User talk:ForbiddenWord

Haha how funny it's a prank message on my user talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, ForbiddenWord, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up very shortly to answer your questions. Don't be afraid to ask!
If you would like to experiment with Wikipedia, I invite you to do so in my own personal sandbox (just follow the simple rules!) or in the Wikipedia sandbox.
When you contribute on talk pages or in other areas, it is important to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Again, welcome! — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Apologies if you feel I am being uncivil, but the same people who disrupt the ProtestWarrior forums are vandalizing its section on Wikipedia - using things as a source that have been debunked and proven unreliable. --Neverborn 08:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed that both pro-PWs and neutral parties on the Discussion Page agreed that RockNRev's page was juvenile, not up to standards for Wikipedia, and not NPOV. The only other real account of the incident is at the Indybay site that is currently linked. --Neverborn 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your removal of my article

Take that back, that image just earned you some kind of respect. although my article was freaking awesome. seriously, its completely the truth. no lies.--Landonmullet 17:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. :) ForbiddenWord 17:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you deleted my TickCo.com article and moved it to my user page. The article is basically modeled after the Amazon.com article. What do I need to do to keep it from being deleted in the future? TickCo.com is an e-commerce company just like Amazon.com and if that article stays, so must the TickCo.com article. Please do not remove it next time. Ticketguy 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet Slang

Hi. You have deleted "YHBT" at least once, and perhaps twice, from the List of Internet Slang. It's common usage and in the Jargon File. Please don't delete it again. Thanks -- tfg

Citation here: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/Y/YHBT.html

I cannot imagine how you consider that a reliable or independantly verifiable source. --ForbiddenWord 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Jargon File. It's the sine qua non of net.speak. There is no more authoritative source. But, y'know, you could always FGI and see the thousands and thousands of examples of use. And, of course, the simple fact that doing a wiki search for YHBT redirects you to the section on Internet Trolls, where the expression is referenced twice. -- tfg

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. Tfg 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your warning is baseless and is just in response to my warning you about your (very real) violations of Wikipedia policy. --ForbiddenWord 15:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk/edit history is ample evidence of a history of uncivil behaviour, I think. Tfg 04:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A problem

I keep getting messages saying that I am vandalizing Wikipedia, specifically the "Speed" page. I haven't done anything and I have been warned that I will be banned. What is going on? 152.157.130.163 19:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question for helpers

It appears that Tfg intends to take malicious action against me for trying to keep Wikipedia policy going, and for notifying him about our Civility policies at Wikipedia, and this bothers me. He has repeatedly been uncivil and snide to me, both on my own and his userpages, is there anyone that can do anything about this, or is he basically allowed to have free reign against other users? --ForbiddenWord 14:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty, I'd just put the matter behind you. Forget about it, who cares. If you place an impersonal warning on someone's talk page (especially with a condescending stop hand) I don't think any good can come from it. Anyway, if the user is being uncivil I'm sure they will get pulled up by someone else soon.--Commander Keane 15:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking to my perceived intent is, IMHO, an "ill-considered accusation of impropriety", a petty example listed in Wikipedia:Civility. I also think that your repeatedly calling me uncivil and snide is a personal attack, a greater example listed in the same place. (As per Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, calling my words snide or uncivil is not an attack. Calling me uncivil or snide is, however. I suggest that a more careful reading of the rules you claim to be trying to enforce would be useful. And perhaps a very close reading of the definition of WP:AGF.) I have to wonder how good-faith your edits to the Internet Slang page were, given that you advocated the deletion of the page entire? Tfg 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't imagine a way in which a threat to create a bot to revert my edits could be anything BUT a threat as listed in the harassment guidelines, or could possibly be construed as good faith. Perhaps you can help me out here in finding an ounce of good faith in that kind of threat? And as far as my edits to the Internet Slang page are concerned, think about this: when you have a page whose legitimate contributions number around one in five, let's say, is it better to keep it at the expense of the huge time spent filtering by other editors, or does it have such value that it should be kept, even at that expense? Either way, I'm finished watching that article, it's been nothing but a huge pain for me. --ForbiddenWord 18:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did I make that threat? I said "And if I wanted an edit war with you, I'd simply configure a bot to nuke every edit and comment you make." That is not a threat by any useful definition. A facility with English is useful if you are to be editing the English site. In any case: you keep deleting my single contribution to that page. I post it, you delete it. I cite it, you claim the citation isn't good enough. The idea that I am the one doing the harassing is not merely laughable, but some kind of Bizarro-world logic, particularly because I have not edited any of your work. I predict that arbitration would be more of a huge pain, but I am more than willing to put in the effort. (And, IMHO, the page is far less useful now that it has been chopped down. More information is better than less information.) Tfg 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the effort of trying to assuage this dispute, I myself am going to go searching on google to see if I can't find a good source for your contribution. I can only assume that you're trying to work in good faith, but you have said some mean things to me before, and in the name of things working out I'm going to try to make it better. However, it bears saying that more information is not necessarily better. For example, if you have the same amount of useful information, but a ton of garbage (like "LMTO", "OSAG9", etc.) thrown in, you have to sift out and find what's good. The current page seems to be a huge target for every anonymous editor who wants to create an acronym. I had never heard yours before you added it, but now that I realize it's more pervasive than I thought, I'm going to see if I can't find some goodness on it. Sorry about being so cranky, by the way. :\ --ForbiddenWord 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, one note about Wikipedia policy. It is not a sign of aggression to edit another user's work, despite what you might think as your comment says. Making personal attacks on myself such as a claim that I do not have a comprehensive understanding of the English language is not conducive to the kind of constructive environment that Wikipedia encourages, and threatening to open an arbitration case against me is even less so. As I said, I am trying to work this out civilly, and have at no point in the past done anything other than called for the Slang article to conform to policy. --ForbiddenWord 14:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2029-30 NBA season

