User:Soltak/Archive 1

{Archived on 23 July 2005}

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

This article was created about four months ago, and was still a stub; instead of expanding it, you created a new article under an incorrect title (and with incorrect formatting), and made the old article into a redirect (without correcting any of the links to the old article). Why? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

There was a post on the 'requested articles' page for an article regarding the Center. I clicked on that link and wrote the article. When I later located the stub article I redirected to my own, more complete article. As far as formatting is concerned, I'm not aware of having incorrectly formatted my article on the Center. While the capitalization of 'For' is regrettable, I simply followed the link as posted on the requests page. -Soltak 15:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The use of the capital isn't merely regrettable, it's wrong; the article that I started, and to which a number of other editors have contributed, has the correct capitalisation. Please edit that, adding your material. Continuing to remove the correct article and to recreate your own is at least disruption, possibly vandalism. If necessary, I shall take steps to have the articles protected.

I don't understand your stubbornness on this; all you have to do is to add your material to the existing article that's under the correct title (don't merely replace what's there with your version).

Note also that your article has no summary, and doesn't conform to Wikipedia style in a number of other respects. You should read the Guide to layout, and for more extensive material the Manual of Style. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Number one, don't presume to edit my user page. Secondly, it's not stubbornness. You seem to be the one acting like a jackass. I didn't delete the page, I simply restored my own that you had, with flimsy justification, deleted completely. Additionally, if I do choose to expand the stub, it will be at the expense of the information located there presently. The current article is almost completely useless and what little information it does present is contained within my larger, much more complete article. I responded politely the first time, don't test my patience. -Soltak 21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted your incorrectly-titled article to a rdirect and protected it from editing; I've moved the article to User:Soltak/Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, where you can edit it, and transfer the material to the existeing, correctly-named article. You should also read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The existing article has been appropriately expanded. -Soltak 18:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That's good. Unfortunately (and I'm really sorry about this; I know that it must seem as though I'm pursuing some sort of vendetta against you, but I can only promise that I'm not), the material you've added comes mostly from here. That page states: "Copyright 2005, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved." Do you have permission to copy this material (under the Wikipedia terms of coopyright), or do you have good reason to believe that the material is usable by Wikipedia? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your inquiry, as it is warranted. A good bit of the information did come from the cited link. Before adding it to Wikipedia, however, I did secure the permission of Sharon McCarter, Director of Outreach & Communications for the Center. As this is an encyclopedia entry and not intended for personal gain, I was informed that the policies of the Center (and most government entities) allow for the material to be copied. -Soltak 20:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The problem is that, because of Wikipedia's policy for use of its own material (see Wikipedia:Copyrights) that might not be enough. I'll check myself, but it would be good if you could contact the Centre and make sure that they understand the position (perhaps by giving them a link to our copyrights page). Sorry for all the fuss, but it would be a pity to lose all the material; if the worst comes to the worst, we'll have to rewrite it sifficiently to avoid the problem. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I reviewed the copyright info from that link and it reads in pertinent part "...if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates)." Perhaps we should add something either at the beginning or end of the article indicating that a portion of the material comes from the Center itself, along with the date that posting was authorized. -Soltak 17:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I had responded to an earlier comment but, evidently, that got lost in the shuffle (probably my fault). In any event, I promise not to file any more vandalism complaints unless warranted. It was my interpretation at the time that the complaint was with merit, I have since seen that not to be the case. My apologies. -Soltak 23:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry too for blowing this out of proportion, please forgive me. Dbraceyrules 23:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No worries; everything's forgiven :-) -Soltak 17:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

{Archived on 29 July 2005}

List of years in archaeology

Hi. I noticed that Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of years in archaeology seems not to be listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. You need to add any suggested deletions there (instructions are on the page) under the date you add it for it to be an official VFD.

