User talk:A Nobody

Welcome to my talk page! Please be sure to make all posts civil and constructive, as I'll revert anything I deem to be vandalism. Also, let us try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! My Talk Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Please evaluate my AfD work

I like how, whenever anyone runs for RfA, you dig up every AfD they've participated in and list instances where they made poor arguments, or nominated an article that was ultimately kept. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to perform a similarly thorough critique of my AfD work. I can't remember most of the things I voted on; I'm not interested in adminship (and have rejected calls for me to run), but I'd still like to know how my AfD work stacks up against fellow deletionists you keep opposing.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Sure, I am happy to provide some feedback; however, I will comment only on your edits, i.e. not compare them with others by name as directly comparing them to specific other accounts could be rude to them. Anyway...

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series - You start out with a more thoroughly written and properly sentence structured response than some of the other deletes there that includes some suggestions at least, but I would avoid Wikipedia:ALLORNOTHING comments like "nuke 'em all". Moreover, "no one cares what I say" seems a bit harsh. For what it's worth, I care what everyone has to say in these discussions even those I disagree with. I don't think the editor accused of canvassing was acting in bad faith. So many of these AfDs only have a handful or half a dozen odd editors who participate in them (with ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination) being an obvious exception) that it is somewhat refreshing when more engage in the discussion so that we can come closer to a real consensus. You later write about "poorly reasoned votes" and about someone you say "just voted twice". AfD is a discussion and not a vote. Otherwise, you do at least approach it as a discussion, i.e. you didn't simply tack on a "per nom" never to revisit the discussion. When you suggest at the end that the user read the Five pillars or NOT, you should be more specific, because for one thing, NOT is edited frequently sometimes with non-consensus edits and so someone can go to that page when it happens to be a non neutral POV or vandalized version and not get the point you're making. And with the Five pillars, someone can go there and say, well the First pillar says Wikipedia is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs and interpret that phrase alone to mean a fairly broad inclusive criteria.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination) - the consensus was fairly overwhelming to keep in this one. In an instance where editors should "start afresh", they can be BOLD and drastically rewrite the article without having to delete public contribution history.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) - here's one of those unusual AfDs in which many Wikipedians participated. It's also a case in which I actually argued to delete (and I got emails requesting I change to keep, which I did not do). In any event, even though in this instance and unlike the above, I argued to delete, whereas you argued to keep, I think your keep argument is well worded and reasonably convincing. Yes, the AfD closed as delete, but your comments about the article are reasonable here. I would suggest perhaps staying focused on the article and not commenting on others in the discussion. For civility concerns, those can be expressed on the user's talk page or as a direct reply to whereever they made the questionable edit.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture - well, no disagreement here as you acknowledge the efforts to improve the article during the discussion rather than taking the approach of some that if it has "in popular culture" in its title it somehow must automatically be deleted. And I agree with the problem of not just TRIVIA, but other guidelines as well that are totally contradictory and confusing. There are times where it is nice that not all rules are written in stone, but there are other times when the guideline and policies pages are edited so frequently and sometimes significantly that they might even change during the course of any given AfD so God help the closing admin decide which version of the policy or guideline matters as the version at time of close might having crucial wording changes from when those discussing cited it during the course of the AfD.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction - given the improvements during the discussion, it would have been helpful to have commented on whether or not they convinced you. Looking at the article again myself, I think it should be expanded further.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (2nd nomination) - even though the article was deleted previously, consensus can change, unfortunately for me and my arguments, apparently the majority disagreed with me there, although most of their comments "silly," "per nom", "get real!", etc. are largely unconstructive "votes" rather than arguments. I would avoid calling the article garbage if it's likely to have been created in good faith as that can insult the article's creator. Hoaxes or liberlous articles can probably be called "garbage" with few complaining, but you can comment on it being unsourced without possibly offending its creator.

