User talk:Unfocused

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

FairTax has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

If I've commented on your talk page, I am already watching it for your reply.
(But I am watching nearly 600 pages. If a week passes and you still want a reply, you're welcome to post here, too.)

If you've commented on my talk page, please watch this page for my reply.
(You're welcome to crosspost the thread between the talk pages, or request that I reply on your talk page.
Unless specifically requested, I usually prefer to post where the thread started.)

It is my policy to never archive the comments posted here, but to delete them instead.

Deleted comments are always available in the page history.

Some users filter what they archive, removing comments that reflect poorly on their behavior.

Reading the full page history is the only way to know you're reading the entire record. I may choose to copy your comments to a subpage before deleting them, however, the subpage will not be named nor referred to as an "archive" page.

Content deleted on August 30, 2005. See the edit summary in this page's history to locate previous content.


Scimitar's RfA[edit]

Thanks for supporting my request for administrator powers, which has been successful. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks again! Scimitar parley 17:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No and no. Adam 16:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Your WP:PAC assignment[edit]

Since you have not edited your WP:PAC assignment, Kingler, within the last week, you have been un-assigned from the article. Unfortunately, we have to enforce this rule if we wish to finish the remaining articles within a reasonable amount of time.

If you wish, you are welcome to request a new assignment. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 13:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see my response here Unfocused 14:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Replied at WP:PAC. I would prefer the discussion to continue either there, at the project's talk page, or at my talk page, depending on where you wish to take the discussion. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 15:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigurd Syr[edit]

Nice! I will work to expand it further. Thanks for your help! --Briangotts (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

My grackle[edit]

Just to say "thank you"! That was a high point in my day! I'm generally too stroppy and cross to have received an award before. --Wetman 05:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

White Horse Circle[edit]

What SPUI did there was take an AfD that resulted in a clear delete, and turned it into a redirect, by recreating the material elsewhere, and recreating the article as a redirect to that information. If that isn't abuse of the AfD process, I don't know what it. Suppose I wrote an article on my pal Guy Xavier, and it was AfDed so I made a redirect from that name to the article on his hometown, in which I included all the deleted info from his article. Or better yet, say it was recreated at Guy B. Xavier, with the same redirect. That's basically what's been done here. -R. fiend 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't agree with his editing, but the proper response is NOT to ignore policy. The deletion policy is written in a way that permits editors to continue to improve the encyclopedia, even if the data is insufficient to support a separate article. The AfD result does NOT state that the information cannot be used anywhere in Wikipedia, only that it doesn't support a separate article. Unfocused 19:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
So AfD is useless then. Every vote to redirect is considered a vote to keep, and every vote to delete becomes a vote to redirect. If people wanted the information meged elsewhere they would have voted to merge. They didn't. If anyone is ignoring policy it's SPUI, who is trying to sneakily game the system by subverting consensus. -R. fiend 19:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
In case you didn't realize it, AfD results are binary: delete or keep. The consensus is that there isn't support for the article as a separate entity. Voting "merge" may feel good, but you cannot force someone else to perform the merge, so in effect, it's a "keep" vote, allowing someone else to perform the action later. AfD results only apply to the item as a separate article. If any editor finds an appropriate* place to put the information, we should encourage them, since it improves the encyclopedia. (*"appropriate place" as defined by those with enough interest in the merge target article to watch and/or edit it.) If a plurality of editors watching Flemington, New Jersey don't find a new section about a traffic circle to be notable enough to keep in the article, it will be edited out. SPUI is merely finding out if the information is at all useful, or if it was merely misplaced by being submitted as a separate article. Unfocused 19:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It was edited out. You restored it. I fail to see how your interpretation of the way things work can ever vanquish vanity from wikipedia if it can just be created elsewhere, immune from AfD. -R. fiend 19:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I restored it because you deleted it without any explanation about why this information doesn't belong in the article it was placed in. In other words, your action was similar to simple vandalism of an existing article. I think SPUI has found an appropriate place for the data. Again, I remind you; having an article pass through AfD with a "delete" consensus doesn't mean that the information cannot ever be used anywhere in Wikipedia; only that the information does not support a separate article in its current form. The deletion policy even recognizes that the article could be recreated in place, provided enough notable information is added to the recreation. Your attempts to circumvent the policies to enforce your POV by speedy deleting a redirect, which are not speedyable, are unwelcome. Viewing this a "vanquishing" something is not a helpful attitude. This is not a war, it's an encyclopedia. Further, a traffic circle is incapable of experiencing vanity, so please do not use that obviously false argument. Unfocused 20:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh come on. You even said that AfD is binary (which isn't even 100% true) a "merge/redirect" is a vote to keep. SPUI did a merge/redirect, therefore that would only be an appropriate action if the AfD result had been keep. It was not. SPUI is obviously abusing the system. What's the point of AfD if both results will end up with the same outcome: a merge/redirect to a different article? If the consensus was that detailed information of a section of asphalt was suitable for an encyclopedia the votes would have been to merge and redirect. But they were not. Other than the fact that one is a vanity article and the other is not (a moot point, they are treated the same when the votes are tallied) how is this any different from my Guy Xavier example? It's the same thing. I'll go remove the information again with an explanation, if that will make you happy. Somehow I doubt it will. -R. fiend 20:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
This edit was in improvement to the encyclopedia, which, by the way, is our only mission. Had SPUI not created the redirect, we'd all be thanking him for improving the Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey article. That's why I've reverted your deletion, and will again. Sorry that you disagree, but I think that SPUI's edit is a clear improvement to the article. Feel free to RfC the article if you disagree with the content. Unfocused 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Please explain how is this any different from the Guy Xavier example? -R. fiend 20:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
In the first example, your data on Guy should stay if it improves the article on his hometown. If it doesn't improve the article, it will be reverted, and even if a revert war takes place, eventually it will be removed. In the second example, if it's already clear through AfD that there is a consensus that Guy doesn't warrant a separate article, the recreation is speedied. I think that's pretty simple. Unfocused 20:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
"Improves", eh? Bit of a judgment call. Let's say I think it improves the article because he's such a freakin awesome guy and everyone needs to know about his collection of cognac. If it were beneficial, people would not have voted to delete ("delete" as in "remove from wikipedia"). Now if a revert war keeps going on without end, how does the information get removed? A delete vote is NOT a merge/redirect vote. Why is that so hard to understand? -R. fiend 20:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Like it or not, the article deletion policy only applies to information contained as a separate article. If you don't agree with the content of an article, and you're unhappy with the reverts taking place on it, they you should see the articles section of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It's there for just these reasons: disagreements over what is valuable content in a specific article and what is not. Unfocused 20:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
If that were true, a vote to redirect would be the same as a vote to delete (clearly such a vote asserts that the information should not be "contained as a separate article", which according to you, is all that a delete vote is saying), but it is not. If we want too start counting votes to redirect as deletes you can try to get that going, but I think you'll find a bit of resistence. -R. fiend 21:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already said I'm not going to block him, but I have made a report on the 3rr noticeboard. If no one does anything about it, so be it. He has violated the policy though. -R. fiend 21:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. The view of Fvw's page that I saw was in between your two edits. I don't believe SPUI has violated policy, because your deletions of the newly created redirect were contrary to the speedy deletion policy, and reversion of that is permitted as reversion of vandalism. I believe you are the one in violation of policy. However, it clearly isn't my decision to make, and I don't think it's currently enough to make a case of it. Unfocused 21:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Had I deleted it more than three times, you could try to make the point that I violated the policy, but I didn't. SPUI could try the defense that his "reverts", as they were, were revertions of vandalism, but I think it would be a tough sell. -R. fiend 21:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
No, you are incorrect. The policy you violated was not 3RR, it was the speedy deletion policy. You improperly speedied (more than once) an redirect that should have been listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for Deletion. Since your deletions were improper and outside of proper policy, they were the equivalent of vandalism, and SPUI was correct in reverting them the same as vandalism is reverted. In other words, 3RR doesn't apply. We'll see what happens together, though. Unfocused 21:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the trust you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

