifiability." If the local music rags are reliable sources, then several reviews in local rags may be enough to write a non-stub article. That doesn't answer the question of whether the band is sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia (the colloquial definition of "notable"), but it may satisfy the condition you originally set - that "this subject has enough verifiable information about it that a non-permastub encyclopedia article is a possibility." I don't mean to pick on you, and appreciate your comments, but think that this lack of concensus on whether notability means "notability" or "sufficient verified independent sources" is confusing the debate. Thanks, and I look forward to your thoughts, TheronJ 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You should be aware of this edit I recently made, as it may effect your polling response. I made the edit in response to concerns on the talk page about the neutrality of the question. Cheers! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I made a long comment on the N talk p., and I wonder if you;'d comment on how you think the rule should go--I cannot quite decipher it from the very convoluted discussions there. We may actually have very close views. My feeling is: a/a general criterion, which has to be something as general as "worth being in a 21st century ency.", then examples, and for many subjects a set of safe harbor rules above with something will always be N., but not implying that failing to meet them means not-N. A example of an existing rule of the sort is members of national legislatures, or Nobel Prize winners, or NYT best sellers, I'll see your answer here if you prefer it that way.. DGG 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi, Badlydrawnjeff.
I've been loosely following the dispute resolution process between yourself and Radiant!. There's an idea I thought of a little while ago, that you and/or Radiant might be interested in, and I thought now's as good a time as any to mention it.
The background is that, in the interactions I've seen between the two of you on guideline talk pages, I've noticed that you'll both claim that your understanding of policy formation is firmly grounded in experience with guideline development. That strikes me as an empirical question, and one that I think it would be quite interesting to investigate.
What do you think of working up a page where we summarize the histories of several policy pages, guideline pages and essays, and take note of the various roles played by description of existing practice, straw polls, tags, etc. It would probably be of interest to many to see how some of our most broadly agreed upon principles acquired the consensus support they enjoy, and by what path some of our more controversial pages have navigated their turbulent waters.
I set up an empty template at User:GTBacchus/Policy formation the other day. It think it could be a page that might facilitate a productive interaction between you and Radiant, with side benefits for the rest of Wikipedia, and for any sociologist who wants to puzzle out just how this lunatic-run asylum operates and grows. What do you think? - GTBacchus( talk) 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, just a quick note: you are a gentleman and a scholar. If you, the fearless protector of the unloved article, can see no evidence that Nick is any worse than the norm, then I am reassured that his perhaps slightly more than usually deletionist tendencies can be mellowed with experience. Sometimes even people we respect turn out to do something that astonished by its coolness, your comment was one of those things. Guy ( Help!) 17:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Majorly (o rly?) 12:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to get WP:N and related pages to express thoughts about notability that you agree with? This may not be a very good goal to have- aren't your notions of notability pretty far off from mainstream thinking on this topic? I'm not suggesting at all that your input is unwanted - in fact, if there was something you AND the rest of the project could agree on, this would be outstanding, but this seems unlikely to me. But, do you think it'd be good to maybe slow down a little? Also, (and again I'm sure you've heard this all before) remember that the question of what content belongs in an encyclopedia is different from the question of which articles belong. Merging (which, for reasons I admit I don't understand, you seem to be generally against) is a good way to deal with non-notable subjects without deleting content. Instead of having exhaust manifold of a 74 Pinto, significant details about that exhaust manifold can go in Ford Pinto as appropriate. Anyway, just food for thought. Friday (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I just thought I would tell you that I fully support you and everything you're doing for Brian Peppers. -- Dookama 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well done! Now turn off the computer and go out to a good restaurant. -- Hoary 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fighting my battle while I was down. Despite your valiant efforts, all Bella Morte albums were deleted. I am currently fighting to restore the articles.
While we're at it, there's talk that Gopal Metro's page may get deleted. Help out if you can.
Thanks, best of luck. -- Emevas 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Consider this the closest thing to a "right to disappear" as you'll get from me. If I'm ever to come back, it won't be from this name, and it will be when the culture has changed in a way that makes giving what I have to offer worth it. Thanks to those of you who have stepped up and helped out over the years. The rest of you, well... -- badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go... Hopefully after a break you will return with renewed vigor. Even though you and are pretty far apart philosophically here, I always felt you were a good balance for the project.-- Isotope23 18:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.
