User talk:Rockstar915/Archive 2

Consensus

With respect, I think you underestimate my training, experience and knowledge vis a vis global and Wikipedia definitions of consensus. I'm glad you didn't mean your remarks personally, and I'll be sure to endeavor not to take them personally in the future. You may in fact wish to read up on consensus yourself, because it seems as if your understanding of the concept and its role in formal organizational decision-making may be flawed. The theory of consensus is in fact not only useful in organizational dynamics but also in politics and in computing, and in each case (for instance, see Wikipedia's own entry about consensus decision-making) you'll find that the answer to disagreeing parties when building consensus is not actually just railroading the majority decision through, but building compromise and soliciting buy-in. This is the formal difference between what we experienced in DRV and what the formal definition of consensus and consensus-building in decision-making is in organizational and communications (and political science, to some extent) theory. You may wish to study up before asserting your opinion again to someone, who like me is formally trained in such fields. Do let me know if you have any questions or would like some tips on reading and research materials (but I think and hope we can be proud of the job Wikipedia's doing, too). Thanks for your concern. --MalcolmGin 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between the dictionary definition of consensus and WP:CONSENSUS. I was referring to WP:CONSENSUS. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The linguistic difference would still be useful to differentiate. I think it's objectionable to call the use of supermajority "consensus", when it is in fact and practice actually supermajority. Diluting the meaning of consensus with a completely different behavior/decision-making process is a misrepresentation of both the word and the process. Call it supermajority if that's what it is. It's disingenuous to call it consensus. The fact that the use of supermajority-based (or in the case of DRV, limited-population majority-based) decision-making is recommended in WP:CONSENSUS does not mean the two phrases are synonymous. --MalcolmGin 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying -- and yeah, it might be good to qualify that. Maybe you should bring it up at WP:CONSENSUS' talk page? I'd support changing around the nomenclature (especially for DRVs) to clarify the processes so that we don't run into this problem again. What do you think? Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll probably bring it up, but be warned that Xoloz already warned me that it's been tried 3 or 4 times to no real effect. Thanks for the suggestion, though. --MalcolmGin 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not surprised. Per its nature, Wikipedia is reactionary and probably wouldn't appreciate such a semantic argument, as the policy remains unaffected... that said, there's never any harm in trying. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

From badlywrittenjeff's talk page, it looks like I can help Kim with trying to do that work, or she, me, depending, since while she and I disagree about the usefulness of policy, we both seem to agree that the extant policy can/should be fixed. --MalcolmGin 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool -- let me know what you decide to do! Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

question for you

hi – are there reliable third-party sources that say that Shut Up Stella is "worthy" of a Wikipedia article? I don't see any references there other than a MySpace page, a website and a fan club, none of which would be considered a reliable source. But I would absolutely not recommend that the article be deleted, and if I knew about an afd on it I would speak up for its continuation – why? because it adds to our knowledge of hiphop. While I agree with you completely that we want well-referenced articles here, I do not agree with your notion that we need third-party verification that a topic is worthy. Many, many articles would not pass that test. You and I stand on opposite sides of the deletion-inclusion divide, so I don't expect we'll come to any agreement on this, but I really am interested to know why you are taking such a hard line on the afd about covert references in songs, and seem to have a more lax stance on an article that has no real references at all. At least for the list in question, it's been acknowledged that a revised version would be better, probably the one that Joe Mabel has done some work on. Asked in friendship, not meant to be confrontational, which is why I'm asking here. Tvoz |talk 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Shut Up Stella is a particularly weird instance. You can check out Fan 3's AfD (Shut up Stella) was included in it here. Josh Gotti and his army of sockpuppets (who I have been monitering for quite some time now) vandalized both Fan 3 and Shut up Stella almost beyond recognition. Shut up Stella was subsequently deleted per copyvio and Agathoclea, who is helping out with the Josh Gotti situation, asked me to recreate the page. So that's the history of Shut up Stella. As per their references, there exist quite a few but I've been bogged down with university exams and haven't gotten around to it. But trust me, they fulfill WP:MUSIC (not to mention they're signed to a major label). In terms of the covert songs list, I just don't think that such an unencyclopedic list, which arguably fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:LIST per listcruft, does not belong on Wikipedia. It's a breeding ground for individual original research and interpretations of songs, as many references can be misinterpreted as a "covert" reference to another musician. The reason why Shut up Stella belongs on Wikipedia is that the group fulfills WP:MUSIC. The covert list of songs, at least per my research, does not. And it doesn't help that no one has been able to give me a good reason why the list should say. Hope that helps, and I appreciate your asking in friendship! I'm not here to make enemies, I'm here to make Wikipedia as good as it can be. And the one thing I love more than anything in the entire world is having my mind changed about a topic following a good conversation. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough – I actually knew nothing about the history of Stella, so I accept what you're saying, and understand well the backlog problem, not to mention the intrusion of "real" life. But that kind of supports my position, in a way – a tremendous amount of work went into the creation and development of that list (by the way, I did none of it – this is not said in my own self-interests, I really just believe the piece should stand) – over three years of work by dozens of editors. We all agree that the list's new incarnation should be more consistently and thoroughly referenced, and that the list should be watched and kept to that standard. Joe has said that all along and has done some work apparently in that direction. So overturning the decision would allow him and others access to the initial legwork that was done by many folks in identifying candidates for inclusion, and then when reliable sources are found, the item can be added. To wipe out all of that raw material would be unfortunate and I think goes against what wikipedia stands for. Just like I think it was wrong, based on what you're saying about Stella, for its history to have been wiped, if indeed there were references there that had been vandalized. IN a nutshell – the real enemy here are the vandals and their socks – I've been fighting one too for a while who has been attacking some of the presidential candidates' pages (Obama in particular, also Edwards and Clinton) in a sometimes subtle way, causing a lot of work and annoyance. Ultimately I spot this guy easily, but you know that's not enough, so I do understand your point about vandals and socks. And yes, maybe a list like this is potentially an OR problem, but then it can be tagged or edited accordingly. None of it is exactly earth-shakingly important, but I really think it adds to our knowledge and is a useful tool for readers. The fact that I like it and it is interesting may not be reasons to keep, but they also are not reasons to delete. It's a tautology – they're valuable because people find them valuable. But why is that a bad thing that has to be exterminated from the encyclopedia? It makes us something different from the Britannica, and that's one of the reasons I and lots of others work here – to be responsible, but different. I too want Wikipedia to be as good as it can be, and I think the way to get there is to think more about including and less about excluding. But then, I am an inclusionist. Hope, maybe, I;ve changed your mind a little? Tvoz |talk 06:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I definitely see where you're coming from, but my argument per OR is that the OR actually runs much deeper than a mere tag on the article can ever portray -- the way I see it, the entire list is and will always be original research and cannot, per its essence, become anything else or ever move past it. And I don't really think that we can keep something that so blatantly violates WP:NOR, or that is just an indiscriminate list of information. No matter how interesting it is (and don't get me wrong, I think it's interesting), such a list just doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. To me, at least, our policies and guidelines make that pretty clear. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see the danger – not said sarcastically – but that's why if it is well-referenced, if music critics, books, real sources say that Suite Judy Blue Eyes is talking about Judy Collins – then it's not OR on the part of wikipedia editors. Many sources are OR – the OR of the writers – but we accept them as reliable if they meet our criteria. That's all we're suggesting for this list at this time – sourced statements that explain references in songs. The jester sang for the king and queen – ok, it's subject to interpretation as to who exactly is the queen, but the other two are pretty well established, probably multiply referenced, but it's covert. And a kid coming along and reading this list will learn something – one of our goals in an encyclopedia. So I don't think it will always be the OR of the wikipedia editors at all, if we monitor it and keep it referenced. I'm willing to give it a shot anyway. Too many of the people weighing in are more concerned with some kind of all-important process than the fairness of the 2nd afd or the rightness of the action. Especially those who say go ahead and create a new article with the references – that's just unnecesary, and as I've said probably too many times, spits in the faces of the dozens of editors and three years of work that came before. Tvoz |talk 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take on it -- time on Wikipedia or the number of edit counts does not mean notability. Furthermore, the processes are there for a reason -- to stop Wikipedia from being anything but an encyclopedia. Granted WP:IAR works too, but not in this case. I still don't believe that it's an encyclopedia article, or probably ever will be. And yes, some of the songs might be referenced properly, but I still don't see its significance as a non-context, stand-alone list. Right now, the list appears to be an indiscriminate unencyclopedic list of information. And references, in relation to lists, don't stop it from being that. However, that said, I would have no problem with it being userfied and worked on from there and then reinstated *if* it conforms with WP's standards. As the article stands, however, I don't believe that the article passes our standards, and I think we would all agree that we need the standards to stop anarchy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence above about time and edit counts, probably because it's almost 4AM in NY and I am falling asleep. But I don't think you've responded to my main point about the value of having access to the work already done. I guess if your position is kill the piece no matter what, rather than the position some have taken that the piece can be recreated with references but no, we can't preserve the work already done in any form – then I guess you're at least consistent. But as I say – it's late and I have to be up early, and part of my brain is shutting down – so will have to leave this for now. Good talking with you anyway. Tvoz |talk 07:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant that just because a lot of people have worked on an article and although it's been on Wikipedia for a long time is not a valid reason to keep an article, so I was under the impression that I responded to your point. And it's not spitting in the face of those people who edited it -- Wikipedia is a community-driven, not individually-written, encyclopedia, and thus we can't get too personally invested in the articles as sometimes they get deleted. And yeah, I'm exhausted too. It has been good talking to you as well. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Graph

