Jump to content

User talk:SmokeyJoe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.7.39.174 (talk) at 13:19, 14 October 2008 (→‎DRV comments: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SmokeyJoe talk page

2007
January - June, 2008

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Needed with "Gabriel Murphy" Article

Hi SmokeyJoe. Thanks for voting on the "Gabriel Murphy" article in deletion review. As you may know, the concensus was to move to mainspace, which occured on July 4. The next day, a user by the name of Wolfkeeper nominated the article for deletion (which he/she had done on 2 prior ocassions). The AfD discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Murphy_%283rd_nomination%29#Gabriel_Murphy. Once again, if you have time would you please chime in on this conversation and vote on the AfD? The article just passed a deletion review and it has been nominated for deletion by the same user again only one day after it was moved into mainspace. Thanks for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeBoater (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 20

Hi! Was this edit meant to refer to The Mana World or OdinMs? You put it under The Mana World but it seems to be about OdinMs (since The Mana World wasn't a contested speedy). --Stormie (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum?

You are entitled to your opinion about the merits of the MfD, but I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that MfD cannot be used to remove sections and that it is the wrong forum to do so. Please see this clarification from admin Chillum.

Anyway, the de facto consensus supports your position. From now on, when people come to at WQA and complain that someone has a permanent user page criticizing other users, I will simply tell them that the community does not have a mechanism for enforcing WP:UP#NOT point #9. I am not being snarky or WP:POINTy, I really believe this to be the case based on my experience with a number of user pages that clearly violated it. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we want a tolerant community, it is necessary to tolerate things that are offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, if that is the consensus. WP:UP#NOT does not reflect the consensus. Like I say, when people come to WP:WQA and they show a user page that clearly violates WP:UP#NOT point #9, I need to know what to tell them. Now I will tell them that, since Wikipedia is a tolerant community, we do not enforce that prohibition on user page content. That's fine, I just need to know what to tell people. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is consistent with my reading of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. From the nutshell: "resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages". Resolving disputes through administrative avenues is not the way to go. It is combative. It fans fires. In the case in question, I see nothing that can't be ignored. If someone is really offensive, ignore them. Pretend they don't exist. WP:UP#NOT point #9 is indeed a problem. It would be better if it weren't there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, as I mentioned, these cases have all come from WP:WQA after several days of attempting to mediate the dispute through civil discussion failed. Trust me, I am not the kind of person who runs off to ANI at the first sign of trouble. I know there are a lot of those folks out there, so you are forgiven for assuming I am. As I mentioned, none of these cases involve me specifically; they are cases where I tried hard to get the involved parties to reach a civil compromise and was unable to do so.
Actually, that's not quite true... in the four recent cases I am referring to, in one case we reached a compromise that made both parties happy. It took several days to reach said compromise. No administrators were ever involved.
So believe me, I understand how the dispute resolution process works. But compromise is not always possible. It's interesting you suggest the "ignore them. Pretend they don't exist" solution, because that's exactly what I've told other people -- but if they reference WP:UP#NOT, what do I say? If a compromise cannot be reached, and one of the parties is in clear violation of an existing policy -- do I tell the other party, "Yeah, but just ignore it?" Heh, well now I will. (Actually, I will say, "Listen, I've dealt with cases like this before, and yes I know that WP:UP#NOT says that, but after repeated tries I have never been able to get it enforced. Either find a compromise or ignore it.")
I am sorry to be so confrontational with you. I have been a bit tense the last couple weeks (and as a result I actually have way scaled back my participation in dispute resolution, because you can't really be a civil moderator if you're already pissed off, heh) and there's no way you could have known that compromise has already been attempted. But trust me, it has. I would never dream of bringing a page to ANI or MfD or something without first trying to convince the user in question to find a compromise. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance if this next question comes off as impertinent, but do you have any experience working in WP:Dispute resolution? I looked through your contribs and it seems you are mostly an XfDer. You do a lot of work in WP:DRV, though, which I suppose gets pretty tense, heh.. :D Just wondering... I am wondering if you speak from experience (in which case I'd like to pick your brain) or if you are speaking from an idealized picture of how dispute resolution is supposed to work. If the former, I would ask what you do when one party demonstrates a persistent inability to understand the concerns of the other party. If the latter, I'd advise you that some people are simply unable to understand the concerns of others, and this sometimes makes compromise impossible (sometimes you can get people to say, "Well, I don't understand why you feel that way, but I'll give a little ground anyway" -- but not always). --Jaysweet (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: vanity

I don't know where was the insulting word, the phrase "Vanity page" refers to creating a autobiography that does not asserts notability, so I don't know why are you complaining that, and please, do not alter someone's comments. Thank you. doña macy [talk] 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've reverted your comment as it is considered alteration of someone's comments (however, didn't restored the vanity comment) . Thank you. doña macy [talk] 01:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Great Game AfD

I think you should know one of the editors who argued so vigorously against the New Cold War article is now trying to do the same thing the New Great Game on AfD--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussion, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines--SaraNoon (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I replied here. -- Suntag ☼ 05:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit on Various Ava Nieves...

The comment of "Delete, but allow the user to move the stuff off-site." However, since I hae moved a majority of the aricles onto my INNewsCenter Wiki, I do need help on that site.

