Jump to content

User talk:Gaff/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Archive 1    Archive 2 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  ... (up to 100)


*Articles for Deletion

Please don't blank pages that have been placed on AfD; it stifles discussion. Grobertson 09:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

on CBG

from the various page histories, but my reverting your blankings but not responding to yr msg on my talk was not intentional rudeness; i noticed the former almost immediately, but it actually took overnite before i realized you'd left me a msg.
_ _ I'm pretty sure the AfD passed its 5-plus-days quota last nite, but i'm not going to be the one to call the result: IIRC, it's two rock-solid Dels, one shaky Keep, and (with your de facto change of vote) one on each side by two newcomers whom almost any admin would discount. IMO, a noncontroversial Delete result, but still, close enuf to the 2:1 borderline that, in the context of my role in the high emotion, i want to be Caesar's wife. But i will try to facilitate someone's calling it promptly, after which it will fade from attention even more quickly than if you kept blanking it (which would get your acct blocked & draw attention to it).
_ _ (At present, both the AfD and the article rank 0 on my Google tool-bar, but it's probably not even been crawled yet. Isaac Fanous, which underwent a big AfD fuss 11 months ago, is a 3 out of 10, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Fanous is by now a 0 despite all the User-contributions pages that lk to it. I think you can count on the AfD coming onto Google as a 1 or 0 and fading quickly to 0; it is lk'd (other than Special pages like contribs) only from the article and the AfD day-page, which will soon be lk'd only from some user sub-pages and other progressively more obscure pages. The article in question (i make a pt here of not lk'g to it!) will be visible only to admins who go looking for it, once deleted (which, as i've implied, seems ensured).)
--Jerzy•t 17:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my talk:

== Per your comment on Brian0918's page: ==
  • No worries about bringing me further grief. My posting the article in the first place was nothing more than the misguidedness of a newbie. The sooner the better for it to come down, in my opinion. It does not matter to me who deletes it, I have saved the text and may forward it to the people who put up christopherbgibson.com a couple months ago. (Hope that will not violate any wikipedia copyright rules protecting deleted content). --Daniel Lotspeich 02:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ That is comforting, and i won't do anything further to hasten resolution; it will get called sooner or later (presumably as "consensus to delete"), tho backlogs do build up.
_ _ On the other hand, i'm concerned not to set any potential bad examples, and your go ahead doesn't really ensure not being perversely cited as a precedent for some third party's bad behavior.
_ _ Don't be concerned about using an old revision; the only problem with using anything within an article's history of revisions is if it includes material that was neither original to the editor nor in the public domain -- and then, using it is no tort against WP, but only against the copyright holder. (The only relevance re old revisions can i think of is that when we find out about a copyvio, we may make a new revision by removing the protected material from the current revision, w/o necessarily removing from the history all the revisions that included that protected material.) (BTW, just in case you care, WP holds no copyrights on contributions to the articles; IIRC, technically the contributor retains the copyright but gives up virtually all the rights that copyright is supposed to protect. I've never read the license, but i think it's something like you give everyone in the world the right to contest, as if on your behalf, any third party's claim that they have a copyright to the material.)
--Jerzy•t 03:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Fleabane

    • Sorry but you are too quick off the mark. Connyza canadensis is not Connyza equisiteum although they are similar and sometimes confused. Both have been called Horseweed. I was trying to draw attention to the difference. ping 07:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember This One

Hawk a poozeler fare tha do- You wrote that Pooter Cobb ( which is slang for "cornhole" which should be a deletable user name) what was that all about? you obviously have 2 ids which makes one a sockpuppett.