OwenX's RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA. Your trust in me is well appreciated. Owen× 22:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Dear Unfocused: I would like to thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I am most honoured by the trust of the Wikipedia community in my suitability for adminship, especially since I did not conform to the standard edit-count criteria usually expected of administrator candidates. I greatly appreciate the research you did through my contributions to determine my suitability for adminship, and your trust in my abilities is most kind. I promise to only use my administrative privileges to assist the community in doing good work, and also to be calm, considerate and careful in working to make Wikipedia a better place. I look forward to working with you on Wikipedia in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Closing AfDs[edit]

Is it normal to vote on a page before closing it as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghiyasuddin School, particularly if the closure coincides with your vote? I have closed as keep articles that I actually nominated delete with my facts accidentally crossed, which I see as good-faith breaking of the rules (withdrawing and saving someone else the work). But if you want to place a keep vote shouldn't someone else close it as keep? Marskell 09:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I've responded on your talk page. I haven't closed any AfD discussions, so I suspect you have me confused with someone else. Unfocused 14:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed, my mind was foggy upon waking. There was your regular vote keep and another "closed as keep" beneath it on my watch list and I made a mistake. Very sorry; thx for the note. Marskell 14:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

my RfA[edit]

Thanks for your vote in my RfA. I'll do my best to live up to the wiki standards and be a good admin!

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hermione1980's RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 23:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi there! I just wanted to point out that there's a difference between people who want to write down existing practice for the convenience of our frequent new users, and people who want to consider all of that strong immutable rules. We're really doing the former. Radiant_>|< 11:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe you intend to do the former, but in fact, you are doing the latter. As an example, look at the vast increase in "KD, valid AfD" votes found in VFU recently. This is a direct result from incorrectly posting in the header of the VFU that it is only about process, not content. This has the effect of biasing the discussion before it's even started. So, while I think your intentions are good, the effect is often very bad indeed, and in some cases, entirely counter to the mission of Wikipedia. "Use common sense" and "assume good faith" go hand in hand, and we certainly don't need or want everything written down. Where people seek guidance, give guidance. Otherwise, just try to stay out of their way as much as you can. Unfocused 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Maryville Middle School[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 05:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


I understand I stray from not biting the newcomers at times, and "with fire" and "with prejudice" may be unwarranted, but to refer to it as cruft is a statement of fact. These articles, and the other related chapter articles, are inherently non-notable and have no place on Wiki; as others in the discussion have stated WP:NOT applies here. These articles are more properly individual homepages for the organizations.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 15:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Use of "cruft" is perjorative in the deletion forums. I ask that you please stop using the term, and discourage others from doing so as well. Please see Wikipedia:Fancruft. There are a myriad of other, more polite ways to express your opinion. Thanks. Unfocused 15:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The ending "-cruft" might be considered a productive suffix, as Wikipedians have coined other words with the ending, such as "bloggercruft", "gamecruft" or "Simpsons-cruft". In parallel with the original term, such words mean that, in the opinion of the person using the term, the subject of the article in question is not notable except to hardcore fans; for example, "Simpsons-cruft" is "(fan)cruft about The Simpsons".
It is what it is. Pejorative or not, it has become a catch-all on Wiki as well as many other places. I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 16:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • "Dick" is also a catch-all, but that doesn't mean it's common or frequent use in Wikipedia discussion forums is appropriate. Also from Wikipedia:Fancruft:
Some users consider this a pejorative term and see it as insulting to well-meaning contributors. They might likewise consider use of the term in forums such as articles for deletion inappropriate, but it is nevertheless in common use there.
Deletion has enough troubles without people intentionally using language that inflames other participants. Please stop. Unfocused 16:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Amalekite affair discussed again[edit]

Hi! Since you participated (intelligently, I felt) in the Amalekite discussion back in the day I thought I'd tell you that it was brought up again in my currently running RFAWikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Haukurth, which now looks as though it will probably fail because of it. I would appreciate your opinion, though I can understand if you don't want to wade into that firestorm again! - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I've been watching for a little while to see if I could get my mind around what is at the core of the opposition. I planned to make my statement when I found the core, and I have now done so. Unfocused 22:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah! That had to be it. I was surprised how quickly you seemed to distill exactly what I thought was the core of the matter. I very much appreciate your eloquent support. Thank you. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you WP:PURE?[edit]

You know, if we could get every admin on the project to agree to use "tag & bag" on the speedies, so at least we know there were two sets of eyes looking at an article and that the article sat in the "visible to regular users but is about to be speedy deleted" category for a short little while, I think you'd find broad support of expanding the CSDs. Otherwise, just be as thoughtful and considerate of new users and honest contributors as you can, use inoffensive comments and edit summaries (NO "burn with fire", "nuke from orbit", "--cruft", et. al.), and accept disagreements gracefully, and no one important will ever be upset with you. (Unless of course you get overly involved with the politics of user blocking and free speech.) Unfocused 17:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, pretty much entirely. I've been kicking around ideas recently to allow for speedies at the discretion of admins, as long as some number (2-3?) agree and nobody offers an objection. A system that would pretty much work the same (but possibly have other advantages) is the pure wiki deletion system. You may have already seen this, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case you hadn't. It could function very similairly to what you've described above, but simpler and more de-centralized. Friday (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the proposal you mentioned; it's been discussed a lot on the WikiEN-l mailing list. I'm still haven't formed a strong opinion about it. While I like the ability to rescue useful information at will, I see a lot of potential for slow edit wars over the course of months. Also, true garbage that's just outside the CSD, such as some nonsense pages, edit tests, and attack pages, don't belong in the database. That's why right now, I'm trying to encourage people to use a "laissez-faire" attitude regarding the contributions of others. If you assume good faith and use cleanup tags, over 50% of AfD simply disappears. (This is proven by the percentage of articles that are kept every day.) If we adopt a strict "tag & bag" speedy policy with a short mandatory delay, another 20-30% goes away. Unfocused 18:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA thoughts[edit]

