User talk:Saxifrage/Archive 8

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

The history of this archive begins at this diff and ends at this diff.

Some recent messages to me are at the bottom of Archive 7, if you are looking for something in particular. Thank you everyone for the congratulations on my new sysop bit!

Lǐ Wèi unspeedied

I would think that being president of a major university, graduates of which became governors and ministers would be at least an assertion of notability. Might lose an AfD, but should at least get one.AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll nominate it and see what happens. I'm personally dubious that notability "rubs off" like that, and I think that WP:N still needs to be satisfied. But you're right, those are AfD arguments, not speedy reasons. — Saxifrage 21:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Speedy Speedy

I am concerned with the recent Wikipedia trend in speedy delete. I'm not really arguing that some of these articles shouldn't have been deleted, but this speedy trend has to stop. I have many articles in my watch list that have been deleted so speedily I never knew about it. Because once they're gone I get no notices. I wouldn't mind input on these deletions. I have read the "What wikipedia is and is not, and also the criteria for speedy deleting. I do think many of the articles ultimately may need to be deleted, however these articles recently became part of a wiki project I think it is completely unfair for them to be indiscriminately deleted this way. The very fact they are in a project that just started should tell you this. I wish you would consider this before going ahead and speedy deleting anything that has a speedy delete nomination.Anonym1ty 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Could you be a bit more specific? I deal with dozens to hundreds of speedy-deletions a day when I'm patrolling CAT:CSD. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)"
"Yesterday, the Hamsexy article, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Amateur radio. Now I'm not so sure the article deserves to live, don't get me wrong.... (I'm not so sure it should stay) Just c'mon... gone so fast??? (I am not asking for the article to be restored) please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Amateur radio It's disgusting. The WikiProject Amateur radio isn't even that old. It was created to help get us together to fix those very articles... and they are dropping so fast we can't keep up. I mean, they just disappear for apparently no reason (until we figure out later what happened) And it's like some kinda shenanigans are going on. Some of these articles lasted quite a while, and only after they were just added to a project then they start getting deleted! We need time to organize the project. I work and I can't keep hitting refresh every ten seconds on my watch list to look for speedy deletion notices it's impossible and unfair to expect that. Anonym1ty 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)" Anonym1ty 21:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
"Ah, that one. I actually deliberated on that one for some time due to its history. I noted that it was a recreation of a previously-deleted page as well. However, it very much did not make any assertion of its subjects importance either generally or to a specific subculture (note that importance to a subculture is disputed as being relevant, though). This qualified it for speedy-delete criteria A7 easily. Any article that satisfies any of the speedy-delete criteria is at risk of being deleted without notice."
"Of course, if the subject can be demonstrated to be important and notable, I'll undelete the article. If you like, I can undelete the article right now and move it to your userspace where it can be worked on until it is no longer at risk of speedy-deletion. As for the Amateur Radio project, though, I'd recommend that a major initiative of the project should be rescuing deserving articles from speedy-deletion by editing them to indicate their importance. Speedy-deletion is important for the integrity of the encyclopedia, and we can't have a special exception for certain kinds of articles. — Saxifrage 21:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)"
"I am going to quote you... "I actually deliberated on that one for some time due to its history." You said it yourself that immediately qualifies it for a NORMAL deletion policy over a speedy one. I do not care the article is deleted. I think now it should be... I am arguing with you over these speedy deletes... it's really getting to be a load of horse manure. Another qualifier would have been the PROJECT NOTICE on the discussion page. It's in a PROJECT. Notify the participants!!! I mean just look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Amateur radio Do you not see a problem here? SLOW DOWN remember #1 WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PAPER ENCYCLOPEDIA. Leaving some time for people to understand and respond isn't a whole lot to ask. I think CSD though not intentionally is being abused Anonym1ty 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)" Anonym1ty 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
"I did slow down, as you pointed out. It still qualified for CSD A7 regardless of being in a project. I didn't deliberate on it because I doubted whether it qualified, but because I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something in its history that made it qualify. Finding nothing, I deleted it. Speedy-deletion is an important tool, and there's currently a huge backlog at CAT:CSD. Sending everything there AfD because speedying it wouldn't allow poeple to respond would be a nightmare, and we can't be making special exceptions for certain kinds of articles. Articles aren't speedied when they're borderline, but when they're so far below the requirements of Wikipedia that no discussion is necessary. If this is happening often to amateur radio articles, that's an indication that many are completely inadequate, not that they should be given special exceptions. — Saxifrage 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)"
"That's the rub, ain't it? look at it this way. The articles need work, no problem, the group editing them starts a Wiki Project... Part of which is to fix the articles... Then some one goes down the list of the articles and starts taging them CSD. You say we should try to fix them... but in the time it takes to fix them 3 get deleted. it's draconian. You say you have a backlog, but with the speed of these delete I don't see how. What about FIFO? First ones in are the first ones out, that alone would afford the time to contest or fix the articles. Randomly (and yes it's randomly) deleting articles with no explanation, no notice isn't helping, it's confusing users and needs to stop. Speedy-deletion is indeed important for spam and vandalism pages, it's being over-used on A7. A campaign of normal deletes for this would be beneficial to the wikipedia community and help educate users. Just gone... Just gone that's what happens and it makes no sense... There's no way for a normal user to figure out what happened without a whole lot of reading and it just invites the same kind of articles to be created again and again.Anonym1ty 23:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)"Anonym1ty 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bigheads

