User talk:A Nobody

Welcome to my talk page! Please be sure to make all posts civil and constructive, as I'll revert anything I deem to be vandalism. Also, let us try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! My Talk Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Request

Please remove the phrase "Deletion gestapo" from your userpage. It is insulting, both to the editors you work with and to people who have suffered under the real Gestapo. Far from being a neutral term, Gestapo is very negative, and is an unnecessarily personal attack against those you would apply it to. I would suggest that you replace the term with "deletionist". Graevemoore (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While I am willing to remove that red link from my list of essays, there is something to be said about history showing us that efforts to limit or stifle knowledge are simply neither good things nor consistent with encyclopedic tradition and as others have identified, "deletionist" is not really a neutral or positive term either. Nevertheless, there are those who identify as deletionists who indeed mean well and are good faith contributors; however, there are others who are in fact single-purpose deletion only accounts that are in effect a form of vandals and who do not really care about their fellow editors (I have successfully identified a number of these such accounts to belong to multiple sockfarms; and I and indeed others have been targetted by some off-wiki, which I'll leave at that). There is a difference between someone identifying as a deletionist, but who is also objective, open-minded, argues to keep articles every so often, and also builds articles and someone who does nothing but deletes or attempts to get deleted articles largely for "I don't like it" non-reasons. As a historian, I believe it is responsible to remember those who did indeed suffer under the persecution of such nefarious groups as the Gestapo by opposing any signs of similar behavior no matter how minor they may seem to some or even if these trends are not exhibited by those who believe what they are doing is wrong. Moreover, Wikipedia and its contributors are unfortunately not limited to the project space; editors have been quite literally harassed outside of Wikipedia, have indeed had violence threatened against them, and in some incidents have even had rival editors show up at places or work, post personal information on attack websites, etc. Some take editing beyond the project and I do not think such behavior is not really different from tactics used by historic fanatics. What else should we call those who wish to stfile knowledge, harass editors in the real world, and post on what can in effect be described as propaganda attack sites? And again, this refers only to those who do all of those things and not to the larger group of editors who refer to themselves as deletionists, but are in fact constructive and nice (yes, I list some deletionists on my list of nice Wikipedians). And for what it is worth, that link was not my term, but linked to an essay someone else wrote and which is now deleted (ironically enough). I would hope at the same time that editors with whom I work will not insult their fellow contributors by attempting to unnecessarily and biasedly squelch their contributions to this compendium of human knowledge. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the userbox as well. Graevemoore (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See my reply to another user below. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please evaluate my AfD work

I like how, whenever anyone runs for RfA, you dig up every AfD they've participated in and list instances where they made poor arguments, or nominated an article that was ultimately kept. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to perform a similarly thorough critique of my AfD work. I can't remember most of the things I voted on; I'm not interested in adminship (and have rejected calls for me to run), but I'd still like to know how my AfD work stacks up against fellow deletionists you keep opposing.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Sure, I am happy to provide some feedback; however, I will comment only on your edits, i.e. not compare them with others by name as directly comparing them to specific other accounts could be rude to them. Anyway...

