User talk:Dr Zen/past

Robert Szeleney

AlistairMcMillan and I have a disagreement over the contents of this page. Alistair believes there should be more. I believe there should be less. Take a look at the history.

Al Qa Qaa controversy timeline

I notice you put the following summary in the edit history: "For speedy delete. State your case on talk page, don't revert." and then on the talk page "This has got to go. It's notable today but probably won't be in a couple of weeks. At best it's a tiny footnote to the war on Iraq.Dr Zen 05:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)". This article is in no way a candidate for speedy deletion. If you think it's not notable, please place it on WP:VfD. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) Note Ta bu shi da yu's comment and action come very swiftly after I disagreed with him over a VfD. He denies it, posts me some very interesting rules and goes his merry way. He doesn't explain how his rules disallow "John Smith is gay", which is, of course and rightly so, speedily deleted.

More back and forth about this issue followed. TBSDY took an intransigent line, which has at least let me know that he is not a person to waste too much time seeking consensus with.Dr Zen 06:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind and supportive words as I learn what's appropriate (and, more specifically in this case, what is not) on WP. GrantNeufeld 08:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedian beauracrats:

When you say some users are 'forgetting the spirit that they are intended to represent' you have hit the nail on the head. It is the spirit of Wikipedia and its vision I admire, but at this time, I see it being strangled by frustrated surfers and like msn prone to corruption.

It is gratifying to know I can feel secure with the thought that my efforts have not been a complete waiste of time, and may think again how best to tackle the problems as I see them. All the best: faedra

Finished my essay, sexy. It's on my page. In fact, it IS my page! --Jscott 22:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jeremy Mirkola

Thanks for the heads up, i didnt realize that minor was checked when creating new pages. I will be more careful from now on. Is there a way for fixing it? I did this in one other location. Mkrupnic 11:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hiya

Thanks for the heads up, I responded at my my talk. RoyBoy 06:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Witto Aloma

I replied to your questions on Witto Aloma at User talk:GK gK 00:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and again gK 03:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Susan Pratt

May I direct your attention to User:B-Movie Bandit? These ridiculous, malformed entertainment substubs have been posted for months by this individual. He/she refuses to answer any inquiry and merrily just keeps on posting these substubs, most of which never get beyond the present stage. - Lucky 6.9 01:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks. You have no idea how much I've been fighting against this person. Best, Lucky 6.9 01:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikiquette and HistoryBuffEr

I just noticed your reply to the remarks I posted on HistoryBuffEr's talk page. I realize that my remarks probably seemed curt. They were curt because HB had responded to friendlier approaches (by myself and by other users) in a way that I can only describe as contemptuous. Certainly I was wrong to try to resolve that dispute through VfD. Still, if there's a way of engaging HistoryBuffEr constructively and getting his respect despite differences of opinion, I don't know of any Wikipedian who has found it. Thanks for the comments. Gazpacho 09:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dedham

In reply:

I saw the page when checking his contributions. Having seen six different people revert him numerous times and after having read (at speed) that the talk page discussion was not getting anywhere I decided that, based on previous experience with this guy, I would revert it. Every other contribution made by him has been POV or incorrect and I thought best to err on the side of caution while, admittedly, been rather biased against him. While I recognised some usernames from the arbitration process, thus also making them biased, I didn't know them all. When it was clear that he was reverting me as well I went and requested page protection - something I felt needed to be done straight away but had not previously been requested. While it wasn't a consensus there were enough people involved to indicate that the revert war would continue and I wanted to go through the process of being reverted three times myself before calling for protection. violet/riga (t) 08:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If a vandal makes bad changes to numerous articles and then edits one that people are disputing and is in an edit war then I'm certainly going to go against him. He has not made a single positive edit and with that one being in dispute it's obvious that we cannot trust his "citation" (which he conveniently does not have to hand). There was no reason to think that the Dedham edit was in any way different to his other changes. Further, I'm not sure if you've seen the olive branches extended to him by all the other editors and totally ignored, but we have all tried to change the way he edits. The content there is now being discussed and its merits taken into account - reverting an article 40 times to include that content is incorrect and he should have backed down before I (or most of the others) got involved. violet/riga (t) 11:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nudity