Even though I am not seeking the action against you (clearly, you supported my right to express my opinion, so long as I did not make improper edits or such), nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts
-- GordonWatts 08:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing: I noticed
this positive comment by NY Brad, the clerk, and I figured I would add my voice to his. Although I am guessing you might be too busy to edit regularly and contribute (as I say in my post, remembering how I myself sometimes am "too busy"), nonetheless, while I am alive and posting (which will not be forever), I will do my little bit to put in a positive word of encouragement for whatever is your endeavor and wish you the best of luck and blessings.--
GordonWatts 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting The Turk to FA status. It's a great article and I enjoyed reading it. — BillC talk 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit sad to hear you might be leaving for a bit, I had hoped that some sort of amicable agreement or at least more understanding could happen sooner or later. Anyway, this is something that you might be pleased with, especially if it continues to gain support. -- Interiot 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting AfD that goes to the core of the notability discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would urge you to forgive and forget unless you can identify a pattern of disruption or willful abuse. (If you can, your consideration of recall would make more sense, but please don't go into it here.) Single actions, made in good faith, should practically never be cause to desysop a user. Just my two cents, Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
As Wikipedia's resident internet meme-ologist, I'd like you to see if you agree with my removal of a "notability" tag on My Box in a Box. It seems to meet WP:WEB, but I defer to your judgement. Cheers. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You may remember you kindly passed this for Good Article on 11 Jan. It seems there was some problem with the formalities, because of which it is now up for review again here (the article is essentially the same). Comments welcome. Johnbod 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to join Conservapedia as a editor? Conservapedia is looking for good editors and Admins. Please send me your email if you want to join Conservapedia. If you feel reticient about giving out your email address you can simply create a new account at hotmail and yahoo so you don't risk getting a lot of junk mail. Regional123 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Regional123
while doing something to do with User:Peanuts5402 and it seemed to me that you were making sense, so I stopped in at your User Page and actually took the time to read it. I didn't understand everything because I have been one of those editors who has chosen NOT to look at what is going on behind the curtain. But more and more the curtain has seemed to move and I've been trying to decide whether or not to just slip out the back door. When I had a section in the phallus article on "Phallic architecture" removed as being the dreaded original research because I needed an expert to say that a particular building, or group of them, looked like penises, I though "this is about it." So I sort of took heart from your pages and thought, "Is there a group of like minded wikipedians that I can get in with about some of this stuff?" Okay, I am not a conservative. Not even close, but when i find myself making common cause with one, well than I know that the problem is for real. If I can help you out, if you are looking for votes or backing or whatever, consider giving me a call.. Wikipedia is ( opinion) supposed to be fun. When it no longer is, I'll be looking elsewhere. Carptrash 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
I AM THE LAW!!! | |
I hereby award you the status of
Wiki-Judge for your astute realization that
WP:IAR is nothing more than a means to unilaterally circumvent policy and common civility.
|
I'm currently working on a draft proposal that I hope can solve the fiction conundrum. Your comments would be much appreciated. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, it was Pockets of resistance. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Bdj,
I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{ stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.
You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.
If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks!-- Vox Rationis ( Talk | contribs) 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff. I know you and Friday have history and I can see you're upset. I think your last post on his page was somewhat unfair, given that he was trying to apologise. I can understand what it was that irritated you in the tail of the apology, but I think that a cooler Jeff would have been absolutely fine about it. Anyway, please take this comment in the way it's intended - respectful and sad to see two fine contributors in conflict. -- Dweller 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on your second featured article. Since you've pushed 3+ into good article territory, judging by your brag board, could you tell me, like, how to do it? I listed Uncyclopedia on WP:GAC like a week ago and nothing has happened, which leads me to believe I did something wrong or forgot a step. The instructions for nominating are most confusing, so I figured I'd ask someone with experience. Milto LOL pia 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I followed you to your user page -- User:Badlydrawnjeff -- from your notes on "The Strategy Paradox" deletion review. The Wikipedia is a complex organism. I find the amount of negativity and agressive behavior to be banal. Your point-of-view is refreshing and I admire your spirit. Best wishes on your quest to make the Wikipedia better for the masses; leaving the few antagonists in your wake. Bluestripe 13:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I applaud your efforts, and wish that I could be as persistent at it. Something will have to be done, for the various pages seem in conflict--eg N(general) is stricter than N(people), but most of the people subclassifications are stricter than the main rules. What particularly bothers me is the 2 sources, and nothing more. Everything in the world has two non-trivial sources. I'm generally a so-called inclusionist--up to a point, and my feeling is that you are as well, though not necessarily over the same things. Since the real problem is the same old in/ex debate, and the views are both principled, and will never agree, we cannot get a consensus, but at best a compromise which will still allow everyone to interpret it their own way in argument. Any ideas on how to do it? I now just watch for your comments and try to support them. DGG 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Per your issues, does nofollow really not apply to links to Wikia? If so, that's scandalous. David Mestel( Talk) 11:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
... on a DRV, I think I've out-inclusioned even you. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 11#Matball. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you had any comments about the article that you could post on the talk page as a "GA Review," without such, many GAs will be challenged later. Thanks. IvoShandor 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As the page histories are unrelated (no cut and paste from one article to the other), I have simply redirected this. If there is useful content in the history of the redirect and somedbody wants to use it in Revenge of the Wannabes, the redirect should be tagged {{ R from merge}}. But at the moment, neither the tagging nor deletion seem to be necessary to me. Happy editing, Kusma ( talk) 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for sourcing that. I actually misread the anon's edit. I thought he was claiming that Papelbon was going back to the bullpen. My eyes (and typing fingers) fly ahead of my brain sometimes. Thanks again. -- No Guru 02:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If not, the tag should not be removed until admin review. 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I must be mad. -- Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The article was just a stub supported by the refs. Here is a copy of it with some formating changed for this talk page (feel free to delete this at any time)-- Oakshade 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC):
Renetto, is a popular YouTube personality created and played by Paul Robinett. His videos have attracted 1.19 million views, plus over 23,000 suscribers. [1] The character of Renetto is that of a high-voiced and rather unintelligent reviewer of mostly other YouTube videos. He first gained notoriety by a video in which he attempted to eat Mentos and drink Diet Coke at the same time. [2]
He is based in Columbus, Ohio. References:
Further reading:
I didn't want to go overboard with threaded discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Article_inclusion#WP:N_and_WP:AI but I'm curious. When you say "sources are not what makes a subject encyclopedic/appropriate for inclusion" what DOES make it appropriate then? If it's not what the sources are saying, what's left? Individual editors' own personal notions of significance? Isn't this what we want to get away from? Friday (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, it's me. I just wanted to let you know that I created a disambiguation page for The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. I'm telling you here because the main series article's talk page link doesn't seem to work. So...yeah. Raven23 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it [3] .
