User talk:Splash/Archive2

Archive to end 1st August 2005

Thank you!

Thank you for your support on my RfA! When I submitted it, I was unsure of how I'd do, but the support was great. I promise that I won't do anything too stupid with the trust you've given me. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 19:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. First post on this page...

P.P.S. Stop by Wikipedia:Deletion reform!

• About deletion: what does one do to the talk pages of deleted articles? humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democratic Ideals

Hi. I see you are responding to the claim of 2 or 5 delete and 4 keep votes on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democratic Ideals. However, if you look there are 6 delete and 3 keep votes. You might assume that the rewrite comment was also a vote but 2 or 5 to 4 is inaccurate. (Wile did not bold his delete vote and it is getting overlooked. Also note that two of the users just started in July at the time of the voting.)- Tεxτurε 19:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also note that two of the users just started in July at the time of the voting. Yes, one of them being me. My original thought was to try to help out by going through all the currently listed VfD's one at a time and giving my input (where I thought I had anything to contribute). I was subsequently informed via e-mail that this is bad, and voting in VFD's & etc is frowned upon for those with less than 6 months to a year of experience. Won't happen again, sorry! =) Xaa 11:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

How does it come to be empty?

(Your question on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_27#Category:Places_of_worship:) This is the one thing I hate about categories: Categories don't provide an answer to this question. Often, the nominator quickly emptied the category prior to CfD, which I personally find unethical, but there is no rule against it, and it would be impossible or impractical to enforce. — Sebastian (talk) 20:55, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is an annoying feature of categories, isn't it? It means there's not even a reversion option, unless you know which user/IP did it. The 'unethical' example you mention came to exist just recently: a user was unhappy with the closure of a CfD (and still is), so he just emptied the new cat, recreated the old one and had the now-empty new one speedied by a slightly trigger-happy admin. The cleanup is just about done now, but he could just do it all over again. I wonder if the developers could come up with a way to maintain a membership-history of cats...tricky since reverting on that would have to revert all articles too, and lose all the between-times changes. I sometimes ask this "why empty" question, especially for 'obviously useful' cats that are empty, in case anyone can spot anything murky going on. -Splash 01:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be nice, but I wouldn't know how to do that, either. I would work if categories were not in the full text, but were kept in an independent place. (E.g. http://senseis.xmp.net works this way.) Thanks for asking the "why empty" question; I planned to do that too. Or even, in more extreme cases: "'''Keep''' until we know which articles have been removed recently." — Sebastian (talk) 05:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Antonia Bance

I think I misstated. I was thinking about the one vote that I'd excluded. I count 50/50 as a clear keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA, I appreciate it. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Reply and a Request

I hope you don't feel beaten up over your perfectly good VfD work so far, and will come back to it. -Splash Thank you - I'll do so. =) Having made your aquaintance, however, and while I have your attention... Could I invite you to take a peek at the WP:3O page under the entry for talk:demimonde? A third opinion is most definitely needed, and it would be quite a waste to just let that lie indefinitely. =) Xaa 15:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cambridge alumni categories

If you were inclined to put a blanket CFR from 'Former students of Foo College, Cambridge' to 'Alumni of Foo College, Cambridge' then you would get my support vote. David | Talk 16:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert Diamond vfd

On Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Diamond your vote was Delete but your explanation sounded like you were saying keep. I just wanted to point that out to you. DS1953 20:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ahem. That'd be the deletionist in me. Corrected!-Splash 20:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert Diamond

Are you sure your vote on this VfD was what you meant to write? You said:

Delete, I think that being a CEO of Barclays Capital is good enough. I couldn't find a copyvio, either.

That sounds inconsistant, or do i misunderstand you? DES ^(talk) 20:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I screwed up. I've changed my vote to keep, which was what I really meant. -Splash 20:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on Demimonde!

Thanks much. =) I have made an attempt at an article, but I'm afraid it's my first one, here, it may not be perfect. Xaa 03:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Psi Phi

I was the original creator of the Psi Phi article, and I am most certainly not the same person who created the David A. Henderson article. I have no clue who David A. Henderson is, or who created an article about him, but it certainly wasn't me. — JIP | Talk 08:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category titles

...now has a straw poll. Please give your opinion. Radiant_>|< 09:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ninjas in Pyjamas

The problem isn't that you voted, but that the VfD was only two days old (in terms of its being placed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry — I looked at the VfD logs for the date that the VfD was opened, plus two or three days later, but it didn't occur to me that there might be a gap of a fortnight... I'll go back and revert everything to your edits. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cora Pearl Image

Done. =) It's a PD image, she's been dead quite some time (and so has the photographer). Xaa 17:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Liked your comment on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/BotF

"The keepability of an article is in inverse proportion to the length of comment required to defend it on VfD."

I got a good laugh out of that, and thought I'd say so. ;) I think it's a good and amusing rule of thumb, even as I'm trying to forge a compromise over there.