On the help desk you posted the following post and I'm interested in that graph too. You said you found it yourself. Can you point me to it?

I saw this brilliant graph a few days ago that showed, over time, the varying number of admins vs. editors and vandals, and that while the number of admins is only rising slightly, the number of vandals is rising hugely. I've searched and searched but to no avail. Does anyone know where I can find that again? Thanks! :)

-- 131.211.210.13 07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (aka MacGyverMagic; too lazy to log in)

Hey -- here's the link to it: here. Enjoy! Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thank you

I really felt good when you and I made the connection over consensus lately. I appreciate the work you're obviously doing here too, and since you think they're silly, no smilies or other weirdnesses for you either. Good to build bridges instead of just being frustrated by not being able to communicate. Thanks for helping build ours. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Something to Ponder

Hi there. I appreciate the work that you and other Wikipedians do. I have been watching the discussion over the article about my son's band, Still Pending with interest. Obviously, I think it's exciting that someone took the time to create the article and that others are so interested in making sure it meets notability criteria, etc. What an interesting place this is. Whether the deletion is overturned or not is rather inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I just wanted to comment about your statements regarding kid bands in the business. Here's an angle that you may not have considered. First, these kids are actually very talented. You may wish to dispute this, but the fact is, each of these kids are musically gifted. Are they as good as the Red Hot Chili Peppers or some other older band? Of course not. However, without young kids pursuing their dreams and musical aspirations, who will be the future of music? As the Dad of one of the band members, literally every day I see evidence of the inspiration that these kids are to other kids and even adults. They are asked questions daily about how to practice, what kind of instrument to play, where to take lessons and how to start a band. We've seen comments such as, "You made me pick up my guitar again after many years of not playing," from one older musician. These young kids thrive on helping other kids to not be intimidated by the complexities of making music. They make it look easy and this, in turn, encourages others to give it a try when they may have otherwise decided against it. Have a look at the comments on the band's website guestbook or YouTube channel and you will see the type of thing to which I am referring. NAMM decided to partner with these particular kids for just this reason. Since there are so many other kid bands around, they could have selected any number of young bands. They chose Still Pending because of the impact they have on other people to want to make music. That's what NAMM is all about. The Cartoon Network selected them for some of the same reasons (they, of course, have some other motives, as well). So, while we can argue over the talent of these kids, the fact remains that the media coverage and other coverage they, and other young bands receive, is a positive thing for music, in my humble opinion. People young and old need sources of inspiration to pursue their talents. Seeing young kids, unafraid of taking risks and reaping some nice rewards in return should be an inspiration to all of us. I say, more power to them if they can get the attention of the media to help them spread the word to an even wider audience. To be frank, these kids have been an inspiration to me as well. Believe me, I have many issues with our media, but, like most things, positive attributes can be found in the messages that they are able to send with their broad reach. I believe that these, and other kids, are notable because of their age and it should be celebrated. We have seen comments before about people liking them only because they are young. There may be some truth in this, but my point is that this is not necessarily such a bad thing. Young athletes and others who are considered "prodigies" get media attention mostly because of their age. They are never as talented as their adult counterparts. I would make the same argument about their notability and their ability to inspire. I apologize for my long-winded comment. Thank you for taking the time to read it, and, again, thanks for your invaluable work in the Wiki community. David Ellman 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me first just say that I appreciate your comments and that I apologize for the length of my comment. Considering what I've said at the DRV, let me just say that I would expected a much less civil comment from one of the band member's father. So I just wanted to begin with the fact that I appreciate what you've said and that I respect your civility and your ability to keep a level head and not take comments personally during a debate about a subject that is probably touchy to you (to say the least). Let me also just say that it's late my time (1:30am) and I'm quite tired, so I might not be at my full mental capacity. But I'll try to respond to at least some, if not most, of your comments. First, I don’t doubt that Still Pending has gotten a lot of comments like the ones you’ve mentioned above; that does happen generally with media exposure. But my overall problem with Still Pending is that I just don’t think that there should be children musicians, simply because it is inevitable that they won’t be accepted or taken seriously both by the knowledgeable music community or the serious music press. A kid band is arguably destined to become another Hanson: plenty of press, sure, plenty of fans, sure, plenty of positive comments about the future of the music industry, sure, but in the end, never taken seriously. And by taken seriously I mean taken seriously by the folks who actually are shaping the industry. Unfortunately, and maybe this is pessimistic of me (I have, however, had quite a bit of exposure and experience within the music industry – I’ve worked at two indie labels and one major), but the future of pop music is determined not by the bands but rather by the major labels. But that’s just pop music. What shapes “real” music (if that term can even be applied) is true independent, forward-thinking music. The problem is that the chance that a band of children to be able to influence or even be accepted by such a community is very slim. Actually, knowing the community with great intimacy, I would say it’s close to none. So the question boils down to whether or not their press coverage is a good thing for the music industry? As a music purist (and a huge fan of both cutting-edge and pop music), I’m not so sure it is. I mean no disrespect to your son’s band, don’t get me wrong, but it worries and upsets me when bands get more press simply because of a schtick (or because of their age) than older, more experienced, and arguably more talented bands who really are shaping the music industry but won’t be appreciated for their contributions for years to come. I don’t doubt that the members of Still Pending have talent. But let’s not kid ourselves (no pun intended) – twelve-year-old kids are still learning to be talented during encounters with the opposite sex, so their musical talent, while it could be good, is arguably still relatively little in the greater picture. Furthermore, should the band be notable for their ability to inspire? I would argue, per my comments about the industry and my experience, that bands should be notable for their talent, not any attribute that is specifically not talent. If Still Pending has talent, as you say it does, then I would rather have the band mature both in age and talent and then debut into the scene when they’re at least in high school. If their talent is as good as it is claimed, then they should be able to generate the same hype. All this said, the band does fulfill Wikipedia’s guidelines and should have a Wikipedia page per our policies and guidelines. And none of my comments should be taken personally – I do wish your son and his band the best of luck in the industry, as it’s a tough place and a pretty nasty environment. And for what it’s worth, I do hope that I’m wrong and that Still Pending can move past being just a “kid band.” But it’s nice to have this discussion, and again, I do appreciate your comments. I hope that mine made sense too, as I’m too tired to read over them. I can't believe I wrote this much. But feel free to respond if you want! Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a good and intelligent discussion and I always welcome that. It has got me thinking. I am at work, so I don't have the time to really get into as much detail as maybe I would like right now. As parents of these kids, I have to be honest that we have really struggled with what is the "right" thing to do. We know all the horror stories about young kids in the industry. I can't remember the Hanson story, exactly, but other people have mentioned it as well. It's a bit scary to think about what could possibly happen to these kids if they get swept up into childhood stardom, which is a real possibility with all that is happening right now. One of the comments you made about being a purist got me thinking, though. There is clearly a huge base of music fans who are young. Kids are getting interested in music at very young ages now (maybe always). I know that my kids started showing musical taste at about age 8 or 9. My daughter is a huge Disney fan. Now, lots of people would make the same argument about these "artists" that they are making about SP. The fact is, there are tons of fans of this music. Sure, it's candy-pop, overproduced garbage by some standards, but some kids absolutely love it. My daughter has found a new interest in singing, largely, I think, due to some of these performers. The members of SP are actually quite opposed to Disney music and that entire genre. They all love classic rock and newer alternative and other rock. One of the really fascinating things about SP is that they appeal to kids who like alternative, punk and rock music – including many, many male fans, but they also appeal to the Disney set – mostly female. The alternative/rock kids like them because they appear to be genuine – they write their own material, they cover cool bands like Green Day, Zeppelin and RHCP and they really do rock. I don't know what you saw or heard (you said you checked them out), but I would encourage you to check out their YouTube channel and some of the most recent videos from their show at the Crystal Ballroom Still Pending Music. I hope you can see that there is real talent here. Take particular note of the number of plays that some of these videos have gotten. Read the kids' bios and you'll see that they are real musicians – not produced by some label or network. This is their band – they write and arrange everything. They get comments every day from older teens – 15, 16, 17 who say things like, "I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think you guys are good." These kids are a pretty tough and discerning audience and yet they respond to this band. We have seen these same kids literally shred some of the other kid bands out there – they can see through the facade, and yet they approve of SP. I am the first to admit that the Disney set of fans probably like them first for their appearance. They, too, however, respond ultimately to the music. Well, here I go again getting long-winded. I'm almost to my point, so hang with me. The point is, there are lots of kids out there clamoring for music. You're suggesting waiting until these guys are older. Well, who are they going to appeal to, then? Perhaps the older kids, perhaps not. Why deprive these young fans of something that clearly appeals to them? Would you tell a young athlete not to compete in sports until they are older and more experienced? The fact is, these kids are gaining hugely valuable experience now by performing for live audiences that many kids will never have the chance to gain. Take a look at the progression in skill and performance they have made since last summer (the older YouTube videos). This came from lots of practice and lots of live performances (which, by the way, they absolutely love). I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that they will always be regarded as a "kid band." I don't have the expectation that they will be around for 20 years. Not many bands last that long, especially kids. I also think that with their talent, these kids could have a little run right now and then possibly re-emerge with other bands or in other forms later on. I truly believe that there is a difference between these guys and the over-produced stuff we're seeing in their age bracket right now. They are the real deal. Nobody is making them do this or telling them how to do it. I'm hoping that they can retain this "purity." This will be the tricky part. Well, I win the new record for length. Sorry about that and thanks for the stimulating dialog. David Ellman 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to respond as of yet, but I've been absolutely bogged down with work. I promise I'll respond within the next day or two. Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea if you're even reading this anymore, so I'll keep this short. I think it's great that Still Pending doesn't like Disney music and that they're influences come from classic rock and punk. And to be honest, I don't have a problem with kid bands. As long as they don't get famous. For the most part, kids who are in famous bands burn out entirely and have zero chance for success in the industry when they get older. Except maybe Michael Jackson, but no one wants their kid to turn out like him. In terms of your argument about children athletes, it's comparing apples and oranges. Olympic child athletes can compete with the adults, and often win. In terms of music, there's no way that a kid band will have the same skills or talent or be able to write or perform the same songs as the Chili Peppers, Zep or Green Day (I'm using these as examples because you cited them as some of the band's inspirations). Children's minds just aren't developed enough to be able to discern what is good and what isn't, what's derivative and what's original. That is, unless they're a Disney group and have all their material written for them in the first place. But I'll end with this: I don't have a problem with Still Pending. I love that children are being exposed to music at a young age, and I love that kids like your son are picking up the guitar. What I don't like is the media fixating on a band like Still Pending because it's a kid band, because essentially the media is exploiting the kids not for their talent but rather a schtick (and it's not even the kids' fault), thereby setting them up to become laughing stocks in the industry if they do wish to become serious musicians later in life. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD possibility?

