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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

are you watching me?

Either way... despite how far away I may seem from your vantage point, I'm pretty much in the middle on the deletionist/inclusionist debate. My goal isn't to destroy wikipedia or eliminate every topic that reminds me of my 7th grade teacher. It's to maintain and enforce some kind of standard, whatever that standard might be. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have all the AfDs I participate in watchlisted, if that's what you mean, as I fully agree with the idea that they are discussions and not votes. Anyway, I suppose I am a strong inclusionist, although I have argued and nominated to delete everything from hoaxes to original research to unconstructive MfDs and so on (dozens over all and in fact I have actually argued to delete more articles than a sizable number of those on the other side of me in AfDs have argued to keep). I do not approach Wikipedia as though I am trying to accomplish any personal goal. I volunteer my time to help improve it in as many ways as I believe worthwhile from uploading images to welcoming new users to correcting grammar in articles to preventing articles that can and should be improved from being unnecessarily and unjustifiably deleted. Because there is in fact widespread disagreement over what is and is not notable and because so many editors are unaware of AfDs or discover them too late, I tend to give the article creators and editors the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. I believe that articles should be referenced thoroughly, but I am more apt to believe that they can be after my two odd years of editing here based on what I have seen time and time again. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments at WQA

I appreciate your comments there, really, and I think they help clarify the message I was trying to get across in a way that would have been impossible for me to get across alone.

If you'll notice, prior to the "Findings" section, my general attitude was "Yeah, Pixelface is kinda being dick, but so is everybody else. What do you want me to do about it?" However, after some thought, I decided that if I did not explicitly condemn Pixelface's style of argumentation, it would be seen by some as if I were condoning the rather sad level of dialog taking place at WT:FICT right now.

In other words, even though it was knowingly unfair, I decided to single out Pixelface in order to make it abundantly clear that this sort of thing is not helpful and not encouraged. Your follow-up comments provide a much needed counterbalance to what I said, and I thank you for it.

Hopefully things can get straightened out at WT:FICT, ha hah... I am staying far, far away from that hot potato. It's especially tough for me because I started out as an inclusionist, and I now consider myself a moderate (and reluctant) deletionist (you can see the rationale at my user page if you are interested). I know from your contribs that you are a staunch inclusionist, and it is a position I actually have quite a bit of respect for. Maybe some day I'll feel that way again, heh, I remain very uncertain about the issue. Anyway, I'm rambling now. Best of luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome and as I said there, it really is a two (or even multi-?) sided issue in the various FICT, What Wikipedia is Not, and related AfD discussions, rather than just being one person. I tried to engage with some other editors there as I do in AfDs and discovered that some take extreme offense at being challenged and once editors start throwing out "harassment," "tendentious editing," and other unproductive buzz terms in the discussion it just turns into an insult back and forth rather than a constructive discourse. I have seen so many baffling statements and bogus allegations made that I have largely stepped back from the policy discussions. For whatever reason, it seems the same handful minority of the community participates in the fiction related guideline and AfD discussions that I have no idea what kind of actual consensus we are really getting in either case. As I have proposed elsewhere, we really need to get more of the people who create and work on the articles under discussion involved in these discussions to get a better sense of what our community actually wants. As far as my stance in general, please see User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. I tend to argue to keep more frequently, although I have argued and even nominated to delete and for a variety of reasons. In many of the instances in which I argue to keep I also spend time trying to improve the articles in question, which makes it doubly tedious as while I am simultaneously trying to improve an article and defend it in the AfD, I'm arguing against those who are only trying to get deleted. Well, off to see the new Iron Man movie. Take care! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination)

Have to be WP:DRV then, because I'm weighing up the Keep votes in that AfD and finding them lacking. Let me take you through the Keep votes and my opinions on them