That bit of business explained, however, I'd like to suggest you reconsider your vote-- I've puttered around on the archaeology years a bit; take a look. What I've added is still only a tiny fraction of what I think it could become. Again, I think the stubbyness is a matter of not enough editors interested in the history of archaeology have been lured here to contribute yet, rather than any flaw in the concept of having something like year articles or a timeline. Whatever you decide, cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I had added it to the page but I guess it was removed; thanks for bringing that to my attention. In any event, I still don't think it's worth having a bunch of pages devoted to individual years. I'm not saying archaeology isn't important, just not that important. We don't have List of years in chemistry or List of years in biology. That's why I liked this suggestion:

"Delete and merge content into List of years in science and it's children articles like 1707 in science. It is a project that never got off the ground. Penfold started it in March 2004 and it hasn't really developed at all since then. Besides, there is no reason that the archeology content needs to be segregated out from the other science content like this. Tobycat 06:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)"

What would you think of doing something like that? -Soltak 17:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Mike DeWine

I re-reverted the Mike DeWine article. For sourcing see the comment I posted last year on the talk page or do a Google search for "Richard Michael DeWine" such as this one. What "official" biography did you refer to? In both Bioguide and the bio on DeWine's senate site say nothing of "Richard". PedanticallySpeaking 15:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's true that his online Senate bio only lists him as 'Mike,' however, I happen to be a constituent of Mr. DeWine's who has written to him on several occasions and he signs official correspondence Michael R. DeWine. In addition, a paper 'pamphlet' biography is circulated through Ohio around election time and that also lists him as Michael R. In light of these things, I have again corrected the page. -Soltak 17:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I too like in Ohio and last week received a letter from him. It says at the bottom "RMD". I have never seen him sign his name "Michael R. DeWine"--this letter has a computer generated "Mike" but the secretary's intials are preceded by RMD on the letter. Who's Who lists him as "R. Michael DeWine" as do other sources. PedanticallySpeaking 18:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I just received an e-mail from Jeff Sadosky, the Senator's press secretary who writes "R. Michael DeWine is correct." PedanticallySpeaking 18:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I must've misread the signature. -Soltak 18:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

{Archived on 1 August 2005}

Exceptional Newcomer Award

Congratulations on having 200 article edits, and over 300 total. Here's is an Exceptional Newcomer Award for your efforts. Dbraceyrules 19:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the award; it's much appreciated! :-) -Soltak 20:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome.Dbraceyrules 23:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

{Archived on 6 August 2005}

Maorider

The volume of very low quality contributions from Maorider seems too great to ignore. I am sort of interested in placing a 8 hour block on him, just to emphasize that the Wikipedia community is serious about the guidelines he's breaking. However, I'm not sure that this is considered a legit reason for a block.... any opinion on the use of a block in this case? ike9898 19:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Maoririder's conduct cannot be ignored as he persists in creating irrelevant stubs and templates. On his talk page he says all of the right things but continues to proceed counter to his statements. I'm not entirely sure about how legit blocking for volume is, but in this case I don't think an 8 hour block would be challenged by anyone and it would certainly show that we're serious about his actions. -Soltak 19:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

{Archived on 7 August 2005}

Regarding delete vote of Lobstergotchi and Lobsters & Horses Inc.

Goodday Soltak. I'd like to discuss your vote on deletion of Lobstergotchi and Lobsters & Horses Inc.

"Delete. This could be a hoax or just an awful idea for a game. In any event, this article shouldn't be written until the game has been published and established."

Please revalute the idea of this being a hoax. If you go and check Lobstergotchi and Lobsters & Horses Inc. now you can see the changes I've done that clearly shows it's not a hoax. I've also written a few words in discussion part. Please take a look at it an revalute your vote.

One thing that I don't understand thought is why "an awful idea for a game" would prevent it from being an article on Wikipedia. That is just your opinion of the game/game idea, people have different taste y'know.

and regarding the "this article shouldn't be written until the game has been published and established." part, I indeed think it should, atleast now when I've added the Future game-tag ("This article or section contains information about a computer or video game(s) in production."), which clearly shows it's a game under development. Please revalute your vote :)

Thank you in advance.

Note: This is in no way meant to offend you. If you get offended by what I just wrote in any way, don't. It's not the way I meant it. --Yadonashi 02:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not offended, but thank you for making it clear that that wasn't your intention. :-)

I'm convinced that this isn't a hoax, however, I won't be changing my vote to delete. There are a number of criteria for deletion, manufactured information being only one of them. This game is not well established, is being made by a company (or team) that it not well established and falls squarely under the heading of "non-notable." This article may well have merit in the future, however, it should not be written until such a time as the game and/or company has been well established and a fair number of players are in existence -Soltak 16:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy taggings

These articles were not candidates for speedy deletion.