Thanks for everything. I think that of all the good people I've come to know on Wikipedia you, Michael, are the most principled. You state on your user page that you're not looking towards becoming an admin but there are some months since you wrote that. It seems to me that with all the work you do surrounding article deletion you could make good use of the admin tools and I find the thought of you abusing them preposterous. You've also specifically stated that you'd like to have the rollback button - and unfortunately there's currently only one way of getting it. You've been here for months and you've got a bunch of edits beneath your belt - a very large part of which consists of - always civil - interaction with other users. You should be a shoe-in. I'd be honored to nominate you for adminship. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 02:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Drunk and disorderly[edit]

Hi, Michael. This is just to inform you that the stub George Powell which you so kindly created for me in the summer has now come into its own, as the article it is an adjunct to, The Relapse, is finally finished (well, that's shorthand, please supply "Of course nothing on Wikipedia is ever..." ad libitum), mainspaced, and FAC'd. I expect you've had time to forget all about our July convo. However, at the time you asked about my userspace articles, and this is one of them, actually the one you referenced in the Powell article. (Not sure what the other one was that you referred to, maybe Restoration spectacular, also now out of the closet.) I've just updated your link in George Powell, and incidentally expanded the bit about his drinking problem some, so is all good. Thanks again for your help. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The College of Wooster Greeks debate reopened[edit]

Since you participated in this AFD debate, you might like to know that it has been reopened following discussion at WP:DRV. The new debate is at here. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I already had that page opened in another tab, thank you. Unfocused 17:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


If you got a minute can you take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. Thanks. nobs 19:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FairTax now up for peer review[edit]

Hey. I've put the FairTax article up for peer review. If you can think of anything that needs to be done, please add it to the peer review list. Preferrable, however, would be sending someone over to the peer review site (if possible) that you know (or think) could help. If this kind of thing is in someone's specific area of expertise that you know of, their help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot. Trevdna 15:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hey[edit]

I don't think I ever got around to thanking you for voting in my RfA, did I? Allow me to remedy that. DS 20:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Let's try to keep the arguments in the discussion section  ;-) -Spaceriqui 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

what can i say... i like shitstorms... (maybe i'm just idealistic) -Spaceriqui 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

One last appeal... ;-) Spaceriqui 08:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Congrats on a baby?! :D i have one on the way too... take care, Spaceriqui 08:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


...on the new addition to your family (per your user page). May he fill your life with joy : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi! To be honest, I do not think you owe me anything. Anyone who contributes to Wikipedia is doing everyone a service. However, if you are looking for assignments, I think there are three people who deserve thoughtful, well-researched, and detailed articles: Alain de Janvry, Andre Gunder Frank, Agosto Boal. For what it is worth, I think you may find working on Boal very interesting, but I think you'd find working on the others educational. But it is your call! Dig around and see what you think — I hope that if you chose to work on any of the three you will find it rewarding, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm mining your brain[edit]

Thought I'd tell you that I took a page out of your book at User_talk:Jonathunder#The_Unfocused_Gambit and it seems to have worked out very well! :) Hopefully this idea catches on. - Haukur 21:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I could not be more pleased to see more acts of reconciliation, and I am flattered by your choice of method! Unfocused 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My application to the Arbitration Committee[edit]

You voted against me because I had mentioned "punishments". My wording was poor in that sense; I understand that the Arbitration Committee should never punish a user. I've corrected this in my statement. Ral315 (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Yom Kippur War" debate[edit]

Hello there,
I have noticed your involvement in the Yom Kippur War talk pages, and I would like to invite you to participate in the following discussion in: FARC Yom Kippur War You know it was made today's feature article(!)
Thank's a lot, Maysara 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame[edit]

Hi. I've made a comment to your ideas on Talk:List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It was about time someone said something about it, wasn't it? ;-) John Anderson 13:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Kent-Meridian High School[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School, I just thought you'd like to know that the consensus for deleting High School articles now appears to be swinging back in favor of deletion. So this may indicate the beginning of another campaign to remove most High School articles. Your opinion on the AfD article would be appreciated. It might be helpful if a notability standard for High Schools could be agreed upon. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry to see you got yourself into an edit war with 2005. I don't know why you are trying to involve me in your edit war. If you think I made an unsourced claim, remove it. Jews and Lebanese people are being slaughtered in the middle east in a real war. What do I care about an edit war on the WPT article?

In some of the WPT shows you can see Mike and Vince sitting there, right next to the table with the players. In a few cases they talk to the players. VVP talks in a biography about Stephen Lipscomb about how it is amusing going in to do post work because they have to pretend to be excited even when they already know the outcome of the hand, the event, etc.

Now, how do you think that these to commentators are able to make such insightful remarks and know the players hole cards if most of the commentating weren't done in post? When they are present during a tournament, it's basically only for the cameras, since it would look silly to do otherwise. And BTW, more than 50% of the sounds and dialogue you hear in a typical studio film are ADR and sounds added in post. I don't have a source for that either, sorry. But I work in the industry and I have to go in to do ADR work every now and then. They'll record general backround noise and the main dialogue on the set, and even that needs to be re-recorded. There was one instance where I did dialogue for a black actor in the background (I am white). The continuity of any video or film based media 99.99% of the time comes from the SOUND and not the video itself, just most people pay more attention to the visuals...