You might want to have a read of WP:POINT.

If you feel that it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on 2010-11 NBA season...
- do point this out in that article's AfD discussion.
- don't create 2029-30 NBA season to demonstrate how foolish it is to have crystal ball articles like that.

--Stormie 05:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigga what!?

I see you deproded Nigga what!?. Its useful to provide a reason when deprodding, though it isn't required. As there wasn't a reason given, I've opened an AfD debate on the article as I believe it breaches several Wikipedia policies. You can join the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigga what!?. Thanks, Gwernol 15:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article would be better served in Wiktionary, which is the reason I have deprodded it. It is a prevalent phrase in some popular American subcultures, and as such, should at least be documented. --ForbiddenWord 16:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that by deprodding you're actually trying to keep it on Wikipedia, not transwiki it to Wiktionary. Even then, one of the online slang dictionaries would perhaps be a better place. Your opinion on the AfD makes it look like you strongly want this kept on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOT, particularly the section about Wikipedia not being a dictionary and not being a dictionary of slang. This, by the way, has nothing to do with its African American origins as you implied in your AfD comment. Thanks, Gwernol 16:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said (on my talk page): I disagree strongly with what you assert. In deprodding it I was expressing my opinion that an expression which has become popular in several American subcultures should not be deleted outright but rather put in the appropriate place on a different Mediawiki project.'

By deprodding you suggested it should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Your edit summary said "deprod & correct spelling, also this may be a trans-wiki candidate", making it appear that your primary objective was to remove the proposed deletion and your secondary one was to transwiki it. If you wanted to transwiki it the right thing would be to add the definition to Wiktionary and allow the proposed deletion from Wikipedia to take place. Perhaps if you had explained this on the article's Talk page the confusion would have been avoided, although I would still have taken it to AfD since it is clearly a neologism and has no sources. Thanks Gwernol 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrick Primary School

Your opinion [1] on this AFD shows that you didn't even look at the relevant articles. They are not articles about schools, they are disambiguation pages with nothing to disambiguate. If your want your opinion to be treated as credible in AFDs, you need at a bare minimum to actually look at the articles in question. GRBerry 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Braemar_College

'All schools are notable'? Sorry, but I can't find this policy. Can you point me to it? Valrith 20:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Grammar School Arts and Debating Society