Anyway, if you notice in some of those above in which I argued to keep, I also spent a good deal of time looking for sources and improving the articles during the discussions. In the RfAs, my issues with some are usually when I see accounts trying to get articles deleted that can be improved as many keep closures reflect instead of doing what was needed for the article to be kept. I think a lot of time is wasted trying to delete articles instead of trying to improve them. Of course as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, I do think plenty of articles are in fact relatively hopeless. I hope the above helps. If I were to use the above as if it were in an RfA, I suppose I would probably be in a neutral category. I obviously disagree in some instances, but in others we agreed and even in some where we disagreed, you seemed reasonable, so based on the above, I don't think I would have opposed a hypothetical RfA, but I probably would have been neutral. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi LGRdC. I just returned from vacation, so I apologize for the late reply. This is enormously helpful and interesting to read. While I have, on occasion, been known to spin a convincing argument, I don't always put a suitable amount of thought into the discussions to which I contribute. I find the sort of analysis you provided constructive and, though I have no real appreciation for your strident inclusionism, I approve of the way you hold RfA candidates accountable for making consistently questionable contributions to AfD discussions--which is important if admins are to be trusted to close such discussions. Hope you feel better, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you had an enjoyable vacation! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Eryian sock

You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalida Neferher, which he started and got deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Mata Nui, which he voted and got deleted, and anything else you see worth looking at. BOZ (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I already started a couple DRVs on AfDs that he participated in after first communicating with the deleting admins. I am awaiting replies on the ones you listed above. I hope all is well with you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not connected, but we could use some help here too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathemanic. Same user has nominated others as well. BOZ (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you like there are a few more unresolved debates, such as Mammomax (which just got relisted). BOZ (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch - the List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons is up for AFD now. BOZ (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Could you please remove the "Deletion Gestapo" userbox from your userspace? I'll be brief: it touches me personally and I'd rather not have that. User:Krator (t c) 23:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I am somewhat torn on this one. As I would imagine with many editors here, I too had relatives who experienced some of the horrors of the World War II era (and if you notice my ethnicity/nationality userboxes, from practically all sides of the conflict). With that in mind, there is something to be said about history showing us that efforts to limit or stifle knowledge are simply neither good things nor consistent with encyclopedic tradition. Nevertheless, there are those who identify as deletionists who indeed mean well and are good faith contributors; however, there are others who are in fact single-purpose deletion only accounts that are in effect a form of vandals and who do not really care about their fellow editors (I have successfully identified a number of these such accounts to belong to multiple sockfarms; and I and indeed others have been targetted by some off-wiki, which I'll leave at that). There is a difference between someone identifying as a deletionist, but who is also objective, open-minded, argues to keep articles every so often, and also builds articles and someone who does nothing but deletes or attempts to get deleted articles largely for "I don't like it" non-reasons and then harasses editors on and/or off wiki. As a historian, I believe it is responsible to remember those, including my own relatives, who did indeed suffer under the persecution of such nefarious groups as the Gestapo by opposing any signs of similar behavior no matter how minor they may seem to some or even if these trends are not exhibited by those who believe what they are doing is wrong. Moreover, Wikipedia and its contributors are unfortunately not limited to the project space; editors have been quite literally harassed outside of Wikipedia, have indeed had violence threatened against them, and in some incidents have even had rival editors show up at places or work, post personal information on attack websites, etc. Some take editing beyond the project and I do not think such behavior is not really different from tactics used by historic fanatics and hate groups. What else should we call those who wish to stfile knowledge, harass editors in the real world, and post on what can in effect be described as propaganda attack sites? And again, this refers only to those who do all of those things I just mnetioned and not to the larger group of editors who refer to themselves as deletionists, but are in fact constructive and nice (yes, I list some deletionists on my list of nice Wikipedians). And for what it is worth, that userbox, like all of my userboxes, was not my creation, but copied from someone else's userpage. I will give it some more thought, but again I only think about in terms of the accounts who only want to delete and who have also harassed myself and others both on and off-wiki and not to any good faith editors. Moreover, I intend it to honor the memory of those who suffered by others whose practices included stifling knowledge alongside harassment. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to read, nor discuss, the above. With regrets, User:Krator (t c) 10:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Krator (t c) 08:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope you get well soon

