User talk:Android79/TalkArchive004
Re: Moving
[edit]Hello, Android! No, I haven't finished moving yet—the final move will be this weekend. I'm dreading it; I still have a lot of packing to do. No, I don't mind you asking; I'll be moving to Rochester, so I'll be somewhat close by, it seems. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- A two-hour-plus drive isn't what I'd call "close by." :-) Good luck with your move (I hope it's less eventful than my recent one – snow on May 1!) and I'm sure you'll enjoy Rochester. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm used to long drives to travel between Chicago suburbs, especially with the horrible Chicago-area traffic—what's Minneapolis traffic like? I'm hoping the move goes well...I hate packing! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property
[edit]Please explain how this article is "notable" w.r.t. Inappropriate Uses of Wikipedia? Ariele 03:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's a long-standing organization of some importance and notoriety. Frankly, I'm not sure how this could be construed as an inappropriate use of Wikipedia – there's no soapbox to be seen in the article, if that's what you're getting at. The article is written in a very NPOV manner. If you want to make your case for deletion, make it at the VfD discussion, not by individually messaging each editor who voted to keep. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 11:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Do correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that because this organization exists, an article should be written about it here? And who really wants to take on that project? Hence, my reason for submitting the idea of deleting it and be done with it. I've known about this organization years before it appeared here in Wikipedia. I know all that I want or ever want to know about this organization. Ariele 23:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. This organization seems notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Who really wants to take on that project? Someone already has. Maybe you know everything you want to about it, but not everyone does. Someone may be looking for information on this organization in the future, and in theory, Wikipedia will provide them with unbiased, valuable data. That may not happen, but it's no reason not to try. Quite frankly, I'm baffled at your attitude; the idea here is to build a free encyclopedia – a source of information on people, places, things, and ideas the world over. If you don't think the article is neutral enough, fix it yourself. That's not a reason to delete it. If you don't like the organization itself, that's too bad. There are plenty of articles for things I'm not fond of, but that's no reason to erase them from Wikipedia. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- You can probably guess what my response to "fix it yourself" would be. As for my "baffled attitude", it's more in line with "clearly" I am only interested in creative development of a topic that is fun, self-less, and does not aim at targeting or singling out any particular group of people. Take for example, Bubble Yum. Now that's a fun article worth expanding. Ariele 21:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. This organization seems notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Who really wants to take on that project? Someone already has. Maybe you know everything you want to about it, but not everyone does. Someone may be looking for information on this organization in the future, and in theory, Wikipedia will provide them with unbiased, valuable data. That may not happen, but it's no reason not to try. Quite frankly, I'm baffled at your attitude; the idea here is to build a free encyclopedia – a source of information on people, places, things, and ideas the world over. If you don't think the article is neutral enough, fix it yourself. That's not a reason to delete it. If you don't like the organization itself, that's too bad. There are plenty of articles for things I'm not fond of, but that's no reason to erase them from Wikipedia. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Do correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that because this organization exists, an article should be written about it here? And who really wants to take on that project? Hence, my reason for submitting the idea of deleting it and be done with it. I've known about this organization years before it appeared here in Wikipedia. I know all that I want or ever want to know about this organization. Ariele 23:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RfA
[edit]Thank you for your support! Grue 06:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Eygelshoven
[edit]I noticed you question on the discussion page for Eygelshoven. In case you didn't notice; I edited the article and it should answer your question now. Fnorp 12:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! I had totally forgotten about that article. Now it makes sense. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 12:49, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
CSD expansion
[edit]Hi there! Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load, I've put together a proposal to expand CSD, here: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal. Before it is put to a general vote I would like your advise on the wording and intent; could you please take a look? Thanks, Radiant_>|< 13:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Vote Summary
[edit]You removed the table of votes from the VFD on Aetherometry citing the prohibition on refactoring VFDs into tables or list of votes. I don't see how that prohibition applies, since it says do not "refactor", which I take to mean rewrite or reorganize the order of the votes since the order matters. For example, we obviously don't want people reshuffling the votes into different sections. However, I don't see how that applies to adding a summary at the top of a very complicated discussion. No one has to rely upon it, and the entire discussion is preserved in the order in which it is given. Dragons flight June 28, 2005 22:15 (UTC)