You recently de-prodded this article. As such, I have nominated the article for Afd, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adams_Grammar_School_Arts_and_Debating_Society. My reasons for doing this can be found there. I welcome your comments on this. --81.171.180.24 12:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You continually assert that schools are "our most precious articles" bit have almost no edits to school articles other than the removal of prods from schools. Is there a reason you have such strong views about schools but make absolutely no mainspace edits about them? JoshuaZ 03:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edit where it seems edits need to be made, and the most serious threat to all school articles is people deleting them. As such, my effort is best spent trying to stop deletionists from having their run of the encyclopedia and deleting all of the school articles (which incidentally ARE the most valuable articles in Wikipedia, in addition to all schools being notable.) --ForbiddenWord 14:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think that accusing me of disruptive editing (as you did in the Union Place Primary School) is not appropriate. I state my opinion on AFDs and if it happens to be that it is a strong opinion, or if you disagree with it, that does not make it disruptive. As the old saying goes, I call them as I see them, and what I see is a group of editors that appear to want to delete every precious budding school article with no regard for the consequences, so that is exactly what I say- if I did anything else, it would be disingenuous. --ForbiddenWord 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for among other things not answering the question. If you think school are articles are so valuable why don't you make a minimal effort to actually help out with them? I don't generally find User:Silensor to be disruptive for example since even we disagree on what schools should stand he at least works very hard on improving the school articles. In contrast the most you do when you dreprod a school is add the name of the principal not at all even trying to make the article any less of a directory entry[2]. Some of your edits such as this one make it particularly difficult to understand. And I note that you have once again not bothered to attempt to back up your claims that schools are the most valuable articles (simply asserting it in all caps doesn't make it any more true) nor your claim that all schools are notable. JoshuaZ 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The work I do is best spent trying to save articles that would otherwise be lost to the project. The reason I continue to state my points is that no one has refuted any of what I have had to say to my satisfaction. What Silensor does is certainly good, but it seems to me that maybe his time, too, might be better spent trying to stop deletionism from deleting articles about schools. --ForbiddenWord 20:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silensor is far more effective at preventing what you call "deletionism" since he often looks up and adds things to articles that persuade people to change their opinions on the articles. This is much more effective than your statements which seem to convince no one but yourself. And the issue here is not whether people have "refuted" anything to your "satisfaction" but whether you have any argument to make other than an assertion. Simply asserting that all schools are notable or that they are our somehow precious are not arguments per se but rather just assertions. Furthermore, statements like this are not helpful. People might be inclined to listen to you if you actually tried to explain why you think these things are true. As it stands all you are doing is disrupting the signal to noise ratio. JoshuaZ 21:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRODSUM

You might find this link helpful, since you appear to enjoy de-prodding articles: User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary Salad Days 22:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus is ALL schools are notable"

O RLY? lol... whereabouts is such consensus? - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus among the editors atschoolwatch is that all schools are notable and that none should be redirected or merged. Because of the high turnout for AFDs there, it is essentially the only important view as far as school AFDs go. --ForbiddenWord 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Only important view"? That sounds a bit presumptous. Seems like WP:SCHOOL would be at least as important. Anyway, since you deprodded Balmoral middle school, I thought you'd want to know that it's now up for AfD. Akradecki 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to sound presumptuous, but it is true that schoolwatch tends to turn out a lot of editor votes on whatever it is listed; I should have said the only functionally important view. --ForbiddenWord 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the least important view. Count how many editors are listed on the talk page of schoolwatch...hardly a lot! To claim that this means that a majority of editors have expressed a consensus to keep all school articles is a plain untruth. Please stop making statements in edit summaries (for when you deprod) that a consensus is to keep all school articles, because it's simply not true, and there's no factual information that you can point to that says that. I'm sure you mean well, and I'll assume good faith and not accuse you of lying, but I will caution you that you are running close to the line. Finally, take a lesson from Portage path elementary - when you do the hard, dirty work of actual research is when you convince folks like me that articles are worth saving. Your excuse that you're not good at research doesn't fly with me...you have exactly the same resources I do...ten fingers and a keyboard, and you can come up with sources just as easily as I can. It takes time and hard work, but if these articles are really that important to you, isn't it worth it? Take for example the article Chilwell School, which I wrote: look at how many footnotes there are: it took hours to do that, but it was worth it (and I'm half a globe away!). You'd do a lot more good for the encyclopedia if you did encyclopedia-quality research. Good luck in the future with that! Akradecki 04:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another deprod