Well, you`ve deleted The Bigheads article, it`s alright, but it has been on discussion in its talk page.
I assume Wikipedia has to stand clean, but the comic had a big spread in Brazil, it has been published in a Journal that is distributed nationwide, and its website has many visits a day.
Not only deletions should be taken more carefully, but also harmless articles should be preserved, otherwise Wikipedia would turn to something as stactic as those Britannicas people have on their shelves.

House Episodes

I'm kinda new to wiki so I didn't know this; I thought I might as well get the page going and someone else could help fill in the info, as I'm not very good at that. I doubt having them on a subpage on my page would help seeing as I am unable to fill out the info. Any other ideas? --Sidewinded 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Aight, I put a message up on the talk page, hopefully someone can help this noobieness that is me :P Tnx for the understanding --Sidewinded 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Fatlabs

Ack, sorry. Thought that was the main article. Sorry for my brain blooper there. ^^; -WarthogDemon 23:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I figured that's what it was. :-) — Saxifrage 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

articles deleted

I created several articles of the children of Duane Chapman and Beth Smith. How come there deleted. Anybody that is currently in a TV show and has en IMDB entry is worth wile to have article created on. Can you please help me. Gary Chapman Bonnie Jo Chapman Cecily_Chapman Abbie Mae Chapman Lyssa Chapman

--Jessica93 00:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

mediation dispute below

I have sent a request to the mediation dispute below. --Jessica93 00:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pages protected

You may want to look at the way you linked "Pages I've protected" on your user page. JonHarder 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Passing along a message..

An editor has asked for a deletion review of FootballMercato. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. -- This was left for me, but as you deleted it as well, I thought I'd pass it on for you too - it has not yet appeared on deletion review, but I assume it will at some point --Improv 04:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Jason Lee (Tennis Star)

I would appreciate an explanation as to your deletion of my article on Jason Lee (Tennis Player) You can't delete this article plainly because you have no knowledge of the sport of Tennis, and therefore don't find it important. If you had actually bothered to do any research on the topic, you would realise that Jason Lee is currently only seventeen years old, and has reached the final stages of the Australian Open Juniors Tennis Tournament. THIS IS ARGUABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT JUNIORS TENNIS TOURNAMENT IN THE WORLD, AND PLAYERS SUCH AS MARCOS BAGHDATIS HAVE WON THIS!!!!! So... Could you please do me a favour, and reinstate the article that should rightfully be there were it not for your rude, and rash deletion. IF You still do not believe us that this article truly does deserve to be here, go onto and search all Australian pages for "Jason Lee Tennis" Have a look at the first two articles, and then reinstate our article THANK YOU!! It may have been vandalised by some people, however, the truth is that that article deserves to be there, and the other authors who have vandalised it can be punished, but the fact remains, the article is worthy of existance.

