User talk:Judgesurreal777/archive 7

HP articles

Thank you!! I think that only with a complete work, merging every article that is not notable, and removing in-universe fancruft, we can achieve what you are talking about: a topic with lots of GAs. You may take a look at the Talk page of the Notability section of the WikiProject. There are some articles left but I think we have reached the point in which we should be very careful. --Lord Opeth (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I get your point. I personally think that, for example, both the Goathland railway station and the GWR 4900 Class 5972 Olton Hall should definitely be taken out of our discussion list: both are real life things and are only related to HP because of the films. Chandler mentioned that both the websites and the bands (and albums, singles, and stuff) have some jurisdiction and other notability guidelines, that is why the Harry and the Potter albums are not part of this discussion. I am not sure about Draco and the Malfoys, which are indeed in our list, but I think that we should check the music guidelines or ask the WikiProject Alternative Music for some advice on this particular band, and also in the Harry and the Potters albums' individual pages. --Lord Opeth (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have to remove the WikiProject HP banner: both the station and the train act as "portrayers", and some actors that appear in the HP films have the WikiProject banner as well. I just think that we have not the only right to decide their notability, but it is fine to list them as part of our project.--Lord Opeth (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweeney Todd merge

Could you possibly undo the merger you made with Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street Deluxe Complete Edition and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street? A couple months back, the former was AFD'ed and ended with the consensus that the latter article was too big to merge with the soundtrack article. If you really think it should be merged anyway, you should probably run it through the AFD process again, to avoid going against what was the consensus at the time of closing. Thanks for understanding! --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 19:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's beautiful

I can't believe it. It's actually readable. Thank you for standing up for the real world. Serendi^podous 06:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Core worlds

WOW, that was sooooooooooo long ago: over three years! It could use sourcing to indicate its usage; I'm sure it's around somewhere, but lacking sources it probably should be deleted or redirected. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Legend

Don't nominate it yet! O_O' I still have to redo the plot section, add a bit on skills/weapons/items/abilities to gameplay, and flesh out reception some more. I just got sidetracked with someone trying to remove one of my other articles (Poison (Final Fight) and need to get that one to GA status first. >.<--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Points

Oh, that's nothing really. Basically I personally don't like the low FA to GA ratio they have for Featured Topics, so I want to make sure all the articles besides the fiction and The Myst Reader are FA: Giving an article that's FA 3 points, GA 2, and B 1, I have 13 out of the 27 I would need with 7 FAs and 3 GAs. Don't mind my randomness :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, I noticed you are one of the vanguards of fiction coverage now. How is it going? — Deckiller 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

New merge proposals

Hey there!! I came with more merge proposals, this time Neville Longbottom and Luna Lovegood into the list of Dumbledore's Army members. Both characters have failed to meet notability too, just as McGonagall, Lupin, Bellatrix, etc. I provided a link to a draft in both talk pages to give you an idea of how the article would look like.--Lord Opeth (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivered by xenobot 03:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comics project template box

Hey there, just wanted to drop you a note that answering "yes" to the infobox and image sections of the comics project template tag means the article needs those things, not that it has them. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: FAs

I'm wary about it for now: I'm playing hell with Alleyway at the moment in terms of FA, and Poison still can't seem to get anyone to give her a GA review. I need to get it accepted all around that CinnamonPirate is a reliable source as well as far as the FFVII Famicom article goes.

I will get those three to FA though, no matter what it takes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: take a look

Ok, I looked :P My thoughts:

• Images: one of the images from the sidescrolling games should be removed, as it offers nothing new over the previous one and prolly would fail NFCC scrutiny. Also, the multiple covers are... ungainly. Since it's commented on, the ZA one should stay no matter what, I'm unsure what should be done about the others. Collapsing the release dates like done for Riven will shorten some of the clutter.
• Do we really need all the game citations?
• Are there any aggregate scores?
• I'll see about dredging up some print sources for use.

Otherwise, some copyediting and it should be fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh... don't mention DotA to me... that was by far the most excruciating FAC I've ever seen... not to mention they killed off a good 4KB of solid info because it was sourced to changelogs... ugh. I'm not looking forward to pushing the FLood on them either, given their reactions to it the last go-around. At least it should be a bit more defensible now... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh... look at me bitch. Anyway, if you need help pre-or-during FAC, wake me when you need me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Like I said, I'll help when I can and will check for print sources via ProQuest next week when I'm free. I've got a full caseload on me plate right now, but I'll pop in from time to time to check up on you :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is stuff like ProQuest and LexisNexis require subscriptions (i.e., aren't free;) I've only got the access to ProQuest because User:OranL asked his librarian if he could lend his school ProQuest account to me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, good luck on that... I think we might be able to turn Joseph Staten into something more than a stub, Salvatori, there's pretty much no hope I think (talk about working in your colleague's shadow.) The Halo novels are shaping up decently, we should be able to scrape GA with all of them (Ghosts of Onyx and/or First Strike might have enough material for FA, but I'm not holding my breath.) Also, one thing... wouldn't a better (more simple title) for the article be "The Legend of Zelda CD-i series" or "Zelda CD-i games" instead of "CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series"? For the sources, I'll email you copies of whatever I find. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: I got your sources, but you need to set up your email address! :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield vandalism sockpuppetry confirmed

Hey! If you recall sometime back we were talking about working together on the Clovefield articles for GA status? Anyway, I just discovered and checkuser has confirmed a sock farm that has been vandalizing Cloverfield related articles. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thedayicametowhiskershouse and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_farm_targetting_Cloverfield_related_articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

