User talk:L33tminion/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived at 23:49, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC).



Hello, L33tminion/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Lst27 00:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Honor code[edit]

Hi, even though the article was linked from Olin College, that doesn't mean it has to be about the Olin Honor Code specifically. Policy is that the article Honor code should be about Honor codes in general, not any specific one, and that's a much broader subject than what was in the article. Hope this helps, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:35, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

In retrospect, you're right; I should have noted the reasons for my removal on the talk page. I hope you'll accept my apology. As for the general vs. specific question, however, practice backs me up--for example, see Constitution, which contains general discussion but leaves specific examples to other articles (e.g. United States Constitution). Think about it this way--if a reader types in "honor code", are they going to want to see a bunch of detail about one particular code from a college they may not have even heard of? Example is fine, but it should be used to illustrate the article's main points, not serve as the main point of the article. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:32, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
No problem. My suggestion would be adding the information to Olin College; it might be too granular to have the honor code get its own article. Best of luck and keep up the good work, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:39, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Vote on Sept. 11[edit]

Hi, thanks for your vote about the title for September 11, 2001 attacks. But the vote is in two parts. You voted in the part that is now closed. The run-off is still open. Maurreen 22:20, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians[edit]

You should consider koining those of us fighting the good fight (the inclusionist fight) over in the AIW. Posiduck 01:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mafia (game)[edit]

Thanks for merging "A village murder mystery" into Mafia. It needed to be done and I didn't have the time to do it myself. It still needs editing to make it more accessible for a general public. But the merge did bring it closer to completion. Thanks! [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:36, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)


The point of that list is that people need to remove it from pages, because it's already obtained consensus to delete. So it doesn't need cleanup - it needs to be removed from all pages it's on. Snowspinner 20:32, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Deletionist campaign[edit]

Hi there. As someone who has displayed a fairly rational and objective attitude towards micronation articles in the past I thought you might be interested to note that the rabid deletionist lobby is on the march against them again.

The latest target is New Utopia, which although a poorly written article in its current form concerns a subject that is eminently encyclopaedic, being the latest in a long line of libertarian "new country projects" (and therefore representative of a notable social/historic phenomenon), being the subject of dozens of international press and TV stories, as well as the subject of a widely-known US Securities & Investment Commission investigation for fraud.

You might want to take a look at the VfD and respond accordingly.

For future reference you might also want to note the articles in the Micronations Category, in order to keep an eye on its contents; I’ve been adding a number of well-researched, illustrated, fully referenced articles to this category in recent months, but there are moves afoot thanks to a highly suspect ongoing arbitration of process to have me banned completely from writing anything at all about micronations on the basis that as the founder of one, anything I write is somehow self-promotional and/or controversial. --Gene_poole 22:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your support. I've been an editor here for nearly 2 years, so I'm very familiar with editing processes, and I make frequent use of talk page discussions, as you can see by looking at my edit history. I have had serious ongoing content issues necessitating repeated reversion of content perversion with only 2 editors during my time here - Wik (who was eventually banned) and Gzornenplatz - both known as abusive radical POV-pushers. I refuse to be cowed by such poisonous individuals and make no apologies for fighting them tooth and nail, to the wire. Concerning the arbitration farago, most of the so-called evidence that the crackpot stalker Samboy dredged up is ancient history; some of it even pre-dates Wikipedia (ie 5 year old usenet postings, if you can believe that!). Samboy is simply another deletionist nut who has contributed almost nothing to Wiki - in fact something in excess of 80% of all the edits he has ever made are reverts or talk page rants to articles he deliberately entered while stalking me. In future I will certainly ensure that my contributions are brought to the attention of those willing to defend them (where warranted), whenever they come under attack. --Gene_poole 06:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I don't consider it a "rant" to openly challenge serious allegations made against me by a person of dubious character. The fact that Samboy has no response to my challenge (other than flippant disregard) proves my point. Don't forget, we are talking here about someone who actively encouraged edit warring against me by a vandal (Belgsoc who was reported on ViP twice for blanking articles and deleting VfD tags) specifically so he could "out-edit" me. He did the same with IndigoGenius when I attempted to remove original research by that editor (who is widely known in the micronation world as a complete raving lunatic - he believes himself to be a god who will judge people at the apocalypse, believe it or not). --Gene_poole 23:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm as calm as any rational person could reasonably expect to be under the circumstances. --Gene_poole 05:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your input[edit]

