User:JzG/talkArchive
I'm writting to you from work. I just noticed my google pictures where deleted. And where removed from my article Garneau. The explanation was in the file that is now deleted. FUCK! So I'm even more pissed because now I got a re-explain. In short, there is a discrepency that exist in the google map vs another map. The rules clearly state that such a picture for territory dispute can remain under fair use. Plus it is a historical depictation of the error that existed at the time in the google map. Now the ass deleted the picture and removed it from the article. Try to delete another one. He hasn't giving me anywarning's on my page I figured it out later. He is also claiming that this is Original research and that the entire section called mapping and charting has nothing to do with the article ... FUCK! Next thing you know we won't be able to even say that the White House is located in Washington... here and here... but that another map says it is here and here. What kind of stupidity is this. Can you help me by saying this a little nicer to the user that is almost vandalizing wikipedia. (it can be found here) Thanks. (Deep breath breath out) Asides from that. Yah! Doing cool had lots of fun playing a couple tunes at the military base here in Ottawa. And having a blast with my new job! I hope all is well with you. Oh! I hope you had a good Easter... and perhaps your new experiences will lead you towards an exciting and reguvanating experience. Best wishes. Talk to you later my british friend. (sorry about the language but yah! I've learnt that if I don't let it out I will get sick and stressed... one reason I stayed away from wiki for a while. No matter the case... If worse come to worse we can alway re-upload the picture.) Cheers. Your honest opinion is greatly appreciated. I hope the familly and all is good, Oh! I've also been busy riding my power-assisted bicycle! --CyclePat 00:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
There are three images in question. One Google Maps image was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 April 12, along with a bunch of other Google Maps images as part of a cleanup effort to remove Google Maps images not used in the article about Google Maps. I closed that day's IfD. CylcePat objected to the image's deletion, but the argument against deletion seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use, so I deleted the image along with the others. When I went to the article to remove the image syntax before deletion, I found a second unfree sattelite image there and an image from a school yearbook that claimed to be licensed under the GFDL, plus an entire section on the problems with online mapping software vis a vis getting the school's location right. I edited out the other images, orphaning them, and the section, which struck me as out of place. My understanding is that CyclePat disagrees strongly with my editing of that article (and probably my call on how to close the IfD nomination) and reverted me. I wouldn't have noticed that the images and section were replaced into the article if it hadn't been brought up at WP:AN/I. I reverted CyclePat's revert of me, and left some further explanation at Talk:École Secondaire Catholique Garneau. I think that pretty much brings us to the present. I'm not particularly interested in that article, so if you're willing to work with CyclePat and other invovled editors, my suspicion is that you'll get further than any more repetition from me would. Jkelly 22:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The Mediation Cabal
You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases.
We invite you to be a mediator in a different case.
Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
SteveBot (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
--Fasten 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed you musing lately that your rogue admin status may be questioned, so I wanted to immortalize it in the edit history for time and eternity... you're out like Valerie Plume. Rollback abuse? Arbitrary blocking? POV inspired AfD closing? It's all in a day's work for you, at least according to the countless host of anon IP's and socks. Congratulations, Guy, you've received the Abusive Admin barnstar. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 10:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:Johnson C. Philip Arbusto 17:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
and while you're humoring other people's requests, take a look at Special:Contributions/Howardjp, too - thanks much. Maybe I'm nuts but when someone changes the info in the Chuck Missler article to add an inaccuracy, I revert, and they revert with the edit summar "rv vandalism" I start getting a deja vu feeling, and it feels Gastrichy. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
More unaccredited and online school fun. Tooling University has many google hits. Worth keeping? Arbusto 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for the cleanup you're doing on this spam. Dlyons493 12:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I hadn't done it before and it was too tempting not to have a go :-) —Whouk (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
JzG, might as well ask you the difference between a protologism and a neologism for my edification. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you've been recommending to "Delete all webcomics not syndicated in non-trivial treeware" when they're nominated for deletion. I've generally agreed on the articles in question, since it's only the generally crappy webcomics that get nominated; but do you mean that literally? There are some webcomics which are demonstrably notable, yet for various reasons can't be picked up for regular print distribution, much less syndicated. Diesel Sweeties, for example, has been held up by the art world as a prime example of Reconstructivism, but its pixel-art nature makes it inappropriate for newsprint. Some popular webcomics have been collected into print books sold at mainstream bookstores, such as Toothpaste for Dinner. Others like PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi just aren't in a "gag-a-day" format and would be comic books or graphic novels if printed, rather than comic strips.