Galland, The World of Warhammer: The Official Encyclopedia of the Best-Selling Fighting Fantasy Game (Thunder's Mouth Press, 1998). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Do you think an RfC would help with him at all? He is getting more annoying and persistent with these terrible arguments every day. He's even gotten like five others to start doing the same thing all over the place by example. TTN (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And you do not think all these AfDs are not getting more annoying and persistent every day? Should I start an RfC on you? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I like Le Grand Roi, but I agree that his AFD manner has become extremely disruptive because of his refusal to make arguments based on wikipedia policies, not essays. Perhaps we should, as this is getting out of hand. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing to have one on yourself as well, as I and others believe a lot of these mass nominations are getting out of hand? Or would you rather we just agree to disagree? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, RFC's are probably the way to go, I'd rather be (at worst) reprimanded by an RFC than deal with this constant back and forth. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a better proposal, why not have a localized discussion at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, because 1) I would never respect an RfC made against me, 2) I am more apt to respect civil and constructive criticism on a page that I set up just for that, and 3) you would not have to risk yourself coming out bad either. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you're likely to never back down from your position, I doubt that would really do very much. Do we have any good diffs to use for the "evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute"? I doubt that any comments from the AfDs would be very helpful. TTN (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want a rehash of the episodes and characters arbcom conisdering how it worked out last time? I am giving two an honest chance to discuss with me civily on that talk page. You will not look good if you do not give it a chance first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Work it out how? I'm going to say something to do with you toning down the constant harassment (i.e. cast your vote and leave it at that), and you'll reply with a number of sentences that have little to do with anything. Then that'll go back and forth four or five times until I become annoyed with the fact that you ignore policies and guidelines and instead use your own extremely biased views to completely skew anything you didn't ignore. That pretty much sums up every discussion I've ever had with you. TTN (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you do not want to engage in discussion with me, then just ignore me. If you think we should "cast a vote and leave it that" then you miss what a discussion rather than a vote is. We are supposed to engage and challenge each other in discussions so that in the end we actually get to a real consensus, i.e. in which we've exhausted all alternatives to finding a clear reason as to why an article should or should not stay on our project. If you would rather approach it is a vote than a discussion, then okay, you need to reply to or acknowledge any of my comments and no on else has to either if they don't want to. But we obviously have fundamental disagreements about notability policies and guidelines. In fact, a tremendous amount of the community does, which is why the notability guidelines are undergoing spirited and thorough discussion at present. Does that mean we should start immediately assuming bad faith on each other or not look for areas where we could work together? Certainly not. And as always, I am of course willing to help anyone who disagrees with me in whatever way I can to improve articles as well. Notice above how remember a past effort of Judgesureal and I regarding the Cloverfield articles, I thought it courteous to let him know about a sock farm I uncovered that was targetting those articles. Anyway, I set up a page that charts my XfD participation in which my hope is neutral editors would review them and offer suggestions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion within AfDs is fine. What you're doing is not discussion. You just spam the same links and the same arguments over and over and over and over and over. You do not back off, you are very rude on a constant basis (changing around a comment to be witty one time is one thing, but you do it all the time), and it pretty much is pure harassment on your part to make this site work like you want it to work. That is the farthest thing away from productive and engaging discussion to find a consensus. Whether or not you can be productive outside of AfDs is irrelevant. This is purely about your conduct within them. TTN (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And many of the responses I have received from others are copy and paste replies. If that is not itself rude, then what the heck? In many AfDs I am also working to improve them as well and have actually rescued many articles in the process. I really wish you would be willing to help in those efforts and then be able to say, "Hey, I did the best I could, but couldn't get any farther," then I could say okay, but to not even make any effort to help and then to just dismiss what other people find notable and want to work on can also be seen as rude or unproductive. Why not take some of these articles in question, use the various sources mentioned, and let's see if we can do something to save them? I bet we'd all feel a great deal of accomplishment and comraderie in the process. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We are getting off topic, which is the use of off-topic arguments in AFD's and increasingly aggressive badgering of those who want to eliminate unverifiable content. We all want to improve content, but AFD is for content that the nominator feels has little to no chance of being verified. We have considered the possibility it is notable, and believe it is not, so we nominate it for deletion. There is nothing to "work on" in that case, or "rescue". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

With that said, I and others who argue to keep in these discussions feel otherwise, which is why we do argue to keep and which is why many an AfD closes as keep or merge or redirect. And in some cases, I am able and willing to find sources that do not just turn up on the regular Google search, which is why I sometimes work on userfied articles for months before trying again with mainspace. I believe the content in many of these cases can be verified, so do the others who argue to keep in many cases. We disagree at times as to what is and is not verifiable, sure, but sometimes we're right, sometims we're not. Would it be appropriate of me to say something like, based on [1] and [2], you're badgering or harassing everyone who has disagreed with you in that discussion? Should I criticize you for making such nominations as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matoran (2nd nomination)? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to accuse any of us here of not wanting to improve articles is downright silly given our mainspace contributions that show volumes of articles we've brought up to the next level. The issue is the manner in which you participate in AfDs, namely throwing essays at every single person that goes into a discussion. It's fine to leave your !vote and then stop. If you see "Delete - garbage", then you can respond, but badgering structured delete !votes ad infinitum with the same arguments over and over again is simply harassment. Put it this way - what do you gain out of it? Is the person who !voted "delete" ever going to change their mind? All you've done with your actions is convince everyone that you can't be constructive in these discussions. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My hope is that it will encourage editors to make stronger, more valid arguments one way or the other. Again, should I criticize your comments to others in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of After Colony mobile units or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series (yes, I know before I realized "per x" was weak...)? Besides, it's not as we always disagree. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh joy, bring up AfDs from nearly a year ago to throw at me because it's relevant to the discussion. And yes, we agreed in the case of an obvious hoax, which basically is the only time you ever !vote "delete" on AfDs. In 95% of the AfDs we participate in, we disagree. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the badgering that you do per TTN's comments below. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the badgering that the nominators do in many such discussions? I don't think I'm somehow the one looking worst at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Shake or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kracko (2nd nomination), for example. Or relook at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie-Su keeping in mind that Graevemoore turned out to be a sock of banned Eyrian. Or how about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy), which now is a delete, even though one account (AnteaterZot) was operating sock farms at the time and another (Jack Merridew) turned out to be banned eidtor. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are not examples of badgering. Those are actual discussions as I describe below. Those are extremely different from your actions, which are essentially harassing at a certain point. I have no idea what a few sock cases have anything to do with this. TTN (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If those aren't, then nor any suggested against me. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting small discussions for one or two votes every few AfDs is one thing, but you do it with dozens of votes in dozens of AfDs at a time. That doesn't help anything. You should be able to go through a few AfDs with only one edit. In another, you may see a single comment that sums up much of the opposition. You then comment and hold a discussion about that one single comment. You may do it with another comment in the AfD, but you do not need to repeat that fifty times. If you see a number of "Delete - Pure crap" votes, feel free to comment away at them. TTN (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I wouldn't comment on certain "votes" if I didn't think them really weak, but I have a different idea on how to approach these discussions differently in the future. I do hope, however, that at the same time, you will also keep a greater open-mind to improvements made to the articles under discussion as well and consider revisiting your stance accordingly or not be afraid to pitch in with the improvement efforts if they look promising. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Start a RfC. He's free to hold his views - you can't change that in any shape or form, but his near-constant badgering of oppose !votes in AfDs with inane arguments (i.e. badgering "per nom" !votes or copy and pasting people's responses to him and changing a word or two) is definitely something that's appropriate at WP:RFC/U. Fire away. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not respect an RfC or even acknowledge one if users are unwilling to discuss with me first on that talk page I set up for AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for butting-in and not reading the huge thread above me, but I'd also like to see an RFC. I've tried extremely hard to assume good faith, but I am really starting to believe that his main purpose on Wikipedia is to frustrate, bait, and waste the time of those who support deletion for even the most obvious deletion candidates. Regarding his comment above, I have considered trying to raise the issue of his AFD conduct on his talk page, but assumed that he would simply act in the same manner as he does in deletion debates - reply with roundabout, run-on, vague statements and copypaste reversals of my comments with the intention of annoying me until I got fed up with the "discussion". Please let me know how this proceeds or if you need my help in some way (diffs and whatnot). By the way, just from watching random discussions here and there, I could probably list a few other editors who would likely want to participate in the RFC as well. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't throw stones at your neighbors if your own windows are glass, given your "mission" and unwillingness to argue to keep. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of such a comment? Threat? Bait? Intimidation? What are you trying to accomplish by saying that to me? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out how unconstructive your comment above was and how there is no way I would take an RfC seriously if it came from non-neutral editors or if such editors did not make some attempt to discuss with me first at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already addressed your point in my initial comment; I stated specifically why I have never brought this to your talk page. This kind of nonsense is precisely what I am talking about. You just blatantly ignore what has already been said. There is no need for you to respond to this comment as I will reserve anything else I might want to say for the more official dispute resolution methods if/when they proceed. However, I know you're already aching to reply and get that last word in, so go for it! Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God, someone start the RFC already, so this conversation can be moved off my talk page! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I'm done I promise! Drop me a note on my talk page if something comes of your efforts. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I absolutely will not respond to or respect any RfC if efforts are not made to discuss with me first at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, and editting previous comments after I have already replied to dig up diffs from 9 months ago? Classy. Do you have those bookmarked or something? Should I paste your blocklog and claim that you're a sockpuppet??? Again, no need to reply. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You should focus on improving the project rather than needlessly escalating a discussion that does not need to be escalated. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it will hopefully begin to resolve the issues we have been having by bringing in neutral, outside wikipedians to help. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to ask a neutral (non-deletionist/non-inlcusionist, never been blocked, not sanctioned by arbcom for content disputes) party to comment on that talk page I link to above, then I would indeed actually seriously be willing to give their thoughts real consideration. I wouldn't even bother to look at an RfC started out of this discussion nor would I even read any comments from it posted on my talk page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If we can identify one, great, but it doesn't matter to me if you participate in the slightest, it will be consequential regardless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely would not respect or even acknowledge any results from an RfC made with failure to first try to discuss with me on that talk page or to find a neutral editor to offer advice first nor would I have any respect for any editors who were unwilling to attempt a proposed alternative first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, those proposing an RFC here are responsible for behaving in ways similar if not more extreme than LGRdC. He is entitled to his opinion and has a right to vigorously advocate his positions within the bounds of Wikipedia policies such as civility. As do you – a right that I've seen you exercising enthusiastically as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And this, right here, is why there's no chance of any RfC having any effect. The dispute is officially partisan, which means that disinterested "average Wikipedians" will simply skip right over it and assume that one side is as bad as the other. See also: all other wikidram, ever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Would I like to see him, you know, actually discuss instead of badgering everyone? Absolutely.

