User talk:Bulldog123

Welcome!

Hello, Bulldog123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Angr (tɔk) 13:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The_angel_size_18.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:The_angel_size_18.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Bulldog123/Archive1

List of X-Americans

I've warned the editors in question that if I see them adding unsourced or poorly sourced material about living people again to the List of X-Americans articles, I will block them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started some talk on WP:Lists that you might want to give input on. Frankly there are just some groups on wikipedia that seem incessant on holding on to things in the face of all policy, logic, and good sense. See OS-Tan as an example. 3 attempts, not a reliable source to be found and we can't get the article deleted, because apparently they're just too cute so everyone thinks we should keep them.--Crossmr (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you eliminated most of the people listed on the List of Laotian Americans. You left a bunch of non Lao such as Vang Pao and deleted all of the famous and successful Lao Americans. Why did you do this? I reviewed the old list myself and almost all of those deleted where legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizona lao (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

your idea on my talk page

Of course, what you did with List of Austrian Americans or List of Brazilian Americans is very acceptable and you will notice I had no problem with them. I do the same thing with other lists what I watch. I do not have the time/resources to do generally do this work, but if you do, good. It was the blanking of articles and asserting that categories could replace articles that I had a problem with. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

X-American_lists

Please comment: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_to_Remove_List_of_X-American_lists. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Italian actors

Um, do you mind explaining why you transcluded the AfD page here? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

changes to list of Hungarian Americans

Your changes of List of Hungarian Americans to List of Americans of Hungarian descent is not discussed or agreed to by anyone; is disruptive; makes this article different from all the others in Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin and serves no useful WP purpose. You may be confused, but you offer no evidence that anyone else is. 'Hungarian Americans', like all other 'Booian Americans' includes the people who just arrived from Hungary and any of their descentants Your changes are just a repeat of your previous disruptive edits in this general subject area and of no help to WP. Hmains (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Jewish philanthropists

Re: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 20 [1] Your comments that this Category which I created "Serves no purpose except to support the obsessions of certain editors" is inappropriate and unacceptable at Wikipedia. Disagreeing with any edit is fine, but personal attacks are not. I strongly suggest you refrain from any further such statements about anyone at Wikipedia. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Hello. Is there a reason you have disabled the link to your user and talk page in your signature? They are provided as a default for a reason. It is important for editors who are working on collaboration and engaging in discussion to be able to contact other editors. By removing these links, you are making this process difficult. In order to contact you, I had to look through the page history for your actual user name. My understanding is that the community frowns upon this type of signature and it could be perceived as "disruptive". Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I second this. Please restore the link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Brownhairedgirl, try to focus on the argument on cfds and not fall back on trivialities in an attempt to "win" something. Bulldog 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This does not affect the outcome of the CFD. Please read WP:SIGNATURE#Internal_links, which says "It is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log.". Note that phrase "at least one of those pages must be linked from your signature": is any of it unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• If you truly feel the need to annoy your fellow editors by not providing a link to your user or talk page, you must at least sign with your actual full username, i.e. "Bulldog123". Please govern yourself accordingly. See also Wikipedia:AN#User_talk:Bulldog123.23Signature. –xeno (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  Why make it harder for people to communicate with you? How is that helpful? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Bulldog123's stated reason is "it saves people from leaving me passive-aggressive messages". Disliking the messages received is no reason for disrupting communication in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• My comment above indicated that it was OK to not have a user or user talk page link in your signature; I then read the addition by BrownHairedGirl above. Is there a particular reason you are ignoring the generally well-regarded signature guideline? Please consider putting at least one of these links in your signature. –xeno (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the whole thing was brought up by two users who have a grudge against me because of content dispute. Nobody seemed to care before then. Then BrownHairedGirl jumped on the bandwagon, most likely because she's peeved I was questioning her rationale on a recent CfD. Which, frankly, is immature. And had somebody else mentioned it first, perhaps in a less passive-aggressive way (wow - another example), I would have added back the link. But now it just seems like BrownHairedGirl is having a bit of an "authority-complex" issue. The I'm an admin, how dare you not listen to me-type of thing. So, it's sort of gnawing on me to ignore her. Bulldog123 17:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

