User talk:Ikip

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #34

We have something in common

Hello, Travb!

We have something in common: I almost never vote "delete" at AfDs. As about "wiki-suicides", I have seen at least two very good users who did precisely that, one of them this user. You must be very careful because of that. As this place becomes increasingly hostile, I am very happy to meet someone friendly. Thank you for your kind words! Biophys (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is married to a Kazaki and who has a Ukrainian step son, who spent 3 years in Ukraine and love the Ukrainians more than Americans, I can sympathize with those who believe that western media Putin criticism is severe and unwarranted. Some of those criticisms which were deleted were peity. That said, they were very well sourced and well referenced, so they belong on wikipedia, no matter my own personal opinion. It is very difficult to find sources to support opposing POV, it is much easier to delete other people's contributions. Wikipedia focuses way to much on the deletion process. I may not agree with your POV Biophys, but as long as you have well refenced sources to support your POV, I will vigorously defend your views.

I am sorry to hear about your friends. travb (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what my POV you are talking about. I never edited article Criticism of Vladimir Putin and made very few edits in Putin, simply because I am not interested in his person. What really makes the difference are the "elites", certain social groups and organizations acting in the world. That is something I am interested in, and I know some of those organizations first-hand after living in the former Soviet Union and after reading a number of books. I am happy that you like Kazakh and Ukrainian people, but this has nothing to do with Putin. Thanks again.Biophys (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what POV of yours I am talking about either. Just to clarify, I lived and met my wife in Odessa, a strong Russian enclave. Many former Soviet Republics people's sympathize with Putin.

Indeed, some of my relatives (who now live in Russia) are very much "pro-Putin". Some changed their mind after beginning of the current economic crisis. I sometimes watch Russian TV and read their news. The Soviet-style propaganda is enormous, especially after the beginning of Russian-Georgian war. They are trying to convince people in the following equation: Russia (as a country)=Russian government/state=The Leader. It works and affects WP. Surprisingly, US is still regarded as the "main adversary", but UK is coming very close in the list of "enemies", especially after Berezovsky, Zakayev and Litvinenko affairs. I was really disturbed watching their new movies that glorify NKVD and Stalinist past. Something like Cargo 200 is extremely rare and publicly condemned.Biophys (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am troubled by the hero worship of Stalin also, but in a county with such a explosive past, I can understand a little why people are willing to give up so much for stability. The US is the main adversary. Thanks for the movie link. I was troubled, but not surprised, about how the US media portrayed the Georgian Russian War.travb (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if you have seen this movie. If not, it definitely worth watching. I think this is best Russian movie during a few last years, and definitely much better than anything else by Balabanov. As about war coverage, that was probably one of the best by a Russian journalist (five parts in reverse order):[1],[2],[3],[4],[5].Biophys (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still can not swallow your words about "main adversary". Main adversary of Russian people is Putinist kleptocracy and not the United States. Of course, one could reasonably argue that Putinist kleptocracy is also a product of Russian people, but that does not really change the picture: even an individual person can be the worst adversary of himself...Biophys (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a wonderful New Years! Looking forward to editing with you next year! travb (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Gekritzl/Deletion gestapo

Hi Travb - thanks for cleaning up my Deletion gestapo article! Good job. Also, I'll try to activate my email again, thanks. Regards, Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Replacement for your template

Template:Undeleted Please tell me what you think, and if you would like to help make it better. ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(Sumimasen! Dochira samaka?)} 03:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

response on your talk page.travb (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about External Links for Hume article

Hi. I was just wondering why you eliminated the link to the MediaWiki in the village of Hume, Illinois article. I'm learning the intricacy of the Wikipedia, so thanks for your patience... Your edit: 17:36, 30 December 2008 Hume, Illinois ‎ (→External links) wbakker2 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the link was broken when I tried it. travb (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hildebrandt

Actually, not even close. Current version is unsourced. Which is odd as I added some cites to media. Not enough, but I tried. Sourcing has been a problem as some of it is not on the internet. If you could wade through the thing, repairing the content and sourcing, without adding fluff, I'd appreciate it. The article needs an experienced editor if it is to stand a chance. I haven't the time or energy. Cheers, Dlohcierekim

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ysabella_Brave

I find your comments about me on this page offensive. Please voice opinions about articles, not editors. And AfD discussion pages are inappropriate forums for anything other than discussions of notability and surrounding issues. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I refactored my comments, my apologies. There is enough issues about the AfD which need to be addressed already, without adding more personal comments.