I think you overestimate the extent to which you're making a discernable point for anyone to ignore. I am looking for one, but about all I'm seeing are conflicting (conflicted?) comments that you like the picture... followed by judgments that it's "exploitation", "pornographic", and "wankfodder". Or acknowledgement that yes, it's representative of the nude in art... but you don't like what it represents. Figure out a coherent point to express, and you'll get a less annoyed audience trying to figure out what your complaint actually is.

Pot Kettle Black {shrug} Tverbeek 04:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, irony! That was funny. :) Tverbeek 05:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gosh!

You certainly are silly. Don't call names. Don't make fun. For someone who claims that he's for building, you have one of the most disasterous strategies for that I have ever seen. You haven't really given me any reason to believe that you're worth talking to, so let's not. Oh, and when it comes to "build, not destroy," I am unafraid of your name calling. Geogre 05:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• This an editor who has a rather overinflated opinion of the value of their vote, as the discussion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flickr will demonstrate. I don't discuss this issue with him or her because I want to change his/her vote but because I hope that others that might follow his or her lead without thinking it through might be given pause. He/she chose to vote to delete an article on an Internet phenomenon simply because he/she has never heard of it. This, I explained to him/her, is not in itself a reliable criterion of notability. He/she replied that the article must demonstrate its own notability and that editors who are deciding whether to keep or delete articles need not do even the most elementary research to discover whether it is in fact notable in its field. Unfortunately, he/she began to personally attack me, becoming rather uncivil. Of course, there is nothing wrong with differences of opinion, but it's very tiresome to be yelled at by people who are not interested in discussion or compromise unless it is on their terms. I note that on this editor's user page, he/she specifically denies the value of trying to form a consensus on deletion pages. Vote, and explain it, and that is all, seems to be his/her credo. Of course, I do not share this notion of what a consensus is. I believe that the ideal is a solution that has taken account of all views, that has persuaded or tried to, and is acceptable to all.

Um, who are you talking to? Is there an audience out there somewhere? You claim that I voted because "he/she has never heard of it." Again, that's not true, as I pointed out twice. I do invite you to actually read it. I also encourage you not to play to the audience the whole time and try to rally to a flag. That's the most objectionable thing of all. You appear to want to create villains so that you can be a hero. That's not a good attitude at all. I should also point out that I "deleted" nothing. I do hope you'll read the guidelines and policies a bit and realize that, while I could, certainly, have unilaterally deleted the article, I voted for deletion of an article with such woeful content as to have been, quite literally, a joke. As for your misreading of my user page's guidelines, I am very sorry that you are having such confusion, but, as Pope said, "All seems yellow to the jaundic'd eye." Please stop shouting at the galleries. If you wish to be the hero of a movement, that's fine, but real life has many more opportunities than Wikipedia, and real life means a great deal more. I also wonder about this "consensus" you speak of that seems to be built by calling people's tone "shitty" for pointing out your own hypocrisy. Give less attention to your supposed admirers and more to the articles. It will help Wikipedia. Any time you want to improve the article in question, you are welcome to do so. Save the energy you're about to spend in yet another pained philippic and fix the article. Geogre 05:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I don't have to be talking to anyone. I'm entitled to edit my user pages as I please. Your tone is "shitty". I've never known anyone so willing to talk down to a fellow with so little good reason for it. You seem to be obsessed with "admirers" and "galleries". I have to tell you that so far as I know I do not have a cause, except to build a great encyclopaedia, nor a faction, except those who wish to build a great encyclopaedia. Now please, stop flaming me here and elsewhere. It's not productive and I'm not going to give you any more of my time.Dr Zen 05:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• What, I wonder, is so wrong with the suggestion that rather than summarily listing an editor's work on VfD, as was done with textfiles.com, where the editor in question is a user of good standing, that one might write to the editor and ask them to discuss its notability? Are we in such a hurry to delete pages we don't approve of that it hurts to allow them an extra day. Build. Don't destroy.Dr Zen 05:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking the author. There most emphatically is something wrong with calling the nominator names for not having done so. Do you see the difference between good will not expended and ill will vented? Again, please stop painting your public face and start working. If you are interested in conciliation, you can begin with an apology to Wyllium, and then to me, and then you can stop your fingers the next time you ready yourself to call someone a villain on VfD or anywhere else. Further, if you can't understand my guidelines for voters, you could, of course, ask me. You haven't. Again, you seem to like to give that advice, but not to follow it. Pity, really. You are a silly person. Geogre 05:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Naturally, I did not call anyone names. I'm not interested in your "guidelines for voters". You are not an editor I would look to for advice. You have indulged yourself in flaming and personal attacks to the hilt and I have had enough of it now. Take your own advice and go to work instead of indulging in a personal feud.Dr Zen 05:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your supoprt, both in your original vote and in defending me. It seems like I am indeed caught in the middle, but there's nothing much I can do. I'll probably still make it through the vote, even if all the people 172 messaged vote against me, but if not, it's not the end of the world. I'm more worried about the principle of the thing. Having a setup where anyone who speaks in favour of an unpopular user risks having a group of people come and try to vote them down is not something I want to see happen.