had I come across you before, all content disputes aside, I would've asked you to add a link. There's no good reason not to have one. –xeno (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh* Fine. I'll put it in when I get a chance. Bulldog123 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (I wonder if perhaps you removed the link because you couldn't get the colours right? you can colour links by putting the color code inside the pipe... in case you didn't know) –xeno (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, just for the record, there are 339 other users called Bulldog who need diffrentiation! Thanks for agreeing to put the link in, therefore! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with other complaints. Failing to provide a link is irritating, and (whatever the actual intention) it comes across as some gittish passive-aggressive agenda to disrupt the ethos of communication between users here. Enough people have told you this. Consider. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've already agreed to add the link back hours ago, who the hell is this^ ? Bulldog123 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So do it. Now. It's not an issue of "when you have a chance". As I'm sure you know, you just switch to signing with four tildes, thus ~~~~. You can elaborate it later. Treat it logically: ignoring emotive issues, a lot of people have told you that providing no link is disruptive to the communication that's a central part of collaboration here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to know who you are. You're not an admin, I've never spoken to you before, yet for some reason you've decided to pop in and give your unnecessary two cents - sorry if that makes me suspicious. Bulldog123 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for adding in the three numbers. But as per our policy on signatures, it's ideal to have a link included. There's no reason not to. I know you've said you'll do it "when you have time," but you can do it now, very quickly. If you go to Special:Preferences, and paste the code below into the "signature" box, check the "raw signature" box, and click save. Then it'll look exa ctly the same, colourful, it'll just link too. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[[User talk:Bulldog123|<span style='color: #900009;'>Bull</span><span style='color: #FFA500;'>dog123</span>]]

All right. Done. Jesus, never seen so much fuss over a talk page link. Bulldog123 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani RFC

Hello, Bulldog123. Eugene2x (talk · contribs) files WP:Requests for comment/User conduct on Badagnani (talk · contribs). Since you've known him for a long time, your input on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani would appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of images

Could you please stop removing images that people have spent much time and effort searching, uploading, and aligning, such as you have done on French-Americans, Dutch-Americans, Swedish-Americans, etc. It is very time-consuming to replace what you have arbitrarily deleted without consensus. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would make a lot more sense if you discuss BEFORE random replacement of images we can't even verify. I also don't think a reader would benefit in any way just by looking at a few pictures of people who are maybe the 3rd generation from a mix of cultures. GraYoshi2x►^talk 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think one image-of pirate Jean Lafitte sums up the entire representation of French-Americans, ditto for Dutch, Swedes, etc. I pointed out that the editors who had added the images went to a lot of trouble, and Bulldog deleted them sans comment. End of justification.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please include edit summaries

Just a simple and friendly suggestion - I've looked through your edits for the past few months, and I've noticed that very few of them provide an edit summary. Edit summaries are extremely important on Wikipedia, and it would be helpful to the overall Wikipedia project if you could please remember to provide one with each edit, even if it is only a simple explanatory word or two. Thanks, and happy editing. --Wassermann (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Message

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at Susan118's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Forgot to leave this last night when I replied to your message, so maybe you already saw it by now. Thanks for coming by to discuss it. --Susan118 ^talk 17:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI Report

Hello, Bulldog123. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#disruptive_editor_back. Exxolon (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish Americans?

You realize you removed the entire template and not the image? If you have a problem with the image, why not take it on on the Template:Polish Americans talk page? Horvat Den (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, Coach K? How is he not a Polish American? Dan Marino, okay, I can't find a good source for that. But Coach K? What about [2]? Horvat Den (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up on WP:AN/I. They formed a virtual shooting squad against you. By the way, why'd you remove Martha Stewart from before? She has dozens of sources calling her Polish American. I'm not even gonna to bother listing them, just google it. Horvat Den (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute?