Thanks for removing the template on your own reconnaissance.

Only marginally on topic, I recently found: Wikipedia:Don't_template_the_regulars, a nifty essay, although I personally will "Heed (this essay) or not at (my) own discretion.". There is nothing like a big stop sign with a fiery background to liven up the discussion. User:Inclusionist#Do_not_delete_information_tag travb (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, someone with 25,000+ edits doesn't need to be templated. There is a template somewhere that simply inserts "be nice" text, but it was simpler and probably more meaningful to just write the comment personally.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You inspired me: User:Inclusionist/irony, a modification of a nasty template which was posted on my page years ago. travb (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Jews

RE: Stereotypes of Jews

Hey. Thanks for the note and your vote. :) I'm not going to expend too much energy on this matter, but if they delete it, then I'll move for deletion of the A-A article on the same grounds. Like I said, "What's good for the goose...." ;) Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It definitely is a stub, and it probably will be deleted. Please help me find sources to support its existence:

User:RWV/Del#Notability.2C_Verifiability.2C_No_original_research travb (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I wonder if your last edit reverted to the "wrong" version, if you were trying to keep a version with some content? It's currently pretty empty. Hope this helps, best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved it all to the talk page on second thought. It was all unsourced, I changed my vote from keep to merge, you are welcome to revert me. travb (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see! no worries, I should have just kept stumm. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD may have been closed prematurely

Hello Inclusionist. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews (2nd nomination) due to nominator withdrawal, yet this is not supposed to be done if anyone else has expressed a delete opinion. Now someone in the 3rd AfD is complaining that a new AfD was started so soon after the close of the previous one. It's extra unusual for you as an AfD participant to be the one to do the close, unless it's an obvious uncontroversial SNOW situation with no contrary votes. You'd be able to fix this if you would undo your close, and perhaps even combine the comments. If you stand by the close of AfD 2, please add your signature there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your a gift from above. I will reopen gladly. travb (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Art of Being Right

Hello there, I came across your page by chance, since you added a US tort law case, and then I started reading your page, and various bits of advice. It's entertaining and interesting. I just wanted to say, since you've got a page up for logical fallacies there, which you recommend people should learn, have you read this book by Arthur Schopenhauer? I thought you might like it. It's perhaps an authoritative version of the same thing (although the one you have probably adds in more, with the classical stuff). I've wanted one day to sit down and remember which number each one is which (he's got 38) and be able to reference them: "sorry, that won't wash, see Schopenhauer 19", but haven't found the time. Here it is on Wikisource too. The best bit of advice I got on Wikipedia is just to do stuff nobody cares about, and usually nobody complains. In particular, if you look at how poor the majority of academic (ie university level) subject pages are... All the best, Wikidea 13:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL: I love that one:

"The best bit of advice I got on Wikipedia is just to do stuff nobody cares about, and usually nobody complains."

I will add it to my long, long, long rant (user page).