Do I think that any RFC is going to be Inclusionists vs. Deletionists '08 (now starring extra trolls)? You betcha.

I don't find personal RFCs to be terribly useful most of the time, and given that Le Roi has disavowed any RFC that isn't on his terms, I don't much see the point. The way you deal with this, really, is by pointing out that his arguments are terrible, deflect the reversals as mostly pathetic ploys, and just debate circles around him. AFD isn't a vote, so he can copy-paste votes linking to essays all he wants. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there's nothing that drowns out a -ionist AFD argument like getting a reputation for being an -ionist. (Ask TTN.) Once you get a fanclub, you're going to find all of your arguments picked to death by your opponents, and any vote you cast cancelled three to one. Your only hope in this case is to retire, or make arguments that withstand the hellfire they'll inevitably have to endure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it'll work, someone will need to find some diffs if they want to start one. I turned up nothing when I looked. TTN (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I initiated last year an RFC against User:Alansohn and while he disavowed the process and refused to participate in it, the evidence we collected proved to be important in a recent arbcom case, in which Alan was sanctioned and placed on an extended civility watch. LGRC has a major problem with his engagement with other editors (amply demonstrated above) and an RFC is a good first step to document the spamming and harassment. So I would say that an RFC should proceed. MiB makes a good point about the -ionist, but the point here is not to debate the merits of his wikiphilosophy, but the unconstructive manner in which he engages in what he has decided to define as "debate". Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What's all the fighting about? (reply to my talk page) Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

An RFC would be a complete waste of time and resources. This little spat has only shown me that popular deletionist drama mongers are only going to escalate matters to a ridiculous point. I don't see it as a group of people thinking about an RFC. I see it as them thinking of the RFC as a first step towards going to Arbitration and sanctioning Le Grand. The RFC will have nothing but deletionists (and even a few admins, apparently) taking pot shots at an inclusionist. SashaNein (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

with regard to legrand, I would suggest that you throttle back obvious criticism of him specifically and sarcasm regarding his contributions. Whatever you may feel about him, there have been about a half dozen editors wrecked upon the shoals of "the process" because they lost their cool while he continued to post things like "sincerely" at the end of each comment. To an editor or admin who rarely frequents AfD, it would appear at first blush that you are the interlocutor and that he is the model wikipedian. I suspect you feel that isn't the case. My advice (and I don't always follow it) is to insist on facts and evidence in process based debates and to avoid escalation wherever possible. It doesn't seem possible to get a rise out of him, so I wouldn't even attempt it.

If you want to open a process against him, this is doubly important. If your "talking point" will be that he is disruptive, uncivil and POINTy, it would do well to minimize the appearance that you are as well. The comments in the above section are correct about most processes rejecting the dispute as "partisan" (deletionist versus inclusionist), so it doesn't help if it appears that both participants are equally in the mud. More generally, I would advice you to back off directly confronting him. If all he adds to a deletion debate is the five pillars and what wikipedia is copy/paste, it will be largely ignored. In most cases that comment, as infuriating and condescending as it may be, won't tip the deletion debate. Wait a few weeks. See if you can get some perspective on the issue. If you feel at that point that it really is an issue for RfC/ANI, then you should start thinking of a complaint.

I know this advice is unsolicited. I offer it from the point of view of someone who got into an RFC/WQA dispute with LeGrand and got everything dismissed because it was interpreted as a "personal dispute" and a "partisan dispute". I also didn't know jack about the process.

To Legrand. It is obvious from the above section that you are reading this. It is a free country. This comment is NOT an invitation for you to respond here. If you think I've committed some venial sin, please make a new section on my talk page. You are free, of course, to disregard that request and post here, but I would rather you didn't. Judgesurreal, I'll keep this page watchlisted. Protonk (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your advice is appreciated, and I thank you for it. To be honest, I am not good at these formal proceedings, so I'm not taking Le Grand anywhere. If others wish to do so, I encourage it only to end this disruption of AFD. And yes, you are right, I am not always perfectly "cool" about the endless harassment, but I have never wished to be an admin, and I want the freedom to express my own mind, including frustration at editors who willfully disregard policy. If I am taken to RFC or anything else, I feel very confident that, though not the nicest Wikipedian, I have argued my beliefs in conformity to Wikipedia policies, most of my AFD's are successful, and that is why my AFD's are not in any way disruptive. But understand, I will never stop editing Wikipedia, or following it's policies no matter how many people try to intimidate me, or say that deleting unnotable articles is "divisive" or in some way bad. Again, thanks for your advice and help :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. As for LeGrand, I've always said he is a net credit to wikipedia. He's got 20k edits, most of them are welcoming users or fixing articles. He's usually very helpful, sincere and pleasant. As you know, he can also be very haughty, petty and scornful. Those don't usually show through because he doesn't do what you or I would do (break down and type in obscenities or deride a user specifically) when we get frustrated. When I made my attempts to have him censured for his behavior, I was roundly rebuffed. Most admins I dealt with dismissed the case or treated it as a personal dispute that I was refusing to settle at a low level. I consider the whole matter instructive for me and illuminating in a lot of ways. When he says above that people should bring concerns up on his talk page, we should treat that seriously. He isn't, from my experience, likely to change his behavior, but he will respond to a process dispute (like ANI, WQA, RFC, etc) by citing those requests and noting that no one has contacted him. Because wikipedia seems to operate on the (very good) principal of solving issues at the lowest level possible, it will appear that no one involved in the dispute but legrand chose to solve it at a low level. My followup advice would be for you to sit down and think about what, specifically, is frustrating or uncivil about LeGrand's interactions and attempt to discuss it with him on that page. You might get a bullshit answer. You might not. When I talk with him 1 on 1 he is very pleasant and thoughtful. If you get a bullshit answer. Like, say you tell him that it seems uncivil to leave copy/pasted responses to afds and he responds by saying that you make copy/paste nominations, don't get frustrated. just repeat your question, remind him that the conversation is about him and (preferably) cite a non copy-paste AfD nomination that elicited a copy/paste response. This might help answer questions or diffuse tensions. It also might not, but it is probably worth a try. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield

Hi,

I'm curious about this edit - the sections are empty and the use of {{main}} seems a better choice to me. The see also links could easily be embedded, but since this is a very specific topic, the generic links like tie-in and cross-media marketing seem unwarranted. Also, the List of comics based on films is captured by the Category:Comics based on films. Thanks, WLU (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh, look at that. I was sure I'd find that empty sections should be removed, but Help:Section#Section_stubs seems to prove me wrong. The references section I'd like to remove still, since it's never going to be expanded on its own and anyone who knows enough to use the <ref></ref> tags will know how to use {{reflist}}. I'll have a go and leave you a message after I'm done for your review. WLU (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've commented out references rather than removing completely. WLU (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion of Final Fantasy (video game)

I have undone your recent edit that reverted Final Fantasy (video game) to a 3-month-old version, claiming that "good references were removed without discussion". Unfortunately, you also restored a few typos that had been fixed in the mean time, and a number of images that were removed (for IMO questionable reasons, but that's neither here nor there) and since deleted under WP:NFCC#7. Please re-add the references you refer to into the current article rather than blindly reverting. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 03:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words

Thank you, it's always nice to hear kind words in regard to what you do. I don't know if the VG project is really getting whipped into shape, but I hope some of the things going on are helping. I do wish I had more time to work on articles, but time has not been on my side as of late. Hopefully, I can finish researching Space Invaders and get it up to FA before the year is over, and try to put a dent in my ever growing list of things to do. Thanks again Judge. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

Re

Yes, Laser does do that. It's kind of annoying, but you can't exactly blame him. He reviews so many FACs a day, it must be really tiring. And thank you, help is very much appreciated! :) --haha169 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

Please do not make posts designed to harangue me into striking my opposition at the SSBB or anywhere else. I took time out of my day to carefully review the article, less than 24 hours ago. Demanding that I reassess, strike, or add more comments within such a short time frame would only promote sloppy work on my part. I review FACs because I'm interested in getting our best articles to FA status, not because I want to hinder the process. Haha169's methods of addressing my comments are likely to go a lot further toward getting the article promoted. --Laser brain (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this personal for you? Because it's not personal for me. I'm sorry that my methods or timing upset you, but if you spent some time in the FAC process as a reviewer you would understand that there are not enough hours in the day to create huge lists of problems on FAC pages. You are fortunate that Ashnard took the time to do so, but you shouldn't consider it a reviewer obligation. Many reviewers, especially those who review a significant number of FACs, will make representative lists of problems and ask the nominator to work on it. I don't do this unless there are a lot of problems. If the problems are few, I list them all. If the problems are minor, I just fix them myself.

Regarding the promotion/archiving process: that the nomination has lingered this long means there is not enough consensus for Sandy or Raul to promote or archive the nomination. If the article was tip-top and had well-reasoned support (not drive-by fan support) it would have been promoted long before I got there. So I am not "killing" the nomination—I am just adding to the consensus one way or another. In the end, Sandy and Raul promote or archive based on their judgment of the comments given. If my comments are unreasonable or unactionable, they will be given their appropriate weight. --Laser brain (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Per my last update here, I will revisit my comments shortly and try to list out other issues. Since there are at least two active editors willing to work on problems, I'd rather try to get it fixed now than have to go through the whole process again. --Laser brain (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Without causing offence, I must say I'm dismayed at the response to LaserBrain's critique. His points are valid, and are advantageous to the article. Please remember that people are taking their time to review the article, and this is a favour and not an obligation. It takes me a long time to write an FAC critique, but also remember that I only review VG FACs. As I see it from stalking talk pages, the FAC process is pretty dependent on LaserBrain, and elongating his reviews would be detriemntal to FAC in general. Judge, I'm really glad to see that you want the FAC pass, and I'm glad that you appreciate my reviews. However, I feel that this should have been handled a little differently, but I think most of us have been there with the stress of FACs. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I really was worried that his review was not actionable and would sink this FA as it sunk my other FA. But on further discussion, he appears to be amenable to further clarification so further work can be done. So yes, perhaps it could have been dealt with differently, but it may work out well yet. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Judge, that's what I've been trying to tell you all along on the FAC page. If we get the problems fixed quickly, then Sandy and Raul won't archive. I learnt that in my previous FAC when I delayed 24 hours and they decided to archive. You can see that comment by ЭLСОВВОLД just sitting there at the bottom, while I decided to just wait a bit. The result was archive. If you quickly resolve the issues, the commenter will switch to neutral or support, and its a good sign to Sandy and Raul! --haha169 (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And I agree that is the way it should work, I was just speaking from my individual experience, the last time I got his list of corrections, I was archived before I even began, and I began as soon as I saw them. Call me paranoid, but since you have done so much work on this, and I as co-nominator haven't had to do much fixing, I figure the best I can do is stand up for your work vigorously. Luckily, I think we are close if not there with an understanding with Laser, so the arguing stuff should end very soon :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I doubt it was Laser's fault in that FAC that it got archived. If you got to work as soon as you saw it, there is a big chance that Sandy had already marked it on her list of "next articles to be archived" before Laser got to it. She archives bunches of articles at one time, at least once or twice a day. I have to say that I doubt it was Laser's fault that it was archived - but even if it was, you can't blame him for bad timing. Anyway, look at the bright side - Laser has given us a support, and I've pinged Ashnard and Fuchs about the good news! --haha169 (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

SSBB FAC

I did a quick skim through the article, and I'm not sure how much I can really do. I can try to massage the text some, but I'm not so sure the current organization is how it should be; I think some of the readability issues stem from this. I worry that if I do too drastic of changes the major contributors will get upset. How much longer do you think the FAC will be open? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

Could you make your suggestions at the FAC? That way everyone involved will know what you think, and perhaps it will be the answer to the readability/accessibility issue. I am really not sure how long it will be open, but our last Opposer appears to be working with us, so at least through today. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Won't be open for long; it's at the bottom of the list. Gary King (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Crap. I don't think I'll have the time tonight to go through everything. I'll see what I can do tomorrow morning. Sorry. )-: (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Uriel Sebree was at the last slot every since I nominated SSBB at the FAC. The bottom doesn't necessarily mean archive, it just means that there is a higher chance of archiving. --haha169 (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I've experienced having an FAC for four weeks and one for less than a week, and I can say that it's better to have it there for a week than any longer :) Gary King (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I can see that it has passed. Congratulations, keep up the good work. Sorry, I wasn't able to help out in time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Guy, you can always help out by going here. Leave a quick comment, please?--haha169 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles about fictional planets

