Notices |
---|
Yes, I am an administrator. |
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for. |
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes. |
For past discussions on this page, see the archive. |
This edit was kind of mean, as has your overall attitude towards me in the deletion discussion. I am sure that there are some administrators who would wish to discourage the involvement of new editors in the project. Perhaps you are one of those? Sławomir Biała ( talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I make it an essay, moving it to Wikipedia main space? Ikip ( talk) 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ikip ( talk) 01:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for joining in. I was standing too close to it to improve it any more. It now looks like a substantial and well cited article and precisely in "our" mould here. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 07:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Thanks for using that as an example -- now I can't A7 it myself. :-)-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. It was interesting that you found my clean-up of your question more informative than my answers :D By the way, I see that you were involved with WP:AfC in its beginnings? Martin msgj 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol, I didn't even realize that. I obviously didn't read the entire article, and the parts I skimmed over, I figured it was just the result of a really, really bad automated translator. :P Anyway, thanks for cleaning that up. =) -- slakr\ talk / 13:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw that the piano rock article was deleted. Article deletions are always unfortunate when the articles in question arguably contain useful (and in this case, even cited) information. Do you still have access to the content of the deleted article? I can think of three ways to remedy this situation at least a bit:
I would be glad if you found a way to salvage the article content and make it available and findable for interested users. Florian Blaschke ( talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Can I make changes and add more info to the article? Dont like the way some of it sounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that ad hominem attack on VP. Very well done. So, if we're going to play little games, was this also why you pulled a prod off Felicitaries with no reasoning? MSJapan ( talk) 21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Come now! Think! The reasons that you don't expand them are the same reasons that many others don't, either. This doesn't make the articles the problem. It makes lack of editor ability, willingness, interest, time, and other factors, the problem. As I said, the fact that we have these stubs says nothing about the articles. The only thing that it reflects upon is Wikipedia editors.
Your attempt to address the problem by thinking of how to systematically remove the articles is entirely wrongheaded. It's the editors where the problem lies. That is what you should be trying to fix. And a good place to start is by looking at the reasons that you yourself don't write, when not only do you know that sources exist, you even know exactly where and what they are. Figure out what would encourage you to write, and you'll have a way to encourage others to do so, too. Uncle G ( talk) 23:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not asking for "perfection" before we link to it... however, I am asking that we not link to sub-articles that have fundamental factual accuracy issues. Those need to be ironed out, then we can link. Blueboar ( talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for bringing this to your talk page rather than to the appropriate discussion page. There seem to be several potentially appropriate discussion pages so I don't want to choose one where this will be ignored, and you seem to have a pretty good understanding of GFDL.
What do you make of the GFDL compliance of these books that have copyright notices such as this? Is that notice sufficient attribution to us, the copyright holders? Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey - these two articles have been consistently vandalized recently. Can you protect these two pages for a short period of time? GoCuse44 ( talk) 14:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I left a response to your comments on the AbsoluteTelnet DRV page. I was hoping you could read my additional comments and respond AbsoluteTelnet DRV. Thanks -- Brian Pence ( talk) 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G
What do you make of the reply to my original point at User talk:Kittybrewster#Marvin Sutton?
Thanks, Bongo matic 10:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm referring to User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. That rocks! I'd support moving it to the mainspace if you felt it was ready.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Noticed that you removed the AfD on this article. I didn't realize that one was made previous to the 24th until now but consensus seems to be to remove and it doesn't meet standards. It has hardly been improved content wise. Also, some have expressed valid concerns with notability, the title, and verifiability. I'm not necessarily against including this article but don't think it is appropriate at this time. Is it eligible for deletion if the article is not improved? If so, how long is appropriate to wait? Cptnono ( talk) 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't treat this as Someone Else's Problem, by the way. Deletion nominations are not sticks to beat other editors with into doing one's bidding. If you want an article expanded or cleaned up, follow the advice in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do: expand it or clean it up yourself, or apply the appropriate expansion or cleanup request tag. You all have the page move tool for fixing the the title, moreover. That isn't a matter for deletion, either. Nominating an entire article for deletion because one is unwilling to simply rename it appropriately using the tools that one readily has to hand onesself is wasting everyone else's time frivolously.
Only nominate an article for deletion on notability or verifiability grounds if you've looked for sources yourself, and come up with nothing usable. The first step is looking for sources. Only after you've done that can you confidently and honestly say that none exist, at which point you can go straight to deletion and present a solid rationale that actually has a basis in our deletion policy. There isn't a waiting period, but there is a necessary precursor. The idea that waiting is even involved is wrongheaded. You shouldn't be waiting, for Somebody Else to do the work, you should be doing — searching for sources, yourself. And if you actually do find sources when you look for them, the next step is improving the article, not deletion nominations of any sort. You'll have done some useful legwork that can help other editors. (This is, after all, a collaboratively written project. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. Everyone adds a little bit of work, and, amazingly, the encyclopaedia gets written.) Again, see the triage procedure. Uncle G ( talk) 02:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
****Understand what you were trying to say about the difference between an AfD and Proposed Deletion now. Regardless of me getting the terminology wrong and since you look like a fan of rescuing articles, is this article worthy of expansion? This article could be wikilawyered and stylized to be OK at first glance but it still looks like the information works best in the subsections of the two teams, potentially the Cascadia cup (Seattle-Portland-Vancouver), or maybe new articles about the relatively small supporter groups of the two teams who don't have articles but care most about the rivalry. In your opinion, is it best in this stub (it can be forced larger if needed) or is expansion to the already existing articles sufficient.
Talk:Seattle-Portland Rivalry has some links to sources but no one has taken notice.
Cptnono (
talk) 07:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
For your editorial efforts culminating in the rescue of The Economist editorial stance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
Now how often do you hear "good close" at AfD??? *grin*
I was tempted to speedy Giambracy as a G3 and figured I wouldn't bite. Given the pattern you saw, looks like I was assuming a bit too much good faith. Good job!-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you've been active as an administrator in the DRV process in the past so I would appreciate your comments on my suggested change to DRV requirements. Thanks! Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 09:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- why did you remove the prod from that article? Without a source it's utterly useless, and I, a neurobiologist, don't know how to find a source for it. I feel that as an admin who ought to behave responsibly, it is now up to you to turn that into at least a semi-respectable article. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 18:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, as a WikiProject Neuroscience member, you should be busy showing that you can find even more sources, and do far better in your own chosen field of the encyclopaedia, than some random person called "Uncle G" managed to do in a few minutes with only some ordinary search tools. I can find things such as doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300145 with a few minutes' work. You should be able to do better. You should be busy showing me (and everyone else) up, by finding even more — far more — sources than I did, and turning neuroscience stubs into full articles. After all, it's what the WikiProject that you are a member of is supposedly there to do.
If you want some more things to put on that WikiProject's to-do list, read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typoglycemia (2nd nomination). Uncle G ( talk) 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Another user has posted to ANI an issue that concerns you. The relevant thread can be found here. TN X Man 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm somewhat speechless, actually. I have listed this edit: [1] on the WP:ANI. It took me a while, because I've never had to do this before, and wasn't even sure what to do. I thought discussions of this sort were always done on talk pages? If you look at my contributions, I don't think you'll find very many recent mistakes of the magnitude you describe. Have I pissed you off sometime in a past life? Did I criticize a previous edit? I just dont' get it... -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Tell me again how this doesn't apply to me? I missed it somewhere... This is like that game when a "friend" takes your arm and hits you in the head, all the while saying "Why are you hitting yourself, huh? Why are you hitting yourself?" -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)This isn't about notability. That's a complete red herring. Your rationale as given is 3 words. It's clear what policy it references. That application of policy was wrong (your application of the policy was wrong, since I was the only using 3 words), as reading the article properly, and checking out the sources that it already cited, would have revealed. Clearly, you didn't look at the sources to see whether the article was presenting unpublished ideas not discussed in sources, even though checking articles against what sources say is one of the primary purposes of citing sources in Wikipedia. Moreover, it was wrong in a way that the article actually discusses as its subject. Clearly, you didn't pick up on that.
Furthermore, your discussion of "sin" is a straw man of your own construction. No-one except you yourself has said that you have sinned. There's nothing "aggressive" about pointing out where policy has been grossly, and ironically, mis-applied in a way that it does not actually apply at all. (Hint: There are, sadly, plenty of examples of aggression on Wikipedia. It generally looks like this or this. Spot the quite marked difference? No-one has called you ignorant, useless, or impertinent, or told you to "grow up and shut the fuck up". And the only person who has called you a sinner is you yourself.)
Finally, you ask for votes. This is not a vote, and the above is an opinion with an explanation. It's a quite clear explanation of how policy does not apply in the way that you assert it to apply, and what the error is that you've all made. (It's not the first time that people have looked at an unwikified article and not seen past the markup.) In yet further irony, you talk of explanations when your 3-word rationale is devoid of any explanation at all. This only serves to highlight your further error in stating that I'm explaining your reason to you. Quite the contrary, I'm taking your reason exactly as it was written: that the Wikipedia:No original research policy purportedly applied. You either don't understand that policy in the slightest, or you didn't look at the sources cited and didn't look beyond the style of the article to its substance. I took it that you understood the policy, but didn't read the article and see its actual substance, including the reliable sources that it cited in support of every single part of its content, for the unwikification and the Harvard referencing — as so many have done before you (Despite Wikipedia style guidelines, I've observed a significant bias against Harvard referencing at AFD over the years.), and that is spectacularly ironic in this particular case, given what this article's subject in fact is. You could have been simply sheep voting, of course, but I didn't work on that assumption.
When someone makes an error, it's quite legitimate to point out that it is an error. You weren't "targetted for trying to apply standards". You were told that you were doing things wrongly, and not actually applying our policies. You were not applying our standards, in any way. The route to not getting a complete misapplication of policy being pointed out by other people is to not mis-apply it in the first place, not to try to distract the discussion onto the subject of the people who point out such errors when they happen. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's daft, moreover, to expect people to jump through convoluted linguistic hoops to avoid responding in the second person, in ordinary discourse, to text where someone immediately before talks in the first person (of "my interpretation", "our reasons", and what "I did"), just in order to avoid using the word "your" so that silly word-counting games cannot be played later.
And you are hitting yourself. You characterized yourself as a sinner. You called yourself a "dumb schoolchild" and a "moron". No-one else has done any of this. Indeed, you started in on other people, too, attacking Unomi here for something that, if you had actually read the case you would know turned out to be false. I'm not asking you why you are hitting yourself. But I am saying to stop. Stop hitting yourself, and stop hitting other people, too. You're the only one doing it.
There is a game here, but it's the game of putting words into other people's mouths, hitting out at complete strangers who disagree with onesself, and hitting onesself and trying to place the blame for it with other people. Uncle G ( talk) 18:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G. You erased this diff. I am sure it was by accident, since as you see from the AfD you have persuaded me :) Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 20:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Boston (
talk) has given you a fresh piece of
fried chicken! Pieces of
fried chicken promote
WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the
WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
I'm giving you this chicken after noticing you came under fire for something you said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source Credibility discussion. Your point is a good one...I know I myself am too quick to disregard article content when the format doesn't look right to me! I hope you don't become too mired in the debate about the debate (about the debate about the debate about the debate) but rather can soon return to happier pursuits. Best wishes. -- Boston ( talk) 21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is pointless and simply fanning the flames to attack an editor who is having issues with you when you have addressed that issue-haver thus:
"It's a shame that none of you read the article, because it makes the very point that I'm about to make. The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, ... The fact that it was unwikified entirely slewed your opinions, and those opinions have no basis in policy whatsoever. You should have read the article properly, ignoring (or — better yet! — fixing) the cleanup issues."
If your concern is the article and the improper AfD (which it certainly is improper, as the subject has high EV), then you might better address the issue by not telling people what they are thinking. I often think that AfDs are proposed by editors who have not read the article, have not researched the topic, and know nothing about the topic, and frankly, I think are incapable of learning about the topic. And, I've said all of this in AfD discussions. My doing this serves no purpose other than to unnecessarily irritate people and take the focus off the subject at hand: the encyclopedia and a particular article. You're an administrator and could consider setting an example for other editors by not telling people what they are thinking--the ultimate in original research. Simply point out that the topic is clearly notable, point to some books that discuss the topic, and suggest the AfD be closed. I'll try to take my own advice, also. -- KP Botany ( talk) 22:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You also said, "The only reasons that you think that this is an essay," (emphasis mine) is telling them what they are thinking.
In my opinion, an administrator would be a better advocate for the encyclopedia Wikipedia by setting a strong example that includes focusing on the content of the encyclopedia rather than on another editor's motives or thinking. -- KP Botany ( talk) 05:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I also point out this to the both of you: The number of edits that people have on their accounts has nothing to do with this as far as I am concerned. This should be obvious from the fact that this began with an objection to the deletion of an article created by Dawson2824 ( talk · contribs), an editor with exactly four edits (of which this article was xyr first), and whom I've pointedly praised several times for actually creating an article the right way, the way that we all say articles should be created. You want an administrator setting an example? Try this: I've been opposing the automatic assumption of bad faith that some make of editors without accounts, and of apparent (but not necessarily actual) novice editors, since at least 2004. (Yes, I really do mean before I myself finally created an account.) Uncle G ( talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
And it's quite possible to look at something without seeing what is actually there, and to be influenced by presentation to the extent that one discounts content. That is, after all, one of the very things that this aspect of social psychology is about. That doesn't make a person doing that all of the things that have been asserted (but not by me) in these fragmented discussions. It simply makes that person in error.
You want an example of mind reading? You've commented on how you sometimes think that other editors are ignorant and incapable, and what to do in such circumstances. What makes you think that I thought anything like that? As I keep saying, I wrote nothing of the kind. (Go and look at the section just above on this very talk page. I often take the view that other editors in fact have greater capabilities than I have.) Now arguing on the basis that I thought something about a fellow editor that I never wrote is mind-reading. There is mind reading here, but it's not on my part. Or — rather — it would be mind-reading, had I not also clearly stated that I made no such assumptions about lack of understanding, ignorance, or laziness, right at the beginning. Uncle G ( talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and apologize for allowing my emotions to get the best of me yesterday. Your points have been absorbed, and I don't disagree with the academic points of what you had to say. I should not have allowed myself to continue responding, and I certainly should never have degenerated to a state where I lashed out at an innocent bystander. I have already apologized to Unomi for my careless words. I don't respond well to people telling me what I'm thinking, explaining my reasons to me, and using a didactic platform to belittle the contributions of others. This does not give me the right to be an ass, however. I apologize for causing a disruption and I will be withdrawing my objection to the Source credibility article. I do not hold grudges longer than overnight, so please don't think you've made an enemy, or that I will be engaging in any kind of petty reprisals. I hope we can find some common ground on articles in the future. Best regards. -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 01:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I was browsing through the list of DYK candidates and found something that pertains directly to this discussion, in the nominations for articles created on 10 April. Scroll down to the entry for Richmond Bridge, London, and you'll see what I mean--I think you might chuckle. I sure did. Drmies ( talk) 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
We saw your explanation of this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#April 6 -- we had, immediately prior to this, used this page (Request for Removal of Copywrite Violation) which was redirected; the redirect seemed reminiscent of the tactic of using a "redirect" as an adjunct to "merge" for unscrupulous effective deletion of Wikipedia articles by a legal-process sort of vandalism to which Wikipedia seems to be highly prone : the legal vandals' scheme also involves claiming (by the legal vandal) of alleged "copyright-violation". (As a co-author of a number of thusly-deleted Wikipedia articles, I am seeking administrative redress on some of these matters through any available appeals process, and have a number of appeals already on file with Wikipedia appeals-offices as concerns these cases.)
Incidentally, the extremely swift removal from public access of the "page history" of an article deleted by legal vandalism renders the names of co-authors of those article likewise inaccessible, so that the locating of co-authors in order to apprise them of the fact of their articles having been deleted (so as to alert them of their need to file appeals), becomes impossible without administrative assistance. Would you (or any other administrator to whom you might refer us) be willing to assist us in locating co-authors of deleted articles? 71.76.32.220 ( talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The editor who made that RFD nomination was 0XQ, and unfortunately yes, that editor is violating copyright. One of the articles that xe created was Lumbrokinase. It comprised five paragraphs, each of which was simply copied and pasted from another WWW page. 0XQ did not write anything in that article in xyr own words.
For example: the fourth paragraph of that article, beginning "Four phases of clinical studies have been done on LK at the Beijing Xuanwu Hospital", was copied and pasted in its entirety from here. That WWW page is, as you can see by reading it, not free content. It even explicitly says, at its foot, "Copyright© 2004-2009 --- NutriCology, Inc. --- All rights reserved.". Copying and pasting it is a copyright violation.
Creating articles by simply copying other people's writing, is not writing. It's taking other people's writing and passing it off as one's own. It's laziness. And it's not allowed here at Wikipedia. We want content that is written in editors' own words. We don't want people to do what 0XQ did. It wasn't writing.
Two other articles that 0XQ worked upon (but did not create) are Serratiopeptidase and Serrapeptase. But these have not been deleted. One can look in their deletion logs, here and here, to see that. They were merged, because they were the same subject by different names. We have one article per subject here at Wikipiedia.
Now mergers are not always perfect. Some editors are hasty. Some consider helping with any part of the merger process other than the final redirect to be Somebody Else's Problem. Some are merely starting off a process actually desired by other people, upon whom the responsibility really lies to fully enact what they opine should be done. If there's something in the edit history of one article that has not been merged into the other article, and as long as it wasn't someone else's text that 0XQ was passing off as being xyr own (as xe did with Lumbrokinase) and as long as it is in accordance with our other content policies (in addition to our copyright policy), it can be retrieved from the edit history (which, having not been deleted, is accessible) of the redirected title and added to the merged article (noting in the edit summaries what article it was taken from, for GFDL compliance). All editors have the tools to complete an incomplete merger.
And there are already discussions at Talk:Serrapeptase and Talk:Serratiopeptidase where editors are open to discussing what further text can be merged, which any editor can join and contribute to. Uncle G ( talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have had a go at making it more neutral. Thatsitivehadenough ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC).
Hi UncleG, I'm unable to figure out how to edit Whitney Lakin as it lacks a link to the AfD on the page for the date. Any ideas? Hobit ( talk) 01:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thank you for your reply and suggestions.-- Juliaaltagracia ( talk) 01:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For your post regarding Godwin's Law at ANI (see below diff). You're one of the only Wikipedians here who understand what is going on around here. I couldn't have said it any better myself. MuZemike 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
Here's the diff: [3] MuZemike 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on this one - I had no clue how to fix it, but you have significantly improved it. – ukexpat ( talk) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I read your comment yesterday and found it useful and enlightening, and was waiting to see what the author's response would be. The article has been changed in a meaningful way, and I'm actually rooting for the author--though I'm not fully convinced yet, it won't take much. Thanks for your interest. Drmies ( talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm through with playing games here. Hilary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well OK, BlueSquadronRaven isn't editing right now so I'm kinda losing my motivation... let's hope he comes back soon to get me all riled up again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you wonder how BlueRavenSquadron managed to spend so long at Wikipedia without realizing the GFDL requires attribution? I think it's this phrase here, from the edit screen which everyone sees:
This isn't enough, because it seems to imply that you can simply copy text from anywhere as long as it has a GFDL-compatible license. And this is one reason why Wikipedia is an ever-growing mountain of GFDL and other copyright violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I got my motivation back! and given that Wikipedia is an ever-growing mountain of copyright infringement anyhow, I hardly need to feel guilty about vandalising it.
Done. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G. Just wanted to say thanks for the follow-up work you've been doing in looking at the contributions of the JamesBurns sock puppets, and looking over the AfD list at User:Paul Erik/AfDs affected. I am learning from this experience. Much appreciated, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Another question: What distinguishes a discussion that should go to DRV (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa vs Pretty) from one that should just be re-listed (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lac Motion)? Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a question on this topic, if you don't mind: if the participants in the debate haven't read the deletion policy, and don't even read the debate itself (like someone who's name I am not going to mention), is it actually wrong to use sock puppets to argue for the correct result, in accordance with your deletion policy? JustOneMoreQuestion ( talk) 07:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Or even against the correct result, just for kicks? JustOneMoreQuestion ( talk) 08:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G, I see that you've found the "clear connection" I was talking about between Megan1967 and the other socks. When you open the SPI for User:Leanne, I will add any evidence I found that you may have overlooked. DHowell ( talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that is an issue that must be raised about that user's page - though I'm as guilty as anyone else of having joke material on mine. :) - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If you look at BlueSquadronRaven's contributions you'll see why there's no point attempting to answer this kind of spam with policy based arguments. There isn't time to google a fraction of these things, let alone trying to build the article. It's not even worth trying to use good puppets which vote the right way because (1) still have to google and (2) you're still outnumbered by Butuirol, Dahn, Bali ultimate etc. The only thing left is bad puppets, hoping to refute the logic they are using and draw in other neutral people to help. Also it keeps the Ricky81682 challenge alive. Mergellus ( talk) 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–United Arab Emirates relations does it not challenge your ability to assume good faith? Mergellus ( talk) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You can see that they only win (1) because Wikipedia makes decisions by ballot, not discussion, and (2) your ballots are being stuffed by spammers. Wuzzit ( talk) 19:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
What's even worse is Ukraine–Vietnam relations. Someone actually expanded that so you have no excuses left. I pledge 10 items of sneaky vandalism for that one, but I'll give you a few days if you want to take it to DRV. Wuzzit ( talk) 20:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I agree with your points re BLP's, and completely disagree with your criticism of me for commenting on the discussion without having copyedited the article. People have time for what they have time for, and I didn't (haven't yet?) had time to work on the article itself.
I agree there is a responsibility on all editors (not just administrators) to remove poorly sourced information from BLP's. I also agree there was poorly sourced information in the Michelle Leslie article. Alas, between the time I commented on the AfD and the time you did, I was largely away in real life doing other things. Now I'm back I'm happy to work on this or any other BLP, though I note you've already started work on it. I respect your extensive contributions to Wikipedia and would welcome any further suggestions (even criticisms) you might have re editing priorities. But to avoid diverting the AfD I'd suggest they might be better placed either here or at my talk page. If you've other things to do and don't have anything further to add to your earlier comments, thanks again for the feedback. Euryalus ( talk) 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic ( talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Big thank you for slicing through the knots I got myself into here.-- Shirt58 ( talk) 12:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Point noted, but I do have a query (see here). Cheers, Nja 247 12:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow ... all those articles you cited, Footage is the author and more or less the sole contributor. You think we should G12 the lot, or maybe hit them with {{ copyvio}}? I've also proposed a community ban. Blueboy 96 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
-- AbsolutDan (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just lovely. You should do this for all TLDR discussions. :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox ( talk) 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I see you've discovered my past life. In my defense, most of what I did was "parodies" or trolls, kooks, and spammers but granted a lot of what I did in that newsgroup would violate WP:POINT here. The only thing left of that era of my net life is the picture on my userpage.
However, I can see where someone reading Usenet archive sources out of context could give someone the wrong idea about something so I would never support using anything like that on an article about a living person. I was just thinking that they could be used to demonstrate verifiability/notability (in the sense that it existed and was well known) for Internet related subjects that predate the world wide web. Again however, in the case of Crystal Palace, I've rethought that, it was created in 1996 and still exists today so if it were notable, then there would be "modern WWW" sources that meet our standards. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the long run-down on the issuance of currency that you left at Talk:Licence to print money! I didn't understand that private banks actually are authorized (licensed, chartered, whatever) to print money, but I'm going to look up more information because I still don't understand the nature of arrangement. These banks are authorized to print money ... what, when they feel like it? That seems to make it impossible for a government to exercise any control over its own economy, whether or not the banks are tightly regulated. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, just a small point I was wondering, what about Scots and Ulster banks who still issue currency? By "The UK" did you mean England and Wales? Of course that's a bit moot in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland which is now public ownership and I don't think they issued banknotes (offers of credit cards seems more their line) but I think e.g. Clydesdale Bank and Bank of Scotland do, and Northern Bank in Ulster (part of HSBC now)? I am probably wrong on remembering the banks here, I am not trying to make a big deal of this except to say it should be checked if that article ever comes about.
Of course, all banks also issue private money in the form of cheques. Or hmmm is a cheque the writer's private money not the bank's? I've just been editing Negitiable cow so perhaps that has blurred my idea of who owns a cheque, which is, after all, just a promise to pay.
Which also reminds me someone said to me the other day about banknotes (in England) not being honored cos they were not signed, can't remember if this was about Irish or Scots notes, can't remember the context at all. Again just something probably to check if this article comes about-- and I hope it does cos it would be quite an interesting one I think, in a "who knew?" kind of way. I imagine all these questions are fairly easily answered, just wanted somewhere to make them so they didn't get lost-- I'm not necesssarily expecting you to answer them yourself, except for "Did you REALLY mean UK or just England and Wales"? SimonTrew ( talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand and empathize your viewpoint that not all ips are vandals. I was never trying to say that only ips are vandals either. I realize that sock puppets can be annoying, but as an editor who constantly fights vandalism, I find that most vandalsim is from anon ips or newly created accounts. Saying that my point of view was "rubbish", especially on an ANI board was not helpful.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (section 21 "request for a correction") you have left this edit, and I would be grateful if you could answer the following (off course, no obligations):
With cordial greetings, Artem R. Oganov Aoganov ( talk) 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for support. Those personal attacks on myself are becoming annoying. Materialscientist ( talk) 02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (NIMSoffice)
That was a great idea, to use the sources to build an entirely new article! Wish I'd thought of doing that. Fences and windows ( talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
For the most amazing salvage I've ever seen. Dloh cierekim 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
Royal broil 00:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
saw your related comment on AfD about gamma boron. [4] i warned the user. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed Hell, Arizona... that has to be one of the best article rescues I've ever seen. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens ( talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Impressive HEY job you did on this article. If we could find a way to clone you then we wouldn't need AFD anymore. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining your unprecedented (dare I say weird?) habit of putting lines in middle of a discussion? [5] [6] Thanks, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of not biting a newbie, I've left a message on the creator's page User talk:Flylanguage#Potential Articles for Deletion nomination of your Fly (programming language) article, that will add some urgency to your article tags. If he/she doesn't respond in a reasonable period of time with some sourcing, I may bring the article to AfD, although it will be my first and only AfD nomination in two years of editing. — Becksguy ( talk) 01:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
" * " ←That's a cheap barnstar ... lol, sorry I'm so lazy and lame. Hey, just wanted to note that you showed leadership by example. The rewrite of Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet to take an idea and fix it rather than just delete it is something I admire. Nice work. ;) — Ched : ? 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see and comment here. --
I found a weblink to the source you mention [7] and found it disagreed with the article in several points, which I corrected, and did not support others, such as the casualty rates, so I added citation tags - which the article creator removed without adding sources.