[3] and see how the deletion discussion is going. Between this and the deproding of the lists, what do you think you are accomplishing? Simply deproding because it is school related is unreasonable and arguably disruptive. Do you intend to remove prods for school teachers and administrators as well? JoshuaZ 21:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing PROD tags is not disruptive or unreasonable- according to the WP:PROD guideline, the prod tag of any article that any editor feels should not be deleted without discussion is, according to the standards set in the guideline, acceptable to remove. Schools and school related topics have enough interested editors on Wikipedia to avoid deletion, so it's naturally within the purview of interested editors to remove prod tags from school and school-related articles. --ForbiddenWord 13:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand that you would have wanted to keep the list of highschool colors? In that case and in the above case, you deprodded and then didn't even bother making any comments in the AfDs. All that does is make more work for everyone else. JoshuaZ 23:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did want to keep that article but didn't check if it had been AFDed. Like I said to CrazyRussian above, the consensus of editors at schoolwatch is that all schools and school-related articles are notable and should be kept, not deleted, merged, or redirected. --ForbiddenWord 14:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, even many of the schoolwatch editors do not favor keeping all school related articles in general. Second of all, as many people have pointed out to you what a small subset of the Wikipedia community wants is not relevant to what the general consensus is. JoshuaZ 19:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I have filed an RfC about your conduct in regard to school deletions- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ForbiddenWord. JoshuaZ 20:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice. The essence of what you and Uncle G think is that I should do more research on schools. I do not understand what purpose you think this would serve as far as school consensus is concerned. You cite Silensor as an example of who I should be- can you tell me how many people who believe in school articles' deletion have had their minds changed by his arguments? Also, I feel I could help make school articles better if I had access to the resources Silensor does. Ultimately, I don't think I was being disruptive to the discussion, but instead providing an alternate point of view representing how many people feel. Just look at how many people express the opinion that all schools are notable, as I do, in AFD discussions. I do not feel that an RFC was merited in this case, and that you opened it mostly because you disagree with me. --ForbiddenWord 16:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a few points- first in regard to the matter of doing research. When Silensor and others do research a) they improve the articles. I (and I think some others) have much less of a problem with school articles when they are well written and well sourced even if we'd rather not have those articles at all. b) they often convince less pro-school editors to change their opinions (I have changed my opinion on a number of school AfDs because of information brought up by Silensor or others which was not apparent at the beginning of the discussion). Also, much of what Silensor does is simply googling and similar open searches- that isn't an issue of access to resources, merely one of patiece. Furthermore, I would argue that not doing research is only one element of a general pattern of uncooperativeness and general problematic behavior such as the removal of the List prods, endorising vote stacking and seeing past succesful votestacking as a reason to keep by itself. As to your last point- there are many pro school editors whose behavior has not prompted RfCs. Disagreement with me is not by any stretch of the imagination an RfCable matter. Disruption however is.

In response to some of your points- according to the guidelines at WP:PROD, it is never inappropriate for a user to contest the proposed deletion of an article. I have never endorsed vote stacking, and have not suggested that any votestacking you perceive to be a reason to keep, but rather I see the many people that feel strongly enough about school articles to vote that way when they come up. Finally, I feel that you are incorrect in your evaluation of my behavior. While some of my comments may have been slightly abrasive, I do not feel that I have been disruptive.

I find it, however, ultimately puzzling that you and the editor who endorsed your RFC find my attempts to say how I feel about school AFDs to be disruptive, yet seem to take no issue with people not contributing to the discussion in ANY way, like this, or this. --ForbiddenWord 13:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can mince words, but when you tell me that there's no point to even nominating an article because you can get a flood of votes to keep it, that's votestacking, pure and simple. One of the things about how you handle it that I find most disturbing is that we have policies around here that are designed to keep this encyclopedia encyclopedic, and you don't seem to be interested in sticking to them. When you say that an article is notable to the students who went to this or that school, you clearly don't understand the concept of notability as it is used here. Because you either don't or won't conform to that concept, the AfD is not fairly evaluated based on Wikipedia policies, but rather on your own personal policies. That's disruptive to the process. Akradecki 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never once said that I can get a flood of votes to keep it. It may be a problem with the system, but from what I've seen, there are systems in place that let whoever wants to go out and find whatever-subjects' deletions and aggressively be heard there. Observing on something like that is a long way away from approving it or encouraging it. It seems like I am being vilified for pointing out a serious flaw in Wikipedia's consensus-building system.