Just saw the tag you recently added. Hoping you get well soon! Also, I remember wishing you well with your Bassett - I hope that all worked itself out for the best as well, I never did here the outcome. All the best, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Get well soon. Jakew (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I feel much better! My basset is still hanging in there, albeit with a bunch of scars. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes from me too. Hope your post at ANI gets the right response. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And me too - even though we rarely agree, I hope you do stick around! Black Kite 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ditto. Quadritto? I don't think Le Grand and I have ever been on the same side of an AfD. I hope you're on the mend soon. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that we can look beyond disagreements in certain discussions and still recognize each other as people with good intentions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely -- there's a quote that a Google search attributes to several different people -- but it's true whoever said it. "I do not agree with a word you say but I defend to the death your right to say it." It's what makes Wikipedia such an interesting learning tool because we can learn as much from each other's POV even if we don't agree. Glad to hear below that you're feeling better, I know the pain of school work all to well. Best of luck with health and school and I look forward to seeing you around. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That quotation is about how I feel when I argue to keep articles in AfDs... Another good quasi quotation is “The only thing that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing,” attributed to Edmund Burke. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not always in agreement with you about AfD issues but I do hope you get well soon and with little complications. (I know a bit about health woes myself.) JuJube (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope all health issues resolve themselves quickly and you are back up on your feet (or perhaps on your great pumpkin coach's shiny gold wheels) in short order. Blessings-- LynnMaudlin (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Hoping for a speedy recovery with the problems you're currently experiencing. Rudget (Help?) 09:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Me three :P. Hope it doesn't bring you down and you get well soon. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever voted the same way at XfD as you, and I've disagreed strongly with you in the past. That won't stop me from wishing you a speedy recovery though! Hope to "cross swords" with you (or better yet, form a total consensus with you) at AfD again before I know it! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

All of the above is really touching and encouraging (I am going to have to update my list of nice wikipedians. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

+me. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A late wish for a speedy recovery from me. Although like the above, I disagree with you at AfD a great deal of the time, I wholeheartedly pray for your health. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your AFD contributions are (almost) always wonderful. Not that this will help anyway, but I also endorse this. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All in all, I am really pleased to read such thoughtful comments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Even though we have conflicting viewpoints on articles (e.g. Turuaga DRV), I think you're an exemplary editor and should be an example for the more disruptive inclusionists on Wikipedia - you're proof that you can have such a strong viewpoint without being disruptive or cantankerous. (also given to DGG, because I enjoy discourse with both of you) Sceptre (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I smell sarcasm in the compliments in this barnstar. Sceptre, the purpose of presenting somebody a barnstar is to express your appreciation of that person's work on Wikipedia, not to use it as a tool to insult other users (also labeled as "disruptive inclusionists") who have a different view from yours. Your barnstar is rather an impertinent attack on people you don't like than a gift for Le grand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.53.202 (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes

I'm sorry to hear that you're not feeling well, and quite worried to hear that you're thinking of leaving the project. I think you're a great asset to Wikipedia, and I hope you stick around. McJeff (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I probably will due to the kind requests above. I seem to be more or less recovered at this point, although I am nevertheless busy with school work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are feeling better, and I would miss your presence. Don't forget that health has first priority. BTW, did you ever get to try the Pumpkin Spice Late from Starbucks that I mentioned some time ago? [1] Best Wishes — Becksguy (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, but hopefully an opportunity will present itself soon. :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Writing style

Just a friendly observation: I've been neutrally observing this RobJ1981 block stuff, and I've noticed that you have a tendency to write a heck of a lot in big blocks of text. I recall you've done this now and then over at WT:VG a few times too. Can I request that you add some paragraphing for any later comments you may make of above average size, as large walls of text like this make for really hard reading. Thanks! -- Sabre (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pie chart