Anyway, how I digress! If I added something that you don't think belongs, take it out. If someone else puts it back in, and you have a problem with that, complain to them or an administrator. Why complain to me? I'm a pacifist and if you start an edit war with me, you will certainly win. Some dude in Florida didn't want David Copperfield to be recognized as a "jew" and tried to start a war about that. Do I care? Nope. - Abscissa 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

About User:2005[edit]

I see that you've had trouble with this User:2005 in the past. Lately he has been disrupting me as well. His main behavioral problem is that he is an unscrupulous editor, who does not think about others before editing, reverting, or deleting their work. He is quite inconsiderate, and usually it's "his way or the highway". Should we do something about this? Cloudreaver 05:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike Sexton on the WPT, FYI[edit]

"We just wing everything. We have no scripts, we have nothing, I mean honestly, that's the truth. A little secret for your viewers now. But in truth, any time players are looking at their down cards we can't see those down cards while we're sitting in the booth. We actually go back to post, and edit, and do the show all over again where we can see the cards, and just like we're seeing it for the first time. But it's against gaming regulations for us to be allowed to see the cards while the event is happening live. They way they mix it up and put it all together on the World Poker Tour it looks like it's happening on the spot." - Mike Sexton in "Holdem & Foldem: The World of Poker" mini documentary. - Abscissa 23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for editing my user page. I really appreciate it. :) --- ابراهيم 18:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I am familiar with WP:POINT, thank you. I do not consider nomination of substandard articles about average schools, particularly nursery, elementary, or middle schools, with no outside sources, to be disrupting Wikipedia. If "a fight" has been started by the nomination of such a school article, then the responsibility lies with those who began the fight, who ought to remain WP:CIVIL. If by fight you mean a logical debate... well, that's what AfD is for, yes? (Although I grant you, school-related AfDs seem to attract a depressing share of illogical debate. Once again, the onus is upon those who act in such a manner, not upon the nominator.)) Shimeru 00:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of schools without an attempt to get them improved first is the rough equivalent of engaging in a war of attrition. Given that you've just acknowledged that already know the likelihood of disrupting Wikipedia and raising wikistress by nominating them, I not sure you're entirely familiar with the point of WP:POINT. Cut them to a stub if you think they're poorly written. Bring them to the attention of the interest group I already mentioned. These are other options that improve the wiki without rehashing the same old arguments and refighting the same old fights. Unfocused 01:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
They are already stubs. I believe them to be non-expandable stubs. If I believed these were actually worthy articles, I would probably attempt to expand them myself, and I certainly would not nominate them for deletion. I do not believe that to be the case. I do not believe that a non-noteworthy school belongs in an encyclopedia any more than a non-noteworthy person, company, band, or website does. And I do not believe that I should refrain from nominating such an article simply because others might believe that all schools are noteworthy. WP:SCH is an option if the articles seem expandable, but that is not always the case. Shimeru 04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
My opinions on this are well documented in the usual places for the past year and a half. As are the opinions of dozens of other good faith editors willing to address these articles. If you choose not to use the resources of those who've already volunteered to take care of these articles in favor of your own snap judgment whether something is capable of being expanded or not, then you're simply asking for more fights. Unfocused 05:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on school AfDs[edit]

This comment does not relate to the fact that we're on opposite divides of the school debate. I simply want to point out that you tell the nominator to read WP:POINT in the Tabb MS and Haverford MS debates, which- in my opinion- is ludicrous unless you can back up that the nom is trying to make a point nom. In addition, there are plenty of instances in which schools have been deleted, so I'm not sure why you're stating that there's no reason for someone to start a school-related AfD. There is absolutely no consensus on the notability of schools, so to tell someone that they're both making a point and wasting their time by nominating an article for AfD is irrational. I'd like to please ask you to rescind your comments to the nominator (whom, for the record, I do not know and have never interacted with). -- Kicking222 01:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I already proposed two separate alternatives to deletion to satisfy his desire for improvement. I have no intention of rescinding my comments because I believe WP:POINT does in fact apply, supported by his own comments that he knows the contentiousness of the issue in question. I will not, however, request that you rescind your comment to me simply because I disagree with it. Unfocused 01:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note, I also completely object to your policy of having a user who posts to your talk page to watch your page. Why could you not have the common courtesy to post to their talk page, so that the system will tell them when they have a new message? People have other things to do on WP than to constantly reload your talk page in the hopes that you'll answer them. Of course, that's just my opinion. If someone is kind enough to reach out to you (and I am honestly trying to elicit discourse, not to attack you or tell you you're fundamentally wrong or anything of the sort), you should reach out to them. -- Kicking222 01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted the notice on my page to make it clear how I intend to maintain conversations, complete with a note that I'm willing to comply with those who request otherwise. Why have you chosen to phrase this as a conflict rather than a simple request instead? You're the first to have a problem with this.
My default preference is that conversations remain unfragmented on the page where they started. I am disappointed that you chose to phrase this as a confrontation rather than simply follow the simple instructions posted at the top of my talk page. (I am now pasting your post and my reply both to your "talk" per your preference, and per my talk page, I am now watching yours for replies.) Unfocused 01:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Butting in I wanted to suggest an essay on Laissez-faire wikipedianism, but I can tell you're busy now. FWIW, I agree completely with your reasoning Unfocused. See you in the trenches :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 06:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for support in WikiFur AfD[edit]

Thank you for your support of the WikiFur article. I find it hard to believe that the presence of such articles harms Wikipedia, especially as the 60 or so visitors who come to our site from it every day tend to stick around significantly longer than the average visitor. It seems like having the information there was useful to them! GreenReaper 02:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ninth Day of Creation 2nd AfD[edit]

Thanks for deleting the tag I put on the article late last night. I was going to renominate it and I literally fell asleep at my computer between putting the (wrong) tag on the article and (not) listing it.

I'll try again when I have more time and am wider awake!--A. B. 12:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ze'ev Smason[edit]

