User talk:Walton One/Archive 7: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:22, 10 March 2007

This is the talk page for Walton_monarchist89. Note: Please leave AMA-related messages on my AMA desk. Only personal and content-related messages should be left on this page.

Archives

Vandalism from 194.80.204.29

Hi - I note you left a "last warning" for vandalism from this source. They're still doing it - see here from 28/2. I'm a bit of a newbie and not quite sure what the procedure is here, so I thought I'd pass it on to you. William Bowe 08:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help regarding pages related to Hinduism

Hi Walton,

I am still unfamiliar with wikipedia procedures. Seeing that you are willing to help and also list history as an area, I thought I'd request you to help me out with this editing conflict with an established user, GourangaUK in the page Jagannath Temple (Puri).

Specifically, the conflicts are:

1. Whether the temple excludes non-Hindus or non-Indians. I believe that the temple excludes most non-Hindus from entering the temple, not simply "Westerners" as GourangaUK claims. In fact it is a well known fact that the former PM of India was barred from entering. This link is one of the many available: http://www.vnn.org/world/WD0109/WD07-6881.html

2. I have added some historical background on how the temple was built. GourangaUK prefers a popular Hindu legend concerning the temple origins, and deletes my additions.

3. I see glaring POVs in many places edited by GourangaUK. I believe that Hinduism should be referred to as a "religion", not as a "tradition" in those pages. Most references cited are from religious/devotional sources which are usually not neutral enough.

GourangaUK is well-established here, whereas I am a novice. Tht puts me at a position of disadvantage. I have seen my edits (painstaking ones too) simply deleted all the time by him. You may find our discussion in the talk pages of Jagannath Temple (Puri).

I hope you can provide some help.

Warm regards,

SDas 18:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Wikipedia:Editor review/Walter Humala

Hey man thanks for your comments and suggestions on my editor review, a lot! --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( shout! · sign? )} 02:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Barnstar from User:Walter Humala moved to my userpage.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Harrison

Strong sources added. Would you agree to change to a keep per your statement? Tyrenius 02:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad I interpreted your position correctly. Tyrenius 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arthur begotti

Good - it worked in the end, the article is now gone... I warned the author though; usually I just don't bother, but this was not his first offense, so I hope one extra warning on his talk page will contribute to getting him blocked. GregorB 19:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment from an article page

Thank you for helping out with the Biography assessment drive. Good news. Outriggr recently designed a script that will cut youf biography assessment time down by about ten fold (what took ten hours now may only take one hour with Outriggr's script). For more information, please see the 'assessment from article page' discussion. -- Jreferee 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

Thank you, User:Darktaz has been vandalising the talk pages of several editiors that have nominating his nonsense pages for deletion. He has been warned several times. Scottydude 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Would like some advice

Firstly, I'm rather flattered that you think I'm a good person to go to advice for ;) Secondly, I have actually been thinking about asking you about an RfA some time, so you might just have come to the right person. I think you will make a strong candidate some time in the very near future - I haven't made more than a cursory review of your contributions, or gone further than the general good impression I've gained from peripheral interactions with you, so I'm unsure as to whether you are ready for it right now. When I have a few more hours to spare, I will definitely give you a mental editor review and think harder about it :) All the best, – riana_dzasta 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would second what delldot has written below me. Article-writing is probably more important than WT edits (I didn't have that many, and I got through). Have you got any featured items? Portals are an easy and fun thing to get to featured status; obviously articles are much harder! :) Lists are also fun to try to get to featured status, I think there are quite a few lists that just need someone with a discerning eye and a good handle on WP:ATT to get FL. Pick a portal or list that interests you, and see how far you can get it :) I'll come back and have a chat with you later about all this. All the best! – riana_dzasta 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

You have my vote. KazakhPol 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input

