User talk:Reyk

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



Hello and welcome to my talk page. I'll respond to your comments here, unless you ask me to reply on your talk page. If I've left you a message on your talk page and you reply there, there's no need for you to come here and tell me; if I expect a reply I'll be watching your talk page so I'll find out about it anyway. Cheers!

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: removal of my edits on the Go page[edit]

One's is a conjugation of "one is" Ones indicates ownership — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcroner (talkcontribs) 03:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • No, that is incorrect. Most possessive pronouns, such as "hers", "theirs" and "its" do not use an apostrophe, but "one's" is the exception. See, for example, [1]. Reyk YO! 06:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

interesting statement[edit]

I think that's enough now.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone said "It is not permissible to nominate such an article for deletion on grounds that it is not notable due to of lack of coverage." LibStar (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I think I can guess who. What is this about? Reyk YO! 12:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish. He's quoting out of context again. What that passage was saying that it is that you can't delete a notable topic because it is non-notable. Because that would be a paradox. And of course nominating a notable topic on the basis that it is not notable would be disruptive. All it says is that people who persistently nominate notable topics, wrongly claiming that they are not noable, are supposed to get a topic ban for disruption. James500 (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Reyk and User:LibStar, don't the pair of you think it might be slightly inexpedient for two strongly deletionist editors to rip apart a notability essay, systematically pushing it in a more deletionist direction, and employing some fairly dubious arguments to do it, without seeking input from people with more moderate opinions? The wider community will just rip that apart again (assuming they read it and the penny drops for them). James500 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

that's right, everyone agrees with you. And you always say it so concisely. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
and if you had it your way, no article would ever be deleted in Wikipedia and everyone would comment in minimum 500 keystroke response. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I have not made a single edit to that essay. That's yet another factual error. I gave my opinion on the talk page. I have every right to but, true to form, you immediately started screaming at me at great length. It's a bit rich for you to accuse anyone of "ripping apart" a notability essay when you've spent so much time pumping it full of inclusionist propaganda and trying to take ownership of it. Anyone tries to object and you immediately unleash a barrage of your usual longwinded stream-of-consciousness ranting. Reyk YO! 13:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
yes I can hear James tapping away at his concise 1500 keystroke + response full of long winded excuse and deflection. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like Reyk has left James in an unusual silence. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blank userspace drafts[edit]

Can you explain to me this opposition to getting rid of these pages? It's not even mild opposition, I've got people name-calling me. Blanking them is offensive, deleting them is offensive, removing categories is offensive, everything gets opposed for some oddball. The MFD was opposed, the DRV has opposition, adding it to speedy deletion is opposed, asking for specifics is ignored. I've got nine year old stale drafts at MFD being opposed now. The only thing I can think is just reflexive opposition. I feel like I'm the crazy one here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what goes on in some people's heads and I'm not sure I want to know. Reflexive opposition sounds like a good description. Anyway, if I am reading the DRV discussion correctly the 166 IP editor has a grudge against you for unrelated reasons and his whinging isn't so much about the blank drafts as about a personal vendetta. If you take that out of the equation, most of the remaining opposition is only wrong, not derogatory. I really cannot understand opposing a measure that will declutter hugely oveflowing maintenance categories. Deleting a bunch of abandoned empty drafts that nobody will touch again is not a big deal, and neither is undeleting them on the rare occasion that the original contributor returns and wants it back. Reyk YO! 20:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I've had editors out to get me for years. The IP seemed to have predated the WOP mess and may have been related to a editor who started creating screeds against me and Wikipedia at DailyKos. Clearly I'm doing something to attract these people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Reyk![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, you too. All the best, Reyk YO! 21:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Winningest[edit]

You may not have been aware, but there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#.22winningest.22_in_sports_articles regarding the use of winningest. You are invited to join the discussion to help from a consensus. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I must take exception to your replacing "winningest" with "most successful". This is imprecise, as success could be measured by other criteria than number of wins. Length of service, size of salary, number of offspring etc.

How about "most victorious"? --Pete (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Until there is resolution of the issue concerning the propriety of the term "winningest" at the link provided above by Bagumba, the status quo should be preserved. If a consensus is formed to remove the word, that would be the appropriate time for mass revisions. Making those mass revisions during the pendency of the discussion is unnecessarily condentious. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Cbl, you should come to a halt on that point. When the discussion is over, then we may all tread firmly on the same path. I suggest dropping all modifications to these articles until that point. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Cbl, there is no call for your mass reverts. I think consensus favours removing "winningest" and replacing it with English words. Accordingly, I shall restore my edits. Pete, I'm not using "most successful" exclusively. I use this phrase when it's clear from context what it means, such as when the career wins record or number of championships is listed nearby, or when it's not obvious that the original "winningest" just means number of wins. Other times I use things like "most career wins", "wins record holder", or things like that. IMO "most victorious" is often as vague as "most successful". Reyk YO! 07:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Reyk: I kindly ask that your refrain from any further changes to winningest in articles, such as your recent edit here at 2016-01-15 08:59:57 (UTC), until a consensus is reached. Continuing to edit in this area is disruptive and edit warring is discouraged. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  • No. Reyk YO! 12:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just a heads up, but if you refer to good faith edits as vandalism, as you did in this revert [2], you can be sanctioned for it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It was vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Talk_page_vandalism, where the very first thing it says is "Illegitimately deleting other users' comments". Curly Turkey had no business removing my comments and it wasn't done in good faith (note how he calls me a liar in the edit summary). Reyk YO! 07:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated at this difficult time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70[edit]

Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 403, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70 which you may wish to give your input on.

Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.

Thanks for your time. Jeni (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Carfax Abbey[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Carfax Abbey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JumpiMaus (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)