User talk:Timtrent/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Meaning of the Qur'an (tafsir)

What you can do is surround your nomination by <strike> and </strike>, and append Nomination withdrawn. ~~~~.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• That makes sense. Now, being pedantic, it actually should be unimportant whether I as proposer withdraw it or not, since the matter is effectively up for peer review? I think, since I've clarified my position on the page AfD page there is no sense in following your suggestion this time only? Fiddle Faddle 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Saint-George Andrew Lawrence-King Laser 4.7 420 (dinghy) Snipe (dinghy) J/24 Sabot (dinghy) Topper (dinghy) Barquentine Fatty Knees (dinghy) Laser Pico (dinghy) Laser Radial Playing field Flying Junior God-king 29er John Bertrand WCWM Albacore (dinghy)

Cleanup Rigging Baku Oil Fields David Bushnell Merge Quantum scalar field Lightning (dinghy) Irish Setter Add Sources Paul Nettleton HM Bark Endeavour Poop deck Wikify Liberty Park Golden age of sail Clinical audit Expand Phototypesetting New Zealand Air Training Corps List of Little Penguin colonies

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

catflappery

well, my point is that the majority of people, at least on the web, use another term. it's easier to use something like "pet door" and just move on. there is no reason to keep it at cat flap, when the ones who use that word seem to be a stark minority. Joeyramoney 10:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• It still doesn't matter. No nations will be conquered whichever term is used. No human rights destriyed. Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith deletion of new article on Shefa

Eliezer (under a new name) is trying to delete articles on real organizations. The claim he made on the Shefa Network page is false and disingenuous. The Shefa Network is a real group within Conservative Judaism, and in fact is already larger than many organizations that Wikipedia already has many articles on.

The Shefa Network already has several hundred members, they have their own journal, their own website, they have already had two major conferences, and two more conferences are planned soon. Yet Eliezer and a friend of his are trying to delete its article? Eliezer has refused to even discuss the issue on the article's discussion page, despite the fact that I am trying to engage in civil discourse. Eliezer and his friend haven't even tried to see if the group exists.

Note the timestamps; they tried to delete the article within minutes of its creation. They obviously didn't even try to read the group's official website, or read its academic journal. They certainly never went to any of Shefa's conferences! They also never joined Shefa's e-mail list and asked anyone about the group. Look, attempting to delete a page without even trying to ascertain the facts is clearly against Wikipedia policy. And doing so while refusing to engage in dialogue is editing in bad faith, by definition.

If someone somehow still doubts that this organization exists, I can arrange for an interview with its founder, or its journal editor, webmaster, and members of this organization who have been to Shefa's academic conferences. RK 14:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not get involved with polictics. I try to stay very much out of that. I will look at the article on its merits alone. You may also wish to suggest Rabbi Creditor views the article.

I will make a comment on the AfD page once I have viewed the article. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. Fiddle Faddle 14:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cat flap

Indeed, if you look at the top of the page, there is a tab for 'move' probably next to 'history'. As the other page had history, this page required deleting before moving (which requires administrator priviledges). You can normally move pages without any trouble if they don't have history, otherwise a note to an administrator, or a request on WP:RM is in order. - FrancisTyers · 12:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD Process Question

I noticed that noone answered your question about closing AfD which are unanimous Keeps. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Early closure, unanimous Keeps (especially where a nominator has changed his mind) are usually considered Speedy Keep candidates (I close them when I see them, for instance), but there isn't really much harm in letting them sit since they are mostly ignored until someone comes by and closes them. Eluchil404 14:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• That makes sense, thanks. There's a lot to keep in mind :) Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Glands

No disrespect intended, but... you gave the originator article all of eight minutes before you sent this for deletion. Yes, it needs cleanup, but that's all. They have done national tours, they are on notable record labels, and have recieved reviews in Rolling Stone. I would ask you to reconsider your nomination, withdraw it, and mark this for cleanup instead. And wait more then 8 minutes next time, maybe actually do a Google search before you assume bad faith. Parsssseltongue 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend absolutely to loath on sight any words starting "No disrespect intended, but" because they mean simply "I intend fully to say what I think, but I have pretended I have apologised. I do not respect you, but will try to make it look as though I do."