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series - You start out with a more thoroughly written and properly sentence structured response than some of the other deletes there that includes some suggestions at least, but I would avoid Wikipedia:ALLORNOTHING comments like "nuke 'em all". Moreover, "no one cares what I say" seems a bit harsh. For what it's worth, I care what everyone has to say in these discussions even those I disagree with. I don't think the editor accused of canvassing was acting in bad faith. So many of these AfDs only have a handful or half a dozen odd editors who participate in them (with ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination) being an obvious exception) that it is somewhat refreshing when more engage in the discussion so that we can come closer to a real consensus. You later write about "poorly reasoned votes" and about someone you say "just voted twice". AfD is a discussion and not a vote. Otherwise, you do at least approach it as a discussion, i.e. you didn't simply tack on a "per nom" never to revisit the discussion. When you suggest at the end that the user read the Five pillars or NOT, you should be more specific, because for one thing, NOT is edited frequently sometimes with non-consensus edits and so someone can go to that page when it happens to be a non neutral POV or vandalized version and not get the point you're making. And with the Five pillars, someone can go there and say, well the First pillar says Wikipedia is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs and interpret that phrase alone to mean a fairly broad inclusive criteria.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination) - the consensus was fairly overwhelming to keep in this one. In an instance where editors should "start afresh", they can be BOLD and drastically rewrite the article without having to delete public contribution history.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) - here's one of those unusual AfDs in which many Wikipedians participated. It's also a case in which I actually argued to delete (and I got emails requesting I change to keep, which I did not do). In any event, even though in this instance and unlike the above, I argued to delete, whereas you argued to keep, I think your keep argument is well worded and reasonably convincing. Yes, the AfD closed as delete, but your comments about the article are reasonable here. I would suggest perhaps staying focused on the article and not commenting on others in the discussion. For civility concerns, those can be expressed on the user's talk page or as a direct reply to whereever they made the questionable edit.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture - well, no disagreement here as you acknowledge the efforts to improve the article during the discussion rather than taking the approach of some that if it has "in popular culture" in its title it somehow must automatically be deleted. And I agree with the problem of not just TRIVIA, but other guidelines as well that are totally contradictory and confusing. There are times where it is nice that not all rules are written in stone, but there are other times when the guideline and policies pages are edited so frequently and sometimes significantly that they might even change during the course of any given AfD so God help the closing admin decide which version of the policy or guideline matters as the version at time of close might having crucial wording changes from when those discussing cited it during the course of the AfD.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction - given the improvements during the discussion, it would have been helpful to have commented on whether or not they convinced you. Looking at the article again myself, I think it should be expanded further.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (2nd nomination) - even though the article was deleted previously, consensus can change, unfortunately for me and my arguments, apparently the majority disagreed with me there, although most of their comments "silly," "per nom", "get real!", etc. are largely unconstructive "votes" rather than arguments. I would avoid calling the article garbage if it's likely to have been created in good faith as that can insult the article's creator. Hoaxes or liberlous articles can probably be called "garbage" with few complaining, but you can comment on it being unsourced without possibly offending its creator.

Anyway, if you notice in some of those above in which I argued to keep, I also spent a good deal of time looking for sources and improving the articles during the discussions. In the RfAs, my issues with some are usually when I see accounts trying to get articles deleted that can be improved as many keep closures reflect instead of doing what was needed for the article to be kept. I think a lot of time is wasted trying to delete articles instead of trying to improve them. Of course as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, I do think plenty of articles are in fact relatively hopeless. I hope the above helps. If I were to use the above as if it were in an RfA, I suppose I would probably be in a neutral category. I obviously disagree in some instances, but in others we agreed and even in some where we disagreed, you seemed reasonable, so based on the above, I don't think I would have opposed a hypothetical RfA, but I probably would have been neutral. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi LGRdC. I just returned from vacation, so I apologize for the late reply. This is enormously helpful and interesting to read. While I have, on occasion, been known to spin a convincing argument, I don't always put a suitable amount of thought into the discussions to which I contribute. I find the sort of analysis you provided constructive and, though I have no real appreciation for your strident inclusionism, I approve of the way you hold RfA candidates accountable for making consistently questionable contributions to AfD discussions--which is important if admins are to be trusted to close such discussions. Hope you feel better, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you had an enjoyable vacation! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Eryian sock

You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalida Neferher, which he started and got deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Mata Nui, which he voted and got deleted, and anything else you see worth looking at. BOZ (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I already started a couple DRVs on AfDs that he participated in after first communicating with the deleting admins. I am awaiting replies on the ones you listed above. I hope all is well with you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not connected, but we could use some help here too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathemanic. Same user has nominated others as well. BOZ (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you like there are a few more unresolved debates, such as Mammomax (which just got relisted). BOZ (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch - the List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons is up for AFD now. BOZ (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AFDs