The biggest problem with depending on syndication is that the webcomics that do make the jump to print are often the least notable in the realm of webcomics, because they have to stick to the demands of printed comics. Even underground comix, unrestricted in content, must generally stick to three-panel format, simple monochrome line drawings.
Most webcomics are crap - they're webcomics because they're just not very good. But some are only webcomics because they appeal to a limited audience, or because they shun the limitations of print. It can be difficult to gauge their notability, just like any other work created by living artists, in particular because most webcomics are non-commercial. But measuring their notability on the same criteria as a print comic strip would be remarkably short-sighted for a web-based encyclopedia which prides itself on being not paper. AKADriver 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I responded to it. -De Facto 11:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Please stop deleting this page. Reverend and the Makers are an up and coming British band, gaining quite some notoriety in the British music press and in online forums. Surely the very fact that the page has been recreated so many times is testement to their popularity?
Regarding Wikipedia's WP:NMG page - it states that; "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" - Reverend and the Makers have achieved the following criteria:
"Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources." - they have toured nationally for years, and have recently been touring with Arctic Monkeys.
"Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." - a number of interviews with the band can be found online and in music publications.
"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - the band are a major proponent of what the NME call the 'New Yorkshire' scene - indeed, Wikipedia even has a New Yorkshire page, on which the Makers are already listed.
"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." - Their track, 'Heavyweight Champion of the World', is used by Sky TV's Soccer AM program when highlights of previous matches are shown.
Do you not think this is justifiable enough? They meet not 1, but 4 of Wikipedia's own criteria for inclusion.
How do I nominate this for deletion? Stephen B Streater 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
hi
thanks for your note re removing a couple of my entries. i understand, but was trying to cover the three players who are performing with barry tuckwell this year - it's a big thing here is oz, for barry hasn't been on concert stage since 1997 and he has never, as we heard after the concert last sunday afternoon, performed works for horn ensembles - only solos!
i'd love to speak to you on your talk page if you can just tell me how i do so - sorry!
best wishes,
gary (melbourne; nawlins@bigpond.com)
Just zis RFA thanks for your words of encouragement and support. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. From comments on Sam Spade's RfC, I got the impression that quite a few users, including you, were in favor of an RFAr on Sam, though no one liked, or perhaps had the time, to be the one to post it. If I were to start a request on the RFAr page, would you be interested in signing as an involved party, and/or write a short statement there? I'm asking because if people have lost interest, there's obviously not much point in my doing it; it would merely distress and aggravate Sam unproductively, which I've certainly no wish to do. I wouldn't supply any examples of my own, as I haven't edited any of "Sam's articles" for a long time (couldn't stand it, that's why I stopped), but would basically simply refer to the RfC. It seems to me that anybody who wanted to endorse such an RFAr could more or less do the same, as the RfC is so complete. It's full of evidence, and its talkpage gives a view of Sam's attitude. I believe that it's important for the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog should learn new tricks, but please don't think I want to put the least pressure on you or anybody else to take part in an RFAr if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC).
I saw you on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FloNight |RfA]] page of FloNight and felt like saying you a big and nice hello. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 16:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello JUSTZISGUYYOU,KNOW?!!!!! AS YOU CAN TELL, I AM IN LOVE WITH YOUR USER NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyway, I'm sorry about my edits to the Falkland Islands article--I just read the discussion page and realized the angst that went into just getting that one sentence, and now that I know the page's "history", I am a little more inclined to leave it as is. As you can probably tell from my user name, I have a bit of an interest in that region of the world, but somehow managed to escape coming across the article until now--from my personal experience, "Falkland" is far more common than Malvinas, but then again, I think that fact is evident in the title of the article itself! Once again, I am sorry for my silly edit and I look forward to getting to be friends with you on wikipedia! Enjoy the lovely spring day! Stanley011 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Please visit the talk and through in your two cents. User is claiming copyright violation to get criticism removed. He does not assert to be the copyright owner nor does he have proof that it is a copyright violation. Arbusto 03:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The Agapetos arbitration just closed, so if you want to do a joint nom with Ikiroid go ahead (assuming its ok with Ikiroid, since he got first dibs). Thanks. JoshuaZ 18:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It's done.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey JzG! Not sure what the link is between Kent Hovind & Cycling but I look forward to working with you on both topics :) Thanks for your comments on the Hovind Talk Page. Have joined WikiProject Cyling as well. Cheers PappaG 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read the meme article. Calling The Game a meme is completely redundant. If your still not clear, read my last comment to the The name of "The Game" section on the talk page. As for The Game being a game, this seems clear to me, but before you explain to us why you think its not a game, please read the archived discussions where I have spent hours discounting a number of supposed reasons. The strategy section is based on sourced information. Kernow 23:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I just recently had a page I created be deleted, for David Quinn does not have significance, and it was moved to my user page. I wasnt trying to do that at all, I was wanting to showcase David, and what he has done so far. I noticed under this David Quinn, there is a bird artist, which doesnt have significance any more then the concept artist, yet he has a full page up. So, is there a way you can make it a stub so it will be a real page, and not my user page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raverunner (talk • contribs) 10:52, May 2, 2006.