I look forward to your response, Saxi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timblair497 (talkcontribs)


Hi. I just started a new page on SRHR. How come you deleated it? Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The article was deleted because the text was taken from another source, as the article said, and there was no evidence or statement of permission being granted.
(Am I correct in assuming that you are the same person as Axelnyst? If you log in first, it's much easier to reply to you as I can leave a message on your talk page where you'll be notified of it. Hopefully you check back here.) — Saxifrage 08:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Late reply

No problem! I actually was going to vote support, but I guess I forgot. Please accept my belated congrats, you certainly deserve to be an admin. Cheers, Khoikhoi 00:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


congratuations on the adminship. in deferance to past encounter, i abstained from participating due to any perceived bias (though I would not have opposed). you exited the situation gracefully, and i think it demonstrates levelheadedness. just don't go assuming everything is a personal attack. jk ;-) /Blaxthos 00:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Street Scholar on ANI

He continues to make ethnic/racial attacks. This sort of insipid and disruptive trollery is very hard on all of us.I think some action is needed soon. This is his latest screed [1]. Continues to spam hate sites.Hkelkar 12:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that a RfAr is open. I'm going to let that run its course. I'm unfamiliar enough with the cultural contexts involved that I can't make any judgements about whether that diff contains a personal attack. I'm sure the Arbitration Committee can handle this. — Saxifrage 23:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kind individual from nowhere

I will look at it at a later date. It's appreciated. —SolelyFacts 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I'm very much in need of your help. I seem to have picked up a WikiStalker. I made some alterations to pages that they clearly consider to be their own and now they have started revert previous edits I have made. They keep changing their user ID but I am certain it's the same user. Examples include: Vertigo (film), Destricted, Village of the Damned (1960 film), and Coming to America where I was accused of slander. The articles I altered which seemed to start this all of were Spiros Kagadis and Julia Alexandratou. They are clearly monitoring my updates so might even revert my message to you. Please help, Mallanox 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this, it's much appreciated. Should I delete my request for checkuser? Mallanox 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just for info, a couple of edits mirroring the previous problems have occured. I'm keeping an eye on them. Mallanox 16:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer

This is up for deletion again. Since you were outspoken and well-spoken on the previous AfD, I thought maybe you could contribute to the current one. Thanks! Mr Spunky Toffee 18:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Excuse me, but what exactly was your reasoning for deleting the Genmay article without even offering an explanation or discussion over the matter? 07:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things qualified it for immediate deletion without discussion. The latest version of the page was utter nonsense (criteria for speedy-deletion G1), and older versions did not bother to establish the importance or relevance of the subject, which is an unremarkable forum (criteria for speedy-deletion A7). Such articles can be deleted on-sight as they fall so far below the minimum requirements for a subject having an encyclopedia article that the judgement of a single admin is considered sufficient for deletion. If you think this deletion has been in error, you can either convince me of the subject's importance by giving me evidence for its importance on the world stage, or you can request a review at Deletion review. — Saxifrage 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You realize there was previous discussion about this article (the older version), the concensus was the forum was of some importance and to keep. Considering this at the very least it should have been put to a vote. 4chan, Something Awful, ytmnd, offtopic, hardocp forums all have extensive articles. Rizla 07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Where did this take place? The talk page contained no such discussion. — Saxifrage 07:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Rizla 07:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Unremarkable forum? You do realize that it has 45,000+ users? Furthermore, elaborate on this: "The latest version of the page was utter nonsense".14 November 2006 (UTC)
Number of users isn't a measure of notability. See WP:WEB for what counts here. In any case, there is a more recent discussion that resulted in a delete consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem. As such, recreations of the article can be removed on-sight under a third criteria for reposted content that was deleted by community discussion (criteria G4). — Saxifrage 07:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Genmay does meet WP:WEB. It is responsible for creating the christopher walken presidential hoax. This hoax was reported on in many newspapers, television shows, and acknowledged by walken himself on Conan Obrien. If only for this, it is notable. Adding in that it is the largest message board on bigboards to NOT have a wikipedia page, this becomes even more ridiculous. Lastly, the consensus on the discussion linked above was KEEP. Rizla 07:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I've given you the impression in the above comments that I can undelete it given evidence of notability. I thought that was the case before, but now that I know about the existence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem any undeletion requests have to go through the Deletion review page. — Saxifrage 07:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of Gen[m]ay. Go eat a dick Saxifrage! BaconCountyRebel 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that kind suggestion. You've earned a short block for it. Enjoy your break. — Saxifrage 07:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh grow up. You're remiss in your duty of due diligence, and you've been called out on it. Now, instead of admitting that you've made a mistake and simply correcting it, you're on the defensive. While the article may not have been particularly well written, and while the article may not have been sourced, a simple Google search would have shown you that Genmay is one of the largest communities on the 'net. Genmay is responsible for the Walken hoax, just as it's responsible for numerous, numerous other memes. Stop being so deliberately obtuse in your Wiki-elitism act. The question here is whether or not Genmay is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The answer is an emphatic yes. The evidence is precedent set forth by the inclusion of sites like Something Awful, Fark, YTMND, 4chan, and on and on and on. Your job is to re-create Genmay. 10:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
My job is to use the admin tools to serve the community and to implement its rules. If you don't understand them, that's fine, but take a seat and do some reading before you try to tell an experienced user, let alone an admin, what their job is. — Saxifrage 15:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On a more serious note, you do appear quite pompous and hypocritical; talk about users and notability! Genmay started a nationwide hoax, while your claim to fame is deleting the said article from existance. Way to go, glad to know that the next time I search for something that could ONLY be found on a wiki part of the reason it may not be there is people like you.