If this set of articles were nominated, do you think it might stand a chance of getting deleted? Biruitorul 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly thinking about it – that level of detail doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me, and the amount of commercial links has the air of spam. Thanks for the advice; if you happen to make a nomination, let me know and I'll vote either to delete or drastically reduce in size. Biruitorul 05:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they really do reek of spam, don't they? But as per their encyclopedic value, I'm torn, and I can totally see people arguing for keep based on "it's useful." But I'll definitely keep thinking about it and will let you know if I move forward with an AfD. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they fail WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT, which is what really matters! OK, we'll keep in touch. Biruitorul 05:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they absolutely fail WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. But for some reason closing admins often count those votes as legit. So it's just a matter of writing up the nomination as to stop those votes from being counted. We'll definitely keep in touch. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick Palumbo

He's hardly notable at all. He's made a number of ultra-gory independent films and has gone around the internet promoting the heck out of them. In no way has ANY professional article ever referred to him as a member of the Splat Pack (like they have with Rob Zombie or Eli Roth) or a founder the current horror renaissaince (spelling?) thats going around except for, of course, himself. He's spammed numerous horror boards and is generally considered to be a Grade-A Prick. I'm willing to bet he's the one adding his name to the article.--CyberGhostface 19:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured he wasn't notable, and I've definitely removed his name from the Splat Pack article more than once. It's funny, because I can always tell that someone is not notable or is grasping for notability if his or her name gets spam-linked somewhere else in Wikipedia. Sigh. Well, I think that what we should do is cut the hell out of Palumbo's article, removing literally everything that is unsourced or possibly original research. He does, after all, fall under WP:BLP. I'll go ahead and take a shot at it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good job. If you need any help or nominate it for deletion, let me know and tell me if I can do anything.--CyberGhostface 23:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

thanks for calling my attention to the error or at least the complexity--I added my source. The various comments seemed to get it mixed up in any case, but that isnt unusual at deletion review. DGG

VTech and social networking

There have been newspaper articles written by media groups about the impact of social networking sites on the response to Virginia Tech: http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=350063&Category=14&subCategoryID=

Hence, the links to the social networking sites held by victims are very much relevant to the case. WhisperToMe 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and linking Myspaces isn't in the least bit encyclopedic. Remember, Wikipedia isn't Google and isn't the news. If there's an article about social networking after the deaths, then there should be a section about that. Don't interpret the news, report the news. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak deletion question

Hello Rockstar915. Could you please clarify the quesiton of deletions and reviews? On April 23, 2007, at 6:49, I had left a comment on a (to me) mysteriously blanked article on Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. You deleted my question (no problem with that), and your comment was "you may request the undeletion for review at the drv." I'm not sure how to request an undeletion (reinstatement), or what a drv is, but I am mainly wondering why the J C-N article was deleted. The instructions at the top of the J C-N page was and still is "While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice." In other words, leave and/or improve the article. Don't blank it. What is going on? Why was it blanked? You are an experienced Wikipedia editor, so perhaps you could help clarify for me what happened.Que-Can 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Que-Can, thanks for the question! Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was indeed an article, but it was nominated for deletion on April 17. The resulting discussion (which lasted for five days) can be found here, and resulted in the deletion of the article. Another editor disagreed with the procedure of the discussion, and listed it for deletion review, and there is currently a discussion going on as to whether the deletion was handled correctly (you can read/add your input here). My comment was that sometimes you can convince an administrator to undelete a page while a deletion review is going on, so that other editors can add to it. If you want to do that, you should drop a note at the DRV. Does that make sense? Sorry, I meant to write you a note on your talk page but I've been swamped with work. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

hrm

Didn't like my edit? I kind of thought Wikipedia:don't-give-a-fuck-ism was starting to become a little too bloated/ideaological from the original one I created. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bloated and ideological?! Who gives a fuck? No, seriously, though, I don't. I personally think it's fine, and I <3 bloated and ideological things anyway. Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Samaha

Referring to adding the phrase regarding Lebanese descent: "::::Nope. Just remove it. Rockstar"

The media has reported on the descent:

• Here's a sample article: http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/reema-samaha/
• And another: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Reema+Lebanese&btnG=Search
• And another: http://www.daylife.com/story/0e3jfNh4Dyghg/1?lead_article=101000000020455340

