User talk:Grundle2600/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Grundle2600. 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 4

→

All I can do at this point is /facepalm

Barack Obama fly swatting incident ? Really? I've rubbed my eyes several times, hoping it would be like sleepy seeds and go away, but no, it is still there. You know full well that this won't stand a chance at AfD. Please, save a lot of time and effort all around and slap a {{db-author}} on the article and the half-dozen redirects. Author-requested SDs are automatically granted. Tarc (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that you also nominated Gerald Walpin firing for deletion, but so far, the discussion seems to be headed in favor of keep. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to be heading for is a merging of info from the firing article, if any is usable, into the main Gerald Walpin bio. Still doesn't seem like much of a significant person to stand on his own, but its better than this firing article absurdity.

As for the fly-swatting, didn't you learn your lesson from the "Michelle's arms" article? About how just being "sourced" is not an argument and not a valid reason for the creation of an article. I ask again; please consider calling for a deletion yourself, and save us a week-long AfD. If not, I will have to resort to putting it up for AfD in a few hours, unless someone beats me to it. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Walpin never had his own article until I created it as a redirect to the firing article. Check the history for yourself. I like the article about the fly incident, and I think it's notable, so I won't propose it for deletion. Others may disagree, perhaps even enough to reach a consensus, perhaps not. You may end up being surprised at the results of the consensus if you nominate it, or you may get exactly the results that you expect. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Barack Obama fly swatting incident

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Barack Obama fly swatting incident, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable incident and a WP:COATRACK article.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Brothejr (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a coatrack. In case you didn't notice, the article is very kind of the president. The article is well sourced, and the incident is notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Barack Obama fly swatting incident

A tag has been placed on Barack Obama fly swatting incident, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. SMP0328. (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And two minutes after your nomination for deletion, someone else unnominated it, claiming that your justification for deletion was not accurate. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Barack Obama fly swatting incident

I have nominated Barack Obama fly swatting incident, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama fly swatting incident. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SMP0328. (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I voted for keep on the deletion discussion page. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your latest article on Hohle Fels flute

Look up Geißenklösterle. It might be helpful.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: If you need or want further help regarding this article and info that is provided in non-English WP's just ask me (here or on my talk page). I'm not an expert when it comes to German language but I certainly can help, although I might not be able to respond ASAP as I'm not online (with time on hand) on a daily bases.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That article was started first, and it already mentions the flute, so I'm going to redirect the article that I started to it, and add the info there. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Furthermore, the German article on Aurignacian has a lot more detail (including the earliest findings of flutes in 1988 and 1990). Unfortunately they don't always give citations as we do but there are some.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's good that others are interested in this too. I suppose there could be dozens of other articles with names that I don't know. I like how the current news says that since Neanderthals didn't play music, that could have been one factor in why they disappeared and we didn't. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a possibility I guess :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was also already mentioned at Prehistoric music. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that flute fits into more than one article. The question would be which one should be the "main" for it. Hard to decide and quite frankly I don't think a separate article is needed. But I must admit that besides my interest in it I didn't dig far enough into the subject to make the call. Besides, it's bedtime for me. I'll try to check on this when I have time.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Geißenklösterle. I placed some info there after an editor proposed a split.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

- Thanks. I responded on the article's talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow

Did someone compromise your account [1] ? Just kidding. Good call and a big surprise if you ask me. Cheers, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's me. I watched the first few minutes of the show. The first question from an audience member was enough to convince me that the show is not biased, which means it's not noteworthy. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll make up my mind after it aired ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello, Grundle2600. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"May have been involved"? Ha ha! Very funny! Grundle2600 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

Well, at least I get to make suggestions on the talk page.

What is the exact criteria for something counting as a political article? Obviously, for anyone holding political office, any law, any proposed law, and any Supreme Court case, it's obvious.

But regarding certain other articles, I am not sure if they count as political or not.

Does Nuclear power count as political?

Does Nuclear power debate count as political?

Does Overpopulation count as political?

Does Sweatshops count as political?

Does Medical marijuana count as political?

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably ;) The usual term for such questions is “to be interpreted broadly”. You'd be better of with a list such as:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One pragmatic answer: If you're thinking of making an edit similar to one that was cited in the discussion leading to this ban... don't. Another way of looking at this: if your proposed edit makes a political point, or describes the actions of a politician, it's probably a bad idea.