Additionally, as many people take pains to point out, notability is a rather subjective thing, which means different things to different people. I tend do err on the side of safety and have a lower threshold for what I think is notable, myself- and there's nothing wrong with that opinion. By the way, JoshuaZ, if you check on this page, I would like to see your response to the above comment as well. --ForbiddenWord 14:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that I'm referring to for votestacking is here [4], and while I agree you said "schoolwatch" can turn out rather than you personally can turn out, you've identified yourself so closely with schoolwatch that you are implying that because of your actions, you can overcome any school AfD nom. Secondly, your statement about notability pretty much shows that you don't understand it. It doesn't mean different things to different people, at least here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has standards. Work within them! The standard here for notability is clearly described at WP:NOTABILITY. The baseline standard is: "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." Akradecki 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in your example, I was observing, not advocating. Nearly all school AFDs, regardless of how many nontrivial sources are turned up, end either inconclusively or in a keep, because of the number of editors who watch for school AFDs. Whether it is correct or not is not my purview to speculate on (though I tend to think it's not right that just part of the community can influence AFDs so much), but in practice, that is generally the way it ends, and that much is factual. --ForbiddenWord 16:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FW, I have to agree closely with Akradecki here, especially given that you have given other problematic keep reasons and problematic deproddings. To be honest, it seems more plausible that you were searching for keep reasons in these discussions as such and I find it hard to believe the claim that you were merely "observing" JoshuaZ 00:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to an interpretation of what you think I am doing, but in all honesty I have never, and do not, support stacking votes. I think it is a problem endemic to the system and think that, in that respect, AFDs are not reliable indicators of what the community feels should happen to any given article. What you end up with is a tiny subset of editors interested in categorically deleting or keeping articles about certain things, which is unacceptable on either side. If you can't understand my objections to these problems, then I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say entirely. I think schools are notable, and I also think there's a major problem with the consensus-building process at AFD, and the issue that seems to me to be the problem you have had with my edits is that you merged the two into one issue and misread me. --ForbiddenWord 15:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per flood of editors from schoolwatch