Internet sources make the point that she was Lebanese-American – She could be a second-generation immigrant (as in her parents immigrated) WhisperToMe 01:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two essays you should read: Wikipedia is not the news and Wikipedia is not Google. You have to use common sense in distinguishing what is encyclopedic and what is not. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check the talk page again WhisperToMe 02:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

changing sides

(overheard you at BDJeff.) If you _are_ thinking of changing to become an inclusionist, let me encourage you to think it terms that a return to the wider use of stubs is a practical intermediate. EB has long had numerous 1 paragraph articles. The advantage is that it saves the fighting, and lets us all get back to editing articles. What most needs removal around here isn't inappropriate articles, but the excessive spam in a great many articles. DGG 04:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so much thinking about becoming an inclusionist as I am thinking that deletionism is stupid. But the bulk of my issues is with DRV and AfD and how the processes don't work nearly as well as they should. That said, I'm a bit confused about what you meant by "EB" (could you explain that?) and I do agree that excessive spam has to be deleted, but I also think that we should be proactive in deleting articles that are obvious spam. I'm working through the List of Record Labels (a breeding ground for spammy adverts) and am nominating for deletion the ones that are obviously spam. I still enjoy deleting articles, but I do think that there is some merit to the inclusionist argument. Maybe I'm somewhere in the middle. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

About WP:MEMORIAL and injured victims

WP:MEMORIAL redirects to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information – It states: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." – It seems to be very open-ended and does not mention specifics. WhisperToMe 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I posted the list of known injured victims describing their injuries. WhisperToMe 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I know WP:MEMORIAL, and I think it's open-ended for a reason -- Wikipedia isn't a memorial, and memorializing can be dangerous, even if the subject isn't your friend/relative, etc. As for the known injured victims, awesome job! It's crazy how much work you've done on this article. Keep it up. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link

I find myself frustrated that the logs cannot be searched for "IAR" as far as I know, because I think there are probably a lot of mentions, especially in Speedy logs. As for WP:IAR, I would love to see/make an edit there that would clarify, even just a more explicit spelling out of where IAR originally came from, to clarify that it's not about ignoring rules for administration's sake, but to encourage new editors not to get bogged down by trying to understand all the policies/guidelines/procedures while they're just starting out. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My thought is as minimal as possible statement on the project page about alternate interpretations and some subpage or other type of clearinghouse (can you link to a search?) of links to those alternate interpretations. Currently, the See Also section doesn't cut it in my mind. I guess I would be OK with just having other essays/guidelines written that can be linked to in future discussions without modification of IAR itself, and some of the existing ones are also useful to know about.

One thing I'm very curious about is when IAR changed substantially from the original wording by the original founders. Maybe I'll go see if I can figure that out this morning. Also, I may look into coding or finding a tool that can search Deletion comments and other forms of logs. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia..Crystal Ball lmao

lmao wow i havent heard that one yet lol..=] Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 04:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, it's actually in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

lmfao dats makes it even more funny..=] Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 04:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

aww thank u..=] Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 04:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

hey could u give me an answer for what x is in this? 2(x+3) – 5x = 12 Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

x = -2. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

oh ma god thank u!!!!!! Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 05:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha no worries. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

=]..=]..=] (thinkin of doin somethin nice for Rockstar) Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to do anything nice... I always liked algebra! Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

lolz..i like Math but Im not that good at it..=]..lol that reminds me do u know any record producers? Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Record producers? I mean, I'm friends with a lot of people at record labels (both big and small), if that's what you're asking... why? Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

yea cuz umm i need sum help gettin into the music biz could u talk to them maybe u know tell them bout me..or atleast ,mention my name(Tamie )..=] Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the biz takes a very long time to get into, and oftentimes it's just coincidence. Do you have a myspace music page or something else that you can point me to so I can get a feel for your music? Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

i do have 1 but i aint get my music on it yet..=]..when i get it on..ill tell u and umm will u help me then? Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can do. Just let me know. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ok i just dont know how to thank u..=] Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, don't worry about it! :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Aww ur so sweet..=] Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI – I just spent the day reviewing the entire edit history of WP:IAR

Perhaps you or someone you know will find the summary helpful. Summary on IAR's Talk page. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you save this link so that if someone asks in the future about the history of IAR we can just redirect them to this section. Awesome job, though! Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it took a total of about 2-3 hours. I did it in chunks throughout the day, so it's difficult to know for sure. :) --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, dude. It's still not comprehensive, but it looks like it irritated Centrix, which I'm not sure is a good thing or not. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still very impressed. Comments like those from Centrx, however, bother me beyond words. You were attempting to make a point (and a very good one at that), and his comments were entirely unproductive and, in fact, disruptive. It's comments like that that often stop any constructive work being done in changing IAR. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But it's also true that I am more stubborn than they are (if I'm convinced the cause is just, anyway). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In a case like this, it's probably good to be stubborn. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. It's good to see some support for this, my most often described as "obnoxious talent". :) --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Well if the obnoxious talent gets you somewhere, I guess it's a good thing. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Gael Garcia

If he's a director, can you add the movies or productions he has helmed in his article page? Thanks. Berserkerz Crit 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It actually already states in the article that he's directing and producing Defecit, which comes out later on this year. I just added the info in the lede paragraph because it was pertinent information. Hope that helps! Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okie saw it. Changed some stuff. Lastly, could you kindly give me a news or entertainment report link about Deficit? I'd like to know what it's about or why Gael's directing it and stuff. Hehe thanks! ^_^ Berserkerz Crit 15:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you're not looking for reliable sources for the page, here's a few links I could find by a quick Google search: Deficit is going to Cannes, IMDB page for the film, and an interview about why he likes acting better than directing. Hope that helps! I'm sure there's more out there, just try Googling the name of the film with "Bernal" or "interview" or something like that. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Harrisonburg vs. Harrisburg

This is just a geographical fact – what would you cite? HokieRNB 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

oops... my bad... I see the problem... they changed city and state... I concur with your reversion. HokieRNB 21:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hey

Thanks. Glad to hear it. :) --Coredesat 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Rawkus Records

Please don't remove templates like {{weasel}} from articles without doing the required work (such as removing all the instances of "it was reported that", "it was announced that ", "Once seen as a label that championed underground hip hop, the shift away from this has left many with a bad taste in their mouths", etc.). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:CHILL, WP:TIND or WP:PANIC. And, while you're at it, read WP:TALK before reverting a talk page. For the record, I was in the process of cleaning it up, and removing the template was just step one. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First, perhaps you should read WP:CIVIL. Secondly, I have read WP:TALK; I also know that deleting a comment without response is ill mannered, and that removing requests and warnings is deprecated. Thirdly, the correct order is: do the work, then remove the templates. Fourthly, your edit summary ("naw, not weasel words but it does need to be cleaned up") clearly stated that you were removing the template becauuse you thought that it was inaccurate, not because you intended to do the work. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

a) Don't take things personally, I was being civil. b) I can do whatever I want to do with my talk comments, so long as I don't change the wording. c) There is no correct order, but thanks for sharing what you think it is. d) It did need to be cleaned up, and at the time there weren't weasel words. I cleaned it up. Get over it and go write an encyclopedia. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You deserve a cookie

Thank you for chiming in on Kundalini, where it is an uphill battle trying to get compliance with WP:RS. I hope you will watchlist the page.

