This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cleaned April 9, 2005. To add comments click on the + in the tab at the top of this page.

Deleting is not the most appropiate solution to the problem. Protecting the article, blocking the offending users and continued editing efforts are better solutions. Joelito 23:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of the knee-jerk "It's a school, therefore it must stay" mindset that I have done myself in the past, I urge you to re-think this vote. This article and its archived edit history is clogging the WP servers with obscene name-calling, libelous comments, and attacks on real, living people. That is exposing the WP Foundation to possible legal action. It needs deleted and started over from scratch with a cleansed history. - Davodd 23:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This kind of behavior also happens at Neopets, George W. Bush and many other articles but it is Wikipedia's policy to delete them. Also I have read the extensive WP:SCHOOL archives and concensus has been to keep all school articles. Take care. Joelito 00:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this school's article (unlike any of the examples you cite) started out as a vandal's attack on this project. It normally would have been speedy deleted, but it's edit history is too long. The history needs purged so a real article can take its place -- an AfD is the only process to do this. Davodd 00:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your reference to WP:SCH in your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana) vote. This isn't about noteworthiness of a school, it's about clearing out an edit history that exposes the WP Foundation to possible legal action in hopes a valid article can be written. The article doesn;t qualify as a speedy delete since too many editors contributed to it. - Davodd 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to partial history deletion and have said so on the AFD page. Stifle ( talk) 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you put a Good Article nomination thing on the Dallas, Texas talk page. I went to the good article thing and a quick search of dallas returned no results.. not sure if there's actually a candidacy process or what.. or if you promoted it. If you promoted it, why not promote it for Featured Article status? The article is better than most major city articles and far better than many current Featured articles.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. There must have been an edit conflict I didn't catch or something. Davodd 05:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you no longer have the time to contribute to WP:USR. It was a pleasure to collaborate with you. Best of luck. - Jay Carriker 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jonathan David Makepeace has given a "fail" to your nomination of Monarchy in Canada as a good article - originally removing the tag without explanation. I think his logic of "the page history shows constant editing and back and forth between opposing points of view, an obvious fail" is a little suspect to me, especially as the criteria for good articles makes no mention of such limitations, and I know the person is an avowed anti-monarchist (his webpage is Res Publica: International Anti-Monarchy Web Directory). However, as I've edited the article heavily, I feel my position on the subject might be a little compromised. You may want to comment on this yourself. -- gbambino 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I feel that the constant editing of the Monarchy in Canada page means that it is unstable (stability being one of the criteria of a good article) and violates NPOV (another criterion) as each side sticks in its points while the other changes them. Jonathan David Makepeace 23:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep including information about the KITCO lawsuit. It was never a huge event in station history and in my mind, as a long time former employee I don't think it belongs in a factual history of the place.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have done no such thing. You may want to check the article's history: WISE-TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to see who really added that. Good luck with your inquiry. Also, please sign your name when you write to a talk or discussion page by typing ~~~~ - Davodd 15:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a second here. Why have you made this into two separate articles? There was no discussion, and I can't see any good reason for it. Now that new article is being considered for transwikiing. I think this move needs to be undone. Instead of an article, we now have a list with no context and a stub that will probably never be significantly expanded.

I've just checked the edit history, and it appears that it is you who have nominated the new page for transwikiing. Why? There's been no discussion, and the last time we discussed this the vote was not to do so. Exploding Boy 06:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I made the changes you are addressing in the spirit of the Wikipedia " be bold" policy in that I saw errors and attempted to make the gay slang article both b=more encyclopedic in focus and in better compliance with Wikipedia policies in general.

I did the things you pointed out for a couple of reasons. First, I moved the list since it was overpowering the encyclopedic article, Gay slang - which was never developed beyond a stub. An article on the development, history, and cultural impact of LGBT slang and regional dialects is a valid encyclopedic topic. But, the potential of having a much-needed encyclopedia article was not the focus of most editors - instead the majority of attention spent on it was with a "me too" hodge-podge of uncited, unverifiable likely original research which resulted in a very long list that overpowered any encyclopedia focus on the main topic.

Second, I put up the transwiki tag after recently reviewing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
3. A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary.

Now, there was no overall agenda I had against gay slang or even a list of gay slang examples. My motivation behind my actions is that the LGBT topics in Wikipedia be excellent encyclopedia entries. To do this, we must make sure that they first meet the minimum standards of this project. An article on gay slang is a valid topic. The list, aside from being a dictionary/usage guide (not allowed in this project) is rife with original research and unverifiable content. Since I do have a personal bias in favor if LGBT articles, I didn't nominate it for deletion, which would have been the logical thing to do in this case.

As for a past votes, I'm not sure how that applies here since Wikipedia is not a democracy in that "votes" in this project are surveys of opinion for a given period of time. And it has been made clear many times by Jimbo that editors cannot "vote" to disregard basic Wikipedia mandatory policies. The list violates WP:NOR and WP:V, which are not really up for vote on a per-article basis. - Davodd 08:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your long reply. Yes, I agree, the list of gay slang was problematic (I frequently go through and whittle it). On the other hand, I think that unless someone is moved to do a fair amount of research, the "gay slang" article won't grow or be improved. Also, the list of gay slang doesn't qualify as a dictionary entry; spreading all the entries over a dictionary will defeat the purpose and make them much harder to find; and precedent exists with similar lists. 16:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I agree we are in a quandary as how to fit this list into the Wikipedia project. I am unaware of any other slang articles in Wikipedia that include such an exhaustive list. This is probably just me. Please point them out as maybe they can be used as examples of how to improve this "Gay slang" and its list.

As for the short nature of gay slang, WP has a long history of hosting many stub articles that sit for months - and sometimes years - until someone comes along with an expertise in that field and starts to expand it. Until that happens, today I plan to do the research and editing to move gay slang closer to the perfect stub until some linguist comes along with the expertise enough to beef it up.

Additionally, I was thinking about this dilemma last night. Maybe these types of guides should be moved to Wikibooks as linguistics manuals/texts. I think I will float this problem/opportunity in both the LGBT project her and at the community pump to get others' ideas. Davodd 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am moving this conversation to Talk:List of gay slang words and phrases. Davodd 18:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the invite. Yeah, I'm definitely interested, though I don't know how much time I'll have to contribute, but I'd be more than happy to give what I can here and there. - Smahoney 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You voted for Caribbean Sea, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured- standard article. - Scottwiki 03:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are disputing the section of the article that categorizes NAMBLA. You are not disputed the factual content of the whole article. The appropriate tag in this case is the one that disputes the categorization section only unless you see other facts you wish to dispute in the rest of the article. Correcting your misplaced tag is not vandalism. If anything, it was a correction of your inadvertant vandalism. Corax 20:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Continually reverting misplaced dispute tags is not in violation of 3RR, just as reverting vandalism repeatedly is not in violation of 3RR. Anyhow, this attempt to game the system illustrates that you are unable to rely on sound argument to get your point across. Good luck on using Wikipedia to make your political statements. Corax 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! Thanks for the new page! -- CTSWyneken 20:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)