"05:19, 2 May 2006 JzG (→Comparing and reconciling the two - Good changes, I'm guessing by Rob.)" Oh, that cut to the quick. All you had to do was look at the history, or the talk, where I said I did them. You were trying to get a rise out of me, weren't you! Well you won't... I'm used to your abuse and on to your plans... Just you wait till I'm an admin, I think you'll be in my first wheel war. Snicker. ++Lar: t/c 13:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You probably did this already, but you might want to check the history of ScientologY. The nominator seemed to think that it existed for the benefit of accidental miscapitalizers, but I think it's much more likely to be the original title of the Scientology article from way, way back when all article titles had to be CamelCase. As such, it might potentially have important history that has to be kept in order to comply with the GFDL. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi guy..... Thought I would toss you a funny.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dominick
I am a linkspammer now, talk about sour grapes. Dominick (TALK) 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The nominator Dinossauro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) purposely changed the spelling of this degree mill from Canbourne University to Cambourme University[2]. Arbusto 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove the speedy tag? Whether or not it is in user space, it is "a blatant copyright infringement from the website of a commercial content provider". --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 11:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know the criterion for considering a contribution in the list of commercial applications in List of collaborative software as SPAM. Maybe anonymous contributions are systematically treated as SPAM and deleted? Thanks a lot. Javier Herrero —18:46, May 3, 2006 (CET).
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The note that Hyles-Anderson is unaccredited keeps getting removed. The seeing eye dog article keeps getting removed. And an argument over books cited has led to certain books getting removed. Someone cited by major newspapers who wrote a book is getting removed. Some very unfriendly words have been writen ("If you are really are stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry."[3] and others). Arbusto 08:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you or another adminstrator step in and do something about the gross POV. Please see my comments/evidence of voting recruiting at Talk:First Baptist Church of Hammond and my comments/evidence on massive uncommented deletions at Talk:Jack Hyles. Arbusto 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps not everyone likes tea! How divisive, you either have authority or you don't. Dominick (TALK) 14:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I am delighted to wear that cat. It's much better with my rouge than the pleather I had worn. Geogre 16:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well, I now have seven laws. My favorite is "Anyone who thinks that advertising on Wikipedia is a good idea is already failing at business, art, and life." Geogre 18:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering why you deleted the article Tuatafu Hori. I saw that you believe that it is a hoax, however the original author offered The Changing Cultures of the Oceanic Peoples in the Nineteenth Century as a source, which is a book which is catalogued on WorldCat, something which the author of the article couldn't have faked. Unfortunately since the book is in only a couple libraries I can't verify what's in it, but it seems likely that this is simply an obscure figure from an obscure place, which doesn't have much of an internet presence yet. However, in the interests of fighting systemic bias, since we seem to have an article on tons of very minor nobility, and there seems to be consensus to keep these, it seems only fair that the article stay. To sum up, it has a source, the AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuatafa Hori) was withdrawn (by myself), and yes it's obscure, but probably not actually a hoax. I just want to say that I respect you a lot as an editor on this site, and just don't know if you were aware of the AfD, or have other reasons to believe this is a hoax. Cheers, Mak (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
After seeing that you are signed up at the Spam project, I was wondering if you could give me a second opinion on the edits of BexTech. The removal of the links to the game show site are cut-and-dried by WP:EL, but I've provoked a reaction by removing the articles to the community site they own [14] (I guess its their own by the contacts page. It's a nice little non-commercial site, but there is a thousand more like it, and I find these tend to be fairly ill-maintained and ultimately add little to the content - any thoughts?
