User talk:R. fiend/Archive9

The All-American Rejects members

Why are you redirecting all the members back to the The All-American Rejects page? Could you please explain? Alex 101 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template redirects

Template redirects do work, so anyone using tl:infobox 2 will in fact get infobox 1. You're welcome to delete it instead, but that would require fixing all pages that link to it]. Radiant_>|< 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DND undeletion

You sorted out a problem with DND. Apparently I made an error, although I can't find one in the history of any of the pages involved. As far as I can tell, on the 12 of January I left DND as a disambigaution page. Could you tell me what the situation was before you intervened so I can see if I made a mistake?--Commander Keane 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles For Deletion

Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music videos AfDs

Yo R. fiend, I saw you put up some lists of music videos for deletion some time ago, and they were deleted. I just saw one article by the same name of one you AfD'd, called List of music videos by year. I never saw the articles you AfD'd and thus don't know if it qualifies as a recreation and is thus caught by the criteria for speedy deletions. Just thought you should take a look at it though. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afd on DDR

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance dance revolution supernova Someone has re-written the article and redirected the article to Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA. You may want to reconsider your vote. SYSS Mouse 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saugeen Stripper

I see you recently reverted this articel to a redirect. Several edsitors have been attempting to enfoirce a merge of this into an article about the residence hall where it occured. There has been substantial opposition to this on Talk:Saugeen Stripper. Three is also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper to consider. Please address thsi matter on the talk page before restorign the redirect. Thank you DES (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for re-listing the article at AfD. --OntarioQuizzer 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seigenthaler fiasco

You mentioned this in a comment - What is it out of curiousity?

P.S. I'm not sure why so many care about the Saugeen Stripper. Personally, I love the whole thing..I used to live there and served on the residence council so it's been great to watch this whole thing explode. The whole reason it's a big deal is because UWO spent so long trying to get of their "party school" image and it's totally back-fired. I wasn't a big fan of the adminstration and I am a fan of having this hang over their heads as a constant reminder that all the money spent on positive PR can't beat one crazy night in a dorm. --Sarnya 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally (accounting)

I'll write a new version of this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is now complete. It's at Tally Solutions Ltd. Please list this for deletion if you have read the article and honestly believe that this encyclopedia should not have an article about a company with such major clients. An article of this kind must never, ever be deleted from the encyclopedia without a very good reason. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you also deleted SuperOffice. Don't do that again. The company is publicly listed and has a turnover of some Euro 30m. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left on my user page by an anon

I've moved it here, after another user was kind enough to remove it (the "Critical response" section is really for me to edit; I'll be happy to add most insulting remarks, though):

I bet R fiend works for the record industry as he voted to delete lists of music by year so people cannot use them as lists to download. Shame on you R fiend, I nominate your page for deletion. I bet you love the power you wield, but remember what Uncle Ben said to Spider-Man, "With Great Power Comes Great Responsiblity" You sir, are irresponsible and should have your power stripped away.

Thanks for cleaning my Taint

I wanted to tell you thanks for cleaning up the taint article. I wrote the Mr. Show stuff in a hurry and was relying on second hand info so it was a bit off. I would not usually do that but I needed to expand the article in a hurry because it was the subject of a pretty heated AFD debate. So anyway thanks alot and sorry my edits were not 100%--Cenestrad 04:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi merging question

I do not neccesarily object to your merging of Pepsi-related articles, I would, however, like to know your specific justification. BTW, I do like the new listified version of your merge targets better than the old redirects to the main Pepsi article. Cheers. Youngamerican 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt and satisfactory reply. If you need any help on this project, just let me know. Youngamerican 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I forgot that images cannot be undeleted, thanks for the reminder! - Trysha (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick

Rick is a character from a recurring SNL sketch. 68.75.191.214 08:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saugeen Stripper 2 AfD

Unfortunately, we do need to stick to process. I have nominated the AfD closing at DRV on the grounds that 40:20:6 is in fact consensus. --OntarioQuizzer 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rimini Street

I wonder if you'd consider an alternative path for the deletion nomination of this article. I wouldn't have written it if I hadn't been able to find enough material to satisfy WP:CORP easily. Deletion would probably be wrong, but perhaps the information and that about TomorrowNow should be merged into a joint article about this new genre of independent support companies whose history is bound up together, and which predominantly exist in the shadow of Oracle Corporation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saugeen Protect violation of policy

