User talk:Dottoreso/Archive01

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers the dates between August and November. The User Dottoreso is no longer active.

Atromeroptic Law vfd

Thank you for voting to delete this entry! Hfwd 05:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shia ranking of the Sahaba

I saw your comment and mostly agreed. My point is not that this is not notable or worthless, not it has a place on wikipedia. I think that he tries to quantify the qualitative which is original research... your examples were great... it's like the Chritians ranking those during Jesus' time instead of just describing them... As Sorna said the concept is not black and white which ranking does... it doesn't allow for a complex view of the Sahaba under Shi'ism (or Sunnism for the other article). That is why I voted to move. If your not voting was motivated by thinking that I wished to remove useful information then I hope you not longer fear that. I think our views are pretty much the same on this issue... and that is, that ranking doesn't seem to work when there is no source that ranks them given... so, it has to be original research. gren グレン 16:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Little Astrology prince

Thanks for the vote, but please notice a vote without rationale may be discounted, or carries less weight than those with rationale. I will be displeased if your vote is wasted, so could you add your reasoning to your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Little Astrology prince ? Thank you. - BorgQueen 12:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vfd

May I say I find your votes and comments very insightful? You manage to cut through the chaff. Zoe 22:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

tx. I would say the same of you, but that would be stating the spectacularly obvious since I agree with you about 99% of the time lol.

Buerk

Don't be astonished! Contrary to popular belief, I don't bite! Trollderella 23:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bailey vfd

Hi, regarding the above article, there's also a poet by the name, although if he's any more notable I don't know, but have a look and change your vote if you so wish. Steve block talk 21:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

invite on McMillan

Thanks for the invite to discuss further:

I would actually tend to agree with you about the non-importance of McMillan... re a good reason for not including her in Wiki at all.

That being said... she is achieving a sort of quasi-noteriety because of her blog. See the Saskatoon Phoneix article about her. She's got all sorts of columnists like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant promoting her and her blog and she somewhat regularly appearing on talk radio in Canada to promote her views and her blog.

I personally think it's a huge mistake for the CPC and associated individuals within the party to hitch their wagon to her star in the fashion that they have done, because while her weird comments may sound good or ok in their insulated echo-chamber, I think the general public would be creeped out by them.

I see her participation on the Tory side of the fence as a slow-motion train wreck.Somena 07:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metro Coyuya

Thanks for the comment. Are you serious about the precendent of including individual Metro Stations all across the globe?

2005 Michelle Bachelet Scandals

I deleted the article. As for making it so its never recreated I THINK it has to be done by someone higher up but I'll get it done for you one way or the other. Btw, thanks for posting it to my vfd page. I think your the first to do it right. :) Thank you.

Update. I got it done for ya. Figured out how to do it. I also put it on my watchlist, so if it's recreated, I'll speedy it. Recreating an article that has been deleted by consensus makes it a speedy candidate. --Woohookitty 04:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kate_McMillan

Hi Dottoreso --

I did a rewriter of that contentious Kate_McMillan article after it survived VfD. I will be away from wikipedia for awhile, and I was wondering if you could put it on your watchlist? It should not be that active, all you have to do is revert the occasional vandal (left or right). It's on mine as well, but I will be away for awhile. Thanks for your help, Sdedeo 01:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina

I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hypervideo modifications

Please check out the revisions to the Hypervideo article when you have a chance. --Maestro44 15:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbullying

I have further expanded this article and outlined a plan for further expansion on the talk page. I would be grateful if you had a look at both pages. Capitalistroadster 10:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Dottore So, thank you for your kind remarks here. I don't participate on AFD as much as I used to, but when I do your opinion is one of those I never fail to look out for. So it was nice to read your compliment. :) Warm regards enceph alon 06:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter George Wellesley Graves, 8th Baron Graves

It turns out he was a film star. Please consider amending your vote. CalJW 01:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bayreuth Festspielhaus