You're quite the expert when it comes to deciding on the notability of fictional topics. I see you have several articles and lists in relation to fictional planets listed in User:Judgesurreal777/Topic Building - what do you plan to do about them in the long run, in particular the Star Trek planet list? (I ask because I have a similar article-list for another popular TV franchise, but I know the only real-world info that can be added is the filming location for some of the planets - too little for true notability, but too much for deletion.) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to militate that the planet Vulcan be merged, and then either; source this list, see if it can be notable enough, or I'm going to AFD it and merge any notable content to an appropriate article. I set up the topic page to keep track of these poor topics and see if I can improve them, but if not, a good method of improvement for Wikipedia is the delete button. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Its done

Thank you so much! Sorry for my (semi) late reply. I actually haven't a chance to see the Brawl article yet. I was in the middle of the long, forgetful, process of passing a GAN I was reviewing. I'll see the pretty star now. W00t! And thanks for the barnstar! :) It's appreciated. --haha169 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

...Wait, I see that Sandy pr/ar it. Which one was it? Plus...why is the FAC still there? I guess there is a delay... --haha169 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

lolz. Looking at Sandy's talk page, do I see a Gimmebot issue going on? ...hmm... That might be the cause of delay.--haha169 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

nvm. I'll just stop talking and hope for the best. :P. Hurry up, Gimmebot! --haha169 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's already listed in the log of Featured articles for July, so its already official, but if you wish to continue your star vigil, go ahead :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already put the star up. :P Saw the list - can't believe I forgot about it when you first told me :P. Yes, we should work for FA, at least for the series article. It will be difficult though - I scanned the series article...and damn, it was like a kindergarten paper... I mean, look: this is what I corrected: my edit --haha169 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Judge, I responded to your image query at the FTC page. Happy editing! :) --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good article box

Regarding User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 21#Hmmm..., do you think it would be reasonable for me to have some kind of userbox indicating my efforts for that article now that it is considered "good"? If so, please let me know what would be appropriate. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't you prefer a barnstar? I'm sure there is a barnstar that would appropriately address the issue, I'm not too into userboxes myself, but if you had one in mind, just let me know. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Whichever, I suppose. I just wanted to see if my efforts count enough. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, and thanks for your hard work on the article. --Laser brain (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the one you gave me too! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Break

Have a nice break! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed it, but also ended up doing more work on Wikipedia then when I wasn't on it! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:AfD nomination of Thief: The Dark Project missions

I haven't logged on in months, so if you're wondering (unlikely) I split off the missions section into a new page as it was too large and wrote the new plot outline to replace it. So it's not my baby, even though I edited it extensively. I dispute that it was game guide-ish, but not with much vigour. It was meant to be a terse but more specific record of the plot progression for historical reasons and would have been no use to anyone trying to play the game. Such level by level breakdowns were almost universal on game entries. I see they are no longer. Perhaps it's for the best. MuJoCh (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: FYI about Guitar Hero Featured Topic

Cheers, thanks. I will take a look at those. I don't think I'll be getting to GH in a while, anyways, however. Gary King (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on my talk page

I've been told to avoid him (and he's said he would avoid me as well), which has worked so far. But if a RFC indeed happens (or is going on now?), I might go ahead and ask some admins if I can be a part of it. (I'm responding late, as I was busy for a while.) RobJ1981 (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII

Do you want to help bring Final Fantasy VII to at least GA for the FT? I've been working on it, but it's a monster compared to the other FF articles. Gary King (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The one thing that I need help on is summarizing the Story section of FF7. Let me know if you are up for it. Gary King (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ok, let's try this favor :)

Could clarify what exactly it is that needs to be done. Do you mean the different versions of the FFI need merging into the main infobox? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

I was looking over FFI, and am not entirely sure which direction to go. The PS1 and GBA info is kind of redundant with the link to the compilation article. One way would be to remove the boxes completely and just integrate the info into the relevant paragraph. The other is move it to the infobox as you suggest. But it seems odd to include the WonderSwan and MX2, but exclude the PS1 and GBA. Were you thinking of using a collapsible section like on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Templates#Infobox? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

I expanded the release dates in FFI to include all the dates. I left the boxes in their respective sections though. I figured you may have other plans for some of the content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Ace Combat AFDs

After seeing the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ace Combat characters, I decided to ask the closing admin to expand on his closing rationale. I would appreciate it if you could reply at User talk:Jerry#Question about List of Ace Combat characters AFD and let us know how you'd like to proceed. Pagrashtak 15:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize that you got the impression from my comment on my talk page that I do not like you. I truly did not intend to say that and truly do not feel that way. I mixed my opinion on deletionism with my explanation of the closing, which probably further obfuscated the situation, and for this too, I am sorry. I hope my newer reply is more easily understood. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Judge, there is a mini-thread on my talk page about how to treat these articles (those that survived afd). My feeling is, they can't be merged yet but should probably be merged at some point after being condensed heavily. do you think it can be done? Better to kill it with fire? I'm looking to avoid sending these to DRV but I don't think they belong in mainspace as is, so any thoughts are appreciated. Protonk (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

24 Mergers

Hey there, just a quick question, do you have any ideas in regards to what content should be kept and merged in these? Best, Steve Public (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC) (on public account cos at Maccas at 4am getting the obsessed-with-maccas-wife food. heh)

• Hi again, I know they need to be merged :). I meant like, roughly what should the content sorta say. Have a look at this one for example (its in a collapsed box). Steve Crossin (contact) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yah, I'd like you to write it. I can take care of the formal stuff like updating the 24 watchlists and stuff, but that would be great. (heading back home) Steve Crossin (contact) 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Next?

I'm personally leaning towards Covenant (Halo), because I'm not sure if I like the current layout of Factions of Halo and because the Covenant has become so bloated with crap in species that it hardly meets GA (it also needs a reception and merchandise section). It would be prolly the hardest to take to FA, but on the other hand there is definitely enough info floating out there. Speaking of which, I found a tiny bit more for Arbiter (Halo), but I think he actually has enough content that we could take him to FA at some point. (Gravemind I was able to expand his reception, but I think we still need one more paragraph of development to really do it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: How do you know Ra's al Ghul is dead?

How do you know he survived? Talk:Batman_Begins/Archive_3#Ra.27s_al_Ghul Gary King (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't bring it up with me; bring it up on the talk page. It's a major source of debate on the article and so either way it should be brought up first before changing it, as it has been this way for a while now. I wasn't involved in the original argument, and personally don't care either way. Gary King (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Me again

That's the thing, it never really did have good citations. There were some good sources, but the version that had good enough citations is vastly different from the current version. I'm not sure going through the history will really get all the necessary citations. Here's the version I took the information from before I started my draft revision of it. Don't know if it'll help some.

Also, I'm starting to lean towards merging the article to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. I think the extra information would help the main article get at least A-class in the VG Project, maybe even Featured. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

I'm not sure what to do with the character and music articles. The character article could either be split/merged with various other articles; the main article and maybe List of Mario series enemies. The music article has a lot of reception info, but I don't know how much of it would qualify as reliable/notable. I haven't really read through the articles that much.

