User talk:Leflyman/Archive1

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


Post replies to my main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Next archival selection is User_talk:Leflyman/Archive2.

Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis[edit]

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 12:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Israeli terrorism[edit]

Hi Leflyman, it's best not to move people's comments during a VfD, especially one where the sock puppetry of the nominator may be directly relevant to the way people vote. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

For my response, see User_talk:SlimVirgin#Re: Israeli Terrorism VfD
Please don't move other people's comments. If you want to move your own, that's fine, but you have no right to move anyone else's. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
It isn't a talk page and anyway "[r]efactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion." Why can't you just leave it alone? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion:

"Discussion follows the normal Wikipedia talk page etiquette."

From Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page:

"When talk pages — like article pages — become larger than 32kb, they cannot be edited by some users because of browser page size limits. Moreover, such large texts become bulky and difficult to navigate, and place a burden on users with slow (dialup) connections...
Please note that refactoring a talk page is an alternative to archiving it."

From Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Maintenance:

"Dozens of articles are listed for deletion every day, making Wikipedia:Votes for deletion one of the busiest places on Wikipedia. The way VfD is currently set up, including all of the discussion on a single page, makes it one of the largest pages on Wikipedia, too. This results in a long page that can be difficult to navigate. More importantly, it results in long page load times, especially for Wikipedians with slower connections. It is a waste of both time, bandwidth and server resources.
Fortunately, the page bloat can be reduced. Certain types of discussion can be safely "un-included" from the main page, but still referenced by a link. This reduces the page size while keeping the discussions close at hand."

From Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages:

"Refactoring is a process of rewriting with the aim of improving a text's readability or structure whilst retaining the original meaning. The aim of refactoring Wikipedia talk pages is to make past discussions more accessible, readable and useful... On Wikipedia, however, the term "refactoring" is often used to mean any changes to a talk page that improve the readability of it.
Refactoring of talk pages on Wikipedia is important....You should be aiming to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, have less redundancy and less information overload. Think what the talk page is about and remove anything superfluous that would not help future editors to the page. Do not discard useful information; if something is important but irrelevant, move it somewhere more appropriate.
When to refactor
Consider these guidelines when refactoring a discussion:
  • Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; however, proper application should enhance the clarity of the discussion and therefore lessen the risk of confusion.
  • Refactoring must be done responsibly and objectively. The original meaning of the refactored statements pertinent to the subject of discussion must not be obscured.
Refactoring may occur more than once. Constant refactoring is a good thing and you can refactor as you go.
Remove off-topic comments
When refactoring a talk page, remember that Wikipedia is not a chat room. People may have chatted while developing an article, but is this going to help future editors working on the page? Probably not, so condense it to what is relevant to the article, bringing out the points of argument, while leaving behind the personal attacks and off topic comments about who should be banned, and who violated their sysop privileges while editing the page.
If a comment has some value, reorganise it or move it. If not, delete it. The full archive is there for those with the time and inclination to read it. Your summary should be of maximum benefit to the most readers.
Reorder and rename
Refactoring a page does not have to be as complex as rewriting it. A page can be more readable simply by grouping related topics together. Most talk pages will be chronological. You don't need to keep this structure. Perhaps a page would be clearer if split into a list of for and against arguments."

Zionist terrorism[edit]

Hi. The thing is, you just inserted the tag now, so I'm uncertain as to what you are objecting to now (as opposed to when the tag was off). The first item you refer to dates 11 Jun 2005. Please outline your current objections in a new section at the foot of the talk page, as per the requierments of the tag. Ad. For example, you can say, I feel that the removal of the tag was unwarranted due to (brief summary)). Thanks. Regards, El_C 20:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, I largely agree with it. I moved it to the article's talk page here so as to facilitate a discussion. Regards, El_C 20:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


Howdy, I'm setting up an anti-idiotarian notice board in order to coordinate the efforts of wikipedian's concerned about the infiltration of anti-western POV and apologetics into wikipedia. I'd be honored if you would add this page to your watch list. Klonimus 02:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism[edit]

BYT put my article on this informative book up for VfD, I'd be honored if you'd take a look at the article and its VfD. Thanks. User:Klonimus/AINB Klonimus 07:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

VfD Campaign against books critical to Islam[edit]

Recently I've been filling out the category Category:Books critical of Islam with articles about a contemporary books that are critical of Islam. One would think that documenting a verifiyable sub genre of books would not cause offense. But sadly this is not the case. I urge all wikipedian's concerned with having an encyclopedic encyclopedia to look at the following articles and their VfD's. Klonimus 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I must add a minor book on vfd created by klonimus. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infiltration:_How_Muslim_Spies_and_Subversives_have_Penetrated_Washington. Cheers Svest 23:57, September 6, 2005 (UTC)