User talk:Gaff/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Signature

Gaff, I've noticed that you're using a template for your signature. Usually, this is frowned upon, since it is very easy for a vandal to edit User:Gaff/Sig and change attribution of your edit. If you want to use a complicated text for your signature, I suggest either substing the template, or to copy the text in the signature page into the "Nick" box in your preferences and selecting the "Raw signature" checkbox. Just to let you know. Cheers, Titoxd^(?!?) 07:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. "Substing", short for "substituting" the template, can be done by typing {{subst:User:Gaff/Sig}} as your signature. However, substing it would leave the long string of characters you say you dislike. Personally, I don't think your signature, even when expanded completely, is very obtrusive (trust me, I've seen worse). So, I'd recommend the raw signature method, which is the method I use to produce my three-link signature. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

JustPhil

Getting back to why I listed Michael Bollner as speedy, the kid who was described there was from the new film. At the time, I thought it was necessary to delete it. My apologizes.- JustPhil 13:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Asteroid 9885

I did not see the relevance of mentioning the Asteroid 9885 Linux in the introduction of the article. Besides, "Asteroid 9885 Linux named after computer operating system..." made no sense at first until I looked it up...(unsigned by user: 24.131.128.55)

Reply

Please don't tell me what to do. I've been around since October of 2001 -- quite a few more octobers than have you. Having said that, I don't like to bite the newbies, but since you directly confronted me about something I said in a somewhat condescending manner, I feel it warrants an appropriately measured response. --Node 00:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Maryville Middle School

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 05:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: Prussian Blue

Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like it generated some attention even on wikipedia. Well it's no big surprise that neo-nazis would vandalise the AfD page, so I kept it on my watchlist... Anyway, I think I'll abstain from further discussion on it, since I don't really have a strong opinion on them either way. :X
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 00:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Help Me

Um...I'm new to this, the sport is more local than anything, so if you want me to delete it I can, and it's called Intense disc, so I tried to make that page and want to delete the Intense Frisbee page, can you help me out?

Thanks

Thanks for the help. The sport isn't getting into the newspaper or anything, so I guess I should just let it be delted. And don't worry, you're not breaking my spirit, I just proabably need set up a homepage or something. Maybe just set up some basic rules so me and my friends can play a little bit more of a strict game or something. I play ultimate frisbee now, and I really enjoy it, somaybe it'll be a link page to that one day or something like that. Thanks for the help.

Kay Tipton

Why was the article deleted in the first place?

Gaff, I sent it to AFD because it hadn't had one before (it was speedied), so I decided to send it through the regular process. No harm done, cheers, Titoxd^(?!?) 03:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

the wub's RfA

Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub "?!" 14:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice one

Hey Gaff,

Nice to call a new user out like that. Thanks. I would not have redacted a comment had I known that it was spoken ex cathedra. Let me know if you have a problem next time before you feel the need to publicly proclaim my guilt without trial.

Yours,

Burwelluser: Burwellstark

• Reply: When you strike through another users comments on an AfD and remove their vote, don't be surprised to get called on it (publicly or otherwise). As far as "proclaiming guilt without trial," I don't have to proclaim your guilt as your edits to the page are logged in the history.—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

AfD

G'day Gaff,

thanks for your polite question. Discussing articles on AfD is, of course, a Good Thing. It's what AfD is for. However, not every Wikipedian is convinced that non-notability is a cause for deletion. As such, replying to those who fail to mention notability with "but it's not notable" isn't going to sway them, or the admin who closes the case. In other words, it's something that can be seen as antagonistic without actually adding anything to your cause.

The question of notability is a tricky one, and one that arouses strange passions in certain Wikipedians. User:David Gerard, one of the most respected Wikipedians out there, recently described the debate over notability as "contributors versus deletionists", which strikes me as rather unfair but very indicative of how people feel about the issue. "Inclusionists" don't wanna see someone's hard work go down the drain; "Deletionists" don't wanna see Wikipedia polluted with crap. Some people are even arguing that notability is irrelevant, only verifiability is important: this even includes writing information about private citizens or garage bands. So, I think you can see how saying "but how is he notable?" will not convince a recalcitrant Inclusionist any time soon. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd^(?!?) 18:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Frisbee?

Hi - thanks for your message - I thought, on taking a look, that there was an article to be written there, but, that possibly only a redirect was required. My keep vote, with a comment that a redirect would do if the article was not kept in its current form, was because bringing it to AFD was not necessary. Trollderella 22:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for voting keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intense frisbee. I see the Google result as being ambiguous, hence my eventual vote to abstain, but with one solid external reference I'd vote keep, and with proof of none I'd vote delete. Sadly, I'm too lazy to do the necessary legwork, though... GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

What can I say, I'm making the most of my new powers! Anyway I'm off to bed soon so you shouldn't have to worry much longer. :-) the wub "?!" 01:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

MLK supposedly said this

"There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism. (Frogmore, S.C. November 14, 1966. Speech in front of his staff.)"

hence if he said this he was a democratic socialist.

OK, that's cool. Politics (especially US politics) isn't really my strong point anyways. the wub "?!" 01:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Muhammed

WP:CVU, at your service. Always watching. :-) Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not join us as #wikipedia-en-vandalism? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-vandalism. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If you click on it it should work. Just respond here, I'll watch for you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm told you need to download Chatzilla. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Curse you Gaff!