I will check out the page, best wishes. I hope we cross paths again. I love how many smart people are on wikipedia, like yourself, I learn something everyday! travb (talk)

Wow, thank you! amazing how a short entry, taking 5 minutes of time, can bring so much joy to someone else's life, thank you for introducing me to Arthur Schopenhauer! travb (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kurt

You seem to be acting as if Majorly, Macy and I have some sort of hidden agenda against Kurt. Yes, I voted for his ban and against his arbcom, but was I alone in either? Not by a long shot. I'd have nominated the pages just the same if Kurt had stayed. I just didn't think the pages were appropriate (how is a list of AfDs where he said "speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters, let's fight this so-called 'notability' garbage" not POINTy, as he was basically asking everyone to "fight" along with him — and in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanny Grace, his tactic actually worked?). For the record, I have nothing against Kurt, and I certainly did not get into cahoots with Majorly, Macy, or anyone else over it. I just don't think that his subpages are appropriate, and you're welcome to disagree with me, but using my opinion in Kurt's ban and arbcom against me is going a little too far, don't you think? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• So why did you bring up my support of his ban and my oppose of his arbcom in the mfd discussions anyway? They're immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can you explain this [6]? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Saving face

RE: [7]:

I have counseled other editors never to get another editor riled up, because they will do everything in their power to stop you. I got riled up recently too, and did exactly this. I should follow my own advice more often. Honey attracts bees better than vinegar. Maybe I should have approached this merge discussion differently. No, I know I should have. I could have talked this through on your talk page first, and used less inflammatory language. I am sorry. It may have seemed like I set up my case for unmerge also as a case against you. So now that I have the sources, it doesn't matter. Is there anyway that both of us can save face and recreate these articles? I will refactor my comments to be less aggressive towards you. I apologize. travb (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I should probably step back too, its easy to get angry over this sort of stuff, and I can see I was starting to get aggressive too. I have no hard feelings towards you, although I must admit, your username instantly created an impression in my mind about how you were going to go about things, I've had bad experiences with both inclusionists and deletionists and tend to stick to just writing the articles rather than getting involved in the areas of Wikipedia where those philosophies face off with each other. I do apologise if I've come off as being aggressive, pretentious or otherwise negative, I imagine I have.

Look, I would like to have these articles recreated, but I'm torn with trying to ensure that if those articles are recreated then they are of a proper quality, rather than bare minimum. I was the one who wrote most of the current version of the Insurrection article before merging it, it was a somewhat reluctant move to merge on my part. The sources you provided don't provide right sort of information an editor would need to write the likes of the development and reception sections you can see in StarCraft (FA) or StarCraft: Brood War (GA), or other expansion pack articles like Half-Life: Blue Shift (GA) and Half-Life: Decay (GA). What is really needed in dedicated articles is the realms of previews and reviews of the game, like that GameSpot review (thats the only reliable source I came back with after weeks of searching back in 07). That's the sort of stuff you should be looking for. From my experience with writing GA's on WP, the only real way to properly create a solid base for a quality article is with around ten solid sources, comprising of previews (+ developer interviews) and reviews; other types of sources can furnish and sharpen that information.

Those print sources are probably the best starting point, but we need to actually see what they say to add information to the articles. There may be online versions or scans of those articles out there. I can't speak German though, so I'm utterly lost with at least one of them. However, we must also bear in mind that even though we may be able to support a basic article with these sources, we may never be able to get it to a reasonably B-class or GA quality article. That's why I merged the articles, not out of some TTN-esque crusade against cruft or desire to delete other people's work, but out of an effort to ensure that the coverage was of a reasonable quality as I wasn't getting anywhere with trying to write an individual article: I'm sure you agree that neither of the articles in their current state is particularly good. If all else fails, then any sources that provide useful information beyond what's already there (that one that mentioned sales is an excellent example, I'll throw that one into the series article later) can be incorporated into the merged version in the series article - there's no harm in adding to that version to make it as comprehensive as possible. I hope this helps explain my actions a bit better, and outlines quite what sort of sources should be pursued to get the groundwork for proper coverage of these subjects. -- Sabre (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

must admit, your username instantly created an impression in my mind about how you were going to go about things, I've had bad experiences with both inclusionists and deletionists and tend to stick to just writing the articles rather than getting involved in the areas of Wikipedia where those philosophies face off with each other

I have considered moving my user name back to travb. That is why I changed my handle to travb. My current name is a fitting one though, and was ecstatic when I found it.