Please reconsider your importance in this world. Your opinion of what is relevant isn't the bottom line. Your moderation reeks of personal bias. Pew! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister2 (talkcontribs)

What an outstanding moderator! The Straw Man

I'm still confused as to why you delete genmay but you allow places like 4chan? Are you trying to deny the internet? Just what are you trying to accomplish by deleting Genmay from your site?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Firstly, I hope you don't mind me replying here, on your talk page, Saxifrage.
Let me state that this is not "Saxifrage's site". Saxifrage does not own Wikipedia, and he is not a paid employee, as far as I am aware.
As for why the 4chan e.t.c. articles still exist, while Genmay does not, it is a tired debate that has been gone over many times so far on the Deletion Review page, but it basically boils down to, among other things, 4chan being much more notable, as well as being much more verifiable using reliable sources.
Do you see?--Dreaded Walrus 15:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
(I don't mind at all. I'm tired of butting heads with these... people. Thanks for taking up the slack.) — Saxifrage 15:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My talk page isn't a Genmay chatroom

To PPatBoyd (talk · contribs) and others, this isn't the place to discuss Genmay unless you're leaving a message specifically for me. The place to do that would be Talk:Genmay, which still exists. If you want to ask admins a question, pick one and leave a message on their talk page or leave a message on the Admin Noticeboard. If you want to ask a question about notability, go to Wikipedia talk:Notability. If you want to ask questions with a large audience, go to the Village Pump. If you want to ask questions about Wikipedia in general and get answers from experts, go to the Help Desk. All I've tried to do during this whole retarded incident is teach y'all how to work with the system, so take this advice and follow it. Further useless comments will be removed without response. — Saxifrage 01:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, the talk page at Talk:Genmay was recently deleted and protected by Morwen (talk · contribs) and Sceptre (talk · contribs). —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not surprising. Anyway, that only means that there are five places other than my page to discuss this instead of six. And I hope that's the last of it, because I really have no authority to undelete it unilaterally anymore. That time has long since passed. — Saxifrage 04:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My userpage still isn't a chatroom for general discussion of Genmay between people other than me, but after an email from PPatBoyd that made me realise that I wasn't assuming good faith and the fact that it's addressed to other people might not have been enough for me to remove it without that. So, I realised I was hasty in removing his question and I'm restoring it below out of principle. It was a dickish thing of me to do. — Saxifrage 06:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Dreaded Walrus and other Admins: Does being notorious make you notable? I looked at the article of 4chan and saw the following things that could make it notable; It is an offshoot of Something Awful, has an Alexa rating of 2339, has been blocked by ISPs for content, and was a proxy for a hoax that made the news and an arrest. Now to look at similarities in Gen[M]ay. Gen[M]ay is an offshoot of [H]ard|Forum, has an Alexa rating of 19,000 something, has been blocked by smaller authorities (I know it's blocked in my county), but not an ISP, for content, was the proxy for a hoax that made the news, made the news for the hacking of Paris Hilton's cell phone by being a proxy for the data, and was a proxy for a person who made the news but was not arrested.