To be a wikipedia editor rather than just a mindless tagging machine, you have to edit such articles and expand them. It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The articles were devoid of real content, a criterion for speedy deletion. They were also created by Maoririder so I was hardly convinced of any impending expansion. And, really, how much could one expand Orangeade? -Soltak 22:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is an encyclopedia! History of the beverage, first known recipes, cultural aspects, pointers to recipes (Wikibooks?) Variants (Orangina, etc). Neither article qualified for speedy deletion; if you believe that you need to re-read the CSDs again, more carefully. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I would direct your attention to the very first criterion for speedy deletion which reads in part "No meaningful content or history." Both of these articles had no meaningful content when created by Maoririder. Orangeade simply stated that it was an Orange flavored drink in the same vein as Lemon and Limeade. Miami Blues just said that it was a movie with Alec Baldwin. I've since updated that one a bit myself, however. -Soltak 22:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- I would also point out that a motion was recently made to move Orangeade to Wikionary. -Soltak 22:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm well aware of CSD A1 and I have no idea how you could apply it to an article which succinctly and accurately describes a soft drink, or one that describes a movie in terms of its principal star. Have you actually read it all the way through? "No meaningful content or history, text completely meaningless or unsalvageably incoherent (e.g., random characters). See patent nonsense." Completely meaningless, unsalvageably incoherent, random characters, patent nonsense.
I recommend also that you give a very, very close reading to Wikipedia:Patent nonsense.
If someone thinks it belongs on wiktionary, that's still not excuse for speedy deletion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 09:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Portland High School

This was a valid speedy, mate. Oh, and so was Orangeade. Keep up the good work,
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on my speedies. It's nice to know that not everybody around here subscribes to that inclusionism "Wikipedia isn't paper so let's add everything" garbage. -Soltak 16:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

{Archived on 14 August 2005}

Thanks!

Heya there! Thanks for your email, it's not often I get them on here! ;-) This little worm RainbowWarrior seems to be a nasty piece of work, a jumped-up little twerp who thinks he's a god. Well, I suppose you come across them sooner or later! Maybe we could petition to have him deleted. Anyways, thanks again for geting in touch! Whereabouts you from? Rusty2005 16:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If he keeps up this behavior there's several things we can do. Read over WP:DR for more information on that. In any event, I'll be keeping a close eye on Rainbowwarrior. And, to answer your question, I'm from Ohio, US. -Soltak 16:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll be keeping an eye on him as well. Maybe we should contact Administrator Linusbeak, he seems to have encountered difficulties with RainbowWarrior before. Hopefully he'll give it up and let us get on with something useful :-) Rusty2005 16:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Reviewing his contribs it appears that he's already managed to piss off at least two individual admins. Given that, I think we might as well just leave it to him to be his own undoing. I'll continue to keep an eye on him, though. -Soltak 16:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like the best idea! By the way, can I remove the Deletion Request header from the Fatherland articel, or will I need to contact an admin?

The vote will either have to be closed by an admin or withdrawn by Rainbowwarrior (not likely). Because the vote is overwhelmingly to keep, in a couple of days an admin will close the vote and remove the header. -Soltak 17:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Rainbowwarrior1977

Soltak: (responding to your post on Linuxbeak's talk page)

Having seen quite a few of Rainbowwarrior1977's actions, my indication is the user is simply a troll looking for individuals to provoke. The greatest damage you can do him is to simply ignore him altogheter. He is very quickly coming up on a block for disruption, and an RfC will be filed against him shortly as a preparatory step to having him permabanned. Although I have no suspects in mind, he is probably the recreation of some other troll who has already been banned; we can have the developers check his IPs to see if they have been used by any other users. My advice to you is this: Ignore him in as much as possible, since the "silent treatment" is the worst punnishment of all for a disruptive troll, and if you see him doing something blockable, leave me a note on my talk page (or contact me via one of the services listed in the "admin note" section at the top of my talk page) and I will gladly block him. -- Essjay · Talk 19:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Although I realize why you said it, be careful of phrases like "cheeky little twit", because I guarantee you it will cause him to scream "personal attack" and with these kind of users, its best to be above reproach, since it makes thier actions all the more condemnable. -- Essjay · Talk

Good choice. I'll let you know when the RfC is ready, and you can go comment. -- Essjay · Talk 19:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The RfC is finished. Perhaps you'd like to endorse it? (It has to be endorsed by at least one other user within 48 hours or it will be cleared/) It's here. -- Essjay · Talk 23:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Heya from the UK! What's the rainbow-soldier being saying to you? Rusty2005 19:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, he's a weird one. Amazing how sad some people can be, eh? Thanks for your endorsement as well! Ah well, I'm off out clubbing :D See ya round!

