This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Thanks for your comment. I think I did more than most people participating in this discussion to improve the actual article. Some sources were mentioned at the deletion page discussion, please try to include them at abstract nonsense when you get a chance. Katzmik ( talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Just so you are aware, I have warned the user "Pcap" regarding his/her response to you re: the books you cited on the AFD for Aslan's How. which I felt was a WP:FAITH violation. 23skidoo ( talk) 20:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
i see ya tried ta get tha page of ASSHOLE delered there! no luck ! ha ha ya fuckin chancer! ya jumped the fence there baby! 86.43.213.54 ( talk) 02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
May I ask about the rationale behind this edit? JSR ( talk) 07:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The article has been reduced to a disambig page, please renew your comments BMW (drive) 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 ( talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I was able to source an article under discussion if you could perhaps reconsider there? Best, -- A Nobody My talk 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
May I ask for a favor to certify at [1] that you tried to resolve dispute with DavidRuben? Please sign at Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Of course please feel free to comment or support. Thank you Paul Gene ( talk) 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
At depression you have stated that you oppose its nomination. I do not know if you have taken part in any other FA candidacy; but since the problems you say can be fixed I thought that you migth not know that you can 'comment and wait some time to see if the problems are fixed; and only then give your oppose or support vote It would also be of much use if you specifically said which sections or sentences had the problems you see.With this I do not want in any case to change your vote but only working on good faith presumption to give you an option that I am not sure if you knew. Best regards.-- Garrondo ( talk) 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I was listening to this year's Dwight H. Terry Lectureship from Yale University ( Terry Eagleton's]) and I kept hearing this name what I thought, to me, was a new one. It turns out its a hybrid of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. A google search turns up eight (good?) hits: Ditchkins. What would be your view on an article on Ditchkins? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Your sources indicate that only Eagleton uses this and so it might be worth a mention in our article about him. I doubt that there's enough material for a separate article - just a redirect would do. Colonel Warden ( talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to join the ranks of people who care about content creation and would rather take 30 seconds to do a google search and 5 minutes to add a ref and text, than drop a turd-like textbox (on articles/content that the fookers don't even know/care about.) I might give the dragon club a bad name as I tend to act up a bit, especially with Tanqueray in my belly. TCO ( talk) 01:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have replied at your user page. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi - you wrote: FYI, I have proposed deletion of this redirect...
Heh. Good luck. last time this redirect was proposed for deletion it was kept - even though I (as writer of the essay) said I had no objection to its deletion!. Grutness... wha? 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Road? DGG ( talk) 12:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the improvements in the article. I would like you to know, though, that I never thought it was a weak article: I thought it was a bad article, worthy of deletion. I do understand the WP policy, and I see an editor's job in AfD discussions, if the article in question has problems, as having to weigh whether something is a weak article that needs improvement or a bad article (for a variety of reasons, of course) that needs to be deleted. You see, I don't think that a good title/topic is enough, and some contributors, and I sense this in this particular article, churn out less-than-average articles leaving it to other editors to clean it up. You have rewritten significant chunks of the article, and I applaud you for doing so--you have probably saved it. I do think the topic is worthwhile, but I also think it should have stayed in the sandbox a bit longer. If all contributors paid as much attention as you do, our AfD discussions would be a lot shorter. Thanks again, and all the best, Drmies ( talk) 18:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an attack on a good faith editor and his actions. Please consider retracting the statement. Per previous warnings about your behavior, you should tread carefully. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have undone one of your recent edits to guacamole per WP:crystal:
"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen."
Toddst1 ( talk) 23:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There was no OR since the material was well-sourced but I agree that we should avoid speculative content and will rewrite to address this. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Please seek consensus at talk:pea and talk:guacamole before continuing to re-insert material into Guacamole. Your unilateral editing and ignoring talk pages is not constructive at all. Toddst1 ( talk) 13:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hell. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
RE: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_17#Prominent_inclusionists?
Many thanks for your wonderful recommendations of "models of intelligent and discriminating inclusionism". Introducing me to DGG was a god send. He is really incredible. But I must say, after further study of the notability guidelines and the condescending response I got on this post, calling the other recommendation an inclusionist, is like calling Jesus Christ a Buddhist.