Concerning being an offshoot of notable sources, if this by itself creates notability, both articles should exist. Number of users was previously mentioned as not a point of notability, so Alexa ratings are out the window as well because they are a reading of users and user activity, nothing more. 4chan has been blocked by entire ISPs, though only parts of the website, for content. Gen[M]ay has not had such widespread blocking to my knowledge, but has also been blocked. Is someone who is notorious, notable? As much as the hosts of child pornography are notorious, but not notable, I would disagree. Notoriety does not constitute notability. 4chan was a proxy for a person to perpetrate a violent hoax -- the bombing of NFL stadiums -- of which 4chan's only use was in being a source for the media. I could try to argue again how notoriety does not constitute notability, but there's a better comparison. Gen[M]ay was a proxy for a person to post the hacked information of Paris Hilton's cell phone. This is verifiable through the Washington Post newspaper, and coincidentally how I discovered Gen[M]ay in the first place. Gen[M]ay was as similar to 4chan as you can get concerning being the host, but not the perpetrator, of notable content. Even further, Gen[M]ay itself perpetrated a nationwide hoax that Christopher Walken would be running for President in 2008 on a separate website. a thread (now in the Gen[M]ay vault) was an organizing point for the hoax, and even though I have not read the thread entirely is probably a point of support for the hoax. All sorts of newspapers reported on this topic and the website, though I'm unsure if any understood Gen[M]ay as part of the hoax. I watched Conan O'Brien and Walken himself talk about the subject on national television. This can however be easily proved by the "[M]" found on one of the pages of the Walken website. With about 5 minutes of wikiresearch I found a certain Steve Brodie who perpetuated a hoax and has an article on Wikipedia. If acting as a proxy for media related information, as 4chan was for a bomb hoax and Gen[M]ay was for Paris Hilton's cell phone being hacked, or if perpetuating a hoax as Steve Brodie did with his jump and Gen[M]ay did with Walken running for President, Gen[M]ay deserves to have an article on wikipedia.

I have my own biases. I am a member of Gen[M]ay and do not see the surviving points of interest for 4chan, but I also love Wikipedia. I love the concept, I love the work, and I use the work for many purposes including starting points for research. This discussion should be held in a logical fashion, though we are all human. That other members of Gen[M]ay express their distaste with insults isn't productive, but their other actions have also produced bias (and unfounded feelings, from my resources) in the user Saxifrage. It is a confusing idea that Saxifrage feels his family is threatened, also reflected by Gen[M]ay, and no real information that I have seen points to that. Saxifrage could easily feel pressure from personal threats, but with my forum background I'll inform you the worst that's ever happened to a person is the reception of boxes, or having an "[M]" written in sidewalk chalk on their house's front walkway (concrete, washes off). Their shenanigans are for the point of humor more than anything else, and actual violence or destruction has never been witnessed as an action by Gen[M]ay as a group. I don't support the threats, and the vandalism is humorous but distasteful, but I do not support the Wiki admins involved, either. Saxifrage has clearly developed personal bias against Gen[M]ay, which, whether valid or not, should immediately discount him from any discussion concerning the reinstatement or continued deletion of Gen[M]ay's article. If he has trouble even calling Gen[M]ay members as people, "I'm tired of butting heads with these... people.", his impartial judgment will be incredibly hampered. When personal threats appeared, the discussion was deleted, rather than dealing with the actual issue which was those making them. When an institution is being used to deliver threats, do you reform the institution or get rid of it? You acted rashly and harshly in deleting the discussion when blocking the persons who were responsible was all that was necessary. As well, that such partial standards for "notability" are used disgusts and bemuses me. I hope my evidence to the notability of Gen[M]ay will benefit progress towards the reinstatement of the Gen[M]ay article, or at a minimum the discussion, and my comments on the rest of the issue taken well and thoughtfully. I can source my arguments if you request, but at the moments above I didn't bother. I also don't know how to sign this, so my username's PPatBoyd. Cheers everyone!

So uhm, why don't you delete 4chan and Something Awful's articles on Wikipedia too? Do they fit your little criteria too? --Buttons 18:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Archived Genmay Wiki Page

Don't sweat it. Just because some looser deletes a page he cannot disbelieves in does not mean that all hope is lost.

...or you can just look at User:Lantoka/Sandbox2. — Saxifrage 21:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hey Saxifrage, User:Hildanknight requested your userpage be s-protected due to an onslaught of vandalism. Just letting you know that it is now s-protected. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoover Dam Bypass File

i check my user page, and you left a message about the file for speedy deletion. i also checked the file, and a new license was added for the template. when i first uploaded, i got permission from the owner to added to wikipedia. i wasn't sure when i saw the license that said something about any uploaded file was granted permission for use. i was having some trouble at first. can you help me on license choice for the file to be uploaded with permission? thanks! Jailbreaker22 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin tools

The mop
Congratulations on becoming an admin!

Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care:

All the best! - Quadell

The flamethrower

The Steamer again

Cleveland Steamer is at WP:DRV at my request. Since you have contributed to the discussions in the past, I thought you might like to contribute. I have no idea how you'll "vote," so I'm not soliciting, but I think your wisdom is needed here. Mr Spunky Toffee 14:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the advice on nominating too early and the ethics of "soliciting." I'll watch myself in the future. Mr Spunky Toffee 15:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage's User Name

This user page violates Wikipedia law, as it is "inappropriate username (matched a real-world organization or group)".

Source: The Saxifrage Society—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RandomUser99 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC) contribs) .

This user is named after the plant genus, as is the group you mention. It is not as if this user was called Sony, or Pepsi.--Dreaded Walrus 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The organization is called The Saxifrage Society, not Saxifrage. Even if it were, as it was mentioned above, this is a plant genus and thus cannot be trademarked. --Wafulz 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion to delete under the following Wiki law regarding user names: "confusing, misleading, or troublesome usernames". The username Saxifrage is both confusing and misleading. He is not herb "of the genus Saxifraga, having small, variously colored flowers and leaves that often form a basal rosette (Source)".RandomUser99 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wiki law"? At best, it's an official policy of Wikipedia, and nothing to do with wikis in general. The "confusing, misleading or troublesome usernames" refers to usernames such as this one, this one, this one, and many others like them, and all of those I mentioned have been blocked for their usernames, which are not appropriate, or are confusing or misleading.
As for this user, Saxifraga, he is making no assertions of being a plant, just like I am making no assertion of being a walrus, and just like the Volkswagen Beetle is not claiming to be an actual beetle. I'm sure you knew all this already, and were just attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. In which case, be careful. --Dreaded Walrus 18:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Sir: I am not disrupting anything/anyone. I am merely discussing the possibility that Saxifrage's username may be inappropriate. I am not attempting to disrupt your Wikiality, which is why I am discussing these matters on his talk page. Your condescending tone is not appreciated, and could fall under etiquette guidelines. Also, I do not appreciate being threatened. By the way, the user we are talking about is Saxifrage, not "Saxifraga".RandomUser99 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me firstly to say that my final sentence in my last comment was not intended as a threat, but rather as a genuine suggestion, as I believe that all editors, registered or not, can be valuable contributors, even if they start out by vandalising pages, as you did. Therefore my message of "be careful" was meant in more of a good-natured way, and we are meant to assume good faith. :)
As for me naming this user as "Saxifraga", that was indeed a typo, partly brought on by the word Saxifraga appearing on screen at the same time, a few lines above. You know how it can be sometimes. :)
Now on to the rest of your message. I have re-read my message numerous times, and cannot quite see where I have been condescending towards you there. If you have perceived it, then please do not, as it was not intended. And I apologise if you felt like I was. And yes, discussing such an issue (that is, the issue of this username allegedly being inappropriate) on this talk page is definately the place at such a stage. However, as has been explained above, User:Saxifrage's username is entirely acceptable.
Also, please remember to sign your talk page comments using ~~~~, as it makes discussions easier to follow. Thank you. --Dreaded Walrus 19:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I accidentally deleted his user talk page yesterday while trying to re-create the article on Genmay. You know how it can be sometimes. ;) As for the condescending tone, I know the difference between Wikis in general, Wikipedia, and the difference between a guideline and a law. I was being facetious in light of the recent events concerning Saxifrage declaring the [M] not notable and just deleting the page. My battle is not with you Mr. Walrus. RandomUser99 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No Wikipedia user should be engaged in a "battle" with any other, and your complaint about Saxifrage's username is absurd. I think you should leave this page now. Newyorkbrad 19:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is you who should leave this page Mr. New York Brad. Saxifrage is not just a user, he is an admin in violation of a number of Wikipedia guidelines concerning page deletion, and is just abusing his power to get what he wants. RandomUser99 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what pages he might have deleted, but there is a Deletion Review procedure for seeking review of a deletion you disagree with. The procedure doesn't include making complaints about the deleter's name. And with that said, I will take your advice and leave this thread. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware of his existence until he started deleting things haphazardly from Wikipedia. Once I and others started dealing with him, we realized that his user name may have been in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I have now satisfied my curiosity about this matter. RandomUser99 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


In case you didn't hear about it, you were briefly on the front page of Digg due to some genmay-initiated antics. [2] --Interiot 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's on AN/I. Anyway, it wasn't up on the front page for very long. --Interiot 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 04:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Access to deleted version?

