User talk:Colonel Warden

Notice of ANI Thread

Dear Colonel Warden, I notice that you have participated in this discussion. Anyway, please see here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your comment at AFD

I have just as much right to edit the encyclopedia as an unregistered user as you do as a registered one. It is my choice. Contributions from IPs should be given equal weight to those from usernames. Please try and be more understading and/or civil - and try and avoid making borderline personl attacks. Thanks. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, anonymous IPs are not able to make AFD proposals and their comments are usually discounted there. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's really a poor attitude to take, given that the validity of a comment is dependent upon its substance and not on who made it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 07:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I responded to your comments on my talk page.

Would you consider joining me in opposing RfA self-noms? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In due course perhaps but not yet. I find that the AFD process keeps me busy enough and I don't want to get too involved in wiki-politics. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Filed in the "Hacker" article

In accordance with clause (4) of the Arbitration Filing Procedure, you are hereby being notified that you have been mentioned as a contributing party to the article and you can make a statement.

You can find the claim, and make your statement here.

I am required to tell you this information I am the filing party for the arbitration claim.

Andrew81446 (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

award

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I award User:Colonel Warden for providing humor on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun fu while adding refs at the article at the same time. Lenticel (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I awaited to see if the Afd was kept before giving this award. I think I forgot it for some time. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Yeah, I'm going to try to be conservative here for now. As long as he doesn't actually disrupt us making forward progress I don't think action is necessary. We'll see how long that lasts. Nandesuka (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

I'd like to thank you for your reasoned defense of my contributions regarding the history of communism and genocide. When trying to bring this subject up, as you can see, everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at the contributors. I'm grateful to have at least one unbiased person defending the article. Mrdarklight (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just edited the main page for Communism to include a direct link to the disputed article. Now watch what happens. Mrdarklight (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vector (spatial)

At this AfD discussion, you have repeatedly alluded to various problems you have with the vector (spatial) article. I was wondering if you would mind posting some suggestions on the talk page of the article in question? I'm currently planning a major revision (or, at least, to finish the revision I started about a year ago). I would very much like to take your advice into consideration. Thanks, Silly rabbit (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to post such a thoughtful and detailed response at Talk:Vector (spatial). I will definitely use your suggestions. Regards, Silly rabbit (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Criticism is easier than creation so you now have the hard job. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dudes and Dandys

I'm sorry, but redirecting without first getting consensus isn't the right thing to do. The words have clearly different meanings and usages. Far better to suggest a Merge using the {{mergeto}} tag and letting editors have a say, rather than imposing your view. Please join the discussion I started at Talk:Dude and let a discussion play out. Hopefully consensus will emerge. Thanks, Gwernol 11:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Already found that, thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your message to User:NeilN, I don't think a consensus has developed about Dude. I don't agree with your change to a disambiguation page and apparently NeilN doesn't either. I said I wouldn't revert your change because I don't want to edit war over this, but please don't take that to mean I agree with you. Until we see more editors comment I don't think you can claim there is consensus for anything, including my objections. Gwernol —Preceding comment was added at 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Measurement Causes Collapse

You might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_causes_collapse

And their unfortunate attempt to delete it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Measurement_causes_collapse

Lordvolton (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude

You might want to give me a couple minutes before issuing an ultimatum, eh? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 12:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Better to discuss before reverting, which avoids this problem. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Better to establish consensus first before redirecting an established article which avoids the whole problem. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 12:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

guideline

Please reconsider your opposition to Masem's Notability (Fiction) guideline--the result of not having one in place will be chaos, leading to further extensive deletions--those who do not like fiction articles are ready. We will never agree completely with him on wording or some details, but we shouldn't hold it up for that--its a major improvement. The application of it on a tentative basis at various afds has always been in a constructive fashion. Feel free to use email if you prefer. DGG (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Consciousness causes collapse merger

I missed the original discussion, but the nature of the merger seems quire unjustified to me. There is basically no discussion at all of the original subject matter of consciousness causes collapse on Quantum Mysticism, (unlike Quantum mind, and Copenhagen interpretation. The reader is effectively being told that the subject is nonsense without being told why. That is not how good encyclopedias work. Some sort of merger might have been a good idea, but this is WP:POV and censorship.1Z (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Move

Are you sure you wanted to move the article to Hacker ( Free and Open Source Software) and not Hacker (Free and Open Source Software)? --rtc (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a typo. I'm sticking with it for now as there's no way to undo this, so far as I know. We can move on to a refined version of the title but should avoid creating multiple redirects. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've updated most of the obvious links now. Feel free to move to a further revision if the extra space bothers you. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Does deletion make sense?