Congrats on your 3000th edit! RfA standards do seem to have gotten a little less ridiculous lately, but unfortunately for your rfa, more emphasis has been put on article creation and large contributions lately, so you'll probably draw opposes for "only" having 1000 mainspace contribs (though if you've got any FAs or GAs or large contributions to specific articles, that will help you). I think if you feel that another failure would be "disasterous", you shouldn't try yet, since there's a chance it won't pass. As you know, 3,000 is still on the low end of passing RfAs. On the plus side, I'm sure no one will criticize you for lacking WP space edits, you have more than I had. Still very few WP talk edits, though, which is likely to draw opposes [1]. I'm a little nervous that folks will think you're too eager from seeing this message, but hopefully that's just me being a nervous nelly. But I think if you can stand to wait, you should, since the more edits and time on the project you have, the better your chances. On the other hand, I don't think your bid would be doomed to failure at this point. And again, I'm more timid than most other folks, so you should ask others. Have you lurked at RfA and checked out how other users with your experience do there? Things to do before your RfA: read the Admins reading list, read WP:GRFA, read the questions other candidates are getting this week and try to answer them. If you can't do it, you're probably not ready (assuming the question is appropriate to ask in the first place). This is all I can think of right now, if you have more specific questions, don't hesistate to ask. Peace, delldot talk 22:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, delldot covered what I was going to say. Rack up more Wikipedia talk and mainspace edits for those people very conscientious about editcountitis. Nishkid 64 22:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Walton,

I was about to post the following clarification in WP:RFCN for "Moonbot" before it was closed and before it gave me the edit conflict message:

To clarify, I'd exclude cases where the whole word (prefix+"bot" suffix) makes sense (e.g. "Funny Robot" or "Joe Abbot" or whatever). This case, however, is a clear Moon+bot, and the word "Moonbot" in itself is nonsense if it doesn't refer to "bot". Niko Silver 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. Niko Silver 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Do you think we should rephrase WP:U accordingly to include those obvious cases? "Bot"-like names are IMO extremely dangerous and every minute may be precious. Niko Silver 09:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I like your wording. I will follow with support when you post the proposal at WT:U. :-) Niko Silver 09:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be right behind you. WP:U right now states:

Usernames that imply an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user, such as "Administrator", "Admin", "System operator", "Sysop", "Moderator", "Steward", "Bureaucrat", or "Developer".
...
Usernames that imply bot accounts, potentially but not necessarily including "Bot", "Robot", "Script", "Initialize", "Automated", "Daemon", etc., unless the name is intended as a designated bot. Names that imply bot accounts may be blocked, and the user may be requested to contact an administrator to confirm that the account is indeed a bot account.

The first bullet is quite clear. I'd propose we only tweak the second one as follows:

Usernames that imply bot accounts, potentially but not necessarily including "Bot", "Robot", "Script", "Initialize", "Automated", "Daemon", etc., unless the name is intended as a designated bot. Names that imply bot accounts may be blocked at sight, unless they are part of a common name (e.g. "JohnAbbot"). The user may be requested to contact an administrator to confirm that the account is indeed a bot account.

My addition to the existing wording is underlined. I think it covers the meaning of your wording in my talk. Niko Silver 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, same goes for WP terms, and all the other bullets in that list. How about we tweak the general note above? Now it says:

Wikipedia terms. This includes commonly used Wikipedia software or community terms, or names implying an official position on Wikipedia. Prohibited username components include, but are not limited to words resembling the following:...

We can reword to:

Strike all that. I think WP:SNOW and WP:IAR cover everything within reason. How about we don't change anything? Niko Silver 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm finding it really hard to formulate the content of the existing policy to include all WP:SNOWable possibilities that you and I have pointed out. If you read WP:U, you'll find it really hard to distinguish the prohibitions that are not SNOWable. For example, for profanity, "YoMommasAss" or something comes to mind from the recent archives -definitely worth snowing. For WP official roles, if I saw "Joe Admin", I wouldn't pass it through RFCN. For containing Wikipedia, "Joe Wikipedia" would be obvious. For editing processes, "User:Delete" has 5 feet of snow. For giving the impression that you intend to cause trouble, "Vandal Niko" is the snowman himself. Same for bots, "Moonbot", or "Waltonbot" etc can't be recovered even by the snowplough. :-) Funny enough, the list goes on to every explicit exclusion within WP:U. That's why I'm saying: Where do you suppose we should place the "skip RFCN" part first? Niko Silver 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not disagree with your formulation, I see very little difference with the actual practice in WP:RFCN typical closures. How about we... WP:SNOW the attempt of explaining the obvious in the policy? :-) An essay would be really great. Niko Silver 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Pizza (AfD discussion)

Hi Walton monarchist89, in regards to Extreme Pizza (AfD discussion), I've added 11 mainstream media articles whose primary subject is Extreme Pizza. I am letting you know in case you would like to update your opinion in the AFD given the new information. Regards, —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 05:58Z

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Pizza

WP:N

Hi. Thanks for the info. However, I'm taking a bit of a wikibreak so it doesn't make sense for me to get into one of these long term debates. The policy's talk page has been off my watchlist for quite a while now and I can't really jump into the whole issue without taking the time to understand how we got to this point. Right now, I'm sorry to say I don't have that kind of time. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:N

