User talk:AngoraFish

If you leave me a message on this page I will reply on this page.

If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch your page and continue the conversation there.

Thanks

Thanks for requesting protection for 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq. I didn't know there's a mechanism for getting protection. Maybe this will slow the POV assault the page was suffering. --JaGa (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate. ;-) Debate (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images and COI

A valid point. Ty 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might reintroduce it at some stage after a little reworking. Thanks. :) Debate (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Art4em's contributions

Hi there. I'd just like to clear up why you called some of Art4em (talk · contribs)'s contributions hoaxes. Hoaxes are obvious misinformations, not simply unsourceable or poorly sourced well-intentioned articles. I'm not trying to stir the pot, but I'd like to understand how this perception came to be, and if there is a genuine mistake, perhaps some fence-mending would be in order. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undertook extensive searches through academic journals, the internet, Google books and corporate websites and could find virtually no references to User:Art4em's LG Williams-related edits other than one self published website [1] and a couple of joke-style references, mostly in self-published sources see, for example [2]. There was also one 1999 trivia piece from the Daily Cal [3] (second article on same page). User:Art4em had, nonetheless, created a proliferation of detailed articles on Wikipedia related to LG Williams, most of which were later deleted per CSD G11, including LG Williams, House where the Bottom Fell out, The Party Down Scandal, Drawing Upon Art: The Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages. He had also integrated in-depth references to LG Williams in various other articles of established notability, such as Gardner's Art Through the Ages (originally 50% of content, still a disputed 20%) and still a disputed 80% of Rat Bastard Protective Association (see both talk pages). The tone of claims made about the artist were grandiose and completely unsupported by any verifiable facts (at one stage the LG Williams article claimed, for example, that he had a PhD with a non-existent category of honors from a non-existent university). Virtually all articles used identical reference lists which certainly didn't support the content, and indeed in most cases didn't even mention the author, but appeared to be designed to make the articles look credible and verifiable, even though this was not the case (see the remaining Talk:House where the Bottom Fell out). Consequently, I formed the view that there was possibly an elaborate hoax underway and sought feedback from other editors on that possibility. (ie I felt that this might be a genuine hoax and not simple vandalism, which the tag is sometimes incorrectly used for.) Not being directly involved in the San Francisco art scene I sought feedback from other editors in one related article Art4em had edited with others to see if that view was correct. As User:Art4em quotes, the text I used was "As far as I can tell the vast majority of Art4em's contributions appear to be hoaxes. If anyone more knowledgeable about the subject than I can scan an eye over his/her edits that would be much appreciated." (emphasis added) Note that, per WP:Hoax, the use of the hoax tag is to seek feedback from other editors to confirm or deny a prima facie case of hoaxing. After receiving feedback over several weeks, I have now formed the view that this is simply a non-notable individual with a significant conflict of interest engaged in comprehensive wikispamming, a similar view to that several other editors have since formed, hence why the bulk of his material has now been deleted per CSD G11. I note, however, that the complete absence of any credible, verifiable secondary or tertiary sources whatsoever to support several of his claims (an entire house as an art installation, Dennis Hopper as a member of his reconstituted "Rat Bastard Protective Association", for example) leaves me with residual concerns that although this individual does exist several of the claims made by Art4em may yet prove to be entirely false. Debate (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically to Wally Hedrick, per his accusation here. Notwithstanding, I've added comments here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Art4em. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The message on the Wally Hedrick talk page was about Art4em, not Wally Hedrick. It was necessary to ask the question on another article since the LG Williams suite of articles were not widely edited and I needed a second opinion regarding this user's edits. Debate (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've left a concise discussion with inline replies to the user. I would recommend staying clear solely for the purpose of not unnecessarily stirring up a pot. I've found your arguments thusfar to be spot on. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, correct that staying clear is far and away the best approach here. My short comment on Art4em's talk page was a lapse in judgment which I was well aware of at the time, but couldn't resist going down that rabbit hole anyway. Your involvement and balanced approach is noticed and appreciated. Debate (talk)

Jack McClellan

Unfortunately, I had to decline the speedy tag you placed on this article. While the article is almost entirely negative, it also purports to be backed up by sources. CSD G10 applies to purely negative biographical articles only if they exist specifically to disparage the subject and are entirely unsoruced. I've added a strong delete to the Afd, and would expect that to close as a delete, but I can't speedy it with sources. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Just a comment as I'm happy to wait for the AFD on this one. CSD G10 as written doesn't appear to apply only in instances where the attack is unreferenced. The sentence where referencing is raised reads as if this is simply one example of where the policy applies. That is, "This includes [but is not necessarily limited to?] a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". The main criteria, however, appears to be simply that the article "serves no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity". (Whether or not the only purpose of this particular page is to disparage the subject is in my view the main arguable point here.) Debate (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough wiggleroom that an argument could be made for deletion under G10, and I agree that the article comes close to meeting the main criteria. It's a close enough call, though, that I though the AfD would be the best place to discuss it. With the sources here, I can easily see this one coming back to DRV, so I think the Afd should control. In any event, thanks for discussing it. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Debate (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCAD Wiki