There is a wider issue here - most of the external links I have seen added recently are to similar non-official "community sites" with a small irregular news feed, a list of parish council phone numbers, a sparsely populated forum and pages of advertisements for local companies. Although vaguely useful, I think their inclusion in the links section is more important to the websites themselves than to the Wikipedia article. Do you think it's worth having an explicit mention of these in either WP:EL or WP:SPAM? Aquilina 11:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Your wrote there "213.140.56.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked for repeated vandalism and sockpuppetry. The sockpuppetry I'd have to look into, but the vandalism was persistent and undoubtedly warranted a block. I found no good-faith edits in a sample review of this user's contributions. 213.140.56.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has an identical edit pattern including the same articles and may safely be treated as the same vandal." Was the second vandal supposed to be a different one? The two you listed have the same IP address. JoshuaZ 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I am curious as to your opinion of his efforts to delete 16 of the pages I have made. A few times may be excusable but 16 or so? Surely he is assuming bad faith on my part? john 17:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I have formally apologized for the bad grammar and content of the Horatio Huxham "super hero page" :( - That really suck!!
Could I please lean on your experience and expertise in changing this site? I do not want to be seen as a hacker or someone that is a glory hound. I am a security architect and have devoted my every waking moment to making a difference in the information security industry.
I will owe you one ...
Horatio
Thanks for closing the debate as was and userfying the content. I had hoped that the relevant editors of the page would not abuse this privilege. It appears that I was wrong. Another major editor to the page recreated the content using the userfied page. It is now up for speedy deletion again. Ansell 11:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for co-noming my RfA. Apparently people respect your opinions a lot and I doubt that the RfA would have been as succesful without your nomination. Again, thanks. JoshuaZ 14:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Circle hand game. Since you've commented extensively on issues such as The Game (game) and List of school pranks, I thought you may be interested in watching this for similar problems. Brian G. Crawford 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert in this field, but is this guy notable. He seems similar to some of the Gastrich-cruft that was deleted in January/Frebruary. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guy! I have closed this debate as a "delete and redirect". Just want to know if a redirect there is OK with you. My "official" reason for placing the redirect can be that it might be a useful search term and that it will be much more useful than a ((deletedpage)) box. The "unofficial" reason is that I have better things to spend my time on than run through and unlink everything which linked to that page... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
JzG, you violated the results of your own RFC by ignoring the results that went against what you wanted. Now you are trying to change something in the Traditionalist Catholic article that was the approved status quo before the current discussion. You have the nerve to say I am breaking a rule by reverting YOUR violation?? (Diligens 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC))
Do you intend to file a 3RR report? Dominick (TALK) 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Check my IP adress i am from the netherlands, i doubt i would fly all the way to the states to use on of the local net adresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cro..Scream (talk • contribs)
Hi. Today we have had a number of incidents on UK articles, most likely caused by socks of User:Irate - I've left a notice at AN/I, and as you have previous contact with this user you may wish to leave a comment there. Thanks for your time, Aquilina 14:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Good morning. You recently struck through some votes cast by suspiciously new users. I have reversed the strike-through. We have learned the hard way that actually marking up the comment just earns us a raft of unwarranted and pointless accusations of "censorship". It is perceived as a very hostile action. Your comments about the users' contribution histories are sufficient. When we close that particular debate, I am confident that those opinions will be weighted appropriately.