Hello Mr. Colonel Warden. I noticed vector (physical) has been deleted. Given your strong arguments made during the debate, I don't understand its subsequent deletion. I've posted a comment to this effect on Keeper76's page [1] . Would you have any ideas on whether its deletion is actually in alignment or not with wikipolicy criteria used in evaulating a debate? Perhaps Keeper76 didn't understand parts of the argument. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• The term consensus is interpreted strangely here and the guideline for admins that they should not delete in cases of doubt is more honoured in the breach than otherwise. If you think you have a case, you could try taking the matter to deletion review but my judgement is that the close is unlikely to be be overturned and so this would be a waste of time. Better to work on the Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) article now this is also being considered for deletion. Currently this article looks bad because there is no meat upon its bones and this does not help its cause. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Given your arguments to keep and its subsequent deletion, I imagine that anyone who understands them could only see the wikipedia universe as fundamentally flawed. A minority view, even when accurate and well referenced, is not being protected against huge misconceptions. Perhaps contributions are just wasted pearls. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• You have my sympathy but fine words butter no parsnips. In this place, it is best to pick your battles carefully otherwise you will experience much frustration. I have been watching the AFD discussions for some time. It's good when a promising article can be saved but one can't win them all. Best not to get too attached to an article that anyone can edit. 13:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I admit I can loose sight of the commonality of an article (Is that really so bad? Does it really cause problems?). But my over-riding concern and motivation is the physical nature of many topics and the use of good references. These are being short changed in many technical articles. If someone is to use wikipedia, then shouldn't that someone be reasonably confident that standard schools of thought are being fairly represented? As in a Britanica or in a World Book? --Firefly322 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• The use of references in maths articles is currently poor. Please see the guidelines for citations. If your edits are supported by good citations, then they will be more likely to stick. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Let the converse not hold. I recommend that someone add and use Nicolas Bourbaki's Elements of the History of Mathematics for vector (Gibbs-Heaviside). --Firefly322 (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Procedural Inquiry

To me, a merger between the article Vector Analysis (Gibbs/Wilson) and the article Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) makes a lot sense. Would simply recommending a merger in the AfD debate on Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) be the most procedurally sound course of action to choose? I imagine such a merger should also be discussed with the current editors of Vector Analysis (Gibbs/Wilson). --Firefly322 (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Proposing a merger is common in AFD discussions. You'd know better than me whether this makes sense in this case. Tactically, it would seem to help by demonstrating your flexibility and the existence of other related articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• A closer examination reveals that the Vector Analysis (Gibbs/Wilson) article's intended scope and its actual purpose are quite different from those of Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside). Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) is about the vectors as found in conventional vector analysis, whereas Vector Analysis (Gibbs/Wilson) is about the book on Vector Analysis with Gibbs and Wilson as authors.--Firefly322 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Larson

Thanks for supporting the non-deletion of the article. This all started when I wanted to see what wiki had to say about her, and I'd've been content to find the article that I ended up writing. Some of those other editors can be a bit stodgy and prescriptivist when they should remember wikipedia ought to be descriptivist, eh? If you ever need some back up on a valid point you're making somewhere, let me know. By the way, Larson's star meter on imdb is up 26,640% since I added her imdb link to her wikipedia page. How obviously non-notable she is. JesseRafe (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD removal

I just wanted it deleted for a danged good reason! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiacatcrimson (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Meta Knight etc.

And the discussion on the talk pages before you resurrected these articles was .... where, exactly? Black Kite 18:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Colonel, sir

By the way sir, should the Colonel of your user moniker be used to infer an interest in Military History? And that airmen or soldiers or saliors regularly do call you sir? --Firefly322 (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

reply

I've replied to your message at List of basic United States topics. The Transhumanist    22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

List of basic Canada topics

I've put a lot more work into it. Is it good enough to keep now? If not, what else needs to be done to it?

By the way, thank you for adding the Canada link.

The Transhumanist    00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Wiki Wiffle Bat
		Awarded to Colonel Warden for exceptional acts of clear-headed rationality in the face of cowardly acts of authority in both Gibbs-Heaviside and physical. For honestly demonstrating to me that it's not whether I or you or he or she or whoever win or lose, but how all of us play the game. Firefly322 (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Colonel Warden by Firefly322 (talk) on 10:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DRV

Thank you for notifying me. I appreciate it. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)