User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:AnonEMouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

What's new in life?

What's doing, Mousie? Working on anything exciting? - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Me? The usual: lawyers, rabbis and shortpages - always the same thing. I'll accept once a few more co-noms come in. Jenna for FA? Are there published biographies of this celebrity? LOL - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Could I get your opinion?

I've created a sort of "template" for starting stubs on gay porn stars here. I'd like to start articles and fill in brief info and their videographies to check that they are porn stars and cull the List of gay porn stars of all the ones that either aren't porn stars or don't qualify for an article here.

The "template" calls for really bare-boned information and I'd only be filling in the very first paragraph (adding the person's name) and the videography. If no one else would pick up the slack, I'd come back later and fill in more information vis-a-vis the info box, awards, etc.

My concerns are that these are going to be might weird-looking stubs, and that they will be prime candidates for Afd nominations. I'm hoping you'll disagree or have some suggestions for how to improve the concept without my having to do tons more work (formatting the videographies is a pain in the hindquarters, and very time consuming).

Thanks.—Chidom ^talk 20:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by your response, and you make good points (that's why I asked you to comment—I respect your opinion). My big issue is that I hate to go looking at someone's videography to verify that they're in the porn industry and belong on the list, and the go back and get it for an article. (::::sigh::::. such high-class problems, lol).

I could grab the videographies and keep them offline, but then my work most likely would be duplicated or I might not be available when someone needed to tap the resource.

As an alternative, I could create my own user pages to stash the videographies; adding them under sections using the performer's name and reference them on Talk:List of gay porn stars. This would be an excellent way to determine who needs "(porn star)" after their name and who doesn't—naming their section appropriately. I also think it would be a good idea to use the <pre> and [[]] tags so the videographies could be copied and pasted into the article without having to edit my user page to get all the formatting; this would also make it very clear to anyone visiting the page that it was a work in progress and nothing like an actual article.

Any thoughts? If you don't think this would fly, do you have any other ideas about how to avoid duplicate effort? Thanks.—Chidom ^talk 20:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your post to the RfAr

Hi! Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop#Fred_Bauder... at least there isn't a Godwin's law about that one. Good point though. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Arch_Coal

I've also commented on this DRV in which I strong suggest against a blank and rebuild solution. If you could comment further, it would be great. - Hahnch e n 15:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the above comment wasn't intended for you. - Hahnchen 17:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- There's a blow to my self esteem! :-) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Six

They won't have nothing good to say. I am sure they're aware of it, and I am sure they're consciously sitting it out for whatever reason, and I do not indend to disturb their repose. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffy nomination restarted

Since you have were involved with discussion before at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you might appreciate knowing that the nomination for the Buffy articles has been restared at the same wiki page. I am letting everyone know who might not be aware (whether they were for or against the article becoming featured). Cheers -- Buffyverse 22:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Whoppers

You wrote that you might change your deletion opinion if I added my sourced claims to the article. I have done so. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See my addition to the deletion discussion. Cheers, Vectro 03:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

JWW

Sorry, am in the the process but just been frozen out by the server for about 10 minutes, back in now. Relisting anew seems best given the rewrite. Deizio talk 17:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the relist done, was annoying to be shut out halfway thru, hopefully it didn't affect the relisting which no doubt you'll have a look at. As you seem to be interested in keeping the article, I would think this relist works for you as the AfD could easily have been left open by any number of admins, only to be closed as "delete" by one who didn't fancy the article. IMO the references look decent but it's generally not a subject area I tend to get involved in hence my abstention. Deizio talk 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Professionalism

Hiya, just tossing in my $0.02... Though cryptography definitely isn't my #1 day job, I am still a published author on the subject, with a book that is in international release (So far I've gotten fanmail from places as far away as Singapore and Indonesia). So "amateur" probably stopped being accurate, if not at the time I signed the contract in 2005, then at least when the book was published, in early 2006. --Elonka 00:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you think I'm helping, rather than hurting! :-) Unfortunately, I only watch the page after stumbling upon, and being shocked by, the second AfD, appearing as an instance of bullying by a high placed administrator, and kept up the watch as some pretty blatant attacks continued onit. I can generally notice and revert those, but I'm not qualified to judge more technical cryptography questions. Someone being marked professional or amateur based on writing a published book on the topic does seem to be one of those fine points. I can see your point, and certainly won't argue the reverse either. However, I can also see that it might depend on the book. Specifically, for The Mammoth Book of Secret Code Puzzles, it might be compared to other authors of "puzzle" books involving codes. Possibly the most famous writer of those that I can think of off the top of my head would be Martin Gardner. Between his many works, he has probably written a total of more on recreational cryptography, yet is not referred to as a professional cryptographer in his article. The difference, of course, is that his books are more general recreational math books not focusing specifically on codes. In short, it is a very subtle point, and one that is beyond my qualifications. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points. And I do have the utmost respect for Martin Gardner. If it's helpful though, here are some external sources which use a variation of the term "cryptographer/cryptologist": St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2003, Slashdot, 2006, and NPR, 2006. --Elonka 22:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Saryn

Done. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

PBio

I had no intent to deprecate the page, but simply to point out that there appeared to be no ongoing debate and no consensus (per the talk page, which has several objections. I have no objection to continuing the debate, but to increase its effectiveness I think it would be useful to advertise on e.g. the village pump. We don't really have formal procedures for making guidelines; historical just means "debate has died down for now and consensus is unclear", rejected means "people really don't like this" and accepted means that after discussion, most people agree with what is said here. Guidelines are not supposed to be formal, hence the lack of a formal process for them; see also WP:PPP. HTH! >Radiant< 11:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CHILD arb