(It's also a pet peeve of mine when it disrupts the bulletted indentation pattern that we are supposed to be using in deletion discussions. Trivial, I know, but something that irks me enough that I have to fix it when I see it. I really should get a life someday.) Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you think needs cleanup on Tooling University? You marked it for cleanup, but didn't put any reason for doing so on the talk page. It seems to have all the basics. The advertising has been removed. The info box and categories are in. What's the problem? --John Nagle 19:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not know that a non-admin could close a withdrawn nomination. Thanks for the heads-up! -Hit bull, win steak 20:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guy--Not sure what to think about this so I thought I'd pass it by you. An anon, User:68.60.86.204 has been adding links to Aaron Donahue at lots of pages--see his contribs. The IP is in Michigan (as am I) and I suspect it's one of the Donahues at work. But that's OK--it's the amount of linkage on unrelated pages like Hopi or Genius, either to Aaron Donahue or external links to his essays that concerns me. What do you think? · rodii · 00:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
i saw you removed the YTMND section from the Blümchen article, i reverted that. this section has been added and removed a few times in the past and i made a remark about it on the talk page with the request to please state a reason why it should be removed or added if one feels such. my opinion is that as it is a fact the song is used on several of such pages on YTMND and i saw people state they knew the song from there it feels like it should be part of the Blümchen article. Boneyard 14:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Check out the edits on the school prank page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_prank&diff=52758941&oldid=52754239 - someone added in all the 'old', unsourced etc. pranks. You'll probably want to remove this, I'd guess. Andymc 17:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I was really surprised to see that you reverted the link. (I've since corrected it to the version given at the discussion page.) I agree that Wikipedia has rules about sources and references which should be kept, but it's also out of question that valuable content must not be lost. If you add the template "citation needed" to a text where citation is needed, that's correct, but if you delete a text (without a trace!) under the pretext that citation is needed – it's unjustified, unreasonable and highly unusual. I've been around Wikipedia for more than two years, I presently have about 1400 articles on my watchlist and I've read thousands more but I've never ever seen anything like that – or if I did, it was soon discovered and restored as a kind of vandalism. Needless to say: please don't do that. Thank you. Adam78 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's see the two problems:
It's so easy to get rid of the bath water (as the saying has it) but I'm not convinced that the baby is saved.
Adam78 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, where is the consensus which you referred to in your revert? [15] I've looked through the discussion page but I only found contradicting opinions, instead of consensus. Adam78 22:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. OK, in that case you could have deleted the names which are not verifiable – but apparently far more could have been verified than was eventually left in the article. Its content could have been sorted out by the criteria which make them "unusual". The reasons why people find something unusual could have been sections of the article or separate articles. This could have also solved the problem of length, eg creating articles like "Place names with offensive or embarrassing content", "Place names referring to contradicting concepts", "Place names recalling household items", "Place names consisting of numbers", "Place names longer than thirty letters" (cf List of places with fewer than ten residents) etc. There is plenty of room for them in Wikipedia. But deletion of them still seems to me like a short-sighted decision. There are thousands of articles which need more work (doing cleanup, adding references or whatever) but people don't normally delete them because they need more work. It's not how things are usually settled in Wikipedia. – And as a matter of fact, the page of the latest discussion says its result was "no consensus", rather than consensus. Adam78 20:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
And what about this part of my message:
"So to link to a version which violates policy is simply wrong."
The problem is the indiscriminate nature of the deletion that happened. Not all deleted place names were like "inducing sniggers in the Beavis and Butthead fraternity".
09:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If you require criteria not for being "unusual" but for belonging in a category like those I mentioned ("Place names with offensive or embarrassing content", "Place names referring to contradicting concepts", "Place names recalling household items", "Place names consisting of numbers", "Place names longer than thirty letters" etc), it'll become much more obvious and you'll hardly need any sources. I suppose you wouldn't oppose if anyone were to create articles like those, would you? Adam78 10:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
My question remains the same: I suppose you wouldn't oppose if anyone were to create articles like those, would you? (What you wrote actually seems to affirm that there would be no problem with them whatsoever.)
Adam78 11:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you think is the major difference between the above suggestions and the existing article List of places with fewer than ten residents? What makes the further ones "indiscriminate collections of information" while the latter article is a lawful part of Wikipedia? (I could mention hundreds of other ones which may be interesting for a minority of people, yet they are not considered "an indiscriminate collection of information".) Adam78 12:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I really wonder if you have any NPOV reason or we can close this discussion with your consent. Adam78 13:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Look at your reasoning applied to another (existing and well-established) article and you'll see how tenable it is.
Do you agree with yourself? If so, why don't you vote for the deletion of that article? If not – well, that would be a sensible idea indeed. Adam78 14:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I invite you to read again the part where I say that if you want me to agree what a fine idea it would be to create those liscruft articles, you will have a very long wait. Just zis Guy you know? 15:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The example may not have been the best in general, though "many different types of extreme point" sound similar to "many different types of unusual place names", whose examples I proposed. – I could have mentioned the many sublists of Lists of films, most of them not having history or geography but only links. If you look into the list, you can see that their aspects are also rather varied and diverse and many of them could raise the question of listcrufts, yet one would have a hard time trying to have them deleted.
