User talk:Ginsengbomb/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The Promenade at Coconut Creek

Someone found sources. You might want to revisit the The Promenade at Coconut Creek AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Doesn't change my vote, but certainly changes my rationale. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Middlesex (novel) copyedit requested

Per this, would you help copyedit Middlesex (novel)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. I'd love to. That said, and owing to several RL factors, my time available to Wikipedia tends to be of the brief-spurts-of-activity-followed-by-lengthy-silences variety these days. I think the best way to move forward with my help would be to direct me at a particular section or set of sections that most need work. Are there any particular areas that need the most attention? I can take a quick pass through the article now (slow day at the office!) and see if there's anything glaring, but for FAC purposes you're looking for something approaching perfection. Let me know what you think. I was about to go on a 20 minute bureaucratic yammering binge when I remembered that I hadn't replied to this more lofty request yet! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not sure which parts of the article are the weakest, but perhaps you can take a look at the "Style" section, which was rewritten recently? Cunard (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In...case it isn't obvious already, I've not done anything at all to live up to my above commitments. Indeed, my Wikipedia editing currently appears to be limited to responding to posts on my talk page.

Perhaps -- you never know -- if you posted the offending sections of Middlesex (novel) to my talk page, I'd actually make good on my commitments. (That's probably a joke). If/when I come out of this Wiki-malaise, you will be the first to know. Good luck! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's all right. I welcome any feedback or copyediting of the article once you have the time for Wikipedia again. Cunard (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Resignation from Wikipedia

When Wikipedia first started, it was a very nice project. You could contribute to existing articles or start new ones, and it was fun to watch other users improve on what you had written -- expanding it, making it clearer, adding more information, etc. It really worked well for a number of years.

But those days are over. I've found lately that if you try to contribute anything at all, somebody immediately deletes your contribution, citing some obscure violation of the minutiae of thousands of Wikipedia rules and policies. I've sometimes spent hours and hours arguing with someone over making even the tiniest change to an article; then after having soundly won the argument, had my contribution deleted anyway. Start a new article on some topic, and it gets almost immediately deleted. Try correcting or adding to an existing article, and your edits are immediately reverted. Try to look up an article you wrote a few years ago, and it's gone. There's just no point in spending time on the Wikipedia project anymore, when anything you do is immediately deleted. After many years of contributing to Wikipedia, I've finally had enough of fighting with these self-appointed deletionist Wikipedia topic police. I won't be contributing to it anymore, and will be joining the increasing number of people who are abandoning the Wikipedia project. SimpsonDG (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Neat how you posted this message exclusively on the talk pages of people who voted Delete at the AFD for World Season Calendar, where you voted Keep. I was wondering why you posted it to me, and a quick jaunt through your contributions list leads me to the obvious conclusion. You're making a statement and directing it at we "self-appointed deletionist Wikipedia topic police!" That's really great, and I wish you all the best with future similar endeavors. Best regards from the Dept. of Topic Policing, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice to know the whole world doesn't hate me. Thanks for a friendly voice! Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note: I said nothing about the whole world not hating you. (Joke) :D ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

THanks

Sorry you missed the party, and thank you for the good wishes. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, Ginsengbomb. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue Wikipedia articles considered by others as notable. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ARS Invitation

(From User:Northamerica1000 talk page):

I'm flattered, and I've long thought of the ARS as an organization that, on paper, is gigantically valuable to Wikipedia. I'll join, but I should note that I am a fairly frequent Delete voter in AfD's. I don't consider myself a deletionist. I do consider myself a fan of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I am a strong believer in limiting Wikipedia content to notable content because I think it enhances the overall quality of the encyclopedia. I'm pointing these things out because my one misgiving with saying 'yea' to your kind invitation is that I don't want to rock the boat by voting Delete on AfD's listed at the ARS' rescue list (which, I assure you, will inevitably happen). I also point out that I voted Delete in the recent Rescue Tag TFD. If you don't think any of this is an issue, then I'll happily join. I've been keeping tabs on the ARS rescue list of late anyway, and I'm optimistic that the ARS is heading in a direction where being a member isn't going to be a stigmatizing, polarizing thing anymore. Which is a good thing; there needs to be an ARS, and it needs to be cool to be in the ARS.