Hi there! I would appreciate it if you could reword your evidence a bit; the revert war on WP:N is hardly relevant to this case. Other than that, I would definitely agree with codifying existing practice in WP:CHILD - but there are two fundamental points where WP:CHILD differs from existing practice. First, it is based on the U.S. "COPPA" law, and non-lawyers such as ourselves should leave law to the lawyers. Second, more importantly, WP:CHILD calls for preventative blocking of child accounts. Current practice, to my knowledge, does not agree with that. Yours, >Radiant< 13:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like. Blocking editors for legal issues was what sparked the pedophilia war earlier this year, and blocking any child who didn't vandalize or somesuch would likely be controversial. By the way other issues against WP:CHILD that have been mentioned is that (1) it is disputed whether the problem it asserts to solve actually exists; (2) part of that problem is an assumed liability to COPPA law which is not based on a lawyer's understanding; and (3) it is disputed that WP:CHILD solves the ethical problem of protecting children. >Radiant< 14:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks. >Radiant< 14:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  - This is a discussion, probably not good on an evidence forum. Since the points I made are my opinion and not necessarily yours, I'll add them to my evidence section. >Radiant< 14:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I was expecting fallout from this one, but it's nice to have positive fallout. I'm just thankful that all AfDs aren't like that. Yomangani ^talk 13:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response

This is just a quick message to thank you for your positive suggestions to my proposal for new entries in categorisation of Wikipedians. ACEO 19:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting problem

Looking through, it seems that the problem was reverting more than one edit. So far, the vandalism has been removed later on. I'll keep you informed. --Alex (Talk) 21:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey AnonEMouse, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoi khoi 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Mouse photo

It's just a very cute mouse - I rather enjoyed seeing it. :) --Badger151 06:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

John Lee Hooker

Thanks for being level-headed in the whole "John Lee Hooker citations" ridiculousness that is currently sucking up the time of several wikipedians, all of whom should know better. I think the "Citations Needed" template should state, as the last line, "So, have you tried actually Googling any of these facts to find sources?" Especially now that there is books.google.com, how can these conflicts escalate? Returning to my point: good work. Sir Isaac Lime 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, and for the Barnstar! And yes, I am still very much in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. :) --Elonka 07:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to Boobpedia

hi AnonEMouse,

i've noticed that you are an important contributor to porn-related articles and discussions on wikipedia, therefore i would like to send you an official invitation to a new wiki site dedicated to big boobs :) the address is http://www.boobpedia.com

if you are interested, please feel free to register and help out. it will be different from the porn-related pages on wikipedia for a few reasons (beside not having to worry about deletion :)

it will be rated 18+ so it's possible to have nudity. i work in the industry and can get licensed pics for use.
adult links to sites where the model/porn star can be found will be allowed, making the site useful for locating more content of anyone's favourite. boobpedia will also be useful for locating new models based on many criterion (so if someone wants to find a caucasian brunette with DD cup natural boobs he'll easily be able to)
it encourages articles about any busty woman, even amateurs who give permission. there's no "noteworthiness" test, just a boob size requirement :)

it would be great if you are willing to help out. also if you know anyone who may be interested please don't hesitate to invite him/her. boobpedia may be very small now, but it will become the best resource site for big boobs! --Hexvoodoo 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Rense cycle and Spin cycle

Could you possibly add to the Jeff Rense article the more significant of the references to him you said you found on the AfD, to make life easier if it gets nominated again? Thanks. Edison 01:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavzahi

Hai Friend,

Ayyavazhi is a seperate religion and only officially it was considered as a offshoot of Hinduism. Click this discussion to see the reasons for the lack of official recognition.

But there are a set of University reserch papers which are relaesed by undergoing a religious and social study of Ayyavazhi and it's followers. Also these University papers says About the spread of Ayyavazhi followers throughout South India in a large number. So this is a major (Fifth major Dharmic religion with respect to the number of followers) religion.

So please don't remove Ayyavazhi from the listing please. Thank You. - Paul 18:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Restoration

Okay, I understand. Redirect has been created and I linked it to the appropriate place. Thanks for letting me know first. Nishkid64 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Egads!

Way to keep me from getting any actual work done this afternoon. Thanks for the detailed response, I really appreciate it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Quality

You're a good contributor and have a great sense of humor. Both sterling qualities in a Mouse. If only more young mice today shared your outlook... --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Webcomic notability guidelines

Hey, could I get your feedback on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Notability guidelines? I'm trying to hash out whether hosting on Comic Genesis (Keenspot) is sufficient to meet WP:WEB #3. Thanks much. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your adminship suggestion

Thanks so much for your concurrence in the suggestion I should seek adminship. I've thought about it, but my opinion at the moment is that I don't have enough longevity quite yet (I registered my account in February but didn't become active until around July 1). Better, if I decide to seek to become an admin, to wait a bit longer until that's no longer an issue in many people's mind.

I originally came to the project to add article content (as opposed to writing on admin and arbitration pages and the like), and someone else suggested I need to add to my mainspace editing before I pursue an RfA. I think I will take that suggestion, more for the fun of concentrating on writing the articles (and attaining 1FA would of course be nice) than for editcountitis reasons, but accomplishing one will address the other as well.

Before I would meet a lot of the RfA !voters' standards I probably need to do some more anti-vandal work (although there have been some attacks on a couple of my watchlisted articles this week so I've gotten to do more recently) and participate in deletion debates (I will admit XfD has never been a focus of mine, though I have participated in a few where the focus was of interest). So I'm not going to pursue adminship right at the moment, but it's very possible I will do so in the future, and if and when I do, I'll be sure to let you know about it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)