**Pooter Cobb was a character in a story by Christopher Burke Gibson recently deleted from wikipedia for lack of notability. I did indeed post "Hawk a poozler" and "fare thee do" I also posted "now everyone allemande" as all three were expressions of Pooter Coob (Urban Trapper). These were all posted as graffiti on Chris' site prior to it being taken down. Something of an inside joke that Mr Gibson would have found hysterically funny (may he rest in peace). Regarding the slang term: that had escaped me and I will no longer sign anything with that name. As for the sock-puppet: the user page and talk page both redirect to my userpage (which I did after abandoning the pootercobb site). I have also subsequently requested deletion of the pootercobb user and talk page. Hope this explains things for you well enough.--Daniel Lotspeich 19:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of sock-puppets, 219.93.174.101, who am I speaking to? --Daniel Lotspeich 19:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't think of where it's discussed at the moment, but if you prefer (and if can can convince someone who knows how to do it that you are indeed the owner of both usernames, probably by leaving two messages saying so, one edited with each of the two of the usernames), the edits by one can be re-attributed to the other. (However, that's entirely up to you; there's no obligation to do so.)
      --Jerzy•t 00:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The anon IP above should consult WP:SOCK, in order to become aware that WP's critique of sockpuppetry focuses not on that status per se, but on the use of socks in voting. Unless i missed something, there is no reason to point this one out.
    --Jerzy•t 00:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above IP should also note that its address is linked to some rather less innocent incidents of vandalism than my posting "Hawk-a-poozler" randomly on some non-notable site. Check out the contribution log associated with that address.Daniel Lotspeich 01:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

56 Aquilae

Thank you for reconsidering. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above talkpage items are copied from my previous username Daniel Lotspeich. This username has been abandoned (in case any questions of sockpuppetry or other misdoings may come about). I'm looking to establish myself as a contributing member of the community here...

--Gaff talk 21:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bio's

Bio's are allowed on peoples Talk pages, just not in the main Wikipedia namespace. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering

...does my signature look bad or something; I may change it back or do something with it.File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
 -No...it looks kinda cool in a funky way. Maybe a little busy. I had read something about overly involved signatures slowing pages down, but not sure how much there is behind that.--Gaff talk 04:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Take this deletionist barnstar for your work on VfDs

Take care, Molotov (talk) File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif
04:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! My first barnstar. I hope that it is more of a traditional Editor's Barnstar than a Deletionist's, as I try to exercise good judgement in votes and proposals to AfD.--Gaff talk 01:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 06:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes to Create

I don't know if this AFD comment was meant to be tounge-in-cheek or not, but I think it might not be that bad an idea, actually. Would certainly help reduce vanity article creation, I'd think, and certainly cut down on lists. The Literate Engineer 06:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really tongue in cheek at all. I've read some of Jimi Wales stuff on the future of WP and it seems that AFD is a major problem at the moment. I love it that WP is readily accessible to everyone with an internet hookup. I love it that its open-source. Still, it seems that placing some restriction (at least a restriction that new articles need be placed by people with an actual username and not just anonymously) could seriously curtail the spam and vanity and patent nonsense that I see taking up loads of time on AFD that would be better focused on improving the solid but less than ideal articles already in place.--Gafftalk 06:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As someone who has created about 600 articles, including about 100 in 2 days, "votes to create" is a very bad idea. It would likely be much worse than VFD is now, in terms of backlog. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-15 16:46
    • Point taken.--Gaff talk 16:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think they should simply create a set of articles on every possible subject, up front, and then let the a-nones fill them in as they see fit. Meanwhile, where is the Yale University "Boola Boola" song on that list? Wahkeenah 16:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi, Gaff, nice to see you again. I'm not sure whether i bear a big responsibity for your sense of, uh, needing to try another foot; should i ask more about this? In any case, i of course welcome the change, if it helps you to feel at home. I'm hard enough to listen to that inviting you to ask for information may not amount to a friendly gesture (!), but please feel free. Looking forward to your participation,
--Jerzy•t 11:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Future of Wikipedia

On AFD I spotted a comment where you mentioned reading stuff by Jimmy Wales on the future of Wikipedia, and in particular AFD. Where can I find this - I'd be interested to see what he has to say on the subject. Cheers! 23skidoo 12:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC) (please reply on my talk page - thanks!)[reply]