Read this version of the article guidelines from 2007 and understand that you've crossed a line. You're always entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. I'm assuming good faith and chalking your recent comments on the AFDs to a misunderstanding. Try your best not to let this mistake happen again, as it is incredibly misleading to other editors. Randomran (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did add that bit about the weapons right before nominating weapons related articles that was not in the same version. If anything, a disputed tag needs to be added to the guideline as it clearly lacks consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Click on the link. Do you see the part about "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." That's been the policy since 2007. I didn't add anything but a summary. Do you understand? Randomran (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Which does not say "All weapons in every game are never relevant." The problem is that the GUIDELINE, not policy, that states on its top: "it is not set in stone" lacks actual consensus. The real consensus that matters is that of the hundreds if not thousands of editors who in good faith made video game weapons articles and continue to work on them. A minority of our community not liking those articles does not reflect actual consensus and as even the guideline itself says is "not set in stone" and even includes the key word of "exception" at top as well. Military themed games or games that have weapons in their actual titles are indeed such exceptions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, and I never said "all weapons in every game are never relevant." Of course there are exceptions. That's not my issue. My issue is that you're saying this guideline is something I personally invented yesterday. Was that a mistake, or a lie? I'm asking you directly. Randomran (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that you personally inserted "weapons" into that one particular line, which you did in fact do. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you said I added the "section". Three separate times. The section has been there since 2007. Are you going to keep saying that I added this section, or are you going to admit that this guideline has been there since 2007? Randomran (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I meant "word" (I am getting over a pretty intense head cold this weekend, so I may have had the occasional typo); the larger problem is that you nominated some weapons articles for deletion based on reasoning that does not uniformly apply, especially the Soul Calibur ones that exist beyond appearances in the video games. Plus, the guideline itself has been edited constantly since 2007 in such a manner (including accusations of revert warring and other disputed edits) that suggests it really does not have definitive consensus. Something that "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" should not be used as a rationale for something as decisive as deletion of non-copy vio and non-hoax articles that in even an extreme worst case scenario could be merged and/or redirected. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you're always entitled to your opinion and AFD discussions are where these opinions collide. Go ahead and say you don't like the guideline, that you don't like deleting articles created in good faith, that an article constitutes an exception to a policy or guideline. But don't misrepresent the facts. The guideline about (generally) excluding lists of weapons and items has been there much longer than I've been around to see it. If you want to say that this guideline doesn't have actual consensus, that's another good discussion to have. But please don't act like a single editor just created it last week. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of simply not liking the guideline, it is that it does not reflect consensus as practised. The facts are that the guideline has been edited constantly since its creation and I only pointed out that you recently expanded that section to more explicitly include the word "weapons" last week and before nominating a number of articles for deletion that should not be deleted. Maybe merged, maybe redirect, but certainly not deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the word "weapons" was already included before I got there. My edits have strictly been for clarity. Otherwise, nothing else you said is actually false. But I can disagree with you. And so let's keep our discussion to honest disagreement from now on, rather than falsehoods. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do not disagree with me based on falsehoods as I prefer honest discussions. By the way, Happy Memorail Day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about me. I may be opinionated, but I'm not a liar. Looking forward to further honest disagreement. Randomran (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder though if all this time spent disagreeing is wasted, i.e. would be better spent working together to improve and reference articles? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I do spend time improving and referencing articles. I also tag untagged articles to suggest that they need improvement. And of course, I participate in AFDs to save good or potentially good articles, and delete the rest. I think disagreement can be productive as well, even with a minority or single opinion, as it can be used to reinforce established consensus. Randomran (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are indeed after trying to reach consensus, then please be sure to follow this aspect of the AfD instructions regarding the nominating process: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~ (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name at Wikipedia Page History Statistics." I do not believe you did so for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superweapons of Ace Combat. In the first case, you should notify any user of IP with more than one edit and the same for here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but contacting the article's creator can be nearly worthless if the article was created a long time ago and the creator appears to have left. If I'm less than courteous, it's because I'm trying to be efficient with my time. I've found that it's usually much more productive and efficient to tag an article and leave it there for a few months. That way the numerous editors who see the article can see how to improve the article. I wouldn't nominate an AFD without any kind of warning. It's unfortunate if some people are even less courteous, but that's beyond my control. Randomran (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I make sure that for every article I nominate for deletion (yes, I actually have nominated a few), I notify the creator regardless of how long the article has been around as well. Courtesy is more important than efficiency in that if we are indeed trying to get AfDs that actually reflect consensus, then we need to hear from the article creators and contributors as well rather than just the AfD regulors. Sometimes even a creator will read the AfD and actually acknowledge that he or she too agrees with deletion, which again is why it is important to notify them, but anyway, it's the fair and right thing to do as it is more important that as many voices are heard in AfD as possible in order for the discussions to actually reflect consensus. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only say that I'll try when I have more time. I have a lot on my plate. If there's any consolation, it's that articles are usually tagged for many months before they are nominated for deletion, and that there's always Wikipedia:Deletion review. Randomran (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I do strongly encourage you to do so as soon as possible, because it's best to avoid deletion reviews if necessary and it would a nice thing to do in any events. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My page is always open for discussion. Otherwise, I prefer to stay as anonymous as possible on wikipedia. Nobody here knows my email and I like that. Randomran (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I really do suggest that you find other people frustrated with the general notability guideline and visit WT:N. Looking just at the recent discussions, it's almost comedic how relevant they are to your cause. (See "Improvements Needed".) That's exactly where you ought to be taking your argument against the WP:N requirement. If you succeed in overturning it, let me know so that I may add the band of every musician I'm friends with. Until then, you should be able to figure out which articles I'll keep/delete with alarming predictability. Randomran (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say everyone who creates these articles and finds them deleted is frustrated with the general notability guidelines, just as is evidenced from such comments as [1], [2], and [3]. Again, though, I do not think everything is notable enough for us, including bands as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostytutka. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Either way, your quarrel is with the people who created WP:N and not anyone within the video games wikiproject. No matter how persuasive your arguments, the wikiproject cannot ignore WP:N. But if you change WP:N, the wikiproject would have to follow. Randomran (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "quarrel" rather than a lack of consensus about something that the project can ignore per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Anyway, we'll see where it goes. My primary concern is that we are as useful and comprehensive of a general/specialized encyclopedia and almanac hybrid as possible and that we show appreciation for our contirbutors and donors and provide as best of a service as we can for our readers. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone agrees we should improve the service, but nobody agrees the best way get there. Some people see policies as preventing productive edits, while others see policies as quality control and standards. It's possible that you might be right: the best policy is pure democracy. But that's not wikipedia is at the moment. That's something that will have to change at the top level before individual wikiprojects can get away with ignoring key rules. Randomran (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder at times, how well this project can actually work with such fundamental disagreements and confusion. The overwhelming majority of our editors have no familiarity with or interest in the policies and guidelines written by a minority of editors. We have so many policies and guidelines now and they are themselves edited weekly if not daily in some cases that how can anyone make heads or tails out of anything? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I award you...