Buddhipriya 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Having seen you on the deletion review, I thought you might want to be made aware of the relisted AfD for Nicholas Beale. It can be found here. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of votes

Just hoping to pick up some deletionist support: (one, two). Biruitorul 00:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually a deletionist anymore, though I'm also not really an inclusionist either. But I'll go ahead and take a look at the AfDs and give my 2 cents! Thanks for the heads up. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

You voted in this article's Deletion Review. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 18:32Z

Thanks for the note! Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Via strass

Actually, that would be his fifth warning, or sixth if you count a previous block. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you blocked him again. Did you? Rockstar (^T/_C) 13:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I was hoping someone uninvolved would do something. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He just vandalized my page. I'll bring it to AIV. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The following comment is not vandalism, it is legitimate comment: Special:PermanentLink/129274037

The following comment is not vandalism, it is legitimate comment:

Special:PermanentLink/105781473

The following comment was not vandalism, it was legitimate comment:

Special:PermanentLink/129272274 It is uncivil to remove these comments from other user's talkpages. To remove them for your own talk page without replying is also uncivil. Via strass 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is a threat, even if it is a quote from Pulp Fiction. Furthermore, this is an attack. Calling Samuel Blanning a fascist with pictures of Hitler is obviously an attack, no matter how you try to look at it. But let's talk about it on ANI, shall we? I'm writing up a report and it'll be there later. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rockstar, As I'm sure you're agree I don't see any point in complaining or rediscussing any issues related to my being banned for 'vandalism', other than to say, I did not mean for my message to be interpreted as a threat to you. My posting of multiple pictures of Samuel L. Jackson was the 'vengeance' itself, not a threat of vengeance. It doesn't particularly matter now, but I wanted to make it clear to you, I did not and do not intend to cause any harm to you in any way whether on WP, otherwise online, or IRL, nor did I wish to give that impression. Via strass 22:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I appreciate the comment. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV Report

The editor appeared to have many edits that were not vandalism. It was sure a comment in horrible taste, and probably deserving of a block, or at least a warning, however not vandalism, and therefore should probably have been taken to WP:ANI. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write something up for ANI. Via strass has been warned multiple times for vandalism, and calling someone Hitler is an attack, and should never be tolerated. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ok well this is strange but

I have a newb to Wikipedia who is having trouble sending you a message and asked me to send it.

I wanna know why, you are being a jerk and deleting stuff
I cant post links to because the bloody sites down and, why are you acting like you own ijji!

I do not endorse or agree with this message and am just helping another user convey it. Kc4 20:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks for the note. I deleted a section on Ijji entitled "Forums", which had only the content "**Currently Underconstruction Until 2pm PDT**." Not only is this original research, but is totally not notable in the long run of Ijji's history or future, as the information would just be irrelevant starting at 2pm PDT today. You probably already know this, but Wikipedia is interested only in verifiable information provided by reliable sources, not information that will be up for an hour and then removed. We're in it for the long run here. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ijji

Ok, you see the reason I put that there, is ebcuase the site is currently in maintance mode, I cant get the sources and stuff, when i wrote that it should have been open but they moved the time up by 3 hours

I also dont think ijji would care if I was doing it, becuase I happen to be one of ijjis top supporters and helpers.

Rory Williamson 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is still non encyclopedic. Kc4 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to Rory, the fact of the matter is that there are no sources that will ever confirm that Ijji is under construction. In fact, no newspaper or magazine or journal will write that Ijji went down for three hours or four hours or even a week. The fact that the information went up in the first place was, unfortunately, original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not indiscriminate infomation, whether or not it's the "truth." Again, it doesn't matter what Ijji thinks, what matters is that we're writing an encyclopedia, and we're writing it for the long run. Information that will only be up for a day, a week, or a month must be removed. Ijji's website, not Wikipedia, is for information about updates and construction. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes how are we soppused to put that the site is down for a bit in encyclopedic terms?

Rory Williamson 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It will unfortunately never be encyclopedic and will never belong on Wikipedia. That is, unless a reliable source writes about it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The only time would be if the site went down permanently or for an extended period and caused serious problems. Being down for a few hours dosn't countKc4 21:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, even the Error thing I made for ijji had importance and yet you delete that to becuase it didnt have sources, that dont exist on wiki!

Rory Williamson 21:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was original research. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So your saying you dont trust the info? Hmmm? why do you think they switched the play live button? Did you know Active X's Hgstart9usa, is only apart of ijji! You know the reason im posting errors' is becuase im sick of people not using search buttons to find alreayd answered stuff

Rory Williamson 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I'm not saying I don't trust the info or you. I'm saying that Wikipedia is not interested in truth, it's interested in verifiability through reliable sources, and not publishing original research. Don't get me wrong -- I think this information is interesting, it just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. As for your question to the play live button, I unfortunately have no idea. But I do understand why you posted the information, and please don't take it personally that I removed it. I did so based on Wikipedia policy, not a grudge or because I own the article. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I used to think wiki was the greatest, and now that im a member im figuring out I really dont like it, whats the point of am Encyopedia if the facts arent right? Im posting stuff people should know before going to complain about it on the site.

Rory Williamson 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. Wikipedia won't publish facts that are incorrect; we publish facts that are based on reliable sources. You really should read WP:ENC -- I think it summarizes Wikipedia very well. And yeah, Wikipedia has a lot of problems. But you can't let the bad overshadow the good. In summary, though, let me ask you something that will hopefully clarify my comments: two years from now, or ten years from now, or even fifty years from now, do you think the fact that Ijji's forums were down on May 9th, 2007, for five hours will be important? Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

that was the point, I have the same topic opened in another tab and am editing it -_- anyway forums back up Rory Williamson 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I can assume that you understand why I deleted it now? Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont care anymore, imma work on a hgstart9usa.exe wiki

Rory Williamson 21:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, take care. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Help

Could you help me make the Rounders Poker page please? Rory Williamson 05:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... from what I can tell, Ijji just picked up this game. If I were you, I'd wait for a while and let some sources write about it. As it stands right now, I think it would just get deleted or redirected back to Ijji. But I like your thinking. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ^_^. Ok, I have an Idea, Say If I made the forum section right, could I post the CSR`s GM`s Dev`s, and discriptions.

