User talk:Αναρχία

Welcome! -Αναρχία

Notability of Joel Gelernter

A tag has been placed on Joel Gelernter, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 10:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Further Concerning the Notability of Joel Gelernter

We'll have to see what the admins say about that. In the meantime, add a {{hangon}} template to Joel Gelernter. It really depends on whether being a target of a terrorist attack is enough for notability. It sounds like this is an attack on multiple people. If it is, the question is, do any of the others have articles? Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 10:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of them do. I am in the process of adding stubs for those remaining. David Gelernter already had a page, even though his research is no more important than Joel's. I consider this information relevant because I really wished it was already here, but it's not, costing me a lot of work. I'm adding it in the hopes that this work need not be repeated by others. Of course, an alternative would be to use a list instead of a category. -Αναρχία 10:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that this will get saved then. If you're not the only person who has created an article on one of the victims, then I'm forced to believe that they are notable. I think a category is fine. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 11:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Categorising Stubs

Hi, I notice you've created a number of stubs recently, and tagged them with an uncategorised {{stub}}. It would be helpful if you could use a specific stub tag, such as {{US-bio-stub}} - a full list can be found here Jeodesic 13:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeodesic. I don't see any stub for "powerful person" which would probably be best for those pages, but there are the occupational categories. In any case, since I no longer intend to add anything to them, those articles might as well be removed. -Αναρχία 07:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Joel Gelernter deleted

I've speedy deleted the article on Joel Gelernter, as I did not feel it made a reasonable assertion of notability. According to the article, he was the brother of a Unabomber victim. Siblings of murder victims are not automatically notable; we don't have an article about every brother or sister of the victims of Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer either. As this seemed to be the only claim to fame, I didn't feel it even came close to meeting any of our criteria. Kafziel ^Talk 14:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The brother-of-victim status was not the only claim to fame—it was not even any claim to fame. Serial killers' victims are random and unimportant; TJK's targets were specific people or places selected for their power within what he would call the techno-industrial system. The fact that Joel was not actually bombed does not mean he was not targetted by the bombing of his brother. But of course, all of this is irrelevant, because I'm giving up. I'll put my research on my web page—no one will find it, but at least I won't have to put up with your ignorant bullshit. -Αναρχία 06:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh right...he was the brother of the attacked victim. I thought both he and his brother were attacked. That changes everything. I fully endorse the deletion. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 17:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not the fact that he is the "sibling of a murder victim" that was the claim for notability, but the fact that he is a target of a political terror campaign. I have categorized targets, not victims. I agree that mere victimization is not notability: who cares about the secretary who opened the bomb sent to her boss? But wouldn't it be interesting to have a detailed article for every business in the WTC towers? (There is already a list, with many broken-link articles). Of every target of Palestinian suicide bombings? Wouldn't someone researching political violence have an interest in information about its targets? Last night my productive efforts on WP were interrupted with this political nonsense; I ended up writing several justifications and reading WP policy on "notability" but fell asleep before adding the rest of the category. Moreover, I am now very much aware of the fact that if I continue to add articles, random people with no familiarity with the topic or my reasons for doing so may well delete them. I am hesitant to contribute what might merely be removed. What good does this do? I have looked around the web and have been unable to find this information compiled anywhere. Do you want me to compile it, and put it on WP, or do you want me to start telling people about how the first time I started to make a big contribution to WP it was thwarted in infancy by people who didn't even bother to read my arguments correctly? -Αναρχία 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What you tell people is up to you. We're not going to change our policies for you, though. I can tell you that much. I'll direct your attention to the bottom of every edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

Victims (yes, even secretaries) are sometimes considered notable. "Apparent" targets may not be, as that can be subject to debate. Apparent to whom? There's no doubt as to who was killed, but there may be doubt as to who was meant to be killed. In any case, your version of that article didn't even attempt to satisfy any of our notability requirements. Not one. It didn't even say that he was an intended victim. I see you know how to use {{fact}} tags, yet you didn't have a single reference in your own article to try to establish his notability. So I, a random person with no familiarity with the topic, deleted it, and if it was created again the same way I would delete it again.

Lots of good editors have had an article deleted at one time or another. It happens. There's no need to get all bent out of shape about it. We're not talking about ten thousand words here. It was barely a paragraph. Less than you've written to me on this talk page. So it's not really that much work lost. But if you're going to continue leaving comments like the last sentence of this and edit summaries like this, I'm going to block you from editing anyway. So decide whether you'd like to keep editing here in a productive and cooperative way, or I will show you the door myself. Kafziel ^Talk 13:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind "merciless editing" or "redistribution"—it's deletion by idiots that bothers me. Don't misunderstand me: my earlier statement was no ultimatum. I will discuss my experiences on WP either way, and in any case there is no going back: I now know that that power-infatuated admins will delete without discussion, and I don't care to try my luck. Your threat to "show me the door" is ludicrous. (1) You have no basis—you're just being a dick. (Not that that would stop you). (2) What do I care? I don't benefit from my contributions. If the royal you doesn't want my help, you can go fuck yourselves. Ciao. -Αναρχία 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems a little uncalled-for. Particularly considering that I left you a note here to begin with to explain my reasoning; I didn't have to do that, but I wanted to give you the courtesy. I don't see how that makes me "power-infatuated". It's not power to delete articles; it's a pain. I spend a lot more of my time contributing here than you do, and I don't get paid either. Following up on deletion requests is just part of the job. There are lots of article that I decline to delete, like this one or this one, because they at least assert some sort of notability. They might be deleted after discussion, but I won't unilaterally delete them myself. If you had asserted any reasonable notability at all, I would have kept your article as well. It's nothing personal—Cream147 nominated for deletion, not me— and it's not some power trip. It's part of our policy and I'm just doing my job.