Here I thought I was doing the politically correct thing by asking another administrator to delete instead of doing so myself, since I started the AfD and all that. Besides, calling me a penis was not nice, policy notwithstanding. If this were 17th century Paris you would probably be picking up my gauntlet about now. But this is 21st century New Jersey, and I am not D'Artagnan but an overweight wikilawyer, editing wikipedia at 1AM in his underwear... Go figure... Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose... - crz crztalk 06:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just incredibly bad form to call for a speedy when there's an AfD in progress, since someone may have seen the article, and began to research and compose a major rewrite for it. That happens a lot to AfD articles. It only stays on AfD for five days, and quite frankly, that is certainly a reasonable time frame to allow for good faith edits from others who may already be in the process of improving the article. There's already enough artificial time pressure on the article's original editors by AfD without calling for a speedy. It's a simple courtesy that also makes good sense because it prevents harsh feelings. If you meant to speedy it earlier, just mutter "c'est la vie" under your breath and leave it at that.  ;-) Unfocused 08:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea it's a copyvio. But it makes sense - everything else posted by this troll army has been. I have already blocked 20 or so sock puppets, others were blocked by other sysops as well. I have no desire to oblige the puppetmaster behind the indefblocked contributor... Au revoir... - crz crztalk 12:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Unfocused. As the admin who ultimately speedied the article and closed the AfD, I'd just like to clarify that I don't think that it was right to accuse CrazyRussian of wikilawering (or being a dick) to tag the article as a copyvio during an AfD, especially in a clear-cut case such as this. Copyvios put the Wikimedia Foundation at legal risk, and in cases where the personal or legal safety of Wikipedians or the Foundation is at stake, swift action is more warranted. If it were a plain-vanilla non-A7 notability case, it'd be a bit different. But once the copyvio was discovered, the only correct action for an admin to take is deletion. It's certainly unfortunate that the violation was discovered after the AfD started, but better late than never. As I noted in the closing notice, the article can be re-created if notability can be verifiably established. Anyway, just wanted to drop a note about the issue to clear things up, since you expressed concerns about CrazyRussian's call for speedy deletion. Hope that you understand. — TKD::Talk 21:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
He had no idea it was a copyvio at the time, nor did I. Further, proper treatment of a copyvio is a deletion of content and rewrite, not deletion of the article itself. Deletion of the offending content is mandatory, deletion of the article is certainly not required. Unfocused 21:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems like he was convinced after Eliyak pointed it out in the AfD. There's been an effort to crack down more on copyvios of late, though, and G12 (the copyvio criterion) was recently broadened. It appears that you favor pure wiki deletion, so perhaps this philosophical difference can't be reconciled with CSD G12, under which CrazyRussian acted in good faith. However, the recent policy changes seem to be heading towards a push for quality, but I can at least see where you're coming from now. — TKD::Talk 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
If you think I favor pure wiki deletion, I will correct you now: this is absolutely incorrect.
What I favor is lack of verifiability and NPOV as primary criteria for what gets deleted. Non-notable topics are simply not third party verifiable. More importantly, non-notable topics do not have unrelated third parties willing to devote significant blocks of time to editing them. Items of questionable notability that are verifiable and NPOV should simply be tagged as such and filtered from view of most users. Unfocused 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I apologize for misunderstanding your position. — TKD::Talk 12:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Splashdown[edit]

You want to start a fight? Because if so, I'm ready to fight. You're telling me Splashdown doesn't meet WP:MUSIC? They went on national tours (point three), including being part of Lilith Fair; they've been featured in the Boston Globe and Boston Phoenix many times, satisfying point five (in addition, there was a passing mention of them in an MTV article just last month); they contained a member (Kasson Crooker) who is in another notable band (Freezepop), so put a checkmark next to point six; and the last point is satisfied, as they were featured (with their own show) on Universal Buzz Radio. Don't you dare start with me, because I'm not in the mood to deal with your crap. Do I sound pissed off? If so, it's because I do, as nobody has ever caused me as much "wikistress" as you do, and I don't know if I've ever encountered someone on WP whom I disliked as much as you- and that includes vandals. -- Kicking222 14:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First, please reread what I wrote on your page, even though you deleted it. I have no interest in Wikiwars of any kind.
About WP:MUSIC, it's easy to read guidelines in a way that suits you to trivialize someone else's work to start battles. Your own article says Splashdown did some Lilith Fair shows on the second stage, which is not the same as doing a whole a national tour. If they did the whole tour on the main stage, that's different. Point five, perhaps. Some might argue those Boston sources are local, and passing mention, even on MTV, isn't normally something the AfD crowd considers strongly. Freezepop? OK. Universal Buzz? I just looked into what that is. I'm not sure that syndicated college radio programming carries the same weight as national network coverage. See how easy it is to discount the efforts of someone else?
The point is not to criticize your well written article. Rest assured, I have no intention of nominating it for deletion. I like indie music articles, and would support keeping some that are more obscure, as long as they're verifiable and neutral.
Again, as I posted on your page, I'm still asking for less conflict, not more. Instead of taking the view that your idea of notability is supreme and everything else must go, why not let good faith editors work on their own areas of interest. Have a look to see what grows in their garden now and then, using the deletion process to weed out the true garbage rather than whole species?
For example, before the CSD were expanded to be more explicit, there was a time that high schools were speedy-deleted on sight by some admins. Many colleges were considered "non-notable" and deleted, too. Only after recreation would they get the opportunity for people to discuss them. Now there are at least four "Featured Articles" at WP:SCH about institutions serving grade 12 and lower.
If you're still reading, the point is that anyone can get into anyone else's face here without really trying. If you take a more laissez-faire attitude about editing here, you won't have wikistress of any kind. You've got a passion for certain kinds of music. Engage it, apply it. But don't trivialize someone else's passion in useless AfD wars. Unfocused 16:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Browser Problems[edit]

I think you may be experiencing technical difficulties. You deprodded 12 Bar Club with no explanation. I assume that's because you got cut off before you could type it. IronDuke 05:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree with the reasons it was prodded. This the rough equivalent of a little (mostly) acoustic CBGB club set in London. Roddy Frame, Robyn Hitchcock and many other notables have played there. I suppose you may have had browser troubles, too, as you didn't notify any of the previous editors on their talk page that you thought their work on this article is worthless and made accusation of spamming, too... Unfocused 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't have to notify editors of prods, and usually won't. The prod notice is itself notification. If 12 Bar is like CB's, great. Leave the prod in place, then hunt about for refs that support that point. Put in the refs, and take off the prod with "evidence of notability provided." Too onerous? IronDuke 16:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you don't understand the process or the reasons for it, but anyone can remove the prod immediately and at any time, with or without a reason. Merely removing the prod isn't necessarily a statement of disagreement with the person who placed the prod, but it is a statement that at minimum, further discussion is desired, although it could also mean more. A prod is a Sword of Damocles, an immediate threat of speedy deletion that is removed when a deletion is debatable. It's intended to be easy to remove. Please don't take it so personally when people remove your prods, don't put them back, and don't tell people they can't remove them unless they meet your arbitrary standards first.
I am also very disappointed that you seem to think that enforcing your relatively quick decision about what is notable or not is more important than learning from the original editors why they thought the article belonged. With even casual editors such as myself having watch lists of over a thousand articles, a great deal of work could be prodded and deleted without any of the original authors noticing.
Deletion is not a stealth process. When articles have the appearance of good faith editing, I think simple common courtesy demands that you notify them of your opinion that the article is worthless. Where the articles do not appear to be good faith edits, yet fit no speedy categories, I understand your haste to make waste. Unfocused 17:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm soryy that you feel I don't understand the process. I feel that you don't understand what makes something notable on WP. Your criterion seems to be "Someone somewhere has heard of it." I'm not "sorry" about that, although it is depressing. You might check out: [1] to see where consensus is running against your interpretation. I have no problem with people contesting prods, as long as they have a reason. It doesn't even have to be a good reason, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. Just a reason. Also, you needn't throw strawmen at me about deletion not being a stealth process or replacing deleted prods. When I have I suggested either? Are you getting me confused with someone else? And again, you speak of courtesy in letting editors know when I'm prodding their articles. Did you let me know? No, Did I expect you to? No. Did you give a reason? No. Did I expect you to? Yes. IronDuke 04:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Extreme exaggeration will not make your case. The discussion you pointed has about an equal number of people who don't think removal of a prod without a reason is a problem because opposition is obvious by the act of opposing. Again, I think you're lacking simple courtesy if you don't tell someone you intend to eliminate their work without discussion. Many editors don't log on every day to check their watch lists obsessively. Unfocused 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fisher Engineering[edit]