R Fiend, please unprotect Saugeen Stripper in its current, redirected state. Your protection of that page is a violation of WP:PP, as you were directly involved it the edit and redirect discussion. Thank you. Phantasmo 20:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly we stand on opposing sides of this issue. I am late to the party here, but I think that this whole thing has been a mess. yes, my preference would be to revert it back to its original content, and wait out the deletion review process. That said, whether or not the article will be reverted to a state that you disagree with (although a state that the afD con con resulted in) should not be the overriding factor here, the overriding factor should in fact be that it is a violation of policy to protect a page that you are involved in a discussion on. You choose your own path though. Phantasmo 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blockquote on Chuck

January 26, 2006

Is there a reason you deleted the page? I was in the process of gathering more information, if that was the reason.. or are date articles only added after the actual date has run its course..? drumguy8800 - speak? 20:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are articles for recent years. You'll note on all date pages (example) a box that says "This date in recent years" with links to articles from '03, '04, '05, and '06. There are also some page for 2002.. but it wasn't included in the template because of sparse coverage. drumguy8800 - speak? 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I didn't include it on the January 26 page because it isn't exactly a monumental event. The recent year pages though allow for a more in-depth look at, relatively, more minor happenings. drumguy8800 - speak? 20:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.. It's been a few hours. I believe your decision to delete the article was made from a misconception about articles on specific dates. Thusly, I'm reopening the page. If you have further objections, please notify me. Otherwise, I must assume that you now understand the precedents here at the Wikipedia about this kind of article. drumguy8800 - speak? 22:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy Dress Party

Hey - noticed your tags on the Fancy Dress Party article. I'm just getting all the facts and contexts now =) Cheers for being so viligent though.. Keeps me on my toes doktorb | words 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile some more!

Your help would be much appreciated in editing the dance studio page in order to be able to keep it up as the other studios have been allowed to! Thanks!Madangry 23:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • AS LONG AS IT'S ALL FAIR! THANK YOU!

=)

Madangry 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area code 908

Why the deletion? I restored it for now. If you'd like to discuss it, I'm available. --Kbdank71 20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the redirect in due time. For now, if you want to comb through the other area code articles and redirect those also, I'd appreciate it. --Kbdank71 20:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on WP:DRV

I appreciate your concern about the Ku Klux Klan template, but do you think you could go back and reword your comment? Calling people "fucking morons", attacking Kelly Martin, referring to a "bunch of idiots" isn't civil and may well harm the point you want to make. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gfxvoid

Yeah, I was doing pretty much all of 'em before Xmas and got bored too (plus it leads to zomgkabal). There were a series of those (as you're probably discovering) where I made a new nomination rather than reopening the old debate. I did so just because the old debate was from days ago, and it's not really like we're re-opening the old debate...I thought. Maybe I should have done so, and moved the transclusion to today. If you like, you can speedy my new AfD pages, and re-open the old ones by moving the transclusion out of the old day into today and adding a note to the new debate about the prioer speedy+undel. That said, I'm fairly sure they'll all get deleted anyway. -Splashtalk 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean the debate never got closed and would (I think) confuse today's log page. Better perhaps just to do the delete+retransclude. Or do an actual move of the old AfD page to the (2nd nomination) one. Either way, mention the recent history of the article. -Splashtalk 01:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting of List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.

Hi, I appreciate that you want the review of the first AfD to continue, but I've decided that it will get a better appraisal in a consensus-based forum such as AfD, I've relisted it and the discussion is in progress. Please do not remove this good faith deletion discussion without good cause. There do seem to be rather a lot of people with an opinion on this article and the AfD discussion enables us to sample that opinion and arrive at a rough consensus on whether to delete--which was the purpose of the first discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have reverted your preemptive close of the new streets AfD. I don't see how having two discussions could possibly harm anybody, and it might be a useful illustration of the differences that have developed between DR and AfD. It is quite clear to me that there is no set policy in this area, so rather than trying to force one why not participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. - SimonP 05:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now R. Fiend has reverted you, and closed the AfD, falsely claiming that this is a bad faith nomination. Now really, this is not the way to proceed, R. Fiend. Please stop this. Restore the AfD and we'll continue and see if there is consensus to delete--which is what the first AfD set out to find. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you give some reason for why having that debate is harmful I'm going to reopen it. As Aaron Brenneman has pointed out, we were likely to have such a debate in a few days anyway. - SimonP 05:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so much perplexed by R. Fiend's actions, which are worrying enough, as by the extraordinary personal attacks and blatant shows of bad faith with which he has chosen to accompany them. I am deeply worried about this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I'm deeply worried that you can perform actions like this and still with a straight face claim good faith.
brenneman(t)(c) 06:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A random thought, apropos of nothing