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Socratic barnstar for your brilliant— almost scary— excellent arguments in both RfA and AFD. Although I may have disagreed with you in the past, I admittedly realise that you have always come out right in the end and intend to help the project. We need more eminent Wikipedians like you. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 09:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Happy Memorial Day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Memorial day! :) Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC).

(Sorry to bother you agian) I just saw the template at the top of the page; I hope you get better! Get well soon! --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks on all accounts; I still feel rather out of it, but not as bad as yesterday, I guess. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Could you please remove the "Deletion Gestapo" userbox from your userspace? I'll be brief: it touches me personally and I'd rather not have that. User:Krator (t c) 23:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I am somewhat torn on this one. As I would imagine with many editors here, I too had relatives who experienced some of the horrors of the World War II era (and if you notice my ethnicity/nationality userboxes, from practically all sides of the conflict). With that in mind, there is something to be said about history showing us that efforts to limit or stifle knowledge are simply neither good things nor consistent with encyclopedic tradition. Nevertheless, there are those who identify as deletionists who indeed mean well and are good faith contributors; however, there are others who are in fact single-purpose deletion only accounts that are in effect a form of vandals and who do not really care about their fellow editors (I have successfully identified a number of these such accounts to belong to multiple sockfarms; and I and indeed others have been targetted by some off-wiki, which I'll leave at that). There is a difference between someone identifying as a deletionist, but who is also objective, open-minded, argues to keep articles every so often, and also builds articles and someone who does nothing but deletes or attempts to get deleted articles largely for "I don't like it" non-reasons and then harasses editors on and/or off wiki. As a historian, I believe it is responsible to remember those, including my own relatives, who did indeed suffer under the persecution of such nefarious groups as the Gestapo by opposing any signs of similar behavior no matter how minor they may seem to some or even if these trends are not exhibited by those who believe what they are doing is wrong. Moreover, Wikipedia and its contributors are unfortunately not limited to the project space; editors have been quite literally harassed outside of Wikipedia, have indeed had violence threatened against them, and in some incidents have even had rival editors show up at places or work, post personal information on attack websites, etc. Some take editing beyond the project and I do not think such behavior is not really different from tactics used by historic fanatics and hate groups. What else should we call those who wish to stfile knowledge, harass editors in the real world, and post on what can in effect be described as propaganda attack sites? And again, this refers only to those who do all of those things I just mnetioned and not to the larger group of editors who refer to themselves as deletionists, but are in fact constructive and nice (yes, I list some deletionists on my list of nice Wikipedians). And for what it is worth, that userbox, like all of my userboxes, was not my creation, but copied from someone else's userpage. I will give it some more thought, but again I only think about in terms of the accounts who only want to delete and who have also harassed myself and others both on and off-wiki and not to any good faith editors. Moreover, I intend it to honor the memory of those who suffered by others whose practices included stifling knowledge alongside harassment. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to read, nor discuss, the above. With regrets, User:Krator (t c) 10:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Krator (t c) 08:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Encouragement

Thank you so much for your words of support! It means a lot. -- Geĸrίtz (talk)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi there. As you may already know, my RfA closed successfully today. My initial work is actually going to be limited (admin-wise) to a personal project involving Special:UnwatchedPages to try to encourage article development and protection from vandals, and clearing the CSD backlogs. I do eventually want to branch out to closing AfDs, but your comments at my RfA gave me further pause for thought. As a result, I have decided to continue to contribute to AfD only in a normal capacity until I have confidence that I am at least aware of any systematic bias (which was what your oppose seemed to be saying). This will not be very restrictive, given that I didn't plan to start AfD closing until a bit later on anyway, and it will help me to improve my contribution to the encyclopaedia in this area. I hope that, should you find fault with what I am saying (beyond simply a disagreement with my conclusions!), you will drop me a line on my talk page. In the meantime, I shall work in these other areas as planned, and hope to earn your trust as an administrator. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope you get well soon