You may be interested in contributing to wikicities:AutoCAD. I'm sure your help there would be appreciated. Tom Haws (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling styles article

The problem is that the article (and many others, also now deleted) were created by a sock of banned User:JB196. It was part of a farm of pieces on unknown backyard wrestlers and their "moves". NawlinWiki (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nb. The above was copied from Talk:Debate although it was intended for me. I've removed it from there. There was a problem with my sig that was directing personal messages to me over to there. My bad (see below - thanks Icewedge). Debate 木 13:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion for Qore (PlayStation Network)

Hi. Thanks for letting me know the etiquette for AfD discussions. I didn't realise that I was not meant to vote, being the person who marked the AfD in the first place. This is the first article I have marked for deletion. I have now removed the comment. Cheers. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 07:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. :) Debate 木 07:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auction re-working

You rock.

I suggest leaving some of the auction types as "see alsos" for now, or at least don't go out of your to incorporate them into the text. Some should be potentially deleted and/or merged. Questionable ones include: Candle auction (maybe use if it looks good in history, but I'm lilkely to merge that article with English auction); Chinese auction (I see it's already gone, good); Iraqi auction (should probably be deleted entirely); Swiss auction (looks real, but of pretty low importance at least first run through); French auction (like Swiss auction, looks low importance)

I'd also suggest segregating "real" auction types from ones that are mostly/only models. All-pay auction is a great model, but pretty irrelevant to the practice of auctions. Dollar auction is a funny trick, but likewise irrelevant.

I hope these (and any future) suggestions are helpful. As long as you're the one doing the work, don't feel any particular obligation to follow my advice. Go be bold.Cretog8 (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Currently the question mark in your signature goes to Talk:Debate not user talk:Debate, you might want to fix that; or was that intentional? - Icewedge (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh... my bad. Fixed now. Thanks!!! All those messages to me that were disappearing into the ether. :-) Debate 木 12:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States federal budget, 2009

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from United States federal budget, 2009, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad, got burried in the edit summaries. Debate 木 13:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I knew is because I'm the one who PRODded it last time. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now nominated for AFD. ;-) Debate 木 13:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milgrom book

So, how is the Milgrom book? I should probably pick it up myself. Cretog8 (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. It's dense. It jumps straight in at the deep end and keeps diving so I certainly wouldn't be recommending it to relative beginners such as myself! You, on the other hand, might find it more than sufficiently rigorous for your taste. Milgrom is an impressive thinker and the writing is very readable, if you can cope with the math. Unfortunately, I'm having a great deal more trouble than I had initially expected extracting any useful citations out of it for this place.

BTW, I'm currently in the process of a bit of reworking on the auction article so feel free to stay away from it for a couple of hours. :) Debate 木 03:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To butt in, I found the Milgrom book hard to follow but Paul Klemperer's book was pretty useful. Besides, most of it is free. Protonk (talk)

Yeah, I need to make more use of that. I am a little uncomfortable, however, using Klemperer's draft as a reliable source for this place since, as a draft, it may not yet have gone through the normal peer/editorial review. The Milgrom book, however, needs to go back from whence it came. :) Debate 木 02:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's cool. The chapters that I read from the published version (2 and 3) did not differ significantly from the published version. I don't recommend using the draft itself as a source, but the book is helpful. Also, have you read The Lonely but Lovely Vickrey Auction? The paper there is the conference report but it was published in Milgrom's Combinatorial Auctions. The math is no less imposing than that found in Milgrom's other auction works, but at the very least the Vickrey Auction is a simpler mechanism to analyze. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I'll check it out when I get a spare moment. :) Debate 木 04:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

economic freedom

Hello--I have to admit I'm losing my ability to AGF on the economic freedom article. You've been around a lot longer than me. What would you recommend doing next? I could simply concentrate on making changes to the article rather than having counter-productive conversation on the talk page, but would expect many reverts in that case. Official or semi-official mediation seems like quite a drag, but I suppose that might have to be it. Anyway, if you've got suggestions I'd love to hear them. Cretog8 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These types of disputes are always problematic and, unfortunately in my experience, a drawn out process whichever way you approach it. In my view you're better off starting by adding well referenced criticism to the article rather than deleting bits in the first instance, it will be extremely difficult for other editors to justify reverting your well referenced edits, and if they do it sets you up much better later if a formal dispute is initiated. As the article evolves more closely towards a NPOV the discordant, unreferenced, unbalanced bits will become more apparent and it will be harder to justify retaining them. I do think, however, that you're in a pretty strong position here. You've done the right thing by avoiding an edit war and there has been a genuine and comprehensive attempt at achieving consensus. There's also a clear majority of concerned editors, with only one who has concerns about your approach. At some point you might want to see if you can get an admin involved by seeking a third opinion, but only once the issues are more clear-cut, and that would likely involve your substantive, referenced edits being reverted. Debate 木 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sounds like good advice. I'll try to concentrate on making good changes rather than debating at the talk page. Cretog8 (talk)