I knew when I endorsed Sam I was blowing whatever slim chance I had at the Arb Comm elections. I was fine with that. After all, it would just mean some people didn't tick my box on a secret ballot. I'm a bit miffed it's spilled over elsewhere though. There's enough bad blood going around already, and it looks like I've just caused a bit more to come out. Oh well, what can you do? Shane King 07:48, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again, I replied on my talk page. :) Shane King 23:34, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Agreement

Believe it or not I actually volunteered to sign that agreement. A user User:Raul654 had declared himself dictator of what article gets featured on the main page (this was later changed to the title Featured Article Director). I got into an edit war with another user over whether or not Raul should be allowed to keep a blurb there which had a copyrighted picture which was not available under a free license. My thoughts on the matter was that Wikipedia calls itself a free encyclopedia, so we shouldn't be featuring non-free pictures on the main page. During the edit war some admin decided to block me and not block the other user. I spoke to Jimbo about the whole matter, and he basically sided with the admins, saying that you should never get into a revert war no matter what. So fine, I agreed then to not get into any more revert wars and made a rule upon myself not to revert a page more than once in a day. Then Raul took the case to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. It's my feeling that arbitration would have led to nothing but a hate-fest in my name (which happens to be my real name), and the arbitrators would not be likely to change anything anyway, so I told Raul that I would agree to let any admin block me for any reason if he dropped the case. My thoughts on the matter were that the admins basically had this power anyway, and I'd rather let disputes come to my attention right away then have them talk about me behind my back and then all attack at once. Things have actually gotten better since the ruling, but maybe this is because I also adopted the one-revert rule upon myself (though I have broken it once or twice and made two reverts in a day).

Basically, I've given up on trying to fight against the adminship. I had though that adminship was no big deal and admins didn't have any authority, which is what it says in Wikipedia:Administrators. But without Jimbo or the board backing that up it's just a lie. Lately Jimbo has been getting more and more intolerant of people with differing points of view. He recently banned a user from every single Wikipedia except for the English one, and he has argued strongly for blocking any user who has violated the three revert rule (see Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement). Reversion is one of the only powers we non-admins have to force an admin to discuss an issue and come to a consensus. Once this is gone I'm afraid we will have a site which is run by admins who will completely ignore non-admins. Really, I should leave and be done with Wikipedia, because I have very little hope of ever becoming an admin. It's just so damn addicting, though.

I dunno, we'll see how this three revert enforcement goes. And the discussions on VFD seem to be coming to somewhat of a climax. At least I hope so. VFD just eats up more and more time that could be spent making articles better. It's bound to collapse upon itself at some point. anthony 警告 14:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disagreement?