Sorry — two things happened. First, I missed the edit summary, so didn't notice that the material had been moved rather than simply removed. Secondly, I must admit that I was surprised to see it go, as it seemed to me that something about the festival was important, given the function of the Festspielhaus. Could a shortened version be included? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon.Pole's "outburst"

Regarding the anti-blog campaign that Simon.Pole mentioned:

Read the article "Gay Nigger Association of America" -- because that's who's actually spearheading this -- and tell me if that's really who you want deciding what Wikipedia should or shouldn't be writing about. Bearcat 11:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment at the AFD for Samizdata. Please don't make generalizing comments on an entire group of article. If blogs didn't warrant encyclopedic coverage, we wouldn't have an article on the highly popular and notable Slashdot either. The fact we have an article on this where other encyuclopedias don't is a good thing for Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clarification, Dottore So. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm certainly not suggesting that you're affiliated with the GNAA. I know you've been around longer than that; I've seen your name before. The fact is, however, that a lot of GNAA sockpuppets are spearheading a war on blog articles.

See User:Timecop/The war on blogs. Then see his main user page at User:Timecop: he's the president of GNAA.

User:Skrewler is GNAA. User:Femmina is GNAA. User:G0sp-hell is GNAA. There are several other users concertedly voting delete on every blog-related AFD who've never contributed to Wikipedia before the blogs started showing up on AFD a couple of days ago. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raging Ranter doesn't even have a single non-GNAA vote on it. Bearcat 12:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're GNAA too, Bearcat -- Femmina 05:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're not just meddling; they nominated all of them. (Well, okay, so User:Lord Bob finished Blogging Tories for them...but one of them initially tagged it for deletion.) They're the majority of the votes on most of them. I don't know what can or should be done. That's precisely the problem. Bearcat 12:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are legitimate debates at this point. There's so much sockpuppetry going on that it's close to impossible in some cases to even determine what the genuine consensus of real users is. Bearcat 12:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Blog less, think more -> problem solved. -- Femmina 05:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium

Dear Dottoreso,

Thank you for your comments about FAC Belgium. I don't know why the article is now featured though I haven't had the opportunity to respond to your comments. You are the first reviewer of this article saying you would need to know more about Belgium. Before, all reviewers wanted to know less: so the article went down the hill to the status as it is now.

Your comments were:

not enough about religious parties and politics
not enough about linguistic parties and politics
Maybe -- if I understand you well -- too much local politics.

What is for you local politics in the article?

What are you exactly missing?

About religion the article states:

In history:
1. The 1830 Belgian Revolution led to the establishment of an independent, Catholic and neutral Belgium.
2. Between independence and World War II, the democratic system evolved from an oligarchy characterised by two main parties, the Catholics and the Liberals,...
In politics: The major parties in each community belong to three main political families: the right-wing Liberals, the centrist Christian Democrats, and the left-wing Social Democrats.
In demographics:
1. 47% of the population identify themselves as belonging to the Catholic Church.
2. Since independence, Catholicism has had an important role in Belgium's politics, in particular via the Christian trade union (CSC/ACV) and the Christian Democrat parties (CD&V, CDH). (see Religion in Belgium)

About linguitic:

In lead: Straddling the cultural boundary between Germanic and Romance Europe, it is both linguistically and culturally divided. Two major languages are spoken in Belgium: Dutch—often unofficially called Flemish—spoken in Flanders to the north; and French, spoken in Wallonia in the south. The capital, Brussels, is officially bilingual. In addition to the two, an officially recognized minority of German speakers is present in the east. This linguistic diversity often leads to political conflict, and is reflected in Belgium's complex system of government and political history.
In history:
1. Originally, French, which was the adopted language of the nobility and the bourgeoisie was the official language. The country has since developed a bilingual Dutch-French system.
2. During the 20th century, and in particular since World War II, the history of Belgium has been increasingly dominated by the autonomy of its two main language communities. This period saw a rise in intercommunal tensions, and the unity of the Belgian state has come under scrutiny.[2] Through constitutional reforms in the 1970s and 1980s, regionalisation of the unitary state had led to the establishment of a three-tiered system of federal, linguistic-community and regional governments, a compromise designed to minimise linguistic tensions.
In politics:
1. Belgium's political institutions are complex; most political power is organised around the need to represent the main language communities. Since around 1970, the significant national Belgian political parties has split into distinct components that mainly represent the interests of these communities.
2. More recently however, the steady rise of the Flemish ultra-right nationalist separatist party Vlaams Belang, has superseded the Vlaams Blok amidst concerns of racism promoted by the party.
3. Both of Verhofstadt's terms have been marked by disputes between the Belgian communities. The major points of contention are the nocturnal air traffic routes at Brussels Airport and the status of the electoral district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde.
In communities and regions: basically everything there is about linguistic.
In demographics:
1. About 60% of the country is Dutch-speaking, 40% French-speaking, and 1% German-speaking. However, these figures must be interpreted cautiously, because the most recent linguistic census was taken before 1960, and the mother tongue is not always the same as the language used in public or in official life. Brussels is officially French-Dutch bilingual, but mostly French speaking; it evolved from a Dutch-speaking place to its current dominantly French character when the Belgian state became independent in 1830.
2. Both the Dutch spoken in Belgium and the Belgian French have minor differences in vocabulary and semantic nuances from the varieties spoken in France and the Netherlands. Many people can still speak dialects of Flemish and Walloon. These dialects, along with some other ones like Picard or Limburgish,[21] are not used in public life.
In culture: Belgian cultural life has tended to concentrate within each community. The shared element is less important, because there are no bilingual universities, except the royal military academy, no common media, and no single, common large cultural or scientific organisation where both main communities are represented. Aside from these differences, Belgium is well-known for its fine art and architecture.

Vb 13:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Just saw this. I'm hoping it's temporary, as WP will lose a lot by losing you, but whatever it is you have my best wishes. Thanks for everything, Dottore So. encephalon 10:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User talk:Encephalon)

Hi Encephalon. Saw your kind and remarkably swiftly delivered words on my user page following my 'Ciao.' However, be assured (or nervous maybe) that I am just switching usernames for the purposes of harmonising my cross-language wiki activity, esp as I am planning on trying to get more X-language articles done. (Working on Gottfried Semper at the moment). Since my edit total was low (maybe 1500) it was just easier to create a new account. I'll get my delete votes discounted from AfD for a while, but that's okay, since they are usually ignored anyway. What's up with you? drso, aka Eusebeus 16:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, I shall promptly be assured (and suitably nervous ;)). I responded quickly because I saw you go "Ciao", and if there's anything I hate happening on WP it's first-rate editors leaving. I will not pretend that I wouldn't have been sorely disappointed to see you go, so this message has me all happy and stuff. :) By the way, would you like to change names and have all your edits transferred? That's something a bureaucrat can do for you, if you ask. Very kind regards encephalon 04:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC) PS. Shoot. I've just remembered that this can't be done if the account you're moving to already exists (ie. one has to ask the Bureaucrat first, who'll create the new account and then make the move).encephalon 04:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC) PPS. I share Blackcap's suggestion to log in as the D-man and do the re-direct thingy, just to make it official and all. See ya around :) encephalon 04:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that...

I must sincerely apologise for that comment. The amount of trolling on blog-related AfDs led me to check the contribs of everyone who voted on that; I saw that you had a lot of recent AFD contribs, checked your earliest ones and was alarmed by the number of them. I tried to remove the comment after someone pointed this out in #wikipedia, but as you might have noticed Wikipedia is being rather buggy at the moment. Again, my sincere apologies. Alphax ^τεχ 15:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish lists

Hi, Jewish people are a diaspora and ethnicity just like African Americans. If you do not think that African American lists should be deleted then please change your vote on these lists. Arniep 18:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]