"TTN-esque crusade" I love it! I love it. I have never heard a person's name be so trashed. We had a run in about 3 years ago.

I hate the notability guidelines, and all the bastard children it has spawned. Notability is the number one reason articles get deleted on wikipedia. I will do everything in my power to undermine notability, but it is universally harnessed, so I am forced to follow it, even though it is not a policy. I have a very broad view of wikipedia, along the lines of Wikipedia:Paper, and earlier wikipedia. My views on the subject are so strong, I have been indefinitely banned for them.

I reverted my undoing of the merges. I have let the starcraft community know about the merge discussion.

Maybe I will come back to this, maybe not. I am just happy that everything can be found in the history, so I am not satisfied. travb (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, adding the discussion to WP:VG, instead of the Starcraft pages was genius. Those who tend to congregate on the policy pages, including WP:VG are those who enjoy enforcing those policies. I guess this whole comment is irrelevant, because maybe this wasn't your intention. But if you are a charismatic editor you would never admit this publicly that it was your intention, even if it was. Anyway. Cheers. travb (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I go to WP:VG for nearly all things, whenever I need help finding sources use in an article, suggestions on structuring an article, copyediting, drawing attention to things I'm not sure about, discussing article content and processes from FAs to merges. Its just what I do, its my main port of call for other people; those people are generally the ones who have written so many FA and GAs on the subject that they can offer good opinions on most areas of VG editing. That there are people who deal with policy construction - on both sides of the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum - there never really crossed my mind before (but you are free to believe otherwise if you wish). As for letting the StarCraft editing community know, I'm not sure there's really much of a community left any more. Those that got StarCraft to a featured article all those years back left ages ago before I started seriously editting, they seem to have ended up on that StarCraft Wikia where they can work on producing a fan version of the info rather than a encyclopedia version. It was only really only User:The Clawed One and I who got most of the fiction articles to GA, and User:Gary King and I who got the product ones up. Clawed One doesn't edit much any more, and mostly on other subjects these days, and Gary King gets through subjects at a very high rate in pursuit of getting them to featured topics - once they're there, he moves on. It's pretty much only me who maintains the SC areas these days, save for the odd editor who adds key updates to the SC2 article, and widening my scope to other franchises has taken me away from SC in recent months. -- Sabre (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe when Starcraft 2 finally has a solid date, the communitte will come back--you are right there must not be any community, because despite posting on those three talk pages, no one responded. travb (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me wishy washy

Ok, I was asked about deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people per G4 because the article up for nom was a somewhat different nom and the august 27th version I had reverted to was not the same article nominated on August 28th. I've reopened the debate and invite you to put in your two cents concerning the reverted to version. The version as of Jan 3 was a clear G10.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up, I really am torn on this issue, and have nothing more to say really. travb (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Brief FICT history

I proposed the old draft of FICT around Feb/March 08. After some work, it was put up for a wide RFC to gain consensus but it did not get any, so it was marked ... I think historical or the like, but enough that it was clear it wasn't an accepted version. Phil proposed the current version of FICT that basically has morphed to the "three prong" test around Nov 2008, which is completely different from my proposal, and in a few days Phil plans to widely announce the proposal to various boards to gain consensus. --MASEM 05:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Eric Wone

You said "keep as per Benjiboi", but Benjiboi's !vote was to delete. A mistake? -kotra (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ouch. thanks travb (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In appreciation of your fine work

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your successful efforts in strengthening the content and character of Wikipedia. Your work is greatly appreciated. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we never interacted. And double no, that is not an error -- you showed kindness to a new editor (the fella who wrote up the Paul Thomas Abbott article) by detailing his options in fighting the AfD nomination. You're a class act and you deserve praise. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so kind...

...as to move your comments in the RfC into the discussion block under your !vote? It would really simplify things to hold conversations/opinions somewhere other than the tally area. Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why bother?

