User talk:Miami33139

Welcome!

Hello, Miami33139, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kingturtle (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging possible copyvios

WP:CSD#I9 tags should only be used in clear cases of copyright infringement. If a user uploads a free-licensed image sourced to a commercial content provider, then I9 deletion is warranted, likewise for watermarks and images you can trace to commercial websites via google image search. If a user claims copyright on an image and you are merely suspicious, then make a report at WP:IFD or WP:PUI. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted most of the pics of consoles since his little "L" thing was obviously concealing a watermark, but I'm not aware of any principle that says that game screenshots have to be self-made by wikipedians, or that there is any benefit to doing so. Non-free is non-free, and IGN doesn't hold any copyright in those games regardless (they're using the screenshots as fair use themselves). —Random832 05:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

By choosing which elements of the game to include in a screenshot, the characters, weapons, graphic elements, etc, IGN has created their own intellectual property interest in the image. IGN does claim copyright on these images, not just fair use. Further, since IGN is writing about the game, and Wikipedia is writing about the game, IGN would claim our use is infringing on their competitive, commercial interest. We can claim fair use against the game designer because we do not compete with them. That isn't true for IGN. IGN presumably also has direct permission from the game designer as well. Wikipedia can't steal content from commercial publishers. Miami33139 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't claim copyright of a videogame screenshot by adding a watermark. IGN, GameSpot, and many other sites add these watermarks for promotional purposes or to identify the source of the screenshot. The publication logos used in these watermarks are indeed copyrighted, however the process of adding these logos as a watermark creates a derivative work that is bound by the original copyright of the game. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We, at Wikipedia, say you can't claim copyright of a videogame screenshot by adding a watermark. The game sites disagree. They have paid employees who have gone through some effort to create the screenshots, to create a derivative work (which they may have full legal permission from the software company to do). Presumably, one of these companies could see Wikipedia as a publishing competitor, would not take kindly to Wikipedia blatantly re-distributing their effort for free, and would take legal action to protect their intellectual property interests. I would not want to be the lawyer defending Wikipedia in that case and Wikipedia doesn't want to be in the business of creating legal precedents. Miami33139 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest moving this to WT:NFC when I noticed you have already done so. I've left a reply there. As for the general tone of discourse, please be mindful of the no legal threats policy. No single editor here speaks for the Wikimedia foundation and I presume that you are not a legal representative of any gaming site. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent rollback request

Hi! I regret to inform you that your recent rollback request was denied. The full reason is listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Denied/June_2008#User:Falconkhe, but I was concerned by some of your reverts without summaries. All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones WikiProject Now Open!

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 04:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

School of Rock 2: America Rocks

Hello, I saw that you removed the {{prod}} template from School of Rock 2: America Rocks. If you look at the notability guidelines for future films, it says to hold off on creating a stand-alone article until filming is confirmed to have begun. The future films department also suggests merging the content to a broader article if necessary, so would it be possible to redirect to School of Rock#Sequel? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD tagging

Hi. When you tag an article for proposed deletion, as you did with IPhoneBT and Pod to PC, please provide a reason why you think the article should be deleted, e.g. {{subst:prod|put your reason here}}. If you don't do this the deletion request is likely to be declined by the reviewing admin. I have put reasons into those two articles as I agree that they should be deleted, so you don't need to do anything there, but please bear this in mind for the future. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I have done so in the past. Thank your for reviewing this. Miami33139 (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ear candling

The comments you removed were to discussions on the talk page. They weren't in archives, they weren't disruptive. I happen to disagree with their content, but dealing with disagreement is the function of talk pages. Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

The anonymous comments did nothing to discussion changes to the article except make a drive-by claim of bias and their personal anecdotes. Miami33139 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong tagging for speedy deletion

Hi Miami33139. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Sipie, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G11 because of the following concern: G11 only applies to blatant advertising. No notability or no edits are not valid reasons for speedy deletion either. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards SoWhy 10:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is continuing movement to speedy delete non-notable bits of software and cruft because of the sheer amount of it. You declined to and that is ok! I have been going through some lists of software finding which are non-notable. The ones that are particularly minor and ignored I put speedy tags on. Disagreements are OK, that's why speedy requires multiple eyeballs. Somewhat questionable stuff gets a PROD. That is our process and it works. Thanks for the note. Miami33139 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange deletion efforts

I noticed that you have tagged a number of well-known software products for speedy deletion. In all the cases I can find, not only do their articles claim notability, but in fact the software is widely used and known (including things I am personally familiar with). Speedy is completely the wrong tag for these cases. Moreover, while AfD would be more appropriate, few if any of them appear likely to be deleted were an AfD filed.

