User talk:JzG/Archive 4

The CCM bicycle

Asside: Another one of our disputes: Perhaps we should talk about that later? The relevance of a facts to a timeline. You might dispute such facts the CCM bicycle subject. So... we would need to be careful in chosing, what are major categories. And we would need to resolve that CCM dispute (I added some recent comments in the main articles discusion page)Where we were arguing about)... We're not arguing legibility right? Just the facts and what is important? --CyclePat 18:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right: the dispute here is about the verifiable significance of the event in the context of the global development of the motorised bicycle. The point of timlines is to record the milestone events, and collect together a number of articles on a large subject into a logical sequence so that readers can follow the thread of development.

This also goes to the heart of my problem with the timeline article: not only is the history of the motorised bicycle quite short, and blessed with relatively few pivotal moments, it's also all documented in one article already, so a portmanteau article collecting together the various threads is redundant. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see, when I created the article I was thinking the contrary. This Timeline would be a place to put all the specific or non-specific inforamtion concerning motorized bicycle. (even the odd ball, mimicked (kinda like a clone computer) motorized bicycle). An extensively abund amount of links to all the moped we can find. (That's at first) But asside from maybe... or something we would have though of. Byt why the key moments? And who will decide this concidering (I don't think there's really to much info for the earlier motorized bicycleS? (b.t.w. it's 1h15 am here, so goodnight)(humm! I'll fix the typos and coherence of this statement tomorow, sorry for the inconveniance) --CyclePat 06:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The CCM Light Delivery Safety has an indisputable place in the CCM article, but unless it has some verifiable significance to the global development of the motorised bicycle it would be at best an irrelevance and at worst a red herring in either article. The fact that you created the second article to contain trivia which, by consensus, was removed from the first is in line with what I suspected, but if anything the bar is higher in the timeline as timelines are lists of pivotal events. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A timeline is defined as: a) "chronology"... but it may also be b) "representation or exhibit of key events within a particular historical period, often consisting of illustrative visual material accompanied by written commentary, arranged chronologically."[1] I think that's where we where differing in opinion. If we take your interpretation of the definition, then you would are possibly correct in saying CCM bicycle doesn't deserve a spot. However, what is a key event? (I think you said the answer to that somewhere else, already) I've indicated elsewhere, that it feels almost like original research or (bias selections) being able to pick and chose. (devils advocat here!) What make you able to discern what information is worthy of notation. As you have said you don't have enough information on the subject. (I don't either, which is why I didn't want to try and speculate if that information was worthy of inclusion). I put the information in as per the a) definition. (and good faith, assuming this information must have some type of influence on the motorized bicycle since it is from a notable source such as the Museum of science and tech of Canada). Chronology could have 3 meaning according to this dictionary. The 3rd one says: "A chronological list or table." (Which make me think... perhaps the name should be Chronological list of motorized bicycles ?) And we know what chronological means right?[2] So please don't consider this me trying to prove a point, I was trully trying to get some usuful information into an appropriat article. Now, what to do? Who's definition is better? (it sadens me to see my information disapear because of some difference of interpratation)