• User:Colonel Warden - "no pressing reason to delete" (personal opinion)
• User:Firefly322 - "It's verifiable" (not from secondary sources it isn't)
• User:Tj999 - "because the timeline helps alien and predator fans understand the chronological sequence of events in the series" (WP:USEFUL)
• User:DGG - "Appropriate alternative way to present the material" (well fine, but I'm still not seeing secondary sources, and it's still duplicating information in other articles)
• User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles - I don't understand your vote. You rail against "cruft" repeatedly throughout your reply, but the nominator didn't mention the word cruft at all. You say it's verifiable, but don't put forward any secondary sources. You say "The real world context is obvious", and then fail to explain what real-world context there actually is. You say "Per our First pillar, Wikipedia is a science fictional encyclopedia.", which is plainly taking 1P to mean what you believe it means. "(Wikipedia) is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three." - no, it doesn't mean that at all. I'm sorry but you really need to think about these !votes a little more.
• User:Fordmadoxfraud - WP:USEFUL. (A user who I'm sure a lot of AFD closers are starting to ignore now - people don't realise that when they start voting Keep or Delete exclusively, eventually admins closing AfDs tend to discount their contributions).
• User:Myheartinchile - WP:ITSSOURCED. No, it isn't.
• When even User:PeaceNT points out that this isn't salvageable, it's time to listen.

Yours, Black Kite 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, will do I saw no compelling reasions to delete:
    • User:Seraphimblade - "not verifiable" (from secondary sources it is), "personal synthesis" (anyone would come up with the same from the sources)
    • User:IllaZilla - repeast points he made in previous AfD that did NOT close as delete; focus on disputed elements of Plot and Notability as rationale, repeats erroneous lack of verifiability claim
    • User:Quale - repeats nom claims refuted above
    • User:Dlohcierekim - contrary to what he said, the article is significant to the real world as it concerns one of the most notable fictional franchises of modern times and is not even a list, so calling it indiscriminate is not accurate
    • User:Deor - personal opinion: "...I don't think..."
    • User:Sgeureka - Plot is heavily contested, so hard to "violate"; makes a reasonable case for a merge
    • User:Coasttocoast - uses "fancruft" in rationale, so rationale is discounted
    • User:Terraxos - again, repeats inaccurate claim of original research
    • User:Masterpiece2000 - no actual reason
    • User:A_Man_In_Black - again, it is not original research as refuted in the AfD
    • User:Judgesurreal777 - unquestionable notable and verifiable through reliable sources
    • User:Alientraveller - non policy or guideline based reasoning
    • two in a row repetitious non-arguments
    • User:PeaceNT - just because one user cannot find references does not mean others can't
  • Now I know some of the above posted in good faith, but the bottom line is the actual unique arguments challenge each other and most of the deletes just repeat what others said (might as well have been "per nom" as in some cases the wording is practically identical). Sufficient enough disagreement and given the previous AfD that we are left with no consensus one way or the other and so should allow editors further opportunity to improve the article as many have expressed interest in doing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • But there aren't any secondary sources at all, so how can you just discount those !votes that pointed that out? That's really not very good. Black Kite 00:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not so sure; I recall reading a review of the Alien vs Predator films that talked about the continuity among the films and I also have seen published timeslines for the Friday the 13th and Planet of the Apes series in magazines and newspapers that might not be found with ease online. Therefore, I would be somewhat shocked if saw Fangoria or Starlog never had coverage on the timeline of the series or that we couldn't cobble together reviews as secondary sources. Clearly there is a good deal of reader and editor interest here and it isn't an obvious hoax, or libel, or how to, or myspace page, or copy vio, etc., that allowing editors to keep working on it seems a fair and valid way to go. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting tale...