Aeverine Frathleen Nieves 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Smokey Joe

With regard to the DRV comment of yours on THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS): I certainly agree with you that the article would need reliable sources. However since I am coming at you completely COLD ON THIS ARTICLE, it would be nice if you could MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO ME TO READ. If you want to see what I can do with an article once I have begun to show an interest in it, look over my previous two efforts here in Wikipedia. I stumbled upon Danny Casolaro about a month ago. I spent about three weeks, providing every footnote, note, and citation that you see. From there, I moved onto Inslaw completely rewrote, edited, and referenced that article too. Meanwhile, I am currently working on Michael Riconosciuto and keeping PROMIS in the background ('cause it needs a great deal of work). All of this is exhausting work since no one bothered to reference a single thing before me. Whether or not I have time to monkey around with THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) is doubtful. But the point that I am trying to make is that whatever was written before it was deleted could be a valuable base from which to begin since THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) covers an extremely noteworthy period of the history of the United States, and should not be deleted haphazardly by four or five people who offered absolutely no input, contribution, or reason to anything relating to THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS), or any of the tangential elements surrounding that story. Hag2 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the contents are goolge's cashe, which is here: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_(politics) It is linked in the header of every DRV section. The contents at the moment are:

Octopus (politics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007) This article may not meet the general notability guideline or one of the following specific guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This article has been tagged since November 2007.

In politics, the Octopus is the form of government identified by Danny Casolaro before his death in 1991.


"The Octopus is alleged to exist and is an entity of individuals who actually control, create and manipulate world events..." [edit] Overview The many arms of the octopus that can extend a considerable distance provide the name to the many means that this form of government uses to affect its policy decisions. The exact forms by which policy decisions are arrived at in this form of government are poorly understood, and its operational implementation is often shrouded in official and unofficial secrecy.

This form of government can coexist with many other forms of government by infiltrating the official security bureaucracy and other governmental institutions, inducing individual collaborators at each level of the bureaucracy to effect the policy dictated by the secret superstructure.


[edit] See also Illuminati



[edit] External links UNTANGLING THE OCTOPUS

This article about politics is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_(politics)" Categories: Politics stubs | Forms of government Hidden categories: Articles lacking sources from November 2007 | All articles lacking sources | Articles with topics of unclear notability from November 2007

.

I suggest that you request userfycation (move the deleted version to your userspace, where you can improve, retaining full credit for whatever was already there, and when it is ready, move it back to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smokey Joe, I want to thank you. You are the only person who provided me with any satisfaction today. I have to laugh though: At the same time that you were directing me to the cache, I had already stumbled upon that link, and had read the article. It is a truly terrible article, and is a waste of time. Anyway, thank you very much for taking the time to direct me to the cache. I am new around here, and am learning each day; and to be honest with you, I was about to say "frig this place" because of the lack of help and the lack of understanding over something as simple as directing a newbie, or telling a newbie like it is. All it would have ever taken would have been to provide something as simple as what you did for me. Thank you. I am indebted to your thoughfulness. Hag2 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more

Smokey Joe, would you take a look at THIS and explain how to proceed? I would like to comply, but I get terribly confused by all the "language" in all of the "directions" on all of the referral pages and easily frustrated, especially when dealing with a mindless and indifferent robot which fails to recognize human frailties. I'll look for your comment throughout the day on the Talk: Danny_Casolaro page. Thanks. Hag2 (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I understand. Is there a department (or collection of Wikipedians) who specialize in helping others find appropriate images, or helping in securing premission of copyrighted material for same? Hag2 (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You went out of your way for me, Smokey, and I certainly appreciate your effort. I will try and try again to find some way to provide an appropriate image for that darned article. But until then, I am moving onto other things.

Regarding the Da Costa's syndrome subpage

Smokeyjoe; Following on from your comments on 30-8-08 here [[2]], and my intitiaI response immediately aftet it here [[3]] I have added text to the Da Costa's syndrome subpage which was provided by Avjay for NPOV editing and would appreciate your comments. ThankyouPosturewriter (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)posturewriter[reply]

Re NWT MfD

Hi. Thanks for your response at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marvin Shilmer/New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. A few days ago, I saw three user subpages of the article in question (belonging to User:Marvin Shilmer, User:Seddon, and User:Cfrito listed at Category:Jehovah's Witnesses literature. I left a comment on the Talk page of each of the users' articles on 28 September. One objected with no reference to adhering to policy, one gave no response, and one has not been actively editing for several months. I place a PROD tag on the subpage of the inactive user, and was subsequently advised that it should have had an MfD instead. Because I did not want to be accused of favouritism (because all three are in breach of the guideline), I then placed an MfD for all three.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV comments

My original comment was a followup to your comment to Alison, where it came across to me that you were suggesting that perhaps the deletion was reasonable but you felt an overturn may still be in order as "putting it through an MfD represents less of a problem than relaxing the limits on speedies.". To me this does suggest a guarding of the policy rather than a broader consideration. However I can't read your mind and I noted early on in the discussion that if your objection is not that, but because you agree with the policy as it stands and no expansion (or believe the community in general believes that, if it matches your personal view or not) then that's fine. It really was just a meta comment, not anything else. I believe using DRV to try and chide admins is using it as a form of dispute resolution, that's what we have things like WP:RFC for. Part of any review should enable the admin to assess their own actions against the comments received, it should be perfectly possible that a deletion is upheld whilst the admins sees issues with their approach and vice-versa. I doubt I'll say anything more on this since I've already said far too much, but I'll look back and read any response of yours. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SmokeyJoe&oldid=245214933"