Sorry I haven't got around to making a pie chart for you yet. I've been in and out of town, and overall pretty busy. Could you make a CSV sheet out of the data you wanted put into a chart? I took a quick look and I wasn't 100% sure how you wanted to extract the data.   — C M B J   23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I'm not sure what would be the best approach either. I am open to suggestions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Project News Backlash (2006), Insane Clown Posse, Judgment Day (2005), Judgment Day (2007), Royal Rumble (2005), and Survivor Series (2005) have been elevated to Good Article status. SummerSlam (2007) (link) and SummerSlam (1988) (link) have been nominated for Featured Article status. Backlash (2007), One Night Stand (2007), Paul London, Royal Rumble (2005), The Great American Bash (2007), The Rock (entertainer) and Unforgiven (2006) are currently Good article candidates. Over the Edge (1999) failed it's Good article nomination, though, it has been reassessed here. Current Events Darren Matthews (William Regal) was suspended by WWE for 60 days for breaching the Substance Abuse and Drug Testing Policy. The 2008 WWE Draft was announced by World Wrestling Entertainment chairman, Vince McMahon, to take place on June 23 2008. At One Night Stand, Randy Orton suffered a broken collarbone during his Last man standing match with Triple H. Also, at One Night Stand, Edge won the World Heavyweight Championship in a Tables, Ladders and Chairs match defeating The Undertaker. Per the pre-match stipulation, Undertaker was kayfabe forced to leave WWE. The Month in Wrestling History May 23, 1999 - Owen Hart died in a tragic fall during Over the Edge. May 21, 2000 - Triple H defeated The Rock for the WWF Heavyweight title. May 22, 2000 - Vince Russo stripped Ric Flair of the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, and awarded it to Jeff Jarret. May 17, 2002 - "The British Bulldog" Davey Boy Smith died of a heart attack. May 19, 2004 - Ron Killings won the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. Professional Wrestling Article Stats The number of stub articles has decreased to its lowest level since the project began its focus on improving them. The goal is to get the number below 600, and we're getting close. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Professional wrestling articles Importance Top High Mid Low Total Quality FA 2 3 5 FL 1 5 15 21 GA 4 15 39 58 B 1 13 57 203 274 Start 2 52 221 2331 2606 Stub 1 23 600 624 Assessed 3 71 323 3191 3588 Total 3 71 323 3191 3588

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 389 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. Based on the active members list, there are currently 37 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling. NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members. On the calendar: 19 - Frenchbreadpizza's birthday 24 - Unopeneddoor's birthday 29 - CJMiller's birthday 1 - WWE presents One Night Stand 8 - TNA presents Slammiversary Collaboration of the Week The article collaboration for May 25 through June 7 is Rick Rude. The Featured article collaboration is Carly Colón. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, June 8. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Articles for Deletion Current: Kept: Africa Wrestling Alliance, Blood sweat and ears, List of Ring of Honor events, The Fingerpoke of Doom. Redirected: Deleted: International Wrestling Federation (South Africa), Joseph Carl Bailey, Junior, Independent Pro Wrestling Association, Crash TV, Drew Roode, WWE wins top 10. From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: IMatthew (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) SRX (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

Delivered: 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

User:GlassCobra/Essays/What Wikipedia is

Good one - I couldn't possibly agree more! If only we had more editors with viewpoints like this. BOZ (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; far too much focus on what Wikipedia is not could be spent building up what Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, we can only hope with time that more such people will join the project. Keep up the good work! :) BOZ (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You too. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA opposition

I have not transcluded my RfA nomination yet, and as !votes before that occurs are invalid I've reverted your comments. [2]. I anticipate listing the nomination the week of June 15th if you wish to reinstate your comments. Karanacs (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Sorry. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

