User talk:Johnleemk/Archive5

I will have no internet access between 28 January 2006 and 4 or 5 February 2006. Don't be surprised if I don't respond to questions directed at me.

Welcome to my talk page; feel free to leave any enquiries/comments/brickbats you feel like leaving here. If it necessitates a response, one will be made on your talk page instead of here. I do not usually watch Talk pages I write comments on, so I typically expect a response on this page. Thanks for co-operating.

You can add a new comment to this page here.

Archives:

• User talk:Johnleemk/Archive1
• User talk:Johnleemk/Archive2
• User talk:Johnleemk/Archive3
• User talk:Johnleemk/Archive4

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Unreal

Hi, I just saw you closed this debate as "merge and redirect". I was about to close it myself but decided to do a bit of research to determine the best target. I suggest that you merge it with Unreal II: The Awakening rather than Unreal since I think that is the only game where this race is present. (One learns a lot of extremely useful stuff from closing debates.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

INTL

You mentioned that you spend time on INTL; ever thought about adding something to the HeavenGames article about the split? I briefly looked into the place once; the FAQ (http://forums.interestingnonetheless.net/faq/index.html) is quite interesting (and probably citable). Alphax ^τεχ 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh

Oops, looks like we hit a few of those AfD closings at the same time. Looks like they're all fixed now though. I noticed we had different interpretations on one; I've added a note on the Talk:Brutaka page about my reasoning for the "redirect" result. Happy editing! -- Jonel | Speak 05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dual gauge for Africa

Given the level of work in that, and that it had no other home, I hope you considered userifying it before it got the axe... (I was a delete voter) No reply necessary (but if you reply, here is fine, I'm in the I watch what convos I start camp) ++Lar: t/c 07:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for userifying for him, that was kindness. I left the user some suggestions (take the categories out, as articlespace cats should not point to user pages, and find another home as soon as they can) Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 07:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Balls

I won't say where, because even some of the trees are on her side, but that took some chops. Pure numbers put this somewhere from .64 to .68, but of course it's not a vote. I'll bet this makes the mailing list just light up. brenneman^(t)(c) 12:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

closing insults

I really don't see why you needed to take this cheap shot. Its insulting, and obviously mistaken. I normally vote to keep verifiable school articles, and I've noticed a number of those who usually vote delete, have themselves voted to keep (or made) articles lacking basic verifiability (in other words inclusionists care as much about verifiability as anybody). Also, one reason people sometimes do make irrational votes, ignoring reasoning (on all sides) is because they get sucked into an emotional debate, which exacerbated by immature comments, such as the one you gave. What's particularly annoying, is that when I decided to make this second nomination, I knew it would be used by those who's sole contribution would be to repeat old whining about school artilce inclusion. Yet, I did it anyhow, because I care more about the encyclopedia, then the silliness (which you wish to promote). One the reason this article wasn't deleted the first time, is the nominator in his reasonings, failed to discuss the only good reason for deletion: non verifiability. By getting side tracked into meaningless POV on notability, core policy was ignored. We see too many AFDs where policy is ignored because people are obsessed with pushing their old POV. Perhaps one reason those opposed to school articles have failed so miserably, is that the entire extent of reasoning of *some* (not all) is saying "nn" and then insulting people. Incidently, the first AFD was supposed to be closed as consensus delete, as some "keep" votes were conditioned on verifiability. Anyway, despite your discouraging words, I'll continue to nominate non verifiable articles (schools or not). --Rob 17:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

TC Tolliver deletion...?

Why is there a link if it can't be updated?

The information is accurate. What’s the problem? How is this vanity and self promotion? I'm not TC Tolliver. Furthermore the link is to T.C Tolliver, so of course it’s going to be about him.

I see Ritchie Stotts, Chosei Funahara, and Neal Smith where able to update their links, how is TC different?

What is acceptable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsconroy (talk • contribs) .

redirects are cheap

What do you mean by "redirects are cheap"? --jeolmeun 00:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2

Removing votes from people who only had a couple of edits (although if we didn;t the results are largely the same) ends up with a finally tally by my count of 40 delete votes, 6 merge/redirect votes, and 20 keep votes.... and you closed it with a claim of "no consensus" and also with a claim that the votes on the page cannot be used to demonstrate consensus for any action? Is this a joke? By most standards I've seen that's a pretty clear vote to delete, with a redirect option (obviously those people who support deletes would support redirect over keeping as is) as a clear, clear consensus. I think the way you count and the way you describe results is clearly making it virtually impossible to end up with reasonable results, and the vote just becomes a colossal waste of everyone's time because one person comes along and just declares no consensus. Clearly not how things are supposed to work. DreamGuy 14:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I also object as there was twice as many delete votes as keeps; if that's not consensus, I don't know what is anymore. --OntarioQuizzer 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a democracy. From Wikipedia:Consensus,

Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin.