Thanks in advance Atulsnischal 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The author of a book has little bearing on whether the book is notable in its own right. Two other admins have speedy-deleted the article before, so I feel I'm on pretty safe ground here. If you insist, please consider WP:DRV. Thank you. Xiner ( talk, email) 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Weekinthewoods.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Fair use and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nardman1 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm, it says "undeleted - deletion endorsed", that's rather weird. Fixed now, and unprotected. Happy editing. >Radiant< 11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks for fixing the nom and for your support Kc4 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If you can provide any scenario in which that article was going to be deleted, I'll concur that I shouldn't have closed it early! And Newyorkbrad disagrees with you too ;) -- Steve (Stephen) talk 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are you so insistent on keeping The Princess Diaries Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight? I don't want to get into an editing war. 137.238.121.34 03:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The plot summary and infobox for The Princess Diaries were deleted here - I figured out eventually that you're going for a main article/subarticle structure. Good. Since the article was granted an article grade of B _with these items_ something like them should remain - a different Infobox, and a Series Description(in place of Plot Summary). I'd like to discuss improvements with you on the article's talk page. I support a page per book in the series (as you seem to do), at least until I figure out how to create subpages or tabs. It's up to more editors to add plots for the remaining novels. -- Lexein 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry man. This one is no good for the Wiki, it is licensed under CC 2.0 (Share alike) which prohibits commercial use, which is a no go for Wikipedia because it's content can be copied by anyone, including commercial sources. Fair use wouldn't apply unless that place no longer exists. IvoShandor 04:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, this may help. This link is how I personally (usually) apply the six GA criteria, I know several editors have a similar style, so keep it in mind. It has a lot of pertinent policy and MOS links and such that will help too. IvoShandor 04:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice these articles are up for notibility review - They need some defense if they are notable. Just thought I'd draw this to your attention. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
As you are one of Wikipedia's most prolific inclusionists (I see you on policy page discussions everywhere), I have chosen you to ask a question to that I've been wondering about. There's a common attitude I've noticed among inclusionists of doom and gloom and horror, as if a terrible disaster is going on which must be stopped immediately before all of Wikipedia collapses into dust, or some such thing. What seems odd about this to me is that... you're winning! Not only are inclusionists winning, they're winning big, their victories greatly outnumbering their defeats day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. If Wikipedia were shrinking in size, I could see the inclusionists being unhappy, but Wikipedia is increasing in size exponentially, by 700,000 articles a year. Every article of interest to more than one person which ever gets deleted will eventually be recreated, and categories of articles which were once considered unencylopedic become acceptable simply by sheer force of numbers. If one or ten articles of a certain type considered unacceptable get written, they are all deleted. If 100 get written, they might get deleted. If 1000 get written, everyone throws up their hands and says, "We can't possibly delete this many, what to do, what to do?", and a new category of articles is now acceptable. The sheer volume of articles pouring in every day is outpacing anything the deletionists can do. Given all of this, the expected emotional state of inclusionists should be one of triumphant joyfullness, as the success of their view of of what Wikipedia should be is inevitable. We have 1.7 million articles today, in a few years we'll be up to 3 million, barring a collapse of western civilization or the internet. So why are inclusionists so unhappy? If we had 1.8 million today, instead of having to wait 45 days to reach this number, would things be all that much better? -- Xyzzyplugh 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
A few weeks ago you said something about leaving, now it looks like you're planning to stick around after your honeymoon. Congratulations on that , by the way! Anyway, I'm glad you're still around. Good luck, dark lord. :-). -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't get wrapped up in back and forth Argument Clinic: if the thread gets too long, admins are just going to ignore it as too much bother. Go ahead and let Mongo have the last word if he takes it. -- TedFrank 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service.
Awarded by Addhoc 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
Hi, I put up a request for this page to be deleted but now think that may have been an error. My first couple of searches did not bring up similar articles for other teams and their 2007 season, but they do actually exist, see 2007 Kansas City Royals season or 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season for example--there's a whole category actually. In other words I think the article probably should be reinstated instead of directing to Atlanta Braves. Thoughts?-- Bigtimepeace 19:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the tag you put up there was a very good idea, and have protected the page for the time being because that's what the template said. Cheers! >Radiant< 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on your approaching nuptials, man, and my deepest sympathies about having to move house. Have a great honeymoon. A Train take the 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Re [4]: I've left a message on the talk page that I hope you'll answer: you seem pretty sure its in the film so I presume you know where.
Re global warming, I left you an answer on my talk page, which I hope you'll respond to
William M. Connolley 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing needed sense to the Renetto DRV. The whole effort should've been unessesary, but a small amount of users managed to, for a while, impose their beliefs on the project. -- Oakshade 03:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 13:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It would seem I am, in fact, missing the portion of the talk page on WP:N that is host to the substanital objection to the general criteria section. If you could point it out to me (I'm not being sarcastic, I really can't find it) I would be most appreciative. The last thing I want to do is get into a back and forth over edit summaries. Thanks man. NeoFreak 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking various people about this, maybe you can give me your opinion as well. We on Wikipedia handle articles about words differently than we handle probably every other type of article. In general, we keep or delete articles based not on their current quality, but on whether the subject is notable/has reliable sources available. However, when it comes to articles about words ( Thou, You), we keep or delete them based on what they look like at the moment. A low quality stub about a scientific topic or historical person will be kept in the hopes that one day someone comes along and cleans it up and writes a good article on it, whereas a low quality stub about a word, or even often an average article on a word, is transwikied to wiktionary and deleted. However, a high quality article on a word is kept.