This might be a disappointing answer. However, you can, even under the terms of this ban, propose an edit and provide a source on any article's Talk page. In other words, you can still help improve Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, both of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

nb: I've just edited all of those. While checking-out La Madeleine-Villefrouin, a French commune, I noticed that the infobox it uses, {{Infobox French commune}}, had a mistake in the coding; now fixed. This template is used in over twenty-thousand articles and they *all* benefited from the fix. So, in an indirect sense, you have helped improve the encyclopædia today. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoo hoo! I helped fix over 20,000 articles! However, I consider communes to be political in nature, so I'll stay away from that one. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It means community, i.e. towns; France has many. See: wikt:commune#French. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Thanks for explaining that. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Political depends on what you are trying to change in the article. Medical cannabis looks fine for now. If you wanted to add a long section that talked about the politics of medical cannabis, that would probably be covered, especially if it singled out particular politicians for scrutiny or criticism. You can post the addition to the talk page and if other people like it, they can copy it to the article for you. "Politics and politicians" is somewhat narrower in intention than "political" -- just about everything could be described as "political" these days. It is not my intent to have the topic ban interpreted so broadly as to give other editors a club to pound you with for edits to unrelated topics. Thatcher 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Sheffield's answer is also a good one. Thatcher 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  - (Edit conflict with both of above) To elaborate, its not the subject matter of the articles that makes a difference, it is the content of your edits which will. For example, editing the article Tobacco to make grammar changes or to cite a new reliable scientific study may be OK, however to edit the same article to make comments about recent U.S. anti-smoking legislation or the President's tobacco use habits would NOT be ok. The topic ban means that you should not make any edits which someone else could construe as related to or commenting on the American political situation in any way, regardless of whether or not the article in question has a specifically political title or not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    - Thank you, both of you. I understand what you mean. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha! One non-political article that I like to edit is Tesla Roadster. So I just went and did a google news search on the subject, and the latest news about them is that they are getting a loan from the government - a news item which is political in nature - so I won't add that to the article. How ironic! Of course, I can still keep making edits based on technical specifications and production numbers, which is my real interest in that topic anyway. It just seems ironic that this new article would appear right after my ban begins! Good thing I have a sense of humor! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So mention it at Talk:Tesla Roadster. Just because you can't add it to the article doesn't mean you can't bring it to the attention of others who might. Disembrangler (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What about AfD discussion pages? Am I allowed to comment on those? I just commented on one, and a user warned that my ban covered those. Is that really true? If so, I did not know that. I did not mean to violate my ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you are ("...allowed to comment on those"). Although I would recommend not to place a "vote" there; Just say what you have to say.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarify: If you would post a "vote" on the talk page it could be seen as using the talk page as it where the article page. Still, you can post your opinion w/o making it a "vote".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler

I have nominated Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I responded on the discussion page. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Grundle2600. You have new messages at Jayron32's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Summertime

Hey Grundle. Please don't worry about me. :) I choose areas of the areas of Wikipedia I want to work and focus on, and I take responsibility for my own mental health, enjoyment, and satisfaction. I do apologize if I have caused you any stress or misrespresented any of your positions, it is never my intention to adversely affect anyone else. I am here to collaborate on the building of an encyclopedia and to add, as well as improve, content on subjects that interest me.

Clearly Wikipedia has some serious flaws, in particular with censorship and bias as well as systematic behavioral problems that damage the encyclopedia's integrity, and in these instances I think it's important to speak up. I will avoid mentioning you or using you as an example in the future, although I feel the way you've been treated is despicable. As I've indicated previously, I have enormous respect for your article creation and improvement work, your willingness to collaborate collegially and with patience, and for your perserverance. Take care. Enjoy yourself. And stay out of trouble. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with you mentioning me. Please feel free to mention me in any way that you want. I don't recall you ever saying anything about me that was inaccurate - although I'm sure I have not read all your comments about me. Yes, I am a libertarian, although I do favor universal health care and a few other social welfare programs for people who really need them, and I like having the government regulate pollution, and I like having health and safety laws. Maybe I'm 70% or 80% libertarian, I guess. I totally support personal and civil liberties, free trade, low marginal tax rates, and a much smaller military budget. Anyway, I just meant that all your long posts on the administrative pages seem to suggest that you are in a lot of pain. Of course it is your decision to continue to engage in those conversations, and I trust you to do what you believe is best. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just long winded. :) Sometimes issues are complicated, but I understand that people don't always want to read a lengthy explanation. I'll try to be more concise in future... It's something I try to focus on in article's I'm working on, but as I'm very taken with what I have to say, it's possible I go overboard. :) Feel free to contact me on my talk page any time, I'm always happy to hear from you, and I'm glad you haven't been chased off Wikipedia. Party on. And have a great summer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You have a great summer too! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey I just heard the supreme court ruled on the Ricci case. Very interesting. I see the Walpin firing is still in the news also, but the censorship loving POV pushers are unlikely to recreate that article. :) They are okay with being ignorant. Great job creating these interesting and important articles! ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I dare anyone to nominate the Ricci article for deletion! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Who deleted my userpages without giving me any advance warnings?