You have foiled me. This is not the end of me, I will be back on some other homeworkless night. Fear my wrath! (please) Would it have been so bad to just let my marmion article stand?

• I didn't delete your article...some admin did. I only removed yoyr vandalism from the Gettysburg Address.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for corrupting the gettysburg address. My actions were driven by emotions. Even now I am distrought by the removal of my Marmion article. It was very dear to the two people who read it; it will be missed.

Welcoming

Ah yes, the combined magic of the user creation log and tabbed browsing with firefox. I like to welcome people as soon as possible. Cheers, Fawcett5 04:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

editing

oh sorry, so if we make changes that benefit to the page you guys consider adding them as is or in a different way?

Bill Clinton attack

Yes, I'm around (but doing homework), but I saw the report on WP:AIAV about the vandal and I was working on it anyways. Thanks for the heads up, though. :) Titoxd^(?!?) 05:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Your latest

Got your latest reply. Thanks. burwellstark user: Burwellstark

Wal Mart.

where's my glasses! couldnt find it!

Userfy

Hello, Gaff, I saw your question on AndyJones's page. I hope you don't mind me answering the question, but to userfy something means in essence to transfer something to a user page. In other words, if User:Non-notable Wikipedia User wrote an article with his name and spent a long time on it, people could say to userfy it — that is, to transfer the content to the user's user page or one of his/her subpages. I hope that helps. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Gaff, I have been watching your accurate and timely reverts on the Islam article and we both seem to share this skill. :) Just wondering, would you be interested in voting at my Rfa? It's a close race ;). Thank you --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

speedy tags

I've just changed a number of your speedy tags. You have used a number of improper criteria. WAvegetarian 02:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• In particular, Geoff Brooks tagged as nonsense. Stupid, but not nonsense. nn-bio and db-a1 About the "number of tags," I'm sorry to insinuate a pattern. There were a number in a row. Most by User:Flapdragon. Sorry to bother you.WAvegetarian 02:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

AFD

Hi there - sorry if you felt I did not respond to your last question, I couldn't really see a clear request, other than to clarify, which I thought I did. Re the frisbee vote, I thought then, and still think, that a redirect would have been adequate, and that deletion was not necessary. Were there other votes you disagreed with? Your comment about concensus made me think that perhaps you were thinking that I should have gone back and changed my vote after the article author made a comment about his motivation? Seeing that the article was going to be deleted anyway, I didn't see the point in this. Hope that helps, if not then please ask again, I'll try to be more lucid! Trollderella 05:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Alpha

Article that large? There was no unique information in that article that wasn't in the season article, that I could see. And hey, the article is still there in the history if we want to put it back. Reckless? Maybe, but part of the wiki way is to be bold. Discussion is nice, but action can take place concurrent with discussion. Sometimes too much discussion occurs. --Golbez 01:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. You see how rabidly I and others tried to prevent Wilma, Katrina, Rita, etc. articles from being created too soon, and I still think Ophelia should be merged and deleted. Vince is different. The notability of Alpha was solely with the name; Vince's notability involved the storm itself. Though I'm not sure if Vince should have an article either. We shouldn't make new articles for every little thing when we have the season megaarticle to work from. --Golbez 01:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Bassist

Gaff, that article was a clear C&P and therefore a speedy under a new criterion. I'm not arguing notability. In fact, I often C&P myself when working on an article for use as a reference, but I rewrite the entire thing completely in my own words before hitting the "save" button.

As I told another user, there are certain things that we who do new pages patrol look for. One of those is apparent "text dumps" from other sources. This certainly seemed to qualify. No administrator would delete an article of that size that had been written in your own words.

Golbez said it best in your last post. We are all encouraged to be bold for the good of the project. Occasionally, clashes happen when we do, admin or not. We fix the error, clean up, move on. As an administrator, it's my responsibility to be bold. Tens of thousands of small articles come in each day. All are welcome. Please don't take the deletion of your article personally. There's a much larger thing at stake here when C&P's are posted, namely the very real possibility of the owner of the text filing suit against the foundation. - Lucky 6.9 04:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Death by Rugging

See Talk:Death by Rugging --Philip Baird Shearer 10:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: User: NakedNed2

Yes, they're both the same user. They were both blocked temporarily but the bad thing is their blocks run out today. I will make sure if either of the accounts continues to vandalise that they be blocked indefinitely. FireFox 10:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

RFA for Johntex

Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I think the new tools will be useful in the fight against vandalism. Best, Johntex\^talk 00:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

One more vandal

Sorry to bug you, but I'm not an admin and can't back up my Wiki-threats; and you're the last person who cared about this vandal, who'zat it again: User:195.93.21.68. Best, Bill 20:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll keep an eye on that IP. I'm not an admin either, so can do no more than you as far as reporting.—Gaff ^ταλκ 23:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Fighting wiki syndrome

What, you don't think Wiki Syndrome is a possible? I've run across dozens of pages that were unnecessarily marred with link upon link upon link.

Fine, maybe it doesn't deserve its own article (*sniff*), but something does need to be done about it. I swear, at least 10% of the pages I come across are over-wikified. And then when I try to fix it, my changes get reversed because people think it's vandalism! It'd be easy to just point people to, say, Wiki syndrome explaining why this is bad. So now I have to point to some anchor in the middle of the Wiki manual of style? Great...