You deprodded this article, citing encyclopedic. I'm not sure I agree. Fisher is a division of Douglas Dynamics and is little more than a brand name now, clearly failing WP:CORP, Douglas Dynamics is itself owned by Aurora Capital Group, and neither of these companies have a Wikipedia entry, although Aurora probably warrants one. Just my 2c worth MNewnham 16:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I think Fisher Engineering is worthy of an article. However, I never object to merges to corporate parents where appropriate. Either way, it seems wrong to wipe content that could be merged to a larger article. It is my opinion that prod is getting overused; it should be for legitimate garbage that escapes CSD rather than a shortcut around AfD. Unfocused 17:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cordesat's closings[edit]

If you disagree with Coresat's closings, you may want to file a DRV. That would have a higher chance of success than bugging him on his talk page. JoshuaZ 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It has been my experience that most users and administrators appreciate a comment on their user page when you disagree with something they did rather than starting off with a public airing. That's what a talk page is for. I don't think a DRV is necessary if Coredesat reconsiders his actions and follows proper administrator behavior. Either way, I hardly see what role you have in this other than as a partisan trying to have your opinion enforced by administrator fiat rather than community consensus. Unfocused 18:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
My phrasing was poor. Let me rephrase: While bringing up the matter on his talk page as an initial thing was correct to do, if he doesn't change his opinion, a DRV will make more sense than an extended discussion on his talk page. I hope that clarifies things. JoshuaZ 18:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not assert my own opinion - I simply weighed the arguments by their strength. "All schools are notable" is not an argument for keeping an article. If you're unhappy about it, request a deletion review, but I stand by my decisions. A majority need not be present for there to be consensus. Also, keep in mind that I did not salt the articles...if the concerns brought up by the delete arguments are addressed, there is no prejudice against recreation. --Coredesat 19:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • How does ignoring dissenting opinions equal "found consensus to delete?" By ignoring multiple expressed opinions regarding school notability that clearly indicate there is no consensus to delete, you certainly did inject your personal opinion into the recent AfD close we are discussing. Administrative rights are tools to serve the community, not powers to enforce your own opinion. I have consensus to do anything I like here if I ignore everyone who disagrees with me... Unfocused 20:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I already stated that "all schools are inherently notable" is not a reason for keeping the article. You have to say why they are notable - it is not an opinion, as notability has to be verifiable with reliable sources. --Coredesat 20:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I also stated that you should open a deletion review if you are unhappy with my decision. Arguing with me or complaining to others is not a substitute for DRV. --Coredesat 20:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Complaining to the person who has made an error (or arguing, if that's how you see it,) is the first step of dispute resolution. This is a case where I am disputing your actions as an administrator. I prefer to discuss it with you directly, unless you refuse to discuss it, which you appear to be doing. At this point, I believe you have begun acting outside the bounds of good faith to defend your incorrect actions. In addition to potential deletion review, I urge you to voluntarily seek review from a neutral third party. I never complained to JoshuaZ, whose participation is unsolicited and voluntary. Unfocused 21:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But this isn't a personal dispute - it's something worthy of a deletion review. Contesting admin AfD closings is what DRV is for - disagreeing with an AfD close is not covered by the dispute resolution process. Please go there first and request a review. If not, I will do it myself. --Coredesat 21:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Dispute resolution is equally applicable for ALL types of dispute. In fact, after some time editing here, I am approaching a kind of zen editing state; nothing here is ever a personal dispute to me. I thought that a descriptive notice of what you did wrong might solve the problem directly, however it is clear that it does not. Unfocused 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I removed any possibly opinionated remarks from the three close statements from last night, but I still stand by the deletions. I am still allowed to say why I deleted the article if there doesn't seem to be a clear delete consensus, as long as I avoid being opinionated about it. If you still have a problem, well...deletion review, then. --Coredesat 22:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice. Do something wrong, try to hide it later. Without inserting your opinion regarding school notability, there is obviously no consensus to delete. Unfocused 00:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The articles are staying deleted unless you request a deletion review. I'm moving on. --Coredesat 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless, that doesn't excuse you changing your reasoning after receiving a complaint. Covering up a partisan close is, in opinion, worse than making the original error. Unfocused 01:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop being disruptive, and file an RFC if you think it's warranted. Stop harassing others. – Chacor 02:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Stay off the talk pages if you don't want to see talk. As far as I'm concerned, YOU are harassing me. I have a legitimate complaint to discuss; why don't YOU file an RFC if you're not happy with the method of conflict resolution I've chosen. Unfocused 07:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfocused, while you have a right to have an opinion and disagree on this, you need to be careful about going over the line and abusing other editors while arguing your case. Your reverts of the closing comment are not helpful; if you believe that the original comment was a problem, you can point a diff out in the article history to anyone; the original comment is not going to go away. Everyone's also right that this is a Deletion Review issue; you should take it to WP:DRV if you disagree. Arguing about it here or other non-DRV places won't lead to a review of the deletion; DRV will. Last, please remember to assume good faith and comment in a civil manner in the discussion, even here on your talk page. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 03:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Had he rephrased his comments on his own, I would have no problem with his actions, but since he did so in response to a complaint, it is in essence a coverup of potentially improper administrator behavior. I think it is completely appropriate to hold the AfD closer to the exact same standards as anyone else on the Wiki. Administrators get no special rights, and no special treatment. Their duty is to serve, not rule. Unfocused 13:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[2] At least put on a word. SchmuckyTheCat 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Prod and redirect on Barossa Shiraz[edit]