Thanks for your message about your reply on the notability talk page. I had went to sleep already :-) But I'm awake again. I replied. My point is one that most people aren't taking... I'm not sure why. The wording is of the form "an article is notable if ...". But everyone interprets it as if it can be applied like, "an article is notable only if ...". This guideline as worded only provides objectivity for inclusion, not for exclusion. That is, if a topic meets the criteria, this guideline says it's certainly notable. Otherwise, if a topic doesn't meet the criteria, this guideline doesn't say anything. The implication is this direction:

Meets the criteria ==> notable

The other direction, that a topic that is notable must meet the criteria

Notable ==> meets the criteria

would only be described in a wording of the guideline that says only if rather than just if. I've raised this point before, and people agree, that they don't want to say "only if". I also agree, because that would take away the ability of the subject-specific guidelines for providing less strict criteria. Maybe we could say a topic is notable if and only if it meets the primary criteria or one of the criteria on a subject-specific guideline... I've never thought of that before this minute though. I'll think about it more and maybe suggest it on the talk page later. Sancho (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about that. I think it is widely agreed that those are bad reasons to oppose (Oppose! Not enough portal talk edits!!!). Some may make those opposes, but I bet if you do others will bring it up under the comment and some may even support you in order to cancel out those !votes (I've certainly looked into supporting because I thought people were opposing for bad reasons). I think overall, it's a bad idea to try to rack up edits in a given area just to have the higher numbers; it's a shame that the current state of RfA encourages people to do that rather than just, you know, working on the encyclopedia. IIRC, the opposes for no image uploads or whatever that people got were because they had said something about wanting to work on those areas with the tools. Which I still think is bad reasoning, since edits != experience or understanding. But I ramble on. Yeah, I wouldn't worry about that. Peace, delldot talk 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww... Thanks for my shiny new star! I will wear it as a feather in my user page! delldot talk 03:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time :)

I really appreciate your well thought out comments and NPOV tone of your opinion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother. I don't have much experience with Justanother outside of Barbara Schwarz so I believe you that the behavior I've seen is probably not as typical as I thought it was. Your comments are exactly the type I was hoping for, because I know that there have been mistakes on both sides. Thank you again, Anynobody 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cremepuff222

I disagree with your suggestion that mentioning this editor's contribs constitutes a personal attack. From WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". I was commenting that this person's content is almost entirely userspace related. And in fact WP:USER#Removal says "After you've been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it." and "In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellany for deletion, subject to deletion policy.". I did not call them a bad person, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to point out what looks like misuse of userspace. —dgies^t_c 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I've also said things in an XfD I later regretted. —dgies^t_c 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 03:24, 10 March 2007 edit Delldot (talk \| contribs) Administrators 47,018 edits →{{tl\|shrubbery}}: thanks for the star! ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:22, 10 March 2007 edit undo Dgies (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 12,939 edits →Your comments in [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cremepuff222]]: ok Next edit →
Line 124:		Line 124:

	I disagree with your suggestion that mentioning this editor's contribs constitutes a personal attack. From [[WP:NPA]]: ''"Comment on content, not on the contributor.''". I was commenting that this person's content is almost entirely userspace related. And in fact [[WP:USER#Removal]] says ''"After you've been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it."'' and ''"In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellany for deletion, subject to deletion policy."''. I did not call them a bad person, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to point out what looks like misuse of userspace. <font face="monospace">[[User:Dgies\|<font color="#00F">'''—dgies'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Dgies\|t]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dgies\|c]]</sub></font> 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)		I disagree with your suggestion that mentioning this editor's contribs constitutes a personal attack. From [[WP:NPA]]: ''"Comment on content, not on the contributor.''". I was commenting that this person's content is almost entirely userspace related. And in fact [[WP:USER#Removal]] says ''"After you've been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it."'' and ''"In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellany for deletion, subject to deletion policy."''. I did not call them a bad person, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to point out what looks like misuse of userspace. <font face="monospace">[[User:Dgies\|<font color="#00F">'''—dgies'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Dgies\|t]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dgies\|c]]</sub></font> 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
			: Apology accepted. I've also said things in an XfD I later regretted. <font face="monospace">[[User:Dgies\|<font color="#00F">'''—dgies'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Dgies\|t]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dgies\|c]]</sub></font> 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)