Vonnegut / Twain

If you don't think it's true, delete it. Wahkeenah 12:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the phone. Go into google and enter "kurt vonnegut" "mark twain" "resemblance" and you will get several hits, independent of, and prior to, my entry... and stated even more strongly, such as these: [1] [2] Should I add these citations to the article? Wahkeenah 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I'll do it. Wahkeenah 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poe vandal

I moved your comments from the anon user's main page to their talk page. I assume thats where you wanted them to go. I had already test1'ed them for the vandalism, but its good to see other people watching out for Poe. :) --Syrthiss 13:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaff

I bet your late friend had more verifiable notability than the claims that we didn't go to the moon. Wahkeenah 18:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Day

Awesome. No wonder they say the hippo is the most dangerous animal in Africa. That guy could take a bite out of a Cape Buffalo any day. Wahkeenah 18:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

Yes, yes it is. The best part, though, is that your style can be part of our style... --Αλεξ Σ 18:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks for the E=mc^2 barnstar--Rayc 19:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suburb Streets

Hi,

The main reason for adding street pages to my suburb article is to create community. I am publicly proposing that members of our local community participate in this Wiki project so they can add thier collective knowledge of the history of thier street.

From my experience, every street has it's history, as does every family and I think this project provides the mechanism for them to document that. This ranges from previous property owners to various events. I feel this can be helpful especially in researching family history.

On the other hand, I think your point of view might be that it's important to conserve articles so that they can be managed properly. I agree, conserving space and promoting managability is important, however, the alternative might be to have a whole lot of sub-headings within the main article and make the article very long. This has an effect on the usability of an online document in my opinion.

I welcome your comments and look forward to your reply.

Hi Peter. Welcome. I admire your efforts towards building community. I'm not sure how likely the editors here at wikipedia will be at leaving your pages alone. The issue will be playing itself out on the Articles for deletion page for the time being. (By the way, don't take down any of the ugly looking tags that get put up or you might wind up causing more harm than good for your proposal). I thought that maybe blogger would be a good thing for you to consider. There, you could get all the families in your neighborhood set up with their own blog to post photos and stories and all the goings on that are important on a small scale but perhaps not of substantial importance to be in an encyclopedia. Best of luck!--Gaff talk 03:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copvios

Just so you know, copyright violations, such as the one at Ryan Eckert are now speedyable if they meet the criteria listed at the top of WP:CP. Please be sure to include the url by using |url=http://url when tagging something as copyvio or speedy delete copyvio. Thanks. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but note that they are only speediable if they meet all the conditions in WP:CSD#Articles A8. The page must have been identified within 48 hours of uplaod, and the source must be a commercial content provider -- i.e. someone trying to make money off the posted content. DES (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henry T. Yang

You tagged this as a speedy copyvio. However a university is not a commercial content provider, at least not as regards its personel listings, such as the page in question. This is not nit-picking. This restriction on CSD A8 was imposed to avoid the case where permisison might plausibly be granted. it is not unlikley that a university might grant permission to use its public profile of one of its officials -- at least to the extent that a re-written version could include this in the page history. I have remove the speedy tag, adn will try a superficial re-write. DES (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I was one of those who worked on the proposal that became CSD A8, which is why i know its rules so well. It is a new policy, so lots of people are confused about it. i have just posted a limited re-write of the article. Take a look, if you would, and feel free to make any further changes that seem appropriate. This avoids using the backlogged copyvio process in a cse where it is unlikley that the copyright holder (the university) would really object or that any harm is done to anyone. This is not a vanity article nor an advertisement, after all, or at least it doesn't look like one to me. DES (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks very much! Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Paek