AfD is about the comments more than about votes. The comments were convincing to a facilitator who used his best judgment and properly determined that there was no consensus. -- Jonel | Speak 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may intervene, 40 delete votes out of 66 total is only 60% delete, which is about as low as anyone would go to close a debate in favour of delete, and even then at a stretch. Most people use 66%, some even use 70%. Anyway, it's not supposed to be a vote, its a debate, and the keeps had a good argument, which bolsters their weight when weighing the votes. I would have closed this the same way. --bainer (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the first few keep people mentioned that nothing of substance had changed since the previous AfD two weeks earlier, which is a pretty strong argument. I would have closed, and I probably would have been bold and merged too, since that wouldn't have caused any problems for a majority of the participants in the AfD. --bainer (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The merge is already done, so no need. The clarification was mostly for other people, eg DreamGuy. cheers, --bainer (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

TC Tolliver standards?

While I appreciate your response; you still did not explain why the other members of the Plasmatics where granted entries to their links. Mr. Tolliver has earned his place as any other member of the band (Even the NJ Music Hall of Fame recognizes that http://www.njmusic.org/).

A little guidance to rectify the situation would lead me to believe there is an interest in up keeping standards; other than outright denial.

Obviously there must be an acceptable compromise, unless of course there is deeper bias issue.

Thanks in advance for reconsidering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsconroy (talk • contribs) .

AfD Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Afd closing of Matthew 1:2

Hi, I noticed you closed this AfD as a merge. As I count the the votes, there were:

• 8 KEEP (SimonP, Dan, Doc, Choalbaton, Tvaughn05, Dsmdgold, ViolinGirl, and DJ Clayworth) (40%)
• 9 MERGE (Esprit15d, Uncle G, Ruud, Grimm, NaconKantari, Kerowyn, T-Boy, RJHall, and Jaranda) (45%)
• 3 Delete (Phroziac, Johnleemk, Logophile) (15%)

This looks to me like a No Consensus vote for which is a default Keep. What was your reasoning behind your closing? Also, should you be closing AfD discussions in which you participated? Dsmdgold 13:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

TC Tolliver You're avoiding the questions...

It seems you have no intention of helping me resolve this issue in civil matter. Now its becoming more evidant to me you are being bias on this matter.

You still have not justified why the other members of the band where granted their personal write-ups in.

What about the partial un deletion policy?

If you can't help, or just simply don't want too; please direct me to someone who can.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsconroy (talk • contribs) .

Please stop yelling

You seem to yell alot when closing AFDs. Also using your closing comment to soapbox is not constructive since no one can respond to you. People using "keep per WP:SCH" as a vote because consensus on ALL highschools and most schools have been reached. We refer to that to get people to go read it to stop the school AFD madness.Gateman1997 17:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

TC Tolliver

I have to agree with the young man who is criticizing the deletion of the article in question. I didn't even know the article disappeared until he brought it up on his page. I must say I have to agree with his criticisms, and had I known the TC Tolliver article was up for deletion, I would have voted to keep it.

Given your age, I'm sure you never heard of the Plasmatics or their late lead singer Wendy O. Williams, but they made a big impact in America and Europe and still have a large devoted fanbase to this day. Mr. Tolliver was a part of that. Cjmarsicano 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on AN/I

Hi John. I think I was agreeing with you rather than anything else! The "we" in my comment referred to the broader community, not to you. Grace Note 03:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Holy Father

I am curious about your verdict on this AfD, considering the WP:NAME violation, and also considering that, were the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Father adhered to (as it would have been but for a single determined editor) the redirect target would itself be a redirect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Re the state of Holy Father, what you said was exactly opposite to advice I was given earlier by another admin. Moot since I'm giving up on it at this point, but still. Thank you for your clarification of policy otherwise. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

TC Tolliver If you don't like it, tough?

That comment spells out the non-intellect behind this operation. You sound like you’re about 12 years old.