I also noticed some AfD nominations by you of companies that appear to be notable, alleging WP:ADVERT, basically. In none of the cases I noticed does this claim seem to be true. I'm sure all the article you have tagged in either way could be improved, but the deletionist sentiment you seem to have here seems off kilter to me. That said, the AfD process is what it is, and presumably multiple editors will weigh in on any such nomination; consensus works to decide individual nominations. LotLE×talk 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are removing PROD, [1]. PROD is not speedy delete. Miami33139 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true. If I remove any other such tags, I'll be more clear in my edit comment. In any case, I definitely object to deletion of any of the articles you have tagged as {prod}, since they all seem notable. At the very least, all of them need discussion before deletion, and I doubt any would actually be deleted if discussion takes place. Have you missed the fact that WP:NOT#PAPER?! LotLE×talk 22:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I really wonder why you are engaging in these disruptive deletion efforts. You might take some lesson from the fact that almost every single thing you try to delete reaches overwhelming KEEP consensus. For god's sake, you nominated Xfce (though admittedly withdrew it later)!! It appears as if no degree of notability, citation, article quality, or just plain "WTF!" stops you from nominating deletions. LotLE×talk 22:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That I nominated Xfce shows just badly the article was written to not make it obvious. No, my deletion attempts are not overwhelmingly keep. It's closer to 80% delete. Software is not inherently notable or important. Show notability for these things. Miami33139 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To LoTE's defense, your AfD nominations don't exhibit you having taken the steps you are claiming others didn't in order to improve them in accordance with notability guidelines and other reasons you cite toward getting them removed. Not everyone can be expected to make Herculean efforts and dig through every nook of the internet for thorough references but just the same spending less than 15 minutes using Google isn't really covering the full extent of effort that could be used to salvage some of the material in desperate need of it. --99.186.111.95 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Showing notability and providing verifiable references to reliable sources is the burden of those wanting the inclusion of information into Wikipedia. My searching for any sources at all is a convenience, not a requirement. Miami33139 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalking claim

It is true that I've bookmarked your changelist. Since so much of your recent activity has been wacky AfD or Prod nominations of worthwhile and notable topics (particularly on software products), I indeed want to be sure to take a look at such nominations. Unfortunately, some previous inappropriate nominations by you only received two or three comments, which sometimes isn't judged well by closing admins.

While it is an inactive page, I think if you were to read Wikipedia:Notability (software) (and just WP:NOTE in general) it might lead to a more sensible pattern. Unfortunately, there is no really good guideline now about notability of software, but everything you have nominated is way over the line to clear notability. Simply because an article is currently a stub, or has other writing problems, does not mean that the topic is non-notable. Rather than do all these harmful nominations, you might try spending a few minutes on researching a topic, and add some appropriate citations or whatnot to them. LotLE×talk 01:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Most of my nominations cannot demonstrate that this is true and they are being rightfully deleted. So stop claiming these things are inherently notable. There is nothing inherently notable about software.

Earlier last week I started working backwards through a list of media players. I've skipped over dozens of subjects already because they are very clear what they are covering. In many cases though, it is not difficult to write some UI code around a toolset, blog about it, then get a brief mention on another blog or review site. This stuff is not notable and I'll continue to nominate things that do not appear to meet our standards. I'm not afraid of being wrong and I'll gladly withdraw when shown it. I welcome corrections. If you want to follow my edits then stop accusing me of being arbitrary, capricious or bad faith., You'll need to do more than claim something is notable. Show multiple reliable sources independent of the subject or GTFO.

Also, I'd welcome discussion to revive Wikipedia:Notability (software) into a usable guideline. It is a failed guideline now because it is horrible. Miami33139 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

and why is it horrible? practically begging the question there riffic (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Software notability guidelines

Would you be interested in working with me (and anyone else who is interested) to give these a good reboot and see if we can reach consensus? §FreeRangeFrog 00:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I've practically begged several people to do so. Miami33139 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

FLV-Media Player

Twinkle did not nominate this page correctly. I removed the listing from today's AFD page, so you can retry nominating it. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Government warehouse (fiction)

You are in violation of our WP:V policy see specifically WP:BURDEN. You cannot keep returning challenged unsourced material to articles. Please revert your edit. Notnotkenny (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

I've accidentally blocked your account. I quickly unblocked you, and noted in the summary that it was in error. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello...

