User talk:For great justice.

This is my talk page - for previous talk, see the history. For great justice. 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page

Hi. Please don't blank your talk page - if you feel that it is getting too large, you should archive it. There are several methods listed on that page. SeventyThree^(Talk) 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! There seems to be no rule requiring the archiving of talk pages (see Wikipedia:Talk_pages#User_talk_pages. I have no current discussions ongoing, and anyone wishing to see previous talk can see the history, Thanks, For great justice. 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

True that. I would encourage you to put a notice at the top of your talk page mentioning that you archive, and suggesting that people look at the history. That way, people will know to check. It's not a big issue though, so I;ll leave it up to you. SeventyThree^(Talk) 21:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 'Search Queries'

Yea, I believe a unified search would be better, I guess since the search WILL be made more powerful [its on the list of things to do for the developers, but @ the bottom], maybe Search could also be changed so that it searches for in ALL of the WIKIPROJECTS. Yes, I did mean IN THE WIKIPROJECTS, NOT WITHIN THE OTHER LANGUAGES, but that might not be as important, cause a word spelled the same in another language usually has nothing to do with the word spelled excatly the same in another language.

68.148.165.213 02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussions about notability guidelines

Hey -- by the way, I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot earlier; I was a bit too harsh on you, I think. I'm finding this discussion quite interesting and relevant. Mangojuice^talk 18:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Comments

Your comments on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Always Postpone Meetings with Time-Wasting Morons page are inappropriate. Wikipedia is a collaborative and cooperative endeavour, not a sporting competition. HistoryBA 23:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Input needed

Hi there. I read your comments on the academics (notability) page. You mentioned that election candidates should be listed on wikipedia. Here is the deletion review on the matter, please vote "undelete". Thanks. Gsinclairr 10:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing notability debate

OK, I see the confusion. I am applying the concept of NPOV to editorial decisions about content. All article content should be written from the NPOV. Furthermore, editorial decisions about which content should be included are subject to NPOV. For example, the articles on democrats and republicans should be written from a NPOV. Furthermore, whether or not to have an article on Democrats is also subject to POV rules. You could not, for example, exclude the democrats simply because you didn't like them or were not interested in them. So, a policy or guideline that has implications for what information gets in or not must be in compliance with NPOV. For great justice. 19:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with you there, but guidelines have very rarely had POV issues. I do see the point, though. And I do see this happening on AfD a lot: people seem very comfortable calling just about anything "non notable," which can mean extremely little in some cases. As an example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Workshop, in which people are calling one of the top 12 skateboard manufacturers "not a notable skateboard manufacturer," which is really straining the limits. But let's talk solution for a bit. I think your objection to notability guidelines is noted, and is a minority opinion, but not a fringe one. However, it's undoubtedly the case that a lot of people on AfD are somewhat ignorant of these types of arguments. I was thinking, what if we made an essay, say Wikipedia:Introduction to Deletion Process that tried to inform people of the basic guidelines and policies in a neutral way, while educating them about the process. Then, we could create a template, say Template:afd-welcome, that would welcome editors to the deletion process, inform them of the essay, and the relevant other policy pages, and start leaving it on the user talk pages of editors making their first forays into the deletion process? It couldn't hurt. Mangojuice^talk 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - that would be a good step forward - let's have a go. One thing that I am worried about is that a lot of more mature editors believe that notability guidelines are policy - a framework that explained that they are not would be good. I'm also convinced that very few people have actually read verifiability - I still get a lot of 'but my toenail is verifiable'. Thanks for your ongoing positive attitude! For great justice. 23:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The biggest difficulty is in being succinct. There's so much to say about deletion, and we don't want the signal to get lost in the noise. Mangojuice^talk 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aren't there already some 'deletion 101' pages? I don't know, but it seems like the kind of thing someone would have done... For great justice. 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find any. I started Wikipedia:Introduction to Deletion Process. There is WP:DPR, but it's really not user-friendly. I've found that there is a lack of pages good at introducing an editor to the community. Things have been hard for me to find, sometimes. Mangojuice^talk 04:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents. The notability guidelines are not consistent. It is also a matter of POV as to what is notable and what is not. I think we can acheive quality articles without using notability as a criteria. DanielZimmerman 19:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Moon

Read what I just wrote there, and explain. Wahkeenah 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not an edit war...

Each edit was modified in response to your expressed concerns, and explained my rationales, which I find compelling, in the history page comments. - Reaverdrop 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (In response to User_talk:Reaverdrop#Please_don.27t_edit_war_-_use_the_talk_pages.21.)

Talk page now officially used. - Reaverdrop 21:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with your "later indicated..." but see my talk page comments on "aggressive" vs. "assertive". - Reaverdrop 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert until we discuss these points on the talkpage

I am willing to discuss your issues with the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations on the talkpage, but your previous edits were not justified. We are trying to get an NPOV article here not a debate. --ScienceApologist 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

1942 mod

Stargate: Battle for Mankind is up for AFD again. List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD may also be of interest. Bfelite 02:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

notablity

Nice essay or cut-and-paste on your user page! Maybe there should be a WikiProject or similar group for people against "notability". -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 06:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I see from the comment above and yours on my talk page that you are already aware of the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for voilating the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your blatant display of cabalistic, in-bred stupidity. I trust that facts of Tom's behavior played no part in your decision, only the fact that he is an admin. I should have known better than to try to correct his vandalism. For great justice. 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)