Sorry, I'm also very babble-y :).ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, screw it. Making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'll join, and thanks for the invite :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• Thanks for the reply! To join, just add your name to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members at the bottom of the list. Happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, Ginsengbomb, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again — Welcome! Northamerica1000(talk) 01:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I have mentioned you at this ANI discussion. Sorry.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Something was needed

	CSD ninja award
	For a thoughtful approach to speedy deletion. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Thank you kindly :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

New section

Might be useful to read the talk page of the article to see how difficult it was for the editors who created the article to come up with reliable, proper sources. While I at one moment thought there was some hope in changing the name to something else, the course the discussion ran led me to think otherwise.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read most of that discussion and it doesn't really change my opinion. That said, I'm hopeful that more truly neutral editors will participate in the discussion. It's a very difficult one to work out. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Ginsengbomb. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the project! Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank me when I actually do something for the project ;). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Sorry, I wasn't responding because I couldn't think of something at the moment to ask about. As to the focus of it, I understand what you mean about it mentioning multiple issues, but these all relate specifically to the case. My focus will be much stronger on the ARS and canvassing. The other issues mentioned are more to point out some general misconduct by editors in the ARS or sympathetic with the ARS. Plus, it gets ahead of the inevitable effort to make the RfC about me and those discussions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries and no need to apologize! Regardless, points well-taken. I think if you make it clear that the wikiproject discussions point is specifically about ARS misconduct then you may have something. I still think it dilutes your underlying point, but if you're at least tying it directly to the ARS issue as a whole then I think it's a bit less problematic -- and I definitely understand your intention to get in front of people trying to make the RFC blow up in your face. That's almost certain to happen. Anyway, carry on, and take care. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am still working on building up evidence, but I would like your thoughts on how I am doing so far.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't have anything additional to add on the RFC beyond what I've already suggested; that singling out NA1000 is misguided for a number of reasons, and that the Wikiproject point, despite your claims to the contrary, continues to read (at least) as a loosely-connected and massive expansion of scope. If I were to lose one of those two, though, it'd be the NA1000 piece. I think you're at odds with reality in arguing that he's been pushing the ARS to his POV -- they were already where they are long before he started editing last summer -- and I further think that not only is singling someone out inappropriate, even if you were to single someone out you're picking on someone who, to me at least, seems very reasonable, predictable, and rational compared to...certain other more shall-we-say fanatical ARS members :).

I also think the evidence you've gathered, while in certain places certainly representative of problematic ARS Wikiproject content and direction, does not justify a draconian solution like your Desired Outcome.

Incidentally, I read SW's reply to you on his talk page. If you give any excuse for people to perceive that you're arguing from a reactionary standpoint -- which is exactly what I think the NA1000 and Wikiproject pieces do -- it will be easy to dismiss any more reasonable concerns of yours as bitter, WP:IDHT venting. Or, at least, that's what I suspect will happen. Actually, that'll probably happen either way! Anyway, be careful and good luck. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is still a work in progress, my suggestion about North is based off quite a bit of evidence that I have just not included yet. His edits to the ARS project page, his heavy involvement in the list and use of the previous rescue tag, as well as some specific AfD-related behavior, are all serving to inform my suggestion. My biggest concern is actually that a substantial amount of evidence about North might cause people to think he is the real problem and ignore my concerns about ARS in general. Should you know of other editors whose behavior is seriously problematic then I would be glad to have input on that, I am only familiar with some of the players with North and Dream being the two I know the most about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. Fair enough; my experience with NA1000 is not very lengthy, maybe he's a total menace. Just... be careful with this. As I'm sure you've been told elsewhere, there's very high potential for this blowing up in your face, admin semi-endorsement in recent WP:AN or not. And while I don't agree with you on all points I don't want to see that happen, not least because I supported the idea of you pursuing an RFC. Your recent history means you have to work trebly hard to avoid this being Just Another The Devil's Advocate vs. The ARS Crusade. I'm sure you know this, and I know that is not your intention. I'd just feel remiss in not pointing it out. Good luck! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There has been a lot more material added on so some new input on the draft would be great.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made some more changes to try and fix things up. Any input you have on the changes is welcome.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice one

		The Original Barnstar
		Lol... just had to recognize this edit summary in some way! Zad68 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :D. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sega AM3

Hey,
Yea, I saw the original article, and ofcourse, its a valid redirect. Erm, okay, I've replied this way at the Afd discussion, quite dunno how to withdraw the Afd :$ :P, could you please temme if I did right? :) --Écrivain (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You did it right :). I'll close the AFD now. Thanks for being so quick in your reply! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

...and someone else beat me to it. All resolved. Thanks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Cookies!

'cos cookies taste better than trouts. Diego (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You were right before

Unfortunately, by copying portions of text from March 7 Apple Media Event into Apple media events Diego has insured the article cannot be deleted, because we have to keep the history intact for attributions sake. He did an end run around the AfD process and doesn't really deserve pats on the back. AniMate 23:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Mm-hm. I did not consider that. I won't profess to have any idea whether his intention was to be sneaky or not, but that is a pretty shit outcome. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrt AGF

The AGF remark was not for you. You've been a gentleman; others, not so.Diego (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ya, ya. Thanks for clarifying; I wasn't certain! We're all friends here, come what may with respect to this AFD. Indeed, I think I've moved beyond frustration/aggravation with respect to how it's gone and am beginning to...well...find it all a bit humorous. The amount of sheer noise, conflict, and controversy that can come from an AFD on a topic that almost unambiguously fails some directly relevant guidelines...incredible. That I was caught off guard by the implications of your solution with respect to attribution didn't help matters :). As for your solution, I'm withholding judgment for now and will actually try to help the article along, but I'm not (yet) 100% convinced it's a worthy topic for an article, similar articles (e.g. Apple Advertising) notwithstanding. To be honest, I don't like the Apple Advertising article, either.