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that following me around to undo my edits without discussing them with me may or may not get you into trouble -- it all depends on whether an admin sees it as "wikistalking" or not -- but calling the edits, which are quite useful and have a specific purpose (as explained here), "despicable" isn't going to help, since it could potentially be seen as a personal attack. Were I you, I'd consider reigning myself in.

In any case, please do enjoy yourself: I'm sure it's a lovely way to while away the hours when there's nothing good on television. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you ever do get around to making constructive edits to improve the encyclopedia and want any advice, please feel free to call on me.

Ed, your talk page history is very full of people telling you that your enforcing your personal aesthetic sense on articles about spacing and image sizes is against long-standing basic Wikipedia guidelines. I remove whitespace from all articles, not just ones where you put it there on purpose. Miami33139 (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Vaya con Dios! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you guys work this out on your own. Diffs, not mere accusations are your friend. Where is Ed adding whitespace? I do see some reverts Miami made without discussion. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

With a few exceptions, all of Miami33139's edits which refer to "despicable" or "hateful" whitespace are reverts of my edits without discussion. Specifically: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. (Some of these aren't immediate reversions, they remove long-standing edits which I introduced into the articles.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as Miami33139 knows, the purpose for my "despicable" edits is explained at User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing. They have a specific and well-defined legitimate purpose. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rebut

I am not labeling Ed's edits as despicable. I am labeling whitespace as despicable. Ed is twisting the words of my edit summaries to make me a bad guy.

It does not matter how many diff's Ed can show. Ed is purposefully violating the Manual of Style to match his personal aesthetic.

Wikipedia:MOS#Formatting_issues "Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be specified in articles except in special cases."

Wikipedia:MOS#Invisible_comments "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, such as introducing unwanted white space in read mode."

I am not the only one who does not like Ed's one-man crusade to add whitespace. That he has gone so far as to write an essay of self-justification after dozens of other editors have asked him to stop is all the evidence necessary to recognize his editing is a personal crusade. Complaints on his user page are so common that Ed headlines his talk page, "if you have come here to complain..." His essay is dismissed in its entirety by the above statement from MOS: issues of layout "are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet."

Ed does not know what other users browse the internet with, which is why this issue keeps coming up on his user talk. His assumption that his does not cause problems is his assumption, which he continues to assert as right even after users repeatedly stated to him that the issue causes them problems.

It is not a coincidence that I, who removes whitespace from all articles[16], will run into problems when I encounter articles where someone has purposefully added it. I did not intend to see out Ed's editing, but Ed's editing directly conflicts with what I automatically correct. There is a button for whitespace removal in one of the Wiki-dev approved javascript editing tools, which is generally what I used, until I encountered Ed's whitespace-on-purpose comments. (That there are automated tools, written by our wiki developers, to remove whitespace goes a long way to define that whitespace is unwanted.)

For reference, a handful of "please stop adding whitespace" comments from the last couple months [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].

Miami33139 (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little busy at the moment to respond to you in detail, but if you think your time on Wikipedia is most profitably spent by following me around and undoing my edits, that's an unfortunate personal decision I can't really do much about.

However, you might want to talk a look at WP:LAYOUT, which says in this section:

It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it.

Which is a clear indication of the allowable need for the adjustment of article layouts using blank lines. The very same logic applies to navigation templates for precisely the same reason.

I'd also note, per your repeated edit summary, that the "whitespace" I'm introducing -- which is, in actuality, nothing more than one extra blank line -- is not "unwanted", it's quite deliberate, and solves a rendering problem in Internet Explorer, the browser used for over 60% of internet interactions, as per User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing, a page I once again suggest it would be beneficial for you to read.

"Whitespace" is a problem when it interrupts the text on a page because of faulty formatting or layout, which is why I go out of my way to correct those problems when I come across them, but it cannot be our goal to eliminate every speck of whitespace from an article, since it's the artful balance between text and image and non-used areas which creates a pleasing visual presentation. Therefore, there can be nothing automatic about the non-deliberative elimination of blank lines which have been purposefully inserted to help separate one element of the page from another, and stop them from slamming into each other in our eye.