I thought you would like to hear about this. A while back I proposed WayForward Technologies for deletion[1]. I later raised it [2] at AfD here, which closed with No Consensus. Since then, new sources have come to light, allowing me to convert what was a stub to the current article, WayForward Technologies. Just to demonstrate that each cloud can have a silver lining. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 00:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the story. It does show the value in keeping these articles around as many do have potential. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

DRV

Look, I don't mind this DRV - but you can't just go through the list saying that "this point has been refuted" without explaining how and where it's been refuted. Please explain these comments, or else they're worthless. Black Kite 00:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is any different than your list discounting the keeps. Should I deem that list "unhelpful and insulting" to those arguing to keep? Anyway, by refuted I mean looking at the AfD and seeing where the various participants challenged the delete rationales. I think some of those who argued there did in fact make good faith and reasonable claims, which is why I am not saying you should have closed as keep, but rather as "no consensus" or to relist to see if we could get some new ideas presented in the discussion. After all Judgesurreal777, Peace NT, and sgeureka, for example, are editors who appear on my list of nice Wikipedians (as do you) and so are editors whom I respect and esteem, even if we disagree here and there. My main concern is that I do not believe the delete rationales were so overwhelming in the face of the keeps made across two AfDs as well as the unheard voices of those who created and worked on the article as well as the many readers who come to Wikipedia for the article that it was a clear cut deletion. When there are fairly strong calls to keep and for a variety of reasons and from multiple editors, I would have to say, barring a copyright concern, libel, or hoax issues, we really should close as "no consensus." If the main criticism is that it's original research, well, we're talking about a major movie series seen by millions of people world wide in theaters, on DVD, on VHS, on television, etc. These films include dates and mention how many years since any given event has occurred. These films have been covered in published magazines. It's not information being presented that one person found in an archive and is reporting to us and we're taking his word for it. Millions of people can verify the timeline. Yes, I know we have a verifiability page, but there's also just being reasonable and it is unreasonable to use a term like verifiability and say it doesn't apply to something that millions of people can verify with relative ease. It's not original research as well, because it is not an essay, doesn't have a thesis, is not some experiment one person conducted and is reporting his findings on, and nor is it an article that only one person originally worked on. Multiple editors with different motivations are hardly original researchers. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts (yes, I know, this was before I wised up and realized "per nom" is week) is original research and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's New Happening on Disney Channel India is what I would consider an unacceptable future "timeline" of sorts. But take such reviews as this, which says things like "This film takes the two popular xenomorphs and sets them in the present. As a result the film slots into the chronology after the two Predator films but before the Alien series." and "Set on Earth in the year 2004..." (such reviews and such comments mentioning specific dates and sequence of events exist for all of the films and events listed on the now deleted article and I would have been better able to add these to the article if it didn't seem necessary to go back and forth with some in the AfD). The dates and chronology and sequences of events are mentioned specifically and discussed critically in secondary source reviews of the films. So, again, I have nothing personal against you or many of those in the discussion and nor do I doubt that many acted in good faith or that every rationale presented to delete was totally baseless. I do however contend that the concerns were responded to and that if the discussion itself had ended as a no consensus then I and others would be able to use these kinds of reviews like the one I cite above to in fact improve the article in a manner that would effectively address their concerns. It is simply hard to do that and debate editors at the same time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fun!

Hey, more power to you. I'm still trying to recover from being up a bit too late on Father's Day! *yawn* BOZ (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We saw the new Hulk movie yesterday. Definitely worth seeing and after having seen the Iron Man movie. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, cool! I haven't seen either yet but would like to. Have you heard that they are supposed to be parts of an overall Avengers movie series? That is a frickin awesome idea, and there is no cooler or more appropriate way to do it. BOZ (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I definitely recommend both and that you see Iron Man and then Incredible Hulk in that order for continuity purposes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alien/Predator Sources