hm

Do you want to get serious with the mudslinging? Or would your rather just this one time in our exchange history re-evaluate your own position, the possibly suboptimal wording of my comments notwithstanding? dorftrottel (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All I want is for you to be civil and respectful to your fellow editors. Attacking editors is not how you will convince them to change their stances. Notice what works in RfAs when I and others do in fact change our minds. Insulting them is not what does it. Something like this is what does make editors want to give the candidate a chance. Calling editors "ridiculous" or making assumptions about their standards for adminship does not persuade editors to do anything, except maybe dig in, as others agree per [3] and [4]. In any event, it is unfair to the candidates to take whatever dislike you have for me and some others over to their RfAs, especially when many candidates are fully capable of responding to my opposition in such a polite and constructive manner that I do in fact change my stance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All I want is for you to be respectful to your fellow editors. Equals the opposite of what you are doing in those RfAs, to the candidates who have enough stress as it is, without someone posting outrageous opposes like you imho do. Ok look, I'm this close to telling my true opinion, which is not a very good idea. Please ask Durova what she thinks about your RfA opposes (my comments are secondary to that). I think we both trust her judgement. dorftrottel (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which a good deal of other editors agree with: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], etc. and which in many instances the candidate is able to respond to in a civil and constructive manner, which when reasonable causes me to change my mind. We are first and foremost here to build a comprehensive reference guide and as one of the main functions of an admin deals with deletion, how they will close AfDs matters. Swearing and using overly dramatic language just does not accomplish whatever it is you want to accomplish. I give candidates a bit more credit than to think they can't handle reading a few random opposes from editors. We all receive criticism from bosses, teachers, parents, etc. Anyone wanting to take on a position in which editors will occasionally challenge blocks or challenge AfD closures and maybe even have to defend themselves on admin boards should at least be able to handle good faith criticism of AfD participation. If my opposes are off, then at least give the candidate a chance to respond and peacefully convince me otherwise rather than causing the RfA to turn into something personal and which diminishes the likelihood of editors changing their stances. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please ask Durova. dorftrottel (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just leave it. This is getting really boring. You need to learn the difference I think between 'truth' and your opinion. The consensus on notability can change. I vote at AfD when I weigh up a person - if someone tends to delete alot, then there has to be some more evidence of article buidling or civility to make up for potential pedia shrinkage etc. I suspect le Roi thinks the same way. Given your views on notability...have you ever been to a decent-sized tertiary institution or seen one of their libraries with the depth of coverage they have? Seriously. I am really curious. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the current issue. The issue is opposing RfAs over both programmatic (inclusionism vs exclusionism) and utterly invalid reasons. However, to be honest, you are not the person whose judgement both LGRdC and me trust. Durova is that person, and she has indeed offered to mediate between us in the past. It would be great if she could just weigh in with a few words. I know she wouldn't condone the way I commented in that RfA, but I don't know what she has to say about the way LGRdC is frequently opposing in RfAs. dorftrottel (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very much a part of the issue. There is nothing wrong with having limited (or no) access or experience with the breadth and wealth of published material or certain subjects, especially popular culture. The university which I am associated with has a whole library annexe solely dedicated to pop culture (but is damn hard to park near and out of my way..). What is wrong is either deliberately or accidentally ignoring the possibility of sources, and going forth and wiping large sections of material via AfD. Thus, if you haven't had any exposure, how on earth can you form an opinion on the extent of material and participate or, for that matter, pass judgement on either my or Le Roi's ideas o notability?? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually don't speculate on the existence of sources. dorftrottel (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a break, so notability=google, eh? if you had some experience looking in greater depth at material not online then you would (probably) share my frustration. The internet is very bland and minimalistic on a whole host of areas, and WP is a golden opportunity to rise above the lowest common denominator and really educate. All featured articles I have worked on have required getting books etc. which just goes to show how much the internet is actually lacking. Therefore some degree of speculation is necessary. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to say I'm stupid or too lazy to look for sources? dorftrottel (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One of my pet peeves is how people are treated as stupid and unable to learn - people are capable of remembering vast amounts of information. Think of a main street in the suburb where you live. Now try and list all the attributes you can think of about that street; shops, funny houses, broken streetlights, working streetlights, cracks in the footpath, no parking zones, residences, opening hours of shops, cross-streets, schools etc. You should be up to a few hundred items of information. Now think of other streets in your suburb, then other suburb. See how much you remember (alot, isn't it?) My take on this is you don't have to be some child prodigy to remember prodigious amounts of information and we can all be alot more knowledgeable than what we are. Unfortunately alot of what is written or produced for television or other media is really dumbed down to some imaginary lowest common denominator. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, one of my pet peeves are people who are stupid and unable to learn. dorftrottel (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah yes, one more thing. Stalking my edits to dig up dirt is a bad substitute for rational arguments. As I asked you above: Do you want to get serious with the mudslinging? Either way, in my humble opinion, you just continue to be calculable as a falling stone. dorftrottel (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh right, you may have noticed that I too have been in communication with LaraLove at one time or another, so I didn't need to 'stalk your edits' to see that exchange nor that at Alex's RfA which I was second person to support on. I think you better take your own advice here as per your last reference on my talk page, though I think Le Roi can speak for himself. I somehow suspect you will not sway Le Roi with your witty repartee. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you, otherwise I would have posted this at your talk page. dorftrottel (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinion needed for User:AnnaFrance

My adoptee had a question about a poorly written elementary school article which I answered as I see appropriate. However, I did point out that I tend to be an exclusionist and therefore I would ask someone who is more inclusionist to also give an opposing argument to my rationale for deleting the article. When you get a few minutes, could you pop over to her talk page and give your viewpoint on this? Thank you. Trusilver 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check it out. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. And I'm throwing this out here again: I'm up for a messy fight and I'm completely willing to nominate you for adminship whenever you decided you are up for it. Trusilver 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help!  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup!