Maoririder

Maoririder is back to his old habits (see last version of The Adventures of Piggley Winks, before it was turned into a re-dir). I have put two short blocks on him, sort of as a warning. However, I think that if he needs to be blocked again, someone else should do it. I don't want it to look like this is some conflict between ME and him. So basically, if in your judgement he becomes too disruptive, please place the block on him again. (The first two blocks were 8 and 16 hours, respectively.)

-see you around ike9898 17:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder RfC

I've initiated a Request for Comment concerning Maoririder that can be found here. Thought you might be interested. --Scimitar ^parley 18:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

He's been notified, as have those editors who have helped/warned him. With any luck, he'll start writing better stubs because of the RfC. If it just alienates him, it'll have been a failure. --Scimitar ^parley 18:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for replying on my talk page. I will wait until Maoririder replies. I tried to make a constructive suggestion to have a To-Do list for himself. Robert McClenon 00:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The Nature Boy

I noticed you removed my Ric Flair quote: "We're gonna dance all night, and party a little longer... Woooo!"

Do you know about Ric Flair? He certainly used this as a catch-phrase, especially circa late-1990's in WCW. I am wondering why my contribution was deleted. Thank you. (Unsigned by Sicclydiccly)

In the future, I suggest you sign your comments on other user's talk pages. It's really quite helpful when someone wants to respond.

As far as the quote is concerned, unless you can provide me with a source it will remain deleted. And to answer your question, I am quite familiar with Ric Flair. I also have the "Ultimate Ric Flair" DVD collection, and that quote appears nowhere in any section of the DVD. Most of his others do.

In this case, the burden of proof lies with you. You'll have to forgive me if I don't just take your word for it. If you can provide me with some source (Internet or otherwise) that documents his frequent (not just once and a while) use of this quote I would be more than happy to restore it. Soltak 16:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

{Archived on 16 August 2005}

Barnstar

I won't be here very long, so here is a barnstar for your 1,000th edit early.

D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

{Archived on 19 August 2005}

Batman & Vichyssoise

the batman refrence could not be more relevant. it shows clearly that it is meant to be served cold. dont tell me you hate batman. (Unsigned by 68.80.154.225)

No, I don't hate Batman. The Batman reference, however, has been removed several times (not only by me) because it's irrelevant to the article. The article says it's meant to be served cold, that's all the illustration necessary.

They eat a lot of lasagna on Everybody Loves Raymond should that be mentioned in the lasagna article? They use a lot of guns on Law and Order should that be mentioned in an article about firearms? No. So please, I'm asking nicely, stop adding Batman references to Vichyssoise. Soltak 00:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Lasagna is a fairly common food, but how often does vichyssoise come up? The Batman refrence provides a common ground on which people can relate. Also, the refrence clearly illustrates that it is a fancy soup, which the article does not convey, since it is being served to a billionaire by a butler (Unsigned by 68.80.154.225)

The article doesn't convey that it's a fancy soup because it's not. It certainly rates higher than chicken noodle, but they serve it at my local deli, so I really wouldn't consider it fancy. I've eaten it, I even made it once, and it's not fancy. Rare in popular culture, sure, but that doesn't mean it needs the Batman reference. Soltak 00:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of vichyssoise outside of Batman, and so I think that any outside refrence to such an obscure soup deserves mention. By the way, I appreciate the polite manner in which you responded to me. But in any case, a Batman refrence would at the very least lighten the mood of the article. To be quite honest, cold soup by itself is not very interesting. (Unsigned by 68.80.154.225)

By the way, if vichyssoise wasn't a fancy soup, why is the recepie link to finedinings.com? (Unsigned by 68.80.154.225)

While you mightn't have heard of it outside of Batman it is a pretty well-known soup that gets almost 55,000 Google hits [1]. I selected the recipe link because I was pressed for time throwing the article together and it was the best of the first three I clicked on. It could easily be changed to link to Food network, recipe.com, or many other sites. About it being somewhat boring, that's not a criteria for a Wikipedia article because it's so subjective; there's a lot of stuff on here that I find boring (the entire database section relating to physics, for example) but other people find it thrilling beyond belief. Soltak 00:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