I used the movies as the primary source, but then as I look back AVP-R never had a date that I know of. Maybe I saw it the first time around but not the second time. The timeline was helpful, but it did need those other sources. I myself do not know how to obtain sources that don't even excist. --Tj999 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For AVP-R, what about this? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the first AvP film? --Tj999 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, but I believe AVP-R occurs in essentially the same year, i.e. really soon after the events of the first film. Regarding the timeline, if you rewatch the special edition of Aliens, in one scene Ripley holds a picture of her deceased daughter on which are dates for birth and death (even the days and months) and Burke says she died two years ago. Given that other dialogue says Aliens takes place 57 years after Alien, we should be able to correct or verify at least a few dates. Otherwise, the sequence of events can remain with a format like how we do with Star Wars, i.e. x number of years later and so on just to clarify the chronology. And we can then add a section which we can use reviews of the films that mention continuity to serve as some out of universe balance. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, everything you said there is right. When I created the timeline I watched those first two Alien Films to retreive the information and when Burke gives the picture is where I got those dates and all. What I was saying about AVP-R is : what day and month does it really take place? The year has got to be 2004 but the remainder data is unknown. I thought I once came acrossed it because why would it be so exact on the timeline? --Tj999 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My feeling at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14#Alien and Predator timeline is that we should have some additional time to cite the artilce. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that would be good. And also, this article has been up and running since the begining of this year. It has been saved I think twice and they are still after it. What about the other fictional timelines? --Tj999 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They have tried to delete those as well. Anyway, hopefully we will be able to adequately convince them at the DRV, but I'm taking a break from that per the suggestion below. I did start expanding the source coverage somewhat, but I have to teach today (first class of summer quarter), so don't have much time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been working on other articles lately. You're a teacher? How cool. Well talk to you later! --Tj999 (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a professional historian, which is why I'm usually good for finding sources others don't. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs

Hi. You have previously indicated your interest in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs, by directly editing that page before its transclusion. In order to improve the discussion there (and without trying to persuade you either to support or to oppose), I'm simply writing to tell you that the RfA is now live, and to encourage you to participate. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the note. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Responding to every post at DRV

Hi, I like you, I really do, but you should stop replying to every post that you disagree with. You need to trust the community. You need to trust that the community is able to read the arguements already made, and that the community has the intelligence to weigh all arguments made. To repeatedly make the same points is to insult the community and to weaken your own credibility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. If it is a discussion, then we should be able to respond and interact with each other without anyone feeling insulted. To be honest, I have a hard time regarding some posts there as credible when they seem to outright ignore some of what has been posted and in many cases themselves just repeat what others said and which still others had already challenged, which is why I keep feeling compelled to comment to them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed posts of minimal merit. They are not hard to pick. It helps the closer if you make an argument that defaults a weak !vote, but it doesn't help to do it repeatedly. Repetition does't help any discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your suggestion; I am just baffled by some of the "arguments" there and in the earlier AfDs. I can't imagine why anyone would not want to allow me and others to make the effort to incorporate the sources not mentioned in the AfD into the article and see how that goes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You got people's backs up. You'll probably have more luck waiting, then asking someone to usefy it for you, and working on it from there. I actually think the merge as performed was sensible, and that the material is not suitable for a stand alone article. Without prose, it has to stand as a pure navigational aid, which it isn't really. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a merge and redirect without deletion, but if you look at the bottom of the DRV (notice I didn't respond), some say that if the DRV is an endorse, then the merge must be undone, which doesn't seem right. Perhaps the discussion needs to address not only if the article should remain deleted, but if it should be merged as well and I think that whoever did the merge and anyone who edited the section since should be aware of the DRV. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Alien primary source

Hi. I don't have the DVDs available, so I looked around for sources basically in magazines and online websites. :) I understand that some specific dates or other bits of information can be found verifiable through some scenes in the films (that's quite normal ;)) but I'm unfortunately still suspicious about the verifiability of a whole timeline. As fictional timeline in general is easily liable to become original research, I often expect extensive references, preferably published by film producers directly on DVD editions, or official websites etc. But I couldn't find them. :( I think our article should have been based on a timeline fully recorded somewhere reliable. However, the fact that even the fan-website which claims to be "the most expansive timeline of the Alien films available" has to admit that part of their materials are based on assumption, guess, actor's age etc is really discouraging. I don't think we can source an entire timeline so easily just by watching scenes in the movies; if it's really that easy, an accurate timeline would have been published online long before Wikipedia, especially considering this is a renowned film series. I personally adopt a hard line on potential WP:OR and am very unlikely to change my opinion here, sorry. I might add that I admire you very much for all the effort you put in researching reference though. Best wishes, --PeaceNT (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Even if we had sections like "57 years later" rather than years, we could still present the information in the same chronological order. I think a concise table like that provides a clear understanding for readers of how the films relate to each other and in what sequence, if they do not wish to read the articles' plot sections in their entirety. I am not opposed to allowing the merge to take place and for a redirect without deletion to occur that keeps the edit history public and thereby allows for editors to better improve the article as additional sources turn up. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Halloween