:-) good luck with a compromise! -Splash 02:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

And hey, next time I'll remember to sign. ;) --FreelanceWizard 03:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• • So you're the one! Funny on the face of it, I agree, and many times it would seem to be true, we at BotF have a weird sense of self. Many are veterans of other boards and most keep coming back to The Fray just because of what can be accomplished there on any given day (not today, unfortunately). As I mentioned, I'll try some edits this weekend, but it will be a lurching affair.--SwingLowSweetDeej 21:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Encouragement needed

I agree. I just got back on today. Did you see this Cfd talk. Didnt really help any. Seeings he's the only one who does any real work on Cfd, comments like that don't help. ∞Who?¿? 21:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry bout the multiple edits; bad day, and didn't feel like preview button :) I'm hoping his normal weekend getaway will help. I was actually wondering about closing some discussions on my own, since technically, if I remember correctly, anyone can do it. As far as my RFA, I don't really remember when it was, I try not to even look at it. I do think its too soon, and I have some, well other people have some issues with templates, that I personally didn't have anything to do with, but still get the blame over. I actually thought about bringing in someone else to look into the current Cfd stuff, since he's been taking a lot of unnecessary hits lately. Only to help him out with all the comments, of course. This new keyboard is driving me nuts! ∞Who?¿? 22:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yea, that's who I was thinking. I'm hoping, and thinking it will be fine by Monday too. I will send him a msg early monday and see how he is doing, I will be gone for a week after that though. ∞Who?¿? 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi civil war

You made some very good points. =) I have given that article a severe thrashing with the NPOV hammer. Now how does it look? Xaa 01:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Through persistence and diligence, the surgeons managed to save the patient. 8-D Now let's see if he dies in the VfD recovery room. ;-) Xaa 02:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:Purge button

Ask func =) and use his monobook.js additions, adds a whole bunch of stuff, even better, check out my monbook.js with a alotttttta stuff in it. Happy editing! Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm afraid I had to oppose the guy. Radiant_>|< 08:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stuyvesant High School infobox TfD combined

Thanks for your help regarding the above TfD. On my talk page under the following heading, you said: "Since you already voted (and nominated!) in the above TfD..." The reason I voted was because I thought that's what Stage II of the instructions indicate:

==== [[Template:TemplateName]]====

'''Your vote''': Your reason for nominating the template ~~~~

I thought this seemed a pretty strange - did I misunderstand it, or is it wrong? Cheers, Bobbis 19:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up on my talk page. I notice not everyone follows the procedues then! Bobbis 20:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Shoes and Socks and Laughter.

The sign is a joke, but probably needs explaining. ;-)

The stated reason Tony gave for rejecting my vote (and those of the others) was that I was new, and was likely a sock. He stated his criteria was 1 month and 100 edits in article-space before he would take anyone's vote seriously, just to prevent counting socks. I found that more disappointing than I can possibly express - that entire page he was looking at had votes on it from me on multiple articles from multiple authors, I was obviously not a sockpuppet. Since I don't think Tony's an idiot, it simply reinforced what I already had been told in the e-mail I was sent when I first started working on VfD: Don't touch anything until you've been here six months to a year.

Consider this piece of entertainment, and the accompanying article and it's edit history. Can I report that and have anyone take it seriously? No - I reported it, but people aren't even looking at it. I've been watching it for hours. Amorrow will take a break for an hour or so, then resume, making posts and edits about every seven minutes for two to three hours at a stretch. And each edit gets more and more eerie and frightening - now, he's talking about scalpels and sex and... Gah. Truly frightening dude. He's literally scared away all the other editors from his pet article, and is editing it any way he pleases. I posted the behavior to the Wikiquette page, but I don't really expect a response. I mean, I'm nobody here - who cares? Of course, it's not really necessary. Sooner or later, someone with Seniority will notice him and handle it.

'Seniority' is normal in all social groups for people, and in nearly all internet environments, and it's pretty much an established policy on Wikipedia. I didn't just start on the internet yesterday, I've been online about ten years, now. So, I decided that rather than get mad about it (which is NEVER productive and NEVER a good idea), I'd just laugh, put up a funny little sign, and sit back for a few months until I had enough time on the clock for people to decide to take me seriously. =) Laughing is always better than not. And yes, I am smiling. I'm not mad, I understand - I'm 42, going to be 43 years old, I'm not a kid who blows his stack every twenty minutes online. I was *disappointed* for a bit, but after I looked at that little sign I made, I busted out laughing at how trivial my disappointment really was. =) Xaa 20:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• My first VfD vote was after I'd been here for about a week; as far as I can tell, I have never had a vote disregarded.' Heh. Wish I could say the same, but I can't. ;-)

Given the effect of that editor's postings, I would suggest (strongly) that you leave a message on WP:AN... Alright, I'll try that. Xaa 20:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[Does he live for this?] =P For a moment I nearly regretted supporting him in his RfC ;-) Xaa 21:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