I don't want you to agree with any kind of article; I only wanted to find a compromise which you and others wouldn't actively oppose, considering the diversity of existing articles in Wikipedia and its actual practice of treating them, independently of one's tastes and interests. So, do you have anything particular against anyone creating articles like those mentioned? Adam78 16:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not exactly what I asked. I can't help your quasi-obsession with profanities and/or sniggers, which you're constantly trying to slip into the discussion, but I was not speaking about them. I was speaking about a bunch of articles which include maybe five, maybe ten, maybe twenty articles, covering place names that people may find unusual, classified by the source of being unusual. (Actually, whatever list of place names could be made, as a post office directory lists them in alphabetical order, which is probably the least interesting, the least relevant of all.)
The reason why I mentioned Lists of films was that you can find lists there which can induce sniggers and you can find lists where sexuality or profanity appears but – wonder of wonders – these lists are still well and alive. Perhaps because sniggers are not the only possible objective or interpretation of these lists. And perhaps other editors are more aware that the task of a scientist (or an editor) is to collect and describe things as thoroughly as possible, independently of the matter, rather than judging them pro or contra. (By the way: did you know that there is a series of books named The History of Sexuality? You can believe it's not for sniggers, nor about profanity for its own sake. And actually it's MORE than stating that this or that existed.)
When I asked my question, I was expecting an answer reflecting NPOV, and an answer which is in accordance with the actual practice of Wikipedia. My question again: do you have anything particular (with regard to the above) against anyone creating articles like those mentioned? Adam78 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be absolutely convincing if "crap" were as clear and unambiguous for everyone as you treat it. But the fact is that other people have other ideas of "crap", and these other people may be a majority of Wikipedia, as proven by the fact that many of the "crap" articles you refer to were voted for being kept, rather than deleted, and several of those that you call "crap" weren't even put for discussion. I'm afraid that the Wikipedia community as such has a differing opinion of "crap" than you do. Remember that you're not editing your own website but you're participating in a community work.
Besides, it's not tenable to state "I have never found the existence of one crap article a persuasive argument for keeping another." I'm afraid it's nothing but ignoring the common judgement of the community and putting your own arbitrary preferences above those of the others. The existence of an article that you find crap shows that it may not be crap in the eyes of others – which means it may be a precedent for other similar articles, as opposed to what you wrote.
It's like legislation. If one person is allowed to do something, all people must be allowed to do that, and if one person is forbidden to do something, all people must be forbidden to do that. Simple, isn't it? If you don't like a law, it's not the individual cases of application where you can start the criticism, but the root, maintaining consistent treatment for all. Adam78 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Adam78 23:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Spot on with that revert... Just imagine having a former version of the article as an external-link/reference - how daft! Thanks/wangi 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This is why you are having a flood of "socketpuppets" on the articles associated with remote viewing. I had nothing to do with that-simply notified them of the deletion. They took it from there. I'm not part of this campaign to delete everything that is against Luciferianism. However, I do not think Ed Dames is notable enough. The entry is filled with claims as was Aarons. That is not in any way, shape, or form a "grudge." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oublier (talk • contribs) 22:28, May 12, 2006.
All the Gastrich stuff we just went through ... well, it's about to start over. You see, he discovered he was only banned from Wikipedia, not Wikimedia. Check out His User Page. Be sure to look in the history, especially with regard to one possible sock puppet there. Look into his talk page too just for fun.
Oh, I did make a mention of this on his RfAr.Harvestdancer 01:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if you'd consider not using symbols to label your comments on WP:AFD. It really isn't a vote, but your use of symbols might inadvertently emphasize the false impression that it is. --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Good morning. I've reverted the strike-through you made here. We've learned the hard way that strike-throughs are perceived as extremely hostile and that they tend to earn us undeserved accusations of censorship. Better simply to note the abuse of the decision-making process in a sub-bullet (as Rory096 had already done). As you said above, it's entirely appropriate to note the abuse. It's simply a question of the mechanics of how to best note it. Thanks.