Does this make sense? I'm not even sure what our policy on word articles should be, but this practice to me seems inappropriate, given that it's exactly the opposite of how we operate in every other way. And, I've written an essay about this, Wikipedia:Articles about words, if you feel like it, read it and see if I've accurately described our current practice. -- Xyzzyplugh 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
I appreciate your piping in regarding the Adam4Adam and enjoyed your Love Shack DYK. Most of all, I hope your Wikistress level is low! Shaundakulbara 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Appreciate your reply. I hate conflict so bad, that it makes me shake, but I love calming things down. Can I humbly make a suggestion? As a sign of good faith revert the tag yourself and then start a new discussion of the contentious edit, adopting a really neutral position? If your concern was that the change was made without consensus, people might actually chime in if they a) can clearly see the problem without needing to check loads of diffs and b) don't feel like they're stepping into a fist fight. I know this won't seem a very attractive option, but I think it'll work. And leave you looking like the good guy... which is nice. -- Dweller 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice talking with you, as always :-)
I'm actually trying to like whack down a nail with solid logic (and a touch of maths). So like, please bear with me. Unless you happen to be a professional project manager, and are toying with me, of course. In the latter case I'll whack you with a cluebat ;-) -- Kim Bruning 15:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking really small steps, because I don't know how numerically agile you are. I hope I'm not insulting you by going too slow. -- Kim Bruning 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be forum shopping; my previous comment stands. For the last week or so, you have been persistently making false accusations and personal attacks about me all over the wiki, and that includes both so-called mediation requests. Basically, any recent discussion with you boils down to you namecalling rather than making actual arguments. Several people have pointed that out to you already, but you apparently feels justified in attacking people you consider disruptive. If you are willing to retract those accusations and attacks, and to stop making them in the future, I'd be happy do discuss our disagreements. >Radiant< 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MCPHSlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't care about this idiot politician, but we have WP:LIVING and WP:RS here, and we dont want wikipedia be sued for defamation, do we? Tabloids cannot be valid sources, since it is impossible to separate truth from lies in their print. `' mikka 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Honey-nut-cheerios-box.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Embraceyourshadowpromo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yo Jeff. Sorry I bawled you out over measurements, but while I take such things as stylistic infelicity and even so-called "bad grammar" in my stride (except when they're perpetrated by people who obnoxiously criticize it in others), spurious precision in measurement <span class="ghastly_cliche">is one of my pet peeves</span>. If I continue adding my little changes to or comments on the Turk, you will of course develop a mighty strong hatred of my guts. (Or rather, you'll redevelop it: you must have experienced it over old Kroger.) But you knew what you were getting into: after all, my loathsome personality is well known hereabouts. ¶ I'll return to the Turk tomorrow (my time); I've had a long day today. -- Hoary 10:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the further delay. A goofy proposal forced me to waste a lot of time today.
It may take longer than I hope or even than I rashly promise, but I'll go through the Turk again, in what I hope is a constructively vicious way. This is definitely FA material; don't rush it. -- Hoary 10:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw your comments on [1]. I idn't understand what element you want to change or felt doesn't reflect consensus. Could you explain this to me? Thanks AndrewRT( Talk) 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh nuts. I feared that might happen. -- Dweller 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's to a return, when you are ready, of course. If it's any consolation, look back through old RfAs and such and see if there are any names that are around now. Ephemeral springs to mind. Maybe it will get better one day. Bubba hotep 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You were good for Wikipedia, man. I guess that's not always a fun thing, but despite some loud detractors, you were really appreciated here. I personally think you'll be back. Everyone needs a break now and then though. -- W.marsh 02:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What a disgrace, nothing less. Not that I or anyone can blame you in the least, but damn, it'll be a shame to see you go, even if we rarely interacted. Well, whatever your new hobby is, I hope you get the credit you deserve for it, for once, and I hope it's devoid of losers fixated on finding scapegoats.
Milto LOL pia 09:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've seen you around on the Wikipedia namespace talk pages, but I hadn't realised the contributions you had made. Congratulations on those. I hope you will be back sooner rather than later. I don't share your pessimism, and I hope that more articles are included in the long run than excluded. Carcharoth 10:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, you never did follow through on that threat to make heavy use of my ability to undelete pages; hopefully you'll consider reconsidering. -- nae' blis 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I handled myself in a less-than-stellar way regarding the "notability" guidelines. I still expect a resolution, but I let one person in particular get to me, and I won't allow that to happen again. If I pissed you off at any point during the proceedings even though you weren't directly involved, please accept my apology. I expect better of myself, and you all know I'm better than that. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You sad, sad man, unable to shake the monkey off your back... Huzzah!
brenneman 07:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You and I are in agreement on DRV. The world will end soon. -- Elar a girl Talk| Count 10:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words on you userpage. You are definitely my favourite nemisis ;) And if you are still interested in my jacobites, I've cobbled together another one Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany-- Docg 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comments on this article. Thanks for defending it. I agree with your assessment that it has highly notable content. Just wondering where the actual article went. I thought the decision was to keep the article? See discussion here: [2] Thanks. Lafem 08:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What exactly would you like to mediate? And is the other party willing? This hasn't moved into the experimental phase yet, but considering the favorable responses so far the situation looks promising. Bear in mind: no guarantees. Please reply at my user talk page. Durova Charge! 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_8#Miss_Nude_Universe I'm getting a bollocking for what seemed to me to be an utterly no-nosense speedy deletion. My head is reelling a little bit, and I don't want to prejudice you, but can you have a look? Am I utterly wrong here, or have I just made up from thin air that speedy deleting something like " Einstien was a patent clerk." can be ok even if there could be an article there if only it got some TLC? Am I rambling? - brenneman 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
G'day Jeff.