Did you ever wonder how much more content of a truly encylopedic nature you might be able to contribute if you weren't forced to partake in pointless gamesmanship? I personally would rather be doing clean-up, or new page patrol, or almost anything. But oh well, as long as ther are those who keep puting sand in the gears, I guess that folks like you and I will be forced to keeo cleaning up after them.
brenneman(t)(c) 06:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always end up deeply depressed after spending any time looking at Special:Newpages. Have you ever looked at Contributions/newbies? The horror, the horror... The solution that I've been proposing to anyone who'll listen is that we throttle page creation the same way the we do page moves. I usually drop a note on the page of someone whose article I tag for speedy deletion as well as looking at thier contributions, and the majority are people with less than 100 edits. I say no article creation until 250 edits and/or one month, and that for your first page creation you are automagically sent via "Your first article".
And thanks for the offer, but I'm still not quite ready.
brenneman(t)(c) 06:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination)

If I am reading this dispute correctly, would you mind amending your reasoning in the speedy-closure of this nomination (or allow me to amend it) to explicitly state that this nomination was speedy-closed because the Deletion Review process was still on-going and that it was an inappropriate nomination? I would not like future readers to misunderstand the reasoning and assume that your action conflicted with the other decisions. I know you referenced WP:DRV but since we don't archive that page, the link will rapidly become unhelpful. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I thought. I've taken the liberty of clarifying the reason for the early closure. Please amend my edit if you are uncomfortable with it. Rossami (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Wikipediology/library/essays/R.fiend-1

I've done a similar thing, User:JesseW/10 page test, you might be interested. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ballsy!

Thanks for the Barnstar! I'd have thanked you sooner, but I don't always go to the bottom of my user page. I truly appreciate it. Let's speedy! - Lucky 6.9 08:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Solar Dynamics Observatory

Please undelete the article for Solar Dynamics Observatory.. I was working on it! I added the stub so I wouldn't have to keep my browser open for hours. It says right on the speedy deletion policy page "Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it". I think you gave me 20 minutes.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xxxchurch

You may want to revisit your position on this article; I have added some media citations on the AFD page, including several for national media (CNN and the Christian Science Monitor). -Colin Kimbrell 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant passage from the CNN transcript: "LIN (voice-over): Craig and Mike have com up with a blunt way to deal with the problem. The Web site address is xxxchurch.com -- a name designed to snare porn addicts surfing the net, and show them how they can break their obsession. They tried billboards to advertise, but those got ripped out by nervous communities. So they created the porn mobile, a rolling advertisement that is hard to ignore.

GROSS: The best is when we pull up next to a guy and he shakes his Bible at us.

LIN: Their booth at a pornography convention shattered conventional wisdom, and targeted both the messengers and the message.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you the Christian guys?

LIN (on camera): Why do you have to be so in people's faces? GROSS: We have to be. We're as loud and outrageous as they are. I mean, they are finding -- they're using technology; we're using technology. We're willing to do just about anything to get this message out to people.

LIN (voice-over): The message got to Joel Harris. It led him to admit his addiction in front of his chapel of 800 congregants.

HARRIS: It's something that thoroughly consumes me.

LIN: He believes exposing his obsession got him the support he needed. Now he uses software from xxxchurch.com that alerts two friends to any Web sites he visits, to keep him clean and accountable. And he preaches what he practices to other young people -- stay away from porn. That is what porn Sunday is all about.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's time that the church takes a lead on this issue and goes...

LIN: Seventy-five church congregations talking about porn, an unconventional success for two very unconventional pastors.

FOSTER: Jesus was a uncontroversial figure. I mean, he stirred it up with people.

LIN: You think Jesus would drive around in a porn mobile? Do you think Jesus would attend a porn convention and be friends with porn stars?

FOSTER: Absolutely. Jesus always hung out with the wrong crowd.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And there's this. Craig and Mike tell us they plan to do 20 more porn Sundays next year.

The subject of our next story was one of the most remarkable champions we've seen all year.

He was once the world's ugliest dog. Coming up, the end of the tale.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)"

It's about 7/8 of the way through. Also, when I checked the "Porn Sunday" website's "Media" section[1], I found video links to nationally-aired bits on "ABC World News Tonight", "A Current Affair", and "Geraldo at Large" (on FOX News).-Colin Kimbrell 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colestah

I was wondering why you deleted the US-mil-bio-stub and the US-hist-stub templates from the Colestah article. Granted, Colestah was not a member of the US military, but her biography is related to the US military because she fought them, and the template says that the biography only has to be of someone related to the US military, not neccessarily members of it. Why shouldn't those categories be on there? - User:Asarelah