Whenever I trawl through pages of wikipolitics and bureaucracy from the discontents, the corrupt or just the curious, one question repeatedly comes to mind: why bother? I ask this because no one is being paid.--Mongreilf (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I hope I can give you a satisfactory answer sir/ma'am. What surprised everyone about the success of wikipedia--how can so many people do so much work for free? I love working on wikipedia, have over 26,000 edits, and have written almost 100 new articles. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally came to wikipedia to discuss politics, and was using wikipedia as a forum to express and debate my marginalized, minority beliefs. I quickly realized the potential of wikipedia, as not only a way to share my minority (well sourced) views to a wider audience (most articles are in the top 10 on google), but as a revolutionary way to change the way the world gets its information.

In a society so capitalist as America, it is often hard for people to understand why someone does something for free. I think wikipedians are like painters and artists, they love doing what they do not for the money, but for the simple pleasure of it.

I see the wikipedians who push around other wikipedians the same way the New York Times Book Review, and every outside journalist who reports on the deletion/inclusion debate see it:

"There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work...Notability purges' are being executed throughout Wikipedia by empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors...Your words are polite, yeah, but your actions are obscene."

I hope that answers your question, thanks for giving me a chance to reflect.

travb (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me a little, I completely understand the good works that are done for free, it is why the empire builders and bullies etc do it that mystifies me. They could be running countries in West Africa, for instance, or their local school board. Oh hang on, now i get it--Mongreilf (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

See User:Inclusionist#A_surprisingly_frank_admission_by_a_former_Wikipedian this user and I argued at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stir_of_Echoes:_The_Dead_Speak. I think the bullies have little power in their lives, and use wikipedia as a way to feel valuable and important. Does this help? Thanks again for your messages. What do you think? travb (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I read that already. You have a very interesting user page. I think wikipedia rewards the tenacious (obviously) and tenacity without need or talent is usually an Wiktionary:odious thing, as neurosis or other character disorders are often its engine. I wonder what system you could construct that would reward the reasonable.--Mongreilf (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have often thought that it would be possible to get a group of deletion editors (or wikipedians as a whole for that matter) together and test to see what makes them tick, and what their basic mentality is as a group.

Fascinating observation Mongreilf, I am glad you found my page and posted here.

Any suggestion on how to reward the reasonable? I guess you first must define what "reasonable" is.

There are several more prominent, more effective, more articulate, and more intelligent inclusionist than me: User:Inclusionist#Inclusionists. I just met two today. you may really like his studies: User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey. Tell me what you find. I enjoy talking with you. travb (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm not really inclusionist or deletionist btw, though i probably lean towards include and improve because wikipedia is a work in progress. i'm more interested in the why and how of people getting what they want into this place. the naked short selling/gary weiss/wordbomb business for instance.--Mongreilf (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard vaguely about the D & D gary, but not this other gary, what is this all about? Are you Ukrainian? Maya Jena e sin Ukrainkits. I lived in Odessa for 2 years. Facinating case about those boys. I was checking out your edit history.travb (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence travb (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Atomic bombings

Thanks for the heads up. I've merged the missing material back into Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Which makes that article too long, which means it will just get split out again per WP:PRESERVE. LOL. Round and round we go! -- Kendrick7^talk 19:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

oh i love it! That is a wonderful acronym to use in deletion debates! Thank you so much! And it is a POLICY page.

Have anymore good acronyms? travb (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that page (WP:EP) was one of the first policies I read, and I subsequently forgot where I read it (which lead eventually to me writing the WP:NOONUS essay, which, needless to say, the deletionists got "userfied" via an AFD). It's what I love about the project -- that it's an encyclopedia of all human knowledge, all of which should fit into a pigeon hole somewhere, and what I like least about it, that various users insist in WP:GAMEing the system to try and keep our readers ignorant about subjects about which they would prefer a cloak of ignorance to remain. As an intellectual, I don't understand that at all. But, there are rays of hope -- the edits I mentioned about were not immediately reverted and the edit war, for which I forked the sub-article to begin with, did not resume. It's nice to see! -- Kendrick7^talk 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gaming the system and WP:NOONUS is excellent also, thank you!