You removed the prod on Barossa Shiraz. I agree with that decision. You also redirected it to Barossa Valley. I think that this article is a stub that can be expanded with reliable sources, such as some of these books. I am adding links to Barossa Valley, Shiraz Grape and Australian wine as the functional equivalents of soft redirects. Coincidentally, I am enjoying a glass of this right now. JChap2007 05:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with Barossa Shiraz being a separate article, in fact I prefer it to be. It is a perfectly worthy topic. However, since lately Wikipedia culture is completely intolerant of stub articles, I decided to make it a redirect until someone can develop it into something "more survivable". Unfocused 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, WP has plenty of stubs that no one tries to delete. In this case, the reasons on the prod were not valid ones under the deletion policy. It was just added by a new user who did not understand the criteria for deletion. JChap2007 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"attempted bullying"[edit]

Asides like this are not necessary. JoshuaZ 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry you didn't like that comment. Lately you've been pressuring everyone you disagree with in the schools deletion debate to justify their opinions far more than is reasonable. Harassment of other editors in AfD debates is not good, civil behavior. It violates "assume good faith" as well, to be constantly questioning the motivations of other editors. Unfocused 14:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you think I've been doing that. However, I haven't been questioning their motivations so much as trying to discuss their reasoning. AfD is supposed to be about discussion and questioning and such. Simply having a host of keeps and deletes with minimal interaction leads to sterility, not actual discussion. You may note that I have on occasion also argued/asked questions of voices for deletion as well and I frequently ask questions in other AfDs not just school AfDs. To be blunt, I don't think I'm the one who needs to be doing more WP:AGF. JoshuaZ 15:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

please be civil[edit]

Stop hand.svg

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Posting this isn't very helpful if you don't provide reference to what you're talking about. If it's regarding JoshuaZ (and to a lesser degree, Chacor), I think you're very well meaning but misguided, as he has been behaving in a harassing manner toward other editors in AfD for quite some time regarding their opinions to keep schools, as well as (perhaps unintentionally) goading others who disagree into incivility. Have a look at the recent debates, then explore further back at your leisure to confirm. [3] [4] [5] [6] JoshuaZ has a long history of harassment on the schools issue. Take a look at his contribution history. [7] AfD is not supposed to be a war of attrition where one enthusiastic editor harasses all those who disagree until they leave the arena. He is driving other good faith editors out of his chosen forum. Unfocused 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any of my edits as "harassing" but rather attempts to start dialogue and discuss matters. Arguing for something is not harassement (for what actually is harassement it might be good to see WP:HAR). If you think that I have been harassing I suggest you file a WP:RFC regarding my conduct. However calling people bullies doesn't accomplish anything. JoshuaZ 17:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
We will continue to disagree. In WP:HAR, the very first paragraph states:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.

In my opinion, what you have done qualifies. It appears to me that you're attempting to pressure people with opposing views to stay out of AfD. There is already a forum for the type of debate you push others to engage in, and that is at WP:SCHOOLS as well as various child discussions branching off from there. I don't care to file an RFC because I recognize the limits of my own opinion regarding your behavior, and I remain convinced that there are much better ways to solve this. Unfocused 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think my comments constitute "disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons" and I think you would have a much better chance convincing me that is was problematic and/or needed to stop if you filed an RfC and could demonstrate that other uses agree with you. JoshuaZ 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I repeat: I still think there are much better ways to solve this. An RFC only makes sense if it can be reasonably expected to accomplish something, otherwise it's a complete waste of time. I have no intention of treating Wikipedia as some sort of social experiment in crime and punishment. I recognized the limits of my own perception and I am not trying to convince you that you've been harassing other editors, but I am trying to get you to change. See my most recent comments at WP:SCHOOLS. Unfocused 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Budge Hall[edit]

I saw you removed the prod from Budge Hall. I went ahead and merged the content of that article into Helaman Halls, as your edit summary stated you intended to do the same. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Hello, User:Elonka has brought up concerns of WP:CORP notability (maybe WP:ORG is better) at Talk:Cleveland Hearing & Speech Center. Since you deprodded the article, I thought you might be interested in replying. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jevan Snead[edit]

I see that you have de-prodded Jevan Snead. The article is currently being considered for deletion at AfD. I have expanded it somewhat and added some references. Please follow the link at the top of the article if you wish to comment. Thanks, Johntex\talk 07:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Churchills Market[edit]

hey thanks for the help.. im kinda new at starting these things so would you be willing to get a base page started so that i can work off of that?


Sorry, hadn't realised it had been prodded before. Have now taken to AfD. Qwghlm 17:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD Notification on College Tonight[edit]

Hi there. In an earlier AfD vote on the article College Tonight you voted Keep. This is a notification that the article is up for deletion again and since you haven't yet responded, at least one closing admin was unsure if that meant you had reconsidered your position or simply hadn't noticed. Note, this is not a request to vote Keep again (actually I'd prefer to see it deleted!), just a notification that another vote is taking place. Thanks! --Arvedui 18:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."[edit]

This phrase is not a personal attack. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • If it makes the person it is addressed to think "fuck you too, asshole", it most certainly is a personal attack. Unfocused 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

VaxInnate and Aptuit[edit]

Thank you for removing the {{prod}} tags from VaxInnate and Aptuit. I'm glad to see that you were able to determine that they are notable. I hope that you have time to add some of the references that you found to the articles. ~ BigrTex 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Deprodding non-notable webcomics[edit]

Hey there Unfocused, I see you deprodded the 7 or 8 articles I prodded. I think I see what you're getting at, wanting Wikipedia's coverage of webcomics to be more complete, but doesn't this conflict with the guidelines we have in WP:WEB? These comics make no assertion of notability and I think are qualifiable for speedy deletion under WP:CSD A7. My instinct here is to put them into the AFD process, but I'd like to sort it out with you first if at all possible. --Brad Beattie (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with many of the guidelines posted, and neither do a significant number of other editors; that's why they're guidelines and not policies. WP:WEB is particularly bad in that some of the world's most popular webcomics would be deleted if we slavishly followed that standard.
I'm an extremely strong believer in assume good faith, and also in laissez-faire editing, where you stay out of the way of people making good faith contributions rather than imposing personal views of what's notable or not on them. I prefer to respect those who have worked to contribute content, especially well formatted and linked content.
It's great if you can make some suggestions to improve the articles, such as requesting sources and references where appropriate, but why mess with someone else's passion? Why burn down a library of information just because you don't care for the topic? It's not like we're running out of space, and these articles only contribute to running out of bandwidth if people are actually accessing them, which would mean that they're being useful articles!
Further, I think it is very useful for Wikipedia to cover things that others don't, and comprehensive coverage of webcomics is a role I think we can successfully fill.
Articles are not a prize or an award for notoriety; they're records in a database, that's all. If there's useful, NPOV information there, I don't agree with deleting it. Feel free to merge at will, though, as organization of data really is the key to success in this project. (But if you merge, please use the "full content paste merger" method.) Unfocused 17:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. I think I get what you're saying here and to some extent I agree with you; These pages don't really take up much more than a little space. I guess what gets to me about having what I think we could agree on as non-notable comics is that it leads to some fairly bad things if we apply that argument universally. For example, the independant restaurant down the street from where I live probably gets more customers per week than some of those webcomics get visitors. However, I wouldn't think that it deserved its own article in Wikipedia.