Rory Williamson 14:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, unless they have reliable sources written about them. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fail :/ I wish to be famous ;D

Rory Williamson 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Just keep plugging! You'll get your 15 minutes. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeh.....Hopefully ^_^ Im to lazy to make a profile Rory Williamson 16:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's likely that Radiant was reacting to this

this. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nick Palumbo

Do you think the time has come to nominate it for deletion?--CyberGhostface 22:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, as much as I hate the Nick Palumbo article, he does actually deserve one based on Wikipedia's notability criteria for creative people (in WP:BIO). Because his films -- well, one of his films -- have been the subject of reliable sources, he actually qualifies for his own page. It pains me to say this, but I think we'd actually lose the AfD. Maybe it's worth a try, but I could see Nick getting all excited and more obnoxious because his page is kept in an AfD. I think we should just monitor the page and make sure that Nick doesn't add anything stupid to it (like he often does). A barely-there stub, IMHO, is better than a page with a lot of COI crap from the subject himself. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE

You may want to read that section yourself; the section clearly states "If the articles contain little content, consider merging..." The episode is being redirected due to the fact that it lacks the necessary content as define by that page. In no way, shape, or form does this require any sort of discussion. It fails the guideline, it has no chance of improving, no one but yourself would see it or respond to it, and it is just silly. Either plan on bringing it up to standards or don't revert it. If you do want to revert it, please don't until this discussion is over. TTN 20:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

See, I'm seeing on WP:EPISODE that Stubs are not bad and are actually "allowed on Wikipedia," not to mention that a simple redirect will take away from the quality of the "target article." Right? Furthermore, before doing a senseless, blind redirect, I would like to ask you the question that is, ironically, asked in WP:EPISODE: do more sources exist? Following a very quick Google search, the answer is obviously a yes. But then again, as you said that this is not a discussion issue, let's just assume I'm right, shall we? To conclude: instead of just ignorantly redirecting, how about expanding an article that is obviously expandable? Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Stubs are allowed if they can be improved upon. This is a minor episode of a long running cartoon. Nothing that would satisfy WP:EPISODE can be found. Would you care to show where this information is located? There certainly aren't any reliable, second party sources that come up on a Google search. Before claiming it is expandable, you may want to show it. Please see this, this, and any of the episode articles here for examples of what it would need to look like. TTN 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And it can be improved upon. See WP:BOLD. Be bold, update and improve the page, don't be reckless in your edits. I told you -- do a Google search on the episode. I found at least four pieces of trivia on the episode itself that would add to its notability. And that was after ten seconds. Tell you what -- I'll work on it, and if nothing changes in a week to fulfill WP:EPISODE, we'll settle on a redirect. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being reckless. As suggested by the guideline, I'm merging articles. Four pieces of trivia will add nothing to the article. Also, are they from reliable sources or are they from places like TV.com? You need actual information as shown above, not minor goofs or trivia (See WP:TRIV). How about you actually show the information that you're talking about first? TTN 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not merging articles, you're redirecting articles and thus removing all the old content. There's a difference. But if it gives you more pleasure, I'll keep it as a redirect until I add more content. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge, redirect – same difference. Due to the fact that the episode list doesn't have a table or anything, nothing would have come out of moving the information. When someone actually bothers to do it, I'm sure a better summary will be placed. Really, you aren't going to find anything worthwhile. Stuff like "In this episode (and again in "Special Delivery"), the title card "fades" to black, rather than "cut" to black." isn't going to give you an article. TTN 00:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume that is sarcasm. Do you seriously think that you can add well written, sourced reception and development sections? You aren't the first to try this for a single cartoon episode, and you won't be the last to fail. TTN 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the optimism and vote of confidence. I love an uphill battle. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to dissuade you from wasting your time. There is no way for any child-geared cartoon episode to get up to standards. If it were possible, SpongeBob SquarePants, a show which certainly gets much more attention per episode than Rugrats, would still have its articles. You're only doing this to prove me wrong, but it isn't going to work. Just adding all of the trivial information that you can find will not help the article become decent. Again, a child-geared cartoon will never recieve the required attention from developers or critics to form sections. TTN 00:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, you're quite a beacon of hope. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK then, have fun. I'm sure I'll be feeling pretty silly after seeing a full fledged made out of sources from around three web sites. TTN 00:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

For your sake, I sure hope so. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming deletion

You recently deleted a comment by me on the talk page of "Factory farming." This seems to have been without reason. I'm unsure what led you to do this, perhaps it was accidental. If so, please be more careful in the future. FNMF 00:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It was one of those blips that happens on Wikipedia from time to time where two people have an edit conflict but the Wikipedia servers don't show it. I was reverting Haber (talk · contribs)'s vandalism of Slim's comment, and my edit collided with yours. It was not a mistake I could have avoided; it was a mistake on the part of Wikipedia's servers. Hope that helps explain it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech victim list

Tony Sidaway removed the names of the victims again.

See: Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

He cites this part of WP:NOT:

"Sensationalist news reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The bare fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not imply that they should be memorialized forever by an encyclopedia entry. While Wikipedia properly strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should compel us to appropriately contextualize events, and in many cases this will mean not having a biography that is not encyclopedic, despite the subject having made a brief appearance in the news. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews."

I am preparing a rebuttal at the moment. WhisperToMe 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'm definitely here to help out. I do think that having individual articles for each victim would be inappropriate, but in this case, the sensationalist news reports section of WP:NOT does not apply in this case. Keep it up. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's Malcolm?