I did not remove all mention of alleged German involvement, if you read "my" version of the article [8] you would see them mentioned several times. Further, I have not edited the article since I asked for help. Since then the article creator has removed tags asking for citations, again without adding sources. Their claim that Germans were present and fought on the Mexican side is based on a single source. I’ve found another source [9] which does not accept this claim as a certainty, other Gbooks hits don’t have a preview or don’t preview the appropriate pages. Edward321 ( talk) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
No no no. Not his archival. I could give a shit how he archives his talk page. Did you read the substance of his discussion? He's being intentionally rude and obstructionary to a simple question. Another user asked for a reasonable explanation of an admin action he made, where he closed some AFDs. Read his response. It wasn't the way he archived his page, it was the rude way he refused to answer the question... Read it. Its a fun time. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't answer the question. But I think that Docu is trying to make a point subtly, and being too subtle about it. Xe is apparently asking LibStar what type of project xe believes xe is contributing to, and what xe believes it is this project's goal to build. So it's a fair point to observe that neither of the two of them was answering the other's questions.
Also note that this is not exactly an interaction between these two that has occured in a vacuum. Observe the context, such as this for example.
Also try putting yourself in Docu's shoes. If someone came to your talk page telling you how non-administrator closures worked, wouldn't you be confused and ask for that person to explain themselves more clearly, or in a different way, with diffs? What if that person's next two posts to your talk page were this notification and this? Would you be any the wiser as to what that person was on about? Given that the latter edit doesn't even ask a question, and nor did most of the edits before it (There's no question asked here, for example.), wouldn't you be yet further confused when that person's next edit was to complain that you weren't answering xyr questions?
Good communication is not solely Docu's burden here. LibStar's communcation is clearly poor in this circumstance. Given recent edits like this, this, and this, it's not solely this circumstance where it is poor, moreover. Uncle G ( talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As to the discussion on your talk page, note that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Adding {{primarysources}} to various articles, including Estonia–Luxembourg relations is the context and Llywrch is an administrator. Docu wasn't coming to you for mediation. Xe was coming to you asking for suggestions, when an editor repeated behaviour that another administrator had said a week beforehand could be considered disruptive if repeated. You didn't address that, which is why xe returned to the point. You didn't directly say words to the effect of "Look, this edit isn't actually disruption on Bali ultimate's part, contrary to what you are thinking, and the discussion that you point to does not say anything about this article, let alone support the general conclusion about primary sources that you are drawing.".
Again, look at what you wrote and ask yourself if, were you in Docu's shoes and coming to another administrator to ask a "What action should best be taken with this editor, now?" question, you would know that you, Jayron32, were saying that. Ask yourself whether you might try to re-iterate the point that you were actually asking for help on when the person you asked started talking about notability and "larger issues". Uncle G ( talk) 09:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
How do you pronounce them? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the leg work on those. As you suspected, I have no involvement in that dispute -- never heard of the guy before a couple of days ago. I don't remember why I commented on LoveMonkey's diff -- it was probably the most recent uncivil one at the point where I dropped in. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: RFC talk
One more issue with the Artez article (which I've readded the COI tag to again). You might also want to mention that the user uploaded the company logo, with the source given as the company's website, and then claimed to be the copyright holder and to release the logo into the public domain. And then added the logo to his/her own userpage, which wouldn't be possible if the logo had been uploaded as fair use. Dekimasu よ! 03:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
For massively expanding and saving the clearly notable five wits from AfD, I hereby award you this barnstar. Congratulations and keep up the good work! -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
I don't understand why you removed the deletion notice on Dobryi. I think everyone agrees that the article is useless and a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Trovato ( talk • contribs) 2009-06-15 03:46:08
Hi. I see that you have : Removed internal link, per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. I have made this because direct link to the page with program was treated as bad page and it was reomed by robot/system ( I do not know). This internal link was an only way to make a link with help find this page via users page. Is it a better way ? Regards -- Adam majewski ( talk) 13:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thx for answer. -- Adam majewski ( talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as you have taken part in the conversation before I thought you should be notified of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). The previous decision seems to have been against consensus, which was more for redirect. I personally think the article should be deleted. This is not canvasing as I am informing all people involved in the previous discussions and nobody outside of the discussions. Polargeo ( talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G, why did you restore three to four year old vandalism to Gotem? It contained nothing that wasn't nonsens, and the current article has very little to do with it, despite starting from the same nonsense: because people then did at first not believe that the info was nonsense, we had to go through an AfD to change it into a completely different, correct article. To restore the deleted nonsense by long gone, mostly blocked editors seems utterly pointless. Fram ( talk) 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You have not read the edit history, are wheel warring to make an article non-GFDL compliant ( The Raven was not the original author of the content.) and are dismissing as "vandalism" and "inaccurate" content that actually was neither, as can be plainly seen when compared to the "accurate" content. Speedily deleting valid content with an incorrect application of the speedy deletion criteria when the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotem was "keep", and when all of your mistakes here were pointed out to you then as well, is highly troublesome, too. I suggest that you undo the both wrong and anti-consensus use of your tools immediately, otherwise it's going to be a lot more than just me quietly fixing an erroneous application of the patent nonsense criterion and restoring GFDL compliancy here. Uncle G ( talk) 12:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
And if you refer the comments by vandals in the AfD over my comments, again, be my guest. But please don't take any comments from people who create and defend the article Eiland at face value.
Finally, "Speedily deleting valid content with an incorrect application of the speedy deletion criteria when the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotem was "keep", and when all of your mistakes here were pointed out to you then as well, is highly troublesome, too. " suggests that I deleted contents after an AfD closed as "keep". However, I only redeleted contents which was mainly added by serial vandals, was deleted by other admins, without contestation or DRV, and which you decided on your own to restore three years later for no good reason and without consultation of anyone. Fram ( talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I still haven't gotten a clue — Indeed. Here is some more Clue then: You nominated an article for deletion multiple times when you could have just fixed it. You didn't actually constructively edit the article at all, as none of your edits have introduced any content. And you are still, after three years, fixated with the idea that the people who wrote that Gotem was, for examples, at latitude 50 and a bit degrees north and has postal code 3840 are vandals. Indeed you are still, here and now in the very edit above, accusing the original creator of the article, who introduced those self-same facts to Wikipedia, of being a vandal. Uncle G ( talk) 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's see. The original editor, probably user PhoenixPinion (who also edited e.g. the soon deleted vandal article Caughtem minutes after creation (Gotem and Caughtem, right...) In his first edit, he introduces a wrong province, a totally wrong population (39,000 instead of 200), imaginary alternative names, and most damningly, a link to a hoax article created by the same group of vandals (Syphonbyte, The Raven, The Raven is God, 578, PhoenixPinion, Catbag, ...) Oh, and some unrelated nonsense slang, the very reason they created and maintained this article. The second edit, by the very same creator, adds "See "Caughtem" for further information.", which as indicated above is also a deleted hoax article. Yes, these are all indications that this was a well meaning editor and not a vandal... We obviously will not understand each other here. Oh, and you have not read the entire edit history (to use one of your complaints), since I did introduce content, here [16]. Fram ( talk) 04:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bavarian Pigeon Corps, instead of "he", several times you have typed "xe" and at one point I think you typed "xem" instead of "them". It was very confusing at first, although it was nearly four in the morning and I was not my most focused. I was just wondering what was up with that.
You want to say something to me, say it to me. Speaking of "the easy way", you could probably check my contributions to see how it is that I edit. I happen to agree with you that IPC stuff isn't really useful. However, since so many users create those sections, especially in certain cases, I'm not sure it's always the best to get rid of it. Mintrick ( talk) 19:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching the results of the AfDs that have gone so far, and I'm not displeased. If the material must be deleted, then it is much easier to do that by AfDing an IPC article than obliterating an IPC section.
As an aside, if you truly believe that such trivia has no place in Wikipedia, then you should try and get policy to say that. Because right now it doesn't. Mintrick ( talk) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
As for "[It] is much easier to do that by AfDing an IPC article than obliterating an IPC section.": That's exactly the sort of burden-shifting and work-multiplication that earns an editor the disrespect of everyone else. It's imposing unnecessarily a burden on many editors (Look how many editors have participated in the AFD discussions that you have caused.) that need not exist. And it's wrong, too. The AFD discussion results, especially merge results, often don't provide any support for removing the original content from the original article, contrary to what you are thinking. Ordinary editing of an article in situ, discussing sourcing and original research issues on the talk page in the normal way, can deal with bad content, without sweeping things under the rug and without causing massive amounts of work for everyone else wholly unnecessarily. Uncle G ( talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It would appear that the BPC issue is moving to a resolution. The good thing is that the new emphasis will be on the inventor and the invention rather than a peripheral (at best) army unit. Funnily enough my grandfather was both a pigeon fancier and a member of the German army and from 1916 the air corps during WW1. I am sure that he would have mentioned the phenomena of birds with cameras had there been such. Albatross2147 ( talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you forgot to actually say keep at that Afd. DGG ( talk) 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
... now with the date of Bannockburn in his name, Meechan1314 ( talk · contribs). Dearie me, what a headache. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 11:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you may want to add your comments User_talk:Unomi#RE:_Regarding_your_use_of_the_prod_tag here, as I am not quite sure how well I am handling it Unomi ( talk) 04:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Your bot created Transwiki:Politics of Merrimack and Transwiki:Politics of Merrimack/Merrimack Politics of 2002. I'd never heard of the Transwiki namespace before -- am I completely out of the loop? If so, could you point me to where I can learn about it? If not, could you move those articles to where ever it is you intended them to go? Thanks!-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
As to what is intended: You're asking the wrong person. Go and ask the people commenting at b:Project:Votes for deletion#Politics of Merrimack what they intended. They are the ones who wanted the transwikification. Feel free to encourage them into putting their edits where their discussion words are. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Uncle G. I've gone ahead and added both the Harrison Ford and Jeff Goldblum articles to my watchlist per your suggestion at the ANI (Jackson) thread. I was curious though - are the items related in some fashion? I just wasn't sure why Ford and Goldblum would be targeted. thanks. — Ched : ? 13:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
An AfD I tried to rescue was deleted without relisting despite a 4(including nom, excluding a double vote)-3 vote. I believe I provided sufficient sources to prove notability, but the closing admin didn't seem to think so, per the closing note. Since I've seen you walk by on quite a few AfDs, I'm seeking your opinion on whether this might be something to take to deletion review. If someone other than me doesn't think so, I don't see the point in wasting everyone's time at DR, and I've never heard of this subject before the AfD and probably won't ever again, so it's not that important to me, except for the manner in which this AfD was worked. Can you check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FACT Software International Pte Ltd and let me know what you think? - SpacemanSpiff ( talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Uncle G. While I agree that, in a void, the thread in question would be more appropriate on the RS board, it is also relevant to the ongoing MJ discussion. If the thread had been started independantly of anything else, I'd agree with the move. As it stands, I think we might all be better served by collapsing the thread, and possibly doing some form of transclusionary magic to have the ongoing thread shown in both places. Badger Drink ( talk) 08:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't turn regular refs into citation templates, as they make the text harder to edit. See WP:CITE, regarding changing styles. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
We need more people to help sort this out. Accusations of POV and false sources are knocking about.-- 86.25.8.152 ( talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect user User:JamesBurns, AKA User:MegX, has returned as User:Trevvvy and probably User:Cradleofrock. Please see my comments here User talk:Aervanath#Another sock of User:Piriczki for a detailed account of my suspicions. Piriczki ( talk) 15:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for slogging through the mud. Sorry for getting lost in the mud. Won't happen again. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I still would like ObserverNY's repeated insinuations about me and the attempted "outing" (based on her thinking I am someone she knows - see her talk page) to be addressed. Thank you. Tvor65 ( talk) 10:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly conur. I knew shortly afterwards that I had lost it at this point and did try to get back on track. I have learned from this. Thank you for your patience, time and effort. -- Candy ( talk) 06:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G. I've been archiving the Talk:IB Diploma Programme page on a frequent basis, but having never archived before, don't know whether I've done it correctly. In your opinion, is it best to continue with the cut/paste archiving method I've used (which preserves the history) or is there a more efficient manner to archive. I ask because the page is very long and needs archiving again. Thanks for your help. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 00:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You might want to see that your edits have been reverted for reformatting another editor's post, apparently. - SpacemanSpiff ( talk) 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in first so I didn't have to do the work. I sometimes feel that I'm ploughing a rather lonely furrow here. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
marto ( talk) 16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
...that my reply here was meant in good faith. I didn't realize the next person to comment would have a sarcastic attitude towards you. So I hope you don't interpret my comment in the same manner. :-) Cheers. APK coffee talk 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop a thank you for your help, research, work, and explanations in regards to the DRV and Wictionary. It's greatly appreciated. ;) Best, — Ched : ? 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm placing this here to avoid derailing the discussion on the Gropecunt Lane article talk page.
Using my example of citation #32 at Restoration of the Everglades, which appears now as: Davis, Steven. "Phosphorus Inputs and Vegetation Sensitivity in the Everglades" in Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration, Steven Davis and John Ogden, eds. (1994), St. Lucie Press. ISBN 0963403028
It could also appear as a book cite, shortly reading <Davis and Ogden, p. XX> and a listing of the book in the Bibliography section. In fact, that might be clearer, because it gives the precise page number where the claim is cited. I did this when I constructed Rosewood massacre using a history book edited by Michael Gannon. Cite #10 in Rosewood massacre refers to a page in a chapter written by William Rogers, but it is cited to Gannon, and the book is listed in the Bibliography section as Gannon (ed.). Both are correct and accepted in FAs; it is the preference of the FA nominator/author to decide how these citations appear.
I was not trying to fault the cite template, but you mentioned the cite encyclopedia template, though I had not referred to encyclopedias. I just refuse to use cite templates for the reasons I gave. Parrot of Doom changed it. That's his decision. He was not wrong in how he cited it or the fact that he changed it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
A citation listed the wrong person as the author. It was wrong. You've tried to blame the citation templates, which have no bearing upon errors of fact. You've tried to argue that a simple error of fact is a matter of "individual preference". You're now pointing to citations where you've omitted the name of the author as somehow being relevant. I have to ask: Are you intentionally missing a very simple and clear point? Uncle G ( talk) 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, s/he triggered it 10 times--check out the filter log. Blueboy 96 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent work on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. . I hesitate to change the class=C ranking, but is a puzzle to me how it could be class=C and nominated for GA status. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how often you check Commons so I'm dropping a line here too: I've replied there. And yeah, what DThomsen8 said about the improvements to Bridgeman v. Corel and related articles.-- ragesoss ( talk) 02:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why you deprodded GameScoop. You didn't explain why in the edit summary nor on the talk page. If there was something that I had missed when I tried to look for sources, let me know. Thank you, MuZemike 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G. I respectfully request that you drop in on the International Baccalaureate article. The pro-IB contingency is warring with me over my use of Phyllis Schlafly's article as a source to substantiate controversy over the program in the United States. These are two of the same editors from the IBDP article I have had problems with. I am trying to abide by Wiki policies, be polite, and constructive, but EVERYTHING I add becomes a target and gets wiped or moved around. Thank you. ObserverNY ( talk) 13:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I've re-read the IB page from here. You told me to apologize. I did. I considered two comments to be in bad form and I struck them. Not being a person known for using sarcasm, I don't see which of my comments you consider sarcastic. At any rate, I'll step away. I'm copyediting an article for someone else for FA status, and then I can step away from Wikipedia entirely. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In my view, this is good advice. That's why I'd step away; and because there's much to do on Wikipedia in general where one can work quietly. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 14:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Uncle G has either gone AWOL or had himself committed after this back and forth. I propose a WP:Truce with LaMOme and Tvor65. The ball is in their court. ObserverNY ( talk) 18:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Your comments at WP:ANI regarding the Stewart Downing photo are a bit obtuse. Could you perhaps detail the issue in the talk page comment you want everyone to "get". Because I certainly don't see what you are talking about. Just telling us all to "read the comment" as though we can magically devine what your opinion on the comment is isn't helping much. I too want to resolve this issue, and you seem to indicate that there is something in the comment that will help us resolve it. If you could direct us to what it is, that would be most awesome. -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 17:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
On the Chan Heung page you mentioned that the reference style is not well done. Can you give me a more concrete example? I can provide a better reference style if an example is given. Thanks for your input! I do appreciate having input if it will help make the page better. Huo Xin ( talk) 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
Sterling work on the Blue Pig — cheers, Colonel Warden ( talk) 14:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Uncle G. The article you turned Blue Pig into is an interesting idea, and I have created a redirect to point to it - Blue Pig, Grantham. However, it is inappropriate for Blue Pig to point to an article on Grantham, as there are several pubs with the name Blue Pig, and the one in Grantham is not particularly more notable than the others: Google, Books, therefore a redirect of Blue Pig to an article on pub names seems more appropriate. Unless you have a continuing objection, I'll point Blue Pig back to Pub names. There may, of course, be other solutions to consider - and people may in future do other things with Blue Pig! Anyway - as it seems you have an interest in pubs, would you consider helping out on the pubs articles at WP:Pubs? SilkTork * YES! 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a continuing objection, and it's the one in the edit summary. Until you add something about Blue Pigs to pub names, a redirect there doesn't serve the reader. Whereas a Blue Pig is discussed, with more than a single passing mention, at public houses and inns in Grantham, and pointing a reader wanting to know about Blue Pigs there will at least provide xem with an article that actually talks about one.
To be honest, I think that you'll not find anything to write about Blue Pigs in general. This is based upon how sources treat the subject. I've done more than your Google searches. I've actually read sources. The entry for "Blue Pig" in Rothwell (cited in public houses and inns in Grantham) directs to the entry for "Blue", and the entry for "Blue" doesn't say much about Blue Pigs specifically, and spends over a third of its length talking about the "Blue" pubs in Grantham. The Guinness Book of names doesn't even have an entry for "Blue Pig" at all.
Your Google searches — as Google searches do, and as explained by Wikipedia:Google test — mean nothing when it comes to notability, and are a completely fallacious argument. The actual coverage by sources, which I've seen because (for obvious reasons ☺) I've spent some time looking for and reading sources that document a Blue Pig pub, is skewed towards Grantham. Simply put, most coverage is Yellow Pages content, self-advertising, and things like when the pub quiz night is, which has nothing encylopaedic to say. Where the coverage is suitable source material, it covers the Blue Pig only as part of a larger discussion of "Blue" pubs in general, which in turn tends to devote a large part of its time to Grantham's "Blue" pubs. The Blue Pig is only documented as part of a notable umbrella subject, and isn't notable in its own right.
I did point this out in the AFD discussion. Did you think that I hadn't based what I wrote on what coverage in sources I had found? If I'd found sources documenting the subject in its own right, I wouldn't have had to rename the article. Indeed, if such coverage in sources existed the original article wouldn't have had to talk about other pubs in Grantham, too. Uncle G ( talk) 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Before User:Andrewjlockley came along with his mass of redirects and see alsos to back up his new article 6th Extinction already existed as a redirect to Holocene extinction event. We should not redefine 6th extinction as 'Anthropocene extinction' per AJL's limited POV understanding of the science. I am simply trying to get some scientific claritiy here as opposed to AJLs rather intricate content forking. We are falling into the trap of allowing the definition of neologism terms on wikipedia to suit an individual's content forking purposes. Polargeo ( talk) 09:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I have done for you as I suggested and copied your response over to my talkpage. I would appreciate if you copied over any further response you may have to my talkpage so I am kept up to date on the discussion. I have added some material on Blue Pig to the Pub Names article, and so having now overcome your sole objection, I have redirected Blue Pig to that article. Please be aware that I have created Blue Pig, Grantham for those looking for the pub in Grantham. It could be seen as presumptious to assume that someone looking for the significance of the pub name "Blue Pig", or for an actual Blue Pig pub in any other location that they should be looking for the one in Grantham. The significance of the use of the word "Blue" (for both Blue Pug and a variety of other pub names which use Blue) is given in the Pub Names article, which is sourced. Assistance with expanding the Pub names article would be appreciated. SilkTork * YES! 14:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Conrad Murray. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Murray. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You asked a fair question on RFAR, but its a general question about checkuser so it's not really specific to that case. I've had a go at an answer.
It can and does take just minutes to find that diff, but the thing is, only if you know to look for it. Durova didn't know, nor Ottava, nor the people who looked for evidence and reported they hadn't found any that was solid enough at the time.
What you're asking sounds reasonable,but if someone told you right now, "I suspect users X and Y with thousands of edits might be socks", the amount of work that can go into finding the level of evidence needed is colossal. Even supposing you found that diff in that case, you have to then act as devils advocate, and anticipate the user saying "I was using someone else's computer" or whatever... you then have to be able to show that answer isn't likely either, that's part of it too.
Checkuser elections are going on. When they're done, in a couple of months, ask one of the new checkusers how technically tough it can be to track down the one elusive diff you don't even know whether it's there.
Then consider the pile-on "It must have been his mother/wife/invisible friend, checkuser abuse!" and the extra work to produce evidence - not say-so - that would show all the alternative good faith reasons are implausible or unlikely.
Checkuser work is easy looking back, like a lot of things. In this case the quickest logical route is - "If they are socks, they may have stacked. Let's look at major project pages where stacking might have been more serious. 9 times out of 10 all you'd get is "yes, they both stated a view on this discussion. In Geogre's case you'd find a resigned edit a minute later. But that's easy to say in hindsight.
In the case of more serious sock-users - Poetlister, Mantanmoreland, and now, Geogre - these are sophisticated competent users (or abusers) with many contributions. Traces may be expected to be scanty, and often considerable insight is needed to realize where such iron-clad evidence might be found, and then dig it out and show it is significant, even if in retrospect it's easy to point it out.
Hope that answers it a bit. There's some more explanation on what's involved, and some analysis of the logs, at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Checkuser usage.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and don't teach your Uncle G to suck eggs. I was a year ahead of you on the whole Poetlister thing. I even located the same sockpuppetry on non-WMF wikis, as you'll note I said in that edit. Note also who did a lot of the reviewing at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31#Sockpuppet cleanup. Your only consolation perhaps is that Wikiquote finally got wise a fortnight behind your block. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 06:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not know Geogre, though I am aware of the name and understand that the user has made valued contributions. […] The statement by Geogre, when it came, did this person no credit - it is somewhat arrogant, lacking in understanding, and insulting to other users.
There's a whole lot of background here, involving what I tend to think of as "The Usual Suspects", a small group of editors who all know each other and who all have some sort of complex internecine feud, that would give Dynasty a run for its money, going. It's the same people over and over again, and they've come up at the Administrators' Noticeboard and Arbitration with a depressing regularity over the past half decade or more. I could reel you off a list of names. But so, probably, could you, and it would be the same list.
Like most people, I suspect, I tend to skip over those. The current Jimbo-Bishonen dispute, that you've also commented on, is just more of the same. Like most people, I suspect, I'm just not interested in their mutual squabbling and find it of no relevance whatsoever, and I wish that they would all understand that, and not think it all so gosh-darn important that everyone has to stop what they are doing and pay attention and that it has to be shoe-horned into all other discussions.
It's a shame that Geogre is involved in this. Unlike several of the Usual Suspects, xe has actually proven useful, in my experience. I've invoked xyr spectre a few times, and adopted several good ideas that xe conceived/exemplified, including the good idea, based upon the principle that administrators can read, that it's completely daft to label discussion contributions with boldfaced "Comment". Xe also articulated Geogre's Law.
One has to read these continual little affairs in the context of years of background, since the people involved tend to write to address those who share in the history, as those are almost inevitably the other parties involved. Unfortunately for them, I and (I suspect) others are really not interested in following their little soap opera. As I said, I suspect that most people wish they would start to grasp how irrelevant their infighting is, and how damaging it becomes when it spills over with real effect onto the rest of us with things like "Association of Editors Who All Agree that They Are Superior to You" committees. Uncle G ( talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Uncle G. I noticed that you suggested merging Asian fetish to an article with a more neutral name. It is a move that I support, since the title of the article attracted archives of heated discussion. You'll notice that I redirected Asiaphile to Asian fetish. Although it had sources, the article was brief and its content and sources overlapped heavily with the Asian fetish article, so I found it redundant. I hope that other users support what I did. I'm telling you this, because I wasn't sure if you were still interested in editing those articles. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ ( talk) 08:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to your thoughts about article triage. Very useful. Although not policy, it is well written enough for study and consultation. It is even better than some WP policies! User F203 ( talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
UncleG, I'm not totally how I got here tonight, but I did, and it opened up a real mystery to me. The AfD is a no-brainer; the decision to turn into a redirect to Unschooling could have been closed by a baboon. But I read the comments, for whatever reason, and I saw that the editors were acting contempuous of the editor who had created the article. Their words are inexplicably harsh, I thought, but then again, not seeing what the article looked like, I might not know. So since it had simply been turned into a redirect, I thought I should be able to look in article history and see the old article.
So I went here. To my surprise, there was virtually no history to be found--only three edits altogether: [17], [18], and [19]. Very puzzling also are the dates: Sept. 25, 2005, and then a two year jump to May, 2007. The middle edit is obvious vandalism, properly reverted. But the (first) mystery to me then is where is the article that was brought to AfD? The AfD was in September of 2005, and the only version from that month shows nothing but a redirect. I don't get it. Yet I'm not all that concerned about that.
What really has me freaked out is that, reading the edit history, I may have been involved in the article and don't remember it. Look at this edit summary. The editor is explicitly reverting me, to read his summary. And yet, a) I do not show up in the edit history, and b) I have no memory of being involved with this redirect. To make matters more baffling, the date of the AfD is exactly one week after I signed up for Wikipedia back in 2005. And one of the editors says, Malformed redirect to a user describing himself.". Is it possible that I actually did that when I first signed up? I have no memory of it, and the edit history doesn't show it.
So did I ever make any contributions to Unschool (and I am asking about the redirect/article, not to Unschooling, to which I know I have made occasional contributions.) Are you able to enlighten me? I know that sometimes admins can view things that we mere mortals cannot. Un sch ool 03:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
So Why 08:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but frankly, I'm gobsmacked. I'm still relatively new here, but I have run across the terms inclusionist or deletionist many times. I honestly cannot recall a time when it gave me even a hint of Godwin's law. I just reviewed Deletionist, and it is clearly written in a humorous way; not even the barest hint that it is a term to be avoided. Of course, I can easily imagine a battle between inclusionists and deletionists; Afd is full of them, but the battles were over application of rules, not affrontry(sorry, not a real word but it should be) at the terms. I do appreciate that you were trying to be helpful, but until I see some evidence that the term is viewed as disparaging, it's going to be hard to remember. I just reviewed Deletionism. Not a hint that the term is considered offensive. -- SPhilbrick T 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Please note, I have raised a WQA for your contributions across several of the AFDs I recently raised in order to get another viewpoint on whether your actions meet recommended policy.— Ash ( talk) 11:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to weigh in for or against deletion, although of course you're more than welcome to do, but consistent with what you said at ANI (which was right on the money), it would be terribly helpful if you could say or do something at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination) to ensure that it runs for the full seven days. I'm seeing an awful lot of users demanding yet another premature close, despite the fact that it was premature closes that created this mess. That ought to be avoided; the AFD should have its full run, as it should have in the first place.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for picking up the baton by adding sources in. Fences& Windows 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was, why not salt the exact terms Fifth Studio Album, Sixth Studio Album, and so on? I didn't mean salt strings like Eminem's Seventh Studio Album, because if it was notable the title would be appropriate. Abductive ( reasoning) 11:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If Ninth Studio Album was salted, nothing would have prevented moving KoRn's album to KoRn's Ninth Studio Album, right? Finally, salting can be removed by just asking any admin and presenting a reasonable case. Abductive ( reasoning) 20:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've replied at T:TDYK. Mjroots ( talk) 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your response to my DYK entry on List of programmes broadcast by CITV. I was not aware about the most recent Ofcom ruling and can't seem to find any more recent sources. I wanted to put a fact about the first or longest-running series on CITV but there are very few sources. Can you suggest another fact or hook? 03 md 08:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful participation in my RfA. I will do my best to take the criticism to heart and improve my communication style. As for AfDs I will go slow and be sure I learn the basics first, and I will not forget that I am first and foremost an editor. I will work to gain your trust by dilligent work.