Armenian soups

I oppose the merger on all grounds, most importantly the ground that no consensus was sought nor obtained for such. Badagnani (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as stated above. Respectfully, consensus will need to be obtained for such a merger. Badagnani (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to address such questions at the actual talk page itself, or, even better, disseminate news of such a merger plan to the relevant article talk pages and projects. Badagnani (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch grass/Tussock (grass) Merger

It looks like the discussion over at Talk:Tussock (grass) has died off for the moment. Although the more complicated suggestions look like they might be controversial, it seems that everyone agrees merging Bunch grass into Tussock (grass) is a pretty good place to start. While I'm more than happy to do it, if you can wave your admin wand and do it properly that would be great. Of course, if you feel more discussion would still be beneficial then I'll more than happily bow to your superior expertise. Debate 木 10:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for ignoring your message for a few days. I'll review the discussion that already exists and take action if necessary. If I recall correctly, there was still disagreement, or at the very least not total agreement, regarding where the resulting page should be directed. I'd prefer not to take any action until there is consensus on where to place the article, rather than merge bunch grass with tussock (grass) and then later decide to move it to tussock grass. Keep an eye on the talk page over there for a new thread to direct conversation, if necessary. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani

A user you have recent interaction with is the subject of an ANI discussion here. Please feel free to comment. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barter

Thanks for fixing barter. Pawyilee (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, anytime. :) Debate 木 09:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LETTER SIZED PAPER DELETION=

You deleted my addition; it was truely neutral addition; you thought it was a viewpoint; it is not; did you EVEN READ the reference which was from the prestigeous Livermore National Labs (where they design nuclear weapons) or did you did delete-on-impulse my addition...

If you knew anything about that subject, you would have kept it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.254.207 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You contribution was not "truly neutral". There was argumentative phrasing throughout such as "the wasteful American consumer" (opinion), "EPA studies indicate" (which studies?), etc. Overall the contribution clearly read as an argument in favor of lighter paper weights and made little apparent effort to match existing text. Additionally, ALL CAPS was used repeatedly and in-line commentary was smattered between facts such as "is (apparently!)", "See new-provisional wikipedia entry", "which should be "absorbed" into future wikipedia article" etc. Furthermore, the one link you provided did not clearly support the information contained in your text - a reader should not have to wade through an extensive website in order to find the specific pages that you have used to source your contributions. There was also confusing grammar (eg "...ANY WEIGHT STRICKLY 20 and is...") and the contribution was incomplete by its own admission suggesting to a potential reader that it had been thrown together quickly and without a lot of forethought. See Wikipedia's Manual of Style (especially the guidelines on all caps and citing sources) and the policy regarding a neutral point of view. This may all seem a bit pedantic, but you can probably avoid reading most of these policies if you spend a little time looking around, seeing what good articles look like, and trying to match your contributions to that. Note that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a blog, and the standards are significantly more rigorous than what you might be familiar with elsewhere on the web. Happy editing! Debate 木 01:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

back

Thanks for the welcome back! I have no idea how long it will last. I'm here for fun, and found myself spending too much time pissed-off, so I still need to find a sustainable WP mind-space. This is a very peculiar project. Cretog8 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I entirely understand. My first experience with editing drove me off Wikipedia for a year. Since then I've tried to stick to stuff where my care-factor is a little lower and the conflict less frequent, or at least, in which I have less personal investment, eg Auction. :-) FWIW, I find the following helpful in maintaining some perspective: http://xkcd.com/386/ Debate 木 03:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good one, I'd forgotten about it! I also keep this in mind: http://www.xkcd.com/438/ Cretog8 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Debate 木 04:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sorry about that

Hello. I just looked over my edit at Talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and I realized that my respond might have seen a bit to harsh. While I wrote "you can see that...", I ment more of "one can follow the discussion...". My respond was in no way directed directly to you Debate, the "you" was supposed to be a more general "one". I also didn't mean for the name discussion to be over just because there had been a discussion previously. I'm sorry if it sounded like that! ;) Talsurrak (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I admit that I'd missed the collapsed discussion archive tab. :-) Debate 木 00:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for being so understanding! ;) About the name, I agree with you 100%, the name you suggested should be the official name, but since i followed the original debate I know that that proposal would have a zero chance of being accepted. I mean, both sides were mostly civil towards each other and they argumented strongly for their respective "cause", but in the end, the discussion becamed a juggernaut, everything said got repeated over and over again, until the current compromise was (finally) reached. Talsurrak (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]