...a fraction on the inclusionist side of things... Yep. Of course, I'm the opposite. I don't see a need to include every single bit of trivia on comics, Harry Potter, hollywood movies and other drek to be encyclopedic. Ben Hur is worthy of an Encyclopedia entry. So is Apocalypse Now. The Alien and Terminator movies, however, do not. Why? Because they had no long-lasting impact on society. Apocalypse Now changed people's perceptions. Alien did not. As for Harry Potter, consider that the L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz series was just as popular, if not more so, and also generated several movies over the years. But when you look up Wizard of Oz in any other encyclopedia on the planet, you do NOT get a detailed, blow-by-blow description of the story, lists of minor characters who only had one line (or didn't speak at all), endless reams of movie and book trivia, etc, etc, ad nauseum. There is no Spoiler Alert - if you want to find out whether or not Dorothy makes it home, go read the book. =P I guess my basic criteria is this: Two thousand years from now, if some future society only has this one page I am looking at to judge our entire society from (kind of like how we are with the Romans - the entire surviving literature of the entire Roman Empire fits on a single CD), is this something I am really going to want them to see? I mean, I realize that Jimbo's goal is to contain "the sum of human knowledge," but let's face it, do we REALLY need to record the controversy over whether Marilyn Monroe had five or six toes on her left foot as being something humanity as a whole considered to be worth knowing? =P And some entries are simply pointless. Like the entry on 'Feces' has a paragraph which describes human feces. I mean, is there anyone old enough to READ an encyclopedia that doesn't already KNOW what their own poop looks like? =P Xaa 23:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Oh - and I got tired of waiting for someone to do something, and decided to do something myself. The ones that were worth keeping, I left alone. The ones that needed work, I fixed. This one, I nominated. =P Xaa 03:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat on RfA

Thanks for fixing the broken link. Coolcat has not responded to the questions because he hasn't been on his computer, I guess. I guess we can only give him time to wake up, and I already notified him of his nominations.

And here's a barnstar for constant participation in VfD's (i.e. the Joder dicdef, my idea, ha ha) and in RfA's. You are an outstanding Wikipedian. D. J. Bracey (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

About the oppose votes

Because I had already tried Radiant's talk page, and I had already tried the talk page of the poll, and I prefer not to edit war, and RFCs call for first two people to discuss the issue with the user in question, and I have not been less patient than Radiant, what would you suggest? Maurreen (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I will do my best to serve the Wikipedia community as an administrator. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:Coolcat and "Joder" again

It looks like he'll lose. BTW, I made the entire article on Spanish Profanity There are already articles similar to this (i.e. Quebec French profanity). Thus, I see no reason this one couldn't survive. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

ADV Films cat CfD

I think you just emptied Category:ADV Films original movies and series, but you didn't recat the articles in it toward Category:ADV Films. I think this should be done, as per similar case Category:Gainax. Is there any way to get the list of items previously listed in Category:ADV Films original movies and series so that it's easier to recat them as Category:ADV Films? I was in the middle of doing this. —Tarnas 00:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category titles

I believe this kind of discussion is useful, but the present one has raised a number of questions regarding procedure, and I was rather dismayed to hear that there had been a similar discussion half a year ago that none of us had been aware of. As such, it may be useful to have a centralized page (like RFC) for these things. I've set up a rough draft at Wikipedia:Standards, and would like your opinion on it. Its current wording could probably use some heavy revision (feel free to do so).

At the very least, there should be a central place for archiving and searching for these debates (the Manual of style comes to mind, but it is very unclear which parts of it have actual support and which parts were just arbitrarily put together). I personally believe that having standards is rather pointless if they're not enforceable, but that is especially an issue I'd like more opinions on. Radiant_>|< 08:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Func's edit count.

Splash, I just got into an edit conflict with you on a vandal's talk page. Our beloved User:Func has been copied by a vandal, User:Funс. Note the differences in the URLs; you'll also see that the contributions for the real Func are as they should be. I went ahead and took out your message to the real Func, since it was on the vandal's talk page. Hope you don't mind. The Literate Engineer 15:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Godmode

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately I had to pester sam a bit, but it worked! =) Also, I created somewhat of a autocopyvio, in case you're curious. Still working the kinks out though. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/SimCentral

Hey. Any reason you reverted my thoughts on the sockpuppets in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/SimCentral? I thought I'd raised a good point, but I didn't just want to go re-adding it for the simple reason that that would make me a jerk. I'd still like to hear what you thought the problem was so I don't do it again, though. Lord Bob 05:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an accident combined with a genuine revert. I've fixed my mistake, and replied on your talk page. -Splash 07:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That would do it! Thanks for the quick reply. Lord Bob 07:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

The mop is mine!

Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion ^talk 07:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

Splash, thank you very much for your vote on my RfA! :) Whichever timezone you move to, make sure Evil Monkey doesn't live there...then you will have no fun whatsoever on NP/RC patrol! ;-)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Schools

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Duveneck School (2nd Nom.). This is an equally non-notable school in Palo Alto, CA. Gateman1997 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• To Sacred Heart School and King Middle School which I believe you also voted to delete on being non-notable.Gateman1997 19:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't classify it as a cabal. Fair enough though, sorry to have intruded :) Gateman1997 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

57 minutes later....

...and they're off: [1]. These pages are on my watchlist too, sadly. Re-protect? Warn them on talk pages? Just generally <sigh>? -Splash 19:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Please use your judgement, but my opinion is that the anonymous IP has simply removed the following disputed, apparently unsourced statements:

• According to public policy of the W.G.K.F., any school that rejects techniques or kata from this book (Shin Karatedo Kyohan) is not doing Genseiryu.
• However, this is among many considered to be a false document not written by Shukumine sensei himself. The original document in Japanese has never been produced.