I put your WP:PRESERVE to the test at Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#Wikipedia:PRESERVE. It worked wonderfully! I have found that you know you have won the debate when editors first start telling you that you are wikilawyering, then start personally insulting you.

I also made WP:PRESERVE the center piece of my page teaching other article creator editors how to defend their work in an Article for Deletion. (suggestions and edits are welcome) I message creators of articles how they can defend against these deletions, with a link to this page.

I would strongly suggest adding the Template:User Article Rescue Squadron and Template:User inc prominently at the top of your user page. Other editors need to know about groups which support the inclusion of their work.

Its funny, working on general deletion is much more civilized and tolerated than working on articles with my marginalized political views. I have been notifying creators of article for deletion articles for weeks, with no repercussions. The entire first week I was expecting a swift and nasty response, similar to my treatment on political articles, but none ever came. travb (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, trav. I wish I had the time to be as active a user as I used to be, but it's nice to see someone else that has come along and picked up the slack. I'll grab those templates when I can come back on a fuller time basis. Thanks again. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Village Pump question

You may want to look at {{FAQ}}. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack

I reverted your removal of a link to Wikipedia:Coatrack from the Biographies of living persons policy. See the comment on the talk page. I'd like to discuss before removing this longstanding fixture from the policy. --TS 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. travb (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"I'd rather fix the damn pipe than complain about having wet feet."

I am honored. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusionist help

Hi Travb - Some deletionist has nominated the entire article on Riff driven songs for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riff_driven and vote whether to delete or keep the article. Thanks! Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Well done, thank you Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Regarding User:Inclusionist/Del - looks good, I'll read the whole thing later. Wish others would also take heed. :) Geĸrίtzl (talk)

TravB, have you looked at my user page? I mention that I gave up, because of demoralizing deletionists. But you inspire me to try to remain steadfast -- thank you. Let's help one another. Do you know of any other inclusionists, especially those with WP power? Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Thank you, that makes me feel real good. I saw your user page weeks ago, I was sorry too see it after I read your excellent gestapo article.

Funny you should ask. I have been collecting a list:User:Inclusionist#Inclusionists. Also WP:Article Rescue Squadron is the best place to find groups of inclusionists (although don't call them "inclusionists", they are peculiar that way).

I am not sure which ones in my list are admins.

One suggestion: drop the titles "deletionist". If you want to thrive on wikipedia, you need to be more Passive Aggressive. I write about this on my opinion section of my talk page.

Instead of calling editors deletionists, call them delete editors, or editors who delete. Its assine, but that is the way wikipedia works.

Excuse me, but I just realized some j*** a** deleted a picture off of my user page. travb (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Opps, nevermind, I am in fact that jack ass who removed my picture of my user page. I am kind of sensitive about that, after the user page picture purges of 3 years ago. travb (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Newfoundland Trail

RE: User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt#Quoted_you_in_an_AfD