I believe Ashnard is working on those. You may want to see if he has the time to work on this set of articles. I don't think I could offer more than copy editing and some thoughts on direction. Time has not been my friend as of late. :-( (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Lists, episodes, and characters

Well, I think I have actually come across two lists and lists concerning episodes and characters at that that I may actually support deleting. See User talk:Narutolovehinata5#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FYin .26 Yang: Might and Magic School. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot weirdness on Casino Royale

I didn't want to jump ahead of you, but that's the second time that bot has incorrectly tagged the characters article as a video game. Have you contacted the owner of the bot? If not, I'll be happy to jump in. That's just weird. I don't even think there's a videogame by that name. 23skidoo (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ME Index

Hello thanks for the award. How is the index going? May I see it? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go!

File:Star Wars barnstar.png		The Star Wars Barnstar
		For, well, you know --EEMIV (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

+1

File:Star Wars barnstar.png		The Star Wars Barnstar
		1000+ articles in 24 hours. You do deserve it. Times two. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 07:16, 1 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to Tag & Assess 2008. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Undo please?

I saw your edit to Martha Logan, and I am asking you to undo your edit. We haven't had any formal discussion over this, but will most likely discuss it when we start our project manual of style, but given the fact that not everyone is a 24 viewer, we thought it appropriate to link those section headings to the main season articles, something that has been implemented project wide. I hope you understand.

And in regards to the merges, its alright, we managed to get it done anyway. We are still in Tasmania, albeit having a lazy day in the hotel. So thought I'd catch up a little on Wikipedia. 24: The Game...hmm, never been my strong point to be honest. I do think that WP:VG would get the credit though, they've done good work on it, so kudos to them. Steve Public (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll discuss the matter formally with SeanMooney when I return, for now, I will undo the edit, merely to conform with that the project has so far implemented. But we'll check the MOS when we return. Steve Public (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Basset hounds and Star Wars

File:Bandaged basset tail post surgery.jpg

Photograph of my basset hound whose tail is bandaged following surgery that removed a couple of inches of her tail.

Well, unfortunately she has yet again managed to bite out her tail stitches (this is getting really depressing and costly), so I charged a copy of SoulCalibur IV for the PlayStation 3 to get at least something to lift my spirits. Anyway, it has Vader and the apprentice in it. Awesome game for Star Wars fans and enthusiasts; I highly recommend it!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (August 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Duplicative"

Just as a quick question, why would you be opposed to either boldly redirecting or having redirect discussions for material that you consider "duplicative"? Even I am open to compromise solutions that at least keep edit histories public. I think that would be a reasonable compromise in many of these instances per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does the edit history need to be public? WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Furthermore, that essay ignores that when you simply drop notability entirely the number of potential redirects explodes: does the name of every extra in a Hollywood blockbuster deserve a redirect to the film article? What about football players who fail WP:ATHLETE - should they redirect to the articles of the leagues they play in? What if the league itself is not notable - should it be a redirect to association football? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't it? Public edit history is helpful for RfAs and for those who do find the articles relevant to at least be able to look at old copies of it. I see no reason why the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit shouldn't have such articles or at worst redirects. If that is what editors and readers want, then I say give them what they want. It doesn't bother me if we have articles on minor football players. Verifiability is what matters as notability is subjective (editors can't even agree on whether to make WP:FICT historical, an essay, etc.). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If an article is not notable, then people who want to look at old versions of it are out of luck, because this isn't everyone's personal dumping ground for stuff someone might want to look at some day. The RfA comment remains nuts until such point as someone explains to me what on Earth is going to be contained in someone's deleted contributions which is going to make a big difference to an adminship discussion - unless you're talking about RfAs for the kind of editors who spend their whole time working on list of foods Pikachu likes or whatever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But that's the problem. We have no consensus about what is and is not notable. Editors can't even agree on whether or not to mark that page historical, na essay, or something else. Thus, notability is subjective and as such is just not a persuasive reason for deleting. This is a comprehenisve collection of knowledge and so long as it is verifiable, then I see no real reason why we shouldn't cover it. Well, if we can't see their edit histories, then we have no idea what those candidates worked on. The alternative would be to push for those of us who have been around for a couple years and have ammassed tens of thousands of edits to be able to see edit histories as well even if not admins. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between "subjective" and "no consensus". There might be general disagreement about where the exact threshold is, but most of the project evidently agrees that the bar is much higher than you believe. Your continual use of the "comprehensive sum of human knowledge" line is coming across as argumentum ad Jimbonem - WP:N evidently doesn't allow for the project to be a collection of everything. And again, given that non-notable articles are by definition not useful to the project, I fail to see why it is necessary to trawl through their histories for something like an RfA when one would be better served looking at edits on articles which, y'know, survived. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy "most of the project" as "most of the project" doesn't participate in some of these discussions. AfDs in which a half dozen editors comment hardly represents the community if discussing an article that maybe even hundreds of editors contributed to or thousands read. And looking at many of the policy and guideline talk pages and edit histories, there are revert wars, personal attacks, etc. that further suggest even those who do participate in some of these discussions really don't agree and continuously challenge each other. There are some of these pages cited in AfDs as reason for something and I swear every time I click on them, they have changed, even if a little bit. I don't think the project should necessarily be a collection of "everything," but it should be a collection of that which is verfiable. Notable to me and obviously to all those who created and worked on the articles, includes any published work that is titular or that can be verified in published works. I don't care if a fictional character hasn't been covered in dissertations. As long as the information in the article is not made up nonsense, then I really see no reason not cover it. We have sufficient numbers of editors and if these articles really bother anyone, well, no one is making them look at them or work on them. And I don't care if comedians or bloggers who do not contribute to Wikipedia mock us for articles on fictional topics; I care what those actually volunteering to work on or who use this information think. As for the histories, actually, it is telling if the candidates worked on articles that were not kept as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:N is an established and respected guideline. Most everyone else either agrees with it or at least recognises it as legitimate. That you do not speaks to your record on AfDs, which is not stellar (in the 40k domain you've been something like 15-0 in the last month). And again you have invoked WP:EFFORT, speaking of "all that have worked on" a domain in which I personally wrote two templates which I then weighed in to delete this month - I'll thank you not to speak for a constituency of which I am a member and you largely are not (outwith a handful of WP:RESCUE-style copy edits to date). As for the deleted histories, I'm aware that members of the community whose threshold for notability includes the kind of articles which regularly fail AfDs might be interested in articles which the community as a whole doesn't believe are valuable, but that's largely irrelevant while WP:N stands as it is; Any editor in a position to be handed the mop surely must be able to show a history of conduct in existing articles befitting an administrator. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the efforts to reform it and the existence of a whole category of editors against notability, I don't see it as a respected guideline or at least not one that is interpreted uniformly. Fortunately I have been right more times than not in AfDs and it doesn't help that those Warhammer ones were mostly disrupted by a sock account or when consensus lacking discussions are closed by admitted deletionists, i.e. those biased against those kinds of articles anyway, regardless of the discussion. The way some interpret N and try to enforce it seems out of touch with what the larger community wants and that doesn't seem logical or right. I can't think of any reason not to keep edit histories public. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: How do you earn a Purple Barnstar?

Answer: you earn it. And judging by your contributions, I would say you earned it.

		The Purple Barnstar
		In appreciation of your colourful contributions to the Wikipedia project. Keep up the fine work. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy the purple! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ssi-Ruuk Deprod

While I agree that this page needs to be edited a little, I feel that deletion is a bad idea. As this is one of the only places to get information on this subject, Please reconsider.