If someone else things they should go back there and can give a source to support them then I'll be interested to see what happens next. This seems to be a perfectly normal editing process so far. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:CFD

Thanks for bringing the backlog to my attention. Pearle is now grinding through the listings. -- Beland 21:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Great thanks! -Splash 21:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank yew

The-artist-formerly-know-as-Amorrow : Thanks for you attempt to give me a heads up the screw job that Xaa and Nunh-huh had in store for me. You did not succeed in informing me of what was going on because you failed to point me to

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Amorrow_and_Elizabeth_Morgan

where the teenagers were panic-stricken by my surrealistist musings. Xaa was "scared away". Right. He was scared to be shown in front of his friends that his logic is weak. You and I both know that he is a manipulative guy and, in his own right, a pathetic stalker who hunted down my work (OOOPS. so sorry. "The page I created". Some of you guys are picky about that, until YOU want to do something. Maybe it was those two guys. I mostly just ignored y'all, with those two are touble-makers running around) and vfd'ed without so much as a how-de-doo to me. I do not care if my visions were Apolcalyptic (i.e. from the book from the Bible) or silly or even anatomically impossible or what. I never thought of it as "performance art", but maybe it was. You know what they did.

I mean, half the user pages have a list of "my pages" on 'em. But Amorrow could not call them that with those two creeps around.

It is quite one thing to be baiting someone with silly scolding (in the proper style of an old lady) or correcting flawed logic or whatnot, but those creeps were undoing work I did and when I resisted, then simply yelled "Gotcha!" then "get him!".

Well, I am still around, of course. amorrow@earthlink.net to you. Geni's got it in for me and is as mute as a statue, but we will see.

I am assuming that the Latin on you user page is not decoration. Could you do me a favor? Could you check and correct my (am I allow to at least call that "my translation?" huh?)Latin translation in Dies_Irae_Word_By_Word. Thank yew.

Band CSD

Please visit Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C where a future proposal to deal with non-notable bands is under intermittant discusion, if you are interested. DES ^(talk) 12:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

CSD A7

Thanks for the note. I thought it would clarify but didn't recall that the votes were so seperate and specific. - Tεxτurε 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved from user page

sorry to stick this on your page and trouble to to edit it out, but this is the only way i could find to try to contact you. you keep on deleting what i feel are VERY legitimate additions to wikipedia, especially considering the other links in the areas that i am making additions. i believe you are misunderstanding the content and nature of some of these additions and would like to explain it to you. please contact me at rob@reciprodate.com - i would greatly appreciate it. thanks, rob by 70.33.126.14.

In each of these four diffs ([2], [3], [4], [5]), you simply added an external link. I see your email address is to the same domain name. It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that the intention was simply to advertise the website; the encyclopedic information added to the articles with that link is, in my personal opinion, very small indeed. In this diff you do more than just a link, but given the other contributions, the text is merely a platform for the link. If your site is as important as you suggest, you could try writing a Wikipedia article about it rather than just adding numerous links to it. Note that the bar to inclusion for websites tends to be set quite high, as there are so many billions of sites out there. -Splash 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right

Sorry. I didn't think to use allmusic to verify that entry, but I will next time. Thanks for the tip. I've put it back and formatted it a bit. - Lucky 6.9 00:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Anytime. Thanks for holding my hand through this.  :) - Lucky 6.9 00:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

TFD & CSL

You recently voted on WP:TFD to delete {{sexual orientation}} while citing the fact that it did not meet the criteria of WP:CSL. I would like to ask you to reconsider that vote on the grounds that WP:CSL is itself not policy, and the particular section you reference seems to lack consensus. See my comments on this issue at the bottom of the TFD vote and the Village Pump. Dragons flight 01:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sisters minor of mary immaculate

Hello.

I was on RC patrol and saw this page. It is an attack page and worthy of speedy delete. But I removed it from speedy delete, as well as the offending material and started a new page. I guess this religious order deserves a page (It shows up on Google, I have to look more to determine how notable it is), and maybe the newbie can learn NPOV and make a useful contribution. I'm going to NPOV it right now, actually remove everything the newbie said and completely rewrite it, I already have actually, add info and see if I can teach this new user NPOV. I'll tell them to not put anything POV on the article page, to discuss it in discussion and so forth. If the newbie doesn't want to play ball then we can just speedy delete it or VFD it. I'll see if they want to work with us or not. You are correct - the content is speedy deletable. I'm not sure if they are notable or not, I'm digging around Google, if they're non-notable maybe they don't deserve an article, but if they are notable I'll write an NPOV page and try to work with the newbie and see whether they want to follow the policies or guidelines or not. If not then we can speedy delete or VFD it, block them and whatnot. Mr. Know-It-All 01:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Great. I did a move and capitalized it as standard usage as you suggested. I'm Googling for info about them and am putting something together. We'll see if the new anon. comes back or not.Mr. Know-It-All 01:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Nikki Hemming

I have rewritten this page in order to establish notability. I would be grateful if you could have a look at it. Capitalistroadster 05:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Good rewrite, but I think it ought to be merged to Sharman Networks since that is what the new article is really about. -Splash 15:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Vfd

I was very hesitant to delete something based only on the vote of the nominator. If no one else voted, it's more likely that everyone missed the VfD, rather than there was no opposition. Maybe it would be best to re-nominate it? --malathion ^talk 20:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#CastleCops

Hi Splash. I've noted that you are quite active at WP and understand the policies and procedures a lot better than myself. I just recently found out about WP and it's impressive content and even more impressive means of aquiring and maintaining said content. Please help me to understand your vote though. You said:

Keep deleted, entirely valid, very recent VfD and that's what VfU is about. However, there is nothing stopping anyone from writing a non-substantially-identical article any time they like.