I got tired of the same ol' stupid cycle on IAR's talk, and I'm honestly watching the BDJ arbitration case to see where it goes before I decide if I want to keep spending massive cycles on little actual progress here. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevent to Notability

I restored the edit they way I intended to make it, which I believe addresses your concern. If not, give me a shout. WilyD 17:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no, it makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sabrina Bryan

Actually I was correct when I said that. If you want hard proof then click here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegeta121 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not strive for truth, it strives for verifiable information stemming from reliable sources. A porn website is not a reliable source, so I removed what you wrote. All this not to mention that what was written was almost entirely original research and analysis. But then again, if you can find a reliable source citing what you're alleging, then by all means add it in the article (but make sure you cite it or else it'll be removed again). Until then, I will continue to remove the information as it is a very obvious violation of our policy regarding biographies of living people. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

Please refrain from performing joke edits to policy pages. Thank you. —David Levy 06:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't a joke edit. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt. Please stop vanadlising the page. —David Levy 06:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. You're a silly goose. If you understood the policy, and I mean really understood it, you would realize that the only people who are vandalizing the page are people like you and Tony. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate. —David Levy 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This pathetic bullshit nonsense of "the page is too fat" and reverting back to the "solid" "consensus" version is a load of crap. If people really think that this page is supposed to be set in stone, completely unchangeable and untouchable, then they should leave Wikipedia immediately. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

When did I say anything of the sort? I just want you to stop vandalising the page. —David Levy 06:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't have to say anything. What's that thing they teach us when we're young again? You're fighting the wrong fight, believe me. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest idea of what the above is supposed to mean. I just want you to stop vandalising the page. That's all. —David Levy 07:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're afraid of fun? Oh, goodness... the consequences! Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy pages exist to assist the project, not for you to have "fun." —David Levy 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Quoting fun makes it seem like I said it. I am not having fun. I am improving Wikipedia. This policy page exists to show that policies are not solid. Do you understand the policy? Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't see the word "fun" in your post?! —David Levy 06:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Meta comment. M-e-t-a. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You used the word "fun." I replied by quoting the word "fun." You implied that you didn't use the word "fun." How does labeling it a "meta comment" change anything? —David Levy 07:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages, as you did to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —David Levy 06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DTTR, funny guy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop committing vandalism. —David Levy 06:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Try pointing the finger at yourself first. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy. If we're in the mood for templates, maybe I should give you a 3RR warning template! DTTR. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I posted several custom messages first, and you continued to vandalise the page.

2. The 3RR doesn't apply to the reversion of simple vandalism. —David Levy 06:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Several custom messages? Heh. And that's assuming you can prove that what I did was vandalism. I can think of at least four people who would disagree with you... Oh well, it's no use arguing, as I doubt anything I will say will steer you away from the path of dickishness. I should have known from your experience with Kim. Again, if it looks like a spade... Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I initiated this discussion by politely asking you to "refrain from performing joke edits to policy pages." That wasn't a template. Then I asked you to "please stop vanadlising the page." That wasn't a template. Then I asked you to "please elaborate" (referring to your claims about me). That wasn't a template. I simultaneously responded to a message that you left on my talk page by noting that "policy pages exist to assist the project, not for you to have "'fun.'" That wasn't a template. (You then inexplicably denied having used the word "fun" to describe your motive.) Now you're calling me a dick because I saved some keystrokes by using a template to warn you after you vandalised the page a third time. —David Levy 07:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules 2

You typed several messages to me. I then went to the trouble of typing replies, only to receive an edit conflict because you blanked this talk page (and referred to me as a "troll") the same minute. What the heck has come over you?! —David Levy 07:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I know that one day you will understand that IAR exists for this kind of dispute, and that the real issue is not in the wording or the boxes but rather the execution. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of dispute? I merely requested that you stop having "fun" (id est committing vandalism) on the policy page. Why did you blank your talk page (including the vandalism warnings) and call me an "asshole," a "dick" and a "troll"? —David Levy 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This kind of dispute -- people changing the IAR page to something that is, arguable, nicer, and being accused of vandalism. That is IAR. It's not vandalism, anyone should be able to see that, hence my calling a duck what it is. The troll was in reference to the fact that you reverted my archiving (a big no-no). Now, if you're going to sit around and not be willing to have a decent conversation without using the term "vandalism," then I want nothing to do with you and will not change my tune. If, however, you decide to have an IAR awakening, then by all means, add the black background box back into the policy page. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1. You know darn well that the edits in question didn't make the page "nicer." You acknowledged on my talk page that you were having some "fun," and it's obvious that you were trying to make some sort of point about the page's state.

2. I don't see how your actions—irrespective of motive—can be remotely construed as an application of the policy. What rule were you ignoring for the purpose of improving or maintaining the project?

3. As I said, I had just gone to the trouble of typing a bunch of replies when you suddenly archived the discussion. That's when you first referred to me as a troll (before I restored the text).

Archiving an ongoing discussion doesn't revoke another participant's right to reply. I could have done so out-of-context (without restoring the text to which I was responding), but I don't see how that would have been of any benefit. —David Levy 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Editing the page was fun, but the edits were not fun. And, for what it's worth, the page did look nicer. 2. Obviously your definition of vandalism. And, on topic, you were disrupting my talk page by not thinking about what you were saying. That's trollish. 3. If I choose to end a conversation, I archive it. It's pretty standard here. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Please stop insulting my intelligence.

2. If you weren't committing vandalism, you weren't violating a rule. If you were committing vandalism, you weren't seeking to improve or maintain the project.

A troll, incidentally, is "a person who is deliberately inflammatory on the Internet in order to provoke a vehement response from other users." Is that a reasonable description of me?

3. No, it really isn't standard procedure to archive an active discussion (let alone one containing warning messages), and doing so after posting new messages (but before the other participant has had an opportunity to respond) is even more unorthodox. —David Levy 08:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not insulting your intelligence, though this conversation is growing rapidly dumber by the hour.

2. I was applying IAR by showing the IAR page is not solid. I was also ignoring your definition of vandalism.

3. I don't know how often you have conversations... a conversation is a two-lane road. If one lane goes off-line, you're no longer having a conversation. You're just being obnoxious.

Meta: I'm not the problem here. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1. By claiming that this was a serious attempt to improve the policy page, you're insulting my intelligence.

2. In other words, you were disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

3. On-wiki conversations are turn-based. You may end one by choosing to stop replying, but that isn't what you did. You'd already taken your turn (in your analogy, traveled down the road) by directing questions and comments toward me, and then you decided that I wasn't permitted to reply (you closed the road). You also called me an "asshole," a "dick" and a "troll," and then you removed my replies from the archive (thereby creating the false appearance that I never posted them, which is tantamount to editing another user's words) and inexplicably accused me of "edit[ing] an archive" (as though I was fabricating brand new content) when I actually was simply archiving my replies that I posted here. —David Levy 16:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, your intelligence is insulted easily. And no, I was not disrupting anything. I was improving aesthetically. Design has shown to be, more often than not, more important than wording. Meta: Wikipedia 2.0? Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)