Question about redirect

How would one setup a redirect so that it goes to a specific part of a page (i.e. not the top of the page)? I know that it involves using an anchor in basic html, but I'm not sure how to do here. I'd like to have the "ozone therapy" article redirect to the appropriate section of the "ozone" article. Fuzzform 19:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jabootu Reviews

I've closed the AfD of this article that you speedied... *nudge* - brenneman(t)(c) 06:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi R. fiend/Archive9, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered you

Here, Kim Bruning 05:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Actually, there is a way to redirect to a specific section. As it relates to the Ozone article, I could (and probably will) place a redirect on the "Ozone therapy" page as follows: "#REDIRECT Ozone#Use_in_medicine" (with appropriate internal link designator). This would, of course, redirect to the "Use in medicine" section of the Ozone article. Thought I'd let you know that it is at least possible. Fuzzform 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Deletion review

Just wondering how you counted the votes on List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names? I got ca. 25 for Overturn/Relist and 14 for endorse. Is this correct? It looks like we are within 50-75% where an new listing on AfD is needed. -- User:Docu

<moved from User talk:Docu>
There was no consensus to overturn the original closer's decision, and keeping the article in the WP space is the best compromise. -R. fiend 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
</moved from User talk:Docu>
From Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Decisions_to_be_reviewed:
If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a three-quarters supermajority to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.
The guidelines ask for relisting if there is no mayority to keep deleted. Besides, it looks like some of those who endorsed agreed with undeleting, but in WP namespace. Thus even those didn't agree with the initial outcome. -- User:Docu

Hi. I'm afraid I don't understand what has happened here either. Discussions on this certainly weren't "concluded", they were still actively ongoing this morning. There was an high level of support for the view that the decision to move this article to the WP namespace was wrong. It may be that I'm misunderstanding the process here - isn't the right thing to do, given the outcome of the discussion, to restore the page to the main namespace? Can you explain (for my own educational benefit primarily) SP-KP 18:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Could I just ask (again just for my education) what would have been enough to overturn the original decision (and if this is documented in policy/guidelines anywhere)? SP-KP 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed the last message I posted above. Could you let me know the answer to those questions? Thanks. SP-KP 18:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV/userboxen

Well done for dragging this divisive circular argument out of DRV. I wish I'd thought of that. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination)

Please avoid avoid disrupting AfD, just because you disagree with its outcome. -- User:Docu

  • I believe your closure of the AfD was out of process. Following the lack of a 2/3 concensus at the undeletion debate, although the clear majority wished the decision to be overturned, the next step was to reopen the deletion debate which was done by User:Docu. This was in line with the process at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Decisions_to_be_reviewed: "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.". Your closure of the 2nd nomination which stated "The result of the debate was article has already been deleted (note the redlink). Requests for UNdeletion go to WP:DRV" does not appear to be in line with this process and is sending it on full circle. If you do not explain how your actions are in line with process, or you do not revert your actions, I propose to take the matter to a RfC, specifically Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges.--A Y Arktos 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note your comments, but I am still confused as to how you think "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process." as specified at DRV should apply, if not as per the process by User:Docu given the tally for the vews expressed at the DRV debate on this article. Could you plese explain how it should have worked. The AfD debtate was flawed by your moving the debate to refer to an article in the wikipedia space - all votes before your action were certainly referring to the artcile - the ref to 2nd nomination made it reasonably clear what was intended - many of the votes after your ref to the wikipedia nqamespace still referred to the article. If necessary, due process could be restored by contacting all voters after your change in ref to clarify their vote. Du process does not appear to be served by premature closing of the AfD.A Y Arktos 23:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, mr. fiend. Regarding cross-namespace redirects, they are not taboo in any sense; simply discouraged. A common reason not to delete such redirects is that "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways."
In this particular case, the page is widely linked-to, internally and externally; and a redirect seems appropriate. It is also quite unclear which namespace it belongs to... if I were looking for any sort of encyclopedic list of placenames, I would probably give up after searching the main namespace. Please do not speedy the now-restored redirect. Cheers, +sj + 23:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


R. fiend -
This looks like a straightforward good thing to me. Article still exists in a place where, if the effort spent complaining about the process were applied to citing sources, it may one day live again. The nomination of a deleted article for deletion was at the least poorly considered and at worst an attempt at disruption. We can count "votes" all we want, but I'm not seeing any downside to the current situation.
brenneman{T}{L} 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenneman - "relisting on AfD" is the appropriate result of an inconclusive deletion review. I don't think the renominator was trying to disrupt anything; simply to help fix a troubled process. The question of how to 'cite sources' for certain kinds of lists is important and nuanced; but not a reason to go shifting things into inappropriate namespaces. +sj + 00:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the question of citing sources on lists is a thorny one, and often ignored. The movement of this article out of main space was actually a bit of mercy to give it a chance at living and breathing. The alternative was outright deletion. The solution is quite straight forward: fix up the article. A fully cited list with evidence that reputable sources have stated that the name in question is "interesting or unusual" would be deletion proof. Every word typed, every second spent arguing about how and why it's been deleted/redeleted/protected/moved/whatever is time and energy spent not fixing the problems that resulted in the deletion/redeletion/protection/moving/whatever. - brenneman{T}{L} 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle Cove Pond