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking the time to look at this arbitration issue between myself and Gene Poole, and make an opinion on the issue. I'm just leeting you know that you forgot to sign one of your comments with ~~~~. I have corrected this error; I hope you don't mind. I hope there is a time that Gene Poole and myself can get along; I will avoid bringing up the arbitration in future disputes with him. I guess I get frustrated that he savagely attacks editors he doesn't agree with; it is very hard (because of my human nature) to turn the other cheek and back down when he gets like that. Again, thank you very much for looking in to this issue, and I hope that I can handle Gene in a calm and respectful manner in the future. Samboy 07:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User talk:Frenka[edit]

You're still pretty new here, but two things. First of all, the concept of "notability" in regards to Wikipedia is not familiar to most people - and its not something we all agree on. Second, I was already working with this user. You needlessly duplicated that page content, when it could just have easily been moved later and preserved the history of it - either after the user replied back or after the VFD. -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Opposition to Castro[edit]

Thanks for your vote on Opposition to Castro! Regards SilentVoice 21:56, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

American World University[edit]

A fair request. Although I'm in a fairly foul mood because of what I consider bad-faith maneuvering by Anthony, so don't expect too much help from me on this. In my personal opinion, although your edits were constructive, this is not a notable university and we don't need an article on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Before your edits, as nominated for VfD, without Wiki-markup (not that it had much):

American World University is a fine alternative to a traditional degree program. It has distance learning techniques and practices that make it possible for working professionals with experiential knowledge/learning (which equates to college credits)to obtain a degree through extensive reading and research skills, testing, and writing essays in their major field and liberal arts subjects. Liberal arts subjects are necessary to complete a degree program. I earned a B.A. in criminal justice in a 2 year program. The course work was challenging and stimulating. I have found success and prestige in my professional field. Thank you for the opportunity to express my feelings here and to the President of AWU, Dr. Maxine Asher. She is a dedicated educator and pioneer in distance learning promoting worldwide acceptability and validity. Sincerely,
Robert (Neptune, N.J.) USA

After your edits, and without Wiki-markup:

American World University (AWU) is an alternative college that attempts to enable working professionals to earn a college degree by allowing them to recieve college credits for existing knowledge they have gained from work experience, take classes at home through distance education, and complete assignments in their primary language, not just English. The University also offers its services as a consultant to other educational institutions.
Schools of this type are sometimes referred to as degree mills, especially by their critics, because these institutions attempt to allow people (especially working adults) to earn a college degree at a minimum cost of money, time, and effort, causing some to feel that these institutions focus more on speed rather than quality of education.
The current president of AWU is Maxine Asher.
External link:
AWU webpage