It's normal when someone is trying to fix up a deleted article that the original article is undeleted and moved to their userspace so they can work with it. You got this one from so that didn't happen, but the original version (and its history) here might have stuff you want. Would you like me to undelete it and move it into your userspace? If so, do you think the General Mayhem or Genmay version would be best? — Saxifrage 07:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Saxifrage,
First off, I'd like to thank you for your incredible patience throughout this whole ordeal. It takes an admin of exemplary moral character to remain as civil as you have after having endured such harsh personal attacks.
In response to your very generous offer, I actually already petitioned Friday (talk · contribs) to do this. He had no problem with doing it and moved the original article (at General Mayhem, which is the better copy) to User:Lantoka/gm. All I wanted was the code for the most up-to-date clean copy, so I went ahead and copied that into my sandbox, and that's what you see there.
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how this is customarily done. When I petitioned Friday for a copy of the article, I expected just that... the code, as the article is technically supposed to be deleted. However, he went ahead and moved it to my userspace where it currently resides, which is fine... but would be more work to undo the move and stuff considering I only wanted a copy of the code. The way you explain the process, though, it sounds like I get the actual article to play with, except just in my userspace. Well, Friday left the article protected from editing, which is why I put the code in my sandbox instead of working on it there.
I have no idea how this should be cleaned up. Should the article be moved back and redeleted? Did Friday forget to take protection off, meaning that we should be working on the actual article so as to keep an edit history intact?
The current arrangement I have going in my Sandbox is fine and seems to be working for people. I took the article out of categories since it's not a live article, took the free use image out because it's in my userspace, and added a bulletin to the top of the page to direct new users to my talk page. Other than that, it's exactly the same as the cleanest copy of the old article, and work is proceeding fine.
What do you recommend we do to clean this up?
Thanks again for your incredible perseverance throughout this entire ordeal. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 07:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean you removed a free use or a fair usage image. I believe a free image can stay anywhere. Newyorkbrad 02:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, meant "fair use". And all I did was put <nowiki> tags around it, so it can easily be reversed.
Yeah, I think Friday was supposed to have taken off protection so you could work on that version. The cleanup is not that bad actually. When/if it goes into the mainspace, it needs to have an intact history, all in one file if possible. The histories of the /gm page and the /Sandbox2 page can be merged cleanly though since work on one started long after work on the other stopped. The histories could be merged now or later, and it doesn't make much difference. Just ask any admin to history-merge them before a move to the article space happens. — Saxifrage 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the explanation. I'll definitely be sure to contact somebody to clean things up if and when the article is allowed to be remade. Thanks again for your help! —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 06:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope you feel better

Perfectly percolated coffee, Esperanza's own blend.

I'm sorry to hear you are stressed. I hope this small token helps. Best wishes, Jam01 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated. Getting there! — Saxifrage 01:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I know how stressful dealing with anonymous vandals can be, so I did what I could: filing successful RFPs of your user and talk pages, and listing you on Esperanza's alert page. Hopefully this will help you cool down, and deal with the situation. Remember, it takes more muscles to frown than to smile, so save energy and smile! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) The vandalism has slacked off and things seem to be returning to normal. It's nice when WP:TROLL is proved right about vandals' lack of attention span. — Saxifrage 19:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Resilient Barnstar.png The Resilient Barnstar
For not letting them grind you down too much Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?) 10:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Sockpuppetry on User:Wikipediaman123

I understand, Saxifrage, but if you are an admin or are in easy control of getting one, block it. Deadbath is an inapropriate username if you ask me, and that is a good reason for block. He can also be blocked, if you look, deadbath has a very simular userpage to me and if you look, I am the respectful beginner of the userpage. I know it for a fact because there is a {{user2|Wikipediamaqn123}}. He even has my barnstars. All of my template-subpages (most from what I can see) are in a format on Admin Durin's talk page.
- Wikipediaman123 02:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Libertarianism dab page

You're welcome, I get a strange and perhaps perverse kick out of other people's to do lists :-) Grumpyyoungman01 03:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:

Hi, I see you've recently reverted vandalism by User talk: to Corkscrew, and are an admin. also has subtlely & wrongly changed facts (a number) in [3], and perhaps [4]. is dangerous, and has been blocked before. Perhaps deserves it again? Though this is a University IP address. (I'm really fed-up with IP address vandalism, personally I'd support login-only editing.) Rwendland 13:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see the difficulty. I've not seen number/fact changing vandalism much before - it troubles me that on minor articles it might not be picked up for a long time. Blatant vandalism troubles me less, as it is sure to be reverted. Occasional 24-hours blocks on school IPs might encourage serious editors to get a real login (or remember to use them), which to my mind is a plus; maybe they should be applied more readily. The last 6 edits (over 4 days) are vandalism. It's a hard call - glad I'm not an admin! Rwendland


genmay on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of genmay. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mrtwo 12:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Oh God, not again... The last one was enough drama to last a lifetime. Has it even been a month? – Lantoka (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It was a month and one day since closing, I think. Anyway, it got speedy closed after a few hours, so I doubt we have to go through all that again. For a while, anyway. :) --Dreaded Walrus 09:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Wishing you the best for the holidays and a Happy New Year! I want to thank you for your continued support to the Wikipedia project, and more specifically for providing advice on how to delete articles by author - So thanks again and Happy Holidays to you and yours. --Lperez2029 18:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


What are the numbers on the My Watchlist for? John R G 05:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(Hope you don't mind me answering this for you, Saxifrage, what with you being busy and everything)
You may be interested in this, which details what the numbers mean, and how they can be removed, if you so wish. But to paraphrase, that's basically the number of bytes added or taken away with that particular edit, and one character usually takes up one byte, so if you see (-10,000), for example, that's usually a Bad Thing. :) --Dreaded Walrus 07:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Walrus. :) I didn't know about that new feature either, so thanks doubly! — Saxifrage 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable non-graduates at the BJU wiki for Chris Sligh

Dear Mr. Saxifrage, I am new to this wiki thing and don't know if you can really help us or not. I noticed that you previously handled a "linkspam" matter in the BJU page and appreciated how you dealt with that. Soooo, would you PLEASE go back there and help. An editor by the name of John Foxe is detstroying the credibility of wiki-editors by constantly couching his personal "pro-BJU agenda at all cost" with "Wiki-Law" that none of us can defend. We just want to be able to post a simple line about Chris Sligh, a current American Idol contestant, under the "Notable students (non-graduates)" heading. This debate has been going on for days... maybe weeks, since Chirs's first audition. Anyway, any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ~~bolognone

After reviewing Talk:Bob Jones University, I'm inclined to support User:John Foxe's position. I am conservative when it comes to notability (which, if you think about it, is in line with being a spamfighter), and John is taking a reasonable stance: Wikipedia should wait until his notability is indisputable. You might consider reading The World Will Not End Tomorrow for a development of this philosophy of Wikipedia. Cheers, and good luck resolving your content dispute amicably. — Saxifrage 19:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It seems the dispute has been resolved... though 'amicably' would be stretching it I think. Chris Sligh now has his own bio, marked for deletion as John Foxe promised, and has a tag line that has not yet been deleted. Thanks again. Bolognone 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

General [M]ayhem

Hello! A while back you deleted the General Mayhem Wikipedia page for lack of sources. I have added many references and deleted a large percentage of the original content, which consisted mainly of detailed information no one cares about. User:Indolences/gm Well, ttyl. -Indolences 05:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


I have posted some legitimate links for the following sites and some people are removing them. They are on Right-to-work law and Union dues. I would like your help and having those links that I put there restored because I feel that it is very important. John R G 06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At Talk:Right-to-work law and Talk:Union dues you're just repeating that you want link to be there, not taking into account the other editors' concerns. Remember that content at Wikipedia needs to stand on its own merits. Saying "if this link is removed then all pro-union links must be removed" is faulty because it assumes that all links are of equal informational value to the encyclopedia.
Because Wikipedia is based on consensus, you are responsible for engaging with other editors, understanding their concerns, and working together to agree on the contents of the article. Talk to the others and try to work out an understanding and a mutually-satisfactory resolution. Don't edit war—avoid the temptation to "fix" the page, even if the others don't, until the dispute is settled. (It takes two to war. It takes one to stop a war.)
Finally, remember that these aren't "sites", they're encyclopedia articles that are part of a larger encyclopedia project. Wikipedia's job is not to advertise information and links that we think people should see. — Saxifrage 19:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cancelling my Wikipedia Account

If I wanted to cancel my Wikipedia Account how would I go about doing that? Note it has nothing to do with anything in the past. John R G 18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)