Hello! I just wanted to offer a quick bit of thanks for your kind words regarding the spirited AfD debate regarding the 1937 film of "I, Claudius." I appreciated your comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; I love to see it when editors work together to improve things, so bravo!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just had to prove me wrong, didn't you?

here :) Just after I said I didn't think we'd ever been on the same side of an AfD. Actually, we probably have since you only found a handful to point out at my RfA but this one caught my attention. Oh and mega ditto what someone said above about the Pumpkin drink at Starbucks, although I personally prefer the pumpkin smoothie from the deli near my office. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am happy to see that we agreed sooner or later!  :) Pumpkin smoothies... mmmmm.... :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

tell you what, come to New York and I'll buy you one. I had to be sold on them but they're pleasantly good. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I'm ever in New York, I may take you up on it, or return the favor should you be in my neck of the woods. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Little polar bears just stopped by your talk page to wish you a good day. They'd like to thank you for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia and hope their visit will brighten your (busy) Wiki-workday! ^_^ 09:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

rfa thanks

great pumpkin, i just wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. i've left some templated thank spam for you below. also, feel free to comment on my in-depth RFA analysis. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

RFA

Standards

My RFA standards are still being refined, but I rarely base my support on arbitrary cut-offs like number of edits, or length of time editing. More often I will attempt to determine the clue level of a candidate. If high levels of clue are present, they will earn my support, regardless of whether or not they have 5000 non-huggle edits and 6 months of regular activity. This is based on a fairly brief review of their contributions, moreso on their answers to the questions. I have an optional question that I often pose to candidates that helps with this.

Self-noms and the acceptance line

• Neglecting to follow the bolded instruction #6 to delete the acceptance line in the self-nomination instructions will cause me to register a neutral unless a preponderance of clue has already been detected.
• I do this because it is a fairly simple and easy instruction to follow. Not following it is (in my opinion) indicative of a deeper tendency to not thoroughly read and follow instructions generally. Adminship is no big deal, but applying for adminship is. The fact that a candidate hasn't fully versed themselves in the process of RFA prior to jumping in doesn't build confidence that they will accurately follow guidelines and policies in applying administrative actions.
• An example of how this could apply to a real-world admin situation: When blocking for an inappropriate username, it is customary to uncheck the "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" boxes. However, an admin who doesn't thoroughly follow instructions might not do this and as such Wikipedia could lose an otherwise constructive contributor.
• One user has mentioned that leaving this line in could be justified by ignore all rules. Quite frankly, I disagree. There is no good reason to ignore this rule, and following it is painless. Attention to detail is a quality I value in an administrator.
• As I mentioned, leaving this line in isn't always a deal breaker and if the candidate's actions indicate to me that this oversight is an anomaly, I may change to, or otherwise support. Furthermore, if they remove the line using only a herring, I will most certainly lend my support, though I may ask that they first bring me a shrubbery.

Participation

1. Thingg - nom, support (69/32/4)
2. WBOSITG 2 - support (114/10/4)
3. Zginder - neutral became moral support in the neutral column and then oppose (8/34/9)
4. Ro098 - oppose (0/3/0)
5. Jbmurray - support (161/1/2)
6. Vivio Testarossa - oppose (8/25/7)
7. Bluegoblin7 - neutral (6/13/10)
8. Guest9999 - support (48/31/4)
9. Paulyb - oppose (0/4/0)
10. Strennman - oppose (0/6/0)
11. Tyw7 - oppose (with moral support) (0/1/0)

    Tyw7 2 - oppose, switched to strong oppose (3/14/1)