Your opinion would be appreciated here. Thanks, Majorly talk 15:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Where is your proof? Please provide it, as according to the LFP website, which is officially responsible for compiling statistics for Ligue 1 players, neither have yet to make a first team appearance. Playing for Bordeaux's second team in the amateur division does not mean an appearance for the first team. RCO Agde and Lormont FC are amateur clubs playing in amateur leagues and WP:ATHLETE clearly states you have to appear in a professional league.
Here's their LFP pages:
I suggest you put the deletion pages back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao10Siamun ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned in your comments on the AFD page that there were nine paragraphs of information on Whipple Van Buren Phillips. The sources that I found when I did my research: [20] [21] & [22] were all top results for google and either only mentioned him in connection to HP Lovecraft or gave details of his life that I didn't feel established him as a notable individual. An example that I gave to another user was that my great great grandfather was a master plumber in Pittsburgh and installed plumbing in many of the major buildings. He was considered the best in his field, and the info that I have on him reads very much like the second source I listed above. Plenty of information, quite a remarkable life, but nothing that jumped out at me as establishing a threshold of notability. Do you feel that the information in these sources, or any others you may have, would serve to establish his notability? HarlandQPitt ( talk) 05:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A proper closing would have discounted my !vote, [23] but of course it's always better not to leave a closing to the chance that it'll be done well, so I changed to "Strong keep". Thanks for helping save the article. -- Noroton ( talk) 17:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I have only basic knowledge in that area, but I know some organizations involved. Administrator DGG and user:Abductive have already removed Prod tags from the questioned articles; and user:Abductive has done some copyright research and copied relevant urls into his edit summaries (see article history). My (quick) comments are
In summary, those pages need cleanup, reformulation and perhaps merging. I would ask the page authors, such as User:Chicon59 and others (luckily most are registered users) to do that. Please feel free to post further comments. Materialscientist ( talk) 02:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether you are interested, but, in my opinion, this suggestion was moved to the DYK queue without the problems being resolved. If you'd like to opine, I've noted my concerns here. Long Shrift ( talk) 11:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see my recent additions to the discussion at WP:ANI#209.99.19.8. GSMR ( talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
[24] -- I was about to fully protect the page for 30 minutes to get people to leave him alone. Good grief. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I was "assuming good faith" with Declan, and there was this whirlwind of deletions and additions that was driving me nuts. I've never had so many edit conflicts in 15 minutes time. Are you saying Declan is merely a troll? If so, I'm done with trying to help him, and done with that user page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop a note of appreciation for your backup and support. Thanks Uncle G. — Ched : ? 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with the deletion of the article, your summary statement surprised me. I have a vague recollection of what was in the article, and as best I remember it it was just an unnecessary and misspelled duplication of content that's on the Elmer Fudd article. Did I miss something, or did you accidentally confuse it for another article as you wrote the deletion summary? -- Soap Talk/ Contributions 16:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to that article. Please don't hesitate doing so in the future (I should spend more time on Afd, Prod and related issues). I shall first explain part of my philosophy on example of Nano spray dryer. That article was clearly created as a promotion vehicle for the corresponding company, but in pursuing their goal, they created a reasonable page (I admit, referencing is a problem), which I try to keep, stripping all and any their attempts to add promotional information. Coming back to MALS, P J Watt is a strong scientist (say, well above average professor). I don't know whether he is involved in editing; can't access his all articles and thus can't claim the page is not copyvio, but it doesn't seem so to me. I shall talk to the author trying to rectify some issues (especially figures) and shall cleanup what I can there. Certainly, there is some COI, but it is so easy to notice and strip promotions. On the other hand, the information and references are worth keeping. Even some of their custom pages like http://www.wyatt.com/literature/bibliography.cfm are valuable. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am politely awaiting reply of the author on the title, but if not, will rename myself (the current title is indeed inappropriate). I agree that I am more useful in providing an opinion rather than in enforcing it. I have little knowledge about where this is needed at a given time and sometimes seek threads in Afds discussions. In practice, I was more helpful in (un)merging attempts, which are sometimes way off line. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't found my place on WP yet (don't see an open "expert opinion" position :), thats why joined DYK, at least its fun sometimes. I would not rush with renaming that article, simply because without pictures it might either not survive or be rewritten. Multi-angle light scattering is not an obstacle for the move as it should be "merged" into the discussed one, in practice, its content is almost useless and may just be deleted. I would wait the author's reaction, and if not seen then act. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Heya. Can I get your thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArticleAlley? I'm asking because I feel an interpretation needs to be made on an essay of yours that User:34pin6 cited in a rebuttal to my !vote. Not looking to be uncivil, I would feel more comfortable if you spoke on the issue since you've been mentioned now. =) -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero / Novelty theory, an RFC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 ( talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you had expressed concerns on User talk:Backslash Forwardslash about the closure of the most recent Ashida Kim deletion discussion. I have posted a review request for this discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4. *** Crotalus *** 20:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Very nice. [25] Best regards, Durova 312 04:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, G. I looked over that user's contributions and most if not all appeared to be machine translated from text or possibly copied directly from text in this fellow's idea of English. He just reposted one and it's a mess, pretty much word-for-word from the deleted version...not to mention the snotty message he left on my talk page. I need to have another gentle word with this fellow. Thanks for the notice, but I was concerned about possible copyright violations when I deleted the articles, not to mention the fact that they were nearly incomprehensible. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 21:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Just reading through the incident archives, you say things in an excellently direct way :) Tyciol ( talk) 00:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Collapsing.2Fhiding_closed_XFD_discussions contagious. jnothman talk 07:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I just saw your closing of the AFD of User:TheAntijerkss, it's quite astonishing that there were yet more sockpuppets that I had not found. However I wonder if you'd agree that it might be more helpful to group all the sockpuppets together because it seems almost entirely certain that he will attempt to create more accounts. Currently we have Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Planecrash111, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman, and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman. If a new user can be identified as the same person who has had several dozen sockpuppets, it should be easier to deal with them and block them before they continue their prodecure of lying in edit summaries, vandalizing, and writing false biographies on their user page.
Since some of these sockpuppets are listed only as suspected, should this be run through WP:SPI to do a Checkuser as final confirmation or should all the user names just be grouped together into Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman because the evidence seems clear enough? IIIVIX ( Talk) 05:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for untangling the fake racer sockpuppet network! Gigs ( talk) 14:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate of User talk:JeffBillman, created by JeffBillman to split a conversation into two places, removed. See the notice at the top of this page. Uncle G ( talk) 00:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G, hi. I haven't had occasion to drop by here in some time; I hope you're well.
I've been talking with some inclusionists — I know, I know — but there's an idea kicking around to do a bit for the newsletter about perspectives on article deletion. Someone identified you as someone who might be willing and possibly able to elucidate, if not outright champion, a deletionist perspective. I seem to have volunteered to be a mergist-minded moderator, and I'm wondering if you'd have any interest in a structured discussion on Wikipedia's article deletion processes.
Please feel free (of course) to reply here, or at my talk page. If you're not interested, perhaps you could suggest names of others who might represent the perspective in a calm and articulate manner. Come to think of it, even if you are interested, a panel discussion might be a format we'd consider. On the other hand, one-on-one (moderated by moi) makes for good television, or in this case... yeah.
Take care. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
How would you structure a discussion that would tease out meaningful arguments, attract the attention of readers, and possibly help us break out of the increasingly acrimonious atmosphere at AfD? In case it's not clear, I found your first reply to be rudely dismissive. All I want is to help. I never asked that someone "buy into" world views. I asked if you'd be willing to represent a perspective that is clearly identifiable, and that will draw in an audience. If you're clever about it, you could use such a platform to debunk the whole dichotomy. Or you could piss in the cornflakes of someone who regards you as intelligent and articulate. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh and it wasn't rude. Trust me: If I'd been rude, you'd have seen the actual words "Fuck off, GTBacchus." there, which of course you didn't. What it was, though, was a pointer (as the edit summary said) to where "Uncle G is a prominent inclusionist." contrasts with the "Uncle G is a prominent deletionist." that someone apparently told you. It reinforces the point that these are labels applied by others to foster discord and division, rather than correct observations of reality. And it was a short pointer. I still have 30 tabs open with potential sources for anthropometry of the upper arm ( AfD discussion), which I was rather hoping to work on some more.
As to debunking, I think that many people have done that already. How many times have you seen people say "People say I'm an inclusionist/a deletionist but actually I don't hold the blanket position that …"? I've seen it many times over the years. It has been debunked by a lot of people explicitly disclaiming the ideas. The only place that it probably hasn't been debunked is the popular press, who are some years behind the times here. (In that vein, note that your discussions are being partly pushed by one of the people who has been stirring up discord and division in this regard for some years now, using the popular press as proof. So be careful.)
If you want one reasonable idea that no-one seems to address, try finding a way to get people to do AFD patrol over the older discussions, for days gone by, rather than for just the current day. When the full discussion list was taken off Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, for performance and bandwith reasons, Rossami (if memory serves) noted that this would serve to discourage people from patrolling all active discussions. That does appear to be the case. We've lost quite a lot of the benefit that we used to reap from people coming to discussions after editors had searched for sources, fixed problems, proposed and discussed constructive suggestions, entirely rebutted hasty pile-ons, allowed more than 10 minutes' article growth, and so forth. (Ironically, the place where that sort of benefit is still reaped is now Proposed Deletion.) It's not that the benefit is not there to be reaped any longer. It's just that people aren't encouraged to patrol where they used to be, as a consequence of several factors.
Another thing that you should read about for background here is the dilemma that people have when they see people putting zero effort into working on the encyclopaedia, but find it difficult to say that in the right way. See Wikipedia:Don't be lazy ( MfD discussion) and what resulted from that, from the mediated dispute to WP:OSTRICH and Wikipedia:Somebody Else's Problem. One of the things that I also regret not keeping a bookmark for for posterity was what someone (Tony Sidaway, I believe.) said (back in 2004, if memory serves) about the process of acculturation of new editors being a continuous one. Part of the problem here is that it is perpetual September at Wikipedia, too. But part of the problem is also that some few but vocal people's way of addressing that is not to educate and inform novices, with pointers and by exemplifying what should be done, but to rant on about how all the "dirty -istas!" are the problem. Uncle G ( talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I determine whether I've been successfully diplomatic or unintentionally rude by whether I manage to cause offense, or to strike some kind of resonance with my interlocutor. I see that your standards are different. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone described you to me as a prick. I'm not inclined to identify you with a label, and I suspect you're pleasant to interact with, sometimes. I'll just say you've come across to me rather prickishly. The worst part was: "Oh, and it wasn't rude." Brilliant. Being friendly costs nothing.
G, an AFD for the above article was recently closed by another admin as no consensus. The problem I saw with the closure is that all of the keep !votes boiled down to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:INTERESTING. I'm inclined to reopen the AFD on account of WP:BOLD. There just aren't that many coverage links on it, and a quick google news search turns up eleven articles - most on LifeHacker or in German - for the item. Might I get your opinion on this? -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 17:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
In the AfD discussion on this article you say you found some sources on this notable socialite. I can't find it - maybe not looking hard enough - but would like to add it to the article. Can you remember where it was? Aymatth2 ( talk) 03:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Since I am not that familiar with CSS settings, what is the proper way to include xfd-closed class to make those closed AfD debates collapse? Thanks. -- Tone 18:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
JavaScript: I have already prodded a couple of the several editors who have scripts for this to update the editing tools list with their latest and greatest. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 64#Collapsing/hiding closed XFD discussions. There are several that I missed prodding, including Avraham ( User:Avraham/monobook.js) and Mr.Z-man ( User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD.js) for two. I encourage you to prod them as well, so that people like you don't have to go trawling through user sub-pages to find what the latest and greatest scripts for this are.
CSS: User:Vicarage/monobook.css is one example of how one can permanently hide different sorts of things by their classes. Uncle G ( talk) 20:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You made an excellent point there that "this is a dictionary category, not an encyclopaedia category." I was checking the talk page to work out if the category had been submitted for deletion before, a fate I think should face all such etymological categories. It's only a fairly random selection of Dutch (or other) loanwords that get such categories, after all, so as a category it is not very useful or comprehensive. Do you feel this is worth taking to CFD? TheGrappler ( talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 08:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This [26] before protection looks dubious. Your justification? William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Oh, and you seem to have f*ck*d up the duration and forgotten to tag it. I would also say that it is in general polite to add a section to pages you have protected explaining why William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that your answers here are satisfactory [27] William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Shortly after the last time I commented on something on your talk page you embarked on a long hiatus. I see you're back doing regular edits now. Is it still your policy to behave as follows?
Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
He can't add the protection template, because he is no longer an admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren ( talk • contribs) 2009-09-14 15:38:03
Please don't close complaints against yourself [28]. It is a clear COI. I know you're embarrassed about your errors here, but please let it run its course William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The page has now been deleted, and I can't see his query. Could you give me a copy of his talkpage message so I can give him some response, posthumous as it is? Ironholds ( talk) 05:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have a problem with the editor you've mentioned (and judging by its talk page, I'm not the only one). He/she seems hellbent on deleting as much material as possible without any just explanation; wherever, whenever. When my other contributions have been modified by other editors, I've willingly accepted it and even thanked them for their explanation (go ahead and check if you want). Perhaps your issues should be with the editor you're defending and not me. Diplomacy isn't exactly its middle name. Think about it. Kearney Zzyzwicz ( talk) 05:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see my additions - MBHiii ( talk) 05:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we both created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar at the same time; sorry, I didn't realize you were also filing one. Your report includes a few more accounts/IPs than mine; if you want, you can merge mine into yours in some way or another. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 18:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I will feed it forward to the AWB team. But you needn't worry about the ref ordering. Or you may but to little avail. The order AWb puts them in is numerical order, and the <references> tags do that too. If you think about it hey have too. So sans the {{ Reflist}} it should be fine. All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC).
<references>…</references>
your 'bot has no reason to change the order specified by the actual human editors — which in the particular case that I showed to you was very much for their editorial convenience. What your 'bot is effectively doing is sorting the content of <references>…</references>
into whatever order the <ref> elements happen to be used within the article prose. That's not a good idea; it's tantamount to simply randomizing the order, which human editors may well want to be in a particular order to make article writing and maintenance easier; and there's no actual reason for doing it.
Uncle G (
talk) 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Bless you! (Thanks for catching that ... not sure how I missed it.) — Kralizec! ( talk) 23:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You just beat me out on moving that to a subpage. If it's OK with you, I'm going to move it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II as I just moved some earlier discussions regarding him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II/Archive 1 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II/Archive 2, respectively. (Obviously I will add an archive box on the front page.) Just so we can keep everything in one easy-to-find spot. MuZemike 23:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi - the posts on Admin Noticeboard regarding banned user Rbj are quickly disappearing under the mountain of notices generated by you Admin guys, and you all seem too busy to follow anything up that isn't put in the plainest terms. So I'll try again and paste my info here since you seem to take some interest in the issue:
I'm the IP who reported the edits by Rbj - the proof of Rbj's identity is on the talk page of an innocent party (User:Tomruen) where Rbj gives his email address:
Surely that's all the proof you need. I had a lot of experience of Rbj in my role as User:Lucretius, especially in the article Planck units, and it annoys me to see him still editing. I no longer edit any Wikipedia articles and I won't be able to continue monitoring his edits, so hopefully others will perform that role. His latest edits of the Planck units article were spiteful but nobody has spotted this in spite of the messages I have left there. Anyhow, I can't spend forever trying to get some action on this and you're my last stop. Thanks. 121.222.35.162 ( talk) 00:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
If you Google audioimagination.com you will come up with an endless supply of Rbj posts on the internet, including this typical exchange (note the moderator's comment about his rudeness at the end) [29]. The guy is a serial pest. He never made any efforts to hide his real name at Wikipedia and I recognize the name in the Google versions - anyone who has had dealings with him at Wiki in the past will know that name all too well. A little digging in archives should confirm this. This is somebody who must not be allowed to continue editing Wikipedia. 121.222.35.162 ( talk) 02:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm having harassment and wikistalking problems with an editor and if you are able, I would really appreciate any assistance you can offer. I've made a full report on AN/I here. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 07:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This situation is quickly escalating. I've posted a followup on AN/I here. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I never said that I wasn't involved. I said that I should have been notified because I was involved. How was I supposed to know that Tothwolf would start a report when no one told me and ANI wasn't in my watchlist? I said zero uncivil things, but I'm still being attacked by multiple editors. When the discussion with Tothwolf was over on ANI, I thought that would be it. Saying that I'm being disruptive, pointy, a sockpuppet, digging through my history to twist stuff around, and admitting that I wasn't breaking any policies but was only breaking his opinion of them wasn't enough. Now, he is calling me a meatpuppet. I'm tired of trying to discuss things by being civil without it working. Joe Chill ( talk) 18:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Rationale expanded. I was doing so, and we edit conflicted. Is that enough, or is more required? I'm still a novice AfD (one reason why I have no wish to see my name at RfA), and I'm keen to learn. Philip Trueman ( talk) 19:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Re this edit your point is obviously valid, and you are probably right to treat is as a misguided comment. I have gotten so cynical that on first read I thought the !vote was a stealth attempt by an ARS-type to discredit the nomination by making arguments that would be ignored by the closing admin! Bongo matic 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
re Special:Contributions/Jergsenkrupp. Their imaginative article Jimmy McConnell now bears a little more relation to reality :-) cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That is quite a table :) Don't forget about the talk pages of WP:COMP articles and subtemplates of the IRC-related articles that I've been tagging with WikiProject banners. Those are also intersections that may be worth mentioning. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion.
This barnstar is awarded to Uncle G, for his phenomenal work expanding " Exploding tree", the extensive work you did on this article is an inspiration and model to all Wikipedians. Thank you. Ikip ( talk) 00:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC) |
There are now no quotations, sourced or otherwise, and some very basic sourced facts. He seems to be referred to variously as Taele, Taele-Pahivi, or Pahivi, so I've created a couple of redirects. No idea why someone should change him from a Samoan international rugby union forward to a British footballer... cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Uncle G!
I've been looking at Placement syntax quite a few times, and I believe it is one of the better C++-related articles we have. From a cursory glance, it would seem as if you are the primary contributor (possibly as a result of the AfD). Would you be interested in nominating it for GA, possibly a co-nom (I don't have all the references used, but I have quite a few of my own)? Regards, decltype ( talk) 19:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you commented but didn't !VOTE. Would you like to do so now? Phil Spectre ( talk) 23:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
A great idea. How can it get approval, and what relationship does it have to Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship? Fences& Windows 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The poll has just closed, with results available at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall#Results table. Ben Mac Dui 19:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I like your cargo cult essay, but your work on Exploding tree seemed to be similar to cargo cult writing. The difference was that the disparate sources were expertly woven together in the absence of sources discussing the overall concept. I've seen something similar happen with Largest village in England: none of the mostly primary sources actually discuss the topic, they just mention various claims in passing. Surely stitching together passing mentions isn't something we want to encourage? Fences& Windows 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the "in fiction" section, then you're in the wrong place. All of the content that I wrote dealt solely with real phenomena in the real world. You'll have to take up "in fiction" with the editor who wrote that. Uncle G ( talk) 15:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I would still appreciate your opinion on the Largest village article. I too noticed that the Sheffield reference was missing and if the rest of the article was sound it'd do no harm to include it, but that's beside the point. The sources all say something like "x is said to be the largest village in England" and no more on the subject. What is to stop editors barrel-scraping for passing references in the same manner for any topic conceivable? Would I be contributing usefully to Wikipedia if I put together Most beautiful woman in England using the thousands of web hits, the dozens of newspaper references and the hundreds of book mentions? [30] I could do a whole series: ...in the world; ...in the room - complete with a pop culture reference to the Flight of the Conchords; ...of all time (Audrey Hepburn, apparently). I won't do this, but is there a policy reason I couldn't? Fences& Windows 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#Legal_threat_at_WQA I noticed that you have concerns over edits made by this IP address. Could you please elaborate at User talk:208.81.184.4? -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't move an AN thread about a completely different issue to an ANI thread. There is -no- connection between the two. One deals with problematic behavior at WQA. You should really know better. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're trying to do, but might I recommend that it's best to let people in each of the WikiProjects discuss things amongst themselves? I assure you, nobody will attempt to form any binding decisions from a WikiProject talk page. It's really something more in the way of a place where editors feel far more comfortable to speak freely and bounce thoughts off each other than the far more unfriendly atmosphere of the boards like ANI. Ray Talk 00:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please could you help out myself and DGG. Tone closed this AFD with a delete but, after remonstrating with him, he's agreeable to reopening the discussion but has left it to us to do so. I don't have the privilege and DGG doesn't know how. I'm coming to you as the most experienced admin I know. Please could you assist or advise? Thanks. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The job spec is: nobody's fool, checks the facts before weighing in, commitment to the project. An Uncle G shaped hole. You should apply, sir. Guy ( Help!) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ( chat) 00:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cryptogenic. Since you had some involvement with the Cryptogenic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Neurotip ( talk) 20:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Considering that page has been semi-protected for 10 months, is the protection still warranted? If unprotected I'll make sure to watch it vandalism.-- Giants 27( Contribs| WP:CFL) 20:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You input is respectfully requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall#The way forward? - see the remarks recently posted under the "Simple solution" sub-section re where the next stage of discussion should be located. Ben Mac Dui 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Your name was brought up by a party to the Arbitration case located here. Any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider can be added to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.
-- Tothwolf ( talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, do you mind taking a looking over here, [31]. Thanks.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 02:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
...could you comment either here, or better yet at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy on the process you started by drafting your 'Option 4'? I am, frankly, highly curious what you think of the work done on it at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC which will be ongoing into early January. Thanks for writing the original! Best wishes, Jus da fax 19:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G
Re: Talk:Häagen-Dazs/Archives/2013#local_management_mistake_not_encyclopedic
You're a much more experienced at WP than I am, so I appreciate any review, input, insight, or help you could offer here, as an editor +/or as an admin. I thought of pointing them @ wikinews, but don't edit or use it, so don't know if it fits there. I note the article has other issues and needs.
I suspect that the inexperience of the other editors is part of the issue.
Is this a case where some level of article protection is called for?
I prefer you reply here, not my talk page, to keep our discussion in one place. As well as adding to Talk:Häagen-Dazs/Archives/2013#local_management_mistake_not_encyclopedic.
Thanks either way. Lentower ( talk) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I support Lentower's request to weigh in on the issue. The discussion between us there is not going anywhere. Wwmargera ( talk) 12:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 01:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed your contributions at Talk:List of U.S. states by Human Development Index. If the correct data is not in the 0-1 range, it is not using the international Human Development Index but another measure, possibly a local American measure of a similar name. Could you correct the article accordingly? Thanks. PS: I didn't post this on the article talk as I didn't want it to just sit there for years until an IP eventually comments in 2016: 'lulwot?'. — what a crazy random happenstance 06:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Hi there. Back in 2005 you discussed this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. The article has since been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 01:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I need an admin to do something about this on the page Nubians an IP keeps coming on to remove references and disrupt the edits made on the page, I have warned the user to stop, yet he or she keeps on doing it. At 1st the editor did it from this IP 78.101.27.136 and now is doing it from 78.101.64.90 can you put some sort of protection on the page that will block the IP from its vandalism? Thesunshinesate ( talk) 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Walk of shame. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk of shame (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading your educational essay " User:Uncle G/On notability" so much I'm taking time to let you know that Danmark (island), which I think was intended to be an example of a red link, is now live. Best wishes. -- Griseum ( talk) 12:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (3rd nomination) and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
An amazing rescue on Life imitating art. Work permit ( talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC) |
WOW, what a save. And you made it look easy!
There is nothing I enjoy more then repairing a hurt article. My proudest achievement has been (essentially) creating a new article on Ling Woo from this ( actually this). When I came across Life imitating art a few months ago, it seemed headed for the dust heap. I kept going back to it, looking for sources, an angle, anything to make it viable. I knew in my heart there was something there. But I found nothing, and made just one lame addition to it. When the inevitable AfD came, I made a feeble plea for what was a lost cause. And you just brought it back from an AfD deletion, with just the right base from to which a great article could emerge! How in the world did you come up with Anti-mimesis?-- Work permit ( talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.
Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.
Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
... Information Technology: At the dawn of the computer age. Any arguments against? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You participated in a previous discussion on the deletion of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. You may be interested that a new deletion review has begun at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism_(2nd_nomination). Tb ( talk) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The article Respect agenda has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Template:On VFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address ( talk) 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I have zero respect for people who take it upon themselves to blank entire sections of articles anyway, so he deserves all the criticism he gets for this one. "Gentlemen's agreements sure are swell! Separate but equal is a good thing too!". OR works pretty well when it comes to realizing that something stinks. If you think it's great, good for you, it's a free country. Mandsford 16:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting; it sounded very similar to something from SCIgen, however I have rewritten the ProD tag to take into account that its sources are real. Thanx 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Just wanted to say it's great work you're doing at Ash (Alien). I can't help feeling, though, that the information and sources you're adding would be better applied to the Alien (film) article itself, rather than a separate article about a single character. The Ash character's only appearance is in the film Alien, so any discussion of his symbolism and significance to the story can really only be made in the context of the film. In fact, the FA review for the film article specifically recommended adding some information from Alien Zone and other sources to expand the "Impact and analysis" section. I really think a lot of your added material would be of great service to the film article rather than supporting a spinout character article that really shouldn't have been spun out in the first place (putting the cart before the horse, as it were). -- IllaZilla ( talk) 18:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
From what I vaguely remember from working on final girl, there's even a little bit more to say about Call than the two-sentence treatment that we give her currently. Although that one seems less likely to warrant a standalone article. There's certainly the Ash→Bishop→Call progression that sources discuss, contrasting the three (and, yes, noting the alphabetical progression), that we don't have anywhere that I've seen. Uncle G ( talk) 19:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe more work would of been required if I edited that page. Because I would have to move the page after I was done with it. And no, I didn't know, I never read this. Also, I do not care about making any friends whatsoever. I didn't join Wikipedia to make friends. You have a nice day. Philipmj24 ( talk) 19:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
All I did was request a page for deletion. If that makes me a "lazy person" then so be it. If I had the power to delete the page, I would of done it myself. Believe me. I see the point you are trying to make. I've could of edited that page and moved it so you wouldn't have to do the work. We obviously have our disagreements on how we would of handled the issue you brought up. I didn't know marking a page for deletion would cause so much animosity towards me. All you had to do was kindly ask me. I would suggest you work on your people skills. Again, I'm not here to make friends. My goal is to improve Wikipedia. In the end, isn't that what I did? Philipmj24 ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
On another note, why are you so angry? Is Wikipedia stressing you out that bad? Philipmj24 ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for blowing my expectations for that article's future clear out of the water. -- saberwyn 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I've never really thought about the metaphorical consequences of a Kerrrzappp! hitting water. Uncle G ( talk) 01:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I have commented but thought it best if I give you the links so you can use them if you wish ...
