User talk:Royboycrashfan/Archive 2

Amazing Race Trivia

Just wondering what was factually incorrect about that one bit of trivia you removed? Thanks --HansTAR 04:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The team that came in first on the final non-elimination leg went on to not win." Not true for Seasons 1 and 8. Rob and Brennan, who won, came in first on the last two NELs; Frank and Margarita came in first on the first NEL. The Linzes also won the last NEL in their season. Royboy crashfan 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, it was "The team that came in first on the final ELIMINATION leg went on to win." This is true, so I'm putting it back, unless you want it off, k? --HansTAR 01:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misread that. :) Royboy crashfan 01:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned

Thanks for noticing that I signed an {{unsigned}} template. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Oh, and {{tl}} > nowiki. Royboy crashfan

04:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're full of helpful ideas : ) *takes notes* — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: no double redirects

My mistake. Thanks for correcting my suggestion. I'd assumed that the article would be at the more common name, race condition, and negligently failed to check my assumption :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GITMO entry

I recently attempted to edit the Guantanamo Bay entry due to excessive bias. The various authors have used the entry as an attempt to focus entirely on the United States' prison camps instead of the Bay itself, or its geography, culture or history. What's the deal with that? Windon60, 4 Mar 2006

Your edits as 69.180.45.0 (talk · contribs) were blanking and thus had to be reverted. Royboy crashfan

23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ripple

Hi. A couple weeks ago, you voted in a discussion at WP:AFD involving the deletion of the article on Sean Ripple, from The American Analog Set. This is a courtesy note to let you know that I've listed this article at WP:DRV for deletion review. Whether you voted to keep or delete, I invite your input at the DRV discussion[1]. Thanks! :)

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!

Thanks for the point in the direction. I'm trying to committ most of the relevant vandalism ones to memory as well how to manipulate them properly. I'm trying to use the test0, 1 & 2 for the most part while I'm learning this. I don't like that template at all, I've just used it quick with the warn tab when I'm trying to keep up. It is kinda rude though. I'll keep practicing! TKE 01:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Does your comment about "inspiration explanations" on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_modes refer to me? If so, yeah, well, I'm just getting the hang of things. I'll be better this time next week! :) --Cantara 04:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the article. I've seen quite a few band bios on AfD like that. Royboycrashfan 06:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay. I just discovered AfD a while ago, so I'm testing the waters, as it were. Cantara 06:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three forms of mathematical induction

This article was intended to be comprehensible to all mathematicians.

It was not intended to teach mathematical induction. It was not intended to explain what mathematical induction is, nor how to use it.

What I see is (mostly) a bunch of non-mathematicians looking at the stub form in which the article appeared when it was nominated from deletion, and seeing that

It was not comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians who know what mathematical induction is, and

The article titled mathematical induction is comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians, even those who know --- say --- secondary-school algebra, but have never heard of mathematical induction.

And so I have now expanded the article far beyond the stub stage, including

Substantial expansion and organization of the introductory section.

Two examples of part of the article that is probably hardest to understand to those who haven't seen these ideas.

An prefatory statement right at the top, saying that this article is NOT the appropriate place to try to learn what mathematical induction is or how to use it, with a link to the appropriate article for that. It explains that you need to know mathematical induction before you can read this article.

Therefore, I invite those who voted to delete before I did these recent de-stubbing edits, to reconsider their votes in light of the current form of the article.

(Nothing like nomination for deletion to get you to work on a long-neglected stub article!) Michael Hardy 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Numerical is always written out"

No, sir, it is not. Out of all the times I have seen VfD/AfD nominations with an "<Ordinal> nomination" addendum I have seen the ordinal spelled out only twice, yours being the second. I don't know why you got the idea that the other way around was the standard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have always seen it spelled out. Royboy crashfan 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

I am sorry to correct you, but you accused me of vandalism when I was instead trying to correct vandalism. In several places there were phrases along the lines of "Ur Mom sucks magic balls," and "SEX IS GOOD," and I deleted them (in the case of the former, I couldn't, despite my efforts, find what section it was in the first place because it replaced the title and half the section, so I retitled it and tried to fix it as best I could.)

Thank you for your time.

