User talk:Wageless

Welcome!

Hello, Wageless, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Duck Man

An article that you have been involved in editing, Duck Man, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duck Man. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Card Football

I'm going to re-add some parts of the UK version as i feel the current cut doesn't explain all aspects of the game. Thanks for not taking my edits/Afd nomination as a personal attack on the article, now its survived Afd i hope it grows into an article worthy of the front page :) - Thanks TheProf07 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okie doke. Perhaps the article now leaps into notability?

I'll remove the tag, however, its likely that this article will be nominated for AfD again. But theres a chance it'll be ok now. TheProf07 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Tags

Do not remove speedy tags. Only admins should do that. Undeath (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I don't agree. You are only supposed to add the hangon tag to it if you believe that it should not be deleted. Undeath (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you read the notice inside the speedy, it says do not delete it. Admins are only supposed to delete those tags. That is to cut down on vandalism. Undeath (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Edgardo Colona

Great job on that! Thanks for doing it TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For a simply lovely article. Good work! -- Quiddity (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loved your article in the New York Review of Books!

I just loved your article about wikipedia! Most articles about us are written by people who have no clue how wikipedia functions, and even the better ones are rarely written by "insiders". It was fantastic to see one written by an actual contributer, someone who knows what the process is like! Especially in such an austere publication as The New York Review of Books. I hope you keep up your editing. --Oskar 11:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's both one of the best external reviews of Wikipedia I've seen, and a very passionate, stirring call-to-arms for inclusionism. Thank you. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. By the way, I've asked for a deletion review of Richard Denner. Since you were obviously interested in the outcome, you are welcome to participate in the deletion review. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! I agree with the above, perhaps the best account of the project I've yet read. And a galvanizing reminder that even the fringes are worth defending. Bravo! --JayHenry (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also really enjoyed your article. Good job! JACOPLANE • 2008-02-29 21:28