You're right in that guidelines aren't policy, Even WP:Notability itself isn't policy. The only policy we have to work with is WP:NOT, in this case WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Unfortunately, there isn't anything in the explicit policy to support my instinct for deletion. I'd cite the precedent that seems to be building via the other webcomics that have been deleted, but from your perspective (I gather), two wrongs wouldn't make a right.

I'm not entirely sure what I'm getting at here. It's 2:30am in my timezone. Tell you what, I'll go to bed and get back to you in the morning. Maybe then I can make a more cogent argument for my case. --Brad Beattie (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The arguments for and against inclusion of "insignificant" subject matter have been well known for a few years. Feel free to continue making your case in the relevant places, but- please do not go around removing prods on the basis of "everything that exists should have an article". Prods are meant to be removed when you address the concerns that lead to the prod. By removing them without doing so, you're making prod not work any more. Also keep in mind- our own opinions of what's significant or insignificant don't count for much. It's what's being said in proper sources that count. If a webcomic is not getting nontrivial coverage in good sources, we cannot have an encyclopedia article about it without doing our own original research. Take it to comixpedia instead. Friday (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed prods completely within the bounds of the policy. I've declined to remove other prods as well. I've commented every removal, and if you disagree, please use the appropriate forum to discuss deleting the articles rather than complaining here that you didn't get to speedy-delete something you didn't like. Prod is meant to be a quick tag on, quick tag off, and ONLY for uncontested deletions. Sorry if you dislike people not agreeing with you. Unfocused 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I lost my other response, but I'll try to put it back here: Regarding your local restaurant, BradBeattie, the primary difference is audience. Your local restaurant is fine for coverage within an article about your local area. That's appropriate categorization, because the local area IS the potential audience for that restaurant. If Wikipedia's coverage ever gets strong enough at the local level, it may eventually warrant a separate article, but I'm not certain it ever will. For webcomics, however, the potential audience is the entire web-connected world. In cases like that, there is no locality to merge them to.
What to do? Well mergers based on hosting site might be appropriate, or perhaps mergers based on topic. Or simply leaving small, harmless articles where they are is appropriate. Articles are separate items when it makes sense for them to be separate, no matter how large or small they are. However, deletion is probably the most unnecessary means of dealing with a well written, NPOV article, not just for the lost effort, but for the prospect of alienating other good faith editors. And systematic rooting through categories, seeking "non-notable" things to delete that are otherwise well written seems almost a little bit malicious.
Yes, some things do take longer to source. On the other hand, some things are simply self-evident. I can easily look at a webcomic and say "that's a webcomic", and I can describe a little about the strip, too. And I can look at the credits and report who writes it. Beyond that, there's definitely some original research contained in some of these articles, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Unfocused 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand your points here. I guess where I'm coming from is that the only accepted guidelines we have to work off of here are the notability guidelines. Considering that these are contested prods, I'm going to put two of them into the AFD process and wait the week to see what the result of the process is. Sound good? --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If you could, would you head over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jikoshia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe The Circle and comment as you see fit? Thanks much. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the consideration and the notice. However, some ________ has speedy deleted one of the items you posted, which has turned my stomach. As if we couldn't stand to wait for a proper discussion, OMFG delete it before someone might notice what we're planning and want to keep it!!!! This behavior sickens me.
I already expected my opinion will be that of a small minority and I think as a group we'll be doing evil toward previous editors and anyone later searching for information about these, but we do need some degree of process and rules to run an orderly project. I just wish "assume good faith" was seen by more editors as the founding principle it is. All the notability guidelines came long after assume good faith, as assume good faith was what separated Wikipedia from Nupedia. Unfocused 04:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Optometry in Singapore[edit]

Before I start an AfD on the page, maye you can convince me why it should stay? :) I really don't see how the history of Optometry is especially unique, neither that the practice of Optometry is (which the article nominally is about) is unique in any way. It lists what courses are available and such things, but are course listings and listing of the Polytechnic university in Singapore really topics for an Encyclopdia? Should there be an "Optometry in Iceland?" :) --Regebro 23:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, from the article, it is interesting and different that it is not only unregulated, but an only very recently recognized discipline. They didn't have a program recognized by the Education Ministry until the 1990s, which seems unique to Singapore. Such unique facts are notable, although sources should be cited to support them.
If you find a good target to merge this to, especially if you do a "full content paste merger", I won't object or complain. If you find a target and don't want to execute the merge yourself, just leave a message here and I'll do the work.
If Iceland has similar peculiarities regarding the practice of Optometry, I'd like to see an article about it. Unfocused 00:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt that practically EVERY country has similar peculiarities. In particular small countries, like Hong Kong, and yes, probably also Iceland. Maybe we should have an article about optometry in Niue? :-) Most of the content is also not about the peculiarities, but lists of what courses are available and similar. So, sorry, I didn't get convinced. We'll discuss it in AfD I guess. :) --Regebro 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Nah, most of that about various countries could be merged. Otherwise, these are perfectly valid topics. If we don't have a merge target yet, I see no reason not to keep this here until we do. The differences between countries are the very reasons we cover different countries in Wikipedia; if everything was the same country to country, we'd wouldn't need encyclopedia articles. Unfocused 02:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


I want to ask you some advice. How are you supposed to act when someone is constantly applying his/her point of view and does not wish to be reasonable? Ali Soltani 18:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

John G. McCaskey[edit]

I see you have done a lot of work on this article recently, and it is much appreciated. Could you please try to fix the citation style (proper use of citations, proper citation format)? It would help this article out a great deal. If you need it, more information can be found at WP:CITE, and if you have questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks, Chris Griswold () 17:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Very focused thanks[edit]

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 21:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


You removed the {{prod}} tag from Aptuit last month. I thought that you might be interested to know that it is now being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptuit. ~ BigrTex 03:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


I have read what you say about wikipedia's falling standards on your talk page and I already agree 99% (100% if someone tells me what "AFG" means..) anyway, If you wanted a wikipedia with a fresh start, a wiki still fresh from the making. With no rude users I suggest you come to it's a wiki dedicated to James Bond and if you like James Bond you'll like this..

Image copyright problem with Image:Vitsoe logo.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vitsoe logo.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)