What manuevering are you saying I made in bad faith? Why don't you discuss this with me instead of whinging to other people about it? anthony 警告 01:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was just about to come here and say the exact same thing that Dbpsmith says above. Anthony's attitude has made me harden my position, and nothing but an apology from Anthony would lead me to change my vote. RickK 06:12, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • You want an apology from me to change your position on the undeletion of an article which I didn't create and didn't nominate for undeletion? That makes no sense whatsoever Rick. Think about what you're saying. anthony 警告 15:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dislike Anthony because he votes on VfD and VfU in bad faith. Anthony barely edits at all on the Wikipedia, and spends all of his time in the deletion arguments trolling. His votes are duplicates of other people's votes. If somebody says, "Delete, vanity", he'll reply with "Keep, vanity". He has been the subject of an arbitration committee ruling that decided that he stop trolling like that, but he's doing it again, and that's why he was blocked last night (I don't know if somebody has unblocked him yet or not). I put a notice on his Talk page that *I* would be blocking him if he didn't stop his trolling, but another sysop blocked him before he could respond. He is continually attacking me and accusing me of voting in bad faith, and seems to take it as a personal attack if any article, at all, gets deleted. He's on record as saying that he has no problem with having an article on every person who has ever lived. This is not the way to create an encyclopedia. I have no problem with people who disagree with me, so long as my motives are not questioned, but Anthony and his ilk attack me all the time for wanting to destroy Wikipedia, which is the last thing I want to do. And I'm tired of fighting with him. It's gone on for months now. RickK 21:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Stop lying, Rick. I have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia which are not related to VFD or VFU in any way whatsoever. I have repeatedly asked to mediate these issues with you, and you have repeatedly rejected my requests. I want to resolve things. I want to stop fighting with you. You won't come to the table and discuss things with me, however. Instead you lie about me behind my back. anthony 警告 15:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Knock it off, you guys. Both of you need to seek mediation, and my talk page is not the best place for this conversation. --L33tminion 16:05, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • If RickK posts lies about me on your talk page, I'm going to respond to them. I'm not going to let Rick slander me without defending myself. anthony 警告 16:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Fine. But if that is the case, you should be defending yourself to me, not arguing with him. If you have issues to take up with him, do so at his talk page. --L33tminion18:25, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. Sorry about that. anthony 警告 18:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've undeleted it and relisted the article on VfD, as considering the issue afresh seems to be the best solution given the rewrite. Thank you for trying to keep the personality conflicts to a minimum here - I know it's difficult. --Michael Snow 00:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The promotional links issue[edit]

You commented: "If merely linking to something is promotion, then all external links are inheirently NPOV, which is rediculous. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:59, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)"

Read these articles Wikis the next frontier for spammers and [] The issue does not arise from the legitimate use of external links by someone who writes an article and provides relevant links to material discussed in the article. It arises when someone places an article in Wikipedia for the purpose of creating a link to their own website from a prominent and well-indexed website (Wikipedia).

This is a real problem, and it needs to be dealt with.

Spam links in articles are customarily removed, as when (for example) a book dealer planted links to his website in dozens of articles about authors whose books he presumably sold. In the case of an article about AWU, however, a link to their website is germane to the article.

But look at these two links and then click on them:

AWU's website AWU's website

Can you even tell the difference without examining the Wiki-markup? The two links looks the same and work the same and both will take interested readers to the AWU website just as effectively. But one of them will increase AWU's Google pagerank and one of them will not.

The two links serve readers and users of WIkipedia equally well. The only difference is that one of them also serves the purposes of an organization that appears to be trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes and the other does not. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:21, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Featured article tagging[edit]

Please refrain from tagging featured articles on the article itself; featured article tagging is done on the talk page. There's a long standing tradition on wikipedia of not putting meta data in the article itself. →Raul654 21:15, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

The promotional links issue[edit]

You wrote:

(In the case of American World University, the original article was a POV testimonial, but was by no means a googlebomb, as it contained no links. I added the link to the website when rewriting the article because I thought it was relevant, and I am in no means trying to promote the college itself (even though I feel that Wikipedia shoud have an article on it, as if it is not a notable college, it is a notable scam)).
--L33tminion | (talk) 18:24, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

You're right. It was added by you, it wasn't in the original article. I was mistaken.

And since I don't believe you are trying to promote I won't set that up as a straw man.

As for the current state of the article, all I can say is, OK, I give up, I holler uncle, and retire from the scene battered, bruised, and overcome by superior forces.