It's exactly the same principle as when you requested this edit on the "Clarify me" template, only in your case the mash-up was horizontal, and needed a space or a comma, and in the instances I'm fixing, the mash-up is vertical, and requires an additional blank line. (You might also want to take a look at WP:BUNCH.)

Incidentally, when necessary, I check out my edits with Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Safari, so I'm quite aware of how other people see them. I'm also aware that after over 27,000 article edits and, as you quite accurately describe it, only a "handful" of questioning comments, you are the only editor who has taken it as a personal mission to undo these edits, the only purpose of which is to improve the encyclopedia. I'd request once again that you stop.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC) through 09:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

It's good to know I'm not the only one that the whitespace bothers. Honestly, I don't mind the links-navbox ones so much, but the Table of Contents-First section is too much. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg

File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect and otheruses template

Hi Miami22139,

I see you created a redirect page, and i think it was meant as a way to use the redirect template you created in the STU-I. This id of course a fine option, but in case you want to create a direct link (Mostly when there are only two different meanings) you can utilize the {{otheruses4}} template. I switched the redirect template on the STU-I with {{otheruses4|a secure telephone|Stu as a common name|Stuart}} to create a direct link. Have a look if you like/wanted to do this. Otherwise, feel free to revert this edit :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Exaile

Hello, I declined CSD G4 because I couldn't find the deletion discussion. But then I found it. =) However, I still can't delete it because the current Exaile article isn't "substantially similar" to the deleted one - the article is basically rewritten. If you still feel strongly about this, please take this to AfD, but I personally feel that would be pointless - Exaile is a rather well-known player and there's probably plenty of third-party media coverage by now. If I can find a linux.com review easily with 30 secs of googling, who knows how many else are there out there... the previous AfD seems a bit ridiculous. But that's just my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I re-read the discussion, and it seems to me that I can't exactly level a whole bunch of additional sources to the article after all. Especially if the ones were already covered in the AFD discussion. In this light, pleading that the articles being different would be unilateral foot-stomping on my part. I have deleted the article. If I were in crankier mood, I'd cry for blood and DRV, but I settle for glooming and groaning about changing times. (linux.com articles aren't enough to establish notability? What kind of world do we live in?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: notability

I'm thoroughly confused by this statement of yours. If we don't have specific notability criteria for stuff, then the article subject is at least supposed to fulfil the General notability guideline - that is, there should be significant third-party coverage. Linux.com (at the time the article was published, when it was run by SourceForge) was (and still is) independent of the creators of Exaile and had editorial gatekeeping. The article was non-trivial, which would count as "significant" per GNG. That, corraborated by the fact that the software is (by rankings such as Debian and Ubuntu popularity-contest, and other sources) one of the major media players, means that the player should be at least mentioned somewhere.

I frankly don't get the rest of the comment and the comparison with hot-dog carts. If the hot-dog cart gets local media coverage and it's well known to the residents, it probably should be covered somewhere. Yeah, the rest of the world doesn't care. But the locals do. By the same analogy, for the life of me, I don't know why the heck we even have an article about New York City in first place - it's some damn town in America, why should I care about it? What, millions of people live there? Well, they're not even European and we have millions and millions of people here, why should we care? ...see where I'm getting at? I remember when Jimbo was peeved when people nuked Mzoli's on the exact same flimsy pretenses.

As far as article being just a listing of features - well, what else do you expect the article to have? Not every media player has a cute mascot or a juicy remote execution exploit incident that turned half a million computers into spambots. (Hypothetical examples, both, but I hope you see where I'm going at.)

You know what? The Exaile article has been deleted a few times and people have started to rebuild the thing. This is a symptom that there's a demand for information in some form. After I've posted this reply, I'm going to go undelete the article, then replace it with redirect to List of Linux audio software#Exaile with {{R with possibilities}}. I'm only undeleting it because people may want to use the material in the deleted article to write an article that complies with our notability criteria. I'm only doing this because I honestly believe this is the perfect compromise solution, and I believe it avoids duplicate work.

I'm sorry for being so emotional about this. These are just things that shouldn't need explaining. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

talking to myself

stalking is a two way street.