It's not a content dispute when you harass everyone who contributes to ethnic articles and try to force them to adhere to your views. Read the talk page of the German American article and its archives. The issue of who constitutes a German American was resolved by consensus long ago. --Sift&Winnow 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. this is not a constructive use of editing privileges. Please refrain from such remarks that may be considered trolling by other editors. — Ched :  ?  20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I sent you email last night to the address you have at your user page. Did you get it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus, edit-warring

There was a robust talk page conversation at the Andre Geim page. It concerned both the concept and the actual text that you have now -- twice -- deleted. Kindly desist. That is edit warring, and editing against consensus. Please take this as a warning, in lieu of a template warning. Please also note that the page was only unprotected with a warning by the sysop that he was prepared to block anyone who edit-warred over this issue. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• You have continued to edit against consensus with unsupported deletions at the same page. Please take this as a final warning. Please also note that the page was only unprotected with a warning by the sysop that he was prepared to block anyone who edit-warred over this issue. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• You have know extended your edit warring to List of Jewish Nobel laureates, deleting Geim despite robust supporting citations, against consensus. Please note the wikipedia rules against such deletions without an appropriate rationale, and the attendant sanctions, and consider this a final warning as to edit warring and inappropriate unwarranted deletions of sourced material.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a courtesy notification that your (Bulldog's) recent edits are under discussion at WQA. Feel free to remove this notice once you have read it. betsythedevine (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bulldog, I want to apologize to you for my testiness about your edits. I have been editing Wikipedia quite a few years, in areas I thought were often full of controversy (political pages especially) but a longer exposure to debate at List of Jewish Nobel laureates has caused me to realize that my dream of consensus to be reached there by unswerving civility was a pipe dream. betsythedevine (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

re your comment at Talk:List_of_Jewish_actors

I largely agree with your recent comments. You want to nominate this list for deletion? I'll support you. NickCT (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably do it, but I gotta prep myself for it first. You can't imagine the (for lack of a better word) sh*tstorm that ensues when these lists are nominated. Bulldog123 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I understand. Well keep in touch. I hate hate hate these kind of shinanigans and would be happy to help in anyway I can. NickCT (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. If I start seeing more supporters than detractors, I'll go ahead and nominate it -- which may be soon. Bulldog123 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello! For your information, there is a larger discussion going on at BLP. I am not canvassing you in any way, and since we have discussed the issue at Andre Geim I just wanted to notify you that your efforts may be redundant, as there is a proposal to remove all ethnic/religious/orientation categories in Wiki. Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like wishful thinking. I really doubt it will be possible to remove all ethnic-related lists given nationality/ethnicity overlap so often. Bulldog123 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Odd view

You've expressed the rather unique view that there is no such thing as a Romanian who is Jewish. And used that to make mass deletions. That view is not correct. Also, you are edit warring. Please take this as a kindly suggestion, of the final sort, to desist in making untrue statemetns, in using them as a basis for revisions, and in edit warring. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

re Divine intervention on Ashkenazi intelligence

Meh. I just don't care about it that much. But you're absolutely right of course. And the tag on the section - "This section is factually" disputed" is completely ridiculous. No one is disputing that the guy said what he's quoted is saying, so any dispute is over whether or not it's true. OK. So we are saying that it might be true, I guess.

Hoo-boy. I suppose next our article on the construction of the Hoover Dam will be rewritten to say "Another possibility is that the Hoover Dam appeared instantly one night, by magic, and the same magic altered the records and everyone's memories, and this cannot be disproven" or whatever.

Maybe the section should be rewritten thus:

---

Magic
Some analysts have suggested that Ashkenazi intelligence is due to the intervention of magical, supernatural, or alien entities.[ref]

---

Maybe I'll suggest this if I ever get back over there... Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting text in Ashkenazi Jews

You've deleted text with the reason "Link no longer active". That's no reason to delete and the thing to do in those cases is to tag as a dead link, which allows others to find a live source. A quick look on the Internet Archive would find archived copies, but I'm guessing you didn't look. This is all besides the fact that the material wasn't controversial at all. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Categories

Hi,

I just stumbled upon something that can, and should be mentioned in any related ethnic/religious discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EGRS

Specifically:

"General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, with the following considerations: 4) Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity. (For example: a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances.)"

