User talk:Northwestgnome

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Do you have nothing better to do than patrole the recently added pages to wikipedia and demand their deletion?

It's fun to knock out bad WP articles. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a courtesy note; your AfD nomination for Robert Parry was the first AfD, not the second. I corrected the listing. It's now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Parry. Plvekamp (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we delete Ken Joseph Jr. please? - Kittybrewster ☎ 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be a legit person, although the article is badly written. Northwestgnome (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote

Hi. I noticed that you voted in the nomination for deletion of the article Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. As I don't know you or your motives for voting as you did, and not to insult you or your intelligence, I felt that a misunderstanding occurred during the vote, causing many editors to vote for deletion based on the merits of a strawman argument. Please revisit the AfD (at the embedded link above) to gain a clearer understanding of my issue with this vote and either uphold or revise your vote -- I am not writing to you to demand that you retract -- rather, I feel that some votes may have been swayed by what may no longer apply to the article, and because most of those who voted merely reiterated the nominator's premise, perhaps a review will produce a fairer outcome. Thank you. DRosenbach ^(Talk | Contribs) 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Attacks in the article Robert M. Carter

Would you care to elaborate on the tag that you placed on my talk page? ... discospinster _talk 19:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the advice on the tag to inform people who contributed to the article. I didn't mean to single you out. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page?

Thank you for the lovely template. I suppose your real problem is with the Sydney Morning Herald. One critical statement in an article does not an attack page make. AniMate 19:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the purpose of the page is to attack someone it is an attack page. At least that is how I understand: Wikipedia:Attack page. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sentence again. His background is in marine biology and not climate science. After you read the disputed sentence, read the article again. There is one sentence of criticism in an otherwise neutral article, and that one sentence certainly doesn't require you to template spam nine good faith contributors. AniMate 19:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that an article whose purpose is to attack the views of a known individual, which might lead to "eco-terrorist" violence against him for all we know, is somewhat worse than "template spamming" anonymous WP contributors. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, articles cannot have statements that are critical of the subject? AniMate 19:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if that is their purpose. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm? Critique that is reflected according to weight and sourced to reliable sources are most certainly not something that should be avoided - apparently on the grounds that you don't like it. Carter is a well-known figure in the public debate on climate change, and has received both praise and critique, both of which the article should reflect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't especially like him. However if he is that important then a statement by a newsreporter is way too light weight for the article. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate content on talk pages

Remember WP:TALK and stay on topic. This is quite inappropriate as it is either your WP:OR or at best a WP:WEASEL, and does not help improve the WP page. WP is not a soapbox, and talk-pages are for discussing the page not debating the subject of the page.. As someone concerned about BLP and coatrack, you especially should be careful to avoid making unsupported claims and drifting off-topic when discussing bio pages. DMacks (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to offend anyone. But it was about writing the page. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfD

I'm confused, what does it have to do with me? — neuro^(talk) 11:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sent messages to everyone who edited the article. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hey,

I don't really know if I'd be any good at deleting articles (and I don't really understand all the WP policies on it), but I remembered that when I looked at your page you tend to do a lot of deletions. I found this page: Southern_Stars,_Wollongong that I think should be deleted - notability hasn't been established over the last year and a half since it's been tagged and the article is an orphaned stub. Since you're the only person I've heard of who deletes articles frequently I thought I'd drop you a line about it. 0x0077BE (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will propose it for deletion. That should take care of it. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate. 0x0077BE (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why accused me of a personal attack with regards to what I wrote on the Robert M. Carter page

This is what I wrote:

Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [1], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

1. I stated a fact - that Carter is a member of a thinktank.
2. I sourced this fact.

How is this a personal attack? Heliumballoon (talk)

I have the power to read minds. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your support in the Karl Brommann AFD Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at WP:AN

Hello Northwestgnome. Your name has been mentioned here at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard in a discussion of WP:NOHARM arguments in AfDs. You are welcome to join that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Kuijers AFD discussion

First, ad hominem arguments about why I'm listing an article for deletion aren't appropriate. I believe they go against assuming good faith. Second, I don't list a lot of articles for deletion, as I really don't tend to work in that sphere. Third, in terms of individuals I have listed for deletion, I would say see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Paradise and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Kercheval, III. One in my opinion seems clearly not notable and the other I admitted was disputable. If you want more, look over my edit history yourself and list at WP:ANI if you have a problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It was out of line of me to say that. However, the issue really did bother me. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iwan Roberts book cover

I readily confess to finding our free media policies about as transparent as a block of lead.

Is this image falling foul of the "Significance" issue? --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A book cover is copyrighted. Since the article wasn't about the book and the reader doesn't really need to see the cover to understand what the article is saying it shouldn't be included in the article. That's how I understand WP policy anyway. I know that it is sometimes ignored. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I'm not keen on ignoring policy. What if the article attempted to describe the design? Then, couldn't an argument be made that the image adds value, is no longer merely decorative and is therefore in line with policy? --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the description of the book cover important information to understand the person? Northwestgnome (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two answers to that. I can make say the following weak-ish argument, but an argument nonetheless: that the text could add that Roberts was depicted in yellow and green on the cover. Without the image, it's misleading and hard to imagine. This is significant as showing him as Norwich through and through. Second answer is that I'd like the image in there and am trying to find a way of incorporating it that can, even uncomfortably, sit with our policy. How am I doing? --Dweller (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to have a picture of the book cover in the article? Northwestgnome (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to answer that. Footballers, especially gormless looking hulking great strikers with no teeth are not known for their intelligence, so it's nice to include it. Besides, as I said, the yellow and green colouring makes a statement about him. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means tell us about the book in the article, but I still don't think a picture of its cover is justified. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Black is the new white