Resistance (Terminator)

This article was prodded as it isn't based on reliable sources. I deprodded. Unless it can be sourced better the prodder will probably send it to Articles for Deletion. Some rewriting based on reliable sources wouldn't go amiss; I'm struggling with finding sources focussing on this aspect of the Terminatorverse. Fences&Windows 19:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sally Boazman

Hi there, the previous article was deleted mainly because of a request from the subject saying that the article was inaccurate (even though it was "officially" deleted for notability reasons). The subject requested that there not be an article - see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive70#Sally_Boazman. What I would do is post to WP:BLP/N pointing out your new article, and asking for suggestions on whether it should be restored. And yes, feel free to use the code on my page - I adapted it from someone else's anyway! Black Kite 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Canola (software)

Hello Miami33139, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Canola (software) has been removed. It was removed by GeneralAntilles with the following edit summary '(Removing deletion notice, I will improve this article to be more useful, and Canola is certainly notable)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with GeneralAntilles before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

AN/I

Hello, Miami33139. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

the article formerly known as UMSDOS

Please could you revisit this article which you nominated for deletion? (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UMSDOS)It is now a very different animal.  pablo_hablo. 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Aufs

Hello Miami33139, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Aufs has been removed. It was removed by SF007 with the following edit summary '(used in xandros and archi linux seems to make it notable. at the very worst make it a redirect)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with SF007 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Flagellate (disambiguation)

Miami, please note that I tagged Flagellate (disambiguation) (which you had previously PROD-ed) for Speedy Deletion with {{Db-disambig}}, as "it is an orphaned disambiguation page which lists two (2) or fewer topics and whose title ends in '(disambiguation)'". The proposed deletion tag has been left in place in case the speedy deletion is rejected. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 03:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been gone this week and this complaint expired in my absence. This is a complaint from someone upset that I sent some of their favored material to a deletion discussion. It concerns my work removing whitespace. Whitespace should be handled by the global CSS template, not editors. Whitespace removal is an automated feature of several javascript editors available from the Wikipedia preferences menu. I ran into Ed Fitzgerald while working on semi-automated detection of visual whitespace not caught by the automated editors. Ed was manually inserting whitespace to satisfy his own aesthetic. Numerous people over several months asked him to stop it. Ed was blocked for it because he would not stop it. The blocking adminstrator essentially told Ed that his task, even if was wanted, was Sisyphean given the number of articles on Wikipedia and the presence of automated tools that would revert it. Ed continued making style changes of his own design, and another user (not me) did a mass revert of several hundred of his articles at once. Ed flipped out, got blocked again, and decided to leave the project. Ed seemed to be an excellent content contributor. It is too bad his obsession with a personal sense of style led to his frustrated exit.

In the sense that Ed is gone, I have "won" the content dispute (as alluded to in the complaint) but I have been gone several months as well. There is no reason not to remove the unwanted whitespace in a semi-automated fashion regardless of Ed's presence. Eventually an automated process would hit these articles and remove it if my own semi-automated process does not. This has already happened in many cases. Miami33139 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello Miami33139, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Quod Libet, by User:Arite, with summary '(Removed the dated prod header - more references to main site etc. now)'
• PROD removed from V9fs, by User:12.185.46.2, with summary '(This page had information I needed, and v9fs isn't so obscure that it can't be described in Wikipedia.)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Inclusionist?

You're the most unusual inclusionist I'm come across - your prolific deletion nominations would tend to place you well away from being an inclusionist! I noticed that aside from deletion nominations, most of your edits seem to be formatting. My advice is to slow down on the deletions and consider more carefully if any of those articles could be sourced, expanded, or merged. There's nothing like content creation to get a richer experience of editing Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be considered an inclusionist, but I do not favor articles when they do not make a claim of notability. Please see this article as my attempt to create new content where previous content was deleted as a showing of my good faith effort to source and expand an article which needed it: User:Miami33139/Sally Traffic. This fixed article should be back into the project as soon as a Deletion Review discussion has been completed. Miami33139 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would add also, that by number of edits, it appears to not be much more than formatting. Properly sourcing articles can take several hours but only produce a few edits, but format fixing can be done several hundred in a few minutes. Miami33139 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody Else's Problem

I suggest you read Somebody Else's Problem and Wikipedia:Somebody Else's Problem because it is quite clear from your contribution history that instead of fixing articles that can be fixed, you prefer to prod, AfD, and even follow other editors around undoing their edits. I cannot find any software articles that you've significantly contributed to/improved but I can find dozens upon dozens that you've attempted to have deleted without bothering to check for sources or attempting to improve. This goes completely against WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE and is not the sort of behaviour that built Wikipedia. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a nice essay, but Wikipedia:BURDEN is policy. If you are so desperate to keep articles on obscure file systems and data structures you'll need to stop pounding sand and start sourcing. Miami33139 (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