{Archived on 29 August 2005}

Thanks

I see a lot of hard and useful work on Wikipedia. I'd award you Barnstar but since you got one very recently take big thanks, at least! Pavel Vozenilek 00:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, they were much appreciated! I'll try to keep up the good work :-) Soltak 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Inquisitor911

...is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Maoririder. I'm putting a 48-hour block on both accounts for now. This is out of control. Do feel free to adjust the time out either up or down. Thanks and good night! - Lucky 6.9 06:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Alert on Cindy Sheehan

Hey, just wanted to pass it along since you gave the advice to Eleemosynary, it seems the anon he had to clean up after is back under the IP 4.228.216.125. I've left a warning on his user page, but just wanted to give you a heads up. Karmafist 22:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

STOP

P{lease stop harrassing me and vandalizing my pages. I took off your unwelcome post on my LIsa Kushell article and please do not bother me again thank you good evening.Wiki brah 03:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

More re. the above

Seems our friend "Wiki brah" has offered to second an RfC nomination against you if that "ViteroHoratio" sockpuppet moves forward with one. Of all the booshwah I've ever seen on this site, that ranks as the single most inhuman thing I've ever seen a user do to another one and I've called him on it. It almost eclipses that SOB NoPuzzleStranger and his antics, especially since a lot of his edits were actually useful. Autistic or not, I'm this close to shutting that account down for good. Disruptive edits are one thing. That kind of garbage against a top-drawer user/admin is another. I'm going to alert a couple of bureaucrats to this. Know that you have a lot of support, starting with me. - Lucky 6.9 14:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

More fun. He left word at User talk:4.228.90.146 as well, right after that same anon was warned several times agains vandalism. Did you know that you are now a pendejo? :) - Lucky 6.9 14:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

SOLKTAK I am very very sorry about that request for comment stuff it was just that Lucky had told me about them (in general) and I just wanted to try one out but now I wont will not do it sorry good afternoon thank you. Da BRah!

Wiki brah RfC

I'd certainly support an RfC for Wiki brah at this juncture. It would show him we're serious about trying to do good work here. An RfC actually helped turn User:SuperDude115, another autistic user, into a good contributor. Count me in. - Lucky 6.9 19:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder RfAr

I've begun writing a draft of an arbitration request at User:Satori/MaoriRfAr. I know you've been following this, and if you'd like to make any changes or additions, or to add your name to the initiating party, please feel free to to do. I intend to post it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration tomorrow morning, PDT. -Satori 22:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm about to log out for the evening, but please feel free to make any changes you think are necessary or appropriate. Even though the draft is in my user space, I fully intend it to be a collaborative effort of anyone who is signing on as an initiator. I figured it's best to work out the details in a draft, and post a finalized version to WP:RfAr. -Satori 23:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I just re-read your note to me and realized you're talking about helping with what needs to be done after the arbitration is accepted. I'll definately let you know if I need any help with that. Thanks! -Satori 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Kushell

!!! Thank you so much!!! Can you really hepl me with the Lisa Kushel article? That is great thank you!! Can we put some pictures of her on my article please how do we do that she is so very very hot I am very much in love with her she is so even better hot looking than our women here in Brasil and you that is saying a lot. Plus I know I got that date of birth wrong it is 1971 and I am going to change it now and also: can we create a stub catagory for her and others such as long the lines of "tall hot jewish actresses/models" or something? But I would love for you to teach me how to do pictures first thank you.!!Wiki brah 01:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I picked out 2 picstures from your list and put them on the article thank you for your help!Wiki brah 04:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

{Archived on 13 October 2005}

Brah

Since all of your messages seem to start with monosyllables, who am I to argue? :^)

Anyway, I have felt like a heel for the last twelve hours or so. I agree with you and I've reopened the account, at least for now. A unilateral block like this is a precident I'd rather not set. Thanks for having a cool head in this matter. - Lucky 6.9 20:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Done

Fixed the vandalism on Jim Ross. Thanks for the heads up. --Golbez 22:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your User Page

No problem. I like your proposed edit summary much better than the one I left though. :-) --Canderson7 00:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

hi again

what is going up? CAn i call you TAK? I just wrote some wmore articles tonight if you want to see and good night!Wiki brah 02:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Your "views" page

I just wanted to let you know that I am in full agreement with the sentiments you expressed on your "views" page. Few have said it better. If you'd like to collaborate on wikistuff in the future-you may notice that I am basically of the same mindset regarding deletion/inclusion-let me know. Paul 03:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ideas

Hello again...I wanted to briefly mention a couple of my ideas, won't go into too much detail at the moment, but here's the basics.