I am curious as to your definition of "terrorism". In a court of law, a big distinction is being made between a stray bullet and an intentional killing. Why do you think this rule should not apply to an encyclopedia? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I define "terrorism" generally as "violent means intended to inculcate terror, particularly in civilians". I doubt there is anything more calculated to cause terror than shooting at a school. There is no prospect of a "stray bullet" killing a child if soldiers refrain from shooting at schools.Dr Zen 10:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Goth Joy Division

Thanks for the excellent and sympathetic edit you made to the Joy Division article. I think you have captured my and the original editor's ideas very nicely. My experience was that lots of indie kids, who liked, say, Echo and the Bunnymen, Gang of Four maybe, Simple Minds, were also into JD, Sisters of Mercy, Bauhaus, the Cult, whatever, but didn't do the style thing. So I think the article at least now reflects that pretty well. Thanks.Dr Zen 01:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well actually, I was the original editor of the brief paragraph about the gothic association with Joy Division. I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding. I've done quite a lot of editing on the Joy Division page but only provided a brief paragraph describing the gothic association, why it exists, and that the band has also been labeled new wave and post punk. It was kind of an attempt to explain and clarify the ambiguity between genres at that time.

I also provided that online source since I knew that paragraph would cause an uproar (this tends to happen when discussing groups from that time that had been labeled goth by the music press or their management so there's always a few who do not like the connection of their favorite postpunk band with goth). I chose that website because the author there claims to have been part of the original goth scene and quotes from contemporary articles from that time, so it seems like a credible source rather than just some website made by an internet kid.

I would never actually call myself a goth and my appearence is about as nondescript as Joy Division's was. My only real connection with goth is that I like a lot of the post punk from that time, which just happens to include a lot of goth bands but also many other good bands like Magazine, Wire (though 154 sounds pretty gothic at times), the Stranglers, and Spizzenergi. So I think we are probably more on the same page than you think.

I was born in 1977 and less than a year old when they decided to call themselves Joy Division, so I honestly can't say I've been a fan of Joy Division since their very beginning, but I get the impression that goth was pretty much invented by the music media rather than the bands or their fans so I tend to avoid approaching the goth scene with the same pretensions that many "goths" do. Grice 12:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"extremely delete"

Does that count for two votes or something like that? — David Remahl 00:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wild accusations

Let's look at 2 comments you made about me:

Contrition and a repeated commitment to consensus would have been far more persuasive than being adamant that censorship is a valuable tool for an editor.

Perhaps you truly feel that deleting someone else's discussion helps further the community spirit.

In both cases, you were putting words in my mouth. I never said either, and you have no reason to accuse me of these things. That is flaming, plain and simple. And you simply continue to do so by mocking me in my talk page.
I have contacted an admin about this, and despite what you assume, they do have some power. You may not recieve serious punishment, but even then you are still at risk of it if you continue to go on like this. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 04:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

This editor is now blocked from my talk page. Cajoling and threatening other editors who disagree with you is totally unacceptable in my view.Dr Zen 05:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your attention requested

Please see Talk:Clitoris#NPOV and female circumcision. Thanks. —No-One Jones ^(m) 02:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I've toned down that vote, as it was not meant to be targeted at all the objectors, but my point stands - there are certain people there who appear to be pushing an ideological disagreement, rather than any suggestion that this user would actually abuse their powers. I'm also a little bit bemused that you bring Shane King into this, when he also voted for said user's adminship.

