Jump to content

User talk:Kappa

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jsmorse47 (talk | contribs) at 22:03, 29 September 2006 (your comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page.
I will generally but not always reply here. If I talked to you, I will be watching your talk page so you can reply there if you wish.

Previous discussions: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6


Broom (clean)

Hi. Before you deprod things like Broom (clean) please do some research and please assume that the prod tag was put up by someone that did his. You are wasting everyone's time by sending this to AfD. If you truly had evidence that this was worthy of an article then please at least go defend it on AfD. If you have no argument then please do not deprod. When you deprod things at the rate of 2 a minute as you did yesterday for instance you are clearly not doing research and your negligence is an imposition on the other editors who are spending time to clean up Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The prod tag said "Not notable" which implies the prodder felt no research was necessary. If the article is supposed to be unverifiable or an exaggeration, that should be confirmed by AFD. Kappa 23:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs on songs

I've noticed your name turning up on a couple of song AfDs recently, talking about deletion as a "betrayal of fans" and things like that. The songs are never nominated for deletion to "betray fans" or anything like that. It's always a case of whether or not a given song is in fact notable. I'll be the first to admit that there are some album tracks by some of my favourite artists which I'd love to see an article on here, but just because a song is a real fan favourite doesn't necessarily mean it's notable in a wider sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Betrayal is the result if its deleted. Someone who listens to a song and wants to know what it's about or how it was inspired doesn't care if its "notable" or not. Kappa 15:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True enough, but why then are we honour bound to have an article on each and every song by each and every singer or band? At least 50% of the articles in the AfD this all referred to were just written along the lines of "X is a song by Y on album Z. It was written by Joe Bloggs". This doesn't tell me anything I can't gain from the liner notes of the average album. Sure, there's no limit to the number of articles we can have in this encyclopedia, but why do we have things like WP:MUSIC/SONG if every song in the world is allowed in so that fans can find out about it? My apologies for a delayed response, by the way, your Talk page had somehow fallen off my watchlist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You aren't honour bound to have a seperate article for every recorded song by a notable band but as far as I am concerned you are honour bound to attempt to explain and discuss it somewhere. If someone has written a description of the song and you delete it (rather than merging) just because you don't think it belongs on a separate page, you are betraying your audience who may not have access to the liner notes or the song itself. (Regarding your watchlist, I think there might be something wrong with my archiving technique.) Kappa 05:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yenta Claus

I am trying to figure out what is wrong and was wondering if labeling the AfD as biographical by an editor was the right place for a holiday folk hero?--Cuddles 03:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Well "what is wrong" seems to be that there isn't enough verifiable evidence out there to prove that it's an established, or even an emerging, cultural phenomenon. I know not everything is on google, but unfortunately wikipedia has to demand evidence (although it's inconsistent, I know). I know you worked hard to provide it and it's a pity if the article still gets deleted. My feeling is that this is a real but currently unverifiable thing, hopefully more evidence will appear with time. If you could find it in a couple more books, that would probably be enough, or it might get more net coverage during the holiday season.

De-Prodding etc

Hi, just a quick request to be more specific with your reasons for de-prodding in various music related articles. Particularly, it's a bit confusing to see WP:MUSIC as a reason to de-PROD when an article clearly makes no attempt to assert that it meets the requirements. Thanks... (No more bongos 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