I believe promotional links are a problem, but you've pointed out deficiencies in my proposed solution. Actually, the point about not knowing where the link goes is reasonable since this used to be a real problem on Slashdot and tinyurl and friends could be to mask prank links to shock sites and so forth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for looking into the matter yourself! +sj+

Votes for deletion/Martin Oei[edit]

Hi.. please check the history of that page carefully. It seems most Chinese wikipedians do not support the claim that Martin is anything but vanity. Do you know any Chinese speaking wikipedians working in The only way to verify this is to have someone who can read original newspaper articles and put them in context. Mozzerati 16:31, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

RE: Your comments on my talk page[edit]


Hi, I also got a non-answer from ExplorerCDT. I'm making my frustration with this user's uncooperative attitude public on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ExplorerCDT. If you agree with my complaint, it needs your signature to certify in the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". This would be required for the RfC to proceed to the next stage. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Election articles[edit]

I think you have it exactly wrong. If it's a breaking news story where it's impossible to tell what's noteworthy, it manifestly does not belong on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I think those articles are fine articles... for Wikinews. But if they're compiling information where it's not clear what's notable, important, or relevent yet, then Wikipedia isn't the place to be doing it. Snowspinner 23:44, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

AIW articles needing attention[edit]

When you have a moment available, please refer to the AIW page, there are some articles which require your attention on VfD. Cheers, [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lighthouse Island vote[edit]

Hi. I'm curious about your vote to keep the Lighthouse Island article. I'm obviously biased since I proposed the deletion, and you're obviously entitled to vote any way you see fit, but you seem to contradict your own philosophy. On your user page, you state that "a lack of independent sources on the topic" is a reason to delete. I believe that the name "Lighthouse Island" is made-up by the article's author, and asked him if he could cite any sources to verify his assertion that the name was real . His response was "No. There is none. Locals have been calling it that for 45 years." It sounds to me like it fails the "verifiable" test. --RoySmith 04:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Wikiportal[edit]

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re : Stop Vandalizing Graffiti[edit]

Apologies, for unwittingly "vandalising" the abovementioned page. I was trying to revert vandalism myself but have reverted the incorrect version by mistake. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

vandalism on your talk page[edit]

Well, the point is, this anon user called his own edits to talk pages "vandalism" when he reported himself to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (!). See [2]). I reverted on that basis. -- Curps 06:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion[edit]

As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

Thank you for your time. --GRider\talk

Universism Undeletion[edit]

Please see Universist 03:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Franklinwolinseal.gif listed for deletion[edit]

An image that you uploaded, Franklinwolinseal.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion because it lacks source and license information, and it is not used in any articles. Please go there to voice your opinion (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.

New Mathematics Project Participants List[edit]

Hi L33tminion.

In case you didn't follow the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Reformat of Participants list, I'm writing to you to let you know that I've converted the "WikiProject Mathematics Participants List" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". Since your name is on the list, I thought you might want to check and/or update your entry.

Regards, Paul August 22:11, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion[edit]

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

VfD ballot-stuffing[edit]

I did not say you were a sock-puppet. I said your vote should be discounted as you were targeted by another user in an attempt to stuff the ballot box and thus gain a hearing for these articles sympathetic to his own views, thus defeating the point of voting or discussion on VfD to reach consensus and denying due process to these and other articles. Other "keep" votes by users who are not involved in this campaign (either as instigator or target) have not been marked as such. I have answered this point already, and will engage in no further discussion. Thank you for your understanding. Chris 17:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To answer the point you make on this page, informing a small group of maybe a half-dozen people about a VfD is issue advocacy. There is no way on this or any other earth that informing 53 users (which is a full order of magnitude more than the number of votes most VfD nominations receive) cannot be construed as an attempt to stuff the ballot box. This is not the same as telling everyone on your street about a public meeting coming up. This is the same as telling only the people on your street that you know hold your preferred opinion to turn up to the public meeting to swing the result. I refuse to apologise for the consequences of someone else's actions. Chris 19:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

School Vote Notifications[edit]

Would you object to including any user who asks politely in your mass notifications (irregardless of their opinions)? --L33tminion | (talk) 01:45, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

If someone wanted to be included (or excluded, for that matter) I would see no reason to object. Going forward, however, utilizing the Schoolwatch talk page may be a more appropriate medium to share ideas and concepts. --GRider\talk 16:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)