Also there was a problem on the vote counter (as usual) which I tried to fix (co**ed it up though so I may get a small boll**king from someone)
cheers Chaosdruid ( talk) 20:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, got your not so veiled threats on our thread. You're sharp! Since I'm dealing with a smart guy, I'll raise the level: my rants and actions were strawmen for the fact that EENG blanked our whole article down to one sentence, which is de facto deletion, even though he was not an admin, and had no authority to delete the article. Then, he tagged the (as you noted) pathetically few articles we did create, and sucked a somewhat naive Admin into supporting him. We simply did EXACTLY THE SAME THING HE AND WATSON DID (added tags and deleted a page). You judge the differential response yourself. Nicely, several admins actually supported and mentored me, a few advising me to chill. You're a mean guy, it's true, but I also sense you're honest and smart, so please consider that I didn't copy and paste the articles, I took many hours to connect to numerous Wiki links, and in fact, despite what Watson would like you to believe, was in the middle of adding many other links from third party sources. The fact that I contacted the principals of the articles seemed to have raised a bunch of "self promotion" ire (even though I don't know these guys from Adam), and I'm SLOWLY learning that admins here are so beleagured with pests trying to sell used cars, then tend to be suspicious if someone is excited about someone else, and of course this then "MUST be a COI"!!! That's a little sad, sir. I do owe you an apology: it HAS to have taken brain power to figure out that I tagged EENG to let him know how it feels. I don't care about that action, (and BTW, the tags WERE legit) but I am sorry that you took the time to figure it out: that kind of sharpness should be used to build Wiki, not answer my confusion as a newbie. I'll try to be good, and in response to your threats, cry... Uncle. Phoenixthebird ( talk) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: Since you like Ash, are you a Dr. Who fan? The last episode with Tennant was SO sad... especially the added features on the DVD where he was nearly in tears explaining how sad he was to leave the show. I'm an American, not a Brit, but my Brit buddies really get this. Phoenixthebird ( talk) 17:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You have been trouted for: Assuming bad faith toward my question, for continuing with your screaming after I marked the post as resolved, and BTW the article was semi-protected without me ever asking for that again. Enjoy your trout. Pfff. I have no problems whatsoever with IPs editing wikipedia. Just the opposite on few occasions I thanked IPs for their help with my English. In my three years on Wikipedia it was the first time ever I asked (not requested, but asked) about an article protection, and it was protected probably not because of me asking about this, but because it should have been protected due to the unprecedented amount of edits that were all but impossible to deal with. You were wrong all along about me assuming bad faith, and about the necessity of the protection of the article, and you did not even bother to apologize. -- Mbz1 ( talk) 19:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent work with the article! Just in case you might not have remembered with such an old article, it is eligible for a 5x DYK expansion. I think it would be amazing to have such a fundamental article on the main page. Best, NW ( Talk) 22:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Re your comments at ANI, I raised the issue of the block because it could be seen that I was using my admin's tools in a personal dispute. The original 24h block was a "shot across the bows" type "cease and desist" warning. I felt it was justified by the continuing incivility and refusal to discuss issues, and immediately put the block up for review at ANI to give other admins a chance to review my actions.
That JP subsequently got himself blocked for a further 6 days is not down to me, but him. As I see it, if there isn't some improvement pretty quickly once the block ends, JP is going to find himself indeffed.
Re the original issue of the spelling of Spits/zbergen, please see talk:Order of battle for Convoy PQ 18 where I am proposing that a RFC should be filed on this issue. Your thoughts are requested there. Mjroots ( talk) 10:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. ever thought about doing some archiving?
Thank you for your reasoned 'voice of sanity' in this RfD. I fully support your cry to keep Wikipedia as protection-free as possible. What a DRAMA-inducing lot of hot air that debate was.
I'm pleased to see that some people have common sense. I salute you. Chzz ► 10:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I really found your AFD comments here to be quite disturbing. Of course TV Guide is notable, but there was no evidence this guy was ever in TV Guide. If a reference is notable, this doesn't make the article topic notable: People can't just throw random references on an article (without inline citations, in fact) to say "see, this guy was notable, USA Today July 21, 2006". What is that? I did not appreciate your tone on that AFD.
Yes, I nominated "Who's Who in American Art" for deletion, and that one failed. But lets take a look at why I did that: search results for that publication indicate that the publication exists but not necessarily that it is significant or important. It look like there may be some notability, so that AFD failed. Whoop-dee. But please be careful with your comments about James C. Mulligan and somehow defending the poorly-defined "references" of that article. I looked everywhere to find anything at all about the guy, but it simply didn't exist. With your comments, I felt attacked, and it was not appreciated. — Timneu22 · talk 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Loyalty at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- NortyNort ( talk) 09:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Template:Music-importance has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G, considering the comments at BLPN, what do you think as regards AFD? I am struggling to find the words for a rationale? Off2riorob ( talk) 10:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for popping in to help at the Talk page of the Goran Bregović article. I didn't want to make the page worse by commenting there (and yes, I've seen your perfectly reasonable remarks about splitting conversations!) but I did wonder if something odd has gone on with the layout. Under the (now less contentious) section heading there's the making-allegations bit by Frankieparley in 2007, then two video links dropped in there just today by Pirtskhalava, then your comment about sources. What's now exceedingly unclear to me is what the relationship is between these three items - are you commenting on the text, or the videos, or both ... and so on? I'd be tempted to try to unpick this but I honestly don't know who intended what. Of course what I am seeing there now may be precisely what you intended, in which case I will simper prettily, shut up, and move on. Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I admire your work. You're a dedicated editor and an excellent pedagogue.
On italics--you do use them occasionally. I only want to suggest that you dispense with unnecessary italics. And italics are rarely necessary. Where proper emphasis is clear from context, italics don't help convey the actual ideas that the writer is trying to convey. They may instead distract the reader from those ideas and make the writer himself seem overwrought. I'd give this advice to Antonin Scalia too--if only I had a direct line to his office.
Boy, I've really got to cut back on the caffeine. 160.39.212.104 ( talk) 13:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you use a template: User talk:Mrluke485? (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 15:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Listen to me you I've given up my time to write up about these people and I'm sorry if I didn't reply to them but I didn't know to reply so don't you tell me what to do. I check website to website for information and thats the best information I can find. Have a nice day Mrluke485 ( talk) 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
On July 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Loyalty, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, you reminded me of why I like you :-) Guy ( Help!) 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused what you're referring to - do you mean the article as it was before I edited it, or the article as it is now? I initially assumed you meant the former but I've just been replying to an assertion in the AfD that the article as it is now consists entirely of original research, so my head's exploded and I'm doubting everything; certainly if there's something about the existing article that needs to be improved I'd like to know. Cheers, -- Zeborah ( talk) 10:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Another example may help. You may wish to review List of fictional Scots to see whether it is stuck in cargo cult mode, is useful as it is and what more might be done. Uncle G has some experience of the matter of Blind Harry's tale, iirc, and so I hope he may have good insights and advice to offer in this case. Colonel Warden ( talk) 12:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thinking that because an article starts like this it must therefore be built into this, in the hope that if critical mass is achieved an informative article will magically arise, is cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. The bad article becomes a model for writing badly, because people think that that is how one is supposed to write. And, as you've seen, what happens next is that the article cycles through AFD, sometimes repeatedly, until the cargo-cult-written content is turfed out in favour of proper, sourced, analysis of a topic that provides actual knowledge to the reader. Jessamyn's initial article was a textbook example of how these things start; and of the bad way to deal with unwanted content, by sweeping it under the rug instead of dealing with it properly. Taking sources that have analysed the subject and producing good content (and, yes, incorporating previous list items into sourced analysis where single examples are warranted), with the courage to chuck out cargo-cult-written content by the bucketload, has proven to be the solution time and time again. Uncle G ( talk) 16:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay - just even by the end of the 3rd AfD it was far improved on your second link, and had sourced encyclopaedic paragraphs in most sections. So to me it doesn't at all feel like cargo-cult is what I'm dealing with; it feels more like I'm dealing with people who think an article should be deleted because it contains trivia even though it also contains encyclopaedic content and if they don't like the trivia all they need to do is delete that. --Excuse the irritation, I'm just really confused about how the AfD even came about so am probably looking at this from an entirely different direction from you. But afaik it seems to be resolving now and hopefully this will be the last AfD. :-) -- Zeborah ( talk) 05:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
Great improvements on what appears will soon become a diving catch on Moving parts. § Music Sorter § ( talk) 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
I realize it is premature to say the article is saved, but how could someone conclude the article is not worthy of life after your improvements. Maybe I should consider nominating an article for deletion on something I really like to get your great work on it. OK, just kidding. Thanks for all your wonderful contributions. § Music Sorter § ( talk) 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering if you understand the meaning of the term sophist, since I take offense at that. It is indeed the fact that I am one of the very few non-sophists you will ever meet. The psuedo-legal I can live with. I am not a lawyer, so it is pseudo legal. I do not mean this to make trouble by the way. only to inquire if you know what the term means and if not, offer an explanation if you want it. -- Faust ( talk) 17:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Is there a process whereby I can retract the nomination of does the AFD discussion run its course? Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 15:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Quick query; what on earth are you talking about? I have no interest in or active participation in anything vaguely associated with public transport. Actually, I take that back; Gray's Inn is near a road buses go down. Ironholds ( talk) 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Uncle G. Thanks for your analysis at BLPN. Feel free to adjust the protection at Tolkien family if you think it appropriate. It is not yet clear to me whether User:Christopher Carrie should be blocked. Per NLT maybe he should be blocked (see his 10:03 edit summary of 29 July) but we usually give some leeway to people who could have legitimate BLP issues. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The BLP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tolkien_family discussion might benefit from editor input. isfutile:P ( talk) 18:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind this on your talk page; I was not sure of the best place to post the idea.
As you noted in the admin noticeboard, rangeblocks used to block persistent vandals can impact good IP editors as well. I was wondering if it would be possible to create a new blocklike function analogous to pending changes that allowed IP and unconfirmed users to edit, but hid their changes from public view until they were approved by a reviewer? A bot could block vandalism only accounts and tempblock specific IP's used for vandalism to prevent increased workload on admins, and the function would be invisible to most users. VQuakr ( talk) 15:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, of course. the age qualifications make the fact of a "youngest" elected official of some note. of course, it then becomes a matter of how close to the minimum age can you get? maybe someone whose birthday for age of qualification to be elected falls precisely on election day (or day of swearing in, or day of announcing they are running). sort of an asymptotic graph, like approaching division by zero. I do see your other point about the attempt to foist notability on the editor in question. just wanted to acknowledge your efforts as i read them after the afd was closed. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
See my latest comment on the Talk:Russell T. Davies saga. I would like to see the Full stop article looking better, but I have a feeling your views are not supported by practice. Deb ( talk) 15:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem with your concious decision not to move the page at Philadelphia Convention. I couldn't ask anyone to do anything that they are not comfortable with. If you could give me an example of why you feel that Philadelphia Convention is more appropriate than Constitutional Convention (United States), it would be helpful in our overall consensus building. Also, I am having trouble looking up the reference to Google Books, that you had previously mentioned.
No Worries about leaving a talk back on my page. I'm now watching your page. (I too like to keep the conversations together). Thanks.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
In light of your thoughts on the move request at Philadelphia Convention, I would be interested in your opinion in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Whilst we are on the subject of historic official buildings, I'd appreciate it if you or others double-checked the sources that I cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Monroe County , Indiana Courthouse. Uncle G ( talk) 02:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to say, despite being made to look like a fool occasionally, I've always respected your insightful comments at AFD and elsewhere over the years (I was on wikibreak for ~3 years a while ago, glad to see you're still around). I'm sure you have a hoard of article rescue barnstars by now, but at least to me comments that shine clarity about a subject or article are often more valuable then edits themselves. Ryan Norton 09:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi.
I noticed your identical copy and paste of comments written by HighKing ( talk · contribs) on some admin noticeboard somewhere and how you swallowed hook, line and sinker what he was saying.
Please take a care to look closer at the details.
I wandered into this whole anti-British Isles naming campaign thing completely blind only a few weeks when I discovered the same editor reverting all my work. I had no idea that it had been going on for years. It has taken me quite a while to get up to speed and also to work out all the technology, where discuss is going on etc. There seem to be a small group of editors working on tandem.
It is very difficult for me to see his victimisation of me as anything more than part of his campaign which, for the record, I want to keep out of any political aspect of. I agree with the Irish, historically, the English should have kept right out of Ireland but in social, biological and other non-political subjects, British Isles is the only term we have to use.
I found it disappointing that you would not take onboard any the background or context.
It is hard enough getting to grips with the system as a whole without having to work with a gang hailing down upon you. Thank you. -- Triton Rocker ( talk) 08:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I added those other subpages to the MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You left a note about the Tothwolf arbitration case previously at the talk page of the arbitration noticeboard. There is currently a request for clarification about this case, here. Would you be able to comment? Carcharoth ( talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Per you comments at this previous ANI thread, I decided to do something different in response to this current ANI thread. I can think that there will be no doubt that this is from a living breathing human. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I think M. Carrie's going too far now in that discussion. He's abusing WP as a forum to push his POV, calling his opponents names etc, etc. Moreover I have the strong feeling that he has in fact been editing the counter-arguments there as well with different accounts just to create publicity. A few days ago I already notified EdJohnston but I don't know if he picked up on it, so please have a look at this old blog thread and compare the statements over there with names over here. I find that very strange, to say the least. Contacting you on your page because I won't respond to his rants on the board any longer. De728631 ( talk) 18:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see this cleanup by Sarek, who added links to some (now-removed) material from WP:BLP/N that had been placed by User:Christopher Carrie. Has the time come yet to block Carrie for WP:NLT? Getting the wording correct on that block could be tricky, so it might be simpler to block two weeks for disruptive editing. I don't think he should be making charges of sexual misconduct and lies against other people on BLPN. An alternative is a {{ uw-biog4}} warning or the equivalent in plain language. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
-- Christopher Carrie ( talk) 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I am sorry if I have infringed any of the Wikipedia rules i assure you it would be a result of my lack of understanding. If I have suggested anyone was lying or engaging in sexual misconduct it is because I am responding to false allegations of the same made against me. You must also be aware of accusations of blackmail and extortion have been levelled against me and that they are completely unsubstantiated by anything other than Internet postings made by people with alteria motives. If requested I will post proof documents from court actions to validate any remarks I post, however I am happy to be guided by you as to what I should and should not say. I take on board your comments and will temper my postings in compliance with your requirements in the future. For unwittingly transgressing in the past I appologise to anyone I have offended. I am not that IT savvy as you will have seen from my having just learnt how to sign my postings -- Christopher Carrie ( talk) 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Damn, that grew quickly ... -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention!
DrStrangelove64 has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
It's no use; Carrite's being very DICKish of late. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#POINTY_AFD_.21votes_from_Carrite. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
After seeing edits like [32] (which is what I blocked for) as well as a declined unblock request, I'm not so sure I should apologize. Spencer T♦ C 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for adding three books to the new further reading section of Senra/St James' Church. Very useful. I found the Collectanea Cantabrigiensia in Google Books. I have summarised some prose from it within the article. Two matters arising: I think you meant Francis Blomefield, not Francis Blomfield. If you have taken the citation from somewhere else, you may wish to correct that entry. Secondly, do you have access to the Parker (1852) and Pegge (1851) books? I cannot find them on Google Books and inter-library loans cost £3 per from my local library :( -- Senra ( talk) 19:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Uncle G,
I was working on a reply that should clear JanDeFietser of all charges and get NL-Bas blocked, however, I saw your comment saying that it should not be blown up again. I feel uneasy to place my short reply now. I do feel, however, that a wrong decision has been made and I think anybody can see that after reading my reply. Before I had read your comment I had posted it here. At the very least you can read it and perhaps allow me to appeal on Jan's behalf on the administrators noticeboard? -- Faust ( talk) 05:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I can grasp your reasons and your reasoning, however I disagree wholeheartedly. The reason I disagree is clearly visible to all. The user JanDeFietser is now being blocked on en.wiki for reason that lie outside en.wiki and that is simply improper behavior. The user JanDeFietser is continuously stating that he does not want this argument here, while the user NL-Bas keeps going on about this argument here. However, you are blocking JanDeFietser. That means the decision is based on reasons OUTSIDE of the en.wiki.
Now, I can grasp how this takes place, but please be aware that this regulatory block is aiding NL-Bas in his attempt to deny his missteps by stating JanDeFietser can post on the en.wiki again if and only if he will drop some imagined charge, UNRELATED to en.wiki.
This all is very strange, to block somebody for something outside of en.wiki, by the request of somebody who is breaking all the rules on the en.wiki AND in doing so aiding said rule breaker to deny serious missteps, even though this rule breaker is imagining a legal threat.
Please, consider what I am saying here.
-- Faust ( talk) 10:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your work on this page. I do have one request. Could you please put some information about what the convention does now? There have been racist mistakes in the past, but things are different now. In fairness this should be shown. Once again, I cannot thank you enough for your work. Myself, being a wiki novice, could not have done what you have! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 ( talk • contribs) 03:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Before reinserting History of Baptists in Alabama as a "see also" in the North America section of Baptists without an explanatory edit summary, please explain on the article talk page why this state is appropriate for such a prominent listing. It seems too specific for a top-level article. It might even be too specific for that sort of a link on the Baptists in the United States article (but a template or other less intrusive way to link to one of what would be dozens of articles might work). For a world-wide-focused article, though, this seems much too low-level. Thanks. Novaseminary ( talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This should probably have its own article. A circulation of 100,000 is respectable, and since it is likely to be used as a source in other articles it is helpful to have a link in references so readers can find out about the source. The AfD debate on state Baptist convention articles seems daft to me. These are big organizations with all sorts of things going on. Aymatth2 ( talk) 18:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
On 27 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Diogenes and Alexander, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore any ownership issues, because they don't figure into the equation. However, you make an interesting yet uninformed point about (presumably) a Grand Lodge building being notable for being a Grand Lodge building. In the US, there are around 100 such buildings. Moreover, almost every jurisdiction in the world has one or more. In the case of the oldest Grand Lodge in the US (Massachusetts), there have been three such buildings in two different locations, plus the Prince Hall building, plus if any of the other 12 Grand Lodges in the state that claim to be Masonic have buildings. So which one is notable, and why? I'd say none, because the Grand Lodge may be notable, but the Grand Lodge is not the building it meets in, just like a Lodge is the membership, not the location of the meeting. So what we have is a case of the building inheriting the notability of the organization that meets there, which we know contravenes policy. So we are left with the question of why the building is notable, and we have yet to get a satisfactory answer. Not one of the stubs that has been created even points to a source that can answer that question. Frankly, the concern was that historical notability of a building was that "it was the first Masonic building in town", which is a bit ridiculous considering that most towns have only ever had one, and there may be well over 200 in any given state. We have therefore been trying to get a concrete set of criteria together as to why these building are NHRP-listed, and we have been unable to do so because we can't access the records. Don would seem to be claiming that he can access them (though I believe in truth he is not), but he won't do it either, which means we cannot come up with an encyclopedic basis for the list in question. Meanwhile, don is piling on two-line stub after two-line stub, instead of helping to define the substantive criteria for the list. It's counterproductive activity, and its continuance is why we have the issue we have, not because there is an ownership issue. Please note we have no other lists of buildings owned by fraternal groups, so if we're going to set a precedent, it's got to be solid, and it really isn't. MSJapan ( talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I started Template:Southern Baptist State Conventions to glue this set of articles together and help comparison. Some of them need a lot of work. I think the Alabama article gives a good example of structure and contents. It would be good if the others were at least brought up to this level with similar structure. Question: Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia has the long navbox Template:Southern Baptists, but does not appear as a link in this navbox. Does this navbox belong in the article, or does it only belong in the articles it lists? Aymatth2 ( talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Did any of the encyclopedia articles about the other State Conventions have anything useful for this one? As it stands, it does not demonstrate the notability of this Convention (and indeed, following the closure of the BSC AfD, I was about to restore it anyway) - but if there are some useful references that could be added (hell, I'd be happy with a reliable "Further reading" section), then it would be useful!
Incidently, have you ever considered doing some archiving of this page (either with one of the bots or manually) - it seems to be a bit of a large page!
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 21:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Trying to clean up the litter of redlinks that a Certain Person left in the Alabama article, I did a thumbnail on Sion Blythe, who started out in North Carolina. A source for that is David Benedict's 1813 history, which looks like a good starting point for the early associations in the state before the convention was formed. According to the Association of Religion Data Archives in 2000 there were 3,717 SBC congregations with 1,512,058 adherents in North Carolina, so there should be no problem finding plenty of sources for a more complete article. I will do it in the next couple of days if I don't get sidetracked. Aymatth2 ( talk) 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Have some more redlinks:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)Thank you for notifying me about the recent Baxterley Church AfD et al. The nom, RadioFan ( talk · contribs), has now withdrawn the AfD proposal -- Senra ( Talk) 16:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the new sources in the article and AfD? cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
On 30 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of Baptists in Alabama, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you've removed the deletion tag off of the National Capital Region (United States) article without discussion. Pretty bold move. Also if you're going to remove a tag by citing it should be merged instead, perhaps you should have replaced the tag with a merger tag. Not replacing it is just counter productive. UrbanNerd ( talk) 12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello - I see you objected to my proposed deletion for this article. I do not want to start an AfD if it is not necessary, and so I have a question.
The American Upper Class article well describes what "Upper Class" is - in the United States at least, and it is well sourced. Therefore, I am not sure if an AfD for the Upper Class article is appropriate, because I proposed a re-direct to the American Upper Class article, which has a far better introduction. The only sections that would technically be deleted from the Upper Class article are "Historical meaning" and "Rest of the world".
The "issues" notice on the Upper Class article clearly says: "It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards". That is why I thought a re-direct to the American upper class would be the best solution. The "United States" section of the Upper Class article would be immediately improved, and a more worldwide view could be slowly added, in effect re-writing the article.
Could you please respond on my talk page about whether this would be OK, and whether I would need to start an AfD or do something different. Thanks. Beeshoney ( talk) 15:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
PS. I don't mind if other talk page stalkers respond to this, as I can see that Uncle G hasn't been editing for a few hours. Beeshoney ( talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Since this is a topic in sociology, the best sources to read for starters are introductory texts in that subject. When you read them, you'll find that breaking the subject up by country isn't really the way that the subject is addressed in the literature in the first place. The subject is more broken up by model. Karl Marx had one model. Max Weber's more complex model of socioeconomic status in turn leads to the class model by Dennis Gilbert and Joseph A. Kahl, as widely used for the U.S., but not solely restricted to the U.S. in its application. (Gilbert himself, for example, has written about social classes in Mexico.) When it comes to Europe, one again mostly starts with Marx and Weber, but rather than Gilbert and Kahl extending that, one looks to the models by John Goldthorpe, Pierre Bourdieu, and others.
In sociology, class models are strongly tied to their inventors and proponents, and less tied to (albeit not divorced from) strict geography. There are many books that one could read to learn more about this. I pick four almost at random: ISBN 9781405170024 explicitly divides up the subject by proponent, with separate chapters on Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Bordieu, and others. Hartery's and Gahagan's chapter of ISBN 9780443055157 discusses Marx, Weber, the idea of social classes such as the upper and middle classes being subcultures, and the British upper class. Chapter 10 of ISBN 9780132051583 has Marx, Weber, Goldthorpe, and discussion of the British upper-upper and lower-upper classes. Chapter 7 of ISBN 9780495598626 has a broad-brush overview of the Marx plus Weber plus Gilbert/Kahl system with an North America-centric approach.
If you're going for laying out the groundwork for a FA quality article on this subject, bear in mind three things: You're never going to be able to "globalize" the article, in a naïve every-country-has-a-section Wikipedia view of such things; not every society is viewed by sociologists as stratified on a class system in the first place. Not every sociological model even has the concept of an upper class; in France, for example, most place a business class ("le patronat", "les industriels", "les PDG", "la class patronale", and so forth) at the apex of the class hierarchy rather than an upper class ("la class supérieure" and "la haute société"), the latter being a quite rare designation in French thinking ( ISBN 9780521277006 pp. 29–30). The concept of an upper class is considered by some to be a Western European, or even more specifically an Anglophone Western European, export that has, by dint of history, been layered imperfectly upon other structures. (See King2008 in the article for more on this.)
This is a complex subject to address properly. But deletion nominations, and even simple redirects to a U.S.-centric view of the world, won't achieve that. Uncle G ( talk) 19:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Beeshoney ( talk) 11:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
On 1 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of Baptists in Kentucky, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
If I erred long ago, I hope that the errors have been corrected, since a couple of other editors have ridden roughshod over NY material. I did much of the original sorting out of NY, and the basic arrangement is still my format (see the early history of each article). Now as for Taberg, it is a hamlet in Annsville in Oneida County. I do not know how the town junk got in there, I hope is was not me! I made some corrections and commented in the deletion page also. Maybe the article will remain. There is also another Annsville, NY located elsewhere. Thanks, Stepp-Wulf ( talk) 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC).
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
The summary and analysis you wrote on Jimbo's talk page about the fabricated "scandal" about The Mousetrap was perfect. I wish all editors could see the situation as clearly as you did. Regards So Why 07:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
I saw at ANI that you've been doing alot of work on this CCI. I've finally gotten all of the subpages straightened out and stabilized, so would you be willing to go through and mark which ones you've found issues with (and whether you've cleaned or blanked the article) and which ones are copyvio-free? The appropriate subpage should show up in the backlinks for each page now. VernoWhitney ( talk) 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears that your smiley graphic does not render correctly in my browser - hence I thought your answer at WP:AN was deliberately unhelpful as without the smiley the emotional context was lost. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Exxolon ( talk) 18:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Uncle G, I know you are doing it with the best possible intention, but can you please slow down on your use of "xe" and "xyr" and suchlike. What i'm trying to say is that not many people understand what that means! Even most native English speakers have never come across these words. (I for once have spent several minutes trying to figure out who was that freaking user:xe.) And imagine the confusion this causes in those non-native-English speakers who try to learn English! So please remember: political correctness is all good -- and gender-neutral pronouns would be definitely a brilliant addition to our language, if they were adopted -- but until that is the case you may be causing a lot of confusion! 80.135.37.246 ( talk) 23:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, four questions:
Those are probably best asked and answered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI. Please put them there. I'm not the only person involved in this, and you'll not be the only person to ask, I suspect. That last, for instance, is better answered by the people who were involved in the original CCI case discussion. Uncle G ( talk) 06:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the alert. Whilst I am willing and indeed able to help such inexperienced editors, there are far too many aggressive page patrol people around for me to help all such editors. I am trying to construct an essay to tackle the root cause plus write articles such as this myself. Your help and seasoned(?) advice on preventing such strict policy interpretations may be a better use of both our time -- Senra ( Talk) 12:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Uncle G. Your edits at the Reproductive Health were all very helpful. Please continue helping as we improve that article. :) 03:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Notices |
---|
Yes, I am an administrator. |
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for. |
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes. |
For past discussions on this page, see the archive. |
This edit was kind of mean, as has your overall attitude towards me in the deletion discussion. I am sure that there are some administrators who would wish to discourage the involvement of new editors in the project. Perhaps you are one of those? Sławomir Biała ( talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I make it an essay, moving it to Wikipedia main space? Ikip ( talk) 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ikip ( talk) 01:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for joining in. I was standing too close to it to improve it any more. It now looks like a substantial and well cited article and precisely in "our" mould here. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 07:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Thanks for using that as an example -- now I can't A7 it myself. :-)-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. It was interesting that you found my clean-up of your question more informative than my answers :D By the way, I see that you were involved with WP:AfC in its beginnings? Martin msgj 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol, I didn't even realize that. I obviously didn't read the entire article, and the parts I skimmed over, I figured it was just the result of a really, really bad automated translator. :P Anyway, thanks for cleaning that up. =) -- slakr\ talk / 13:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw that the piano rock article was deleted. Article deletions are always unfortunate when the articles in question arguably contain useful (and in this case, even cited) information. Do you still have access to the content of the deleted article? I can think of three ways to remedy this situation at least a bit:
I would be glad if you found a way to salvage the article content and make it available and findable for interested users. Florian Blaschke ( talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Can I make changes and add more info to the article? Dont like the way some of it sounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that ad hominem attack on VP. Very well done. So, if we're going to play little games, was this also why you pulled a prod off Felicitaries with no reasoning? MSJapan ( talk) 21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Come now! Think! The reasons that you don't expand them are the same reasons that many others don't, either. This doesn't make the articles the problem. It makes lack of editor ability, willingness, interest, time, and other factors, the problem. As I said, the fact that we have these stubs says nothing about the articles. The only thing that it reflects upon is Wikipedia editors.