Hello, I noticed that you deleted the article about Tickle Cove Pond, after the link in The Hard and the Easy suddenly went red. The reason given being (proabbalt copyvio, source material in any case). I'm guessing that means "Probably Copyright Violation." This song is actually an old traditional Newfoundland song by Mark Walker (1846-1924) as you can see here. I think being around and popular for almost 100 years makes a song notable, and fits it into public domain. I was wondering what was the problem with the article, since I couldn't find any VfD talk for it, and if there was any way to improve it, instead of just deleting it. Thank You. Nekura 06:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

odin brotherhood

Slap yourself and read some policies. It is ridiculous to call 16:7 (counting the article author, who can formally dsqualified because of virtually nonexistent edit history) consensus controversial. mikka (t) 06:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "Discounting newbies". There was discounting astroturf, which must be done with strong hand. For fairness, in the tally I even counted such editors Thatcher131 and Mmirabello, who by the policy are below radar, another admin would safely count 16:5. And the rewrite did not address the main issue with the book: bullshitting. If he is professor, pity for his students. mikka (t) 07:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also all this fuss is IMO ridiculous. No one forbids to write a better article, which would cover the criticism of AfD. All keepers-redirectors did nothing useful but noise. I myself salvaged a dozen of articles from deletion, despite their low significance, such as "Grrr", but there is a big difference between a low-significance topic and unverifiable bullshit. mikka (t) 07:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience "less effort" is a dubious expectation. I am closing my nominations for three years now, and this one is the first "litigious" case specifically against my closing. The success rate of my nominations is over 95%, so I am quite proud of my bullshit radar and I am not going to yield to surges of "political correctness" not cast in policies. I am not in the ranks of deletionists; neither I am on AfD patrol recently, so I can survive your occasional "wristslapping". mikka (t) 07:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I stand corrected. Sheesh! So many rules in wikipedia lately. After your last remark I counted 7(!) pages dealing with deletion (and I am not sure I've seen them all). Well, like I said, I am not a deletion functionary here. mikka (t) 08:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but I think it's best for me to decline. I have two major reasons: one is that when I think about what makes a good admin, it seems to me it requires a lot of patience, and I frankly admit that because of health issues my patience is not what it should be. The other is that I've tangled with a lot of problem users and since they seem to have no trouble finding each other to bad-mouth me behind my back, I think they'd probably overrun the vote, foaming at the mouth for a chance to announce to the world what a horrible person I am. So, I think I must decline; I'm not enough of a masochist. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warp should not be deleted

hi r fiend. The article on WARP(club) should not be deleted as it's a famous tech club in India, many people know about this club, and many would love to know. So, in my opinion it would be against the policies of wiki, if we delete it.

Important info for the case

R. fiend - the Universist Movement will be on CNN again this Sunday, LIVE at 7:30A.M. CNN is re-airing their feature story and afterward will do a live interview David Rutland, the Vice President. Here is the prior CNN coverage. Those who wanted to do their homework can even download the video: http://universist.org/cnn.htm The media page has links to lots of good things: http://universist.org/media.htm Your attention to the integrity of Wikipedia is not thankless. Universist 04:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universism

Per the debate at DRV, I have 'undeleted' this (i.e. reverted to the last non-tagged version), unprotected it and renominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universism (4th nomination) since the DRV debate seemed to call for such. -Splashtalk 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for media coverage of Universism?

I just noticed that someone (not me) put in a number of {{fact}} tags in the Universism article. Apparently nobody ever put in the references for the media coverage. It seems to me that you had them marshalled and ready at hand, so maybe you'd be in a position to do something about it.

I try to play fair, but as WP:V says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material," and I don't want to knock myself out providing source citations in an article that I didn't want to see kept in the first place... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming NYC Meetup

You might want to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it... Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Mac Diarmada

I think Sean MacDermott page should be renamed as "Seán Mac Diarmada", I know you may not agree so I thought I wouldnt contact you fist to initiate a discussion or possibly put it to a vote. regards Vintagekits 11:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]