12. Xenocidic - candidate (72/13/2)
13. InDeBiz1 - moral support (5/15/2)
14. Useight (RFB) - support (28/16/6)
15. Tinkleheimer - moral support (15/16/8)
16. Ironholds - oppose (12/24/10)
17. Kevin - neutral, switched to support (54/2/0)
18. Pinkville - support (54/0/1)
19. Ali'i - weak support (70/55/14)
20. Cenarium - support (42/2/2)
21. Soxred93 3 - neutral, switched to support (87/7/3)
22. Avruch - support (104/35/10)
23. Cedarvale1965-08 - oppose (0/2/0)
24. Karanacs - support (119/4/3)
25. Plyhmrp - oppose (0/4/0)
26. SarekOfVulcan - support (76/11/2)
27. Golich17 - support (19/36/11)
28. Headbomb - support (17/38/11)
29. oren0 - support (67/21/13)
30. Ryan - support (17/36/2)
31. EricV89 - support (13/43/9)
32. Frank - support (59/11/4)
33. Masterpiece2000 - neutral (10/19/3)
34. JeanLatore - neutral (0/12/1)

    JeanLatore 2 - oppose (0/6/0)

35. RyanLupin 2 - support (32/28/4)
36. Blakegripling ph - support (9/30/9)
37. Lomn - support (54/1/1)
38. Shoessss 2 - support (23/26/7)
39. Tanner-Christopher 2 - support (64/3/4)
40. the demonhog 2 - support (100/1/1)
41. TomStar 81 3 - support (80/18/2)
42. Cailil - support (66/8/5)
43. Lady Aleena 2 - neutral, switched to oppose (28/31/10)
44. Red Phoenix - support (13/7/2)
45. No longer updating, see my RFA participation report

Optional question

Main page: User:Xenocidic/RFAQ

Thanks

Thank you for your support

So...how do I use these things? ;>

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of my RFA

Main page: User talk:Xenocidic/RFA

Congratulations and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Potential not current state and your more experienced eye

With the above in mind would you mind having a look at Joe Sernio. I'm attempting to get it fixed just in case the subject is notable enough for inclusion. I'm afraid that a possibly new contributor may be digging a whole they can't get out of with the article and would appreciate any help you can provide as a more experienced editor in getting it into some form of shape. I've addressed some of the issues on the talkpage if that helps. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see if I can make some improvements now. Any chance you can help me with Elizabeth Wiatt? If you notice the history of the page, I did a good deal already, but any help would be appreciated. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: IAR

(copied from User talk:Randomran#Re: IAR):

I'm a "he" incidentally. One could say the same about cherry picking and repetition on those against the inclusion of the articles in question. And again, I don't think calling editors' good faith contributions "crap" helps. If anything why not somehow notify the various article creators and editors of these discussions to get a better sense of what they really think? Why not get some new blood into these discussions? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Because that's not our job. If you feel so strongly about getting those people into the discussion, it's up to YOU to get them into it. (And before you point out that you can't see deleted contributions because you're not an admin: Neither can most of the people involved in the VGProj discussion. Only a handful of us are admins, and I'd wager that none of us have the time or resources to devote to such an undertaking.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Were I to try to get others involved in these discussions, is there a way to do so that would not lead some to think it's canvassing? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. Check out this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#Canvassing and Consensus Building Disconnects - there is some dispute about that behavioral guideline (note that it is not a policy) as to what extent we should limit canvassing, because there are some legitimate cases where notifying multiple users of a discussion is necessary and/or helpful. That said, the main concern about canvassing is when it's used to unduly influence a discussion - as you've seen, a common dispute here on WP is between "deletionists" and "inclusionists", and you clearly fall on the "inclusionist" side of the debate in this case. So you want to be careful to make sure people understand that you want them to express their opinions, but not necessarily to influence them unduly. It's a tough one to go on.

I agree that in an ideal world, you could get any uninvolved, neutral third party to go contact those people for you in the interest of keeping things balanced. If I had the time and inclination, I'd be happy to help you with that, since I've been on both sides of the fence. But I don't, unfortunately, and I don't think other admins in the project do either. And the commonly accepted practice is that the person who wants to make the change to current consensus must do the "leg work". It's up to "you" to convince "us".

That said, if we're still discussing the game weapons issue, I believe I already made my point on that one: There are good policy-based reasons for maintaining the status quo on which weapons get mentions and which ones don't. The policies many times transcend consensus, and WikiProject guidelines are based on those policies (in VGProj's case, WP:N, WP:TRIVIA, and what Wikipedia is not figure heavily into the guideline structure).