Your attempt to address the problem by thinking of how to systematically remove the articles is entirely wrongheaded. It's the editors where the problem lies. That is what you should be trying to fix. And a good place to start is by looking at the reasons that you yourself don't write, when not only do you know that sources exist, you even know exactly where and what they are. Figure out what would encourage you to write, and you'll have a way to encourage others to do so, too. Uncle G ( talk) 23:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not asking for "perfection" before we link to it... however, I am asking that we not link to sub-articles that have fundamental factual accuracy issues. Those need to be ironed out, then we can link. Blueboar ( talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for bringing this to your talk page rather than to the appropriate discussion page. There seem to be several potentially appropriate discussion pages so I don't want to choose one where this will be ignored, and you seem to have a pretty good understanding of GFDL.
What do you make of the GFDL compliance of these books that have copyright notices such as this? Is that notice sufficient attribution to us, the copyright holders? Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey - these two articles have been consistently vandalized recently. Can you protect these two pages for a short period of time? GoCuse44 ( talk) 14:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I left a response to your comments on the AbsoluteTelnet DRV page. I was hoping you could read my additional comments and respond AbsoluteTelnet DRV. Thanks -- Brian Pence ( talk) 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G
What do you make of the reply to my original point at User talk:Kittybrewster#Marvin Sutton?
Thanks, Bongo matic 10:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm referring to User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. That rocks! I'd support moving it to the mainspace if you felt it was ready.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Noticed that you removed the AfD on this article. I didn't realize that one was made previous to the 24th until now but consensus seems to be to remove and it doesn't meet standards. It has hardly been improved content wise. Also, some have expressed valid concerns with notability, the title, and verifiability. I'm not necessarily against including this article but don't think it is appropriate at this time. Is it eligible for deletion if the article is not improved? If so, how long is appropriate to wait? Cptnono ( talk) 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't treat this as Someone Else's Problem, by the way. Deletion nominations are not sticks to beat other editors with into doing one's bidding. If you want an article expanded or cleaned up, follow the advice in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do: expand it or clean it up yourself, or apply the appropriate expansion or cleanup request tag. You all have the page move tool for fixing the the title, moreover. That isn't a matter for deletion, either. Nominating an entire article for deletion because one is unwilling to simply rename it appropriately using the tools that one readily has to hand onesself is wasting everyone else's time frivolously.
Only nominate an article for deletion on notability or verifiability grounds if you've looked for sources yourself, and come up with nothing usable. The first step is looking for sources. Only after you've done that can you confidently and honestly say that none exist, at which point you can go straight to deletion and present a solid rationale that actually has a basis in our deletion policy. There isn't a waiting period, but there is a necessary precursor. The idea that waiting is even involved is wrongheaded. You shouldn't be waiting, for Somebody Else to do the work, you should be doing — searching for sources, yourself. And if you actually do find sources when you look for them, the next step is improving the article, not deletion nominations of any sort. You'll have done some useful legwork that can help other editors. (This is, after all, a collaboratively written project. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. Everyone adds a little bit of work, and, amazingly, the encyclopaedia gets written.) Again, see the triage procedure. Uncle G ( talk) 02:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
****Understand what you were trying to say about the difference between an AfD and Proposed Deletion now. Regardless of me getting the terminology wrong and since you look like a fan of rescuing articles, is this article worthy of expansion? This article could be wikilawyered and stylized to be OK at first glance but it still looks like the information works best in the subsections of the two teams, potentially the Cascadia cup (Seattle-Portland-Vancouver), or maybe new articles about the relatively small supporter groups of the two teams who don't have articles but care most about the rivalry. In your opinion, is it best in this stub (it can be forced larger if needed) or is expansion to the already existing articles sufficient.
Talk:Seattle-Portland Rivalry has some links to sources but no one has taken notice.
Cptnono (
talk) 07:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
For your editorial efforts culminating in the rescue of The Economist editorial stance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
Now how often do you hear "good close" at AfD??? *grin*
I was tempted to speedy Giambracy as a G3 and figured I wouldn't bite. Given the pattern you saw, looks like I was assuming a bit too much good faith. Good job!-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you've been active as an administrator in the DRV process in the past so I would appreciate your comments on my suggested change to DRV requirements. Thanks! Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 09:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- why did you remove the prod from that article? Without a source it's utterly useless, and I, a neurobiologist, don't know how to find a source for it. I feel that as an admin who ought to behave responsibly, it is now up to you to turn that into at least a semi-respectable article. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 18:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, as a WikiProject Neuroscience member, you should be busy showing that you can find even more sources, and do far better in your own chosen field of the encyclopaedia, than some random person called "Uncle G" managed to do in a few minutes with only some ordinary search tools. I can find things such as doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300145 with a few minutes' work. You should be able to do better. You should be busy showing me (and everyone else) up, by finding even more — far more — sources than I did, and turning neuroscience stubs into full articles. After all, it's what the WikiProject that you are a member of is supposedly there to do.
If you want some more things to put on that WikiProject's to-do list, read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typoglycemia (2nd nomination). Uncle G ( talk) 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Another user has posted to ANI an issue that concerns you. The relevant thread can be found here. TN X Man 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm somewhat speechless, actually. I have listed this edit: [1] on the WP:ANI. It took me a while, because I've never had to do this before, and wasn't even sure what to do. I thought discussions of this sort were always done on talk pages? If you look at my contributions, I don't think you'll find very many recent mistakes of the magnitude you describe. Have I pissed you off sometime in a past life? Did I criticize a previous edit? I just dont' get it... -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Tell me again how this doesn't apply to me? I missed it somewhere... This is like that game when a "friend" takes your arm and hits you in the head, all the while saying "Why are you hitting yourself, huh? Why are you hitting yourself?" -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)This isn't about notability. That's a complete red herring. Your rationale as given is 3 words. It's clear what policy it references. That application of policy was wrong (your application of the policy was wrong, since I was the only using 3 words), as reading the article properly, and checking out the sources that it already cited, would have revealed. Clearly, you didn't look at the sources to see whether the article was presenting unpublished ideas not discussed in sources, even though checking articles against what sources say is one of the primary purposes of citing sources in Wikipedia. Moreover, it was wrong in a way that the article actually discusses as its subject. Clearly, you didn't pick up on that.
Furthermore, your discussion of "sin" is a straw man of your own construction. No-one except you yourself has said that you have sinned. There's nothing "aggressive" about pointing out where policy has been grossly, and ironically, mis-applied in a way that it does not actually apply at all. (Hint: There are, sadly, plenty of examples of aggression on Wikipedia. It generally looks like this or this. Spot the quite marked difference? No-one has called you ignorant, useless, or impertinent, or told you to "grow up and shut the fuck up". And the only person who has called you a sinner is you yourself.)
Finally, you ask for votes. This is not a vote, and the above is an opinion with an explanation. It's a quite clear explanation of how policy does not apply in the way that you assert it to apply, and what the error is that you've all made. (It's not the first time that people have looked at an unwikified article and not seen past the markup.) In yet further irony, you talk of explanations when your 3-word rationale is devoid of any explanation at all. This only serves to highlight your further error in stating that I'm explaining your reason to you. Quite the contrary, I'm taking your reason exactly as it was written: that the Wikipedia:No original research policy purportedly applied. You either don't understand that policy in the slightest, or you didn't look at the sources cited and didn't look beyond the style of the article to its substance. I took it that you understood the policy, but didn't read the article and see its actual substance, including the reliable sources that it cited in support of every single part of its content, for the unwikification and the Harvard referencing — as so many have done before you (Despite Wikipedia style guidelines, I've observed a significant bias against Harvard referencing at AFD over the years.), and that is spectacularly ironic in this particular case, given what this article's subject in fact is. You could have been simply sheep voting, of course, but I didn't work on that assumption.
When someone makes an error, it's quite legitimate to point out that it is an error. You weren't "targetted for trying to apply standards". You were told that you were doing things wrongly, and not actually applying our policies. You were not applying our standards, in any way. The route to not getting a complete misapplication of policy being pointed out by other people is to not mis-apply it in the first place, not to try to distract the discussion onto the subject of the people who point out such errors when they happen. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's daft, moreover, to expect people to jump through convoluted linguistic hoops to avoid responding in the second person, in ordinary discourse, to text where someone immediately before talks in the first person (of "my interpretation", "our reasons", and what "I did"), just in order to avoid using the word "your" so that silly word-counting games cannot be played later.
And you are hitting yourself. You characterized yourself as a sinner. You called yourself a "dumb schoolchild" and a "moron". No-one else has done any of this. Indeed, you started in on other people, too, attacking Unomi here for something that, if you had actually read the case you would know turned out to be false. I'm not asking you why you are hitting yourself. But I am saying to stop. Stop hitting yourself, and stop hitting other people, too. You're the only one doing it.
There is a game here, but it's the game of putting words into other people's mouths, hitting out at complete strangers who disagree with onesself, and hitting onesself and trying to place the blame for it with other people. Uncle G ( talk) 18:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G. You erased this diff. I am sure it was by accident, since as you see from the AfD you have persuaded me :) Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 20:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Boston (
talk) has given you a fresh piece of
fried chicken! Pieces of
fried chicken promote
WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the
WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
I'm giving you this chicken after noticing you came under fire for something you said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source Credibility discussion. Your point is a good one...I know I myself am too quick to disregard article content when the format doesn't look right to me! I hope you don't become too mired in the debate about the debate (about the debate about the debate about the debate) but rather can soon return to happier pursuits. Best wishes. -- Boston ( talk) 21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is pointless and simply fanning the flames to attack an editor who is having issues with you when you have addressed that issue-haver thus:
"It's a shame that none of you read the article, because it makes the very point that I'm about to make. The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, ... The fact that it was unwikified entirely slewed your opinions, and those opinions have no basis in policy whatsoever. You should have read the article properly, ignoring (or — better yet! — fixing) the cleanup issues."
If your concern is the article and the improper AfD (which it certainly is improper, as the subject has high EV), then you might better address the issue by not telling people what they are thinking. I often think that AfDs are proposed by editors who have not read the article, have not researched the topic, and know nothing about the topic, and frankly, I think are incapable of learning about the topic. And, I've said all of this in AfD discussions. My doing this serves no purpose other than to unnecessarily irritate people and take the focus off the subject at hand: the encyclopedia and a particular article. You're an administrator and could consider setting an example for other editors by not telling people what they are thinking--the ultimate in original research. Simply point out that the topic is clearly notable, point to some books that discuss the topic, and suggest the AfD be closed. I'll try to take my own advice, also. -- KP Botany ( talk) 22:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You also said, "The only reasons that you think that this is an essay," (emphasis mine) is telling them what they are thinking.
In my opinion, an administrator would be a better advocate for the encyclopedia Wikipedia by setting a strong example that includes focusing on the content of the encyclopedia rather than on another editor's motives or thinking. -- KP Botany ( talk) 05:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I also point out this to the both of you: The number of edits that people have on their accounts has nothing to do with this as far as I am concerned. This should be obvious from the fact that this began with an objection to the deletion of an article created by Dawson2824 ( talk · contribs), an editor with exactly four edits (of which this article was xyr first), and whom I've pointedly praised several times for actually creating an article the right way, the way that we all say articles should be created. You want an administrator setting an example? Try this: I've been opposing the automatic assumption of bad faith that some make of editors without accounts, and of apparent (but not necessarily actual) novice editors, since at least 2004. (Yes, I really do mean before I myself finally created an account.) Uncle G ( talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
And it's quite possible to look at something without seeing what is actually there, and to be influenced by presentation to the extent that one discounts content. That is, after all, one of the very things that this aspect of social psychology is about. That doesn't make a person doing that all of the things that have been asserted (but not by me) in these fragmented discussions. It simply makes that person in error.
You want an example of mind reading? You've commented on how you sometimes think that other editors are ignorant and incapable, and what to do in such circumstances. What makes you think that I thought anything like that? As I keep saying, I wrote nothing of the kind. (Go and look at the section just above on this very talk page. I often take the view that other editors in fact have greater capabilities than I have.) Now arguing on the basis that I thought something about a fellow editor that I never wrote is mind-reading. There is mind reading here, but it's not on my part. Or — rather — it would be mind-reading, had I not also clearly stated that I made no such assumptions about lack of understanding, ignorance, or laziness, right at the beginning. Uncle G ( talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and apologize for allowing my emotions to get the best of me yesterday. Your points have been absorbed, and I don't disagree with the academic points of what you had to say. I should not have allowed myself to continue responding, and I certainly should never have degenerated to a state where I lashed out at an innocent bystander. I have already apologized to Unomi for my careless words. I don't respond well to people telling me what I'm thinking, explaining my reasons to me, and using a didactic platform to belittle the contributions of others. This does not give me the right to be an ass, however. I apologize for causing a disruption and I will be withdrawing my objection to the Source credibility article. I do not hold grudges longer than overnight, so please don't think you've made an enemy, or that I will be engaging in any kind of petty reprisals. I hope we can find some common ground on articles in the future. Best regards. -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 01:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I was browsing through the list of DYK candidates and found something that pertains directly to this discussion, in the nominations for articles created on 10 April. Scroll down to the entry for Richmond Bridge, London, and you'll see what I mean--I think you might chuckle. I sure did. Drmies ( talk) 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
We saw your explanation of this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#April 6 -- we had, immediately prior to this, used this page (Request for Removal of Copywrite Violation) which was redirected; the redirect seemed reminiscent of the tactic of using a "redirect" as an adjunct to "merge" for unscrupulous effective deletion of Wikipedia articles by a legal-process sort of vandalism to which Wikipedia seems to be highly prone : the legal vandals' scheme also involves claiming (by the legal vandal) of alleged "copyright-violation". (As a co-author of a number of thusly-deleted Wikipedia articles, I am seeking administrative redress on some of these matters through any available appeals process, and have a number of appeals already on file with Wikipedia appeals-offices as concerns these cases.)
Incidentally, the extremely swift removal from public access of the "page history" of an article deleted by legal vandalism renders the names of co-authors of those article likewise inaccessible, so that the locating of co-authors in order to apprise them of the fact of their articles having been deleted (so as to alert them of their need to file appeals), becomes impossible without administrative assistance. Would you (or any other administrator to whom you might refer us) be willing to assist us in locating co-authors of deleted articles? 71.76.32.220 ( talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The editor who made that RFD nomination was 0XQ, and unfortunately yes, that editor is violating copyright. One of the articles that xe created was Lumbrokinase. It comprised five paragraphs, each of which was simply copied and pasted from another WWW page. 0XQ did not write anything in that article in xyr own words.
For example: the fourth paragraph of that article, beginning "Four phases of clinical studies have been done on LK at the Beijing Xuanwu Hospital", was copied and pasted in its entirety from here. That WWW page is, as you can see by reading it, not free content. It even explicitly says, at its foot, "Copyright© 2004-2009 --- NutriCology, Inc. --- All rights reserved.". Copying and pasting it is a copyright violation.
Creating articles by simply copying other people's writing, is not writing. It's taking other people's writing and passing it off as one's own. It's laziness. And it's not allowed here at Wikipedia. We want content that is written in editors' own words. We don't want people to do what 0XQ did. It wasn't writing.
Two other articles that 0XQ worked upon (but did not create) are Serratiopeptidase and Serrapeptase. But these have not been deleted. One can look in their deletion logs, here and here, to see that. They were merged, because they were the same subject by different names. We have one article per subject here at Wikipiedia.
Now mergers are not always perfect. Some editors are hasty. Some consider helping with any part of the merger process other than the final redirect to be Somebody Else's Problem. Some are merely starting off a process actually desired by other people, upon whom the responsibility really lies to fully enact what they opine should be done. If there's something in the edit history of one article that has not been merged into the other article, and as long as it wasn't someone else's text that 0XQ was passing off as being xyr own (as xe did with Lumbrokinase) and as long as it is in accordance with our other content policies (in addition to our copyright policy), it can be retrieved from the edit history (which, having not been deleted, is accessible) of the redirected title and added to the merged article (noting in the edit summaries what article it was taken from, for GFDL compliance). All editors have the tools to complete an incomplete merger.
And there are already discussions at Talk:Serrapeptase and Talk:Serratiopeptidase where editors are open to discussing what further text can be merged, which any editor can join and contribute to. Uncle G ( talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have had a go at making it more neutral. Thatsitivehadenough ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC).
Hi UncleG, I'm unable to figure out how to edit Whitney Lakin as it lacks a link to the AfD on the page for the date. Any ideas? Hobit ( talk) 01:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thank you for your reply and suggestions.-- Juliaaltagracia ( talk) 01:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For your post regarding Godwin's Law at ANI (see below diff). You're one of the only Wikipedians here who understand what is going on around here. I couldn't have said it any better myself. MuZemike 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
Here's the diff: [3] MuZemike 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on this one - I had no clue how to fix it, but you have significantly improved it. – ukexpat ( talk) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I read your comment yesterday and found it useful and enlightening, and was waiting to see what the author's response would be. The article has been changed in a meaningful way, and I'm actually rooting for the author--though I'm not fully convinced yet, it won't take much. Thanks for your interest. Drmies ( talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm through with playing games here. Hilary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well OK, BlueSquadronRaven isn't editing right now so I'm kinda losing my motivation... let's hope he comes back soon to get me all riled up again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you wonder how BlueRavenSquadron managed to spend so long at Wikipedia without realizing the GFDL requires attribution? I think it's this phrase here, from the edit screen which everyone sees:
This isn't enough, because it seems to imply that you can simply copy text from anywhere as long as it has a GFDL-compatible license. And this is one reason why Wikipedia is an ever-growing mountain of GFDL and other copyright violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I got my motivation back! and given that Wikipedia is an ever-growing mountain of copyright infringement anyhow, I hardly need to feel guilty about vandalising it.
Done. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G. Just wanted to say thanks for the follow-up work you've been doing in looking at the contributions of the JamesBurns sock puppets, and looking over the AfD list at User:Paul Erik/AfDs affected. I am learning from this experience. Much appreciated, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Another question: What distinguishes a discussion that should go to DRV (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa vs Pretty) from one that should just be re-listed (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lac Motion)? Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a question on this topic, if you don't mind: if the participants in the debate haven't read the deletion policy, and don't even read the debate itself (like someone who's name I am not going to mention), is it actually wrong to use sock puppets to argue for the correct result, in accordance with your deletion policy? JustOneMoreQuestion ( talk) 07:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Or even against the correct result, just for kicks? JustOneMoreQuestion ( talk) 08:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G, I see that you've found the "clear connection" I was talking about between Megan1967 and the other socks. When you open the SPI for User:Leanne, I will add any evidence I found that you may have overlooked. DHowell ( talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that is an issue that must be raised about that user's page - though I'm as guilty as anyone else of having joke material on mine. :) - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If you look at BlueSquadronRaven's contributions you'll see why there's no point attempting to answer this kind of spam with policy based arguments. There isn't time to google a fraction of these things, let alone trying to build the article. It's not even worth trying to use good puppets which vote the right way because (1) still have to google and (2) you're still outnumbered by Butuirol, Dahn, Bali ultimate etc. The only thing left is bad puppets, hoping to refute the logic they are using and draw in other neutral people to help. Also it keeps the Ricky81682 challenge alive. Mergellus ( talk) 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–United Arab Emirates relations does it not challenge your ability to assume good faith? Mergellus ( talk) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You can see that they only win (1) because Wikipedia makes decisions by ballot, not discussion, and (2) your ballots are being stuffed by spammers. Wuzzit ( talk) 19:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
What's even worse is Ukraine–Vietnam relations. Someone actually expanded that so you have no excuses left. I pledge 10 items of sneaky vandalism for that one, but I'll give you a few days if you want to take it to DRV. Wuzzit ( talk) 20:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I agree with your points re BLP's, and completely disagree with your criticism of me for commenting on the discussion without having copyedited the article. People have time for what they have time for, and I didn't (haven't yet?) had time to work on the article itself.
I agree there is a responsibility on all editors (not just administrators) to remove poorly sourced information from BLP's. I also agree there was poorly sourced information in the Michelle Leslie article. Alas, between the time I commented on the AfD and the time you did, I was largely away in real life doing other things. Now I'm back I'm happy to work on this or any other BLP, though I note you've already started work on it. I respect your extensive contributions to Wikipedia and would welcome any further suggestions (even criticisms) you might have re editing priorities. But to avoid diverting the AfD I'd suggest they might be better placed either here or at my talk page. If you've other things to do and don't have anything further to add to your earlier comments, thanks again for the feedback. Euryalus ( talk) 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic ( talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Big thank you for slicing through the knots I got myself into here.-- Shirt58 ( talk) 12:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Point noted, but I do have a query (see here). Cheers, Nja 247 12:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow ... all those articles you cited, Footage is the author and more or less the sole contributor. You think we should G12 the lot, or maybe hit them with {{ copyvio}}? I've also proposed a community ban. Blueboy 96 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
-- AbsolutDan (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just lovely. You should do this for all TLDR discussions. :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox ( talk) 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I see you've discovered my past life. In my defense, most of what I did was "parodies" or trolls, kooks, and spammers but granted a lot of what I did in that newsgroup would violate WP:POINT here. The only thing left of that era of my net life is the picture on my userpage.
However, I can see where someone reading Usenet archive sources out of context could give someone the wrong idea about something so I would never support using anything like that on an article about a living person. I was just thinking that they could be used to demonstrate verifiability/notability (in the sense that it existed and was well known) for Internet related subjects that predate the world wide web. Again however, in the case of Crystal Palace, I've rethought that, it was created in 1996 and still exists today so if it were notable, then there would be "modern WWW" sources that meet our standards. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the long run-down on the issuance of currency that you left at Talk:Licence to print money! I didn't understand that private banks actually are authorized (licensed, chartered, whatever) to print money, but I'm going to look up more information because I still don't understand the nature of arrangement. These banks are authorized to print money ... what, when they feel like it? That seems to make it impossible for a government to exercise any control over its own economy, whether or not the banks are tightly regulated. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, just a small point I was wondering, what about Scots and Ulster banks who still issue currency? By "The UK" did you mean England and Wales? Of course that's a bit moot in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland which is now public ownership and I don't think they issued banknotes (offers of credit cards seems more their line) but I think e.g. Clydesdale Bank and Bank of Scotland do, and Northern Bank in Ulster (part of HSBC now)? I am probably wrong on remembering the banks here, I am not trying to make a big deal of this except to say it should be checked if that article ever comes about.
Of course, all banks also issue private money in the form of cheques. Or hmmm is a cheque the writer's private money not the bank's? I've just been editing Negitiable cow so perhaps that has blurred my idea of who owns a cheque, which is, after all, just a promise to pay.
Which also reminds me someone said to me the other day about banknotes (in England) not being honored cos they were not signed, can't remember if this was about Irish or Scots notes, can't remember the context at all. Again just something probably to check if this article comes about-- and I hope it does cos it would be quite an interesting one I think, in a "who knew?" kind of way. I imagine all these questions are fairly easily answered, just wanted somewhere to make them so they didn't get lost-- I'm not necesssarily expecting you to answer them yourself, except for "Did you REALLY mean UK or just England and Wales"? SimonTrew ( talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand and empathize your viewpoint that not all ips are vandals. I was never trying to say that only ips are vandals either. I realize that sock puppets can be annoying, but as an editor who constantly fights vandalism, I find that most vandalsim is from anon ips or newly created accounts. Saying that my point of view was "rubbish", especially on an ANI board was not helpful.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (section 21 "request for a correction") you have left this edit, and I would be grateful if you could answer the following (off course, no obligations):
With cordial greetings, Artem R. Oganov Aoganov ( talk) 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for support. Those personal attacks on myself are becoming annoying. Materialscientist ( talk) 02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (NIMSoffice)
That was a great idea, to use the sources to build an entirely new article! Wish I'd thought of doing that. Fences and windows ( talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
For the most amazing salvage I've ever seen. Dloh cierekim 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
Royal broil 00:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
saw your related comment on AfD about gamma boron. [4] i warned the user. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed Hell, Arizona... that has to be one of the best article rescues I've ever seen. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens ( talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Impressive HEY job you did on this article. If we could find a way to clone you then we wouldn't need AFD anymore. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining your unprecedented (dare I say weird?) habit of putting lines in middle of a discussion? [5] [6] Thanks, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of not biting a newbie, I've left a message on the creator's page User talk:Flylanguage#Potential Articles for Deletion nomination of your Fly (programming language) article, that will add some urgency to your article tags. If he/she doesn't respond in a reasonable period of time with some sourcing, I may bring the article to AfD, although it will be my first and only AfD nomination in two years of editing. — Becksguy ( talk) 01:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
" * " ←That's a cheap barnstar ... lol, sorry I'm so lazy and lame. Hey, just wanted to note that you showed leadership by example. The rewrite of Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet to take an idea and fix it rather than just delete it is something I admire. Nice work. ;) — Ched : ? 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see and comment here. --
I found a weblink to the source you mention [7] and found it disagreed with the article in several points, which I corrected, and did not support others, such as the casualty rates, so I added citation tags - which the article creator removed without adding sources.