It’s bad enough the main claim for the deletion was vanity, the irony (Have any of you read your own bios?).

Right from the start no one had any interest in handling this matter properly.

All of your replies are feeble attempts to right your wrong not addressing the issue (how vain of you). Your arguments are weak; you should not be an editor.

Key word; editor? Or is it deletor? It's painfully obvious now this is your power trip.

TC Tolliver is very notable. He’s played and worked with many famed musicians (and still is). You refuse to the see the truth.

I see you already have one backlash comment in Mr. Tolliver’s favor. Truth be told.

Whatever… more bad press for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsconroy (talk • contribs) .

Revert war in IMO page

It's obvious that the user 60.51.64.225 has been trying persistently to revert the IMO page to the un-encyclopedic version. Is there any way we can stop him/her? It's an eyesore, and we can't just live in the history page and watch over his/her every revert. Are you in the power of doing anything? --218.111.7.96 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, is an unwritten testimonial valid as a citation? I can testify the point from my own correspondence. --218.111.7.96 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. I wrote the previous two comments here. --changyang1230 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Templemore Sports Complex

Thank you for your brutal honesty in discounting our "ludicrous" keep votes for Templemore Sports Complex. Could you perhaps explain how a red link in Derry means "it's already in the article" so it doesn't require a merge? Kappa 16:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

IP ban - South Africa

Hi,

I received a message from you that the SAIX IP had been banned, while I was editing the "AuthorIT" page on Wikipedia. I would like to object to this ban. I am not vandalising Wikipedia - I corrected incorrect information and added value.

198.54.202.18 22:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Regards, Maritza van den Heuvel, AIT author and technical writer non-registered Wiki user

Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion

...would be interested in your feedback. Barring significant opposition, it's going for a test run soon. Radiant_>|< 18:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki? Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generate a keypair using OpenSSL

Where was the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generate a keypair using OpenSSL transwikied to? I can't find it on wikibooks. Lunkwill 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikisource

For some reason you transwiki's are not showing up at s:Wikisource:Transwiki log/Articles moved to here. As there are only three items in the log, it seems to be a common problem. However I have no idea how a transwiki works so I have no advice, I just wanted to alert you to the problem. Thanks--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

hey

whatever happened to the bat embargo? I need the page info to:

a. If aloud, work it as a project in my user page to improve it until it gets accepted either as a section or a sub-article.

or

b. Try to give is to some of my budds on other batman page outside wikipedia (optino b is also an option if I'm aloud to do option a, but it never gets aproved :| )

Thanks beforehand!

--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 05:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! that was heplful! how abuot use my user page to develope the project? I do want it to have a very profetional periodistic looks and I could use help fro some otrer editors.

and a second question... what ever happened to the last vertion? I swear I won't re do te page here again.

Thanks, man.

--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 23:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realized the section header was a link. Duuuuuuuuuuhh!! °w° You're the best, man!!--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 00:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerk application approved

Your application to become a clerk for the Arbitration Committee has been approved. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration is for recording organizational work and communication between clerks. Raul654 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge, delete and the GFDL

Hi there John. I was intrigued to read your comment made in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breaking vine to the effect that deleting the article titles after their contents had been merged into another article would be 'illegal' under the terms of the GFDL. Would you be able to elaborate a little further, I'm not sure I follow. With the merge now completed, I don't see any particular value in maintaining those as redirects- for eg, someone typing in "tying someone" might well be surprised (if not a little disappointed!) to find an article about Turkish Folklore instead...not that it really matters too much, just curious. Cheers,--cjllw | TALK 01:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the answer John, I suppose that makes some sense. As an aside, I presume that some of that merged text will have to be rewritten, as it seems evident that much of it is just a direct (if inexpert) translation from the original source. Will look into doing that at some stage. Thanks again!--cjllw | TALK 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

a note

Good luck with your appointment. In other news, in case you haven't heard the whole ruckus about the United States Congress editing Wikipedia (and changing some facts), here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerk question

You're clerking Ruy Lopez, but seem to have submitted evidence for it on the 25th - is there a conflict of interest there? What's up? Phil Sandifer 23:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerking question

Hi Johnleemk. I noticed you are clerking the KDRGibby case, but have presented evidence. I had supposed that clerks would not clerk cases they were providing evidence for — I wonder if you'd comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration#Conflict of intrest (and forgive the barbarous mispelling in someone else's section title). Thanks. -Splash^talk 23:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)