I looked at the article charitably at first. Then I re-read it. It said then "Ultimately the band is relitively unknown, but its hard not to wonder when there music is going to fall into the right hands and before you know it will be heard on every radio station and seen and heard on every music TV show. These guys offer catchy tunes but at the heart of it all the songs are a bunch of random string of words, but they do it so well that it works for them." That was sufficient to say "non notable". The article screamed it at me.

I see this has changed. This means that AfD is doing its job. What we get out of it is a win/win. I will look at it again in a couple of days. You are welcome to remind me. If I view it as a worthwhile article, and I do see it is changing, I will reconsider my nomination. I see you have placed your own legitimate opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Glands. There really is no need to make speeches there. Your message here is sufficient.

Fiddle Faddle 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand why, when faced with such an article, a Wikipedian like yourself doesn't attempt a cleanup him/herself, or at the very least, just mark it for cleanup. There is a contingent in this community who shoot down music articles on sight, and I wish that would change. That's what upset me. But I like what you had to say on the AfD, and here... so AGAIN, there was NOOOOOOO DISSSSSRESPECT!!!! :) Parsssseltongue 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with it beikng a music article. I have nothing for or against music articles. There is a great difference between seeing an article that yells "This is not notable" and attempting to clean it up. For this article a content expert is required, not just an editor. What will happen is the correct resolution of this article. As I have told you, I will revisit it in a couple of days. My view will either have changed or be the same depending on what I see. AfD is not a rushed process. In the meantime other community members will also form judgements. I hope very much that the article is sufficiently enhanced to survive. Fiddle Faddle 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I know nothing of the band. I think you showed great maturity and openness when you withdrew the nomination. You did not have to do that. I commend you and I hope our paths cross again. Best of luck. Yanksox 23:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing of them either. But that also meant I was able to judge on evidence, not on emotion. I have a firm belief that the use of AfD should always create a win/win. It should alert the creator to the fact that work can be done to save the article, and also draw others to it in order to help, or, if that fails, then trash gets deleted. If we nominate something we should be prepared to withdraw, too. This is not the first time I have withdrawn and will not be the last. Equally I have altered my "vote" from keep to delete and vice versa in the past. We must always judge on the merits of what is before us. But that is not always easy to achieve. Sometimes we get blinded by what is "obvious" to us. Thank you for also stepping in and improving the article. Together we all won, I think. Fiddle Faddle 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on every count, I have had similar experiences. You are going to do well. Yanksox 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

afd

Thank you :) --Striver 17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• A pleasure. My objective is that wikipedia is always becoming better. Individual articles simply need to be worth having :) Fiddle Faddle 17:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so angry at me?

Fiddle, what you call "stirring the pot" is giving you precisely the list that you asked for. You asked for me to give people multiple reasons for the article to stay here, and I did just that! I also made myself available to set up interviews for anyone who disliked to article to learn more. Sadly, every single person refused to engage in such an interview, which betrays their real intentions. (i.e. they don't want to know the facts.) I don't understand why you claim that I wasn't replying to your messages; didn't you see the edits I made in the Shefa article, and on its Talk page? Perhaps I didn't have time to write you a personal letter, but I'm very busy. Fiddle, you can't get mad at someone for not writing to you personally and doing even more edits. As for your claim that I have given a "total lack of response", I don't know how to respond. I did respond, as you asked, and I also encourage you to add material to the article as well. I am on your side, and have volunteered my time as you ask, so I am confused at your angry attack on. RK 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Economic System of Islam afd

Per your request at the top of this page, I have replied on my talk page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please comment

on the AfD noms for Lost books of the Old Testament and Lost books of the New Testament. Thanks! --The Editrix 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

63.138.90.68

Fiddle Faddle, what is it you're talking about... my test with wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.90.68 (talk • contribs)

• This. If you are to be a regualr editor to wikipedia it is worth getting your own log in. Fiddle Faddle 12:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your obscenities on emoticon

Thankyou for your message.

I know perfectly well what vandalism is.

See Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities..." etc. etc.

My edits are clearly not vandalism, they are removal of obscenties.

In addition, you have no source for your obscene alleged emoticons, allowing me to delete for that reason as well.

I am very happy to be reported with a view to an admin considering me for blocking, please do that, and they will tell you not to be so ridiculous.