Fair enough but how can I be sure I won't make similar mistakes as made by the original author? More specifically, why doesn't my request meet the conditions set in category 2 of Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Purpose_of_this_page?

BTW, is there a time limit as to how long I would have to wait before submitting a replacement article? --Ikester 20:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sailor Moon related article on VfD

Gee, I didn't even know someone had created an article with the title "Starseeds (Sailor Moon)".  Denelson83  02:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Monique deMoan

No worries. I've protected the page. Slac speak up! 23:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I see a "remove protection" tab on the Monique DeMoan, which tells an admin that the article is protected. Are you still able to edit it? Zoe 23:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. I didn't get the warning about editing a protected page when I tried to edit it, so I unprotected it an edited it again, and got the warning, so I think it's ok now. Try again. Zoe 23:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I know you like keeping articles but there is a practically unanimous vote at VfU to keep that deleted. I really don't think you should be acting against that, wikilawyering or no. It just seems a bit much to say "I don't think much of the near-unanimous community voice, so I'm going to do what I like". If you reply, I'd really prefer to avoid engaging in a wikirule discussion: I'm wondering more how you can justify acting against virtual unanimity in support of the original speedy than whether you personally agreed with the original speedy. -Splash 01:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

VFU is a fringe forum and I don't see any reason to regard votes to delete there as binding. If we want to delete articles the place to go is VfD, not VFU. I have created a completely new article and added it to the VfD. I won't pretend to understand why the article was speedied in the first place or why the author chose to contest that speedying on VFU, a notoriously hostile forum.

I don't appreciate the false claims of wikilawyering. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, he's at it again!

I saw your post on the deletion of Monique deMoan. Well, you may be interested to know that User:Tony Sidaway's gone and restored the article (see Special:Log/delete). Great. Erwin Walsh

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Boy*d Upp

correct my spelling; don't know how the removals happened, i was only changing one letter, sorry

Probably wasn't your fault. The MediaWiki software is not without its bugs. :) - Aya 42 ^T C 01:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Message from Light Current

Thanks for your welcome and support.Nice to meet you.

Message recieved + understood. You'll probably know that I have been getting quite a bit of advice from various users?? on how to edit etc.

I am calming down a bit now after my initial period of over zealousness and hope I will become a little more graciuos in my comments in future.(and learn to spell) Anyway, why not have a look at some of these pages and give us some input??Light current 03:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is naive and easy to manipulate

I see you are threatening to block my ip address. What a surprise. You accuse me of defamatory contents, and that I edit not according to facts or whatever. You see, I certainly do so. If you read any article written by Mario Roering, you would surely understand (if you are not blinded by friendship with Mario Roering or otherwise), that what HE is writing is in so many ways degrading to any other organisation that is doing Genseiryu. Also, he writes stupid things that are obvious lies. For instance, he writes that the founder of Genseiryu appointed a head master of the World Genseiryu Karate-do Federation. It is obviously a lie because the founder died in 2001 and the organisation was established in 2003. If you cannot see the problem, then you have too much power at Wikipedia. Mario Roering never refrain from writing about Tosa sensei and Butokukai or even the Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation, even though none of these has anything to do with the WGKF or Mario Roering in any way whatsoever. Mario Roering also write lies contrary to facts. For instance, he writes that the Butokukai has adopted the Heian Kata of Shotokan. I for a fact know that this is a lie. Butokukai, Tosa sensei and the Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation never did that. Mario Roering also writes that the first book ever written on Genseiryu was by the founder Shukumine in 1964. This is also a lie. This book is written on Ko-ryu, not Genseiryu. Actually, Mario Roering is the first one ever to ever state this lie. Noone ever did this publicly before. So again proof of his lies. The first book on Genseiryu was published in 1984 by Tosa sensei. This book contains a preface by the founder Shukumine stating that this book is Genseiryu. The founder also state, that he urge all and every student of Genseiryu to study these kata thoroughly in order to fully understand Genseiryu. Further he writes, that Tosa sensei was able to do what he never had the time to do. That is mature the style of Genseiryu. The Japan Karate-do Federation has approved one of the most known kata in the world: Sansai of Genseiryu to be identical with the one published in this book by Tosa sensei. Thus adding to the fact, that Genseiryu done under Tosa sensei is the official and only recognized organisation of Genseiryu ever in Japan. Further, Mario Roering continues to go through any and all Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation sites in order to get facts for his articles here at Wikipedia. All or at least 80-90% of all information at Wikipedia is mostly copied directly. This can bee seen from the wording and also from the grammar used. Even spelling mistakes and mistakes in translation (from Japanese to English) are copied as well, thus making a clear mark of the origin of some of Mario Roering's sources. The problem occurs when he adds his lies, twisting the truth. We are many now editing the articles in order to fight against this stupidity of Wikipedia and naive loyalty towards Mario Roering. He is a person with no true intentions. I still have no idea why Wikipedians (such as yourself) still cannot see it. Either you are not as clever as one could hope for or perhaps you are a personal friend of Mario Roering. There is also the possibility that you simply does not care. I expect you to read the articles first, see the edits and make up your own objective mind before accusing me or any of our team again in the future. If you should choose to block one or all of us, then we will find other ways to keep fighting. We will not accept that Wikipedia host these lies, and actually at the same time urge people like Mario Roering to continue his lies and misconceptions of the truth. Wikipedia is indeed protecting Mario Roering, even though he is the one you should protect other people against. Your understanding of right and wrong are indeed suffering from decay on this matter. I urge you to thoroughly investigate the issues at hand before judging innocent people, who are in fact only defending themself against this no-good person. If you had read the articles, you would also see, that what we do actually is not degrading anyone or even just writing that we are the only true Genseiryu out there. We refrain from those statements, but Mario Roering is indeed doing nothing else than stating, that he and his organisation is the one and only, and that everyone else are not worthy of anything. That is actually what you should spend your time stopping. Then you would do something good. Perhaps you should talk it over with many of your "colleagues" who have been watching this problem with Mario Roering for months now. 212.10.34.162 13:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even faintly interested in most of the essay you've left me. The two organisations involved have no significance to me whatsoever. I am merely asking that you be civil — and that message you have left me certainly isn't. Try to play nicely rather than simply editing here for the sake of a fight. -Splash 21:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