Just wanted to let you know I put the notability tag back in because the AfD survived only because of no consensus. Perhaps if notability is asserted it would convince those who voted delete that it meets wikipedia standards. Arbusto 16:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability tags, like AFD tags, are for editors not for users. Leaving them on an article permanently just defaces the article and clogs up the category. 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
1) What's the difference between an editor and user? 2) Tags aren't "permanently" on articles, but are left to address concerns. I guess it is possible that a tag can be left "permanently" if that concern is not addressed, but I am not aware of a situation. I believe you should reinsert the tag or provide proof that it meets notability standards. Arbusto 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"User" = "reader". A notability tag is there to warn editors that the article is likely to fail an AFD - well it survived the AFD so the tag is now redundant. Frankly I'm not very interested in defending this thing, but it took all of 30 seconds to find more nontrivial independent third-party coverage. [1] Kappa 23:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It survived due to a lack of consensus, which means it may very well be up for a AfD again for lack of notability. How does that link meet WP:CORP? Arbusto 23:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CORP #1. Kappa 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are asserting two religious websites are meet CORP #1? CORP #1: "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." So is church news is considered "non-trival" and independent of the school? Can you find any mainstream news article on it? Or any famous faculty? That would meet notability standards. Arbusto 05:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also you do know the sources you cited noted this unaccredited school does not have classes, but it does distance learning on the internet and at various churches? Arbusto 06:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That fact merits mention in the lead, so I've promoted it. As far as I'm concerned it passes WP:CORP but I'm not very interested in defending it so I'm not going bother looking for other notability. Regarding WP:CORP, a requirement for mainstream coverage is too restrictive for an all-purpose encylopedia. The coverage seems clearly nontrivial (trivial: "school holds car boot sale") and I don't believe the institution is in a position to control the church-related press - if it does that shows a different kind of importance. Since this is a tertiary institution, I think the question we should try to answer is "do they have legitimate tertiary-level staff?". Kappa 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz characters

I notice that you removed a PROD tag I'd added to various Bratz characters with the summary WP:MERGE. However, I don't think it's appropriate that the level of detailed information on the subpages should be added to the List of Bratz characters page. This was discussed with Alcy, who created most of these pages, in the context of the AfD discussion on Ciara (Bratz character).

Please respond as to how we should now proceed, as I'm anxious not to waste community effort on so many pages by taking them all to AfD unless it's essential to develop a consensus. Thanks. Espresso Addict 21:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Alcy doesn't mind there's no problem redirecting to the list. Kappa 01:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've proposed this on the various talk pages. Espresso Addict 02:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Sun and Steel (essay)

Thanks for your effort; and I must really learn to use the CSD-numbers (A7). The article in the deleted version didn't, at least imho, assert the notability of the subject. But I would have undeleted it anyway. Cheers. Lectonar 14:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City (disambiguation)

Hello. Can you explain why you reverted the Kansas City (disambiguation) page? Nothing links there. There is already a disambig page at Kansas City. If people search they get the real disambig page, so what purpose does it serve? --Hobbes747 14:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone links to or searches for that title, they will be taken to where they want to go, instead of being invited to create a new article there. Kappa 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit late

Erm... roughly half a year ago, thanks for the close shave on the South Western AfD. Simply south 23:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking

Regarding [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] You have been on wiki long enough to know that votestacking and internal spamming are unacceptable. Please stop. JoshuaZ 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_22#Finger_Lakes_Christian_School. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Wikipedia:Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking2. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you.  YDAM TALK 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, please stop. If you continue, I am going to ask another admin to block you. JoshuaZ 02:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop indeed. I find that mass posting to be disruptive. Please find some other venue of dealing with this issue. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest? Kappa 02:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite know what to suggest, but mass-posting is not the way to go, no matter how strongly you feel about the issue. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Spamming for DRV --After Midnight 0001 04:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People have the right to be informed before they get stabbed in the back, not after. Kappa 04:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following policy is not stabbing people in the back. Also see my comment below. JoshuaZ 04:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not informing people that "policy" is suddenly disenfranchising them is stabbing them in the back. Kappa 05:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you were warned at 2106-UTC on the 25th and that at 0149-UTC on the 26th, you stated that you were going to knowingly violate policy, since your message above was immediately before you began your second wave. --After Midnight 0001 10:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Informing editors about their potential loss of voice in wikipedia discussions is not a violation of any reasonable interpretation of policy. Kappa 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My misunderstanding; since your comment immediately followed mine, I assumed that you were saying that my listing of the issue at AN/I was a stab in your back. My response to you was therefore my explaination of why I felt my actions were not as so characterized. Obviously, I did not understand you correctly and your clarification renders my response of 10:22-26-Sep-2006 moot. --After Midnight 0001 02:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking

[7] Behavior like this is unacceptable, and boderline gaming the system. Stop it or you will be blocked for disruption. Yanksox 03:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your spam also contained an error, because you forgot a colon in the Category link, putting all these users' talk pages in the category. Also, about half of these users are totally inactive. These are the least of the problems with your spamming. —Centrx→talk • 04:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not spamming or votestacking, I am informing editors of an issue which affects all of us. Kappa 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kappa, have you read WP:SPAM#Canvassing? This is a textbook example. JoshuaZ 04:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kappa you posted an "Appeal for you to help" On my userpage discussion. I agree with joshuaZ, that was a direct violation of WP:SPAM#Canvassing. Though I do consider myself an Inclusionist, an article must first have "Good content" to be considered for inclusion.
Also do me a favor and read: WP:POINT, It might help you understand what's going on here.Defraggler 13:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your User Contributions show that you've made a bizarre number of requests that inclusionists visit a debate. It is spam. It is votestacking. Ironically, your plea for one inclusionist to join the debate brought the issue to my attention when I was visiting his user page. Why ironic? Because my contribution to the deletion review was to say that it needed to stay deleted. Spamming like that may just alienate some inclusionists and lure some deletionists. Wryspy 06:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schools AfD et ali.

Now, now, I understand your worry in a possible full-out war on high school deletions, etc. I am one person who have lived to see through all these carnage and how the debate has eventually evolved. And back then, someone actually got killed in the process. Please, I don't wish to see you becoming the next casualty, don't mass post messages on fellow editors anymore.

The main arguement that can only currently override the whole agreement on retaining school-related articles is simply verifiability, and fulfilling that through providing reliable sources will almost always solve the problem. Even if there are editors out there who wants to escalate these, please, don't add onto it.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If admins get to impose their own personal standard of notability and ignore all dissenting opinions, no amount of verifiability will make any difference. Kappa 01:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If users get to impose their way by spamming a particular section of voters to get their own way then lack of notablity won't make any difference either. Arbusto 02:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to have been following the discussion. Kappa 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to Mailer diablo's comments, I don't see much evolution in the debate, we still waiting patiently for deletionists to accept some kind of compromise based on merging. Kappa 02:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Propose a policy for it that isn't wrapped up in ridiculously inclusionist keep policies like WP:SCHOOLS is and the "deletionists" might consider it. JoshuaZ 02:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree with Mailer diablo that "main arguement that can only currently override the whole agreement on retaining school-related articles is simply verifiability, and fulfilling that through providing reliable sources will almost always solve the problem." Kappa 03:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat. In practice this seems to not even be true as the recent "compromise" with the DRV indicates (where it wasn't even clear to me that the school met WP:V). Among other issues with the statement I don't think there is some "whole agreement" about these, merely a well-organized push by a group for keeping the articles. However, this doesn't alter that I would (and I suspect many others) would be willing to consider a general merger proposal if it weren't tied into generous keep conclusions but was made as a separate item. JoshuaZ 05:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I haven't heard of the terms "deletionist-inclusionist" for a long time since the era of Votes for Deletion. Traditionally as a trend high-school articles are usually kept, and it is also up to the quality of the school article itself. Notability is now less used as an arugement for deletion, now mainly superceded by verifiability. Just so that you know and get updated of the deletion culture at the moment. Don't get worked up, don't worry, I do not see we are ever going to undergo a repeat procedure of the Userbox Wars where thousands of school articles are put into the fire-range. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your vote

Per your AfD vote I would like to point out that the wanted poster is not of the subject of the article and is of an unrelated person. The issue has been brought to AN/I regarding Geo Swan's reinsertion of the image and FBI information after already admitting they are unrelated. --NuclearUmpf 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cotwall End Primary School

Certain people seem to be under the impression at that AfD that WP:SCHOOL is not an attempted compromise but rather an attempt to include pretty much all schools. Since you seem to think it is a compromise, you may want to discuss this with them. JoshuaZ 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply to your comment

Hey, you left a comment on my discussion page but reverted it for some reason. Anyways, I'd be glad to help, and inclusionism most certainly is NOT absurd. I'll get right on it :). Mk623SC20K 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, seems it's been fixed! great. sorry i couldn't get there in time, i should log in more often. Mk623SC20K 22:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your comment

Hi Kappa Centrex reverted your comments on my talk page (as if I wanted that?) so I wasn't aware of the situation until it was evidently too late. Thanks for keeping me posted. I am interested in this type of thing, despite what the censors may think. Thanks Joe 22:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kappa&oldid=78582027"