129.12.200.49 15:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, and dont forget Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

129.12.200.49 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you unfairly targeting me?

Hello. I'm wondering why you've started a sort of "mission" to delete entries that I've made. I could understand if I used some sort of 'advertising speak' in the entries that you've labeled as being up for deletion. But I see no sort of advertising language present. What's wrong with making entries for companies that I have knowledge about? In fact, for the ones that I've made, I looked at 'example pages' of other companies in the same industries and modelled the entries to look like theirs. So why are my entries being targeted as being "advertising" and "spam"? I think this is unfair. And I would appreciate a discussion as to why you've unfairly targeted me and the entries I've made as being advertisements and spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amplifychristian (talk • contribs)

There is nothing at all wrong with making any entries at all on companies you know about. However there are many things to be aware of when creating or editing articles. It happened that I saw your articles on Randine Lewis and Fertility Retreat and my interest was engaged because I viewed each as failing WP:SPAM. A comment by another editor on one of the talk pages showed me other articles that you had created, so I looked at those as well. They appeared to me to miss WP:CORP as well as WP:SPAM, so I flagged them, initially incorrectly (procedurally), for peer review at WP:AfD. This process allows any editor to nominate articles and to have the community review the nomination.

Please understand that I have no interest in you, nor the articles per se. My only interest is in the overall quality of wikipedia. By proposing the articles for deletion I express an opinion. Other editors also express an opinion, and, as I think I have been at great pains to point out, you also may express an opinion. I hope very much that the articles are improved such that they stay. That is the best of all outcomes. Since you are an expert in these topics you are better placed than I am to make those changes. Make them well and the article stays.

As a professional webmaster and reasonable practitioner of Search Engine Optimisation, I viewed these articles as SEO/Linkspam material, and also viewed the internal linking as substantial evidence of spamming. I also view the links you have/had placed in other articles as linkspam. I see nothing so far to make me alter my position on this, and stick to my nominations.

Wikipedia is not a gentle place, but it is a productive one. Articles are edited mercilessly and proposed for deletion mercilessly, too. The overall result is continuous and never ending improvement.

This is not about me and it is not about you. It is about the quality overall of the entity within which we are each editors.

While I think your question is reasonable, I would have preferred other phrasing. Nonetheless I have given you a full answer. However it is customary to sign your messages on talk pages in order that one may see more easily who left them.

Fiddle Faddle 17:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the way you look out for the quality of Wikipedia. I agree - Wikipedia should be 'advertisement-free' and should contain only information and knowledge that has no bias. That's the beauty of Wikipedia.

I'll admit - I'm new to wikipedia. Long time user and new "contributor." The entries that I have made, however, seem pertinent to their relative categories. If you can see, the Novas Software entry is modeled after many other EDA industry entries. I carefully made sure there was no bias or 'advertisial language' contained in the entry. The same applies for the other entries I've made.

I feel as though you took a look at one of my entries, saw the "spam" label, and then jumped onto the bandwagon without fully reading all of the entries that I've made and making a personal decision as to whether or not they contained any sort of advertising/PR talk. I really do think they're entries that would strengthen the wikipedia.

If you could please tell me how to modify the entries I've made so that they would appear to not be "advertisements" or PR opportunities, I would appreciate it. However, looking at other examples of similar companies, I simply modeled the entries I made after those. If my entries are, indeed, labeled as being 'spam', then wouldn't all of the other many entries I took formatting tips from and so forth be labeled as 'spam' as well?

Again, I understand the suspicion. But I don't understand the rationale. And the crusade to have every entry I've made deleted. I do sincerely believe the entries I made had NO bias, NO advertising, and NO sort of 'advertisial speak'. I specifically intended to stray away from that. And I thought I succedded. And upon looking through the entries, I think I accomplished that. Does the "guiltiness" lie in the fact that I made all of the entires within a small time-span? --Christian B 17:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is absolutely not the quick succession. Many editors create articles in quick succession. The issue is really twofold. Take Randine Lewis as an example (this is the article that first caught my attention). It looks to me very much like a mixture of WP:Vanity and a highly non notable practitioner of a particular therapy, Fertility Retreat.. I have no issue at all with the practitioner, nor the therapy. My only issue is that I do not believe that either the article or the practitioner are currently notable enough. I use a good chiropractor and he is not notable enough either. The articles each fed off the other and each appeared to be present to grant apparent notability to the other. One or the other article linked to the Lewis website, which this acts as an inbound link for Search Engine Optimisation to that website. Many other links to the Lewis website were placed in articles where it could be argued either that they are genuine links or that they are linkspam. I take the latter view, others will take the former

There was a pattern established of non notable article with link to external sites which was duplicated with both Fios and Novas. Thus I nominated all these for deletion on the basis that the community should decide.