(Maybe we can come on a concensus to define a little bit better what a timeline is?) --CyclePat 22:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also I just realize, (as you mentioned on the talk page of timeline) it will be hard to create such a... visual, graphically inclined timeline... that is why I assumed it was the first definition. --CyclePat 22:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia in general, the insigificant does not get a mention (anywhere). WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. As to the purpose of the timeline, you went to the themed timelines article to add this one, did you look at any of the others? They are either generally long articles covering a few centuries, with events divided into decades, or they are a list of milestones in a long development, linking multiple articles which need pulling together. Or so it seems to me. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand. However, I do understand what you are saying about wikipedia not having a collection of indiscriminate information ("that's stated at the start of WP:ISNOT (Consensus, policy)"). I did find the most logical choice you would argue upon would be that of #7 of WP:ISNOT. Seemingly this may support your idea, but I can already see some refutations coming. Again, the question... according to you, what makes the fact about CCM bicycle non worthy of mentioning? It is a motorized bicycle, it's importance be of something. Just like a distant star that might be discovered, it is a star. We might not comprehend its significance in the universe but surely God or (if you believe in Aliens) some Aliens might consider it significant. What if that star was the one I wished upon. Or what if it was a star that had such a gravitational pull on the earth that it kept the universe aligned, except, at the present moment our feeble minds can't calculate that. CCM bicycle with an attached "Pixie" bicycle motor is a well documented motorized bicycle that can be found in the Museum of Science and Technology of Canada. So how will we according to "you", pick and chose, discriminately which motorized bicycles influence what culture the most? ~~the attack~~ (Aside: rule #2, from [[WP:ISNOT] ("Lists or repositories") ~~does~~ supports the idea that we may have this timeline.) ~~(might have some typos... pretty tire again)(sorry!)~~ I did notice some lists, what you say sounds right. I also noticed these lists (not timelines) where simply a list of various items ~~(I'll have to get back to you on this one)~~ Thank you. (gnight) --CyclePat 04:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, I'm a little tires... I'll re-write some/most of the comments later on. now you have a heads up.~~ --CyclePat 04:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Now I remember. What about a list of motorized bicycle? That could be subdivided into addition kits, and manufactured... meuh? (Goodnight) --CyclePat 04:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(the above 2 or 3 comments by me were quickly re-edited and corrected --CyclePat 21:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Pat, if I've said it once I've said it a dozen times: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. OK, it's not paper, but we have to draw a line. And the line here is drawn well above the point where you can insert pet examples without any evidence of significance into an article on the global history and development of the motorized bicycle. The list you suggest - essentially your third attempt to insert this trivia into the mainstream, is even more useless than the last attempt. It is what is called listcruft on AfD, and dozens like it get deleted every week. I urge you to devote your energies into something demonstrably significant instead. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Just zis Guy, you know?", please read over the WP:NPOV. In particular I think the section good research [3]. I've told you time and again my sources. Good "facts" should be mentioned to maintain the NPOV of an article. Also might I suggest you read over WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy or an Anarchy. There should be no Wikipedia:Straw polls --CyclePat 17:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's like this: I know your sources, and they do not address the question. I have said this before: the source is a museum description, museums collect all sorts of curiosities. These often have a valid place in the articles on their manufacturers (as this one does), but if they are not releavnt to the global history of development, they should not be included in articles dealing with that. If you want the CCM in the article, all you need to do is show some verifiable evidence that it was significant to the development of the motorised bicycle. The article is already quite long, has several significant examples, discusses history, technology, some regional issues and much else. It would be like adding the manufacturer of a single one of Elvis's suits into the Elvis article. See what I mean? I really thought we had reached agreement on this some time ago and I am seriously disheartened to find you are back down the same route.

I wish I could understand why you are so hung up on this one, apparently trivial item!

As to the comment on NPOV, of course I understand NPOV! I showed that on Simon Wessely. But this is not about NPOV, it's about inclusion criteria. And in any case, do you genuinely think your point of view as a Canadian with a fledgling business manufacturing motorised bicycles and an acknowledged interest in their classification due to a legal dispute, is neutral? I have no interest in this fight, other than as a bicycle enthusiast. I am trying to help, I was and am trying to help with the process of turning what seems to have started as a wrestling match over the electric / non electric issue into what is now, to my mind, quite a nice article. Ditto the timeline: you created it in what I still have enormous trouble not seeing as bad faith, but K-111 has done some good work, and he and I seem to be working out a way in which the article can be useful in drawing together various related strands. I'm sorry that neither of us sees a place for the CCM, just as others have disputed your perspective before. Now I'm happy to go with a consensus (I have had articles deleted, I've withdrawn AfD noms, and I've changed AfD votes in response to substantial revision of the source article). Look at the other work I've done - some of which has POV issues, which have been toned down by others and Ive respected that.- Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD voting

Hello Just zis Guy, you know?, you seem to vote "delete" on almost every AfD discussion. This caught my eye. Looks like you're a sort-of counter-balance to User:Kappa and User:Trollderella, who vote "keep" on almost everything. — JIP | Talk 18:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Maybe. I set the bar rather higher than they do, I guess. I have voted keep plenty of times, and I've saved a few seriously bad articles which were actually about good subjects. I do tend to make a point of voting delete on band vanities in particular, to make sure there are enough deletes for consensus (in case of sockpuppets). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: unworthy thoughts

[4] Assumegoodfaithitis can be fatal, man! Lol. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should I ask for an explanation?

Should I ask for an explanation of this comment? Yes, I contributed to articles on Firesign Theatre. I am a fan of their work. Yes, I created the article on "Everything you know is wrong". It is my favourite of their albums. And, after I created that article I created the article on "There is a sucker born every minute". The phrase "There is a seeker born every minute seems profound to me. I have known a lot of people who fell for cults. I am confused about your comments about motives. The comment applies to my motives? Is there really something you think I have done that is intellectually dishonest, or otherwise suggests questionable motives?

I am sorry. I said I would contribute some comments to your position paper on {afd}. I have been distracted. I will make more comments later, if they are still welcome...

I put a comment on the {afd} page requesting an explanation as to why everyone thought a signle article was preferable to smaller linked articles. In your position paper you made the excellent point that the regular {afd} patrollers shouldn't use private short-hands, like nn that are completely opaque to the newcomers who come the discussions because an article they contribute to was nominated. I am frustrated by the opacity of the discussion over "There is a sucker born every minute".