Gosh, thank you all very much for these ↑ kind comments. This is wonderful.--Wageless (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally liked your article -- unlike many others, you actually dove into the site and gained some experience before writing it. I'm one of the more persistent inclusionists on AFD these days (though not to the extent of DGG either in philosophy). Another user you should keep an eye on is Uncle G (talk · contribs), whose essay On notability explains our notability guidelines better than they do themselves, and is in principle inclusionist. As to saving articles, I consider it a noble calling -- see John Washington, Peter Bulkley, and James Smith Bush for three recent examples -- and encourage you to continue your efforts. I do suggest you hang around and watch AFD some to see what arguments work and what arguments don't. I share your frustration when an editor just doesn't seem to get a subject, but I've come to at least respect the process that gets us there in the end, and know the loopholes and lifebuoys that mean deletion isn't always the end of the road, nor a reflection on Wikipedia as an entity. It's too anarchic for me to dismiss deletionism as a trend or an Achilles heel; at least at its base it stems from the same impulse of making a better encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inspired by your steady keepage in AfDs. Your recent defense of "drip gas" made me curious about the stuff. I still feel, despite WP:NOHARM, that the "What harm does it do?" argument is a powerful one, if it's coupled with a second line of defense specific to the article. Because really there is a second tacit part to asking that question: which is that harm is done when the stub is lost. In other words, "What harm?" is a gentle way of prompting the deleter to consider that a mistaken deletion is a step backward. I got into a tiny tussle about this with Otto4711 a while back.--Wageless (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that my own edit history makes me come off as a deletionist (though I've saved stuff in my time); yet I greatly enjoyed your article. And I'm very much looking forward to reading Human Smoke. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I just came here to say "nice one" too :-) It's nice to know the Missing Manual actually worked in user test ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, probrably the best I've read about wikipedia so far. Really good indeed.RIP-Acer (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping on the bandwagon here, but that is a very fine article, and your treatment of vandalism made me laugh - it's probably the first article about Wikipedia to do so. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all--I'm pleased and embarrassed. I admire the careful work that goes on here.--Wageless (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read about you and then read your article too. You rock! --Oakshade (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add to the praise. You've beautifully conveyed both how and why Wikipedia is the world's most interesting massively multiplayer game. It was a delight to read, and I will be forwarding it widely. Thanks! William Pietri (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also came by to thank you. Have sent it to my mother to explain how WP works. Relata refero (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for eloquently reminding me (and obviously others) of precisely what is worthwhile about WP. I've been contributing (to varying degrees) since 2002 and was recently getting worn down by all the talk, talk, talk but your article recalled to me the reasons why I got involved in the first place. Pinkville (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a delicate balance between inclusionism and deletionism; too much of either will ruin the project. On the whole, your article is quite entertainingly written. (Although I have to admit that I loathed Fermata.) DS (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate these ↑ generous comments--thank you. Balance in all things.--Wageless (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; you've found good things to edit. If you haven't read Jason Scott's criticisms of Wikipedia (one, two, three, etc.), they're a decent counterpoint to the large body of enthusiasm about this place. And I can't tell you how much I enjoyed The Mezzanine. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I listened to one of Jason Scott's impressive rants. I wish I'd written about Veropedia, which feeds in and takes out. Just ran out of breath.--Wageless (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great piece, Wageless - and I'm with you in inclusionism. Always better to have some extra chaff, rather than risk throwing out the wheat. Thanks for writing it! (PS- loved Vox too!) Tvoz |talk 04:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you're very welcome--chaff dust looks great in slanting sunlight.--Wageless (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wageless, for an entertaining and inspiring piece. I was just getting involved in AfDs and notability sorting when the Richard Denner article was up for deletion, and I almost commented there. Alas, I was leaning weak delete, but these days I am moving more towards the inclusionist side of the fence, for many of the reasons you articulated so well. As for balance, I hope you can find one between compulsion and contribution, and continue to lend your words here. Best, Jfire (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Not sure I can be a longterm contributor because it's way too much fun.--Wageless (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to say I admire your heart in the review... Very passionate piece. I am myself more of a deletionists kind because... well, you eventually turn into one when you have two-year backlogs of clean up requests... Who can have a heart to spend an hour trying to fix up something when there are 80,000 other articles waiting? It's so much easier to click delete and forget that it ever happened... Wikipedia's size is its blessing and its curse. In short, I admire your heart that goes for those orphan abandoned stubs because I know I could never be like that... Renata (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment, thanks. I guess I just have a user's perspective: I'm always happier to find something--even the tiniest, orphanedest, eighty-thousandthest stub--than nothing at all.--Wageless (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another compliment: Great article! Keep up the good work. Remember (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you get a lot done in a day! Thanks.--Wageless (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely a beautiful piece. Well done! – Clockwork Soul 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a well done to you for your exceptionally thorough work on those chemical warfare articles, which were helpful recently when I was working on a book.--Wageless (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the best defence of inclusionism I've read. Let's hope it helps to catalyse a return to the leaf collecting culture. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prod-watching and your work on scientific biographies!--Wageless (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. I especially enjoyed it because I was surprised to see that one of the articles you tried to save from deletion was about my improv group, Whirled News Tonight. I'm not sure who created the article originally (for all I know it was someone in the group, although it could have been a local fan) but it's odd to watch people debate over whether you're "notable" or not (apparently, we're not). If you're ever in Chicago, we'd love for you to stop by, maybe even read aloud some of the articles we deconstruct as part of the show (we usually do newspaper articles, but a Wikipedia show could be fun too). More importantly, your piece has inspired me to delve deeper into Wikipedia. I use it a lot as a jumping off point for research at work, but now I'm curious to learn more. Then again, some of this stuff is easily scarier than getting up in front of a drunk audience without a script. Arnie Niekamp (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just couldn't understand the pestering and eventual deletion of Whirled News. There was sufficient press coverage. Quite uncalled for. Anyway, congratulations on having such a long running improv show.--Wageless (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: Richard Denner is a part of Wikipedia's knowledge base again. That was an excellent recent article you wrote at NYRB. Hopefully you stick around and write a little more about Wikipedia. I was intrigued by your archiving of newspaper articles. Did you ever come across New York Press? there's a whole slew of great journalism in that paper that's being lost. I hope the Press is as concerned about old newspapers as you are, or even just others.-A rabid following (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denner's back already? Hey that's great. Thanks to Richard Snow and others who did the deletion review. Denner's a rescuer himself, turns out--see his recent Berkeley Daze.--Wageless (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the article! Well written and honest. -- Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully written and widely shared with my family and friends who don't quite get my (now one-year) fascination (not quite addiction) with Wikipedia. You might also be interested to know that your article as well as the one that appeared in the Economist Wednesday have sparked quite a lively discussion on the Wikien-l mailing list. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo request

Hi, you may be familiar with the subject of the Wikipedia article Nicholson Baker. The article needs a photo – would you be willing to upload one under a GFDL license? JGHowes ^talk - 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'll try to upload a photo to the talk page, if that'll work. I haven't read the article about me: feels like I'm eavesdropping or intruding. Or maybe it's just that I don't want to be made unhappy by some misunderstanding.--Wageless (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On any WP page (or almost any), look for the list of links (probably on the left) subtitled "Special pages". Among them is "Upload file". This is how you upload a JPEG or an mp3 file or whatever. Uploading is easy. (You upload it to Wikipedia rather than to a page.) The worry is that you'll then be presented with one or more copyright-related questions that may be rather baffling at first. Various highly annoying (but yes, commendable and much needed) humans and "bots" look through uploads for copyright anomalies and are likely to make angry and minatory announcements about the merest hint of impropriety. But don't worry much about any of these. Instead, announce here that you've uploaded a file named such and such, and somebody here can help tidy up the copyright angle (if needed), and add the photo to the article, which you won't ever need to see. (Although of course you are very welcome to take a look at it. Sorry it's so scrappy.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll give it a shot soon. Thanks for the help!--Wageless (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, and here I was about to come and ask you if you had a good pic of yourself for the article ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat relatedly, I smiled when I saw this edit from your mother! (fixed since)

