User talk:Edgarde

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives

2005 | 2006 | 2007

FAQ

• Turning off tags (1)

Importance

I'm not disputing anything, but just so you know, the assessment importance doesn't need to reflect a real-world ranking. I would say "Top" importance articles would those subject to high levels of attention and inquiry. My favorite example would be anything mentioned in a Presidential speech.

Another example, were there a Microsoft WikiProject, Microsoft Windows might get "Top" importance, where Bill Gates might get "Mid". A Biography WikiProject might give Bill Gates a "High".

I think a subject like Family Guy should have one or two Top-importance articles, that the project really intends to work on. If we tag more, "Top" importance becomes less meaningful. / edg ☺ ★ 18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

I don't get it? Why are you telling me this and why aren't you reverting me? TheBlazikenMaster 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you think otherwise. As it is within the WikiProject, there isn't a strict right or wrong on this one. / edg ☺ ★ 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: This edit

The unregistered user thinks I'm being silly. And I don't really know how to explain. I was wondering if you could get to that Talk Page and explain to the IP why this can't be added. TheBlazikenMaster 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I left him a bit of explanation here. / edg ☺ ★ 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits=

FCUK you. That's French Connection (clothing). Sorry I'm being immature, but so what. Ban me please, ban me. 203.220.105.11 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

White Devil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Excuse me.

User:White Devil has several final warnings on their user page. Edit history shows that each time one is received, editor cools it for at least a week, then resumes same vandalism. [1] [2]

This is the 2nd time in two weeks a block was denied because this editor hasn't been active since final warning issued. I'd say this vandal has found a method to evade block.

This account has few or no good edits, and may be vandalism only. I think a block is in order. / edg ☺ ★ 05:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

re: User:White Devil

See #1 on WP:AIV: "The vandal is active now, has been sufficiently warned, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances." Last Tuesday doesn't count as recent in my book. What you describe may be unusual circumstances, but there appear to be some good-faith edits in the history and I'd prefer to give the benefit of the doubt. If you feel strongly about a block, I'd suggest summarizing the situation on WP:ANI. I'm not opposed to the user being blocked, but I'm trying to play it by the book. Dppowell 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are not opposed to the user being blocked, may I simply repost this to WP:AIV so that another admin may review this? I think playing by the rules means I do not have permission to vandalize up to last warning every 2 weeks. The proposal that I should have to escalate User:White Devil to the Corps of Administrators because this vandal WP:GAMEs the system so trivially seems pointlessly bureaucratic. / edg ☺ ★ 06:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Am reviewing with another admin now. Dppowell 06:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

After discussing the matter with another admin, I've blocked him for 24 hours and left an appropriate block message on his talk page. Hopefully, that will send the desired message. Dppowell 06:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A Message By the El-Dude-O'

El-Dude-O' likes your style. El-Dude-O' wants to know if you want to be wikiamigo's - El-Dude-O' (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Stokely

Thank you for deleting that promotional link. When I removed it, the dude threw a temper tantrum. Josephgrossberg (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If calling somebody on a wholesale revert where you didn't so much as bother to read what the hell you were reverting constitutes a "temper tantrum" so be it. Have somebody revert some of your good-faith additions sometime and then accuse you of spamming and see how the hell you feel about it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't argue with a third party on my Talk page. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Settle down, IACB. Josephgrossberg (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PeachyWiki

I notice you are linking peachywiki.com to various articles. That site does not seem to have the sort of uniquely informative content that Wikipedia:External links recommends. If anything, PeachyWiki seems more like an image aggregator, at least for the articles you have linked. Also, since it appears to be at least partially a wiki, it's a self-published site, which per Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not excluded from external linking, but is certainly less valuable. A number of sites exist dedicated to the subject of porn stars, including wiki sites (NikkiWiki is one I know of), and maybe one of these will be established as a useful site the way IAFD is. But I'm fairly certain links to PeachyWiki at this time are spam. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think PeachyWiki is actually a useful resource ala IAFD. Several of its pages give lists of website appearances by porn models, information that only a few places have in any kind of centralized form. For example, this page on Charlie Laine:

http://peachywiki.com/Charlie-Laine.ashx

There are very few resources out there right now that give the equivalent of filmographies for website appearances and I figured PeachyWiki would be one of them. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Filmographies are not copyrighted information, and can be found on IMDB (Charlie Laine at IMDb) as well as IAFD. As I stated above, PeachyWiki does not seem to have uniquely informative content. Please do not promote it on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As for website appearances, there exist dozens of porn aggregators, many of whom give comparable reasons when attempting to spam Wikipedia. I'm asking you not to use Wikipedia to promote yet another one. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And I really don't take kindly at all to accusations of "spamming". What single commercial website am I promoting by giving a page with multiple website appearances of an actress? PeachyWiki is a wiki, not a for-profit porn aggregator. As for "uniquely informative", I think there are several PeachyWiki pages that qualify as such. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PeachyWiki is (from what you're saying) a new site. If at some point PeachyWiki becomes a worthwhile site, maybe it can be considered. You might bring this up at WP:P*. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're saying about PeachyWiki in its present form not having much in the way of useful additional information, which is a different (and more relevant, in my opinion) statement from saying its commercial spam. Also, I actually was thinking of bringing up the topic of porn databases in general over on WP:P*, since the topic has also come up on Template_talk:Female_adult_bio#Adult_Web_Movie_Database. Some consensus on what kind of external links to include in porn-related articles and what the dividing line is between that and porn linkspam would be a good thing. I do think porn linkspam is a problem in Wikipedia and have reverted a lot of it myself, but I also think there are grey areas that need to be acknowledged. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Edgarde

How are you? sorry i was away, i got ambushed and shot in Angeles and spent time in hospital recovering, im still not well enough to return here but letting you know ill soon be back editing. ive noticed rodent and his clones have highjacked the articles. take care, susanSusanbryce (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Susan. I was wondering what happened. You live an interesting life. I guess I'm glad I don't.

Let me know when you want to resume fussing over the "Trafficking" article. Rather than restart the edit war, we should just head straight to Mediation.

No hurry on any of this. Get well first. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks Edgarde, well how exactly can we move forwrd then to mediation, also i want mediation on everything, all the articles i have started or posted and where Rodent has deleted what ive done and tried to force page ownership as well as his personal attacks against me. id like to subit the whole lot for mediation, how can we do this please?Susanbryce (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. First we need to list the articles of concern. Others can be added if they become an issue during the mediation. I'm aware of these:

• Angeles City
• Human trafficking in Angeles City
• Human trafficking in the Philippines

What others? I think we can define two issues:

1. Tendentious editing that appear to be WP:POVPUSH by RodentofDeath in the abovementioned articles
2. History of personal attacks on your Talk page and on User:RodentofDeath, as well as in the articles (Talk page as well as article bodies) and other forums (such as in WP:ANI). / edg ☺ ☭ 02:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Human trafficking in Angeles City. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. /RodentofDeath (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath attack on Susan Pineda

Rodent has made a slanderous attack on Susan pineda on the angeles discussion page.... susan pineda... one of the most corrupt government officials there is. also one of the most unreliable. if you recall she is the one making the outrageous and completely fictional claim that said 75% of prostitutes are children. she is also the one that tried extorting money from Richard Agnewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_trafficking_in_Angeles_City&curid=9324922&diff=174141685&oldid=174141353

He claims she is involved in extortion and a corrupt goverment official. He cites no eveidence of this , it is clearly a serious breach of wikipedia and I believe should be referred to the administrators, I believe this is grounds for him to be banned from wikipedia.kind regardsSusanbryce (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rodent disparaging someone he disagrees with? How unsurprising. If he does this in article space, it violates WP:BLP. Unsourced talk page ravings are just noise, so don't take them too seriously.

I'd like to restore the repeated statements you trimmed. They are there for a reason — see my reply in Talk:Human trafficking in Angeles City#Same_statement_repeated_twice. If you want to revert back to the previous version, that would be great. If you still have issues with this, please let me know. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Boomshanker lives

Good morning Edg - I just wanted to say thank you for your comments, sword n'all, in case you did not see my thank you on my page Boomshanker (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Boomshanker. Thanks for your message.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I'm as happy as anyone here to see a spammer blocked. I've dinged you twice on such offenses, and you've yet to make a single edit (aside from Talk page comments) that didn't mention Yes. It is our hope that you become a contributer who improves Wikipedia. But if you edit with the intent of finding ways to promote you product, our good faith in you is wasted.