Thanks again and happy new year. travb ( talk) 11:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes it seems like you, Pixel, and A Nobody are the only ones out there trying to actively support the inclusionist viewpoint, while there are maybe a dozen deletionist or exclusionist-leaning editors, and I have to applaud you for that! I've seen you all mocked for sharing your viewpoints, and I know I don't have the heart to take that over and over, so I have stayed out of the policy talk pages. Like I said in my statement, I feel this has a lot to do with the frustration that Pixelface and others likely feel. Like me, I think most supporters of fiction have things to do so we prefer to be out there actually editing the articles. Many deletionists and exclusionists don't really have much to work on except deletions, so that frees up a lot of time to work on thing like policies. That's just the way it is, unfortunately; I'm sure you might feel like you're in the extreme minority viewpoint sometimes, but I doubt that would hold up to be true if all of WP's regular editors were to be polled. I'm sure that most deletionists are vocal and active, while many inclusionists may be neither. I wish there were a better way that we could all work with the moderates (I think I've seen Randomran for example say he would like to side with inclusionists more than deletionists, if only there were more compelling arguments on how to accomplish that). One thing to do would be to strengthen the first two prongs on the three-prong WP:FICT test, under which you can see certain editors really bristling that they are even present. For a long time, prong #3 was seen as the only test for fiction (and thus, not really any different than the GNG), and by some editors it's the only one worth examining, but if the first two can be better fleshed out and strengthened, we will make some serious headway with the moderates. Well hey, good luck! BOZ ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
And, as a practical matter, the key to success is mastery of the search for our Grail: good sources. If you should ever need a hand in this, feel free to ask. Colonel Warden ( talk) 17:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Got anything for Confederation of Planes and Planets? BOZ ( talk) 19:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Your thoughts on current (modified) article would be appreciated. Thanks Kris ( talk) 23:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have walked into the middle of our little edit dispute over at inflation, so I thought I should give you a heads up about what's going on.
Inflation is watched over by several Econ wikiproject members. Many of us have PhDs in economics and are in academia. We're trying to improve the econ articles so that they are at least undergrad text book quality, but you'ld be surprised how many people we have to fight over basic facts about economics.
Pennyseven showed up about a week ago, and has editing the Inflation page intensively and exclusively. He's been making some strange additions that all work back to a particular POV - that accounting values need to be corrected for inflation otherwise BAD THINGS HAPPEN. This POV has been pushed before, I could point you to some conversations on my talk page, and some earlier disputes on the Inflation page, but here's something from another econ wikiproject member on the inflation talk page that sums up our reservations.
I'll be upfront on this: I believe Pennyseven is yet another sockpuppet of Nicolaas Smith, who is indefinitely blocked and has a long record of attacks and disruptive editing. (AKA Kjkkjjk or whatever, X-1111, Pacluc, etc ad nauseum). The obsession is to push this point, and his (applied for patent) RealValueAccounting and text (i.e. conflict of interest).
Radeksz has been working with the wikiproject for some time. He's extremely knowledgeable and is a good editor that does good work. He usually engages on the talk page before making changes. Its just that we're getting tired constantly fighting POV pushers, and so we get a bit brusque when another one shows up.
lk ( talk) 14:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
User:PennySeven showed up about 10 days ago, and has been impolite to quite a few editors. We gave him leeway cause we didn't want to bite the newbie. But a pattern has emerged. Pennyseven is a WP:SPA that edits only the Inflation article, and consistently pushes only one point, that inflation degrades accounting values and must be corrected. This point has been pushed by a banned user before. The trouble with his edits is not that it's not true, it's that he doesn't source it to reliable sources that directly support his claim, and also that he wishes to put undue weight on it. There was discussion earlier among several editors, and all agreed that it Pennyseven's version placed undue weight. He reverts to it anyway. Check out the page history and talk history for yourself. You're on the wrong side here. lk ( talk) 18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
To my satisfaction I found many sources on the net.