I did not remove all mention of alleged German involvement, if you read "my" version of the article [8] you would see them mentioned several times. Further, I have not edited the article since I asked for help. Since then the article creator has removed tags asking for citations, again without adding sources. Their claim that Germans were present and fought on the Mexican side is based on a single source. I’ve found another source [9] which does not accept this claim as a certainty, other Gbooks hits don’t have a preview or don’t preview the appropriate pages. Edward321 ( talk) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
No no no. Not his archival. I could give a shit how he archives his talk page. Did you read the substance of his discussion? He's being intentionally rude and obstructionary to a simple question. Another user asked for a reasonable explanation of an admin action he made, where he closed some AFDs. Read his response. It wasn't the way he archived his page, it was the rude way he refused to answer the question... Read it. Its a fun time. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't answer the question. But I think that Docu is trying to make a point subtly, and being too subtle about it. Xe is apparently asking LibStar what type of project xe believes xe is contributing to, and what xe believes it is this project's goal to build. So it's a fair point to observe that neither of the two of them was answering the other's questions.
Also note that this is not exactly an interaction between these two that has occured in a vacuum. Observe the context, such as this for example.
Also try putting yourself in Docu's shoes. If someone came to your talk page telling you how non-administrator closures worked, wouldn't you be confused and ask for that person to explain themselves more clearly, or in a different way, with diffs? What if that person's next two posts to your talk page were this notification and this? Would you be any the wiser as to what that person was on about? Given that the latter edit doesn't even ask a question, and nor did most of the edits before it (There's no question asked here, for example.), wouldn't you be yet further confused when that person's next edit was to complain that you weren't answering xyr questions?
Good communication is not solely Docu's burden here. LibStar's communcation is clearly poor in this circumstance. Given recent edits like this, this, and this, it's not solely this circumstance where it is poor, moreover. Uncle G ( talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As to the discussion on your talk page, note that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Adding {{primarysources}} to various articles, including Estonia–Luxembourg relations is the context and Llywrch is an administrator. Docu wasn't coming to you for mediation. Xe was coming to you asking for suggestions, when an editor repeated behaviour that another administrator had said a week beforehand could be considered disruptive if repeated. You didn't address that, which is why xe returned to the point. You didn't directly say words to the effect of "Look, this edit isn't actually disruption on Bali ultimate's part, contrary to what you are thinking, and the discussion that you point to does not say anything about this article, let alone support the general conclusion about primary sources that you are drawing.".
Again, look at what you wrote and ask yourself if, were you in Docu's shoes and coming to another administrator to ask a "What action should best be taken with this editor, now?" question, you would know that you, Jayron32, were saying that. Ask yourself whether you might try to re-iterate the point that you were actually asking for help on when the person you asked started talking about notability and "larger issues". Uncle G ( talk) 09:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
How do you pronounce them? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the leg work on those. As you suspected, I have no involvement in that dispute -- never heard of the guy before a couple of days ago. I don't remember why I commented on LoveMonkey's diff -- it was probably the most recent uncivil one at the point where I dropped in. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: RFC talk
One more issue with the Artez article (which I've readded the COI tag to again). You might also want to mention that the user uploaded the company logo, with the source given as the company's website, and then claimed to be the copyright holder and to release the logo into the public domain. And then added the logo to his/her own userpage, which wouldn't be possible if the logo had been uploaded as fair use. Dekimasu よ! 03:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
For massively expanding and saving the clearly notable five wits from AfD, I hereby award you this barnstar. Congratulations and keep up the good work! -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
I don't understand why you removed the deletion notice on Dobryi. I think everyone agrees that the article is useless and a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Trovato ( talk • contribs) 2009-06-15 03:46:08
Hi. I see that you have : Removed internal link, per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. I have made this because direct link to the page with program was treated as bad page and it was reomed by robot/system ( I do not know). This internal link was an only way to make a link with help find this page via users page. Is it a better way ? Regards -- Adam majewski ( talk) 13:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thx for answer. -- Adam majewski ( talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as you have taken part in the conversation before I thought you should be notified of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). The previous decision seems to have been against consensus, which was more for redirect. I personally think the article should be deleted. This is not canvasing as I am informing all people involved in the previous discussions and nobody outside of the discussions. Polargeo ( talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G, why did you restore three to four year old vandalism to Gotem? It contained nothing that wasn't nonsens, and the current article has very little to do with it, despite starting from the same nonsense: because people then did at first not believe that the info was nonsense, we had to go through an AfD to change it into a completely different, correct article. To restore the deleted nonsense by long gone, mostly blocked editors seems utterly pointless. Fram ( talk) 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You have not read the edit history, are wheel warring to make an article non-GFDL compliant ( The Raven was not the original author of the content.) and are dismissing as "vandalism" and "inaccurate" content that actually was neither, as can be plainly seen when compared to the "accurate" content. Speedily deleting valid content with an incorrect application of the speedy deletion criteria when the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotem was "keep", and when all of your mistakes here were pointed out to you then as well, is highly troublesome, too. I suggest that you undo the both wrong and anti-consensus use of your tools immediately, otherwise it's going to be a lot more than just me quietly fixing an erroneous application of the patent nonsense criterion and restoring GFDL compliancy here. Uncle G ( talk) 12:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
And if you refer the comments by vandals in the AfD over my comments, again, be my guest. But please don't take any comments from people who create and defend the article Eiland at face value.
Finally, "Speedily deleting valid content with an incorrect application of the speedy deletion criteria when the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotem was "keep", and when all of your mistakes here were pointed out to you then as well, is highly troublesome, too. " suggests that I deleted contents after an AfD closed as "keep". However, I only redeleted contents which was mainly added by serial vandals, was deleted by other admins, without contestation or DRV, and which you decided on your own to restore three years later for no good reason and without consultation of anyone. Fram ( talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I still haven't gotten a clue — Indeed. Here is some more Clue then: You nominated an article for deletion multiple times when you could have just fixed it. You didn't actually constructively edit the article at all, as none of your edits have introduced any content. And you are still, after three years, fixated with the idea that the people who wrote that Gotem was, for examples, at latitude 50 and a bit degrees north and has postal code 3840 are vandals. Indeed you are still, here and now in the very edit above, accusing the original creator of the article, who introduced those self-same facts to Wikipedia, of being a vandal. Uncle G ( talk) 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's see. The original editor, probably user PhoenixPinion (who also edited e.g. the soon deleted vandal article Caughtem minutes after creation (Gotem and Caughtem, right...) In his first edit, he introduces a wrong province, a totally wrong population (39,000 instead of 200), imaginary alternative names, and most damningly, a link to a hoax article created by the same group of vandals (Syphonbyte, The Raven, The Raven is God, 578, PhoenixPinion, Catbag, ...) Oh, and some unrelated nonsense slang, the very reason they created and maintained this article. The second edit, by the very same creator, adds "See "Caughtem" for further information.", which as indicated above is also a deleted hoax article. Yes, these are all indications that this was a well meaning editor and not a vandal... We obviously will not understand each other here. Oh, and you have not read the entire edit history (to use one of your complaints), since I did introduce content, here [16]. Fram ( talk) 04:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bavarian Pigeon Corps, instead of "he", several times you have typed "xe" and at one point I think you typed "xem" instead of "them". It was very confusing at first, although it was nearly four in the morning and I was not my most focused. I was just wondering what was up with that.
You want to say something to me, say it to me. Speaking of "the easy way", you could probably check my contributions to see how it is that I edit. I happen to agree with you that IPC stuff isn't really useful. However, since so many users create those sections, especially in certain cases, I'm not sure it's always the best to get rid of it. Mintrick ( talk) 19:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching the results of the AfDs that have gone so far, and I'm not displeased. If the material must be deleted, then it is much easier to do that by AfDing an IPC article than obliterating an IPC section.
As an aside, if you truly believe that such trivia has no place in Wikipedia, then you should try and get policy to say that. Because right now it doesn't. Mintrick ( talk) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
As for "[It] is much easier to do that by AfDing an IPC article than obliterating an IPC section.": That's exactly the sort of burden-shifting and work-multiplication that earns an editor the disrespect of everyone else. It's imposing unnecessarily a burden on many editors (Look how many editors have participated in the AFD discussions that you have caused.) that need not exist. And it's wrong, too. The AFD discussion results, especially merge results, often don't provide any support for removing the original content from the original article, contrary to what you are thinking. Ordinary editing of an article in situ, discussing sourcing and original research issues on the talk page in the normal way, can deal with bad content, without sweeping things under the rug and without causing massive amounts of work for everyone else wholly unnecessarily. Uncle G ( talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It would appear that the BPC issue is moving to a resolution. The good thing is that the new emphasis will be on the inventor and the invention rather than a peripheral (at best) army unit. Funnily enough my grandfather was both a pigeon fancier and a member of the German army and from 1916 the air corps during WW1. I am sure that he would have mentioned the phenomena of birds with cameras had there been such. Albatross2147 ( talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you forgot to actually say keep at that Afd. DGG ( talk) 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
... now with the date of Bannockburn in his name, Meechan1314 ( talk · contribs). Dearie me, what a headache. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 11:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you may want to add your comments User_talk:Unomi#RE:_Regarding_your_use_of_the_prod_tag here, as I am not quite sure how well I am handling it Unomi ( talk) 04:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Your bot created Transwiki:Politics of Merrimack and Transwiki:Politics of Merrimack/Merrimack Politics of 2002. I'd never heard of the Transwiki namespace before -- am I completely out of the loop? If so, could you point me to where I can learn about it? If not, could you move those articles to where ever it is you intended them to go? Thanks!-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
As to what is intended: You're asking the wrong person. Go and ask the people commenting at b:Project:Votes for deletion#Politics of Merrimack what they intended. They are the ones who wanted the transwikification. Feel free to encourage them into putting their edits where their discussion words are. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Uncle G. I've gone ahead and added both the Harrison Ford and Jeff Goldblum articles to my watchlist per your suggestion at the ANI (Jackson) thread. I was curious though - are the items related in some fashion? I just wasn't sure why Ford and Goldblum would be targeted. thanks. — Ched : ? 13:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
An AfD I tried to rescue was deleted without relisting despite a 4(including nom, excluding a double vote)-3 vote. I believe I provided sufficient sources to prove notability, but the closing admin didn't seem to think so, per the closing note. Since I've seen you walk by on quite a few AfDs, I'm seeking your opinion on whether this might be something to take to deletion review. If someone other than me doesn't think so, I don't see the point in wasting everyone's time at DR, and I've never heard of this subject before the AfD and probably won't ever again, so it's not that important to me, except for the manner in which this AfD was worked. Can you check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FACT Software International Pte Ltd and let me know what you think? - SpacemanSpiff ( talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Uncle G. While I agree that, in a void, the thread in question would be more appropriate on the RS board, it is also relevant to the ongoing MJ discussion. If the thread had been started independantly of anything else, I'd agree with the move. As it stands, I think we might all be better served by collapsing the thread, and possibly doing some form of transclusionary magic to have the ongoing thread shown in both places. Badger Drink ( talk) 08:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't turn regular refs into citation templates, as they make the text harder to edit. See WP:CITE, regarding changing styles. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
We need more people to help sort this out. Accusations of POV and false sources are knocking about.-- 86.25.8.152 ( talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect user User:JamesBurns, AKA User:MegX, has returned as User:Trevvvy and probably User:Cradleofrock. Please see my comments here User talk:Aervanath#Another sock of User:Piriczki for a detailed account of my suspicions. Piriczki ( talk) 15:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for slogging through the mud. Sorry for getting lost in the mud. Won't happen again. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I still would like ObserverNY's repeated insinuations about me and the attempted "outing" (based on her thinking I am someone she knows - see her talk page) to be addressed. Thank you. Tvor65 ( talk) 10:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly conur. I knew shortly afterwards that I had lost it at this point and did try to get back on track. I have learned from this. Thank you for your patience, time and effort. -- Candy ( talk) 06:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G. I've been archiving the Talk:IB Diploma Programme page on a frequent basis, but having never archived before, don't know whether I've done it correctly. In your opinion, is it best to continue with the cut/paste archiving method I've used (which preserves the history) or is there a more efficient manner to archive. I ask because the page is very long and needs archiving again. Thanks for your help. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 00:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You might want to see that your edits have been reverted for reformatting another editor's post, apparently. - SpacemanSpiff ( talk) 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in first so I didn't have to do the work. I sometimes feel that I'm ploughing a rather lonely furrow here. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
marto ( talk) 16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
...that my reply here was meant in good faith. I didn't realize the next person to comment would have a sarcastic attitude towards you. So I hope you don't interpret my comment in the same manner. :-) Cheers. APK coffee talk 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop a thank you for your help, research, work, and explanations in regards to the DRV and Wictionary. It's greatly appreciated. ;) Best, — Ched : ? 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm placing this here to avoid derailing the discussion on the Gropecunt Lane article talk page.
Using my example of citation #32 at Restoration of the Everglades, which appears now as: Davis, Steven. "Phosphorus Inputs and Vegetation Sensitivity in the Everglades" in Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration, Steven Davis and John Ogden, eds. (1994), St. Lucie Press. ISBN 0963403028
It could also appear as a book cite, shortly reading <Davis and Ogden, p. XX> and a listing of the book in the Bibliography section. In fact, that might be clearer, because it gives the precise page number where the claim is cited. I did this when I constructed Rosewood massacre using a history book edited by Michael Gannon. Cite #10 in Rosewood massacre refers to a page in a chapter written by William Rogers, but it is cited to Gannon, and the book is listed in the Bibliography section as Gannon (ed.). Both are correct and accepted in FAs; it is the preference of the FA nominator/author to decide how these citations appear.
I was not trying to fault the cite template, but you mentioned the cite encyclopedia template, though I had not referred to encyclopedias. I just refuse to use cite templates for the reasons I gave. Parrot of Doom changed it. That's his decision. He was not wrong in how he cited it or the fact that he changed it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
A citation listed the wrong person as the author. It was wrong. You've tried to blame the citation templates, which have no bearing upon errors of fact. You've tried to argue that a simple error of fact is a matter of "individual preference". You're now pointing to citations where you've omitted the name of the author as somehow being relevant. I have to ask: Are you intentionally missing a very simple and clear point? Uncle G ( talk) 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, s/he triggered it 10 times--check out the filter log. Blueboy 96 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent work on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. . I hesitate to change the class=C ranking, but is a puzzle to me how it could be class=C and nominated for GA status. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how often you check Commons so I'm dropping a line here too: I've replied there. And yeah, what DThomsen8 said about the improvements to Bridgeman v. Corel and related articles.-- ragesoss ( talk) 02:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why you deprodded GameScoop. You didn't explain why in the edit summary nor on the talk page. If there was something that I had missed when I tried to look for sources, let me know. Thank you, MuZemike 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G. I respectfully request that you drop in on the International Baccalaureate article. The pro-IB contingency is warring with me over my use of Phyllis Schlafly's article as a source to substantiate controversy over the program in the United States. These are two of the same editors from the IBDP article I have had problems with. I am trying to abide by Wiki policies, be polite, and constructive, but EVERYTHING I add becomes a target and gets wiped or moved around. Thank you. ObserverNY ( talk) 13:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I've re-read the IB page from here. You told me to apologize. I did. I considered two comments to be in bad form and I struck them. Not being a person known for using sarcasm, I don't see which of my comments you consider sarcastic. At any rate, I'll step away. I'm copyediting an article for someone else for FA status, and then I can step away from Wikipedia entirely. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In my view, this is good advice. That's why I'd step away; and because there's much to do on Wikipedia in general where one can work quietly. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 14:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Uncle G has either gone AWOL or had himself committed after this back and forth. I propose a WP:Truce with LaMOme and Tvor65. The ball is in their court. ObserverNY ( talk) 18:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Your comments at WP:ANI regarding the Stewart Downing photo are a bit obtuse. Could you perhaps detail the issue in the talk page comment you want everyone to "get". Because I certainly don't see what you are talking about. Just telling us all to "read the comment" as though we can magically devine what your opinion on the comment is isn't helping much. I too want to resolve this issue, and you seem to indicate that there is something in the comment that will help us resolve it. If you could direct us to what it is, that would be most awesome. -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 17:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
On the Chan Heung page you mentioned that the reference style is not well done. Can you give me a more concrete example? I can provide a better reference style if an example is given. Thanks for your input! I do appreciate having input if it will help make the page better. Huo Xin ( talk) 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
Sterling work on the Blue Pig — cheers, Colonel Warden ( talk) 14:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Uncle G. The article you turned Blue Pig into is an interesting idea, and I have created a redirect to point to it - Blue Pig, Grantham. However, it is inappropriate for Blue Pig to point to an article on Grantham, as there are several pubs with the name Blue Pig, and the one in Grantham is not particularly more notable than the others: Google, Books, therefore a redirect of Blue Pig to an article on pub names seems more appropriate. Unless you have a continuing objection, I'll point Blue Pig back to Pub names. There may, of course, be other solutions to consider - and people may in future do other things with Blue Pig! Anyway - as it seems you have an interest in pubs, would you consider helping out on the pubs articles at WP:Pubs? SilkTork * YES! 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a continuing objection, and it's the one in the edit summary. Until you add something about Blue Pigs to pub names, a redirect there doesn't serve the reader. Whereas a Blue Pig is discussed, with more than a single passing mention, at public houses and inns in Grantham, and pointing a reader wanting to know about Blue Pigs there will at least provide xem with an article that actually talks about one.
To be honest, I think that you'll not find anything to write about Blue Pigs in general. This is based upon how sources treat the subject. I've done more than your Google searches. I've actually read sources. The entry for "Blue Pig" in Rothwell (cited in public houses and inns in Grantham) directs to the entry for "Blue", and the entry for "Blue" doesn't say much about Blue Pigs specifically, and spends over a third of its length talking about the "Blue" pubs in Grantham. The Guinness Book of names doesn't even have an entry for "Blue Pig" at all.
Your Google searches — as Google searches do, and as explained by Wikipedia:Google test — mean nothing when it comes to notability, and are a completely fallacious argument. The actual coverage by sources, which I've seen because (for obvious reasons ☺) I've spent some time looking for and reading sources that document a Blue Pig pub, is skewed towards Grantham. Simply put, most coverage is Yellow Pages content, self-advertising, and things like when the pub quiz night is, which has nothing encylopaedic to say. Where the coverage is suitable source material, it covers the Blue Pig only as part of a larger discussion of "Blue" pubs in general, which in turn tends to devote a large part of its time to Grantham's "Blue" pubs. The Blue Pig is only documented as part of a notable umbrella subject, and isn't notable in its own right.
I did point this out in the AFD discussion. Did you think that I hadn't based what I wrote on what coverage in sources I had found? If I'd found sources documenting the subject in its own right, I wouldn't have had to rename the article. Indeed, if such coverage in sources existed the original article wouldn't have had to talk about other pubs in Grantham, too. Uncle G ( talk) 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Before User:Andrewjlockley came along with his mass of redirects and see alsos to back up his new article 6th Extinction already existed as a redirect to Holocene extinction event. We should not redefine 6th extinction as 'Anthropocene extinction' per AJL's limited POV understanding of the science. I am simply trying to get some scientific claritiy here as opposed to AJLs rather intricate content forking. We are falling into the trap of allowing the definition of neologism terms on wikipedia to suit an individual's content forking purposes. Polargeo ( talk) 09:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I have done for you as I suggested and copied your response over to my talkpage. I would appreciate if you copied over any further response you may have to my talkpage so I am kept up to date on the discussion. I have added some material on Blue Pig to the Pub Names article, and so having now overcome your sole objection, I have redirected Blue Pig to that article. Please be aware that I have created Blue Pig, Grantham for those looking for the pub in Grantham. It could be seen as presumptious to assume that someone looking for the significance of the pub name "Blue Pig", or for an actual Blue Pig pub in any other location that they should be looking for the one in Grantham. The significance of the use of the word "Blue" (for both Blue Pug and a variety of other pub names which use Blue) is given in the Pub Names article, which is sourced. Assistance with expanding the Pub names article would be appreciated. SilkTork * YES! 14:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Conrad Murray. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Murray. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You asked a fair question on RFAR, but its a general question about checkuser so it's not really specific to that case. I've had a go at an answer.
It can and does take just minutes to find that diff, but the thing is, only if you know to look for it. Durova didn't know, nor Ottava, nor the people who looked for evidence and reported they hadn't found any that was solid enough at the time.
What you're asking sounds reasonable,but if someone told you right now, "I suspect users X and Y with thousands of edits might be socks", the amount of work that can go into finding the level of evidence needed is colossal. Even supposing you found that diff in that case, you have to then act as devils advocate, and anticipate the user saying "I was using someone else's computer" or whatever... you then have to be able to show that answer isn't likely either, that's part of it too.
Checkuser elections are going on. When they're done, in a couple of months, ask one of the new checkusers how technically tough it can be to track down the one elusive diff you don't even know whether it's there.
Then consider the pile-on "It must have been his mother/wife/invisible friend, checkuser abuse!" and the extra work to produce evidence - not say-so - that would show all the alternative good faith reasons are implausible or unlikely.
Checkuser work is easy looking back, like a lot of things. In this case the quickest logical route is - "If they are socks, they may have stacked. Let's look at major project pages where stacking might have been more serious. 9 times out of 10 all you'd get is "yes, they both stated a view on this discussion. In Geogre's case you'd find a resigned edit a minute later. But that's easy to say in hindsight.
In the case of more serious sock-users - Poetlister, Mantanmoreland, and now, Geogre - these are sophisticated competent users (or abusers) with many contributions. Traces may be expected to be scanty, and often considerable insight is needed to realize where such iron-clad evidence might be found, and then dig it out and show it is significant, even if in retrospect it's easy to point it out.
Hope that answers it a bit. There's some more explanation on what's involved, and some analysis of the logs, at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Checkuser usage.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and don't teach your Uncle G to suck eggs. I was a year ahead of you on the whole Poetlister thing. I even located the same sockpuppetry on non-WMF wikis, as you'll note I said in that edit. Note also who did a lot of the reviewing at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31#Sockpuppet cleanup. Your only consolation perhaps is that Wikiquote finally got wise a fortnight behind your block. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 06:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not know Geogre, though I am aware of the name and understand that the user has made valued contributions. […] The statement by Geogre, when it came, did this person no credit - it is somewhat arrogant, lacking in understanding, and insulting to other users.
There's a whole lot of background here, involving what I tend to think of as "The Usual Suspects", a small group of editors who all know each other and who all have some sort of complex internecine feud, that would give Dynasty a run for its money, going. It's the same people over and over again, and they've come up at the Administrators' Noticeboard and Arbitration with a depressing regularity over the past half decade or more. I could reel you off a list of names. But so, probably, could you, and it would be the same list.
Like most people, I suspect, I tend to skip over those. The current Jimbo-Bishonen dispute, that you've also commented on, is just more of the same. Like most people, I suspect, I'm just not interested in their mutual squabbling and find it of no relevance whatsoever, and I wish that they would all understand that, and not think it all so gosh-darn important that everyone has to stop what they are doing and pay attention and that it has to be shoe-horned into all other discussions.
It's a shame that Geogre is involved in this. Unlike several of the Usual Suspects, xe has actually proven useful, in my experience. I've invoked xyr spectre a few times, and adopted several good ideas that xe conceived/exemplified, including the good idea, based upon the principle that administrators can read, that it's completely daft to label discussion contributions with boldfaced "Comment". Xe also articulated Geogre's Law.
One has to read these continual little affairs in the context of years of background, since the people involved tend to write to address those who share in the history, as those are almost inevitably the other parties involved. Unfortunately for them, I and (I suspect) others are really not interested in following their little soap opera. As I said, I suspect that most people wish they would start to grasp how irrelevant their infighting is, and how damaging it becomes when it spills over with real effect onto the rest of us with things like "Association of Editors Who All Agree that They Are Superior to You" committees. Uncle G ( talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Uncle G. I noticed that you suggested merging Asian fetish to an article with a more neutral name. It is a move that I support, since the title of the article attracted archives of heated discussion. You'll notice that I redirected Asiaphile to Asian fetish. Although it had sources, the article was brief and its content and sources overlapped heavily with the Asian fetish article, so I found it redundant. I hope that other users support what I did. I'm telling you this, because I wasn't sure if you were still interested in editing those articles. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ ( talk) 08:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to your thoughts about article triage. Very useful. Although not policy, it is well written enough for study and consultation. It is even better than some WP policies! User F203 ( talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
UncleG, I'm not totally how I got here tonight, but I did, and it opened up a real mystery to me. The AfD is a no-brainer; the decision to turn into a redirect to Unschooling could have been closed by a baboon. But I read the comments, for whatever reason, and I saw that the editors were acting contempuous of the editor who had created the article. Their words are inexplicably harsh, I thought, but then again, not seeing what the article looked like, I might not know. So since it had simply been turned into a redirect, I thought I should be able to look in article history and see the old article.
So I went here. To my surprise, there was virtually no history to be found--only three edits altogether: [17], [18], and [19]. Very puzzling also are the dates: Sept. 25, 2005, and then a two year jump to May, 2007. The middle edit is obvious vandalism, properly reverted. But the (first) mystery to me then is where is the article that was brought to AfD? The AfD was in September of 2005, and the only version from that month shows nothing but a redirect. I don't get it. Yet I'm not all that concerned about that.
What really has me freaked out is that, reading the edit history, I may have been involved in the article and don't remember it. Look at this edit summary. The editor is explicitly reverting me, to read his summary. And yet, a) I do not show up in the edit history, and b) I have no memory of being involved with this redirect. To make matters more baffling, the date of the AfD is exactly one week after I signed up for Wikipedia back in 2005. And one of the editors says, Malformed redirect to a user describing himself.". Is it possible that I actually did that when I first signed up? I have no memory of it, and the edit history doesn't show it.
So did I ever make any contributions to Unschool (and I am asking about the redirect/article, not to Unschooling, to which I know I have made occasional contributions.) Are you able to enlighten me? I know that sometimes admins can view things that we mere mortals cannot. Un sch ool 03:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
So Why 08:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but frankly, I'm gobsmacked. I'm still relatively new here, but I have run across the terms inclusionist or deletionist many times. I honestly cannot recall a time when it gave me even a hint of Godwin's law. I just reviewed Deletionist, and it is clearly written in a humorous way; not even the barest hint that it is a term to be avoided. Of course, I can easily imagine a battle between inclusionists and deletionists; Afd is full of them, but the battles were over application of rules, not affrontry(sorry, not a real word but it should be) at the terms. I do appreciate that you were trying to be helpful, but until I see some evidence that the term is viewed as disparaging, it's going to be hard to remember. I just reviewed Deletionism. Not a hint that the term is considered offensive. -- SPhilbrick T 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Please note, I have raised a WQA for your contributions across several of the AFDs I recently raised in order to get another viewpoint on whether your actions meet recommended policy.— Ash ( talk) 11:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to weigh in for or against deletion, although of course you're more than welcome to do, but consistent with what you said at ANI (which was right on the money), it would be terribly helpful if you could say or do something at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination) to ensure that it runs for the full seven days. I'm seeing an awful lot of users demanding yet another premature close, despite the fact that it was premature closes that created this mess. That ought to be avoided; the AFD should have its full run, as it should have in the first place.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for picking up the baton by adding sources in. Fences& Windows 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was, why not salt the exact terms Fifth Studio Album, Sixth Studio Album, and so on? I didn't mean salt strings like Eminem's Seventh Studio Album, because if it was notable the title would be appropriate. Abductive ( reasoning) 11:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If Ninth Studio Album was salted, nothing would have prevented moving KoRn's album to KoRn's Ninth Studio Album, right? Finally, salting can be removed by just asking any admin and presenting a reasonable case. Abductive ( reasoning) 20:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've replied at T:TDYK. Mjroots ( talk) 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your response to my DYK entry on List of programmes broadcast by CITV. I was not aware about the most recent Ofcom ruling and can't seem to find any more recent sources. I wanted to put a fact about the first or longest-running series on CITV but there are very few sources. Can you suggest another fact or hook? 03 md 08:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful participation in my RfA. I will do my best to take the criticism to heart and improve my communication style. As for AfDs I will go slow and be sure I learn the basics first, and I will not forget that I am first and foremost an editor. I will work to gain your trust by dilligent work.