Just saw the tag you recently added. Hoping you get well soon! Also, I remember wishing you well with your Bassett - I hope that all worked itself out for the best as well, I never did here the outcome. All the best, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Get well soon. Jakew (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I feel much better! My basset is still hanging in there, albeit with a bunch of scars. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes from me too. Hope your post at ANI gets the right response. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And me too - even though we rarely agree, I hope you do stick around! Black Kite 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ditto. Quadritto? I don't think Le Grand and I have ever been on the same side of an AfD. I hope you're on the mend soon. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that we can look beyond disagreements in certain discussions and still recognize each other as people with good intentions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely -- there's a quote that a Google search attributes to several different people -- but it's true whoever said it. "I do not agree with a word you say but I defend to the death your right to say it." It's what makes Wikipedia such an interesting learning tool because we can learn as much from each other's POV even if we don't agree. Glad to hear below that you're feeling better, I know the pain of school work all to well. Best of luck with health and school and I look forward to seeing you around. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That quotation is about how I feel when I argue to keep articles in AfDs... Another good quasi quotation is “The only thing that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing,” attributed to Edmund Burke. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not always in agreement with you about AfD issues but I do hope you get well soon and with little complications. (I know a bit about health woes myself.) JuJube (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope all health issues resolve themselves quickly and you are back up on your feet (or perhaps on your great pumpkin coach's shiny gold wheels) in short order. Blessings-- LynnMaudlin (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Hoping for a speedy recovery with the problems you're currently experiencing. Rudget (Help?) 09:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Me three :P. Hope it doesn't bring you down and you get well soon. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever voted the same way at XfD as you, and I've disagreed strongly with you in the past. That won't stop me from wishing you a speedy recovery though! Hope to "cross swords" with you (or better yet, form a total consensus with you) at AfD again before I know it! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

All of the above is really touching and encouraging (I am going to have to update my list of nice wikipedians. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

+me. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A late wish for a speedy recovery from me. Although like the above, I disagree with you at AfD a great deal of the time, I wholeheartedly pray for your health. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your AFD contributions are (almost) always wonderful. Not that this will help anyway, but I also endorse this. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All in all, I am really pleased to read such thoughtful comments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Even though we have conflicting viewpoints on articles (e.g. Turuaga DRV), I think you're an exemplary editor and should be an example for the more disruptive inclusionists on Wikipedia - you're proof that you can have such a strong viewpoint without being disruptive or cantankerous. (also given to DGG, because I enjoy discourse with both of you) Sceptre (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I smell sarcasm in the compliments in this barnstar. Sceptre, the purpose of presenting somebody a barnstar is to express your appreciation of that person's work on Wikipedia, not to use it as a tool to insult other users (also labeled as "disruptive inclusionists") who have a different view from yours. Your barnstar is rather an impertinent attack on people you don't like than a gift for Le grand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.53.202 (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes

I'm sorry to hear that you're not feeling well, and quite worried to hear that you're thinking of leaving the project. I think you're a great asset to Wikipedia, and I hope you stick around. McJeff (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I probably will due to the kind requests above. I seem to be more or less recovered at this point, although I am nevertheless busy with school work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are feeling better, and I would miss your presence. Don't forget that health has first priority. BTW, did you ever get to try the Pumpkin Spice Late from Starbucks that I mentioned some time ago? [4] Best Wishes — Becksguy (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, but hopefully an opportunity will present itself soon. :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Writing style

Just a friendly observation: I've been neutrally observing this RobJ1981 block stuff, and I've noticed that you have a tendency to write a heck of a lot in big blocks of text. I recall you've done this now and then over at WT:VG a few times too. Can I request that you add some paragraphing for any later comments you may make of above average size, as large walls of text like this make for really hard reading. Thanks! -- Sabre (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pie chart