Finally, it seems a bit much to be calling for the head of people for removing material from talk pages when your own says that you'll do exactly that to two users. But anyway, as I said, I've toned the point down a little. Ambi 02:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

User:LGagnon has requested mediation with you at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Please could you indicate there whether you are willing to participate. This is entirely voluntary and intended to help you and he resolve your differences. Wikipedia:What is mediation? gives a general introduction to mediation, but please ask if you have any other questions. Regards -- sannse (talk) 21:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

Yasser Arafat

Please reconsider keeping this page on your watchlist. Your criticism is valuable. --Viriditas 11:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dr Zen will periodically purge his watchlist for the good of his soul. Heh. You do have quite a wit about you, Dr. Zen. --Viriditas 01:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not angry, and I hope you aren't upset. You explained your position quite well, and you also gave me some things to think about. What more could I ask for? --Viriditas 09:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cantometrics

Hi. I am "finished" with the cantometrics article in the sense that it doesn't seem I have more to add to it at the moment. I did add one more sentence since you asked, but then listed the article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Hyacinth 06:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spirit of Wiki

Thanks, Dr. Zen. Slim 08:24, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Be civil

See Wikipedia:Civility. Everyking 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't ignore others' points of view. On the contrary, I've been hard at work trying to accommodate them while maintaining the integrity of the articles. Others are, of course, subject to being ignored if they choose to be consistently uncivil to the point that I can no longer tolerate their insults, but hopefully it won't come to that. Everyking 01:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not "trolling" you on your talk page. What, you can write whatever you want anywhere, no matter how harsh, and that's fine, but I can't ask you to tone it down a notch? If you don't want me to keep telling you that, don't continue doing it. Everyking 01:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cabal

You might be interested in Arbitration request - CheeseDreams vs. a cabal of "fundamentalists"

CheeseDreams 02:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Spence School (section)

you said in Votes for deletion/Spence School that Fvw gave a perfect reason for keeping it. I was a bit confused, do you mean what he said at the begginning as the case against deleting it, or was it something else?

oh and im sorry i keep voting delete against schools. while my opinion might differ from yours, i will really try to broaden my veiw of what i think should and shouldnt be kept

your right i added my sig to my second article by accident

well i guess so...

and one could make a good point that my work on this site is not particularly noteable (wilsons magnolia is a very obscure plant- my article provides more info than anything on the internet now existing can provide so im proud of that- but i still dont say much)

So whats the topic area your most active in? im currently most active as my first task in the magnolias section but im going to expand out to other species, birds, and gardening. I have no idea how some people here have the ability to get things done so fast. (i still cant beleive theres no article titled respitory!! i put it in the requested articles section, but...)

so what are your interest areas where you do most of your wikipedia work?

RfC

Having read your comment on the RfC against me, I was wondering, since no evidence of trying to remove the dispute has been posted within 48 hours (or indeed 96) of the page's creation, why does the RfC still exist? CheeseDreams 19:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that the latest addition to evidence is that (1) I objected to 2 suggestions of a mediator (2) I withdrew from mediation after I and my co-party were offended by an act of the mediator (3) Apparantly I have broken the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy (obviously this means I should be banned). I'm wondering if it could get any more ridiculous. CheeseDreams 02:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now they have just lost it [1] - they have started forging text they claim I wrote!!!!! CheeseDreams 15:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dr Zen, I see that you signed on as a character witness at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams. Your comment probably belongs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CheeseDreams instead, at least for the time being. Beyond that, I have to say that I think you have naive view of the situation. In my experience, CheeseDreams has neither apologized for anything big or small, nor admitted to making the least factual error, nor admitted that another editor might be more knowledgable about a particular point. All these traits make her difficult to work with at best. When that is combined with her editing numerous articles in a short time span, without taking time to properly discuss edits, reverts or tags on the articles' talk pages, along with her apparent belief that NPOV is identical to her POV rather than a side by side presentation of multiple POV's, she has the perhaps unintended effect of creating multiple near simultaneous messes. When she slows down and takes time to engage in discussion of an article, she does show some promise as a potential collaborator, but I have yet to see her reach a compromise with me or anyone else that both parties agree is an improved article. Wesley 04:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have replied to this on Wesley's talk page. Anyone would think that CheeseDreams' opponents were the epitomes of reason. No one involved comes out of it looking particularly good.