Lburdett (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)lburdett - Larry Burdett - larry_burdett@hotmail.com

Perhaps it is, but wikipedia requires that all articles demonstrate notability, see WP:N, meaning we need to know how the concept was arrived at in the real world, and what real people thought of this thing in order to justify an article about it. If none of that information exists, then there is no need for an article that is all plot repetition. By the way, check the Star Wars wiki, I would bet they have an article, perhaps bigger, on this subject. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! Have a Guinness!

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your contributions to VG topics and beyond, and for your adroit featured topic maneuvers, I smack you upside the head with this random barnstar I found! Have at it! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye. I'll try and work on promoting I Love Bees, since I started working on it and then promptly forgot about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: FFL GA

Judgesurreal, I pulled the nomination, I still really don't think it's ready. A few of the sections are left unfinished, the plot section needs citations, and the reception section tidied up a little. I know though the want to get it to GA to get the total to 50, but I'd rather have it be a big bang first, and I'm still waiting on some sources to boot. It *will* be done before year's end though, and will be GA quality.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. For the record no offense at all was meant, only pulled it in the manner I did in case a reviewer got to it in the midst of it all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Something I'd thought I'd never read...

See this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NP 200 refs

I think I've noticed you adding a few references like this about the Nintendo Power top 200 list. Are you adding those blindly? You seem to always reference volume 200, but this was spread out over several volumes. You can see here the correct reference in this case. I have access to all those volumes, so if you know of any other such cases, feel free to ask me and I can provide you with the correct reference. On a side note, and maybe you already know this, {{Citation}} is not supposed to be mixed with {{Cite web}}, {{Cite journal}}, or any of the other named citation templates. I didn't know that for a long time and was using Citation for magazines. If an article has Cite web, magazines should fall under Cite journal. Let me know when you want me to take another look at FF for the GA review, by the way. I tend to forget about it. Pagrashtak 15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review limits

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I just let anyone who exceeds the one a day limit know. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:An article merger idea

Sorry for the late reply, had my mind on other things and it completely slipped my memory. Merging StarCraft Campaign Editor is probably a good idea in any event, but I don't know whether to merge into the series article or the main StarCraft article (bearing in mind that SC2 is coming with a new editor, Scummedit or something like that), or even quite how much should be merged. A lot of the information isn't any good to anyone but the StarCraft map maker and StarCraft players and should be disposed of, the Stellar Forces court case is the only piece of useful real-world information. That bit can probably go into the series article comfortably, although I really need to reorganise the series article. I'll take a lookie after I've finished with Sam & Max Hit the Road, I'm trying to drive that from start-class to GA. -- Sabre (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The rescue tag

Generally the {{rescue}} tag should be left on even if it's a "hopeless" case as many articles in that same condition have been rewritten and otherwise rescued. If they aren't then the article and tag both are deleted within days so little is lost and potentially much is gained. Banjeboi 22:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, please desist from removing our project tag as such. It's disruptive and unhelpful. Banjeboi 01:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread about this on WT:ARS. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi Judge! Anyway, I see you are nominating a lot of articles I am likely to argue to keep. Nevertheless, I don't like opposing "everything" any one editor nominates. Thus, I am intentionally sitting out at least some of these discussions. There's at least a couple that I saw you nominated, but even though I do have an opinion, I am going to refrain from commenting in them anyway. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, even though we're still having some somewhat heated exchanges, I am encouraged by [3] and [4] that the end results are actually looking potentially positive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, we are like the dog and coyote from the old Warner brothers cartoon, who clock in, beat each other up, and then call it a day :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and at the end of the day, I have no hard or bad feelings. All the best!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a comfort :) I need a vacation, I'm going to be on one for a week, watch my AFD's for me while I'm gone, ok? :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'll all likely have free reign in a couple of weeks as I am going to be teaching classes at two universities simultaneously that are over an hours ride apart and so the whole fall if I'm even around it will be in an incredibly limited capacity. Anyway, have a fun vacation!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry yourself, enjoy teaching! I think you have a few apprentices around, so your ideas will still resound in your absence. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to be curious if some are actually showing up at DRVs I start just because I started them per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormie/DRV notes (I'm nominating for deletion a userspace page that charts only the DRVs I started by a user who seems to always be on the opposite side of me in them) and this thread where Somerandomadmin admits, "One of the problems is that you have some rabid inclusionists (Le Grand Roi de whatever springs to mind) whose arguments at AFD and DRV are so frankly ludicrous (see this for an example) that they actually attract people who vote delete purely to try and oppose their stupidity. Personally, when I see such inane crap at AfD, it spurs me to close those AFDs as delete regardless." So, who knows, maybe these ones will not notice the discussions if I don't comment in them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a growing feeling of this on both sides I think, because emotions are running higher and it is becoming personal in some ways. Not sure if that is just the nature of this whole inclusionist/deletionist debate, but we all work in such proximity and are the "regulars" at these debates, so we hit each other with the same arguments over and over, it is bound to become exceedingly frustrating over time. If we could craft a way to compromise/work together... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That is part of what I see as being "wrong" about Afds and DRVs. By and large it sems the same handful of editors who oppose each other and I do not see how that actually equals the real community consensus. How can a half dozen odd editors somehow have more pull in five days than articles worked on for maybe even years by scores of editors? I am always open to merges and redirects without deletion as compromises, but I feel as if I have to argue strongly to keep just to off set the hyperbole "strong deletes" I see. Anyway, I am deliberately staying out of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenkaichi Budokai and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanoprobe (Star Trek) to not escalate things. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sword of Mana

Hey. I suggest that you look over Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before you and User:24.97.27.163 revert each other anymore in the Sword of Mana article. ~ Hibana 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD comments

Did you really need to write this - [5]? Telling another editor to go somewhere else is a bit much, and your point would have been better made without it. Kevin (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Devil In Connecticut

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Devil In Connecticut, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Anonymous101 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek article assessment

Hey there. I was just going over the bot logs for WikiProject Star Trek, and I noticed that you've been rating some of the articles. I'd like to thank you for donating your valuable time to help during the assessment process. While looking through those logs, I noticed that some of the ratings that you had given to a couple articles seemed to be a little low (for example: Seven of Nine and Rom). What is your reasoning for assessing these articles with a lower importance? (Please note that I am not trying to be combative here, and I simply want to understand all the viewpoints, so that we can come to an informed consensus about article assessments.) Thank you for your time! — OranL (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to change ratings you disagree with, but I am thinking that most characters, except for the big leads, aren't of the highest priority for the Star Trek project. Ones with high priorities are a much much smaller group than the lower priority ones. Articles on Star Trek as a whole, its popularity, the shows, the movies, Kirk/Spock/Picard are all high/top class articles, so if that is so, the others must by necessity be lower, otherwise the high/top ones don't get enough attention as there are too many of them, and keep us from focusing on the ones that are really top priority. Just my thoughts. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is also one of my main concerns (that the articles that really need attention will be lost among other high-importance-rated, but not-as-crucial articles). The flip-side is that if we mark too many articles as low-importance, then some articles may be lost in the low-importance category list. Right now, we have about 300 low-importance articles out of about 1000 total articles (given, most of those low-importance articles are plot summaries, and you can see how I feel about that), so we have to be very careful when adding articles to either Low-importance or Top-importance to make sure they don't get lost in those categories.