I saw that you edited Halloween: Resurrection. I never seen the film but I have been fixing up the article a lot lately. Instead of working on the Alien and Predator stuff I've shifted gear to some horror stuff (even though Alien was considered horror). Do you think that the reception clean-up tag can be removed? --Tj999 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, because the section needs inline citations (footnotes). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean it needs some references? I think the whole article needs references then it would be pretty complete. --Tj999 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I also think the details section should be incorporated into other areas of the article, perhaps a section on production, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I think I am going to rent the movie, since I never seen it before, and then get all this info. --Tj999 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as my username suggests, I'm always likely to recommend the Halloween films! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Is your username French for soemthing like The Great Pumpking? --Tj999 (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the Great Pumpkin King of Halloween... Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that's great! I am the Imaginative King of Randomness. --Tj999 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually do grow real pumpkins where I live, too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pumpkins are awsome. Oh and most of the trivia from the Halloween: Resurrection page looks like it is from http://www.brimstone.org/horrormovies.php?mode=show_movie_info&movie_id=323. How do you reference all that without making it look slopy? --Tj999 (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

They are indeed and I'm still hoping some reason comes to this discussion, but anyway, I think the content of that section on the Resurrection article needs to be distributed throughout the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll think of a way to distribute the content. Also I'll check into the discussion. --Tj999 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you notice, I moved some of the trivia items as explanatory footnotes on casting and moved others to an all new section on the film's production. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's a great way to do it. Also, once we solve Resurrection's problems I think H20 needs the same fix up. --Tj999 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Imagine how much we'd get accomplished if we could focus on making thesse revisions, without others unwilling to make the revisions trying to just remove some of these articles altogether. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah really! "Don't delet, just complete" that could be our saying. I just added in another reference. I kind of had the code all screwed up for a while, but I fixed it. --Tj999 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's good. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Man, I wish contacting on here was easier. --Tj999 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Enemies in Legend of Zelda

Hi, and thanks for the kind words left on my userpage. I do have to agree that the hardcore deletionists are enough to make me want to put my forehead through the keyboard, and I'm glad there are people left who are still willing to fight for the rights of the much maligned "pop culture" and "alleged gamecruft" articles. Sadly, most inclusionists are nowhere near as committed as the self-appointed cleanup crews, but hopefully Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series has gotten enough support (and revoked delete votes) that it'll be closed as No Consensus instead of keep. If it is deleted, I'll certainly be taking it before DRV. The argument has yet to end over there, by the way. McJeff (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. And, yes, you make good points. My main hope at present is that this, this, this, this, and this end with the articles kept, which are the ones I have probably worked hardest on lately. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tottering Blotspurs

