User talk:Rspeer/Archive 2
- 1 Talk page archives
- 2 Single Transferable Vote article in Featured Article Candidates
- 3 Revising My VfD Plan
- 4 Dvorak keyboard
- 5 Assuming good faith
- 6 Case Accepted, waiting for mediator
- 7 Pure Wiki Deletion System
- 8 DYK
- 9 Mike Church is back
- 10 Tag-teaming is the epitome of loser-fuckery
- 11 Note
- 12 Ragas dental college
- 13 My RFA
- 14 FireFox RFA
- 15 Deletions
- 16 Philwelch's RfA
- 17 PWDS
(July -- November 2005)
In which I resolve a content dispute,
appear in the Wiktionary definition of "loser-fucker",
and incidentally realize how deeply AfD sucks
Single Transferable Vote article in Featured Article Candidates
Hey, over the past month I've been putting quite a bit of work into the article on Single Transferable Vote as part of the WikiProject:Voting Systems effort to get a good example page. After having gone through peer review and vetting by other editors, it's now waiting in Featured Article Candidates for comment - I'd appreciate it if you'd give the article a final read through and voice support or whatever concerns you have at this link or after reviewing other Featured article candidates here, since after quite some time no one's mentioned anything on the STV article at FAC ;). Thanks! Scott Ritchie 22:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Revising My VfD Plan
Hi, I was curious to any comments you could give me to assist in improving my plan. I believe that the key to the problems now on VfD is the fact that people feel as though they are not being listened to due to a "free for all" nature. Minimal guidelines seem to be the only way to get rid of that feeling. Karmafist 22:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm the wrong person to ask. I've decided that centralized VfD is the root of all evil. In my ideal world, most deletions would be done with the pure wiki deletion system, and only controversial ones would go to VfD, where they would be decided by a consensus process similar to what there is now -- just like other major edits are currently done by just editing the article, are discussed on the talk page, and only if consensus can't be reached on the talk page do they go to RfC.
The big problem with your proposal is it replaces consensus with an actual vote, which in my opinion is a step in the wrong direction. For all the problems the current VfD has, at least it is decided using consensus. Thanks for listening to my concerns, though.
RSpeer 01:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hahah. When I read that typo I said to myself "oh, someone is typing with a dvorak", but I didn't say anything about that because I so rarely meet anyone who types with one. =) --Syrthiss 13:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- wiki was bad and kept giving me posting errors. my apologies for the multiple edits. --Syrthiss 13:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Assuming good faith
Rspeer, I consider it evidence of ill will that you strongly advocated the deletion of the intensity of binary independence article without any notice to myself. You are clearly operating here in bad faith and I have no reason to trust you ever again.Fahrenheit451 August 23, 2005
Funny, I didn't think you ever trusted me, so this doesn't strike me as a big loss.
- So you were not assuming good faith then. You don't even trust yourself.--Fahrenheit451 15:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, what? Of course I assume good faith. I've tried to get this across to you, that you don't have to like someone or agree with them to assume good faith from them. Obviously I trust myself, while recognizing that you clearly do not trust me. Please try to grasp this. I do not believe that you are intent on harming Wikipedia, but I do believe you have a vendetta against me, do not trust me, are not assuming good faith from me, and are looking for excuses (like this one) to attack me. RSpeer 19:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Why was it my job to notify you that I happened to be commenting on an AfD regarding an article that you cared about so deeply that you weren't even watching it? I don't think that failing to be your personal secretary is a particularly hostile action on my part.
- Your wisecracks are not appreciated.--Fahrenheit451 15:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm wisecracking because it's an apt response to absurdity. My question still stands. Why was it my personal duty to notify you, and not the job of anyone else voting on the VfD, or better still, your watchlist? I have no idea why you would choose to attack me over this. RSpeer 19:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
So that's a funny title you would choose to use for this comment, considering that you're directly emphasizing in it that you're not assuming good faith. RSpeer 04:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is a polite title. An accurate one would be "RSpeer is a slimebag".--Fahrenheit451 15:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I rest my case. RSpeer 19:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Case Accepted, waiting for mediator
See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rspeer and Fahrenheit451. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hello, please send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org to start mediation. --Improv 04:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Pure Wiki Deletion System
Hi; I noticed you were a supporter of the Pure Wiki Deletion System. They've copied it over into the wikipedia space now, at WP:PWDS, and are looking for supporters to add their name to gauge support. If you know of others who think this is a good idea, you might send them over, too. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
|Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Tremont Street Subway, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.|
Mike Church is back
I see you've dealt with User: Mike Church before. He's back, as User:Flaming Cow, and still promoting himself and making personal attacks. Right now he's trying to stick his own rules into the Gin rummy article, and making edit comments that are either nonsense or attacks. Would you like to help? RSpeer 05:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Tag-teaming is the epitome of loser-fuckery
I don't contribute much to Wikipedia, because the L-F's have overrun it, but I've seen your notes on other users' talk pages. Please stop. I don't mean this as a personal attack, since I know you only by your actions, but tag-teaming is textbook loser-fuckery and you owe me an apology for making such low-class gestures in my presence. If you cannot hold your own in a fair fight, you should admit so much and surrender with dignity.