Also, thank you for your informative response regarding your assessment strategy! It's good for me to take a second every once in a while to get on the same page with other editors in order to efficiently and productively use what little time I have on Wikipedia. — OranL (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review

Thought you might be interested in helping out with improving The Lord of the Rings, so I'm letting you know about Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Johnson

As the article focuses on the specific incident and features no information about Johnson's upbringing and personal details, it should be renamed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Different article work than your usual? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat (I've been working on a historical article of my own recently too.) If you need any help with it, I'm always available. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Good Topics

Hey, thanks for writing on my wall. In answer to your suggestion: Ah, but then there is no extra recognition over "all-good article good topics" for those topics with a mixture of good and featured content. The step from good topic to featured topic you're proposing is fairly large, and I believe that editors would be more motivated if the step was smaller. However, if you look back to my original proposal on the subject, here, you will see that I proposed a three-tier system - good topics, featured topics as somewhere in the middle, and fully featured topics for topics with just featured content, which solves the problem of the giant leap from all-good to all-featured by providing an intermediate target. (If you want to reply, please write back on my wall) - rst20xx (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To me, it looks like it will pass, but possibly as a part of WP:FT - though I'm not sure about the latter bit. As someone who also voted in favour of having it as part of WP:FT, I would appreciate any opinions you would like to express on Wikipedia talk:Good topics. As for the 3-tier thing, the numbers breakdown you provide is interesting, however this still leaves 30 topics which are substantially better than the floor for good topics, but more than one article off being fully featured. Okay, this might come down a bit if the floor for featured criteria goes up, but not to more than 20, and also you need to bear in mind that as the number of featured topics increase, all these categories will expand over time - rst20xx (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Just realized that I forgot to thank you the other day- thanks for the barnstar! --PresN (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Index

I'm trying to get the motivational barnstar so users like you are getting my support. How is your index going, finished yet? I see it does look good but have you finished with the catagories? Work hard on it looks good. Anyproblems or if you want assistance leave a message on the Talkpage. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Abhuman

Hello! For this one, I am not arguing any further for the Warhammer content; however, would you be opposed to my going ahead and completely writing a new article about the concept as used in Gothic literature as that does have lots of secondary source commentary and is discussed in the context of such noted authors as Bram Stoker, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Rudyard Kipling. Please comment in the AfD if you would support totally cutting the Warhammer stuff and allowing me to continue the rewrite based on the other topic. I am hoping that how Arathi and Commander Dante currently look can be a positive precedent for what to do with ones that say lack consensus for Warhammer but for which a different arguably legitimately more "encyclopedic" subject exists. I am hoping that this will be a good opportunity to work constructively and aboid further going back and forth in the discussions over the Warhammer sub-articles. Obviously I couldn't make such claims for all of these Warhammer articles, but some like Arathe, Abhuman, and Commander Dante are ones that I believe we can instead boldly write a new article on a more clearly notable topic. I am hoping that this will be a way to mend fences. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A crossroads...

My friend, we are now at a crossroads. I have gave it all much consideration and I believe that you and I are in a position to take the road not yet taken rather than continue down the same deletionist versus inclusionist escalation we have seen in many AfDs and DRVs. I hate to sound like a politician, but I believe given your many AfD nominations and my vigorous opposition to them, you and I both carry some weight with both sides of these debates and so if you and I can compromise it will have a tremendous positive influence on even others as well, do much to therefore end or diminish the usual partisanship, and I believe you to be someone I can indeed reason with. So, here is what I offer: if you outright withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhuman (and encourage others to back down) so that instead of continuing a needless deletion discussion that results in my non-Warhammer edits being deleted only to then have to start all over on an article no one would likely oppose, I am able to just go ahead and continue to write the article on the non-Warhammer topic about abhumans in modernist Gothic literature that actually is covered in numerous scholarly books and journals, I pledge to avoid commenting any further (barring someone asks me a direct question where not responding would be rude) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaterium and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamorrean and not commenting at all in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Victor Tooms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Namekian (I think these are all of your other currently active AfDs). In fact, what I propose is that if it comes to the Warhammer articles, if you are indeed willing on ones like Arathi, Commander Dante, and Abhuman to avoid having the edit history deleted, but where I personally begin to write a totally different article on a topic with unquestionable real world notability, I will refrain from vigorously challenging other ones like Immaterium or as in the case of some others outright abstain altogether from commenting in the AfDs. All I am asking is that if a topic of real world notability can be written in the article space as we did with Arathi and Commander Dante we just boldly do that and sidestep a contentious and unnecessary AfD and for my part I will make sure to greatly reduce my commentaries in AfDs and maybe even avoid those altogether where I am unlikely to really accomplish anything. Let us be the ones to take the first steps toward making for a more collegial atmosphere with regards to deletion! If you take that first step down this new road and withdraw the AfD for Abhuman, I promise you that the rewards will be manifold! You may see a totally new pumpkin king at the end of that road!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

but is tooms so bad to be deleted...don't worry..there's always people who goes to see that article..listen to me..I don't see any reason why we have to delete it,don't do this to all the x-files fan,it's one of the(if it's not the first) most loved "MONSTER OF THE WEEK".Thank You,bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocker91 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical contribution to AfD troubles

I thought of this a while ago, and when I saw that you are interested in a reform of AfD, thought I'd mention it to you. I think the AfD subst3 template should be modified to do something like Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL does and add links to those four Google searches at the top of the AfD, alongside the (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log) stuff. That would be more convenient and would also take the wind out of the sails of people who link to Google searches. It would also be less controversial, as it could also be used to find evidence to keep articles. It would be extra cool if the number of G-hits were returned, but this function would require serious programming skills. What do you think? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I really like that! It presents search engines as a beginning to the discussion, not as proof of anything...I think that should be changed...let's propose it! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(pop in) One thing though... while I think it's good in the sense of facilitating discussion, if the nominator hasn't done at least a bare bones search along those lines for sources, he really shouldn't have created the AfD in the first place... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It will increase transparency without favoring either side. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where should it be proposed? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I will ask someone, let you know soon :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WH40K Project

I know you're not technically a participant in the 40K project, but I revamped their project page and added some assessment parameters. I think part of the problem in that project was that there wasn't a quality scale, so articles would just get filled up with junk. Now someone can take an article like Warhammer 40,000 to GA status and have that as a goal. Most of the stuff is probably going to still be transwikied, merged and deleted, but if you're interested, we could use your help assessing articles and improving the core subjects. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Recreate 68

A tag has been placed on Recreate 68 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TN‑X-Man 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Red Tails

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Red Tails, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ros0709 (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your help with improving future Milhist drives at the 2008 Tag & Assess workshop, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you're keen to keep your assessing skills honed, we are currently very short of reviewers for Milhist A-Class reviews. Broadly, the five A-Class criteria are just beefed up versions of the B-Class criteria and anyone with B-Class experience should have no trouble with them. Also, as a reminder, in the wide-ranging A-Class review, it is not necessary to comment on all five criteria: if you're short of time, you can simply focus on the aspects that interest you most (sources, comprehensiveness, prose, graphic content or whatever). You can track which articles are up for A-Class using this template: {{WPMILHIST A-Class Review alerts}}

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kaltemap.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kaltemap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Sandstein  15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)