Hey, good catch; even if it's not Eryian, isn't what he's outlined on his user page a sockpuppetry violation in and of itself? BOZ (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the first three AfD posts by the account are in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titans (Crash of the Titans), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza delivery in popular culture (second nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Quest VIII characters, all posts after me, I can't help but suspect it happens to be some anti-inclusionist opposed to myself and others who believe in these sorts of articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Now, having an alternate account and getting that incivil with it could lead to some bad stuff for both accounts. Nice work, digging that one up! BOZ (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, look at the kinds of posts made in the above AfDs for example. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, how clever on spotting an alternate account clearly tagged as an alternate account. You must have remarkable powers of observation. As for trouble I have not been incivil to any specific editor despite plenty deserving it, so I am not exactly quaking in my boots here. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have listed the multiple examples of incivility at the Request for Checkuser. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is heading towards WikiStalking as well, if it's not already there. BOZ (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. Gossiping about me on here and filing frivolous checkusers because I voted to delete some articles is definitely WikiStalking. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Boz is obviously referring to your first three AfD posts being in AfDs after me, somehow happening upon the Checkuser case, and then coming to my talk page. The checkuser is necessary as whoever you are, it is not acceptable to create an alternate account for pointed and incivil purposes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're out of line on this one, pumpkin king. The account in question has only posted civil arguments in AfD, stating opinions that happen to disgree with yours but also happen to be well-grounded in Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Those comments will be judged on their merits by the closing admins. I can see why someone would chose to do so anonymously if this is the kind of out-of-proportion response that reasonable participation in AfD can garner. The user page comments are not an explicit personal attack on anyone in particular. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Calling a whole group of editors "acne-ridden mongoloid fanboys obsessed with keeping every single piece of crap ever written" is unacceptable. Making further derogatory comments about teenage editors in unacceptable. Pure and simple. The account had posted incivil arguments in AfDs (assuming editors would not read his comments, calling discussion harassment, etc.), stating opinions not grounded in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, etc. Whoever this is is not using an alternate account in a legitimate way. Period. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You may want to be aware of this discussion in NOTE

There is currently an active discussion in WT:NOTE here regarding if there was a proposed rewrite of NOTE, what would people want to see. Knowing your stance on fiction topics, you may want to add your two cents here (I'm trying to make sure to note that there people that want inclusion of fiction in WP but right now that side is not well represented). --MASEM 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I have commented accordingly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

joining the ranks of the admins

Thanks for your thoughtful and kind words in my successful RfA. Now I’m off to do some fixin'... Pinkville (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Continue Resurrection Edits

Do you think that the remaining Halloween: Resurrection trivia info can be deleted. Some of it is useful, but I don't know how to fit it in with the other stuff. --Tj999 (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I did what I could there. Don't hesitate to reorder the sections if you think there's a more logical way of doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh nice, that makes it more organized. I'll see what else should be done then. --Tj999 (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you might wanna take a look at it now. The article has come a long way. --Tj999 (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check it out. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, when I went to the rental store Resurrection was currently unavailible so I will try to get it next week. --Tj999 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't help but recommend any film having to do with my favorite holiday. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Halloween is the best! Also, I added a music section under production just so that the article has more information. Do you think that is good? Though, I will need to expand the music section. --Tj999 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good call. I did correct one bit of grammar there: "it's" means "it is", while "its" is the possessive pronoun. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for catching that. I always goof stuff up like that. Also, I did have the reference wrong in the music section but I fixed it. I also just added in some more references which I believe make the article eligable for that tag to be removed. So I removed the tag and if it needs more references than we can just add them. --Tj999 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you should go take a look at Halloween: H20. I started making similar changes to it as Resurrection's.--Tj999 (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do so momentarily. I see someone from a published book with dates at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14#Alien and Predator timeline. I can't believe even that was dismissed by some. Anyway, I'm going down my watchlist at the moment and will look at the Halloween H20 article when I finish. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll check out the alien stuff. --Tj999 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have started going through the Halloween article per your request. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I saw. Thank you. I reformated that article so that it was in the similare look as Resurrection. --Tj999 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and it may be worthwhile seeing if there is a horror movie wiki project to notify of our efforts. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror. I think I am going to join that. --Tj999 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Alien/Participants. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I belong to that one. --Tj999 (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I joined the horror one as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. Now where should we go from here? Halloween 6? --Tj999 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I shall check it out momentarily. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I saw your edits. I also reorganized the article so it's in a good format like 7 and 8 are. --Tj999 (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium ^Talk 01:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for welcoming me to wikipedia! I hope we can be friends! ^_^ Missingno255 (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Username

"Sephiroth" is a reference to the Final Fantasy VII character Sephiroth and "BCR" refers to my initials. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Thanks for the reply! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

helpme

First thank you for the welcome, so nice on a sunday. I am fairly new to Wiki and still learning.

I had an article about Johnny Cooper American musician aka John Robert Cooper deleted. I am really puzzled after the history of working on the page.