Thank you very much for your help in this matter. It was decisive. PennySeven ( talk) 06:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Colonel Warden ( talk) 08:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Thanks for your comment. I think I did more than most people participating in this discussion to improve the actual article. Some sources were mentioned at the deletion page discussion, please try to include them at abstract nonsense when you get a chance. Katzmik ( talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Just so you are aware, I have warned the user "Pcap" regarding his/her response to you re: the books you cited on the AFD for Aslan's How. which I felt was a WP:FAITH violation. 23skidoo ( talk) 20:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
i see ya tried ta get tha page of ASSHOLE delered there! no luck ! ha ha ya fuckin chancer! ya jumped the fence there baby! 86.43.213.54 ( talk) 02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
May I ask about the rationale behind this edit? JSR ( talk) 07:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The article has been reduced to a disambig page, please renew your comments BMW (drive) 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 ( talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I was able to source an article under discussion if you could perhaps reconsider there? Best, -- A Nobody My talk 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
May I ask for a favor to certify at [1] that you tried to resolve dispute with DavidRuben? Please sign at Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Of course please feel free to comment or support. Thank you Paul Gene ( talk) 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
At depression you have stated that you oppose its nomination. I do not know if you have taken part in any other FA candidacy; but since the problems you say can be fixed I thought that you migth not know that you can 'comment and wait some time to see if the problems are fixed; and only then give your oppose or support vote It would also be of much use if you specifically said which sections or sentences had the problems you see.With this I do not want in any case to change your vote but only working on good faith presumption to give you an option that I am not sure if you knew. Best regards.-- Garrondo ( talk) 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I was listening to this year's Dwight H. Terry Lectureship from Yale University ( Terry Eagleton's]) and I kept hearing this name what I thought, to me, was a new one. It turns out its a hybrid of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. A google search turns up eight (good?) hits: Ditchkins. What would be your view on an article on Ditchkins? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Your sources indicate that only Eagleton uses this and so it might be worth a mention in our article about him. I doubt that there's enough material for a separate article - just a redirect would do. Colonel Warden ( talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to join the ranks of people who care about content creation and would rather take 30 seconds to do a google search and 5 minutes to add a ref and text, than drop a turd-like textbox (on articles/content that the fookers don't even know/care about.) I might give the dragon club a bad name as I tend to act up a bit, especially with Tanqueray in my belly. TCO ( talk) 01:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have replied at your user page. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi - you wrote: FYI, I have proposed deletion of this redirect...
Heh. Good luck. last time this redirect was proposed for deletion it was kept - even though I (as writer of the essay) said I had no objection to its deletion!. Grutness... wha? 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Road? DGG ( talk) 12:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the improvements in the article. I would like you to know, though, that I never thought it was a weak article: I thought it was a bad article, worthy of deletion. I do understand the WP policy, and I see an editor's job in AfD discussions, if the article in question has problems, as having to weigh whether something is a weak article that needs improvement or a bad article (for a variety of reasons, of course) that needs to be deleted. You see, I don't think that a good title/topic is enough, and some contributors, and I sense this in this particular article, churn out less-than-average articles leaving it to other editors to clean it up. You have rewritten significant chunks of the article, and I applaud you for doing so--you have probably saved it. I do think the topic is worthwhile, but I also think it should have stayed in the sandbox a bit longer. If all contributors paid as much attention as you do, our AfD discussions would be a lot shorter. Thanks again, and all the best, Drmies ( talk) 18:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an attack on a good faith editor and his actions. Please consider retracting the statement. Per previous warnings about your behavior, you should tread carefully. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have undone one of your recent edits to guacamole per WP:crystal:
"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen."
Toddst1 ( talk) 23:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There was no OR since the material was well-sourced but I agree that we should avoid speculative content and will rewrite to address this. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Please seek consensus at talk:pea and talk:guacamole before continuing to re-insert material into Guacamole. Your unilateral editing and ignoring talk pages is not constructive at all. Toddst1 ( talk) 13:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hell. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
RE: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_17#Prominent_inclusionists?
Many thanks for your wonderful recommendations of "models of intelligent and discriminating inclusionism". Introducing me to DGG was a god send. He is really incredible. But I must say, after further study of the notability guidelines and the condescending response I got on this post, calling the other recommendation an inclusionist, is like calling Jesus Christ a Buddhist.