I'm as surprised as you probably are that this song doesn't seem to have generated any particularly good sources. That said, if anything turns up in German (or Dutch) I'd be happy to translate and see what it's saying. I'm saying this because another Lordi-related AfD netted a review of the single auf Deutsch but precious little in English. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Make Way for Ducklings. Can I ask why you don't think the tag should be removed. The user who added it did so with his second edit and gave no reasons. His userpage reads: "NOT A SOCKPUPPET OF WILLY ON WHEELS BUT I KNOW WILLY!" Surely the tagging was disruptive vandalism? WjB scribe 00:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Two things: First, there appeared to be at least a weak consensus to delete to me. Second, count how many of the sources even mention Gregory Kohs. Then count how many of those actually talk about the person and not his website. None of them do. The article is about the person, not his website, otherwise it would be at MyWikiBiz, and the discussion would have been different. Feel free to go back to DRV if you disagree. -- Core desat 03:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be getting very aerated about this one. I see from RFAR that you have been under a lot of stress recently. Its showing. I thought I ought to mention that to you. Try Rooibos. Its really refreshing and has no caffine. -- Spartaz 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't intend to rehash the entire dispute for you. I've found you, to be honest, impossible to deal with in a logical manner in that dispute (although you at least were always mindful to remain civil and mostly good-faithed in the discussion, something I've come to greatly appreciate from my encounters with user:Ghirlandajo).
To summarize, my feeling is that you uselessly levelled up a massive amount of ruckus. Despite your claims to it in the arbitration request, it was not your "pushing [of] the issue" that "eventually gained tangible consensus" for it. The consensus was there to begin with. You at best tightly focused that consensus on defending the page as a guideline (admittedly, making it clearer and completing it with examples in the process, but I expect it would have come around of itself) and polarized the whole issue.
If the case is accepted, I will present what I believe to be evidence, but I really don't want to start the whole thing over with you. I might not have appreciated your attitude then, but right now I've put it behind me since the matter itself is pretty much settled in a way I believe to be in accordance with the wiki spirit and our policies. Circeus 01:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hipocrite/stalk 195.225.104.228 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Psst and did u sea tihs? somebody quite different 07:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.
We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. -- Kevin Murray 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the request from WP:RFAR pending the outcome of the mediation. If either of you wants to reinstate the request, please let me or one of the other clerks know. Thatcher131 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain your opinion on the current admin backlogs a bit more? On the adminship survey, I try to say why I feel the backlogs are bad: they actually encourage admins to make quick decisions instead of slowly thinking about the merits of each speedy deletion case. To give an example, this morning I started my computer and for the first time in weeks, CAT:CSD was at below 50, giving me time to actually research and fix two of the items in the category instead of just deleting them to get rid of the backlog. If an admin has to delete one band vanity article per day, he'll have time to think, research, and nominate at AFD. If there are 50, chances are that the admin won't think, won't research, and won't want to cause another backlog at AFD and just delete a borderline article. Kusma (討論) 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's hard for me to imagine I could make any argument you've not heard before, but to me this makes sense: Verifiability is about the information that's in articles- it must be verifiable from a proper source, right? Well, think of "notability" as just meaning "this subject has enough verifiable information about it that a non-permastub encyclopedia article is a possibility." My birth certificate and various other public records make my existence as a person verifiable- but there's no way a sourced encyclopedia article could be written about me. Any "article" about me would just be directory information, therefore I'm not notable. Sure, you could hunt me down and talk to my friends and neighbors, but if you have to do that sort of first-hand detective work to hunt down useful information, the subject isn't notable. If other people have already done this first-hand detective work and written about the subject in a proper source, the subject probably IS notable. Does this make any sense at all? Friday (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
(tired of indents) Maybe we're just quibbling over wording then, instead of actually disagreeing on what this means. Altho my memory tells me that we've disagreed in the past in specific cases over what's "trivial" or not. Oh well- I'm not sure we're moving forward here, I just thought I'd throw out this idea. I can't tell what, if anything, we actually disagree over at this point. Friday (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
A long time ago, on the article sports car, someone was trying to come up with a consensus definition among editors on what exactly counts as a sports car. This is inappropriate because it's OR. If the term does not have an exact definition out there in the world, it's not up to us to invent one. We should just say what the experts have verifiably said and not take it further than that. To me, this is very nearly the same issue as us deciding amongst ourselves that a blurble is notable if it's more than 10 feet wide. We shouldn't be making up that sort of criteria, we should rely on what the sources say. This is why IMO many of the subject-specific guidelines skirt OR and should be avoided. As for why strictly local sources may be considered trivial, I see this as a matter of choosing our battles. We have enough trouble maintaining good content as it is. If we open the door to articles on every grade school spelling bee winner, our job will become way more difficult, by sheer volume. Also, remember that the goal of the project is, broadly speaking, educational. It's hard to imagine the educational value of an article on how many speeding tickets the Podunk Police Department gave out last month. So to me, generally excluding purely local-interest content is mainly a cost/benefit concern. We're already way broader in our coverage than any other encyclopedia has been, and while this is a good thing, there is a difference between an encyclopedia (even a very broad one) and an indiscriminate collection of information. Friday (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't normally quote, but I didn't want to lose Friday's statements. At the beginning of this discussion, Friday wrote:
More recently, Friday wrote:
IMHO, Friday, this is the problem with confusing the common definition of "notability" with "verifiability." If the local music rags are reliable sources, then several reviews in local rags may be enough to write a non-stub article. That doesn't answer the question of whether the band is sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia (the colloquial definition of "notable"), but it may satisfy the condition you originally set - that "this subject has enough verifiable information about it that a non-permastub encyclopedia article is a possibility." I don't mean to pick on you, and appreciate your comments, but think that this lack of concensus on whether notability means "notability" or "sufficient verified independent sources" is confusing the debate. Thanks, and I look forward to your thoughts, TheronJ 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You should be aware of this edit I recently made, as it may effect your polling response. I made the edit in response to concerns on the talk page about the neutrality of the question. Cheers! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I made a long comment on the N talk p., and I wonder if you;'d comment on how you think the rule should go--I cannot quite decipher it from the very convoluted discussions there. We may actually have very close views. My feeling is: a/a general criterion, which has to be something as general as "worth being in a 21st century ency.", then examples, and for many subjects a set of safe harbor rules above with something will always be N., but not implying that failing to meet them means not-N. A example of an existing rule of the sort is members of national legislatures, or Nobel Prize winners, or NYT best sellers, I'll see your answer here if you prefer it that way.. DGG 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi, Badlydrawnjeff.