This idea might be a bit bureaucratic, but I think something along these lines is needed for the deletion process. Panels of editors could be selected based on experience and views and called upon to make decisions regarding deletions. Each panel could have five members, representing differing viewpoints, and would make a decision among itself whenever a page is put on afd. Appeals could be made to a larger, more elite panel, which will take public comment into account. Each afd will be assigned at random to a panel. Or, alternately, panels could have oversight of a certain area, i.e. American history, so that experts in that area could specialize in articles that deal with it. Think: district court -> appeals court -> supreme court. Yeah, this has the potential to be a bureaucratic nightmare, but hey, ideas are cheap, and this has the potential to swiftify and consistensize deletion decisions.

"Minor-league" wikis. Articles on non-notable schools, you and I would agree, do not belong on WP. Therefore, in order to serve as a space for the many gigabytes of non-notable school articles that would otherwise end up here, a new wiki could be created for the purpose. It would mirror WP format and style, however it would a) specialize in articles about schools (or pokemon fancruft or whatever) and b) would have much lower standards for notability and, thus, inclusion. So, an article on any given town would mention (mention, not incorporate the entire thing) the school and link to the article from the schools wiki. Therefore, all the information is there, but it's kept at arm's length from Wikipedia. Wikischools or whatever it would be called could be the minor leagues to WP's majors-a place for articles that don't warrant being here, but contain information that is somewhat conducive to using this format and linking to our stuff.

A program that would allow for voting on VFD/AFDs that would allow the voter to bypass the somewhat cumbersome "edit this page" tab. For example, a list of pages on vfd would be provided; the user would read the page and then check a box for "delete," "keep," or whatever his vote is, and enter his reason, and then have it added to the page. The program would be separate from the web browser and would make the edits for you. Problem here is I have no idea how to create such a thing, so this is, like the other stuff, just an idea.

Let me know what you think of all this...rock on Paul 06:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Bartlett High School, Bartlett, Illinois

Why did you close the vfd on Bartlett High School, Bartlett, Illinois as a no consensus? Last time I looked, 36 was more than 20. It's a 2/3 majority, in fact. Soltak | Talk 21:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No. 36-20 is less than two thirds. About 64% actually, and the number of keep votes was as I recall a bit more than 20. Finally an argument that the article was a yellow page entry was successfully rebutted by the article being rewritten. A very clear "no consensus" I think. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't want to violate WP:CIVIL and I fear I might have with my initial comments. For that, I apologize. In any event, your opinion that the yellow pages entry justification is no longer valid has no impact on the fact that the delete votes stand. Unless a user were to change or withdraw their vote, it stands regardless of whether you think the reasoning is justified. Soltak | Talk 14:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Don't worry, outright breaches of WP:CIVIL are more severe than that. I have to disagree with you that a closer shouldn't consider the fact that an article is rewritten during the course of the debate. AFD is not all about vote counting, even though that is probably the most significant factor when a debate is closed, it is not the only one. Factors such as rewrites (which address the reasons provided for the delete votes), votes given without reason, or a provided reference for an article believed to be a hoax or unverifiable, influence my decision, and may swing a close call where the vote count is close to a two-thirds majority. Such discretion can occasionally (but more rarely) go the other way too, I have sometimes closed debates as "delete" even though there has not been a two thirds majority. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Primary Route Destinations in the United Kingdom for example. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder Arbitration case

Hello,

The Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Public universities in Ohio

Michigan also has a similar template... I invite you (you're probably better at making it aesthetic than me) to help make it smaller and nicer looking. Thanks.

Copyvio in Portland Exposition Building

Please do not remove copyright violation notices. If you would like to discuss whether an article has a copyright violation, please do so on the copyright problems page. Thank you. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

WV Highways Template

In this case I have to disagree with you on trumping. A list on another page is more cumbersome to navigate. The template appears at the bottom of every highway page making navigation quick and painless. Please reconsider your opinion, alot of West Virginians have been putting in time on our road entries. --71Demon 21:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)