Thanks for quoting me. I added the trail info to the Spruce Woods Provincial Park article... essentially and for all intents and purposes a "pre-emptive" merge. Someone had slapped a speedy on it and it might not have lasted until the end of the AfD. And point of fact, it really does belong in the larger article...where it has context and where readers might expect to read information about that trail in that park. I opined as much at the trail AfD with one of the most polite "delete" !votes ever made. No wet feet, indeed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful. I love preemptive merges. We should create an essay about them. I learned that it is much harder to delete material editors don't like in a large article then in a smaller, less popular, more vulnerable article, see my comments #Atomic bombings above.travb (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I just speedy deleted one of these articles because of copyright violations. But in principle, I agree that articles about trails that are particularly long, particularly used, historic in some way should be kept. However, it's safer to merge all the little stubs into more developed (and more interesting) articles that place these trails in a larger, coherent context. (And from a purely tactical inclusionist-pov, it's also easier to avoid deletion) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree about merging articles. Thanks for your comments. travb (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if my comments are particularly welcome here, since I am apparently an evil "delete editor" but here goes anyway:I nommed these articles because they didn't meet WP:N. Now I know the hard-core inclusionist crowd hates that particular guideline, but there it is. I don't have any problem with the way this is turning out, mergers are just fine with me. What I don't like is when folks try to turn a single AfD into a wider debate on "deletionist versus inclusionist". As a matter of fact, I don't consider myself a "deletionist" at all, I'm just another editor who sometimes nominates things for AfD, and I don't think creating a polarized "you're with us or you're against us" situation is a good idea. If you all are actually worried about driving away editors, that kind of confrontational thinking is one way it happens. And, as far as the above remark from Pascal, doing anything from a "purely tactical inclusionist-pov" is a bad idea. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. With very few exceptions, most folks on the "other side" do not think in these terms. They don't care about "tactics" or winning or losing some grand struggle to shrink or expand Wikipedia, they just don't like to see bad articles. In reality, we all have a lot more in common than you may think. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome. :)

Why not regularly propose a merger or userfication instead of delete? Come back in a week or two, and merge the article. I do this all the time. It is much easier, much less controversial, and much less time and emotional drama. If the creator argues about the merger, only then threaten deletion. travb (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, in the case of these trail articles, I wish I had just merged them. In retrospect it seems a rather obvious solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame you, there is such a prevalent "delete" mentality and culture on wikipedia now, that whenever anyone sees an article which doesn't fit a narrow mold, their automatic reaction is to delete it. I hope I can be a small part in changing this view. travb (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) By the same token though, when I participate in an AfD, I do so because it caught my eye on the list for some reason, or because I had it watchlisted. I have noted that once one member of the hard-core inclusionist crew speaks up in an AfD, several others are often right behind them. It makes me wonder if there is some off-wiki talk going on at IRC or elsewhere where these users are agreeing to all swarm into one AfD and find any reason they can to vote "keep". Again, bad idea. Working together for a common purpose is great when improving articles but block voting in discussions is another story.Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is an inclusionist cabal on wikipedia (And there is evidence of cabals on wikipedia, the durova scandal showed this) I am not trusted enough to join it yet, because no one has asked me to join.

Keep in mind, there are "only" 115 or so articles which are put up for deletion everyday. I keep running into the same editors, with the same or opposing views that I have.

In addition, there is the WP:ARS which is a group of editors who save articles, although they refuse to call themselves inclusionists.

I suspect that you keep running into the same editors because there is only 115 places a person can go everyday.

If there is an offwiki site for inclusionist, great, I support it. Because I know that everyone else has their own offwiki meeting places too. travb (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting point, I personally don't do anything related to Wikipedia that isn't on Wikipedia. There's enough going on here already without spreading it out all over the internet, and I don't like the idea that things are moving here only after some hidden discussion elsewhere, be it inclusionists, deletionists, ArbCom, or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Study

I am thinking of doing a study on how deletions target new users, and how those new users opinion of wikipedia is effected by such merges.

I could take an average day, with the 100-115 deletions. I could then see which editors have their edits deleted, and how many edits they have.

I could then email all of the users who have a email account active, and ask them questions about their opinion of wikipedia.

I would first create an unbiased neutral questionare on wikipedia.

My theory is that we are pushing wikipedians away, and this militant delete on site attitude is causing many new contributors to stop contributing, which is the reason why wikipedia new articles (or was it contributions?) have dropped significantly since 2006.