Hello Splash! Long story of this anonymous user. Are you still awake? You want to know who it is? Well, I'll stick to Wikipedia policy and respect the fact that he whishes to stay anonymous, but I think everybody involved knows who it is, this person hiding behind some number, too afraid to come out in the open...

Most of the remarks above I have already covered on the Genseiryu talk page, so I'll try to keep brief: I find it ashame of this person to insinuate that I am the one writing that the founder of Genseiryu appointed a head master of the WGKF after he died. If you look at the history you'll see that he himself added the sentence "two years after his death" and all the "WGKF" words... He is trying to make me look stupid, but overlooking the fact that I am not and just in time found out his little pathetic game of accusing me of something I have not done! I did however say in the article that Sensei Shukumine appointed a head instructor for Genseiryu (thus NOT for WGKF!).

Honestly, the rest of the BS he wrote here I don't even want to look at anymore, let alone react to it. Mooooore than enough has been said about it already! I am getting fed up with this boy and really would like to spend more time on writing other articles (I don't think Wikipedia is naive and easy to manipulate, it's an excellent project!)... I don't even think I need to say any more to it, 'cause I believe you are smart enough (PhD student!) to understand the whole situation and to separate the good from the bad. If you need more information however, I'll gladly inform you. Most probably you'll also get a reaction from TenChiJin if you ask him for more information... He knows even more about Genseiryu than I do! Regards, MarioR 22:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

reply TenChiJin

Dear Splash, Thank you for the remark. I will act according your advice.--TenChiJin 22:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! -Splash 22:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Perspective (storytelling)

You changed said article in a redirect -- nothing wrong with that. Two minor problems need to be solved. 1) Where will the interwiki from nl:Vertelperspectief point? To en:Perspective (storytelling) or to en:Storytelling? And 2) when one clicks on first person one gets redirected twice, ending up that does contain the requested information, but not in an accessible manner. A reader might even (erroneously) think there is something wrong with the link.

For 2) a solution might be to redirect to the appropriate section. Or perhaps we could create three subsections, like on nl:Vertelperspectief, which looks orderly, is easy to navigate, and has an added bonus of making the perspectives show up in the TOC which makes people getting redirected feel less "lost". I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Sincerely yours, Shinobu 01:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks like I should have thought a moment longer before redirecting; I did so because the article looked like that was what had been intended. I should have done something with the interlang link, you are right.

I don't really mind what is done to the article; was your original intent to merge the different persons (first, etc) to sections in the article? I think that might be good since they are really stubs at present. Unfortunately, redirects-to-sections are not a supported feature of the MediaWiki software so far as I understand. They do usually work, however, but it's not guaranteed to and might disappear in future. I'm not sure what you mean by a reader thinking there is something wrong with the link from First person, as it's not a double redirect — perhaps you just want to get to the information more directly, so you could turn the links to the various persons articles into piped links to sections of whatever form this article finishes up. And I'm sorry if a slapped a redirect over an article you were in the midst of writing! -Splash 01:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

My original intent was to create an article similar to nl:Vertelperspectief that states what perspective is in storytelling, and then sections for first, second and third person. The Dutch article contains information, so I intended to compare that information and look at the information in storytelling to see what would happen.

@...as it's not a double redirect...: You're right, and I should have known, because I created the "stubs" (which were intended as dabs really)... still it would be better if it were clear from the start that the destination article does in fact contain information on perspective.

@And I'm sorry if a slapped a redirect...: Don't worry, I haven't started yet. Now that I look at the time I realize this is something I might want to during "normal" hours, and when I've got a bit more free time.

In summary: currently first person etc. link through to grammatical person and perspective (storytelling). Third person will also link to Third Person. By the way, should I use a disambiguation template on this one? Shinobu 01:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

I was just wondering why you redirected my simple definition of Unit Analysis, to "Dimensional analysis"? The article you redirected it to seems to have no relevance to the original article. I was trying to give a simple definition for a simple algebra term.