Can you verify for me that I have done the right thing in going to the person who deleted the page and have ask them to let me know why? It looked as if it was deleted because "not all real people" should have a page.

I started the article several months ago and thought I had resolved the issue that he should have an article. He is a real person, living, and musician, singer, songwriter. His work is with BMI and copyrighted, not to mention that he has won awards.

I appreciate any insights into the process of restoring the page.

Cheers Sharon Sharonbrain2 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! The main thing is to indeed discuss the article with the deleting admin, which it looks like you have done. Keeper76 is a reasonable person and if you are able to find additional sources, you may request that he userfy the article for you, work on it further and then see if the revised version is acceptable. The key is to add as many inline citations with newspaper or magazine sources as you can to clearly indicate notability and verifiability. I hope that helps! By the way, my mother is named "Sharon" also.  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

i have a question

do you know how to take an image on commons, and find out every location it is at on wikimedia?

Hello! Unfortunately, I have never used commons and so am not sure. What I would recommend doing is to try Help:Contents. Best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Dorftrottel

Following this AN thread, and after abandoning my former account, I've decided to file a request for comment on my user conduct. Due to our common past, I figured you may be interested in it. If you can find the time, your input would be highly appreciated. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will comment there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaking RfC for RfAr. You didn't make any suggestions or anything as to how I should iyo improve my behaviour. And please stop stalking my contribs. You wouldn't want your own to be stalked. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Before either of you go crazy here. --Dorftrottel, you first: Two dancers needed for a tango. LGRdC isn't stalking you anymore than you are stalking him by commenting on many RFAs AFDs to counteract what you feel is poor logic of Le Grande. Second to LeGrandRoideCitrouelle: That was quite a flame on the RFC, and I agree perhaps a suggestion for improvement could have replaced the 100s of diffs you provided as evidence for arbitration instead of comments for a user. Dorftrottel started the RFC himself, deserves some criticism for his actions certainly, and asked you to comment there (he didn't have to do that). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeper76, thank you for the comments, but after looking at the history of twenty-two blocks, including indefinites, and for serious matters, the ignoring of warnings and suggestions from admins and the continued incivility, I am not sure that whatever positives here outweigh the negatives and that simple suggestions will work. I have tried to discuss civily with him in the past and sometimes we seemed to be maybe getting somewhere, but ultimately it just hasn't worked. I really do believe in giving people second chances and all, but the extent and nature of the blocks and warnings are pretty severe and so I do not believe a simple "try to be more civil" is going to work. I of course do appreciate and respect that he did ask me to comment. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You asked me to comment there, which is why for the purpose of the RfC I looked at your recent history. As for suggestions, I am not sure what to say, honestly, given the history. Obviously I would prefer if you argued to keep at least occasionally (after all, even as strong an inclusionist as me still does argue to delete, and if I can argue to delete, others can make the effort to argue to keep, which if nothing else shows balance and an element of being unbiased) and not in a sarcastic manner. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am always for keeping when there is any justifiable basis for doing so. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What would be helpful would be if you could point out any good or featured articles you created to off-set the negative stuff, i.e. if then I could say, "Okay, there's a behavior concern, but he has done x, y, and z and so we should try to work with him further." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• (I put this in the RfC, but don't know how closely you are following it.) Other problems include disruptive/sarcastic comments in RfAs and AfDs. — Don't you see anything questionable about your own behaviour at RfA and AfD? Wrt the RfA example: Sorry if it offended you, but don't be oversensitive. Yes, it was a jab at you, but wth. As to the AfD example: What makes you assume that I was being sarcastic there as opposed to honest? (For the record: I was honest there and there is nothing sarcastic about that AfD comment whatsoever.) Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding the AfD, my suspicions is that it follows this comment, i.e. after saying, "Are you trying to say I'm stupid or too lazy to look for sources?" You then said, "Was too lazy for a thorough search for sources..." How else should one read that? Regarding my own comments in AfDs, I started User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope that my wiki-mentors would read it and offer advice at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions as I will respect suggestions made by Chaser and Durova, whom I consider relatively neutral and unbiased as to AfDs. If you are serious about staying, then maybe you might want to consider Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, where someone unbiased could also help you? I guess the bottom line thing is we simply shouldn't make "jabs" at each other. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Email