I'll watch this page for a reply. -- Geo Swan 21:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it was an unworthy thought. Nothing more. I've gone away to do something else for a while. But I will look in. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger

Hello Guy! I've read what you post on your user page! Very nice and intersting, you can just read and pass over it. It models you. I'm happy that I've read it. I just copy paste into my page also. See you! Bonaparte talk & contribs

Hello Guy! Please share with me what's your approach when you want to write an NPOV article. I would be interested to know! Bonaparte talk & contribs

It's not at all easy, and I often get it wrong! It will depend on the subject. Normally on WPP the whole subject is stated, then controversy is detailed at the end. Statement of the subject has to reflect the majority view of informed opinion - look at bicycle helmet for an example, I guess. Why not make a useer subpage with the content you want, then I'll have a look at it for you and see if I can offer any advice? It might be easier for me as an outsider. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try this. Bonaparte talk & contribs 20:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Step by step we're doing good. Now is a better version since that user was finally blocked. -- Bonaparte talk 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible bicycle

here come another one of my contreversies!!!

http://www.geocities.com/verdrahciretop/invisibike.html

LOL ;) --Pat 21:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mergist

See #66 here — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naz Baker

Speedied, AfD closed. Owen× ☎ 23:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/Superthread

Kudos for your work in sorting out the mess of unsigned comments, vandalism and unstructured voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superthread. I noticed this morning before heading to work that something had happened, but it wasn't clear to me exactly who had deleted or inserted what. I think there might be two at work here, rather than one, but not that it matters. The 'superthread' in question has a post calling for meatpuppets, and telling them how to register and (incorrectly) what page they should go and vote on. Though fortunately there is not a great deal of that going on. Best, --BillC 22:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political Compass User Subproject

I remember you commented on Political Compass awhile back, and I was wondering if you'd like to add your data on this user subproject i'm doing on the political perspectives of Wikipedians. karmafist 22:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of the political compass, it explains much that is otherwise contradictory. I've not updated my scores for a while, so I'll run it again and be sure to add to the list - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion

I was wondering if I could ask your opinion on an AfD matter. (Your usename just happened to be the top one I reconized on my watchlist, I hope you don't mind.) I was going to submit Ocuview for AfD as an Advert. However a google search indicates that cameras branded by them (although not actually manufactured by them) are out there. I found some on eBay, for example. However, the majority of the hits are advertising. Also, it seems that Ocuview are advertised in several other places you can freely post text. What do you think? Should I submit this for AfD? Thanks for your time. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean. Starts with the company name as a weblink (almost invariably a sign of spam), reads like an advert, riddled with linkspam, very few sites linking in to tham according to Google, not publicly quoted (at least, Yahoo Finnace can't find them and the website does not mention a symblo, which almost every publicly quoted company does), and as you say they don't even seem to manufacture the things. I'd say your judgment is sound, and I'd vote delete per WP:CORP - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the second opinion and submitting the AfD for me. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I hope I didn't tread on your toes, I thought that having seen it and two of us done the research it didn't make much sense to hold off. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It really made no difference which one of us put the request in. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basevorn Revisited

Hi JzG,

You & I voted to delete an article on Robert of Basevorn a while back. I've been in contact with Prof. Randy Harris [5] about the article. Apparently the article was created by a grad student as a part of a class, write a wikipedia article on an underrecognized figure in the history of rhetoric. The article was funky, and I'd probably vote the same way again if I didn't have backing the info from Harris that I now have. IN any case, I've voted to undelete the article on Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Robert_of_Basevorn. I thought you might want to know.

I've been mulling over whether to assign wikipedia work as part of graduate classes myself for a while now. I'm not yet sure it's a good idea, but I'm planning on keeping track of how this all goes, and maybe write a guide on how/whether having graduate students contribute to wikipedia for grades works/doesn't work. I've made some suggestions to Harris about how do it better...

Cheers, Pete.Hurd 04:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that such assigments have the potential to significantly improve quality, particularly on obscure topics. Why not assign one article to a small group, so they can also learn about consensus and other Wikithinks along the way? Original research issues would, I think, largely disappear if groups were assigned to an article, especially if the parameters were laid out by one who knows the ropes, as it were. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly

We've tried everything to get him to try to follow our policies, but he seems too stubborn for it. I see that the merging with mopeds is reopened and from what he told me, he plans to reopen the electric bicycle article. There's a fine line between passion and stubborness and I think he passes that line quite a bit. And he mentions his "agenda". No one on here should have an "agenda". Period. Totally against NPOV. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, the CCM bike thing was the last straw for me. I don't know what's so hard to understand about how the history of a bike company doesn't belong in full in an article on motorized bicycles when the first 6-7 entries were about regular bikes. It just. Isn't that hard. And the content was moved to the CCM article. It wasn't "removed". He made it sound like I just deleted it and removed all of his research. He doesn't let go. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's certainly exasperating. Even more wearisome is following Pat round trying to round up all the threads of discussion he's started on the same issue. I suppose if he asks enough people eventually someone will give him the answer he wants? Anyway, I've just fixed the Electric bicycle redirect - I notice that he didn't follow the guidance on how to place the tag so as not to break the redirect. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Fanclub copyvio?