Replied on your talk page. -Splash 18:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

One more note about Xaa

Splash: You know who this is. I want to thank you again in your attempts to assist me. I want you to think about something: Look at how much Xaa talks about Amorrow. Look at how little he talks about pages and their content. Think about it: If it takes someone 100 tries to get it right, you might not respect the person's style and skill, but you might want to respect the determination to get it right. Now that I am kicked out, thanks to my own stupidity at getting angry about suddenly discovering an Xaa vfd on a (OK, crappy) page I created, and my own outburst(you go to my home page and decide for yourself how serious it was), I am taking a look, slowly, at what happened there. If you have the time, try to assess Xaa's contributions in pages as compared to mine. Note how little I talk about other users. My advice: keep an eye on that Xaa. You or your work might be next.

One other piece on your style: If you really want to help someone about "behavior" and cite rules and stuff, make sure that you have a specific rule in mind and a good pointer to it. When you are trying to difuse a situation, throwing out whole big long sets of rules at users will probably be ignored because they will be interpretted attempting to divert the person, thus knocking them out of the in-progress decision-making process. Real peacemakers know that suggesting that you "know the rules" and they do not has limitted effectiveness in an in-progress decision-making event. Real peacemakers know that the number one rule is to respect the other person first (and respect their intelligence until proven otherwise). The Wikipedia model has an excellent design for peacemaking: if people are arguing in a discussion tab unconstructively, just suggest that they stick to the page subject. If you think about it and you really care, then I think that you will recognize that, in such situations, the formalized rules and style guides are a bit of a distraction. They are designed to be read at someone's leasure and probably take time (weeks or months) to really sink in. If there is any one thing that I have been amazed about with Wikipedia, it is how toublemakers (not just Xaa) are allowed to force decisions to be made quickly and based on superficial impressions. Even if supposed vandalism is occuring on a single page, it is my impression that if a person is not running through tons of pages, you can take your time, because it is currently so easy to revert.

Take a look here, if you want to see more details:

http://home.earthlink.net/~amorrow/wacky.html

What can I say? You missed the chance to show some true leadership. My advice: keep an eye out for your next opportunity to really help someone. If you really help a situation, it can be very satisfying.

I am sorry that I did not interact with you in a better way; I will try harder in future. However, I am not going to read your website since I have little interest in reading an account of what happened — I watched it all already. If you would like to return to editing Wikipedia, and you can promise that you will conduct yourself in a manner more appropriate to the way things work round here, I imagine your account could be unblocked. If, on the other hand, you plan to continue posting complaints about one user or another from anonymous IP addresses, I would doubtful of your chances of being welcomed back. -Splash 18:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Using the name specifically is regrettable, but using abstract names at the time seens unavoidable to facilitate communication. Now that things have settled down, it occurred to me to abstract them, which I have done, before checking with this thread. I really do mean it when I refer to the user interactions as a multi-user dungeon (MUD), which I did not intend to get involved in at all. I expected the experience of a researcher in a library (the articles), but it ended up feeling more like a target of the Cultural Revolution in the discussion tabs. My impression is that you guys make decisions WAY too fast. I went looking for dialog (OK, I was on a solitary bender for that one weekend) and I got lynched. I am still in one piece, and I am not going to beg. 204.147.187.240 23:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD Proposal

Withdrawn at the request of Amorrow, please see this article's Talk Page. Xaa 17:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: I would strongly suggest you disable the email feature via preferences; it is no accident that mine is presently switched off.

• Reply: He isn't e-mailing me through the site, he's e-mailing me directly. My e-mail is public, and I don't hide who I am. The reason I don't hide who I am is so that when I contribute here or anywhere else, people know who I am, and can judge the validity and scholarly value of what I write from that. As to why my e-mail is public, I've published over 20 novels and have been quoted in the New York Times once or twice. I leave my e-mail open so I can keep contact with my fans. Xaa 18:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: The most obvious is to file an RfAr — a possible outcome of that is that Amorrow is banned, at which point his edits may be reverted by any user on sight.

• Reply: An RfAr is entirely pointless, I'm sorry. First, he's *already* banned, and it's an *indefinite* ban. But, as he's said on his website, all he has to do to get around that is use computers at libraries and internet cafes. And as I've said before, this guy is a software engineer - Wikipedia isn't going to be able to ban him that easily. Xaa 18:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: I hope you do not plan to leave Wikipedia over the actions of one rather disturbing user.

• Reply: You haven't seen what he's been sending me in e-mail. Turning off the weather report doesn't stop the storm from coming - this guy is talking about bombs and knowing where all his enemies live exactly. Ten years ago, I'd have laughed it off. In today's world, I don't. I am not willing to find out to what lengths he's really willing to go. It's a LOT easier to simply say "Okay, you win, do what you want." Xaa 18:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: I'm sure you're aware however, that simply blanking the page leaves everything in the history.