I've been loosely following the dispute resolution process between yourself and Radiant!. There's an idea I thought of a little while ago, that you and/or Radiant might be interested in, and I thought now's as good a time as any to mention it.
The background is that, in the interactions I've seen between the two of you on guideline talk pages, I've noticed that you'll both claim that your understanding of policy formation is firmly grounded in experience with guideline development. That strikes me as an empirical question, and one that I think it would be quite interesting to investigate.
What do you think of working up a page where we summarize the histories of several policy pages, guideline pages and essays, and take note of the various roles played by description of existing practice, straw polls, tags, etc. It would probably be of interest to many to see how some of our most broadly agreed upon principles acquired the consensus support they enjoy, and by what path some of our more controversial pages have navigated their turbulent waters.
I set up an empty template at User:GTBacchus/Policy formation the other day. It think it could be a page that might facilitate a productive interaction between you and Radiant, with side benefits for the rest of Wikipedia, and for any sociologist who wants to puzzle out just how this lunatic-run asylum operates and grows. What do you think? - GTBacchus( talk) 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, just a quick note: you are a gentleman and a scholar. If you, the fearless protector of the unloved article, can see no evidence that Nick is any worse than the norm, then I am reassured that his perhaps slightly more than usually deletionist tendencies can be mellowed with experience. Sometimes even people we respect turn out to do something that astonished by its coolness, your comment was one of those things. Guy ( Help!) 17:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Majorly (o rly?) 12:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to get WP:N and related pages to express thoughts about notability that you agree with? This may not be a very good goal to have- aren't your notions of notability pretty far off from mainstream thinking on this topic? I'm not suggesting at all that your input is unwanted - in fact, if there was something you AND the rest of the project could agree on, this would be outstanding, but this seems unlikely to me. But, do you think it'd be good to maybe slow down a little? Also, (and again I'm sure you've heard this all before) remember that the question of what content belongs in an encyclopedia is different from the question of which articles belong. Merging (which, for reasons I admit I don't understand, you seem to be generally against) is a good way to deal with non-notable subjects without deleting content. Instead of having exhaust manifold of a 74 Pinto, significant details about that exhaust manifold can go in Ford Pinto as appropriate. Anyway, just food for thought. Friday (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I just thought I would tell you that I fully support you and everything you're doing for Brian Peppers. -- Dookama 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well done! Now turn off the computer and go out to a good restaurant. -- Hoary 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fighting my battle while I was down. Despite your valiant efforts, all Bella Morte albums were deleted. I am currently fighting to restore the articles.
While we're at it, there's talk that Gopal Metro's page may get deleted. Help out if you can.
Thanks, best of luck. -- Emevas 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Consider this the closest thing to a "right to disappear" as you'll get from me. If I'm ever to come back, it won't be from this name, and it will be when the culture has changed in a way that makes giving what I have to offer worth it. Thanks to those of you who have stepped up and helped out over the years. The rest of you, well... -- badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go... Hopefully after a break you will return with renewed vigor. Even though you and are pretty far apart philosophically here, I always felt you were a good balance for the project.-- Isotope23 18:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.
Even though I am not seeking the action against you (clearly, you supported my right to express my opinion, so long as I did not make improper edits or such), nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts
-- GordonWatts 08:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing: I noticed
this positive comment by NY Brad, the clerk, and I figured I would add my voice to his. Although I am guessing you might be too busy to edit regularly and contribute (as I say in my post, remembering how I myself sometimes am "too busy"), nonetheless, while I am alive and posting (which will not be forever), I will do my little bit to put in a positive word of encouragement for whatever is your endeavor and wish you the best of luck and blessings.--
GordonWatts 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting The Turk to FA status. It's a great article and I enjoyed reading it. — BillC talk 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit sad to hear you might be leaving for a bit, I had hoped that some sort of amicable agreement or at least more understanding could happen sooner or later. Anyway, this is something that you might be pleased with, especially if it continues to gain support. -- Interiot 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting AfD that goes to the core of the notability discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would urge you to forgive and forget unless you can identify a pattern of disruption or willful abuse. (If you can, your consideration of recall would make more sense, but please don't go into it here.) Single actions, made in good faith, should practically never be cause to desysop a user. Just my two cents, Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
As Wikipedia's resident internet meme-ologist, I'd like you to see if you agree with my removal of a "notability" tag on My Box in a Box. It seems to meet WP:WEB, but I defer to your judgement. Cheers. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You may remember you kindly passed this for Good Article on 11 Jan. It seems there was some problem with the formalities, because of which it is now up for review again here (the article is essentially the same). Comments welcome. Johnbod 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to join Conservapedia as a editor? Conservapedia is looking for good editors and Admins. Please send me your email if you want to join Conservapedia. If you feel reticient about giving out your email address you can simply create a new account at hotmail and yahoo so you don't risk getting a lot of junk mail. Regional123 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Regional123
while doing something to do with User:Peanuts5402 and it seemed to me that you were making sense, so I stopped in at your User Page and actually took the time to read it. I didn't understand everything because I have been one of those editors who has chosen NOT to look at what is going on behind the curtain. But more and more the curtain has seemed to move and I've been trying to decide whether or not to just slip out the back door. When I had a section in the phallus article on "Phallic architecture" removed as being the dreaded original research because I needed an expert to say that a particular building, or group of them, looked like penises, I though "this is about it." So I sort of took heart from your pages and thought, "Is there a group of like minded wikipedians that I can get in with about some of this stuff?" Okay, I am not a conservative. Not even close, but when i find myself making common cause with one, well than I know that the problem is for real. If I can help you out, if you are looking for votes or backing or whatever, consider giving me a call.. Wikipedia is ( opinion) supposed to be fun. When it no longer is, I'll be looking elsewhere. Carptrash 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
I AM THE LAW!!! | |
I hereby award you the status of
Wiki-Judge for your astute realization that
WP:IAR is nothing more than a means to unilaterally circumvent policy and common civility.