While I have ended up on the same side as you on a number of school articles, I must emphasize that we should all make a genuine effort to provide an actual "reason" for why an article should be kept (or deleted) rather than implying that a knee-jerk flood of votes from schoolwatch will overwhelm any good faith arguments to justify deleting an article. You can only undermine the effort to keep worthwhile school articles by using an argument that implies that schoolwatch consists of people who will mindlessly vote to keep any article, no matter how bad. Use the criteria listed in the AfDs to develop a standard that you can feel comfortable defending. If an article meets your standard, explain why and vote to keep. If it doesn't meet your standards, feel comfortable explaining why and vote delete. Schoolwatch includes a wide variety of folks, including folks like JoshuaZ, who has been a fairly consistent, and articulate, school deletionist. Schoolwatch should be treated for what it is; a means to draw attention to school AfDs for those who have an interest in the subject, pro OR con. Alansohn 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I respond to AFDs, I try my hardest to make the broader feeling of the community interested in editing this part of the opinion known. It is a fact, however, that lots of people with good faith interested in keeping school articles watch Schoolwatch. JoshuaZ is the only deletionist that I know who even looks at it. I do not think that it is wrong for schoolwatch to be around, because it is a useful tool for people interested in keeping school articles to make their opinion heard on all deletion votes. Anyway, the reason I speak in the strong tone that I do on AFDs is because I think that the community consensus has come down strongly on the side of keeping them, and that is why I feel so strongly that efforts to delete them without even having a guideline need to be counterpointed. If it isn't correct to speak out when you see wrong being done, then I'm not sure what is correct. --ForbiddenWord 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it isn't your place to speak for a consensus, especially when there isn't documentation of that consensus. You can't point to a single place on wikipedia where there is 1)an extensive, thorough debate on the subject that 2) concludes in a clear consensus. You perceive that there's one, but until there is verifiable, documentable consensus, you are straying beyond your bounds by speaking for others. Akradecki 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If the course of action to get people you disagree with to stop taking part in discussions you would like to see come out in a certain way is to open an RFC against them, I don't know if I want to take part in such an openly hostile process. It seems expressing strong opinion on the opinion of the community in carefully considered thought is unacceptable, while "Keep/Delete per XXXX" is perfectly acceptable. Evidently, arguing for a point of view that some editors disagree with is not allowed on Wikipedia, and editors that do so should be forced into silence by RFCs and the threat of administrative action. I appreciate how understanding you all are at my attempts to express my own, and what I believe to be the community opinion at AFD. You guys are great, I tell you. --ForbiddenWord 18:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or this, or this? You don't have a problem with that, which isn't even discussion, yet as soon as I try to engage in debate on an AFD, it's RFC time. I don't get it. --ForbiddenWord 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, above, "arguing for a point of view that some editors disagree with...." If some editors disagree with it, maybe that should tell you there isn't consensus? You're welcome to express your opinion. My contention is that you presume to express others' opinions, when those opinions (meaning community consensus) is not expressed anywhere that you can point to. I hope you really understand this. My contention is not with you expressing your opinion, and I didn't join the RfC over your opinion. I joined because you are inappropriately expressing others opinions. Let them speak for themselves. It's not your job to make the opinion of the community known, you can only make your own known. The only time you can legitimately refer to community consensus to back up your arguments is when that consensus has been clearly expressed. The existence of a schoolwatch page is not such an expression. If there was consensus, then WP:SCHOOLS wouldn't be so hotly contested...it'd be a no-brainer, because everyone would have agreed. Akradecki 05:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer for me to articulately talk about what I think the opinion of most Wikipedia editors is (given the votes that I see on AFDs), or would you prefer to put forth arguments like Alkivar did above? I know that I would prefer to have intelligent debate as I have posted in the past, but if it's the popular opinion that I should argue just by saying "Keep all schools", then perhaps the community would prefer mindless parroting to anything of actual substance. --ForbiddenWord 13:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not articulately talk about what the opinion that you have is that can be supported by facts. I don't feel that it is any editors right or duty to speak on behalf of or for other editors in the AfD process. If those editors would like to be heard they can join the AfD on their own, with out the use of recruiting and vote stacking, this is the core part of the AfD process after all it is clearly not a vote. TheRanger 15:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! How can you realistically talk articulately about the opinion of "most" editors when that opinion has never been stated anywhere? When it comes down to it, you're presuming to speak for me and many others, and that bothers me, because you don't even know what my view is. Please, as Ranger so articulately said, talk only of your own reasons. If you're going to say that all schools are notable, please articulately state your opinion of why that is so, and do so in the context of this project being an encyclopedia. Akradecki 16:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you have not addressed the question I posed above: Are contentless expressions of opinion better than attempts to evaluate what I have perceived as the wider consensus? --ForbiddenWord 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You answer your question yourself if you would step back and look at it from a outside point of view. You state "what I have perceived as the wider consensus", the AfD process is clearly not based on what any one person preceives the consinsus to be. Its no more about what you proceive or any other users perception is! It is about the process of reaching consenus on each article based on the facts and issues about that article and only that one only. There is no place for what has happened in other articles that are the same type of group or other catagory. I also find it odd that you chose to post views on these issues here and not leave any response at all to the RfC about these issues. TheRanger 22:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did answer it: I said that no editor has the right to speak for another editor, so clearly anything is preferrable to you stating what you perceive the consensus to be. The purpose for the AfD is for you to express your opinion. Whether you want so say a simple "Delete per nom" or a long diatribe, that's entirely your business...just speak your opinion, and yours only. And if you want it to be taken seriously, make sure you justify how your view is in harmony with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Akradecki 23:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, Akradecki- there are gobs of editors who don't worry about justifying their opinions with guidelines and policies. See Alkivar's edits above, for example. Attempts to interpret consensus may not have been my responsibility, but I do not think they were disruptive or that an RFC was called for. I think that the fact that someone who was trying to make well-thought-out arguments had an RFC brought against them, with you not only complicit but advocative of it, while someone more sincerely disruptive to the process (again, see Alkivar's edits above for an example) did not, is a very telling consideration about the editing environment at the Wikipedia project. --ForbiddenWord 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Alkivar wants to list that, that's his/her perogative, but he/she won't be taken very seriously. It's not a violation of guidelines. What you did is a violation, because you misrepresented information and tried to establish consensus by fiat. You deliberately ignored WP guidelines by stating that the subject was notable when it clearly was not, by Wikipedia definitions (in contrast, Alkivar didn't say that all schools are notable, just "keep all schools", which was a statement of opinion). Further, there's very clear guidelines as to what consensus is, and the fact that consensus is established by discussion, not voting. Your job is to put forth your arguments (not anyone else's) in the discussion, so that a consensus for each AfD is reached. I really wish your arguments had be "well-thought-out", meaning that you had reviewed and understood the applicable WP policies and guidelines, and discussed either how each article met said policies and guidelines, or how you were going to improve them by editing. Your activities are disruptive specifically because they cause other editors to have to stop what they're doing, and edit the articles that you should be volunteering to do the hard work on. When everyone's working hard in this community, it is supremely rude to stand around, not do any editing at all, but force everyone's hand to go do the research work you should be doing. Take the time to read Ungle G's comments on the RfC again...he clearly articulates what it is that is expected of you by the community...to start making positive, and constructive input by actually improving the articles yourself, not making others do the improving. You're not a supervisor that can stand off to the side and make the rest of us worker-bees improve the articles you want saved; rather, you're a worker just like us, who's expected to put in the efforts just like us. That's why what you've done has been termed disruptive. Akradecki 18:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having some trouble finding where in policy it states that in order to an express an opinion in AFD, one must spend a certain amount of time researching articles. Is there a specific threshold that buys you a spot in the AFD discussion? I was not being disruptive, but voicing an opinion, on my impression of the notability of schools, on how I had seen AFDs turn out before, and on what I perceive to be a significant failing of the process. I am now fully aware that it is an RFCable offense to note any trends in AFD results in the past. That does not mean that the other two categories of my edits have not been valuable, yet you seem to think that the existence of the one thing in my discussion at AFDs negates what value my comments might have. For this reason, and whatever other reason might be, I have experienced intense hostility on trying to publicly observe these things about AFD process, the ways in which it is exploited by both sides, in particular. --ForbiddenWord 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, try this for starters. Note point #2. One of the chief complaints is that you deprod articles without improving them, meaning that they then get taken to AfD where they sit for a week. If the article is worth saving, remove the prod, add the requisite improvements to bring the article up to standards and then it won't even get taken to AfD! Akradecki 18:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would also do well to review Alansohn's comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayview Elementary. He and another editor did the hard work to improve it...they proved that they really care about school articles, because they were willing to put in the work. You say you care about school articles...are you willing to put in the work? Also, note that in his discussion, Alansohn carefully notes how the article has been improved, and how these improvements speficically address Wikikpedia policies and guidelines. This is exactly what I was talking about above. This is exactly what you should be doing if you truly care about school articles. Akradecki 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to the Kappa RfC