Got your e-mail - I'm not ignoring it but am rather busy IRL and am watching some tuff on WP. Just to let you know. I will reply. Pedro :  Chat  13:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Project News SummerSlam (1988) and SummerSlam (2007) have both failed their Featured Article Candidacy's, their review pages can be found here and here, respectively. List of WWE SmackDown video game titles (link) has been nominated for Featured List status. IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship (link) has been nominated for removal as a Featured List. Paul London, SummerSlam (2004), Survivor Series (1994), and WWE SmackDown (video game series) are currently Good article candidates. Backlash (2007) (link), Unforgiven (2006) (link), The Rock (entertainer) (link), One Night Stand (2007) (link), The Great American Bash (2007) (link) and Royal Rumble (2005) (link) have been elevated to Good article status. Over the Edge (1999) has passed its reassessment and is now a good article! The article's reassessment can be found here. A pay-per-view event chronology has been added as a feature to the Wrestling event infobox, please assist the project in adding this feature to professional wrestling pay-per-view event articles. The C-Class rating has been introduced. The rating falls between articles that are more than Start class, but less than B-Class. The Month in Wrestling History June 1, 1998 - Junkyard Dog died at the age of forty-five in an automobile accident. June 2, 2003 - Freddie Blassie died at the age of eighty-five from natural causes. June 10, 1983 - Harley Race defeated Ric Flair for the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. June 13, 1982- "High Chief" Peter Maivia died of cancer at forty-seven. June 13, 1993 - Yokozuna defeated Hulk Hogan for the WWF Heavyweight title. June 19 2002 - AJ Styles became the first TNA X Division Champion. 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 5 17 42 64 B 1 13 67 206 287 C 1 7 36 44 Start 2 53 211 2312 2578 Stub 1 24 604 629 Assessed 3 74 333 3218 3628 Total 3 74 333 3218 3628

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 389 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. On the calendar: 8 - TNA presents Slammiversary 10 - Chandlerjoeyross's birthday 10 - King Gemini's birthday 11 - Wweisreal's birthday 20 - Umdunno's birthday Current Events James Yun was suspended for 30 days for violating WWE's Wellness Policy. Vince McMahon was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Promax|BDA Conference for "for his remarkable accomplishments and innovations in global marketing, advertising and promotion." WWE is currently holding "Million Dollar Mania", where they give out prize money totalling $1 million on Raw to viewers watching the show at home. Collaboration of the Week The article collaboration for June 22 through July 5 is James Yun. The Featured article collaboration is Candice Michelle . 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, July 5. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Articles for Deletion Current: Mark Beale. Kept: Triplemania, Antonio Peña. Redirected: Deleted: All Action Wrestling. From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: iMatthew (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) SRX (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

Delivered: 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Your RfA supports

Support due to no negative interactions
I don't want to disrupt any particular RfA, since you seem to use this rationale quite commonly. I'm concerned that this support may be read as meaning "I have no idea who this candidate is, but I support them anyway." and I wonder if you could find a less ambiguous way of saying what you mean (which I do not presume to guess). But, for example, if you support someone because they are an inclusionist (or because there is no evidence that they are a deletionist) then I think you will be respected for saying so clearly and distinctly. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! In RfAs, I like to say something that no one else has said, so in the case of those where I say I support "due to no negative interactions" it means that I have looked at their AfDs, but see nothing there to persuade me strongly one way or the other and so there's nothing I can add about those, I agree in effect with the other reasons as to why to support, but do not want to just repeat what someone else said, and I am also pleased that I have never had any bad experiences with them (which sometimes means that any experiences I have had were obviously therefore positive). Plus, I like to vary my comments in RfAs:

• • • [3]: "Support per recent friendly usertalk page interaction as well as strong argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldmember."
    • [4]: "Support as he's a good article contributor."

Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism

Thanks for the reverts. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)