Abuse of adminship

Would you care to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney ? CheeseDreams 02:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speedy delete

An excellent question. Articles which are factual but are lacking in content are speedy deletion candidates. I don't recall which exact category states that, but I've seen it and a lot of half-sentence articles have been deleted by other admins under the same rule. The same guy who did the "Evelyn Lear" article has been bombing the site with similar entries. Birthday, date of death, vocal range, place of birth (if one is lucky)...that's all. I left polite word several times and tagged a few as bio-stubs prior to the Lear entry. In fact, the same guy is back today and adding, well, not much of anything and leaving a whole lot of "nanostubs" for others to expand. It's similar to a problem we had a while back with an individual I tagged the B-Movie Bandit. Jimbo Wales stopped short of an official decree regarding the guy's non-entries but he did say that they could be deleted on sight. Hope this helps. - Lucky 6.9 17:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Good point. I'm not philosophically opposed to substubs per se, but that particular entry was one of many similar entries. Since I was having trouble contacting the user, I began to fear that we might have a weird little bot on our hands. I did tag a few of those as bio stubs and I'm very pleased to say that the user (who is not a bot :^) )has created an account and is planning on fleshing out future contributions. BTW, I really appreciate your civility in this matter. All too often, opposing viewpoints on this site are met with some real flaming. - Lucky 6.9 00:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speedy delete 2

Good evening, Dr Zen. You seem to have an interest in monitoring the use of speedy deletes. I have been an advocate for several months now of a fairly strict interpretation of the specific speedy cases. Unfortunately, I think some articles get tagged with {{delete}} instead of {{VfD}} either through ignorance or confusion. I and a few others occasionally patrol the Candidates for speedy deletion page for articles which we consider incorrectly tagged. When I find one, I correct the tag and enter the discussion on the VfD page (often abstaining in the actual vote). The page changes pretty rapidly. If you have interest and time, we could use more help. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From everything I have seen, Geogre is very dedicated to the goals of Wikipedia. He generally does assume good faith. I think you are right that the two of you have different visions for Wikipedia but I don't think you're as far apart as you imagine. To me, it seems like a difference in process, not in end-state. I can tell you that I have found him to be most cooperative when I present my findings and arguments in a calm, fact-based manner. VfD discussions have far too much emotional rhetoric, in my opinion, and too little factual analysis. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk)

Sorry about that. I thought the nowiki tag kept that from happening. Give me some time to test a few things. This might be a bug worth reporting... Rossami (talk)

You are right. And now I've learned something new about how the category tags work. Thank you. If you are interested, this link seems to work the way I'd originally intended: Category:Candidates for speedy deletion Rossami (talk)

You can do a normal wiki link to a category (or image, or any namespace) by putting a : in front of it, like so [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]]. Result: Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Hope that helps. :) Shane King 01:01, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion policy

I think the proper place to "write it up" is Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy. Describe the textual changes you want to make, and see if there is support or objection, then add it. I havn't done this, so I may be wrong about this. JesseW 00:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No worries :-)

Sorry, it took me a while to respond. I'd been blocked by User:Silsor and had to unblock myself, which took some time to do. But it's cool... I reckon you're a good editor and like your work on the election controversy articles! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Upsetness

Is it surprising? I got no warning before being blocked, I got treated with contempt and treated like a vandal/spammer with the assumption that I was messaging all the admins in bad faith and I just got told I was on crack! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I know! I'm pretty much over it now. Thanks for your calm words of advise :-) Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Wiffle Bat

May I give you one for being funny as hell? Reene^✎ 06:49, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

For your information

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams You can comment on the talk page, or in "evidence" CheeseDreams 00:55, 11 December 2004

Your accusations with respect to Robert

Hi, if you'd rather discuss this off Robert's and Phil's page and the RfC page, feel free to use here or my talk page.

In recent posts you've come out with accusations that I genuinely, racking my brains, cannot reconcile with my own recollection. You have accused me of

• being part of a gang
• politely attacking Robert the Bruce
• abandoning factual rebuttals for "taking sides and the facts be damned".
• insisting "that because there was a vote on one issue that means there is consensus on related issues."