|
I'm currently working on a draft proposal that I hope can solve the fiction conundrum. Your comments would be much appreciated. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, it was Pockets of resistance. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Bdj,
I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{ stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.
You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.
If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks!-- Vox Rationis ( Talk | contribs) 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff. I know you and Friday have history and I can see you're upset. I think your last post on his page was somewhat unfair, given that he was trying to apologise. I can understand what it was that irritated you in the tail of the apology, but I think that a cooler Jeff would have been absolutely fine about it. Anyway, please take this comment in the way it's intended - respectful and sad to see two fine contributors in conflict. -- Dweller 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on your second featured article. Since you've pushed 3+ into good article territory, judging by your brag board, could you tell me, like, how to do it? I listed Uncyclopedia on WP:GAC like a week ago and nothing has happened, which leads me to believe I did something wrong or forgot a step. The instructions for nominating are most confusing, so I figured I'd ask someone with experience. Milto LOL pia 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I followed you to your user page -- User:Badlydrawnjeff -- from your notes on "The Strategy Paradox" deletion review. The Wikipedia is a complex organism. I find the amount of negativity and agressive behavior to be banal. Your point-of-view is refreshing and I admire your spirit. Best wishes on your quest to make the Wikipedia better for the masses; leaving the few antagonists in your wake. Bluestripe 13:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I applaud your efforts, and wish that I could be as persistent at it. Something will have to be done, for the various pages seem in conflict--eg N(general) is stricter than N(people), but most of the people subclassifications are stricter than the main rules. What particularly bothers me is the 2 sources, and nothing more. Everything in the world has two non-trivial sources. I'm generally a so-called inclusionist--up to a point, and my feeling is that you are as well, though not necessarily over the same things. Since the real problem is the same old in/ex debate, and the views are both principled, and will never agree, we cannot get a consensus, but at best a compromise which will still allow everyone to interpret it their own way in argument. Any ideas on how to do it? I now just watch for your comments and try to support them. DGG 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Per your issues, does nofollow really not apply to links to Wikia? If so, that's scandalous. David Mestel( Talk) 11:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
... on a DRV, I think I've out-inclusioned even you. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 11#Matball. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you had any comments about the article that you could post on the talk page as a "GA Review," without such, many GAs will be challenged later. Thanks. IvoShandor 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As the page histories are unrelated (no cut and paste from one article to the other), I have simply redirected this. If there is useful content in the history of the redirect and somedbody wants to use it in Revenge of the Wannabes, the redirect should be tagged {{ R from merge}}. But at the moment, neither the tagging nor deletion seem to be necessary to me. Happy editing, Kusma ( talk) 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for sourcing that. I actually misread the anon's edit. I thought he was claiming that Papelbon was going back to the bullpen. My eyes (and typing fingers) fly ahead of my brain sometimes. Thanks again. -- No Guru 02:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If not, the tag should not be removed until admin review. 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I must be mad. -- Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The article was just a stub supported by the refs. Here is a copy of it with some formating changed for this talk page (feel free to delete this at any time)-- Oakshade 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC):
Renetto, is a popular YouTube personality created and played by Paul Robinett. His videos have attracted 1.19 million views, plus over 23,000 suscribers. [1] The character of Renetto is that of a high-voiced and rather unintelligent reviewer of mostly other YouTube videos. He first gained notoriety by a video in which he attempted to eat Mentos and drink Diet Coke at the same time. [2]
He is based in Columbus, Ohio. References:
Further reading:
I didn't want to go overboard with threaded discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Article_inclusion#WP:N_and_WP:AI but I'm curious. When you say "sources are not what makes a subject encyclopedic/appropriate for inclusion" what DOES make it appropriate then? If it's not what the sources are saying, what's left? Individual editors' own personal notions of significance? Isn't this what we want to get away from? Friday (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, it's me. I just wanted to let you know that I created a disambiguation page for The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. I'm telling you here because the main series article's talk page link doesn't seem to work. So...yeah. Raven23 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it [3] .