Your opinion would be appreciated here. Thanks, Majorly talk 15:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Where is your proof? Please provide it, as according to the LFP website, which is officially responsible for compiling statistics for Ligue 1 players, neither have yet to make a first team appearance. Playing for Bordeaux's second team in the amateur division does not mean an appearance for the first team. RCO Agde and Lormont FC are amateur clubs playing in amateur leagues and WP:ATHLETE clearly states you have to appear in a professional league.
Here's their LFP pages:
I suggest you put the deletion pages back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao10Siamun ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned in your comments on the AFD page that there were nine paragraphs of information on Whipple Van Buren Phillips. The sources that I found when I did my research: [20] [21] & [22] were all top results for google and either only mentioned him in connection to HP Lovecraft or gave details of his life that I didn't feel established him as a notable individual. An example that I gave to another user was that my great great grandfather was a master plumber in Pittsburgh and installed plumbing in many of the major buildings. He was considered the best in his field, and the info that I have on him reads very much like the second source I listed above. Plenty of information, quite a remarkable life, but nothing that jumped out at me as establishing a threshold of notability. Do you feel that the information in these sources, or any others you may have, would serve to establish his notability? HarlandQPitt ( talk) 05:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A proper closing would have discounted my !vote, [23] but of course it's always better not to leave a closing to the chance that it'll be done well, so I changed to "Strong keep". Thanks for helping save the article. -- Noroton ( talk) 17:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I have only basic knowledge in that area, but I know some organizations involved. Administrator DGG and user:Abductive have already removed Prod tags from the questioned articles; and user:Abductive has done some copyright research and copied relevant urls into his edit summaries (see article history). My (quick) comments are
In summary, those pages need cleanup, reformulation and perhaps merging. I would ask the page authors, such as User:Chicon59 and others (luckily most are registered users) to do that. Please feel free to post further comments. Materialscientist ( talk) 02:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether you are interested, but, in my opinion, this suggestion was moved to the DYK queue without the problems being resolved. If you'd like to opine, I've noted my concerns here. Long Shrift ( talk) 11:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see my recent additions to the discussion at WP:ANI#209.99.19.8. GSMR ( talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
[24] -- I was about to fully protect the page for 30 minutes to get people to leave him alone. Good grief. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I was "assuming good faith" with Declan, and there was this whirlwind of deletions and additions that was driving me nuts. I've never had so many edit conflicts in 15 minutes time. Are you saying Declan is merely a troll? If so, I'm done with trying to help him, and done with that user page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop a note of appreciation for your backup and support. Thanks Uncle G. — Ched : ? 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with the deletion of the article, your summary statement surprised me. I have a vague recollection of what was in the article, and as best I remember it it was just an unnecessary and misspelled duplication of content that's on the Elmer Fudd article. Did I miss something, or did you accidentally confuse it for another article as you wrote the deletion summary? -- Soap Talk/ Contributions 16:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to that article. Please don't hesitate doing so in the future (I should spend more time on Afd, Prod and related issues). I shall first explain part of my philosophy on example of Nano spray dryer. That article was clearly created as a promotion vehicle for the corresponding company, but in pursuing their goal, they created a reasonable page (I admit, referencing is a problem), which I try to keep, stripping all and any their attempts to add promotional information. Coming back to MALS, P J Watt is a strong scientist (say, well above average professor). I don't know whether he is involved in editing; can't access his all articles and thus can't claim the page is not copyvio, but it doesn't seem so to me. I shall talk to the author trying to rectify some issues (especially figures) and shall cleanup what I can there. Certainly, there is some COI, but it is so easy to notice and strip promotions. On the other hand, the information and references are worth keeping. Even some of their custom pages like http://www.wyatt.com/literature/bibliography.cfm are valuable. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am politely awaiting reply of the author on the title, but if not, will rename myself (the current title is indeed inappropriate). I agree that I am more useful in providing an opinion rather than in enforcing it. I have little knowledge about where this is needed at a given time and sometimes seek threads in Afds discussions. In practice, I was more helpful in (un)merging attempts, which are sometimes way off line. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't found my place on WP yet (don't see an open "expert opinion" position :), thats why joined DYK, at least its fun sometimes. I would not rush with renaming that article, simply because without pictures it might either not survive or be rewritten. Multi-angle light scattering is not an obstacle for the move as it should be "merged" into the discussed one, in practice, its content is almost useless and may just be deleted. I would wait the author's reaction, and if not seen then act. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Heya. Can I get your thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArticleAlley? I'm asking because I feel an interpretation needs to be made on an essay of yours that User:34pin6 cited in a rebuttal to my !vote. Not looking to be uncivil, I would feel more comfortable if you spoke on the issue since you've been mentioned now. =) -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero / Novelty theory, an RFC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 ( talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you had expressed concerns on User talk:Backslash Forwardslash about the closure of the most recent Ashida Kim deletion discussion. I have posted a review request for this discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4. *** Crotalus *** 20:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Very nice. [25] Best regards, Durova 312 04:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, G. I looked over that user's contributions and most if not all appeared to be machine translated from text or possibly copied directly from text in this fellow's idea of English. He just reposted one and it's a mess, pretty much word-for-word from the deleted version...not to mention the snotty message he left on my talk page. I need to have another gentle word with this fellow. Thanks for the notice, but I was concerned about possible copyright violations when I deleted the articles, not to mention the fact that they were nearly incomprehensible. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 21:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Just reading through the incident archives, you say things in an excellently direct way :) Tyciol ( talk) 00:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Collapsing.2Fhiding_closed_XFD_discussions contagious. jnothman talk 07:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I just saw your closing of the AFD of User:TheAntijerkss, it's quite astonishing that there were yet more sockpuppets that I had not found. However I wonder if you'd agree that it might be more helpful to group all the sockpuppets together because it seems almost entirely certain that he will attempt to create more accounts. Currently we have Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Planecrash111, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman, and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman. If a new user can be identified as the same person who has had several dozen sockpuppets, it should be easier to deal with them and block them before they continue their prodecure of lying in edit summaries, vandalizing, and writing false biographies on their user page.
Since some of these sockpuppets are listed only as suspected, should this be run through WP:SPI to do a Checkuser as final confirmation or should all the user names just be grouped together into Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman because the evidence seems clear enough? IIIVIX ( Talk) 05:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for untangling the fake racer sockpuppet network! Gigs ( talk) 14:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate of User talk:JeffBillman, created by JeffBillman to split a conversation into two places, removed. See the notice at the top of this page. Uncle G ( talk) 00:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G, hi. I haven't had occasion to drop by here in some time; I hope you're well.
I've been talking with some inclusionists — I know, I know — but there's an idea kicking around to do a bit for the newsletter about perspectives on article deletion. Someone identified you as someone who might be willing and possibly able to elucidate, if not outright champion, a deletionist perspective. I seem to have volunteered to be a mergist-minded moderator, and I'm wondering if you'd have any interest in a structured discussion on Wikipedia's article deletion processes.
Please feel free (of course) to reply here, or at my talk page. If you're not interested, perhaps you could suggest names of others who might represent the perspective in a calm and articulate manner. Come to think of it, even if you are interested, a panel discussion might be a format we'd consider. On the other hand, one-on-one (moderated by moi) makes for good television, or in this case... yeah.
Take care. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
How would you structure a discussion that would tease out meaningful arguments, attract the attention of readers, and possibly help us break out of the increasingly acrimonious atmosphere at AfD? In case it's not clear, I found your first reply to be rudely dismissive. All I want is to help. I never asked that someone "buy into" world views. I asked if you'd be willing to represent a perspective that is clearly identifiable, and that will draw in an audience. If you're clever about it, you could use such a platform to debunk the whole dichotomy. Or you could piss in the cornflakes of someone who regards you as intelligent and articulate. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh and it wasn't rude. Trust me: If I'd been rude, you'd have seen the actual words "Fuck off, GTBacchus." there, which of course you didn't. What it was, though, was a pointer (as the edit summary said) to where "Uncle G is a prominent inclusionist." contrasts with the "Uncle G is a prominent deletionist." that someone apparently told you. It reinforces the point that these are labels applied by others to foster discord and division, rather than correct observations of reality. And it was a short pointer. I still have 30 tabs open with potential sources for anthropometry of the upper arm ( AfD discussion), which I was rather hoping to work on some more.
As to debunking, I think that many people have done that already. How many times have you seen people say "People say I'm an inclusionist/a deletionist but actually I don't hold the blanket position that …"? I've seen it many times over the years. It has been debunked by a lot of people explicitly disclaiming the ideas. The only place that it probably hasn't been debunked is the popular press, who are some years behind the times here. (In that vein, note that your discussions are being partly pushed by one of the people who has been stirring up discord and division in this regard for some years now, using the popular press as proof. So be careful.)
If you want one reasonable idea that no-one seems to address, try finding a way to get people to do AFD patrol over the older discussions, for days gone by, rather than for just the current day. When the full discussion list was taken off Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, for performance and bandwith reasons, Rossami (if memory serves) noted that this would serve to discourage people from patrolling all active discussions. That does appear to be the case. We've lost quite a lot of the benefit that we used to reap from people coming to discussions after editors had searched for sources, fixed problems, proposed and discussed constructive suggestions, entirely rebutted hasty pile-ons, allowed more than 10 minutes' article growth, and so forth. (Ironically, the place where that sort of benefit is still reaped is now Proposed Deletion.) It's not that the benefit is not there to be reaped any longer. It's just that people aren't encouraged to patrol where they used to be, as a consequence of several factors.
Another thing that you should read about for background here is the dilemma that people have when they see people putting zero effort into working on the encyclopaedia, but find it difficult to say that in the right way. See Wikipedia:Don't be lazy ( MfD discussion) and what resulted from that, from the mediated dispute to WP:OSTRICH and Wikipedia:Somebody Else's Problem. One of the things that I also regret not keeping a bookmark for for posterity was what someone (Tony Sidaway, I believe.) said (back in 2004, if memory serves) about the process of acculturation of new editors being a continuous one. Part of the problem here is that it is perpetual September at Wikipedia, too. But part of the problem is also that some few but vocal people's way of addressing that is not to educate and inform novices, with pointers and by exemplifying what should be done, but to rant on about how all the "dirty -istas!" are the problem. Uncle G ( talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I determine whether I've been successfully diplomatic or unintentionally rude by whether I manage to cause offense, or to strike some kind of resonance with my interlocutor. I see that your standards are different. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone described you to me as a prick. I'm not inclined to identify you with a label, and I suspect you're pleasant to interact with, sometimes. I'll just say you've come across to me rather prickishly. The worst part was: "Oh, and it wasn't rude." Brilliant. Being friendly costs nothing.
G, an AFD for the above article was recently closed by another admin as no consensus. The problem I saw with the closure is that all of the keep !votes boiled down to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:INTERESTING. I'm inclined to reopen the AFD on account of WP:BOLD. There just aren't that many coverage links on it, and a quick google news search turns up eleven articles - most on LifeHacker or in German - for the item. Might I get your opinion on this? -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 17:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
In the AfD discussion on this article you say you found some sources on this notable socialite. I can't find it - maybe not looking hard enough - but would like to add it to the article. Can you remember where it was? Aymatth2 ( talk) 03:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Since I am not that familiar with CSS settings, what is the proper way to include xfd-closed class to make those closed AfD debates collapse? Thanks. -- Tone 18:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
JavaScript: I have already prodded a couple of the several editors who have scripts for this to update the editing tools list with their latest and greatest. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 64#Collapsing/hiding closed XFD discussions. There are several that I missed prodding, including Avraham ( User:Avraham/monobook.js) and Mr.Z-man ( User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD.js) for two. I encourage you to prod them as well, so that people like you don't have to go trawling through user sub-pages to find what the latest and greatest scripts for this are.
CSS: User:Vicarage/monobook.css is one example of how one can permanently hide different sorts of things by their classes. Uncle G ( talk) 20:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You made an excellent point there that "this is a dictionary category, not an encyclopaedia category." I was checking the talk page to work out if the category had been submitted for deletion before, a fate I think should face all such etymological categories. It's only a fairly random selection of Dutch (or other) loanwords that get such categories, after all, so as a category it is not very useful or comprehensive. Do you feel this is worth taking to CFD? TheGrappler ( talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 08:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This [26] before protection looks dubious. Your justification? William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Oh, and you seem to have f*ck*d up the duration and forgotten to tag it. I would also say that it is in general polite to add a section to pages you have protected explaining why William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that your answers here are satisfactory [27] William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Shortly after the last time I commented on something on your talk page you embarked on a long hiatus. I see you're back doing regular edits now. Is it still your policy to behave as follows?
Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
He can't add the protection template, because he is no longer an admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren ( talk • contribs) 2009-09-14 15:38:03
Please don't close complaints against yourself [28]. It is a clear COI. I know you're embarrassed about your errors here, but please let it run its course William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The page has now been deleted, and I can't see his query. Could you give me a copy of his talkpage message so I can give him some response, posthumous as it is? Ironholds ( talk) 05:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have a problem with the editor you've mentioned (and judging by its talk page, I'm not the only one). He/she seems hellbent on deleting as much material as possible without any just explanation; wherever, whenever. When my other contributions have been modified by other editors, I've willingly accepted it and even thanked them for their explanation (go ahead and check if you want). Perhaps your issues should be with the editor you're defending and not me. Diplomacy isn't exactly its middle name. Think about it. Kearney Zzyzwicz ( talk) 05:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see my additions - MBHiii ( talk) 05:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we both created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar at the same time; sorry, I didn't realize you were also filing one. Your report includes a few more accounts/IPs than mine; if you want, you can merge mine into yours in some way or another. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 18:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I will feed it forward to the AWB team. But you needn't worry about the ref ordering. Or you may but to little avail. The order AWb puts them in is numerical order, and the <references> tags do that too. If you think about it hey have too. So sans the {{ Reflist}} it should be fine. All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC).
<references>…</references>
your 'bot has no reason to change the order specified by the actual human editors — which in the particular case that I showed to you was very much for their editorial convenience. What your 'bot is effectively doing is sorting the content of <references>…</references>
into whatever order the <ref> elements happen to be used within the article prose. That's not a good idea; it's tantamount to simply randomizing the order, which human editors may well want to be in a particular order to make article writing and maintenance easier; and there's no actual reason for doing it.
Uncle G (
talk) 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Bless you! (Thanks for catching that ... not sure how I missed it.) — Kralizec! ( talk) 23:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You just beat me out on moving that to a subpage. If it's OK with you, I'm going to move it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II as I just moved some earlier discussions regarding him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II/Archive 1 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II/Archive 2, respectively. (Obviously I will add an archive box on the front page.) Just so we can keep everything in one easy-to-find spot. MuZemike 23:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi - the posts on Admin Noticeboard regarding banned user Rbj are quickly disappearing under the mountain of notices generated by you Admin guys, and you all seem too busy to follow anything up that isn't put in the plainest terms. So I'll try again and paste my info here since you seem to take some interest in the issue:
I'm the IP who reported the edits by Rbj - the proof of Rbj's identity is on the talk page of an innocent party (User:Tomruen) where Rbj gives his email address:
Surely that's all the proof you need. I had a lot of experience of Rbj in my role as User:Lucretius, especially in the article Planck units, and it annoys me to see him still editing. I no longer edit any Wikipedia articles and I won't be able to continue monitoring his edits, so hopefully others will perform that role. His latest edits of the Planck units article were spiteful but nobody has spotted this in spite of the messages I have left there. Anyhow, I can't spend forever trying to get some action on this and you're my last stop. Thanks. 121.222.35.162 ( talk) 00:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
If you Google audioimagination.com you will come up with an endless supply of Rbj posts on the internet, including this typical exchange (note the moderator's comment about his rudeness at the end) [29]. The guy is a serial pest. He never made any efforts to hide his real name at Wikipedia and I recognize the name in the Google versions - anyone who has had dealings with him at Wiki in the past will know that name all too well. A little digging in archives should confirm this. This is somebody who must not be allowed to continue editing Wikipedia. 121.222.35.162 ( talk) 02:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm having harassment and wikistalking problems with an editor and if you are able, I would really appreciate any assistance you can offer. I've made a full report on AN/I here. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 07:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This situation is quickly escalating. I've posted a followup on AN/I here. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I never said that I wasn't involved. I said that I should have been notified because I was involved. How was I supposed to know that Tothwolf would start a report when no one told me and ANI wasn't in my watchlist? I said zero uncivil things, but I'm still being attacked by multiple editors. When the discussion with Tothwolf was over on ANI, I thought that would be it. Saying that I'm being disruptive, pointy, a sockpuppet, digging through my history to twist stuff around, and admitting that I wasn't breaking any policies but was only breaking his opinion of them wasn't enough. Now, he is calling me a meatpuppet. I'm tired of trying to discuss things by being civil without it working. Joe Chill ( talk) 18:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Rationale expanded. I was doing so, and we edit conflicted. Is that enough, or is more required? I'm still a novice AfD (one reason why I have no wish to see my name at RfA), and I'm keen to learn. Philip Trueman ( talk) 19:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Re this edit your point is obviously valid, and you are probably right to treat is as a misguided comment. I have gotten so cynical that on first read I thought the !vote was a stealth attempt by an ARS-type to discredit the nomination by making arguments that would be ignored by the closing admin! Bongo matic 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
re Special:Contributions/Jergsenkrupp. Their imaginative article Jimmy McConnell now bears a little more relation to reality :-) cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That is quite a table :) Don't forget about the talk pages of WP:COMP articles and subtemplates of the IRC-related articles that I've been tagging with WikiProject banners. Those are also intersections that may be worth mentioning. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion.
This barnstar is awarded to Uncle G, for his phenomenal work expanding " Exploding tree", the extensive work you did on this article is an inspiration and model to all Wikipedians. Thank you. Ikip ( talk) 00:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC) |
There are now no quotations, sourced or otherwise, and some very basic sourced facts. He seems to be referred to variously as Taele, Taele-Pahivi, or Pahivi, so I've created a couple of redirects. No idea why someone should change him from a Samoan international rugby union forward to a British footballer... cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Uncle G!
I've been looking at Placement syntax quite a few times, and I believe it is one of the better C++-related articles we have. From a cursory glance, it would seem as if you are the primary contributor (possibly as a result of the AfD). Would you be interested in nominating it for GA, possibly a co-nom (I don't have all the references used, but I have quite a few of my own)? Regards, decltype ( talk) 19:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you commented but didn't !VOTE. Would you like to do so now? Phil Spectre ( talk) 23:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
A great idea. How can it get approval, and what relationship does it have to Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship? Fences& Windows 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The poll has just closed, with results available at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall#Results table. Ben Mac Dui 19:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I like your cargo cult essay, but your work on Exploding tree seemed to be similar to cargo cult writing. The difference was that the disparate sources were expertly woven together in the absence of sources discussing the overall concept. I've seen something similar happen with Largest village in England: none of the mostly primary sources actually discuss the topic, they just mention various claims in passing. Surely stitching together passing mentions isn't something we want to encourage? Fences& Windows 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the "in fiction" section, then you're in the wrong place. All of the content that I wrote dealt solely with real phenomena in the real world. You'll have to take up "in fiction" with the editor who wrote that. Uncle G ( talk) 15:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I would still appreciate your opinion on the Largest village article. I too noticed that the Sheffield reference was missing and if the rest of the article was sound it'd do no harm to include it, but that's beside the point. The sources all say something like "x is said to be the largest village in England" and no more on the subject. What is to stop editors barrel-scraping for passing references in the same manner for any topic conceivable? Would I be contributing usefully to Wikipedia if I put together Most beautiful woman in England using the thousands of web hits, the dozens of newspaper references and the hundreds of book mentions? [30] I could do a whole series: ...in the world; ...in the room - complete with a pop culture reference to the Flight of the Conchords; ...of all time (Audrey Hepburn, apparently). I won't do this, but is there a policy reason I couldn't? Fences& Windows 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#Legal_threat_at_WQA I noticed that you have concerns over edits made by this IP address. Could you please elaborate at User talk:208.81.184.4? -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't move an AN thread about a completely different issue to an ANI thread. There is -no- connection between the two. One deals with problematic behavior at WQA. You should really know better. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're trying to do, but might I recommend that it's best to let people in each of the WikiProjects discuss things amongst themselves? I assure you, nobody will attempt to form any binding decisions from a WikiProject talk page. It's really something more in the way of a place where editors feel far more comfortable to speak freely and bounce thoughts off each other than the far more unfriendly atmosphere of the boards like ANI. Ray Talk 00:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please could you help out myself and DGG. Tone closed this AFD with a delete but, after remonstrating with him, he's agreeable to reopening the discussion but has left it to us to do so. I don't have the privilege and DGG doesn't know how. I'm coming to you as the most experienced admin I know. Please could you assist or advise? Thanks. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The job spec is: nobody's fool, checks the facts before weighing in, commitment to the project. An Uncle G shaped hole. You should apply, sir. Guy ( Help!) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ( chat) 00:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cryptogenic. Since you had some involvement with the Cryptogenic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Neurotip ( talk) 20:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Considering that page has been semi-protected for 10 months, is the protection still warranted? If unprotected I'll make sure to watch it vandalism.-- Giants 27( Contribs| WP:CFL) 20:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You input is respectfully requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall#The way forward? - see the remarks recently posted under the "Simple solution" sub-section re where the next stage of discussion should be located. Ben Mac Dui 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Your name was brought up by a party to the Arbitration case located here. Any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider can be added to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.
-- Tothwolf ( talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, do you mind taking a looking over here, [31]. Thanks.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 02:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
...could you comment either here, or better yet at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy on the process you started by drafting your 'Option 4'? I am, frankly, highly curious what you think of the work done on it at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC which will be ongoing into early January. Thanks for writing the original! Best wishes, Jus da fax 19:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G
Re: Talk:Häagen-Dazs/Archives/2013#local_management_mistake_not_encyclopedic
You're a much more experienced at WP than I am, so I appreciate any review, input, insight, or help you could offer here, as an editor +/or as an admin. I thought of pointing them @ wikinews, but don't edit or use it, so don't know if it fits there. I note the article has other issues and needs.
I suspect that the inexperience of the other editors is part of the issue.
Is this a case where some level of article protection is called for?
I prefer you reply here, not my talk page, to keep our discussion in one place. As well as adding to Talk:Häagen-Dazs/Archives/2013#local_management_mistake_not_encyclopedic.
Thanks either way. Lentower ( talk) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I support Lentower's request to weigh in on the issue. The discussion between us there is not going anywhere. Wwmargera ( talk) 12:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 01:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed your contributions at Talk:List of U.S. states by Human Development Index. If the correct data is not in the 0-1 range, it is not using the international Human Development Index but another measure, possibly a local American measure of a similar name. Could you correct the article accordingly? Thanks. PS: I didn't post this on the article talk as I didn't want it to just sit there for years until an IP eventually comments in 2016: 'lulwot?'. — what a crazy random happenstance 06:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Hi there. Back in 2005 you discussed this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. The article has since been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 01:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I need an admin to do something about this on the page Nubians an IP keeps coming on to remove references and disrupt the edits made on the page, I have warned the user to stop, yet he or she keeps on doing it. At 1st the editor did it from this IP 78.101.27.136 and now is doing it from 78.101.64.90 can you put some sort of protection on the page that will block the IP from its vandalism? Thesunshinesate ( talk) 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Walk of shame. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk of shame (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading your educational essay " User:Uncle G/On notability" so much I'm taking time to let you know that Danmark (island), which I think was intended to be an example of a red link, is now live. Best wishes. -- Griseum ( talk) 12:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (3rd nomination) and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
An amazing rescue on Life imitating art. Work permit ( talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC) |
WOW, what a save. And you made it look easy!
There is nothing I enjoy more then repairing a hurt article. My proudest achievement has been (essentially) creating a new article on Ling Woo from this ( actually this). When I came across Life imitating art a few months ago, it seemed headed for the dust heap. I kept going back to it, looking for sources, an angle, anything to make it viable. I knew in my heart there was something there. But I found nothing, and made just one lame addition to it. When the inevitable AfD came, I made a feeble plea for what was a lost cause. And you just brought it back from an AfD deletion, with just the right base from to which a great article could emerge! How in the world did you come up with Anti-mimesis?-- Work permit ( talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.
Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.
Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
... Information Technology: At the dawn of the computer age. Any arguments against? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You participated in a previous discussion on the deletion of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. You may be interested that a new deletion review has begun at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism_(2nd_nomination). Tb ( talk) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The article Respect agenda has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Template:On VFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address ( talk) 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I have zero respect for people who take it upon themselves to blank entire sections of articles anyway, so he deserves all the criticism he gets for this one. "Gentlemen's agreements sure are swell! Separate but equal is a good thing too!". OR works pretty well when it comes to realizing that something stinks. If you think it's great, good for you, it's a free country. Mandsford 16:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting; it sounded very similar to something from SCIgen, however I have rewritten the ProD tag to take into account that its sources are real. Thanx 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Just wanted to say it's great work you're doing at Ash (Alien). I can't help feeling, though, that the information and sources you're adding would be better applied to the Alien (film) article itself, rather than a separate article about a single character. The Ash character's only appearance is in the film Alien, so any discussion of his symbolism and significance to the story can really only be made in the context of the film. In fact, the FA review for the film article specifically recommended adding some information from Alien Zone and other sources to expand the "Impact and analysis" section. I really think a lot of your added material would be of great service to the film article rather than supporting a spinout character article that really shouldn't have been spun out in the first place (putting the cart before the horse, as it were). -- IllaZilla ( talk) 18:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
From what I vaguely remember from working on final girl, there's even a little bit more to say about Call than the two-sentence treatment that we give her currently. Although that one seems less likely to warrant a standalone article. There's certainly the Ash→Bishop→Call progression that sources discuss, contrasting the three (and, yes, noting the alphabetical progression), that we don't have anywhere that I've seen. Uncle G ( talk) 19:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe more work would of been required if I edited that page. Because I would have to move the page after I was done with it. And no, I didn't know, I never read this. Also, I do not care about making any friends whatsoever. I didn't join Wikipedia to make friends. You have a nice day. Philipmj24 ( talk) 19:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
All I did was request a page for deletion. If that makes me a "lazy person" then so be it. If I had the power to delete the page, I would of done it myself. Believe me. I see the point you are trying to make. I've could of edited that page and moved it so you wouldn't have to do the work. We obviously have our disagreements on how we would of handled the issue you brought up. I didn't know marking a page for deletion would cause so much animosity towards me. All you had to do was kindly ask me. I would suggest you work on your people skills. Again, I'm not here to make friends. My goal is to improve Wikipedia. In the end, isn't that what I did? Philipmj24 ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
On another note, why are you so angry? Is Wikipedia stressing you out that bad? Philipmj24 ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for blowing my expectations for that article's future clear out of the water. -- saberwyn 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I've never really thought about the metaphorical consequences of a Kerrrzappp! hitting water. Uncle G ( talk) 01:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I have commented but thought it best if I give you the links so you can use them if you wish ...