Your claim that the situations are similar is at best inaccurate. Kappa's prod-removals far more often lead to keeps than yours did nad with Kappa there was the benefit of the doubt that he was removing prods with good reasons (indeed, his prod removals have been kept far more often than yours). Furthermore, I find it interesting you choose to jump in to endorse an opinion on the Kappa RfC but not touch anything else, even your own RfC. If you feel the RfC isn't justified it might be best for you actually write a resonse on your RfC, not deal with tangentially. JoshuaZ 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I say there is going to make the several editors who are prejudiced against me rethink their positions- examples in the past have shown that. I do like, however, how it's totally kosher for other users to make baseless assertions and personal attacks in AFDs (Alkivar and Kappa, respectively), but when it comes to someone actually arguing a point, the alarm goes up and you open an RFC against him. --ForbiddenWord 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read your RfC you will note that your lack of civility was also a concern. If Alkivar or Kappa continued to be as uncivil and unproductive as you have been I would file an RfC on his conduct as well (indeed, I have considered doing so). The notion that somehow you are "arguing a point" when all you have done is repeat yourself calling schools to be our most precious articles and such is ridiculous. JoshuaZ 02:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been uncivil at all, and certainly haven't spammed 20,000 users' talk pages with "come and vote against deletion" messages, or called deletionists "Scum", or called other user's opinions "bullshit" (like Kappa). I did notice, however, Kukini and you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillips Brooks School, both speculating about consensus. Being that that is the primary reason for you opening an RFC against me, I am curious to why you thought it was appropriate for him and you, and not for me. --ForbiddenWord 20:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm very close to filing an RfC on Kappa's behavior. As to your comment about consensus, I don't quite follow. You may want to reread your RfC to get some idea what precisely was being objected to. JoshuaZ 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I am perplexed as to what I have done that you think is uncivil. I try to address other users with respect, even if I strongly disagree with their opinions. --ForbiddenWord 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one example was when you said "We must not allow the Wikipedia project's most precious articles to be removed by deletionists" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls' High School and College. Incivility wasn't the only concern of the RfC as you will note if you read it in detail. JoshuaZ 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I commented at the Andrew Karperos AFD, I think I have some significant points that are more important than some I made before. --ForbiddenWord 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. I want to help otu and contribute here, and I see all these schools getting put up in AFD, and a lot of the time even if they get a bunch of stuff added to the article, it sometimes gets deleted anyway. I know there are a lot of users who feel the same way. It doesn't feel fair that I get singled out just because I got mad and said some things I regret saying once or twice. :( --ForbiddenWord 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, RfCs aren't supposed to be about "singling" users out, they should be opportunities to improve one's conduct. If you remain civil and take most of Uncle G's suggestions I'm sure you'll do fine. JoshuaZ 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Camara re-nominated for deletion