64.151.43.24 04:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The warning has been removed. Royboy crashfan 04:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Arthur Harris

Thanks for your editing in cleaning up the stub. I gave him the message for speedy deletion on his talk page knowing he was online, so I didn't revert the removal of the deletion. Things got taken care of...so what I'm asking is, did I do it properly? I thought it too trivial for proposed deletion, and didn't think the editor would take the time to respond to that. Criticism welcome. TKE 05:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy would have worked at the time, but it has been expanded since. Now, it would be best to take it to AfD. Royboy crashfan 05:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Penny_Sanchez

Hi, I've made a counter-argument to your point in the above article. I'd appreciate it if you would reply. Thanks! ---J.Smith 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

three revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. moink 06:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Royboycrashfan, this dispute is pretty lame. And though I understand that it's frustrating that the inexperienced editor is leaving comments in the article, it's still against the rules to repeatedly revert. The next time you do so, I'm going to have to block you. moink 06:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For this reason, I have decided to back away. I'll wait and see if someone else thinks the anon's edits are unhelpful. Royboy crashfan

06:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm sure the article will come out ok in the end. moink 06:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think anons' inputs to Wiki can be very useful for Wiki, it helps new users to adjust how to use Wiki before they get around to creating a user name of their own.--Rhydd Meddwl 21:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your use of WP:NFT at AfD

Recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day might be of interest to you. -- Krash (Talk) 03:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AFD on Larry Davies

Thanks for adding {{unsigned}}. I just realised a few minutes ago that I'd forgotten to sign. :) Jude(talk,contribs) 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{tl}} > <nowiki> ;) Royboy crashfan 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, :) Jude(talk,contribs) 04:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD on The Midway Sightings (TM) UFO Phenomenon

I just thought I should let you know I added a second article to the nomination after your vote. --Martyman-(talk) 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N'vyus (2nd nomination)

Please revisit this AfD regarding additional nominations for deletion. Thank you. -- Krash (Talk) 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub project

Hi Royboy,

I noticed that you changed the stub of Ole Wæver into a specified stub, which seems to be rather a large project. This made me think that I would like to put securitization (international relations) into a specific stub, preferably a stub that Ole Wæver would also be a part of.

However, I was looking through the different categories of stubs, and I didn't find anything appropriate for these two articles - I suppose it would have to be within international relations, academics, theoretical approaches to societal studies or something similar. If you could give me a hint as to where to put it (or just put the two articles there) I would appriciate it. I assume it would not be a problem to let an article be part of more than one stub? --Jakob mark 02:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More NN mall lists

Although the Kansas one failed, a bunch of other lists of non-notable malls are up for deletion here. Thought you might like to weigh in. Fightindaman 06:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to consider your vote.

The specified Armenian timelines are unique contributions of the author. As they are collection of dates and events, and it is the organization of the dates makes it unique to this author. There is no page on the internet that organized these events within these categories. This set of pages are UNIQUE and not copyvios. Thanks for your attention. --OttomanReference 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that wrong???

Is that wrong on The Amazing Race Central Europe???Aleenf1 08:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

I'm just letting you know that a bot (or someone?) is going around and subbing your flags of Texas on your project pages, so you might want to sub it in the formula.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote for deletion of article Bhai Makhan Shah

Dear Sir:

Further to your vote to delete my article, Bhai Makhan Shah, I would like to bring the following to your attention and present this for the record:

You may be aware that this article was tagged by Joe for speedy deletion because he thought that the article "appears to be a fictional story" at 2:58. He had however, failed to notice that the article began with: "Makhan Shah Lubana (also written as Lobana) was a devout Sikh and a rich trader from Tanda district Jhelum (now in Pakistan)..…" – If this was a fictional story, would it refer to "(now in Pakistan)"?

Further, mid-way down the article is the line "He then recited this Shabad of Guru Arjan Dev:" followed by the sacred hymn by the fifth Sikh Guru – Now surely if you are not even aware of the Gurus of the Sikhs, do you have the right to make any judgement on this article or any other article linked to Sikhism?

He was wrong but he realised his mistake and rightly and honourably retracted from that position. However, he did not completely re-evaluate his position as he almost instantly put an AfD notice on the article.