It isn't a bunch of question marks. It is Korean script. If your computer could read Korean script, you would see that. I should clairify. It is his Korean name written in Korean letters. Masterhatch 03:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah hah. I thought that's what it might be. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we now publishing articles in Korean? I thought this was the english language version of WP.—Gaff talk 05:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, no, I am not trying to spread Korean articles on the English Wikipedia. Many hockey players, such as Aleksandr Mogilny use redirect pages with their native spellings. I just thought it would be ok to do it with asian hockey players too. I did it with Richard Park and Jim Paek. If there is a problem, I won't object to having those redirect pages deleted. Sorry for any confusion. Masterhatch 06:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a redirect in Korean characters to an English language article with an English language title. It may not be terrible useful, but it's not vandalism. I should have mentioned, however, that should you still feel the redirect is inappropriate, that you could take it to Redirects for deletion instead, as it does not really fit CSD criteria. Personally I think it's ok, and redirects are cheap anyway, but it's up to you. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that it is that big of a deal to have article title redirects from Korean character headings. I just wonder how many people come to an English language encyclopedia and type in Korean alphabet characters. But really, its not a big deal to me at all. Thanks!—Gaff talk 06:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To put it another way, the average ethnocentric English speaker would find Korean script to be pretty much of a question mark in any case. Wahkeenah 06:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that I am ethnocentric just because I am working on an encyclopedia written in a given language with a set alphabet and get confused when I stumble across article headings that on my screen look like this ???. Are you saying that I am ethnocentric because my browser does not read Korean? Frankly, that is a little offensive especially after I spent most of my weekend trying to remove vandalism and nonsense from WP, while writing a couple of decent stubs along the way. I'm done for now...talk to you all down the road sometime.—Gaff talk 06:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hiyaz

that's pretty stupid that anyone would consider deleting that. if that's deleted, then the entries about REAL Ultimate Power and Brian Peppers should be deleted to. EDIT: WOW. I have no idea how to use wikipedia.

  • The above comment is in reference to AfD on Danny Aquino. The article describes sexual misadventures of two teenagers, that strikes me as both inappropriate for an encyclopedia and harmful to the person about whom it is written.—Gaff talk 04:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's an attack page against someone else, that's a CSD criteria. You woulnd't happen to have a link to the actual page would you? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is Danny Aquino. The person that posted the above on my talk page has reverted the entire discussion on the AfD site. Its not so much a flagrant personal attack as just damaging gossip to a young, although clearly foolish kid. I do not think that WP considers dissemination of this kind of information to be part of its mission. About the articles on REAL Ultimate Power and Brian Peppers, I do not find them very informative or helpful either, but am not going to make it my job to go after them. —Gaff talk 06:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda

But the links are already there... It would be pretty pointless to have links in an article redirect to the same article. But if there are other articles which also describe Intentional Vagueness and Unstated Assumptions then I will happily redirect the links there.

Brian Peppers

No problem. The picture was definitely copyvio, and while the text wasn't, two AFDs are enough to warrant speedy, I think. Ral315 WS 08:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

garbage compactor

Well, it's a minor detail that was already well-covered in the article for A New Hope, so I don't see how it could even be expanded. My "star wars buddies," contrary to popular opinion are level-headed and probably would agree with me. The Wookieepedian 01:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vietnam edits

The US involvement officially ended on April 30, 1975 with the final withdrawl from Saigon. Numerous online references document this, including : http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/history

Hietaniemi beach on AfD

Hi! I mentioned this on the AfD too, but if you want to merge Hietaniemi beach then you don't need to go through Articles for Deletion. Just go ahead and merge the content and then turn the article into a redirect, or put {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates on the articles and see if it generates any objections. — mendel ☎ 04:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjmin Dodd

Thanks for AfDing this. I was going to do it, but was delighted to see that you'd caught it. -Walter Siegmund 07:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: United States

Acknowledged and reverted. Thank you for telling me.  Denelson83  08:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:USA

Yes, something like that sometimes happens when there's a lot of vandalism and good editing at the same time. Denelson83 has fixed it now, as far as I can tell, thanks for pointing it out! --JoanneB 08:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{test4}}

Hey Gaff. I see you're doing your bit in regards to countering vandalism on WP. Good stuff :) Just thought I'd let you know that all templates on WP are expressed with the use of braces, like so: {{test4}}. Best encephalon 08:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Oh and about the doc cat, you're quite welcome. Sorry I didn't reply sooner, there's been so much to do! encephalon 08:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy

Replying to your question on my talk page.