Unrelatedly, you might be interested in this short movie/screencast from 2005: Heavy metal umlaut: the movie. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice fluent analysis on that screencast--thank you Quiddity.--Wageless (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude towards Emma Fordyce MacRae

Yo, I noticed you are of the opinion that my tagging Emma Fordyce MacRae for speedy deletion was unjustified. I was wondering if you could elaborate, as I cannot see any claim to notability in the original version of the article. Regards, скоморохъ 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article was written by somebody quite new to WP. You gave the effort two minutes of breathing time before whomping it. I'm no expert, but WP:Speedy sensibly advises against this because there may be further additions. Also the fact that MacRae's work is held in Boston's Museum of Fine Arts is an implicit claim to notability--it's what caught my eye, anyway. If you wanted it to become a better article, you might have--as the speedy criteria page also reasonably advises--gotten in touch with the article's author and given him/her some words of help about how to satisfy your reading of A7. If on the other hand you were bent on deletion because you felt there was absolutely no valid reason to have an article about this particular painter, I think you should have AfD'd it. A moment's googling shows askart, artcyclopedia, etc, and there are a number of hits at nytimes.com. Regards,--Wageless (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Wageless. (In pedant mode, I'll point out that "prodding" is a third option aside from "speedying" and ayeffdeeing.) And excellent work on the article, too: it hardly looked ripe for deletion when you first saw it, but it certainly doesn't after your work on it. -- Hoary (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that, Hoary--and I appreciate your fixing the links in the article.--Wageless (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Just reading one of your articles (heh) ... and it's a gem. Thanks for it. Thought you might like to check another crazy project, with similar motivation to wp. it's inspired, in name (and spirit in part) by Vox, and we're raking public domain texts into piles of free audio: http://librivox.org Mackinaw (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops somehow i missed the other comments on this topic, above, sorry!Mackinaw (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (I found librivox last year and love it--a beautiful quilt of voices. "All librivox recordings are in the public domain." Been listening to Edgar Rice Burroughs's "A Princess of Mars.")--Wageless (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! wonderful ... if you'd ever like to record something for us, let me know. and on a related note, miette is a friend of LibriVox, one of the best voices in free audio literature, and wonders whether you would let her record one of your stories?Mackinaw (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--I'll get in touch with her on her website when things settle down.--Wageless (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alenty

Your edit to Alenty, I am sure is done in good intention and you fixed per MOS and improved the grammar, but you modified some meaning a bit too much to detract from the vertical of the industry conserned. So I am reverting your edit to how it was before. Please spend a little bit of time learning abou social media networking so you understand the terminalogy involved. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igor, if Wageless made improvements but also modified some of the meaning in unfortunate ways, it might have been a good idea to undo some rather than all of his work. (Incidentally, I'm told that an, um, book-length exploration of one form of social media networking by another incarnation of Wageless was regarded so highly that it found its way to the very pinnacle of the Free World. Wageless does I think have some idea about what he edits.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary thanks. Wageless no problem, keep editing. I do not really want to pick on every word. Thanks for the help and sorry that I undid your edit. Igor Berger (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Igor, no need to apologize. I notice that Jfire has already reverted the reversion. I'm glad you changed your delete nomination for Alenty to keep.--Wageless (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated it did not have references. Now it does! So with a little help the author of the article was able to cement it in Wikipedia. It is better this way, then if he would have created it unproperly, and it would have been deleted later without giving the author a chance to improve the article. All worked out for the best. Igor Berger (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for your article about Wikipedia. More importantly, thank you for writing novels with so much humour. I can't understand why "professional" reviews of your work so rarely remark on the many 'laugh out loud' moments you conjur, often in the most unlikely scenarios. Genius. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man.--Wageless (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too thoroughly enjoyed the article. I got addicted about two years ago, and while I am now recovering (occasionally falling off the wagon), I guess I was waiting for somebody to write a really good insider article like that. But I never imagined it would appear in the stuffy old New York Review of Books, to which I've been happily subscribed since the early 70s. --Halcatalyst (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite book of yours is U and I, which ought to be required reading, I think, in writing programs. Also, it ought to be required reading in reading programs, but I don't think there are any.