I am also interested in who the deletion editors are...the same names keep creeping up, but I suspect that there is a wide variety of veteran editors who delete. travb (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(see my remarks above) You are proceeding from a false assumption, that editors are deliberately "targeting" new editors. Also, Many feel that the reason useful new pages (there are still as many vandal/attack/gibberish pages as ever) are on a downturn is because we have already covered anything that would be in a normal encyclopedia, and several million things that would not, and there are only so many encyclopedic topics. You may want to consider those factors in your study. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I wasn't clear enough. No, I do not believe veteran editors are intentionally targeting new editors, I simply think that new editors don't know all of the pretty templates, formats and referencing guidelines to create a new article, so their article is deleted. (and yes, there are many articles which don't belong on wikipedia in the first place)

I have read a lot of the arguments about why the downturn happened. Another reason proposed is because wikipedia blocked new editors and anons from creating new articles. (I have the link on my userpage).

I don't think there is any way to decisively find out why the downturn happened. I actually kind of doubt my theory about this is correct.

The theory that I think can be proven, is that delete editors, whether deliberately or indeliberately are pushing away new editors.

My big concern is that I spend a lot of time doing this, and it will change no ones opinion. I question whether User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey, the best survey I have ever seen on wikipedia, has changed anyone's opinion.

Thanks for your insight and thoughtful remarks Beeblebrox. travb (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's tricky ground, dealing with new editors. Sometimes it can be very difficult to get them to understand exactly what the problem with their article is. We have welcome templates and so forth to help with this, but you can't make them follow the links and read the policies. My usual advice to new user is to read and understand WP:5. Everything else flows from there, if you can wrap your mind around the five pillars, you can negotiate the endless stream of policies, guidelines, essays, and of course drama that makes up Wikipedia. You are probably right that editors who simply bash away at new articles with no thought for who created them and no thought at educating them on how to contribute constructively are driving away inexperienced users. I for one would be very interested to see what you can come up with in this study. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that study would generate the results you want, or hold credibility. It would be like going to people who were fired from their job and asking about their former employer. If I were to do a study along these lines I would:

1. Identify new users who had articles deleted.
2. Check to see if they contacted the deleting admin, or somebody about said deletion.
3. Rate their experience.
4. Check to see if they stuck around or left.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beeblebrox, When I buy an MP3 for example, I immediately start playing with it, it is only much later that I look at the instructions. I think editors are like that too. It was several weeks before I started reading policy. WP:5 is a good example.

Balloonman, Maybe I will axe the survey idea. How would I rate their experience? Do you think this study is worth the time?

Beeblebrox, Can I ask you for the usernames for creators of some of these articles which are deleted? If you don't want to, thats fine, I know several admins who would.

I was just throwing out the idea. But now Beeblebrox, you have made me more committed to doing the study.

Beeblebrox, first, lets pick a date. You pick any date last year in the last 60 days of last year, and I will research that date. I am trusting that the date you pick, you will have no knowledge of the material on that date when you pick it. Go ahead. :) travb (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, ok how about November 15 2008. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here we go: User:Inclusionist/Study Lets see what happens, shall we :) travb (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question. First, you would need to be able to see the article before making such a study, which means if you aren't an admin, doing a viable job would be impractical. You would need to be able to see if the article was a valid article or clearly deletable. I mean, an article that is clear vandalism/nonsense/hoax would need to be reviewed differently than somebody who wrote a poor article, vanity piece, or copyvio. There is also a difference in if the article was improperly deleted---was a valid article? After making those determinations, there would need to be a means to evaluate the response? Was it recreated so that they could work on it? Were they given an adequate response? Were they offended? Did they leave in a huff? Did they simply leave without any comment?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, excellent points. I could request the articles from admins. I have done that several times already. I will see. travb (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, what template do you use for this message? "An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you." I think it is helpful, because I have seen some AfDs and prods were the creator of the article was not warn. Thanks, --J.Mundo (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the insular cases including DeLima v. Bidwell were my first edits in the this Wikipedia, I was translating the articles for the Spanish Wikipedia 1 as part of my interest in the Puerto Rican independence movement. Anyway, thanks for your answer. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me know how I can help further, good luck with the insular cases! travb (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)