And thanks in particular for helping to keep this discussion on the straight-and-narrow. I'm afraid that it's only going to get uglier. We will need to watch the page history and the participants' contribution histories carefully. Rossami (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Revert war ahoy at Remote viewing. I would be happy to hear any suggestions you might have about how to calm this person down and get him to collaborate more. · rodii · 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Here you are, a cyclist, and probably totally unaware that nearly all competitive male cyclists shave their legs. So much for men who wear skirts, right? Never happens in your small sphere of the world, I'm sure. Take a short trip to Hawaii's North Shore, though, and you'll see plenty of men wearing sarongs. Tahiti? It's ubiquitous. Kuwait, it's a full-length dress. In Japan, the Kimono is making a comeback among both men an women. Dude, you just need to expand your understanding of fashion around the world before you slam down the DELETE! message on a topic that your might personally find unsettling. Life around the world doesn't conform to 1940's Hollywood standards, you know.
A few days ago I stumbled upon User:Mathbot, which among a few other things, appears to maintain list of mathematicians and list of mathematics articles, using the apparently especially created for that purpose list of mathematics categories. Since the lists are basically created from the categories this seems to make those lists nothing but a waste of space and effort. Before taking the drastic measure of just putting them up for Afd I wanted to ask your opinion and/or advice about this, since I've come to respect your opinion based on the comments I've seen from you on various Afds. (I'll watch this page for replies). -- Hirudo 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you let me know what part of the article at Oklahoma City Oklahoma Temple you consider to be original research? I'm happy to trim it down to a stub and then rewrite if needed. I'm not sure when I'll get to the rewrite, but I do want to avoid a deletion. Sue Anne 18:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have rewritten this article based on What Links Here and a reference in the Northern Ireland Yearbook. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
In response to your email on wikien-l, I have nominated Remote Viewing Timeline for deletion. --Philosophus T 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am a student researching the Min Zhu allegations (and also quite new to wikipedia and its inner workings) You mentioned in an earlier post on the subject that you might have some documents that has some record of the allegations and you would be willing to share those documents. Could you please let me know if you might be able to send them to me? I would greatly appreciate it as it would help my research immensely. (mariejomr@gmail.com) Thanks! - marie-jo
I am not sure what you mean by the message onmy talk page!!!Please explain.I had mistakenly had two accounts VR and Vr but as soon as I discovered that I obliterated that months ago>I also do not see any contribution by VR in case someone had used this aon the institutional internet I use;Please explain(Vr 05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC))
I imagined you'd be convinced Inc., and Fast Company magazines were notable after getting the circulation figures you wanted. Any reason you aren't withdrawing the AFDs? AnonEMouse 21:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Watch this article and the user who created the the article. He falsely claims that many legitmate schools, like the University of Notre Dame, are accredited by this group and removed this group from the unrecognized list. Arbusto 03:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm utterly flabbergasted by your undeletion vote concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James R. Gillespie. The nominator has never proved that his "source" actually exists, nor has he ever quoted from it. We've been unable to prove that either the book, or the newspaper article, exist. I would ask you to reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The message (block) that wasn't sent has resulted in Revert 5. Netscott 08:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You speedied an article I listed in AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANDREW CAMPBELL – BRITISH CONTEMPORARY ARTIST. Good choice. I'm wondering why this was a speedy, as I initially thought it should be, but couldn't see a relevant criteria. Therefore, I listed it on AfD. My query - what's the relevant speedy delete criteria, so I can apply it next time and not faff about with AfD? Cheers, Colonel Tom 12:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Your article was fine, it's just that there was already a longer, more detailed article with the same name. I will follow your advice next time.
Czolgolz 18:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics and ask you to visit a new discussion I have started, User:DGX/listcruft, about similar articles. Thank you! DGX 22:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This was a simply excellent edit. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it to my userpage. That wil keep people form deleting it. Why didn't any of the others do this. They just deleted it. What a bunch of queers. But anyway, thanks for your help.--07holsombd 17:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you please warn and block Dr John101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another diploma mill spammer. I don't think he will be doing anything useful here. (And BTW, you might also take a look at the last few edits by 07holsombd (talk · contribs) to this page.) Uppland 18:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I just started a RfC for the user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi. Is there anything else I should do to resolve this? Arbusto 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Gastrich's calling himself a doctor and posting again.[19] Arbusto 06:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! You're right, I'm a total rookie, but learning. Thanks again my friend.