In relation to the Andre Geim issue, and the more broad Jewish/Chinese/Etc scientist categories I think this pretty much settles it. Basically, unless the person's activities have something to do with the ethnicity/religion, they shouldn't be used. Regards,--Therexbanner (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea for you

Why don't you nominate for deletion this one? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: this comment in response to Mbz1, the only reason it's a "relatively well kept article by comparison to others" is because I've been adamant in insisting it be properly sourced. On the other hand, for those who insist "Jewish" must also be "self-identification", and "specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity", I doubt any of the sources used support that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that was Mbz1's intent; I think Mbz1 truly thinks that one should be deleted. And I think it's pretty clear to Mbz1 and anyone else that I'd be happy to have it deleted too; my efforts have merely been the "second best option". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

One only should have taken a look at the article's discussion page to see that I'd rather had it deleted, but Bulldog123 came up with conspiracy theories and assumed bad faith. BTW, if you are to respond, could you please respond here. There is no need to have the same discussion in 3 different places. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Where on that discussion page did you say you want the list deleted? The only thing you did on that talk page is complain about listing criminals as businesspeople. Bulldog123 03:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to wait for the outcome of the 5 current AfDs. Based on that, it should be more clear whether or not other lists should be nominated. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)Well, yes, but it is seen behind my comments. Because the article got the way it did, I strongly believe it should be better off deleted, and it is my own personal opinion, which has absolutely nothing to do with Jayig. The thing is that when I commented on the article's discussion page I had no idea it could be nominated on deletion. Although I was contributing to wikipedia since 2007, I was mostly contributing images, and only in 2010 I started writing lots of articles, and even now there are still many policies that I do not know.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Outing

Hello bulldog. Could you please revert outing ASAP?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Why? Surreptitious canvassing is not allowed. Bulldog123 03:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, specifying that IP address belongs to particular editor is outing. It does not really matter who, and if was canvasing who. If you are to respond, please do respond here. There's no reason to have discussion in 2 different places.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you can remove it if you want. It doesn't really matter. Bulldog123 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather you removed it. It is your comment after all.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As the relevant outed editor, I would prefer to have it removed, regardless of who does it, and I wouldn't mind an admin cleaning up the original post from my IP while we're at it. Also, Bulldog, I've answered your "five notable Jews" challenge at the laureates AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Bulldog, was there actually evidence of off-wiki canvassing in this case? I can't tell because of the revdeletes. If there is, can you please post that evidence at WP:ANI#Canvassing_by_User:Epeefleche? Thanks. SnottyWong ^gab 00:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Bulldog123 was referring to an email I received from Epeefleche, which was in neutral terms itself but may constitute canvassing depending on who else received it. The text of the email is: "Hi. I saw that you commented on a similar AfD, so in the event that it interest you I'm letting you know of the existence of this AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_actors Best". I post the text for your reference, but I do not wish to participate in the ANI case and do not believe that any of the Jewish list AfDs have been improperly influenced by Epeefleche's actions such as to require intervention. My argument in the AfD he was referring to was a Keep, and after receiving this email I declined to vote on any further Jewish list AfDs. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the honest assessment and for coming forward, DFW. SnottyWong ^prattle 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

duck

It is better if you report it at the correct noticeboard than speculate about it on the users talkpage when he is blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 01:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent CfD, following procedure

Hi Bulldog: As you may have noted I have actually been in agreement with some of your recent nominations of Jews' lists and categories. But, in your recent spate of nominating various lists and categories of Jews for deletion, in your haste and zeal, you have evidently overlooked an important WP:COURTESY of informing those users who have created categories etc that you are nominating their hard work for deletion, as advised on all deletion instruction pages, if you had cared to look. I have now recently done so on your behalf at User talk:Trident13#Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Jews who emigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism and User talk:Wulf Isebrand#Categories for discussion nomination of Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism. You can find more information about how to go about doing so at pages such as Template:Cfd-notify, Template:Cfdnotice/doc and others like that. In addition, it is standard practice to ALSO notify the relevant WP deletion project pages, such as at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism at a minimum, as well as notifying users at WP:TALKJUDAISM about your concerns and nominations relating to many lists and categories that are of great interest and important to the Judaic editors there. Looking forward to your full cooperation in this regard, and hoping that no one has to run around and clean up after you in the future (because it's time consuming but unavoidable when you sincerely care about those subjects and are not just on a deletionistic rampage). Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but IZAK needs to not accuse you of deletionistic rampage. As well, while it is courteous to notify other edits of a deletion nomination it is by no means policy. IZAK sometimes can say come across a little overzealous. Keep up the good work. Basket of Puppies 06:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:CANVASS