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Black is the new white, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

nonsense, and references do not support

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ninety:one 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Black is the new white

I have nominated Black is the new white, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black is the new white. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ninety:one 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.Northwestgnome (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments

Please see my talk page comments, at Talk:Moonie_(Unification_Church)#.22Later_use.22_subsection. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Material on the uses of "Moonie"

Please don't just add incidental passing mention or usage in a one-off manner of the term by the media, that is not relevant to the article. Rather, what would be relevant would be use of the term by officials within the organization, or secondary source commentary about the term. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cite standardization

When adding new cites, can you please format them using WP:CIT templates? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two examples of how to do this: [2] and [3]. Cirt (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll give them a try. Thanks. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. :) Cirt (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did use one a couple times but ran into some problems with copying and pasting. I don't see that they are worth the extra work when the main thing is to include the URL and title of the article so that people can check them out. When the original is not online I could see where the extra info would be a good thing. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong source

[4] = The Times, not The New York Times. Please be more careful. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[5] - You have now done this a second time. Please stop. Cirt (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. My mistake. I thought I was reading a New York Times story when it was Times of London.Northwestgnome (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unificationists

I have done a considerable amount of work on the page List of Unificationists. It now has every single entry cited, with 31 sources used [6]. Perhaps you would like to revisit your position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists (2nd nomination)? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to the list is that it is for such a small number of people, not the sourcing. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced info from article List of Unificationists

Please do not remove sourced info, as you did at the article List of Unificationists. Especially during an ongoing AFD on the page which you nominated for deletion, this could seem like WP:POINT and tendentious. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

Hi, could you please notify, as advised, the users instead of the wikiproject? Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already have. Thank you. Northwestgnome (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Junko Sakurada

In the future, please do not use WP:AFD as a way to force improvement on articles. It is not to be used as a cleanup method. If you look at the history of the article, it was only tagged for improvement two days before you nominated it for deletion—hardly enough time to allow for people to fix the issues raised. If you have any questions regarding the proper use of WP:AFD, please let me know. Thanks for all your hard work and contributions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

In the event it is not on your radar screen, you may wish to take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odette Krempin (2nd nomination), where the article has undergone significant revision w/the help of German-speaking editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of discussion

Continuing here so as not to laden the AfD. My reasoning is that I dislike the deletion of articles that I think meet the project's standards. I think far too much of that takes place. Sometimes (and this is perhaps the lesser problem) because insufficient checking of sources or policy has taken place. Sometimes (and this is the more psychologically interesting, but to me far more irritating problem) because some editors get a near-sexual thrill from deleting other peoples' work. I expect that those editors (and I am not at all implying you are one of them) are in general social misfits, outcasts, repressed, or otherwise angry. On a bad day, any one of them can drive away two or three good editors from Wikipedia. BTW, my approach allows me to want to keep articles on those I admire, but just as much on those I have reason to be concerned about. I'll just as happily save an article on the music in the Terezin concentration camp as I will on a notable Nazi--the world should know of both. Here, there is nothing Nazi-ish about the subject of the article. A number of editors with facility in German that exceeds mine have quite kindly, many at my request, spent time on the last day of this AfD trying to improve the article and share with the rest of us what the sources say, and their level of RS. You and I have no idea, but that each of those editors may be a concentration camp survivor. In any event, they are unlikely to have been concentration camp commandants. My plea has little liklihood of success, I imagine, but I would think it kind of you if you would make clear to them that your comment was not directed at them, and that you do in fact appreciate their efforts. (only, of course, if that is the case).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, to give you more insight into the approach I aim for, I just voted to keep (once it was improved) an article on a virulently anti-Israel writer. And then reported three of my fellow keep voters for violating their topic bans by voting in the AfD. See here. (some of their subsequent vitriol leveled at me confirmed to me the propriety of that act) One of the most distressing moments for me in following politics was when nearly all the Democrats voted for Clinton in his impeachment proceeding, and nearly all the Republicans against him. Another -- the Supreme Court Justices' votes on the Bush election following party lines strictly. That stuff nauseates me. Hard as it may be, I try to do what I think others should do. I'm not perfect, but I try.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have considered your and the other editors' feelings more. Still WP has way too much trash, I guess I am especially sensitive to articles which seem to attack women (I'm a guy BTW). Not sure why this is so. Anyway even if everything is this article is true, which it might be, she is not important enough for an article in WP -- English or German. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to convince you on notability, so I won't discuss it here. As to your comments vis-a-vis women, if you haven't yet seen LA Confidential, put it at the top of your netflix list.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be ok with you if I were to roll up our conversation at the AfD?--Epeefleche (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about letting the AfD play out? Northwestgnome (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem letting it play out. But I think our conversation is off-topic. I'm suggesting a roll-up, so interested readers can still open and see it (unlike a move to the discussion page).--Epeefleche (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with people reading my comments. If I did I would not have posted them in the first place. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh -- I had mistakenly viewed your "I probably should have considered" comment above as suggesting that upon your further reflection you might be open to my doing so.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonie (Unification Church)

Hi Steve. Cirt and I has just started a discussion on the talk page about removing some of the extra examples and trivia from the page. Please join in if you care to. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Peace Festival since you contributed to the article. Borock (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh Farrokh

Hi, There is a BLP issue and an RFC in here about Kaveh Farrokh. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 07:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD - Display examples

Nomination of Display examples for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Display examples is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Display examples (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Northwestgnome. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"911 War" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 911 War has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 28 § 911 War until a consensus is reached. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]