My personal opinion on this specific issue is that you'll need to concede at some point that the majority of active participants in the project disagree with you on the general notability of weapons, and that continuing to argue about it with us/them is fruitless and will only serve to annoy people. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am definitely an inclusionist, but not such an inclusionist as to think "everything" should be covered or that deletionists are my enemies. I have argued against the inclusion of hoaxes, how tos, original research, and other unconstructive stuff and some deletionists even appear on my list of nice Wikipedians. I do not want to get a larger opinion in these discussions merely in the hopes that I will somehow "win" the argument, but in the hopes that the larger community can reach a greater understanding. It's not just about game weapons, but also fictional characters as well and while I would of course acknowledge that a number of those who actively participate in some of the project discussions disagree with me it still is disconnected from a larger number of those who create and edit articles and so what I think we need is to get those editors in on the discussions somehow to see why so many do in fact believe that this type of coverage is relevant. If can get discussions in which more than only a dozen or so editors participate, I am far more likely to be persuaded one way or the other, as it does seem to greatly annoy the article creators and contributors when their articles are deleted if they happened to miss the five day AfD and when in some instances they are really belittled by those wanting the deletions. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said before, every game article that's under the scope of VGProj has a template in its talk page that links it to the project. Editors who are interested in discussing these issues will eventually find their way to the right place to talk about it, so to some extent you can rely on that for "gaining interest". The fact is that a lot of editors just want to edit articles and don't really care that much about the overarching project discussions, and there's no realistic way to get those people involved in the project as a whole unless those people express some sort of interest in it themselves. And, also as I said, articles that get deleted are always tagged for deletion, and the process is such that the person who created the article is notified of the pending deletion/discussion. The notification messages themselves contain references to the relevant WP policies (which means they're outside VGProj scope anyway), and where deletion discussions take place, there are almost always links to the more specific project guidelines page(s). Any editor who knows how to use Wikipedia should be able to easily find their way from there to the Guidelines Talk (or at least the main VGProj Talk) and start discussing their concerns, if they feel so inclined. The deletion discussions themselves are also good places for people to voice their opinions and concerns.

So it's not like we aren't giving those people plenty of opportunities to talk to us. The fact remains that the people who actually participate in the project are the ones who form consensus on its guidelines. Same is true of WP policies - people have to actively participate in discussions on those if they want to get them changed. It doesn't matter how many people believe that we should have an article for every fictional character and every weapon in a game - if we never hear from them, consensus isn't going to change. That's all there is to it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, an idea would be to expand the welcome templates to say something like we encourage new users to participate in consensus building discussions (i.e. not simply read the policies, but discuss them and notice that they to can and are canged and edited as regularly as most articles) as well as article creation and revisions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My user page

No, no specific literary reference (other than a general allusion to the eponymous speaker in the Old English poem) was intended. The first sentence on my user page is just an adaptation of the second sentence in the last paragraph of the WP article Deor. Deor (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Incidentally, my username is a spin on the French combination of The Great Pumpkin and The Pumpkin King. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble

You've apparently been the target of vandalism. Consider it a high honor! It means you're "doing it right!". We (admins) have reverted the changes, blocked the user, and deleted the redirects. Let me (or any admin) know if you see anything else or have troubles again. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Anyway, I'm guessing relatiation for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Strange page moves. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're guess is correct. Hopefully, we've found all the sleeper accounts and socks, but if not, we'll catch them eventually (we always do!). Have a good weekend, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Avril Lavigne pagemove vandals that will hopefully solve the problem. The funny thing is, I actually happen to like some of her music... Anyway, have a nice weeend as well! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to play Solomon

Would you and Dorftrottel be willing to do a gentleman's agreement not to comment on each other's posts? Polite distance is often a good solution when two reasonable people mix like oil and water. Durova^Charge! 05:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you think that is a good idea. Sure thing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Irony

Well, that is somewhat amusing... I am sorry that I got somewhat heated however, I disagree with you on several points firmly but I should still remain cool. G'day, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. While I may disagree with many editors here, even strongly, at the end of the day, I still know that most of us mean well and that there's always areas where we can agree or get along somewhere. Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Gears of Weapons List

• The copy is now available at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Gears of War Weapons List minus the tags and cats --JForget 01:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks!  :) Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your guidance on my Talk Page - I do hope that I have not done anything 'bad' to warrant them but even if I have, thank you as I do not want to cause problems on here - Thank you and regards, 86.2.32.31 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)