I'm considering proposing something a bit bolder and suggesting we merge the two and bring in some new content under the banner of Apple marketing. Advertising, events, package design, product design...put those together and you have an unassailably good topic that will get sufficient traffic to avoid the mess that the advertising article is in. Just something I'm thinking about for now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ARS RfC

I have done some reworking on the draft and would like to know what you think. This is probably done I think, but I want to know if you have any last minute suggestions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see it reading a bit less like a screed and certainly to see the NA1K-specific content removed. No real suggestions at this point that I haven't made or alluded to already. I'll look for this to go live and then decide whether I want to participate in any discussion that results or not. Good luck...try not to fan any flames that result from this and/or be overly defensive if and when (let's just say "when") people push back strongly. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

An answer

...has been posted.[1] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I seek your input

in THIS discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart

Yes, you are missing something: See: "Investigators think they've uncovered a key clue that will lead them to solve the mystery of what happened to legendary aviator Amelia Earhart, who disappeared on a trans-Pacific flight 75 years ago.

Ric Gillespie, executive director of The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR), said a new enhanced analysis of a photo taken on the Pacific atoll of Nikumaroro, formerly Gardner Island, three months after Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan disappeared, may show the landing gear of her Lockheed Electra protruding from a reef."

If you haven't followed the continual TIGHAR revelations for years that amount to absolutely nothing, than you haven't been following the Earhart disappearance story carefully. FWiW, the article is not definitive, mainly more supposition, with "experts" shown a photograph in a blind review and that's about it. Bzuk (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

All due respect, have you read the rest of the article? I mean, yes, they "think" they've uncovered a key clue that will lead them to etc. etc., and it "may" show the gear of her Electra (whether it's hers or not is not at all certain) but the State Department did identify the landing gear in the photo as being that of an Electra -- which is all I wrote, and that is not disputed in the article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean, to clarify, none of what you quote above is what I inserted into the Earhart article. I never wrote that Amelia Earhart's plane's landing gear are in the photo. At the very least, whether the insertion is acceptable or not, I take issue with your invisible comment asserting that what I wrote is not in the source. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

All the source mentions is that a photograph is identified ... And that does not make the link to Earhart, this is another example of the TIGHAR publicity machine. They send out volunteer "archaeologists" on expeditions to Nikumaroro that have continued the mythology of the Earhart ditching at the island. Unless there is something more definite here other than experts seeing a purported 1937 photograph and identifying it as an Electra gear, what else is there? BTW, we have an Electra in our museum here, and the gear is easy to recognize, but does that make it significant? Take your concerns to the talk page but I am obviously very sceptical of the validity or import of this latest "find". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

Heh. Exactly what you say here occurred to me right after posting my thinking on this. I see your point. I've posted something to the talk page asserting my position (and apologies for the revert-of-your-revert; I don't normally do that but I was initially taken aback), and I think I'll post a second message mollifying my assertion. I do think it's interesting and relevant information, but I definitely get your objection. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be such a prig, and you are actually correct in asserting that the blog comment did make an assertion that seemed credible on first reading but the disclaimers were troublesome. I have amended the invisible note accordingly to reflect that. Don't get me wrong, I hope that TIGHAR actually finds something substantial, I just don't believe this is it. (I was a member of TIGHAR and believe that they have the right idea but have turned into a bit of a publicity hound that serves to keep the group in the spotlight and with so many false leads to their credit, most observers are very reluctant to accept the latest declaration as definitive. FWiW, sorry for my terse comments as I was in a rush (good note for the future, I will endeavor to take time to explain myself more clearly and keep the "cool".) Bzuk (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

		Civility Award
		BTW, I appreciate the deft way you handled my clumsy effort. Bzuk (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the barnstar and the thinking. You definitely don't need to apologize for anything, though, and your effort was hardly "clumsy." For my part, I was being defensive. Regardless, this is definitely why Wiki can be fun sometimes; I made an edit to an Earhart article regarding some announcement from an organization called TIGHAR that I'd never heard of before, and immediately got into a mini-debate with an apparent aviation expert who's a former TIGHAR member. Love that. Anyway, think we're basically on the same page :). Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Apple advertising

You're doing it wrong... :-) Common sense is not going anywhere. If you can't just not feed the troll, Wikilawyering is funnier and will achieve just the same (i.e. nothing). Diego (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did bring it to AN -- the Wikilawyering equivalent of pressing the red button :D. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.15 (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.96 (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)