If Joe had the "well-being" of Wikipedia at heart, surely it does not take more than a few seconds to search for "Makhan Shah" on Google to see if this is fiction or fact! – If he had done this, he would have found 654 hits and the first article is at: www.Sikh-History.com – Do I need to say more! – I don't think you would find fictional stories on a history website. Under the circumstances, the comment by you that this is "original research" is unbelievable!! 654 hits with Google and you think that this is original research!! This is a record of historical events that took place in about 1620AD. And what is surprising is that you are supported by User:TBC and User:Khoikhoi. Blindly following the leader!!

Following my comments on the discussion page highlighting that this article was a example of a Sakhi (ie: Historical Record), which are very popular in Sikhism at 3.09, Jow quickly changed the article to AfD status at 3.13 saying that this was because "text is a Sikh story taken from www.srigurugranthsahib.org website". So in 4 minutes he had read the 2 articles of over 1250 words each and done a proper comparison of the two articles. I am sorry but I don't think this is how articles should be judged - Someone spending less than 4 minutes to evaluate an article that may have taken a few days to create from various resources. Why should someone who appears to have no knowledge of the subject matter, is completely anti-religion and has spent very little time researching the subject take such a step? I wonder?

Having read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, I believe that the comments made by Joe – "only that the fashion in which it is currently presented is non-encyclopedic" does not appear to be reason for articles to be deleted.

Further, he say that if the text was: "of great religious import, it would, I think, appear in some form on more than one website" – This is based on a Google search of the words: "Once while he was returning home". What he does not tell us is the Google finds the following:

"with his ship carrying valuable goods over the vast seas, his ship got caught up in a furious storm" in my article and

"with his ships loaded with valuable cargo, there was a furious storm at sea and his vessels got caught in it" on the other site.

Not quite the same sentence – let alone the whole article. So how can anyone say that "text is a Sikh story taken from" www.srigurugranthsahib.org site - is a completely mystery to me? I wonder why you have taken this step as it is totally unjustified!

I believe that your criticisms are entirely ill-founded and without foundation. Further, this appears to a tactic to discourage minority religions to have a reasonable say on this website and this type of behaviour will stall contribution from the minority traditions. The majority sects will dictate what goes on this site - even when they are completely wrong!! If that was your intention, I have no problem with that – just do it openly rather than using unnecessary stealth and poor logic!!! --Hari Singh 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

How can you be against vandalism and be a deletionist? Removal of information from Wikipedia (deletionism) is vandalism. I smell hypocrisy. --Analogdemon (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant userbox was removed. Thanks for brining it to my attention. Royboy crashfan 03:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD A7

...only applies to people/groups/bands and not websites etc. ... FYI. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website in question is a non-notable group. Royboy crashfan 22:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Heist

Wow, I've never seen WP:NFT. That's gonna come in handy. TKE 03:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism / afd

Thanks for removing that pronto, User:12.111.49.67 seems to have a problem with me putting an AFD on Scott Rudden, and is/has resulting to vandalism of that article's AFD page. --Disavian 21:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least he didn't try to nominate the AfD for AfD. :P Royboycrashfan 21:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- /me laughs ass off :) --Disavian 21:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction

Hi, thanks for correcting my comment on the Kendall Roberg AfD. A quick question, why is tl preferred to nowiki? Its easier to type, so I'd be delighted if its a better convention to use :-) Thanks, Gwernol 05:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tl links to the template, nowiki does not. There's no comparison. Royboy crashfan 05:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy of Silence on AfD

Hi -- if it's convenient, please take another look at the article and/or the AfD; it was on my cleanup list for a long time and seeing it on AfD prompted me to do the rewrite that I think should be able to save the article. Thanks, MCB 05:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For reverting my user page from the vandalism Thethinr e dline 07:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma moved

Hi, I changed the AfD on Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to a WP:RfD request, and copied the votes there. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denvilles railway station

Hiya you voted "Delete" on the Denvilles railway station article. I've provided a new source and possible explanation for the lack of other verification. could you please review your vote? I appreciate that you may not want to change it after seeing the evidence, of course! Vizjim 10:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]