Warmly, Mike Church 16:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- This coming from the guy who has thirty or so sockpuppets. If you're such an upstanding editor interested in a "fair fight", why do you need to hide?
- When you consistently break the rules of Wikipedia by promoting yourself, making misleading edit comments, and making blatant personal attacks, why shouldn't admins be involved? There wouldn't be such an effort to stop you if you were following the rules and being accountable for your edits.
- In other news, "loser-fucker" is a personal attack, you do contribute quite a bit to Wikipedia under your sockpuppets, and the idea that I should surrender to you is highly amusing and reminiscient of a line from The Princess Bride.
- RSpeer 20:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Only thirty sock puppets? Haha, mere mortal. I have 1,126 sock puppets, of which 73 are administrators. I have not used them, yet, in any way that could be identifying, but they will converge upon you at the proper time. PWN3D!
- On a more serious note, I wasn't calling you a loser-fucker. I was describing your behavior accurately as loser-fuckery. There's a difference; since I do not know you offline, I have no basis to make stronger claims than that you have, on one instance, engaged in loser-fuckery. Such, standing alone, would not be enough to qualify you as a bona fide loser-fucker. Mike Church 20:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Addendum: Wow. That was the fastest deletion I've ever seen. Kudos to Wiktionary. RSpeer 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- You should correct the record as given in Wikipedia's VfD: "loser-fucker" did not originate from me. The origin of the insult is believed to be upper-class kids at Columbia ca. 2002. An internet poster under the pseudonym "El Greco" was the first to expose it to the Internet in 2004. The reason "loser-fucker" is used for insult purposes is that "fucker" is an affectionate, signifying camaraderie, among elites. ("Loser-fucker" is never used as such, not even jokingly; it's unambiguously an insult.) Mike Church 02:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- I am not impressed by how elite you and your friends are. On a Wiki, you're judged by your edits, not by your charisma or social status, which seems to be surprising to you. And regardless of who originally uttered the word "loser-fucker", I'm sure you were responsible for it going on Wiktionary. RSpeer 04:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- You made the first presumption about social status. I merely explained the origins of the term; I didn't say that it necessarily makes me elite to use the term "loser-fucker".
- You say, "on a Wiki, you're judged by your edits". That's really fucking hilarious, because I was a great contributor during my time here, well-respected by most, and left because of the loser-fuckery of an increasingly powerful few. I was a great fucking editor and I will rub your face in the fact if you don't acknowledge this. PWN3D! Mike Church 04:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I saw your note regarding Stirling Newberry's "censorship" claims on the hurricane season talk page. You worded your comment oh-so-well; I wish I was that eloquent. Just wanted to drop a note expressing my appreciation. :) Mike H (Talking is hot) 07:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Ragas dental college
Hi, Came across XD4 on this and goodness knows anything that smoothes the deletion process is to be welcomed, but it wasn't clear to me why this particular article was being deleted. Had it been on Afd? Dlyons493 Talk 00:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It was an advertisement. Feel free to revert it if you think it shouldn't be deleted.
There would be no point to experimental-deleting something and putting it on AfD. I use XD for deletion because
- it's the best approximation we have right now to the pure wiki deletion system, and
- I want to contribute as little as possible to the mess that is AfD.
RSpeer 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry you found reason to object to my adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future. ALKIVAR™ 07:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't do anything here that isn't within policy. That "Rose of the Winds" thing was a single sentence that said practically nothing. It was barely an opening sentence, for that matter. We know it's a jewel buried on an island. Now what?
Please don't jump down my throat over a few bytes of text. It's hard enough coming up with good, useable articles as it is without having to put up with someone's half-hearted experimentation. If you want to restore the article and add more to it, that's fine. It's what the author should have done in the first place rather than pulling something out of the top of his head and slapping a stub notice on it which, frankly, is poor etiquette on that person's part. - Lucky 6.9 19:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course. There is not only criterion A1 which states that an article with little or no content can be deleted, there's also the house rule which states to "be bold in your editing." I do both, I catch hell. You said it best on your user page when you called out for quality over quantity. Furthermore, we can't let this become more of a bureaucracy than it already has. If we need to get consensus over every teensy little nanostub that comes in, nothing would get done and this site would not enjoy the hard-won respect it has earned. So, sometimes it's a judgement call because, personally, I'd never write such a short article. The shortest article I've ever written is probably five times as large. Heck, our conversation has more "meat" than that article did. - Lucky 6.9 20:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I did see your statement and I believe that's exactly what I have been doing. I'm just going to restore the article and see what happens with it. I'm fresh off of a wikivacation and I don't wish to argue. - Lucky 6.9 20:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
As somone else who likes PWDS and doesn't care for the way AFD works, you are the lucky recipient of my blowing off of steam:
Perhaps we should move in the other direction and satisfy those who really seem to like AFD. I propose we add WP:SecFD (Sections for deletion), WP:ParaFD (Paragraphs for deletion) and perhaps WP:SenFD (Sentences for deletion). Then, people who can't live without a great big centralized source for
arguing about voting on every change that might be made to every page in the wiki can finally be happy.