• Reply: I know it's in the history, and hopefully, people will read it anyway. I blanked the page to make HIM realize the fight is over. Check out [his website] - he views that proposal as being proof of myself as a leader of some grand conspiracy against him. By blanking the proposal, he will hopefully come to understand that he's won, and this all will hopefully end. Xaa 18:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

VFU

VFU has the power to order the undeletion of an article. But any administrator can already do that. If someone disputes an undeletion the right place to do it is in VfD. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you keep saying VFU can mandate continuation of the state of deletion when I see no evidence to support this. I suggest that this may be a gray area of policy into which some instruction creep is currently inserting its rather clumsy foot. I gaily undelete and expand bad speedies left, right and center, so if there were some let or hindrance clause on this I think I'd know. In the current case I'm listing on VfD because that's where I think this article belonged in the first place. --Tony Sidaway^Talk

Beans in noses

Re this VFD -- watch out for those beans! — mendel ☎ 03:02, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! Though I do wonder what happened to the kid in the example... -Splash 03:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my Cotswold Games article. It's good to know there are vigilant editors out there. You caught that vandalism extremely quickly. You reverted only one minute after the vandalism occurred! ♠ DanMS 03:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Cfd talk

I've had so many complaints today, its riduculous. Most users have no idea how much work is involved, and how much I try to correct errors I see and not make mistakes. It would be nice if they would help out rather than criticize all the time. I honestly thought I had all the century cats right, as I tried to check each one carefully when I did them. Thanks for commenting though, I missed it on my talk page for some reason, but seen it on Gene's. ∞Who?¿? 03:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:CENT

Please visit. It reflects much of our recent discussion, and an established process that was helpful in alleviating VFD. Radiant_>|< 13:41, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism (for a fact)

Dear Splash! Hello again! You wrote in the summary of WGKF that the edits by Peter Lee (using different anonymous ip addresses all the time to hide himself) were not vandalism. Too bad you don´t want to know anything about the subject, otherwise you would understand that it is vandalism. However, even without wanting to know about the subject, you would come to understand that this is considered vandalism, regarding the fact that this guy, his IP address, and all socket pops (or what is that called?) have been blocked for a year for the exact same attitude he showed on the Dutch Wikipedia (43 votes for, 17 against, see [6])! Hopefully you will now come to understand that the behavior of this person is totally unwanted. I admit I am not an angel either and have done a few "unwikky" things myself (which you corrected), but the difference between me and this person is that: 1) I am willing to learn what's right and wrong on Wikipedia and act accordingly; 2) I have good intententions with Wikipedia and want to contribute in a good way.
I don´t think you can read Dutch (couple of passages of the above mentioned link are in English though!), therefore I suggest you read some of this material: User_talk:Peter_Lee (esp. the part "Block on Dutch Wikipedia"), User Talk Waerth - "Who are you???" (and messages behind that) and User Talk JeremyA. Once you have read these, I think you will reconsider your opinion, at least I hope you will reconsider... Some administrators are really getting tired of this "edit war", but so are we (TenChiJin and I). This whole edit war doesn´t even need to be, if it wasn´t for this person. It is NOT a fight between WGKF and GKIF, it´s a fight between WGKF and Peter Lee! Keep that in mind! He is the one trying to push HIS opinion on the article of WGKF and Genseiryu (and even karate). The page WGKF is a page ABOUT the World Genseiryu Karate Federation, so it also contains the viewpoints of this organization. It should NOT contain the viewpoints of Peter Lee NOR that of GKIF. He can put HIS viewpoint on that page, where it belongs (we are not changing that page all the time either!)! Don´t you agree with THAT at least??? O yeah, you said we should discuss this with eachother on the discussion page. We would very much like to too, we are open for discussion any time! But Peter Lee is not!!! I have already said that so many times, the guy just won´t listen! He totally ignores us. He ignores everybody that has a different opinion as he does. He is impossible to talk with! In the beginning he talked, but insulted us constantly with remarks as "we are dumb", "we spread misinformation", "we are liars" and so on! Just look at his arrogant behaviour on his talk page! Anyway, I am afraid you don´t want to spend much time on this. I can read between the lines... Still I hope you'll think it over... Thanks for your precious time! Regards, MarioR 16:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC).

Adminship

Hey, Splash. Are you an adm. If not, I'd be glad to nominate you - so long as it doesn't end up like the last one I nominated. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering the same myself, since it seems you're doing the same thing I am of closing Keep VfD's for fun and amusement. It's annoying too cause for some reason it's not showing me some of your closes, so I'll go and add the tags then update it and bam you'd beat me to it ten minutes ago. Carry on. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Quadrature amplitude modulation

May I ask how the circular presentation of the signal constellation for QAM is derived? I have not seen that before and would like to learn more about it. For M-ary QAM systems, the signal constellations I've seen are usually presented in a linear manner, so I was quite pleased to see it being displayed in a more symmetrical manner. I am also thinking of starting a WikiProject on digital communication systems. Do you think you would be interested in helping out? --HappyCamper 01:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

Dear Splash, I can deliver some proof about items that are claimed on the Genseiryu site. Only I want them to be treated confidential. They are at the moment translated by an official translator from Japanese to English. I will sent them, after the translation is ready, to JeremyA who already tried to mediate in the conflict about the Genseiryu article. Best regards, TenChiJin

If you have an interest in reading...

Regarding Tony Sidawy: User_talk:Theresa_knott#Prodigal_returns...

London, Ontario

Hello Splash, I was wondering if you could take a look at the article London, Ontario. There is an anon user who keeps removing an entry under "Notable Londoners" Bill Brady. His reasoning for doing so is very weak and I have provided what I feel is adequite proof on that articles talk page to back up his notability. If you would kindly take a few minutes to intervene and perhaps leave a comment on that page? I will look here for a response so as to preserve continuity. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 21:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've left somewhat of an essay (or two) on the article's talk page. The 3RR may or may not need to be deployed if an edit war ensues. It's worth remembering that page-protection should not be necessary over a single bullet point, and anyway will result in protection to The Wrong Version. -Splash 00:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)