All that said, I'm glad to help. Feel free to message me if you need any assistance. The smiley face icon in my sig leads to my Talk page. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I have filed a request for mediation on the Human Trafficking in Angeles article and you are invited to comment. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Human_trafficking_in_Angeles_City.Susanbryce 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, too late. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RodentofDeath. (P.S. I'd already established that mediation was not likely to work, as established in the RFC). MER-C 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you edgarde, I deleated thae add policy. You sure you don't want to be a member? --BrianGriffin-FG 17:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I have my hands full with other activities, including WP:FG, so I have to decline, but I appreciate the invitation. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

TROLL KITTEH NEEDS MOAR DRAMA

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tokyo in pop culture (2nd nomination)

I closed this AfD as many other users have felt that you relisted the page for deletion too soon. If you want, you can take Tokyo in pop culture to deletion review instead; I would suggest taking this route instead of making a new AfD the same day the old one closes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, the result of the debate was not to merge, redirect, or delete the article. I removed the entire list; in doing so I challenged its relevance and its sourcing. DGG says that appropriate content will be added back. I'm skeptical this will happen but it doesn't hurt to wait and see. I think the redirect will have a much easier time sticking if you wait a couple weeks and there is still no more content. But DGG is an article builder, give him a chance and see what happens. Mangojuice^talk 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright-y then. Couldn't hurt. Thanks for your input on this. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice and Edgarde, I certainly did intend to add back an appropriate part of the cultural material. I continue to disagree with its removal, but I admit that there is no point keeping such a list without an attempt to sot it out and add some sort of sourcing, at least primary. Too much of it is redlinks, and that is absolutely not a good idea in such a list. I intended as a first step to remove them and restore the others, but I realize in the light of the new day that I undertook more than i could deal with. If i did only that, you'd probably just bring it to AfD yet again, The material is almost entirely material I am unfamiliar with, most of it in a language I do not understand, and the criticism and sourcing will mostly be in that language. Someone else will have to do it. I will therefore not oppose the merge if nobody else is willing to do the work. I cannot learn Japanese in time to work with the material, or even familiarise myself in time with the parts of the material in English. (Though I am getting familiar with manga, by way of Wikipedia, & I am beginning to appreciate it. I do intend to learn at least one more language--maybe it will be Japanese after all.) The possible material seems so extensive that it would possibly do better to be added to Wikipedia in more than one article, when someone who knows the subject take the time to do it. I can envision such an article as "Manga set in Tokyo." I wouldn't be surprised if there were eventually a book on the subject--but it would most likely be in Japanese.

Mangojuice, I also agree with you the redirect is unnecessary, except to preserve the edit history for whoever does eventually write the article. If you think you can merge it, all the better.

I deeply and sincerely apologize for causing this unnecessary confusion--I certainly should at least have looked at it more fully before i acted . Edg, you did not act contrary to the DRV--there was more than one way to go forward, and your way was certainly acceptable. DGG (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thaddeus Griffin

Thanks for the heads up on the Thaddeus discussion. I wouls still maintain that he doesn't belong and I left my opinion on the discussion page. Thanks again for informing though. Saget53 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath

You may be interested in this, since you probably know most about his behaviour than I do. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Evidence. MER-C 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm watching with interest, and will try to contribute something before the week is up. Since my complaints about the mouse to Corps of Administrators have resulted in almost no action for 6 months now, I'm very interested in how you and John254 present this case to Arbitration.

And I am familiar with the arbitration procedure. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rodent notes

I don't think the Bryce attack version of User:RodentofDeath was actually live for very long. If I recall correctly, it was deleted after being reported (by me) on WP:ANI after only a few days. I think User:RodentofDeath went empty for at least a month afterward, possibly for 2 entire months, and may have been restored only for the recent RfC. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell. I've removed this from the evidence, but it wasn't specifically restored for the RFC. MER-C 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong then. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

I have listed Template:FGwiki on WP:DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 13#Template:FGwiki. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed vote to merge

I changed my AfD vote to merge, based on my own findings Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters .

The image on your page Image:IM IN UR WIKI RVRTING UR EDITS lolcat.jpg and your wikilawyering on AfDs reminds me of another user, who has thankfully since retired from the project, he candidly wrote his reason why, a portion which I will post here:

I had become involved in the “articles for deletion” venue, where I began becoming the target of immense hatred...All the while, I wondered why the hell I was doing it. I began to realize that, for me, the nasty truth was that much of it was a power trip. Oh, don’t get me wrong: my actions were taken because, in part, I did truly believe that the articles I nominated didn’t belong. But it was indeed a manifestation of a darker side of me — I enjoyed the fact that I could hurt someone — make them angry and mad and defensive. Because in my real life, that’s not something I do. I’m Mister Friendly with nearly everyone I meet, and I’m actually a really nice guy in about 99% of circumstances. But something about the process brought out the worst in me — aggression and adrenaline, all funneled through a keyboard without danger of being punched in the face. Resisting the temptation to say “fuck you, fanboy,” and instead turning it into a passive-aggressive “I truly believe that your article is not notable, and would remind you that Wikipedia has policies regarding not attacking your fellow editors and being civil to them” (ah, did I have a gift for the bull-lingo) … I got a dark thrill out of seeing people froth and rage and turn into drooling rabid ready-for-heart-attack messes because they weren’t getting the fight they wanted out of me. And another side of me looked at that dark thrill and went, “What the fuck are you doing, Mike?”

This Afd, and all the other Afds I have seen you brought could have been avoided. You readily admit that this AfD could have been avoided. You created a lot of wikidrama and wasted a lot of people's time.

Most nominators of AfDs never do this:

consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template.

This is much harder, this forces the user to actually build consensus, compromise and cooperate. I see none of these characteristics in your AfDs. I sincerely believe that many nominators, like Mike, deep down inside enjoy the power of destroying other people's work. They selectively use wikipolicy like a weapon to push through the AfD.

I backed down today and changed my vote--basically admitting I was wrong. In the years you have been on wikipedia, have you ever admitted you were wrong? Have you ever changed your vote in a Afd? I sincerely doubt it.

I hope they file the holes in AfD wikipolicy so editors like Mike don't go on vicious piety rampages anymore.

Please keep your response on this talk page, I will watch your page. Odessaukrain (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the energy you applied to this discussion. Just so you know, the term wikilawyering usually carries with it the assumption of bad faith.

As for Mr. Gas Mask (talk · contribs), I shared my reservations with him.^[3] The reason for my threatening tone is I didn't expect he would participate in a WP:CONSENSUS-based discussion. He didn't reply – he never does. I'm increasingly confident he is a sock of another editor whose warning levels are approaching block.

My usual motivation in AfD nominations is to weed out articles that can never become good articles. The main reason I haven't nominated 6 of the 8 Family Guy character articles you listed is I'd rather there be a more general consensus among regular Family Guy editors on these matters, and there's really no hurry. But The Giant Chicken had to go.

And as the saying goes, I apologized for a mistake on Wikipedia once, but doing so turned out to be a mistake. I'd link this instance, but that would be rubbing it in. Do typos count? / edg ☺ ☭ 15:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rap and Hip Hop

Why did you undo my edits? I was only trying to maintain a strict NPOV environment. Anytime where the words rap or hip hop come up in an article we have ppl making unneeded commentary? wiki_is_unique (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Souljaman. Thanks for writing.

I agree that rap-related articles are subject to some biased and often abusive edits. About 2/3 of what gets added to the Gangsta rap is vandalism or spam, and gets removed immediately.

That said, Discussion page comments should not be deleted as long as they are relevant to editing the article. Editing for NPOV applies to the article, not the discussion page. Yes, Bennelloitt's comment included some stupe assumptions — in matters like this Wikipedians are supposed to assume good faith and stay civil, so deleting other editors' comments is in bad form. I undeleted that comment not because I agreed with it, but because the editor who removed it was not the editor who posted it.

If you're interested, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has information on what's considered acceptable on Discusion pages. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you edgarde. It just seems that as long as the word hip hop comes up that the article becomes targeted for some reason. I will stick to those guidelines though. Thanks have a nice day ;] wiki_is_unique (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have another question. Could I propose that the Soulja Boy Tell 'Em and the Crank Dat articles be deleted because of people who just come to either vandalize,fill the article with their opinions and fill the talk page with ridiculious statements not related to the articles. I also believe that the article itself is becoming an attack article towards Soulja Boy and his song. wiki_is_unique (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)