...and as usual, instead of addressing the concerns raised, you yet again attempt to lead a discussion in a completely different direction and attempt to turn it on the editor who raises concerns with your editing. I'm not sure why I even tried as given your history on Wikipedia it is indeed akin to pounding sand to expect anything different from you. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Stop wikistalking my edits. Consider this a Uw-4im warning. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I not say the same to you, following my PROD and deletion proposals? Please, stop being paranoid. It is likely since I am asking unsourced software articles to be removed (which I have been doing for most of a year) and you are contesting deletions of software, that we are destined to run into each other. You have twice brought your accusations to the ANI discussion board and been mostly ignored. Your contribution history is public. I often look at other editors contributions for other things I may be interested in. This is not stalking. Miami33139 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your prods show up in Category:Proposed deletion and also the WP:COMP workflow. I tag those that I see untagged so others who have time to look for sources (since you have already stated that you do not) can work on improving those that should be improved. I also occasionally unprod those that are ineligible for prod or those I feel can and should be improved rather than be deleted. I also tag AfD'd articles when I spot them but there are also a number of other editors who handle that task, so while I still see many of the articles in the WP:COMP workflow, I don't patrol those quite as often.
You've already stated at least twice now that you check my contribs. Where this becomes wikistalking is where you intentionally undo my edits, [24] AfD articles I'm attempting to improve, [25] and follow me to XfD discussions (recent examples include [26] [27] [28]).
I assure you the AN/I reports did not go completely ignored and as far as User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits go, if I were you I would leave them be and instead focus on article creation instead, since I've seen that you can do that too (such as with Sally Boazman, linked right on your talk page). While some of Ed's changes, such as the addition of a hard <p> between the last section and the navbox are no longer needed, some of his other changes do actually fix display issues that you may not be aware of (note that I'm not claiming all of his additions are required, but some do actually fix valid issues).
To be perfectly honest, I'd much rather spend more time improving/merging articles rather than patrolling proposed deletions and if you decide you'd like to lend a hand, merging and redirecting many of the articles you prod would in many cases be a much better choice than prod/AfDing them.
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If I think an article needs to go, I am going to send it to AfD, regardless of who removed the PROD template. This is not about you. If I think I have something to say about an AfD discussion where you have commented, I am going to make it. This is not about you. If you think merging or redirecting is the way to handle a proposed deletion, you are welcome to merge or redirect it. If it is at AfD, you are welcome to propose it and I may change my nomination to agree with you. It is not about you or your edits, but the content.

I am looking at deletion discussions and always have. I have been actively proposing undersourced software articles for deletion for the better part of a year. This is not stalking and I have no intent on targetting you. As you also look at deletion discussions and attempt to organize and source software articles, our paths were, and are, bound to cross. We have a different point of view but I am not out to get you. That is the essence of stalking and it is not true. Nor are my discussions and deletion proposals bad faith, and it is very incivul of you to suggest they are, as you have done repeatedly.

I will say I was mistaken for the edits on 'What wp is not' as I was previously told redirects across namespaces were always unwanted. Opinions on this vary over time, apparently. The process handled it in the end without either of our involvement.

"I assure you the AN/I reports did not go completely ignored" is vaguely threatening. Are you threatening me?

Ed Fitzgerald's whitespace additions cause display issue problems for numerous people, as evidenced by his talk page archive. I will continue to remove unwanted whitespace, as others already do. Many automated scripts detect it and remove it automatically, there is no harm in me doing it manually. I suggest you not dredge up Ed's dispute in his absence. His content additions were wonderful, but he grew increasingly frustrated that the community did not agree with him on style issues. He was not able to reconcile his personal sense of aesthete with the collaborative editing process. In the end he was blocked for revert warring and on his return he resorted to name calling and other forms of lashing out. That is too bad, we lost a good contributor, but his dispute is not your dispute.

I think it should be very easy for us to acknowledge that we edit in similar areas, believe different things about article cleanup and notability, and just acknowledge that and move on. We can engage each other in the resulting community processes without name calling, accusations and canvassing, can't we? We will each make the decisions and edits we wish to make, but in the end it is up to the community to decide questions like deletion. We will step on each others toes, apologize, and dance away to do it again. It isn't personal. Miami33139 (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sally Traffic

You're welcome. The edit summary at DYK caught my eye! Best UK radio voice was probably Joanna Gosling, though, when she was at Independent Radio News... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)