Hi Bulldog123. As you were a chief complainant in the recent discussion of canvassing at list AfDs, I am sure you are well aware of Wikipedia's policy on canvassing. You would therefore know that selectively inviting other users to AfDs on the basis that you believe they will support your position (as you appear to have done here) is very strongly against Wikipedia policy. Would you care to explain that diff? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)==

"Meatpuppet"

Regarding this diff, I'm pretty convinced from the editor's contributions that they're not a sock but rather a novice editor with an interest in Jewish faith and culture, but there's no harm in the attention you've drawn to their editing history. "Meatpuppet", though, is an unnecessarily offensive term, both to the editor in question and to others supporting the editor's position who might be implied to be "operating" the sock (see WP:MEAT). Would you care to perhaps withdraw the comment, or alternatively change it to read "Editors' attention is drawn to Wikipedia's policy on operating multiple accounts," or something similar? That would comply with the requirement to assume good faith and have the added advantage of linking to the relevant policy. It's generally regarded as bad form to alter another user's comment on a talk page, or I'd just edit it myself to reflect your presumed intention and allow you to revert if you disagreed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your advice, only because it's probably unwise to draw attention to it right now. Let the "editor" edit some more and we'll see if it was a single purpose account or not. However, novice editors don't "stumble upon" AfDs. Bulldog123 06:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

List AfDs

Hey Bulldog, looking at some of your recent List AfD arguments, it seems like at least PART of your argument is saying, "Look, these lists are in bad shape, and I don't know how to fix them short of AfD." While that's still not a valid argument for deletion, would you be interested in getting my help cleaning them up and arguing at their talk pages after the AfD closes? I'm not hugely keen to work on them but it seems like it might be a more productive use of my time to improve them rather than just fight AfDs over them. - DustFormsWords (talk)

Talkback

Hello, Bulldog123. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 03:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Latest AfDs & Discussions

Hi, I just read something that I think describes the whole partisan situation pretty accurately: http://newskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-joke.html

In general, I think this applies to all encyclopedias (they are edited by people, and all people have biases), but in the case of Wikipedia, I think it is especially true.

Looking at the stats and seeing a few thousand admins, and a hundred thousand users, I can't help but wonder why important discussions gather no more than 50 people. I can understand that those others might not be interested in those topics (although they are very important), but doesn't that mean that only biased (opinionated) people would participate in the discussions?

Anyways, sorry about the rant, hopefully the editors who voted "keep" meant what they said about their desire to review, and improve the lists. We shall see.--Therexbanner (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Life is sad. We tried to persuade, we failed. In about two or so years, that list - with all the same problems it has now - will be put back up for AfD by someone. I'm pretty much certain of that. In any case, there's this movement to try to get Wikipedia programmers to build a feature where individuals can search by intersecting categories (it has a specific name but I can't seem to remember what it was called). If someone was interested in "Bulgarian Jewish actors with dwarfism" they could search the encyclopedia by intersecting the categories Bulgarian, Jewish, actor, and people with dwarfism and get a list returned to them. If that were to be implemented, all the lists under AfD recently would become obsolete and be deleted in a flash... essentially saving wikipedia's credibility. I'm really praying/hoping/yearning that that will happen one day. I'll probably see you at the eventual DRV for List of Jewish American entertainers. Though... given there's now precedent... I'm not going to participate much. Bulldog123 15:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Jewish actors