- Summarizing the discussion with a table of votes turns the proceeding into a vote tallying rather than a discussion ("Votes" for deletion, as I'm sure you're aware, is really about discussing articles, despite the title), and your placement of it at the top of the discussion gives it undue prominence. The deciding administrator won't be aided by it much, either, as he or she will have to check each vote individually anyway, as your criteria for determining which users' votes really count may or may not match his or hers, and especially because the discussion has degenerated into such a mess. True, the guideline at WP:GVFD doesn't mention summarization; perhaps I have overstepped my bounds, but IMO that's an oversight that needs to be corrected. Adding a summary to the top of a very complicated discussion only serves to simplify it too much. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 28, 2005 22:36 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I disagree. We both recognize that the closing admin is (hopefully) going to do considerably more than tally votes and will try to sort out the largely incoherent mess that is that VFD. However, even the participants need to have some idea in what direction things are going, in light of the mess that exists and all of the "new user" spam. For example, there are a considerable number of people working at Talk:Aetherometry now in part because they believe the article will be kept. I guess I believe it summarizes things about the right amount. Dragons flight June 28, 2005 22:47 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why the participants should need to know which way things are going – at a glance, at least; reading the discussion in full ought to give them that, although I grant that in this case it was particularly painful. VfD voters should not be attracted to a particular discussion just for the apparent ability to swing the tally one way or another – the article should be judged on its own merits and the arguments made in the discussion, not on raw numbers. Placing a tally prominently at the top of the discussion only encourages "Me too!" or "I object!" votes, IMO, and takes attention away from the discussion (both reading and participating in it), such as it is/was for Aetherometry. In any case, thanks for your civility and politeness. Perhaps I acted a bit rashly, and many other Wikipedians I have dealt with would have gone berserk. I know I probably can't convince you that the summary is a bad idea, but it's worth a try, no? ;-) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 29, 2005 02:34 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I disagree. We both recognize that the closing admin is (hopefully) going to do considerably more than tally votes and will try to sort out the largely incoherent mess that is that VFD. However, even the participants need to have some idea in what direction things are going, in light of the mess that exists and all of the "new user" spam. For example, there are a considerable number of people working at Talk:Aetherometry now in part because they believe the article will be kept. I guess I believe it summarizes things about the right amount. Dragons flight June 28, 2005 22:47 (UTC)
- Hi, I was just eavesdropping on the conversation and thought I'd drop a quick note. Generally tallying the votes during VfD is considered a Bad Thing for the reasons that Android79 has described—chiefly that it overemphasizes the notion that it is a vote or competition, and distracts from the (ideal) consensus-building process. It also doesn't tend to get updated consistently or regularly during discussion, so tallies tend to be inaccurate anyway. Finally, they can lead to arguments about the validity of votes and counting methods which are extraneous to the discussion of an article's place in Wikipedia. I'd also suggest poking through Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus/Regarding_tally_boxes, which addressed an earlier attempt to add counts to VfD discussions. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 29 June 2005 03:33 (UTC)
Lucky sez hi
[edit]- Yo, 'Droid! Thanks for the welcome-home, fellow slayer of trolls and vandals! Nice to hear from you. How goes the war? - Lucky 6.9 30 June 2005 02:41 (UTC)
- It's a losing battle, especially since RickK decided to leave. Have you seen VfD lately? Friggin' huge! BTW, you may want to have a lookie here. Good stuff. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 30, 2005 02:50 (UTC)
- I know. I simply do not understand why obvious vanity, aka "sockpuppet bait" can't be shot on sight. Most of what goes on VfD is deleted anyway. If anything, the rules should be relaxed. Looks like progress is being made. That glut of teacher articles should be a wake-up call. Keep me posted...? - Lucky 6.9 1 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)
- It's a losing battle, especially since RickK decided to leave. Have you seen VfD lately? Friggin' huge! BTW, you may want to have a lookie here. Good stuff. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 30, 2005 02:50 (UTC)
Hi there! On June 1, you voluenteered to improve a POKéMON stub and were assigned Haunter. I notice you haven't made any edits to this article in a while, so I wanted to know if you were still interested in going through with this.
If not, please let us know and we will put Haunter back up for adoption. If you still want to participate, we will keep the article assigned to you, or, if you request it, we can assign you to another article. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 1 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)
- I haven't made any recent edits because I'm not sure what else to do with it... though I know I haven't turned it into a non-stub yet. I'll look at it in the near future. (BTW, I've subst'd this threaded discussion thingie. I'd prefer to not have templates on my talk page except the ones I set up.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 1, 2005 20:48 (UTC)
My watchlist
[edit]Everyone: my watchlist appears to be malfunctioning, so if you respond to me on an article's talk page, I'll likely miss it. Let me know here instead, if you're so inclined. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 1, 2005 17:36 (UTC)
- The watchlist problem is an ongoing systemwide bug after the upgrade to 1.5. See Wikipedia:MediaWiki 1.5 bugs#Watchlist problems for more. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 1 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)