Wikipedia has a category of userpages called "Category:Wikipedia humor" for humorous userpage articles that aren't in the mainspace.

I had two such articles in that category - User:Grundle2600/Humor/Barack Obama fly swatting incident and User:Grundle2600/Humor/Michelle Obama's arms.

Someone deleted both of them, without posting anything on my talk page.

Who did this?

And why didn't they first post something on my talk page to give me advance notice?

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, did you forget about this AN/I topic? I asked that they be speedily deleted, and they were deleted as such, being attacks pages and/or recreation of deleted articles in userspace. Your "it was just Humor" defense did not win anyone over, and given the extenuating circumstances of the ArbCom case and the continued disruption, advance notice was not warranted, IMO.

You've been doing quite well under the topic ban so far, Grundle. Do you really want to dig up the dead horses now? Tarc (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I put those articles in my userspace before my topic ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for answering, and thanks for saying that I've been doing well since my topic ban. I will not recreate those articles in my userpsace. For the record, I do think they were justified as being humorous userspace articles, but I won't recreate them. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama articles arbcom case

I've requested an amendment to the Obama ArbCom case to examine and remove several of the findings of fact and remedies passed by the Committee. Your comments would be appreciated here. Thank you. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I added my thoughts on the matter. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you used a heading level with five equal signs ("=====") instead of four ("====") so your username displays smaller than the others on that page. Please forgive me for bringing it up - I would have fixed it myself but you know how jumpy people have been lately. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought I was supposed to use five to create a sub-sub-sub-section, and no one else other than the creator of the main section had posted there. I will go and fix it now. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother. I just did it ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw. Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD comment

For the moment I'll ignore you following me to that AfD via my editing history, to point out the nature of your topic ban and political articles, i.e. "any articles related to U.S. politics and politicians", extends to AfDs as well. Note the warning that ChildofMidnight received for doing the exact same thing. It may be wise to reconsider participation there. Tarc (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am allowed to post on discussion pages. You have followed me a huge number of times. So I just got curious to see your editing history to see where else you might have followed me, and I saw that you wanted a political article to be deleted, and I sympathized with the people who wrote the article, so I thought I'd stick up for them, just as I would want other people to stick up for me in such a case. Given that you have followed me a huge number of times, I think your accusation of me following you seems quite funny. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

AfDs are not discussion pages, you have no wiggle room there. No time to bother with an WP:AE filing now as I'm leaving for the day, but if someone else decides to, you can't say you weren't advised, at least. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you get verification of that from someone who hasn't been following me around and erasing lots of stuff that I write? If the ban really does apply to AfDs - I honestly didn't know. However, given that you have been following me around and erasing every well sourced negative thing about Obama in many articles, and that you want all my political articles to be deleted, and that you basically want to censor everything political that I have ever written here, I would like some kind of independent verification from someone else. I definitely want to obey the ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is a well documented POV pusher and one of the worst stalkers who has tried to delete most every article you create coming here trying to threaten you? This despicable and shameful behavior shouldn't be allowed. Tarc's damage to the encyclopedia needs to stop. Censorship and bias are not acceptable, and we shouldn't tolerate his behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

CoM. Would you please keep your "personal crap" out that only suits your personal feelings about certain editors and other "bad feelings" of yours while advising Grundle? Don't "use" Grundle as you did for quite a while (in my opinion) for your own "needs". If you want to help an editor you don't put your personal problems (and "belongings") in your "advise". Leave it out if you really want to help Grundle or otherwise just cut it off! Clear enough or even maybe too clear but you know exactly what I mean so you know it is not about Tarc, it is about you. Kindest Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, ChildofMidnight! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if it's proven to me that Tarc really is telling the truth in this particular case, then I will thank him, because I do not want to violate my topic ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

@CoM: Your response amounts to a giant "no, YOU are!", honestly. You were the aggressive, serial disruptor that ArbCom snipped out of the Obama-related topic area, not I, and the atmosphere there is much calmer for it.

@Grundle: I have had many of the Obama-related articles on my watchlist since well before you arrived in the topic area, so naturally we cross paths. Looking at your contribs right at this moment, may I ask did I make any appearances when you went to Jimbo's talk page? No. Family of Barack Obama? No Amateur porn? No, and so on. I And honestly, take whatever tips CoM gives you with a grain of salt, maybe even an entire salt shaker. If we were to draw an analogy here, you're like someone cited for a traffic violation getting advice from a grand theft auto convict. Continue contributing to the talk pages (but hopefully not repetitively on the same subject) and you'll be back to normal editing in 2+ months. Tarc (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, I would indeed like to be back to making constructive edits to political articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, it seems that you may have been right. Thanks for trying to help me to stay out of trouble. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I erased my entry from the deletion discussion. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)