The article Kiwi Camara has been renominated for deletion. You are being notified of this because of your participation in the first nomination process last year. Please visit the debate page to state your opinion and vote. Thanks. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 01:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwilmont

Gwilmont (talk · contribs) is a fairly obvious sockpuppet of Stevewk (talk · contribs), and was being used disruptively to vandalize the pages by removing the semi-protection template and to edit-war. I've therefore blocked the Gwilmont account indefinitely. Feel free to let me know if further apparent sockpuppets pop up. MastCell ^Talk 15:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stevewk

He does not seem to be a very useful editor; but this should be taken up at WP:ANI. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Could you please explain the relationship of the following: User talk:24.62.243.196, User:Anarchyandy, User:Dr Excessus, Image:Che lives.jpg (deleted, see WP:CSD#G10), Image:NoOneCaresWhatReligiousTextYouRead.JPG (also deleted), User talk:172.200.108.9, User talk:76.226.7.110. These incidents were few and far between, but they are so bizarre that it is difficult not to draw some conclusions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user AnarchyAndy is a friend of mine, and I don't think he's logged on or used his account in a while. The userbox you see on his userpage and mine is an inside joke between us. I used a couple images he created in warning messages in order to try to stop vandals who under most circumstances are undeterred by standard warning messages- the use of the image shows that Wikipedians don't necessarily have to be stodgy people with no sense of humor, and in a couple of circumstances that I've tried to make it happen, it worked. --ForbiddenWord 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks

I beg to differ with your categorization of my friendly supportive comment to another user. It did not address any person but rather a systemic problem regarding content and in no way fits within the definition of personal attack,in my view. But thanks for the heads up even if it is without merit. Mr.grantevans 14:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not without merit. Condescendingly implying that other users must be addressed as children is not constructive and is an attack on other users- I imagine, whoever you've had interaction with before. You're welcome on the heads up. I'm always happy to help other editors gain a more complete understanding of policy. --ForbiddenWord 14:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Service Corp

Ordinarily, you could report them to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard; in this case I saw that it had been reverted back, so I just blocked the user as a promotional account. Good catch, nice work. - Philippe | Talk 20:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! --ForbiddenWord 13:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Kant Do That On Television listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect You Kant Do That On Television. Since you had some involvement with the You Kant Do That On Television redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]