There are twin considerations:

1. is the article notable
2. is the subject matter of the article notable

Of the 4 articles I see borderline notability in Randine Lewis, none in Fertility Retreats, and none in either Fios or Novas.

In the articles I see nothing that makes the article notable. To be notable they must themselves assert notability with no original research WP:NOT refers

Where the articles have multiple links to the same website these should be condensed into one link, especially in articles this short.

Where links to those websites exist in other articles, broadly the relevance should be looked at in those articles and serious consideration be given to their removal. If Randine Lewis (example) is not notable, then a link to her website is equally non notable, and is often viewed as Spam. I view it as spam, others will differ.

I fear that is the best answer I can give you. Other editors will give a different answer. What might be useful is to place {{helpme}} on your talk page with a description of the assistance you need. Please do not be combative, though, when you place this. Such behaviour tends to be viewed as unproductive at best or uncivil at worst.

I need to re-emphasise that this not about you, nor about me. I would have nominated each of these articles for deletion whoever had written them and allowed the community to decide. I'm sorry that it feels unfair. I think this is simply because more than one of us gained the impression that you were creating PR Placements rather than articles, and we may have been less than kind in saying so. If you stand back and look at this dispassionately I think you can see why we will each have drawn that conclusion

Not the easiest experience to start with here, and I am sorry for that, too. We all make enthusiastic errors. It's not easy being told so, and the AfD process is a tough learning curve.

I hope this helps you to understand. Do feel free to ask anyone who has expressed an opinion their rationale. Their actions should be open to community scrutiny too and you have a right to challenge them.

Fiddle Faddle 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion Help Needed

I have read Wikipedia:Third opinion, but am still not sure how to proceed with filing a particular request, should I need to request a third opinion.

The page is careful to state that filing should be anonymous and neutral. It says "Sign the listing with "~~~~~" (five tildes) to add the date without your name."

The dispute is a multiple article dispute, and is regarding a category that I view as appropriate and another editor views as inappropriate.

At present the sole attempts at discussion have been on the other editor's talk page. Nothing appears on any article talk page - after all, which should I choose, there are many?

How should I proceed, please?

Fiddle Faddle 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

how many editors are involved? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) When you respond put helpme back up.

Just two. The other editor has removed a category from multiple (more than 50) pages. One or the other of us is right, probably :) Fiddle Faddle 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just post a link to the problem and say that the dispute is over the removal of categoryies from 50 pages. (that is all that is needed). No accusations please.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

To be 100% clear - should I point to an arbitrary page, state the category that has been rmeoved, stae that it has happened to multiple pages and that the two editors concerned have been in discussion on one's talk page (unnamed), and then simply retire and await an opinion. I agree heartily about no accusations. This is about the articles, not personailities. I'm just concerned to get it right without burdening the submisson page. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

By the looks of your question, I think it would be best to have you log on to IRC. This way I can get others on #wikipedia-bootcamp to help you in addition to me. This [[link will direct you to a web based IRC client. This way you don't have to download anything to talk to us! We are waiting for you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

HOLDON! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot file an RfC without 2 other users posting comments on that user's talk page. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

After the advice yesterday in the IRC channel I have filed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24 Category use and misuse this morning, and hope for a peaceful and amicable resolution. Fiddle Faddle 11:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've accepted your case

Yup. I've accepted your mediation request. I'd like to discuss this on my talk page, but any other medium works if you would prefer it. Thanks for using Medcab! --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 02:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I am happy with all repsonses and discussion being on your talk page. Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nother KGVF

I have just had a break in the BST timezone and during it I stumbled upon this KGVF in Corris. I will leave you to add a list item for it - I know nothing more about it. -- RHaworth 23:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Olympic medalists in sailing

Reply on my talk page, thanks! Andrwsc 09:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)