As for showing you the door, at this point I have no shortage of basis. Insulting language and personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and I warned you about that. It wasn't a threat, it was a fact. As a result of your latest tirade, you've been blocked for 48 hours. If you'd like to take that as an insult and leave altogether, so be it. If not, I suggest you take those two days to step back and relax a bit. If you continue to hurl insults and accusations at others when you return (or before the block expires), your next block will be longer. Kafziel ^Talk 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How could I post before the block expires? The funny thing is, you think I'm being uncivil!

You can post on your own talk page before the block expires (as you just did). You just can't edit articles. Kafziel ^Talk 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Lot of good the block does then, eh? -Αναρχία 17:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could block you from editing this page as well. But I'd rather not. Kafziel ^Talk 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Kind of completely backwards, given that this is one place I would insult you. For the record, the "courtesy" of your reasoning is what demonstrated that either you didn't read my justification, or you were too stupid to understand it. If you had just deleted the page without saying anything (as opposed to just saying nothing informed), I could have only called you a fascist. -Αναρχία 17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to continue letting you edit this page because it's the only way you have left to talk this through.

But that defeats the purpose of the block. E.g., I can still call you a "fuckwad". Watch: fuckwad!

Okay, have it your way. Kafziel ^Talk 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the actual issue, you're leaving out a third possibility for deleting the article: I simply didn't feel your reason was valid. You didn't provide any evidence for your claim that he was the intended target, and your hypothetical comparison with Salman Rushdie didn't hold water because Rushdie's literary career was not a failure. And, no, we do not have articles about every target of a fatwa. Just the ones that are notable. Joel Gelernter might be notable, but you didn't show me how he met any of our criteria.

I am fully aware that it didn't meet the WP criteria for notable—of course, that makes the deletion more discouraging. Why you persist in the use of first person plural, I simply cannot fathom.

Because I'm part of Wikipedia. I don't have any articles at all (though I have written quite a few). I don't make policy. I don't decide which ones can be deleted and which ones can't. We, the entire Wikipedia community, do that as a group. Kafziel ^Talk 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to have another look at the Hold On tag; the request is not binding. Administrators are not obligated to obey the demands of every author who puts that on a page. I read your rationale, did not find it satisfactory, deleted the article, and left you a note to explain why. Happens all the time. Kafziel ^Talk 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You read it; your note addressed something else. (Incidentally, your reasoning above is unsound; whether or not my Rushdie comparison holds up, it does not fail to hold up because his literary career is not a failure). But I hope you understand, I am not trying to get any decision reversed (and never was). Rather, I am yelling at you for enforcing a stupid policy. -Αναρχία 18:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is unsound. You chose to compare apples (successful authors) to oranges (unheard-of professors) and I called you on it. It fails to hold up because the two are unrelated and I choose not to deal in hypotheticals.

If the policy is so stupid, why are you still here? Maybe because it's still the best game in town? I guess you could submit your work to Encyclopedia Britannica instead... they won't publish it either, but at least they won't make the apparent mistake of giving you an explanation. Kafziel ^Talk 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of your continued personal attacks even after a 48 hour block, I have extended your block to one week and have protected this page from editing. You are welcome to return after the block expires, if you can contribute constructively. If you stay civil, I will be willing to discuss the situation further once your editing privileges have been restored. Kafziel ^Talk 19:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your implication that any of my contributions have been anything but constructive is entirely without merit. Your willingness to "discuss the situation" is far from appreciated—has anything I have ever said to you indicated that your presence is the slightest bit welcome here? Your ability to discuss anything intelligently is seriously lacking. Your pretension to represent anyone but yourself is not only absurd and divisive, it is pathetic: if you had any real confidence in your ability to make good decisions, you would take responsibility for them. Of course, I can't blame you: you really are incapable. If you had shown any evidence of intelligence or self-awareness up to this point, I would accuse you of deliberately baiting me, but I have no doubt that you truly do not realize that your actions merely constitute petty dick-flexing. I suggest you take some time to reflect seriously on your real motives, fuckwad. -Αναρχία 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Your reasoning in the referenced passage really was unsound. My reasoning is irrelevant to that fact (but it was not unsound). And I am still here to berate you because you persist in filling up my talk page with idiocy. -Αναρχία

You have now been blocked indefinitely. Kafziel ^Talk 03:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gilbert Murray (lobbyist)

The article Gilbert Murray (lobbyist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of independent notability

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiantSnowman 09:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)