Sorry I haven't got around to making a pie chart for you yet. I've been in and out of town, and overall pretty busy. Could you make a CSV sheet out of the data you wanted put into a chart? I took a quick look and I wasn't 100% sure how you wanted to extract the data.   — C M B J   23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Project News Backlash (2006), Insane Clown Posse, Judgment Day (2005), Judgment Day (2007), Royal Rumble (2005), and Survivor Series (2005) have been elevated to Good Article status. SummerSlam (2007) (link) and SummerSlam (1988) (link) have been nominated for Featured Article status. Backlash (2007), One Night Stand (2007), Paul London, Royal Rumble (2005), The Great American Bash (2007), The Rock (entertainer) and Unforgiven (2006) are currently Good article candidates. Over the Edge (1999) failed it's Good article nomination, though, it has been reassessed here. Current Events Darren Matthews (William Regal) was suspended by WWE for 60 days for breaching the Substance Abuse and Drug Testing Policy. The 2008 WWE Draft was announced by World Wrestling Entertainment chairman, Vince McMahon, to take place on June 23 2008. At One Night Stand, Randy Orton suffered a broken collarbone during his Last man standing match with Triple H. Also, at One Night Stand, Edge won the World Heavyweight Championship in a Tables, Ladders and Chairs match defeating The Undertaker. Per the pre-match stipulation, Undertaker was kayfabe forced to leave WWE. The Month in Wrestling History May 23, 1999 - Owen Hart died in a tragic fall during Over the Edge. May 21, 2000 - Triple H defeated The Rock for the WWF Heavyweight title. May 22, 2000 - Vince Russo stripped Ric Flair of the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, and awarded it to Jeff Jarret. May 17, 2002 - "The British Bulldog" Davey Boy Smith died of a heart attack. May 19, 2004 - Ron Killings won the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. Professional Wrestling Article Stats The number of stub articles has decreased to its lowest level since the project began its focus on improving them. The goal is to get the number below 600, and we're getting close. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Professional wrestling articles Importance Top High Mid Low Total Quality FA 2 3 5 FL 1 5 15 21 GA 4 15 39 58 B 1 13 57 203 274 Start 2 52 221 2331 2606 Stub 1 23 600 624 Assessed 3 71 323 3191 3588 Total 3 71 323 3191 3588

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 389 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. Based on the active members list, there are currently 37 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling. NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members. On the calendar: 19 - Frenchbreadpizza's birthday 24 - Unopeneddoor's birthday 29 - CJMiller's birthday 1 - WWE presents One Night Stand 8 - TNA presents Slammiversary Collaboration of the Week The article collaboration for May 25 through June 7 is Rick Rude. The Featured article collaboration is Carly Colón. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, June 8. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Articles for Deletion Current: Kept: Africa Wrestling Alliance, Blood sweat and ears, List of Ring of Honor events, The Fingerpoke of Doom. Redirected: Deleted: International Wrestling Federation (South Africa), Joseph Carl Bailey, Junior, Independent Pro Wrestling Association, Crash TV, Drew Roode, WWE wins top 10. From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: IMatthew (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) SRX (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

Delivered: 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

User:GlassCobra/Essays/What Wikipedia is

Good one - I couldn't possibly agree more! If only we had more editors with viewpoints like this. BOZ (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; far too much focus on what Wikipedia is not could be spent building up what Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, we can only hope with time that more such people will join the project. Keep up the good work! :) BOZ (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You too. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA opposition

I have not transcluded my RfA nomination yet, and as !votes before that occurs are invalid I've reverted your comments. [5]. I anticipate listing the nomination the week of June 15th if you wish to reinstate your comments. Karanacs (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Sorry. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