Those are all pretty damaging accusations. They require at least that you defend your claims, I should think. Would you like to give it a go, because you've got me scratching my head and wondering whether you've been reading the wrong contribution list. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have removed my comments from Phil's talk page. I am sorry you felt hurt. I made the comments in good faith to try to help tone down the tension. Because they have inflamed you further I have withdrawn them. I have explained further my comment on the RfC. I will not discuss this any further because clearly it is not having the desired effect. Dr Zen 02:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for contributing to the effort to reach consensus regarding the Libertarian-related articles! --Improv 05:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFA Questions

Salve, Dr Zen!
I've been away for three days--among other things during that time, I took my grandmother out to lunch for her birthday--so I did not see your comments until this morning. I've now answered the generic questions as well as responded to some of the other issues at WP:RFA. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 17:31, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have just worked something interesting out

Thanks to Mirv, Ive found something out, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rienzo for more information CheeseDreams 00:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to keep you informed of the latest events in this saga, they have started a revert war (initiated by them unprotecting then reverting the article) at Historicity of Jesus CheeseDreams 14:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lost and Found (band)

I see that it was, indeed, a real band. I thought it was created by a few teenage band members of a high school band, or something. My vote's been changed. Andre (talk) 22:13, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

VfD vs. Speedy

If you have an issue with my interpretation of the criteria for Speedy Deletion, I'd be glad to discuss it with you. Of course, I'm not normally terribly receptive to people who post libellous remarks about me, but I'll make an exception in your case as you seem to be (other than the libel of course) a reasonable individual. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:26, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Response on my talk page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:51, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Keeping schools

Hi,

just noticed you in some of the lastest vfd-discussions, and I checked out your page. I see we have very similar views on a lot of things in WP - I also believe that if subjects can have interesting and factual good writeups, then there is much that is wikifiable. Schools are a given. Libraries and other institutions too. Personally I think the singular Simpsons jokes, and individual songs from non noteworthy albums are rather suspect, but if they are good type-ups, I won't bother anyone about it. As you stated, Wikipedia isn't a 29 bind Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the only constraint is really processing power, where I think the number of users make a much bigger difference than the number of articles.

Ideally, I suppose these discussions should be done more in general, rather than fighting it out over every single little school, but if it is not possible to reach a consensus, I guess it is harder.

Anyway, just wanted to leave a message. Houshuang 02:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You had a good point in that people should probably spend more time actually adding stuff, so I spent a bit of time updating both the high schools Novato High School and San Marin High School, hopefully this will make people think twice about deleting them (I'll be pretty annoyed if they do delete them now). You're example from Harry Potter on your user page is hilarious... but again, I don't mind them keeping that if they let me keep my public libraries and high schools :)

Houshuang 18:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My rfc

I've removed you comments from my rfc because it's out of date. Normally the rfc would have been deleted, and in fact it was deleted. But it was undeleted to be used in evidence against cheesedreams arbitration case. Cheese dreams made a number of trivial rfcs 5 or 6 in one week IIRC. None of them were certified. Anyway you weren't to know this, but if I don't remove your comments then cheesedreams will see it as unfairness because her comments were deleted from other out of date rfcs. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christian bias and Wikipedia

Look, I wouldn't have minded so much if CheeseDreams hadn't caused large structural and content changes of articles like Historicity of Jesus and had added her material in an integrated way. I would have argued whether the material was correct on the talk page and attempted compromises. But that's not what was done. Instead, one article was added on top of another. In other words one user acted in a roughshod way over several other hardworking editors. Do you think that sounds fair? Why should one user be allowed to make major changes that others don't agree with? Why didn't she just make smaller changes and discuss them? I suppose that some might say she's a newbie and to deal with it. But in this case she's been making personal attacks, creating new duplicated articles to get around problems and force her viewpoint (and note that the article title was Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be - entirely a POV title, and there was no need for it). If I thought CheeseDreams was willing to do edits in a more friendly and NPOV way then I'd have no problem. But it doesn't seem that she wants to do this. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)