Thanks again and happy new year. travb ( talk) 11:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes it seems like you, Pixel, and A Nobody are the only ones out there trying to actively support the inclusionist viewpoint, while there are maybe a dozen deletionist or exclusionist-leaning editors, and I have to applaud you for that! I've seen you all mocked for sharing your viewpoints, and I know I don't have the heart to take that over and over, so I have stayed out of the policy talk pages. Like I said in my statement, I feel this has a lot to do with the frustration that Pixelface and others likely feel. Like me, I think most supporters of fiction have things to do so we prefer to be out there actually editing the articles. Many deletionists and exclusionists don't really have much to work on except deletions, so that frees up a lot of time to work on thing like policies. That's just the way it is, unfortunately; I'm sure you might feel like you're in the extreme minority viewpoint sometimes, but I doubt that would hold up to be true if all of WP's regular editors were to be polled. I'm sure that most deletionists are vocal and active, while many inclusionists may be neither. I wish there were a better way that we could all work with the moderates (I think I've seen Randomran for example say he would like to side with inclusionists more than deletionists, if only there were more compelling arguments on how to accomplish that). One thing to do would be to strengthen the first two prongs on the three-prong WP:FICT test, under which you can see certain editors really bristling that they are even present. For a long time, prong #3 was seen as the only test for fiction (and thus, not really any different than the GNG), and by some editors it's the only one worth examining, but if the first two can be better fleshed out and strengthened, we will make some serious headway with the moderates. Well hey, good luck! BOZ ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
And, as a practical matter, the key to success is mastery of the search for our Grail: good sources. If you should ever need a hand in this, feel free to ask. Colonel Warden ( talk) 17:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Got anything for Confederation of Planes and Planets? BOZ ( talk) 19:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Your thoughts on current (modified) article would be appreciated. Thanks Kris ( talk) 23:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have walked into the middle of our little edit dispute over at inflation, so I thought I should give you a heads up about what's going on.
Inflation is watched over by several Econ wikiproject members. Many of us have PhDs in economics and are in academia. We're trying to improve the econ articles so that they are at least undergrad text book quality, but you'ld be surprised how many people we have to fight over basic facts about economics.
Pennyseven showed up about a week ago, and has editing the Inflation page intensively and exclusively. He's been making some strange additions that all work back to a particular POV - that accounting values need to be corrected for inflation otherwise BAD THINGS HAPPEN. This POV has been pushed before, I could point you to some conversations on my talk page, and some earlier disputes on the Inflation page, but here's something from another econ wikiproject member on the inflation talk page that sums up our reservations.
I'll be upfront on this: I believe Pennyseven is yet another sockpuppet of Nicolaas Smith, who is indefinitely blocked and has a long record of attacks and disruptive editing. (AKA Kjkkjjk or whatever, X-1111, Pacluc, etc ad nauseum). The obsession is to push this point, and his (applied for patent) RealValueAccounting and text (i.e. conflict of interest).
Radeksz has been working with the wikiproject for some time. He's extremely knowledgeable and is a good editor that does good work. He usually engages on the talk page before making changes. Its just that we're getting tired constantly fighting POV pushers, and so we get a bit brusque when another one shows up.
lk ( talk) 14:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
User:PennySeven showed up about 10 days ago, and has been impolite to quite a few editors. We gave him leeway cause we didn't want to bite the newbie. But a pattern has emerged. Pennyseven is a WP:SPA that edits only the Inflation article, and consistently pushes only one point, that inflation degrades accounting values and must be corrected. This point has been pushed by a banned user before. The trouble with his edits is not that it's not true, it's that he doesn't source it to reliable sources that directly support his claim, and also that he wishes to put undue weight on it. There was discussion earlier among several editors, and all agreed that it Pennyseven's version placed undue weight. He reverts to it anyway. Check out the page history and talk history for yourself. You're on the wrong side here. lk ( talk) 18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
To my satisfaction I found many sources on the net.
Thank you very much for your help in this matter. It was decisive. PennySeven ( talk) 06:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Colonel Warden ( talk) 08:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)