Darn..... well. Might be wise to sit on this and re approach later...... NickCT (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Or get to work on improving the article to deal with your content concerns, perhaps using Postdlf's proposed template for these lists. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Uh... we're not the ones who wanted to keep it. I've already made my position very clear about the impossibility of an OR-free inclusion criteria. It's now your job to make the improvements you wanted. Get to work. Bulldog123 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't want any improvements. I like the lists just fine the way they are. I've said this at each and every occasion you've suggested it. The problems were suggested by you, and for all I know may exist entirely in your mind. My offer to help address your concerns via your talk page above was ignored; I've thus moved onto a new article-improvement project. If you've got the energy to take these to AfD, and fight so strenuously for their deletion, but not to thereafter address the problems that you say exist in the article, then probably you're not really motivated by the desire to create a high-quality encyclopaedia. Or at least, that maybe those problems aren't quite so worldshaking as you'd have us believe. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• My !votes were not Keep and let's fix. My !votes were Delete. It's unfixable and here's why. Your !votes were the former, though, as entirely expected, you are denying the let's fix part, despite diligently researching the contents of several books on these topics, which would have been totally unnecessary if you believed the lists to be notable intersections merely because the words "Irish American actor" or "Jewish American actor" return google hits. Your point was that the topic was notable, and so the content (right now) doesn't matter. However, now you're saying the content is also notable and it totally 100% reflects the topic, even though your conversations with me frequently responded with remarks like - that can be changed by editing - instead of - No, you're wrong. It doesn't need to be changed. Here's why. A lot of passive argumentation going on there. So... that's what I'm saying... get to work. Find all those sources establishing the universal link between an actor's Jewishness/Irishness/Italian-ness and their acting... like you think did for Gene Kelly. Otherwise, they are just indiscriminate lists of smurfs sitting under an unrelated topic. Using your standards, most of the list entries are direct violations of WP:SYNTHESIS: Source 1: Will Ferrell described as Irish American actor. Source 2: Irish American actors is a notable topic because certain actors were pigeonholed into Irish American roles early in their careers. Source 1 + Source 2 = Source 3: Will Ferrell must be notable as an Irish-American actor just like the others. Also, if you believe the problems for the Jewish actors list existed entirely in my mind, you might want to go and contact User:All Hallow's Wraith, User:Yworo, User:Snottywong, User:Townlake, User:NickCT, User:Therexbanner, User:Spanglej, and User:East of Borschov and let them know their same concerns are fabrications of some DustFormsWords-diagnosed mental disorder I have. The other !delete voters were terse, so I don't really know their positions and won't speak for them. Unlike you, however, we've all since realized there is no way to make this list a notable (and non-SYNTH) intersection without supplying a contentious, potentially misleading, original research-derived criteria (which is disallowed anyway as the title of the article needs to reflect the contents 100%). Yet, not a single source was provided even defining exactly what is a "Jewish actor" or "British Jewish actor" and how, thereby, all the list's entries fall into that category - most of the information dug-up was laughable word matches on Google Book search. But the !keep voters were clear. These lists are notable because of tangentially-related source #1, tangentially-related source #2, and barely-related source #3. Literally 90% of the sources used to verify "Jewish-hood" on the Jewish actors article are from culture or ethnicity-promoting magazines/publications (Jewishjournal, Jweekly, JVibe, clevelandjewishnews, JewishTribune, TheJewishWeek, etc...), whose only statement-of-purpose is to make individuals proud of their (externally-imposed) ethnic heritage and thereby have Grandmother Muriel be happy that her favorite soap star is Jewish like her (by whatever criteria they see fit). User:Johnuniq did a pretty good job summarizing that last point in the Jewish Nobel Laureates AfD: [3]. If I was Epeefleche, I would have canvassed him to give his two cents in these debates, regardless of whether he !voted keep or delete (and either way, it would have been inappropriate). The point being: the sources in the Jewish actors article do nothing to establish the notability between being Jewish and being an actor - so go find the ones that do. By voting !keep it's fixable, that's now your prerogative. With that, we'll go about our different wiki-paths. I'd also appreciate if you'd abstain from talk page stalking unless you want to leave me a message directly. Bulldog123 11:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• TL;DR. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)