Thanks in advance Atulsnischal 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The author of a book has little bearing on whether the book is notable in its own right. Two other admins have speedy-deleted the article before, so I feel I'm on pretty safe ground here. If you insist, please consider WP:DRV. Thank you. Xiner ( talk, email) 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Weekinthewoods.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Fair use and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nardman1 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm, it says "undeleted - deletion endorsed", that's rather weird. Fixed now, and unprotected. Happy editing. >Radiant< 11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks for fixing the nom and for your support Kc4 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If you can provide any scenario in which that article was going to be deleted, I'll concur that I shouldn't have closed it early! And Newyorkbrad disagrees with you too ;) -- Steve (Stephen) talk 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are you so insistent on keeping The Princess Diaries Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight? I don't want to get into an editing war. 137.238.121.34 03:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The plot summary and infobox for The Princess Diaries were deleted here - I figured out eventually that you're going for a main article/subarticle structure. Good. Since the article was granted an article grade of B _with these items_ something like them should remain - a different Infobox, and a Series Description(in place of Plot Summary). I'd like to discuss improvements with you on the article's talk page. I support a page per book in the series (as you seem to do), at least until I figure out how to create subpages or tabs. It's up to more editors to add plots for the remaining novels. -- Lexein 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry man. This one is no good for the Wiki, it is licensed under CC 2.0 (Share alike) which prohibits commercial use, which is a no go for Wikipedia because it's content can be copied by anyone, including commercial sources. Fair use wouldn't apply unless that place no longer exists. IvoShandor 04:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, this may help. This link is how I personally (usually) apply the six GA criteria, I know several editors have a similar style, so keep it in mind. It has a lot of pertinent policy and MOS links and such that will help too. IvoShandor 04:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice these articles are up for notibility review - They need some defense if they are notable. Just thought I'd draw this to your attention. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
As you are one of Wikipedia's most prolific inclusionists (I see you on policy page discussions everywhere), I have chosen you to ask a question to that I've been wondering about. There's a common attitude I've noticed among inclusionists of doom and gloom and horror, as if a terrible disaster is going on which must be stopped immediately before all of Wikipedia collapses into dust, or some such thing. What seems odd about this to me is that... you're winning! Not only are inclusionists winning, they're winning big, their victories greatly outnumbering their defeats day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. If Wikipedia were shrinking in size, I could see the inclusionists being unhappy, but Wikipedia is increasing in size exponentially, by 700,000 articles a year. Every article of interest to more than one person which ever gets deleted will eventually be recreated, and categories of articles which were once considered unencylopedic become acceptable simply by sheer force of numbers. If one or ten articles of a certain type considered unacceptable get written, they are all deleted. If 100 get written, they might get deleted. If 1000 get written, everyone throws up their hands and says, "We can't possibly delete this many, what to do, what to do?", and a new category of articles is now acceptable. The sheer volume of articles pouring in every day is outpacing anything the deletionists can do. Given all of this, the expected emotional state of inclusionists should be one of triumphant joyfullness, as the success of their view of of what Wikipedia should be is inevitable. We have 1.7 million articles today, in a few years we'll be up to 3 million, barring a collapse of western civilization or the internet. So why are inclusionists so unhappy? If we had 1.8 million today, instead of having to wait 45 days to reach this number, would things be all that much better? -- Xyzzyplugh 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
A few weeks ago you said something about leaving, now it looks like you're planning to stick around after your honeymoon. Congratulations on that , by the way! Anyway, I'm glad you're still around. Good luck, dark lord. :-). -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't get wrapped up in back and forth Argument Clinic: if the thread gets too long, admins are just going to ignore it as too much bother. Go ahead and let Mongo have the last word if he takes it. -- TedFrank 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service.
Awarded by Addhoc 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
Hi, I put up a request for this page to be deleted but now think that may have been an error. My first couple of searches did not bring up similar articles for other teams and their 2007 season, but they do actually exist, see 2007 Kansas City Royals season or 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season for example--there's a whole category actually. In other words I think the article probably should be reinstated instead of directing to Atlanta Braves. Thoughts?-- Bigtimepeace 19:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the tag you put up there was a very good idea, and have protected the page for the time being because that's what the template said. Cheers! >Radiant< 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on your approaching nuptials, man, and my deepest sympathies about having to move house. Have a great honeymoon. A Train take the 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Re [4]: I've left a message on the talk page that I hope you'll answer: you seem pretty sure its in the film so I presume you know where.
Re global warming, I left you an answer on my talk page, which I hope you'll respond to
William M. Connolley 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing needed sense to the Renetto DRV. The whole effort should've been unessesary, but a small amount of users managed to, for a while, impose their beliefs on the project. -- Oakshade 03:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 13:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It would seem I am, in fact, missing the portion of the talk page on WP:N that is host to the substanital objection to the general criteria section. If you could point it out to me (I'm not being sarcastic, I really can't find it) I would be most appreciative. The last thing I want to do is get into a back and forth over edit summaries. Thanks man. NeoFreak 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking various people about this, maybe you can give me your opinion as well. We on Wikipedia handle articles about words differently than we handle probably every other type of article. In general, we keep or delete articles based not on their current quality, but on whether the subject is notable/has reliable sources available. However, when it comes to articles about words ( Thou, You), we keep or delete them based on what they look like at the moment. A low quality stub about a scientific topic or historical person will be kept in the hopes that one day someone comes along and cleans it up and writes a good article on it, whereas a low quality stub about a word, or even often an average article on a word, is transwikied to wiktionary and deleted. However, a high quality article on a word is kept.
Does this make sense? I'm not even sure what our policy on word articles should be, but this practice to me seems inappropriate, given that it's exactly the opposite of how we operate in every other way. And, I've written an essay about this, Wikipedia:Articles about words, if you feel like it, read it and see if I've accurately described our current practice. -- Xyzzyplugh 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)