I was using "userfy" to suggest that the original author puts an article that doesn't sit well in the encyclopaedia itself somewhere on their user space.

I'm not very experienced here myself, which is why I phrased it as a question on AfD.

I thought the idea (if possible) suited the article rather well. I got the impression that the authors were children experimenting at creating a page and I thought finding them somewhere to pursue the experiment was more wiki-friendly than throwing them out. Obviously I could have been wrong about that: everyone on Wikipedia is, or might be, pseudonymous, and what I think is childish might not appear that way to someone else.

Just throwing in my 2p worth, though. AndyJones 16:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS you often see this vote with vanity pages. It's a good way to assume good faith & encourage a new user to put their personal profile in user:space. AndyJones 16:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War

In a recent edit you reverted yourself back to an anon version, citing [3] as a source that the anon's version was correct. However, I'm don't see where that page supports the anon version; my sources suggest the American combat role was over by 1973 with the Paris Peace Accords. The war, of course, continued for two more years. Just wondering what your reasoning was for this change. Thanks. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like I was a little hasty in checking references. I read the article more closely and it does state that US troops withdrew January of 1973. Thanks for catching my error.—Gaff ταλκ 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combat troops, yes -- making the statement that all US troops withdrew would be arguable, as some troops stayed behind in non-combat roles such as protecting the American embassy, assisting with the return of POWs, etc. The last U.S. forces did leave the country in 1975. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hey, I know I don't really need to reply to your message but I figured I would. I was pretty drunk when I decided to vandalize Jack Thompson's page, the guy deserves it but not on Wikipedia, so I'm sorry about that. Cool of you to take some time to actually message someone for this rather than doing everything in your power to have them banned from the site. I'm of course, a newbie to wiki and just a bit frustrated at all of the crazy stuff you need to learn to make posts. Is there some kind of program that simplifies it?

Anyway, I will be sure to conduct myself in a proper manor in the future and I will probably create an actual account so people have a bit more than IP address to identify with. As for my reference in bureaucracy, regarding the "Bush Administration" that probably was POV. I might have made a better point simply by saying "United States Government" since the levels of bureaucracy over here are astronomical. I'm not even sure how the defense secretary manages to get a letter to the president!

Okay, so no drunk editing anymore, I only today realized just how big and widespread wiki is. Alright, again, thanks for actually sending me a constructive and polite message, you're an asset to wiki's community. (above is an unsigned comment from User:24.254.91.194

  • Thanks for the message. I think that a lot of new users are a little overwhelmed by the whole experience here. So much power to be able to freely edit, but certain standards (such as no vandalism) need to be upheld or the entire project will fail.—Gaff ταλκ 00:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User want admin

This template has been nominated for deletion. Since you employ it on your user page, you may be interested in the discussion. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_want_admin. Christopher Parham (talk)

Schools

Great thoughts, and great to have someone else interested in school articles contributing to the AfD process. Prepare to get handbagged by all the deletionists out there who want schools purged. If you feel like helping maintain Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive on a daily basis that would be great.--Nicodemus75 08:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrocarbons on other planets

This article has been rewritten to reflect current knowledge. I urge you to take a look at it and reconsider your delete vote. Thanks. Denni☯ 03:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

naked eye visible stars

I will vote to keep all articles about stars visible to the naked eye, and any other star well-known enough that it might be mentioned in a science fiction story. That is one of my criteria for judging the effort behind a science fiction story. Does the author mention life on a planet circling a star where life couldn't have evolved? If you would like support for keeping articles about stars that meet these criteria drop me a note. -- Geo Swan 18:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

Whoops, I reverted to the wrong edit there, thanks for spotting that. Alf melmac 01:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaff/Archive_1&oldid=1259648662"