hm

Do you want to get serious with the mudslinging? Or would your rather just this one time in our exchange history re-evaluate your own position, the possibly suboptimal wording of my comments notwithstanding? dorftrottel (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All I want is for you to be civil and respectful to your fellow editors. Attacking editors is not how you will convince them to change their stances. Notice what works in RfAs when I and others do in fact change our minds. Insulting them is not what does it. Something like this is what does make editors want to give the candidate a chance. Calling editors "ridiculous" or making assumptions about their standards for adminship does not persuade editors to do anything, except maybe dig in, as others agree per [6] and [7]. In any event, it is unfair to the candidates to take whatever dislike you have for me and some others over to their RfAs, especially when many candidates are fully capable of responding to my opposition in such a polite and constructive manner that I do in fact change my stance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All I want is for you to be respectful to your fellow editors. Equals the opposite of what you are doing in those RfAs, to the candidates who have enough stress as it is, without someone posting outrageous opposes like you imho do. Ok look, I'm this close to telling my true opinion, which is not a very good idea. Please ask Durova what she thinks about your RfA opposes (my comments are secondary to that). I think we both trust her judgement. dorftrottel (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which a good deal of other editors agree with: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc. and which in many instances the candidate is able to respond to in a civil and constructive manner, which when reasonable causes me to change my mind. We are first and foremost here to build a comprehensive reference guide and as one of the main functions of an admin deals with deletion, how they will close AfDs matters. Swearing and using overly dramatic language just does not accomplish whatever it is you want to accomplish. I give candidates a bit more credit than to think they can't handle reading a few random opposes from editors. We all receive criticism from bosses, teachers, parents, etc. Anyone wanting to take on a position in which editors will occasionally challenge blocks or challenge AfD closures and maybe even have to defend themselves on admin boards should at least be able to handle good faith criticism of AfD participation. If my opposes are off, then at least give the candidate a chance to respond and peacefully convince me otherwise rather than causing the RfA to turn into something personal and which diminishes the likelihood of editors changing their stances. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please ask Durova. dorftrottel (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just leave it. This is getting really boring. You need to learn the difference I think between 'truth' and your opinion. The consensus on notability can change. I vote at AfD when I weigh up a person - if someone tends to delete alot, then there has to be some more evidence of article buidling or civility to make up for potential pedia shrinkage etc. I suspect le Roi thinks the same way. Given your views on notability...have you ever been to a decent-sized tertiary institution or seen one of their libraries with the depth of coverage they have? Seriously. I am really curious. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the current issue. The issue is opposing RfAs over both programmatic (inclusionism vs exclusionism) and utterly invalid reasons. However, to be honest, you are not the person whose judgement both LGRdC and me trust. Durova is that person, and she has indeed offered to mediate between us in the past. It would be great if she could just weigh in with a few words. I know she wouldn't condone the way I commented in that RfA, but I don't know what she has to say about the way LGRdC is frequently opposing in RfAs. dorftrottel (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very much a part of the issue. There is nothing wrong with having limited (or no) access or experience with the breadth and wealth of published material or certain subjects, especially popular culture. The university which I am associated with has a whole library annexe solely dedicated to pop culture (but is damn hard to park near and out of my way..). What is wrong is either deliberately or accidentally ignoring the possibility of sources, and going forth and wiping large sections of material via AfD. Thus, if you haven't had any exposure, how on earth can you form an opinion on the extent of material and participate or, for that matter, pass judgement on either my or Le Roi's ideas o notability?? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually don't speculate on the existence of sources. dorftrottel (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a break, so notability=google, eh? if you had some experience looking in greater depth at material not online then you would (probably) share my frustration. The internet is very bland and minimalistic on a whole host of areas, and WP is a golden opportunity to rise above the lowest common denominator and really educate. All featured articles I have worked on have required getting books etc. which just goes to show how much the internet is actually lacking. Therefore some degree of speculation is necessary. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to say I'm stupid or too lazy to look for sources? dorftrottel (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One of my pet peeves is how people are treated as stupid and unable to learn - people are capable of remembering vast amounts of information. Think of a main street in the suburb where you live. Now try and list all the attributes you can think of about that street; shops, funny houses, broken streetlights, working streetlights, cracks in the footpath, no parking zones, residences, opening hours of shops, cross-streets, schools etc. You should be up to a few hundred items of information. Now think of other streets in your suburb, then other suburb. See how much you remember (alot, isn't it?) My take on this is you don't have to be some child prodigy to remember prodigious amounts of information and we can all be alot more knowledgeable than what we are. Unfortunately alot of what is written or produced for television or other media is really dumbed down to some imaginary lowest common denominator. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, one of my pet peeves are people who are stupid and unable to learn. dorftrottel (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinion needed for User:AnnaFrance

My adoptee had a question about a poorly written elementary school article which I answered as I see appropriate. However, I did point out that I tend to be an exclusionist and therefore I would ask someone who is more inclusionist to also give an opposing argument to my rationale for deleting the article. When you get a few minutes, could you pop over to her talk page and give your viewpoint on this? Thank you. Trusilver 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check it out. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. And I'm throwing this out here again: I'm up for a messy fight and I'm completely willing to nominate you for adminship whenever you decided you are up for it. Trusilver 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help!  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)