Also there was a problem on the vote counter (as usual) which I tried to fix (co**ed it up though so I may get a small boll**king from someone)
cheers Chaosdruid ( talk) 20:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, got your not so veiled threats on our thread. You're sharp! Since I'm dealing with a smart guy, I'll raise the level: my rants and actions were strawmen for the fact that EENG blanked our whole article down to one sentence, which is de facto deletion, even though he was not an admin, and had no authority to delete the article. Then, he tagged the (as you noted) pathetically few articles we did create, and sucked a somewhat naive Admin into supporting him. We simply did EXACTLY THE SAME THING HE AND WATSON DID (added tags and deleted a page). You judge the differential response yourself. Nicely, several admins actually supported and mentored me, a few advising me to chill. You're a mean guy, it's true, but I also sense you're honest and smart, so please consider that I didn't copy and paste the articles, I took many hours to connect to numerous Wiki links, and in fact, despite what Watson would like you to believe, was in the middle of adding many other links from third party sources. The fact that I contacted the principals of the articles seemed to have raised a bunch of "self promotion" ire (even though I don't know these guys from Adam), and I'm SLOWLY learning that admins here are so beleagured with pests trying to sell used cars, then tend to be suspicious if someone is excited about someone else, and of course this then "MUST be a COI"!!! That's a little sad, sir. I do owe you an apology: it HAS to have taken brain power to figure out that I tagged EENG to let him know how it feels. I don't care about that action, (and BTW, the tags WERE legit) but I am sorry that you took the time to figure it out: that kind of sharpness should be used to build Wiki, not answer my confusion as a newbie. I'll try to be good, and in response to your threats, cry... Uncle. Phoenixthebird ( talk) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: Since you like Ash, are you a Dr. Who fan? The last episode with Tennant was SO sad... especially the added features on the DVD where he was nearly in tears explaining how sad he was to leave the show. I'm an American, not a Brit, but my Brit buddies really get this. Phoenixthebird ( talk) 17:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You have been trouted for: Assuming bad faith toward my question, for continuing with your screaming after I marked the post as resolved, and BTW the article was semi-protected without me ever asking for that again. Enjoy your trout. Pfff. I have no problems whatsoever with IPs editing wikipedia. Just the opposite on few occasions I thanked IPs for their help with my English. In my three years on Wikipedia it was the first time ever I asked (not requested, but asked) about an article protection, and it was protected probably not because of me asking about this, but because it should have been protected due to the unprecedented amount of edits that were all but impossible to deal with. You were wrong all along about me assuming bad faith, and about the necessity of the protection of the article, and you did not even bother to apologize. -- Mbz1 ( talk) 19:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent work with the article! Just in case you might not have remembered with such an old article, it is eligible for a 5x DYK expansion. I think it would be amazing to have such a fundamental article on the main page. Best, NW ( Talk) 22:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Re your comments at ANI, I raised the issue of the block because it could be seen that I was using my admin's tools in a personal dispute. The original 24h block was a "shot across the bows" type "cease and desist" warning. I felt it was justified by the continuing incivility and refusal to discuss issues, and immediately put the block up for review at ANI to give other admins a chance to review my actions.
That JP subsequently got himself blocked for a further 6 days is not down to me, but him. As I see it, if there isn't some improvement pretty quickly once the block ends, JP is going to find himself indeffed.
Re the original issue of the spelling of Spits/zbergen, please see talk:Order of battle for Convoy PQ 18 where I am proposing that a RFC should be filed on this issue. Your thoughts are requested there. Mjroots ( talk) 10:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. ever thought about doing some archiving?
Thank you for your reasoned 'voice of sanity' in this RfD. I fully support your cry to keep Wikipedia as protection-free as possible. What a DRAMA-inducing lot of hot air that debate was.
I'm pleased to see that some people have common sense. I salute you. Chzz ► 10:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I really found your AFD comments here to be quite disturbing. Of course TV Guide is notable, but there was no evidence this guy was ever in TV Guide. If a reference is notable, this doesn't make the article topic notable: People can't just throw random references on an article (without inline citations, in fact) to say "see, this guy was notable, USA Today July 21, 2006". What is that? I did not appreciate your tone on that AFD.
Yes, I nominated "Who's Who in American Art" for deletion, and that one failed. But lets take a look at why I did that: search results for that publication indicate that the publication exists but not necessarily that it is significant or important. It look like there may be some notability, so that AFD failed. Whoop-dee. But please be careful with your comments about James C. Mulligan and somehow defending the poorly-defined "references" of that article. I looked everywhere to find anything at all about the guy, but it simply didn't exist. With your comments, I felt attacked, and it was not appreciated. — Timneu22 · talk 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Loyalty at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- NortyNort ( talk) 09:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Template:Music-importance has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Uncle G, considering the comments at BLPN, what do you think as regards AFD? I am struggling to find the words for a rationale? Off2riorob ( talk) 10:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for popping in to help at the Talk page of the Goran Bregović article. I didn't want to make the page worse by commenting there (and yes, I've seen your perfectly reasonable remarks about splitting conversations!) but I did wonder if something odd has gone on with the layout. Under the (now less contentious) section heading there's the making-allegations bit by Frankieparley in 2007, then two video links dropped in there just today by Pirtskhalava, then your comment about sources. What's now exceedingly unclear to me is what the relationship is between these three items - are you commenting on the text, or the videos, or both ... and so on? I'd be tempted to try to unpick this but I honestly don't know who intended what. Of course what I am seeing there now may be precisely what you intended, in which case I will simper prettily, shut up, and move on. Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I admire your work. You're a dedicated editor and an excellent pedagogue.
On italics--you do use them occasionally. I only want to suggest that you dispense with unnecessary italics. And italics are rarely necessary. Where proper emphasis is clear from context, italics don't help convey the actual ideas that the writer is trying to convey. They may instead distract the reader from those ideas and make the writer himself seem overwrought. I'd give this advice to Antonin Scalia too--if only I had a direct line to his office.
Boy, I've really got to cut back on the caffeine. 160.39.212.104 ( talk) 13:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you use a template: User talk:Mrluke485? (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 15:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Listen to me you I've given up my time to write up about these people and I'm sorry if I didn't reply to them but I didn't know to reply so don't you tell me what to do. I check website to website for information and thats the best information I can find. Have a nice day Mrluke485 ( talk) 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
On July 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Loyalty, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, you reminded me of why I like you :-) Guy ( Help!) 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused what you're referring to - do you mean the article as it was before I edited it, or the article as it is now? I initially assumed you meant the former but I've just been replying to an assertion in the AfD that the article as it is now consists entirely of original research, so my head's exploded and I'm doubting everything; certainly if there's something about the existing article that needs to be improved I'd like to know. Cheers, -- Zeborah ( talk) 10:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Another example may help. You may wish to review List of fictional Scots to see whether it is stuck in cargo cult mode, is useful as it is and what more might be done. Uncle G has some experience of the matter of Blind Harry's tale, iirc, and so I hope he may have good insights and advice to offer in this case. Colonel Warden ( talk) 12:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thinking that because an article starts like this it must therefore be built into this, in the hope that if critical mass is achieved an informative article will magically arise, is cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. The bad article becomes a model for writing badly, because people think that that is how one is supposed to write. And, as you've seen, what happens next is that the article cycles through AFD, sometimes repeatedly, until the cargo-cult-written content is turfed out in favour of proper, sourced, analysis of a topic that provides actual knowledge to the reader. Jessamyn's initial article was a textbook example of how these things start; and of the bad way to deal with unwanted content, by sweeping it under the rug instead of dealing with it properly. Taking sources that have analysed the subject and producing good content (and, yes, incorporating previous list items into sourced analysis where single examples are warranted), with the courage to chuck out cargo-cult-written content by the bucketload, has proven to be the solution time and time again. Uncle G ( talk) 16:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay - just even by the end of the 3rd AfD it was far improved on your second link, and had sourced encyclopaedic paragraphs in most sections. So to me it doesn't at all feel like cargo-cult is what I'm dealing with; it feels more like I'm dealing with people who think an article should be deleted because it contains trivia even though it also contains encyclopaedic content and if they don't like the trivia all they need to do is delete that. --Excuse the irritation, I'm just really confused about how the AfD even came about so am probably looking at this from an entirely different direction from you. But afaik it seems to be resolving now and hopefully this will be the last AfD. :-) -- Zeborah ( talk) 05:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
Great improvements on what appears will soon become a diving catch on Moving parts. § Music Sorter § ( talk) 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
I realize it is premature to say the article is saved, but how could someone conclude the article is not worthy of life after your improvements. Maybe I should consider nominating an article for deletion on something I really like to get your great work on it. OK, just kidding. Thanks for all your wonderful contributions. § Music Sorter § ( talk) 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering if you understand the meaning of the term sophist, since I take offense at that. It is indeed the fact that I am one of the very few non-sophists you will ever meet. The psuedo-legal I can live with. I am not a lawyer, so it is pseudo legal. I do not mean this to make trouble by the way. only to inquire if you know what the term means and if not, offer an explanation if you want it. -- Faust ( talk) 17:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Is there a process whereby I can retract the nomination of does the AFD discussion run its course? Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 15:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Quick query; what on earth are you talking about? I have no interest in or active participation in anything vaguely associated with public transport. Actually, I take that back; Gray's Inn is near a road buses go down. Ironholds ( talk) 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Uncle G. Thanks for your analysis at BLPN. Feel free to adjust the protection at Tolkien family if you think it appropriate. It is not yet clear to me whether User:Christopher Carrie should be blocked. Per NLT maybe he should be blocked (see his 10:03 edit summary of 29 July) but we usually give some leeway to people who could have legitimate BLP issues. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The BLP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tolkien_family discussion might benefit from editor input. isfutile:P ( talk) 18:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind this on your talk page; I was not sure of the best place to post the idea.
As you noted in the admin noticeboard, rangeblocks used to block persistent vandals can impact good IP editors as well. I was wondering if it would be possible to create a new blocklike function analogous to pending changes that allowed IP and unconfirmed users to edit, but hid their changes from public view until they were approved by a reviewer? A bot could block vandalism only accounts and tempblock specific IP's used for vandalism to prevent increased workload on admins, and the function would be invisible to most users. VQuakr ( talk) 15:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, of course. the age qualifications make the fact of a "youngest" elected official of some note. of course, it then becomes a matter of how close to the minimum age can you get? maybe someone whose birthday for age of qualification to be elected falls precisely on election day (or day of swearing in, or day of announcing they are running). sort of an asymptotic graph, like approaching division by zero. I do see your other point about the attempt to foist notability on the editor in question. just wanted to acknowledge your efforts as i read them after the afd was closed. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
See my latest comment on the Talk:Russell T. Davies saga. I would like to see the Full stop article looking better, but I have a feeling your views are not supported by practice. Deb ( talk) 15:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem with your concious decision not to move the page at Philadelphia Convention. I couldn't ask anyone to do anything that they are not comfortable with. If you could give me an example of why you feel that Philadelphia Convention is more appropriate than Constitutional Convention (United States), it would be helpful in our overall consensus building. Also, I am having trouble looking up the reference to Google Books, that you had previously mentioned.
No Worries about leaving a talk back on my page. I'm now watching your page. (I too like to keep the conversations together). Thanks.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
In light of your thoughts on the move request at Philadelphia Convention, I would be interested in your opinion in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Whilst we are on the subject of historic official buildings, I'd appreciate it if you or others double-checked the sources that I cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Monroe County , Indiana Courthouse. Uncle G ( talk) 02:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to say, despite being made to look like a fool occasionally, I've always respected your insightful comments at AFD and elsewhere over the years (I was on wikibreak for ~3 years a while ago, glad to see you're still around). I'm sure you have a hoard of article rescue barnstars by now, but at least to me comments that shine clarity about a subject or article are often more valuable then edits themselves. Ryan Norton 09:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi.
I noticed your identical copy and paste of comments written by HighKing ( talk · contribs) on some admin noticeboard somewhere and how you swallowed hook, line and sinker what he was saying.
Please take a care to look closer at the details.
I wandered into this whole anti-British Isles naming campaign thing completely blind only a few weeks when I discovered the same editor reverting all my work. I had no idea that it had been going on for years. It has taken me quite a while to get up to speed and also to work out all the technology, where discuss is going on etc. There seem to be a small group of editors working on tandem.
It is very difficult for me to see his victimisation of me as anything more than part of his campaign which, for the record, I want to keep out of any political aspect of. I agree with the Irish, historically, the English should have kept right out of Ireland but in social, biological and other non-political subjects, British Isles is the only term we have to use.
I found it disappointing that you would not take onboard any the background or context.
It is hard enough getting to grips with the system as a whole without having to work with a gang hailing down upon you. Thank you. -- Triton Rocker ( talk) 08:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I added those other subpages to the MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You left a note about the Tothwolf arbitration case previously at the talk page of the arbitration noticeboard. There is currently a request for clarification about this case, here. Would you be able to comment? Carcharoth ( talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Per you comments at this previous ANI thread, I decided to do something different in response to this current ANI thread. I can think that there will be no doubt that this is from a living breathing human. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I think M. Carrie's going too far now in that discussion. He's abusing WP as a forum to push his POV, calling his opponents names etc, etc. Moreover I have the strong feeling that he has in fact been editing the counter-arguments there as well with different accounts just to create publicity. A few days ago I already notified EdJohnston but I don't know if he picked up on it, so please have a look at this old blog thread and compare the statements over there with names over here. I find that very strange, to say the least. Contacting you on your page because I won't respond to his rants on the board any longer. De728631 ( talk) 18:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see this cleanup by Sarek, who added links to some (now-removed) material from WP:BLP/N that had been placed by User:Christopher Carrie. Has the time come yet to block Carrie for WP:NLT? Getting the wording correct on that block could be tricky, so it might be simpler to block two weeks for disruptive editing. I don't think he should be making charges of sexual misconduct and lies against other people on BLPN. An alternative is a {{ uw-biog4}} warning or the equivalent in plain language. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
-- Christopher Carrie ( talk) 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I am sorry if I have infringed any of the Wikipedia rules i assure you it would be a result of my lack of understanding. If I have suggested anyone was lying or engaging in sexual misconduct it is because I am responding to false allegations of the same made against me. You must also be aware of accusations of blackmail and extortion have been levelled against me and that they are completely unsubstantiated by anything other than Internet postings made by people with alteria motives. If requested I will post proof documents from court actions to validate any remarks I post, however I am happy to be guided by you as to what I should and should not say. I take on board your comments and will temper my postings in compliance with your requirements in the future. For unwittingly transgressing in the past I appologise to anyone I have offended. I am not that IT savvy as you will have seen from my having just learnt how to sign my postings -- Christopher Carrie ( talk) 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Damn, that grew quickly ... -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention!
DrStrangelove64 has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
It's no use; Carrite's being very DICKish of late. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#POINTY_AFD_.21votes_from_Carrite. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
After seeing edits like [32] (which is what I blocked for) as well as a declined unblock request, I'm not so sure I should apologize. Spencer T♦ C 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for adding three books to the new further reading section of Senra/St James' Church. Very useful. I found the Collectanea Cantabrigiensia in Google Books. I have summarised some prose from it within the article. Two matters arising: I think you meant Francis Blomefield, not Francis Blomfield. If you have taken the citation from somewhere else, you may wish to correct that entry. Secondly, do you have access to the Parker (1852) and Pegge (1851) books? I cannot find them on Google Books and inter-library loans cost £3 per from my local library :( -- Senra ( talk) 19:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Uncle G,
I was working on a reply that should clear JanDeFietser of all charges and get NL-Bas blocked, however, I saw your comment saying that it should not be blown up again. I feel uneasy to place my short reply now. I do feel, however, that a wrong decision has been made and I think anybody can see that after reading my reply. Before I had read your comment I had posted it here. At the very least you can read it and perhaps allow me to appeal on Jan's behalf on the administrators noticeboard? -- Faust ( talk) 05:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I can grasp your reasons and your reasoning, however I disagree wholeheartedly. The reason I disagree is clearly visible to all. The user JanDeFietser is now being blocked on en.wiki for reason that lie outside en.wiki and that is simply improper behavior. The user JanDeFietser is continuously stating that he does not want this argument here, while the user NL-Bas keeps going on about this argument here. However, you are blocking JanDeFietser. That means the decision is based on reasons OUTSIDE of the en.wiki.
Now, I can grasp how this takes place, but please be aware that this regulatory block is aiding NL-Bas in his attempt to deny his missteps by stating JanDeFietser can post on the en.wiki again if and only if he will drop some imagined charge, UNRELATED to en.wiki.
This all is very strange, to block somebody for something outside of en.wiki, by the request of somebody who is breaking all the rules on the en.wiki AND in doing so aiding said rule breaker to deny serious missteps, even though this rule breaker is imagining a legal threat.
Please, consider what I am saying here.
-- Faust ( talk) 10:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your work on this page. I do have one request. Could you please put some information about what the convention does now? There have been racist mistakes in the past, but things are different now. In fairness this should be shown. Once again, I cannot thank you enough for your work. Myself, being a wiki novice, could not have done what you have! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 ( talk • contribs) 03:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Before reinserting History of Baptists in Alabama as a "see also" in the North America section of Baptists without an explanatory edit summary, please explain on the article talk page why this state is appropriate for such a prominent listing. It seems too specific for a top-level article. It might even be too specific for that sort of a link on the Baptists in the United States article (but a template or other less intrusive way to link to one of what would be dozens of articles might work). For a world-wide-focused article, though, this seems much too low-level. Thanks. Novaseminary ( talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This should probably have its own article. A circulation of 100,000 is respectable, and since it is likely to be used as a source in other articles it is helpful to have a link in references so readers can find out about the source. The AfD debate on state Baptist convention articles seems daft to me. These are big organizations with all sorts of things going on. Aymatth2 ( talk) 18:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
On 27 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Diogenes and Alexander, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore any ownership issues, because they don't figure into the equation. However, you make an interesting yet uninformed point about (presumably) a Grand Lodge building being notable for being a Grand Lodge building. In the US, there are around 100 such buildings. Moreover, almost every jurisdiction in the world has one or more. In the case of the oldest Grand Lodge in the US (Massachusetts), there have been three such buildings in two different locations, plus the Prince Hall building, plus if any of the other 12 Grand Lodges in the state that claim to be Masonic have buildings. So which one is notable, and why? I'd say none, because the Grand Lodge may be notable, but the Grand Lodge is not the building it meets in, just like a Lodge is the membership, not the location of the meeting. So what we have is a case of the building inheriting the notability of the organization that meets there, which we know contravenes policy. So we are left with the question of why the building is notable, and we have yet to get a satisfactory answer. Not one of the stubs that has been created even points to a source that can answer that question. Frankly, the concern was that historical notability of a building was that "it was the first Masonic building in town", which is a bit ridiculous considering that most towns have only ever had one, and there may be well over 200 in any given state. We have therefore been trying to get a concrete set of criteria together as to why these building are NHRP-listed, and we have been unable to do so because we can't access the records. Don would seem to be claiming that he can access them (though I believe in truth he is not), but he won't do it either, which means we cannot come up with an encyclopedic basis for the list in question. Meanwhile, don is piling on two-line stub after two-line stub, instead of helping to define the substantive criteria for the list. It's counterproductive activity, and its continuance is why we have the issue we have, not because there is an ownership issue. Please note we have no other lists of buildings owned by fraternal groups, so if we're going to set a precedent, it's got to be solid, and it really isn't. MSJapan ( talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I started Template:Southern Baptist State Conventions to glue this set of articles together and help comparison. Some of them need a lot of work. I think the Alabama article gives a good example of structure and contents. It would be good if the others were at least brought up to this level with similar structure. Question: Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia has the long navbox Template:Southern Baptists, but does not appear as a link in this navbox. Does this navbox belong in the article, or does it only belong in the articles it lists? Aymatth2 ( talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Did any of the encyclopedia articles about the other State Conventions have anything useful for this one? As it stands, it does not demonstrate the notability of this Convention (and indeed, following the closure of the BSC AfD, I was about to restore it anyway) - but if there are some useful references that could be added (hell, I'd be happy with a reliable "Further reading" section), then it would be useful!
Incidently, have you ever considered doing some archiving of this page (either with one of the bots or manually) - it seems to be a bit of a large page!
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 21:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Trying to clean up the litter of redlinks that a Certain Person left in the Alabama article, I did a thumbnail on Sion Blythe, who started out in North Carolina. A source for that is David Benedict's 1813 history, which looks like a good starting point for the early associations in the state before the convention was formed. According to the Association of Religion Data Archives in 2000 there were 3,717 SBC congregations with 1,512,058 adherents in North Carolina, so there should be no problem finding plenty of sources for a more complete article. I will do it in the next couple of days if I don't get sidetracked. Aymatth2 ( talk) 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Have some more redlinks:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)Thank you for notifying me about the recent Baxterley Church AfD et al. The nom, RadioFan ( talk · contribs), has now withdrawn the AfD proposal -- Senra ( Talk) 16:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the new sources in the article and AfD? cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
On 30 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of Baptists in Alabama, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you've removed the deletion tag off of the National Capital Region (United States) article without discussion. Pretty bold move. Also if you're going to remove a tag by citing it should be merged instead, perhaps you should have replaced the tag with a merger tag. Not replacing it is just counter productive. UrbanNerd ( talk) 12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello - I see you objected to my proposed deletion for this article. I do not want to start an AfD if it is not necessary, and so I have a question.
The American Upper Class article well describes what "Upper Class" is - in the United States at least, and it is well sourced. Therefore, I am not sure if an AfD for the Upper Class article is appropriate, because I proposed a re-direct to the American Upper Class article, which has a far better introduction. The only sections that would technically be deleted from the Upper Class article are "Historical meaning" and "Rest of the world".
The "issues" notice on the Upper Class article clearly says: "It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards". That is why I thought a re-direct to the American upper class would be the best solution. The "United States" section of the Upper Class article would be immediately improved, and a more worldwide view could be slowly added, in effect re-writing the article.
Could you please respond on my talk page about whether this would be OK, and whether I would need to start an AfD or do something different. Thanks. Beeshoney ( talk) 15:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
PS. I don't mind if other talk page stalkers respond to this, as I can see that Uncle G hasn't been editing for a few hours. Beeshoney ( talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Since this is a topic in sociology, the best sources to read for starters are introductory texts in that subject. When you read them, you'll find that breaking the subject up by country isn't really the way that the subject is addressed in the literature in the first place. The subject is more broken up by model. Karl Marx had one model. Max Weber's more complex model of socioeconomic status in turn leads to the class model by Dennis Gilbert and Joseph A. Kahl, as widely used for the U.S., but not solely restricted to the U.S. in its application. (Gilbert himself, for example, has written about social classes in Mexico.) When it comes to Europe, one again mostly starts with Marx and Weber, but rather than Gilbert and Kahl extending that, one looks to the models by John Goldthorpe, Pierre Bourdieu, and others.
In sociology, class models are strongly tied to their inventors and proponents, and less tied to (albeit not divorced from) strict geography. There are many books that one could read to learn more about this. I pick four almost at random: ISBN 9781405170024 explicitly divides up the subject by proponent, with separate chapters on Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Bordieu, and others. Hartery's and Gahagan's chapter of ISBN 9780443055157 discusses Marx, Weber, the idea of social classes such as the upper and middle classes being subcultures, and the British upper class. Chapter 10 of ISBN 9780132051583 has Marx, Weber, Goldthorpe, and discussion of the British upper-upper and lower-upper classes. Chapter 7 of ISBN 9780495598626 has a broad-brush overview of the Marx plus Weber plus Gilbert/Kahl system with an North America-centric approach.
If you're going for laying out the groundwork for a FA quality article on this subject, bear in mind three things: You're never going to be able to "globalize" the article, in a naïve every-country-has-a-section Wikipedia view of such things; not every society is viewed by sociologists as stratified on a class system in the first place. Not every sociological model even has the concept of an upper class; in France, for example, most place a business class ("le patronat", "les industriels", "les PDG", "la class patronale", and so forth) at the apex of the class hierarchy rather than an upper class ("la class supérieure" and "la haute société"), the latter being a quite rare designation in French thinking ( ISBN 9780521277006 pp. 29–30). The concept of an upper class is considered by some to be a Western European, or even more specifically an Anglophone Western European, export that has, by dint of history, been layered imperfectly upon other structures. (See King2008 in the article for more on this.)
This is a complex subject to address properly. But deletion nominations, and even simple redirects to a U.S.-centric view of the world, won't achieve that. Uncle G ( talk) 19:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Beeshoney ( talk) 11:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
On 1 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of Baptists in Kentucky, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
If I erred long ago, I hope that the errors have been corrected, since a couple of other editors have ridden roughshod over NY material. I did much of the original sorting out of NY, and the basic arrangement is still my format (see the early history of each article). Now as for Taberg, it is a hamlet in Annsville in Oneida County. I do not know how the town junk got in there, I hope is was not me! I made some corrections and commented in the deletion page also. Maybe the article will remain. There is also another Annsville, NY located elsewhere. Thanks, Stepp-Wulf ( talk) 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC).
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
The summary and analysis you wrote on Jimbo's talk page about the fabricated "scandal" about The Mousetrap was perfect. I wish all editors could see the situation as clearly as you did. Regards So Why 07:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
I saw at ANI that you've been doing alot of work on this CCI. I've finally gotten all of the subpages straightened out and stabilized, so would you be willing to go through and mark which ones you've found issues with (and whether you've cleaned or blanked the article) and which ones are copyvio-free? The appropriate subpage should show up in the backlinks for each page now. VernoWhitney ( talk) 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears that your smiley graphic does not render correctly in my browser - hence I thought your answer at WP:AN was deliberately unhelpful as without the smiley the emotional context was lost. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Exxolon ( talk) 18:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Uncle G, I know you are doing it with the best possible intention, but can you please slow down on your use of "xe" and "xyr" and suchlike. What i'm trying to say is that not many people understand what that means! Even most native English speakers have never come across these words. (I for once have spent several minutes trying to figure out who was that freaking user:xe.) And imagine the confusion this causes in those non-native-English speakers who try to learn English! So please remember: political correctness is all good -- and gender-neutral pronouns would be definitely a brilliant addition to our language, if they were adopted -- but until that is the case you may be causing a lot of confusion! 80.135.37.246 ( talk) 23:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, four questions:
Those are probably best asked and answered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI. Please put them there. I'm not the only person involved in this, and you'll not be the only person to ask, I suspect. That last, for instance, is better answered by the people who were involved in the original CCI case discussion. Uncle G ( talk) 06:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the alert. Whilst I am willing and indeed able to help such inexperienced editors, there are far too many aggressive page patrol people around for me to help all such editors. I am trying to construct an essay to tackle the root cause plus write articles such as this myself. Your help and seasoned(?) advice on preventing such strict policy interpretations may be a better use of both our time -- Senra ( Talk) 12:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Uncle G. Your edits at the Reproductive Health were all very helpful. Please continue helping as we improve that article. :) 03:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)