Are you sure? Looking through the page history it looks to me like they may have copied from us rather than us from them. JeremyA 14:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, better safe than sorry in the case of blatantly unencyclopaedic bandcruft :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Old Simon

Just checking in to see how that article is progressing. If you've added anything, let me know and I'll review. Otherwise, are you about ready to make it official? --Martin Osterman 21:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added nothing for some time. None of the others appear to be contributing either. I suggest we make it official, but perhaps with a temporary lock to see what changes they propose rather than letting them have at it again. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. I'm out of town tonight through tomorrow afternoon, but I'll be back tomorrow evening to keep an eye on things. --Martin Osterman 21:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. If Jimbo emailed you to tell you that you rock, why did he blank the page? 216.237.179.238 22:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think he liked the comment I left for the editor re the way forward. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 14:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steam tricycle

Nice addition but I'm currious to know why you removed the photo. Did you want to add the another one instead? (like the real photo you presented in your previous arguments for exclusion from the talk timeline of motorized bicycle history? --Pat 18:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

maybe this should be in the article discussion? --Pat 18:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is taken from an in-copyright book on a website which is restricted (i.e. not free) access. I left a note on your talk page about it. Actually, Pat, you know this is not a bad example of why I still have a bit of a problem with what you are doing: the idea of a steam tricycle was a sound one, but once again you only added the content removed from another article. A very brief Google on steam tricycle turned up the Parkyns-Bateman, the first ever gasoline-powered vehicle, and the Long, which appears to have been the first patented steam tricycle. Both of these are really interesting machines. They may already have articles, I haven't checked yet (I was editing when the message flag went up). There was nothing stopping you from doing the same! Like I said before, you will make a lot more friends if you do this kind of thing, it is easy and it's very obvious that you are motivated to add content and have the time to do so.

Oh, and it already is in the article discussion. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only have 10 fingers! I might not have the wonderful elaborate time, or interest, of always adding googled information. (yes! everyone is ignorant somewhere) I figured a reputable sources would be good. Now we have two sources (in part because of you. thank you!)(That's what it's all about) Anyway, see comment at the main picture article. --Pat 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

So do I, and two of mine have bone-deep burn scars. Plus I have two children to entertain, as well as one concert as performer and one as audience yesterday, another concert next Saturday to rehearse for and a model railway to finish. And a light to fit to my Brompton. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, we're not that different you know. I have a concert this wednesday. It's a pilot production I'm helping to organise (I kinda found an internship) for an opera[6]. (and I'm singing in it!) I guess it's the season for concerts! I don't have kids yet though. I hope you didn't get those scares on your hand from playing to much of your instrument or typing (ie. carpal tunel syndrom)? Also, I would like to give you the code to access the web-page but, it's also my university login code, so if you want a copy of the information I can send it to you by email, or if you wait a few days I'll put on my "web-page" I'm starting. Anyway, active living (diversified) is the best way to live. Keep in shape (don't forget the exercise) and doing everything you love will fall into place. --Pat 18:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the bibliographical information. You may now be able to access parts of the book without the need to login. --Pat 22:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the article related to Image talk:A history of technology p424(coal bicycle).JPG (I don't know how to add a direct link to it without putting the picture on your web site)

YAY For Dino's!!

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Dinosaur was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Thanks for voting. Spawn Man 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! It certainly deserves to be better than it currently is. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

African National Congress Youth League

Guy,

I have rewritten the article so that it is about this organisation founded by Nelson Mandela among others. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 18:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One dollar Federal Reserve Note

I notice the deletion debate here has fizzled somewhat, but I made some changes to the articles that may further illustrate the points I had been trying to make. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Paul 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoliberalism

The "paleoliberalism" page is currently an article in Wikipedia and therefore deserves the links that you reverted. Therefore I'm restoring them. No offense but that article hasn't been deleted, at least not yet. So then it is still a legitimate page. If the article is eventually deleted, then yes revert the links, but until that happens the article deserves recognition in the Liberalism Series. Believe me I'm not trying to start a beef with you or a reverting war, I'm just saying this is a matter of respect for a new wikipedian's addition. So let this please be the end of this issue until if and when the article is deleted, which I obviously hope it isn't. But if it is then I'll accept it as no longer an article and will even personally revert the links. But until that day comes, could you please show me some courtesy. -- PaleoLib 13:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are linking it into mature articles where there is no demonstration that it has any significance or relevance. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Series License

Did you even bother to click on the links? also, did you see that it brand new, and if i could have found a previously mention article i would have, feel free to contribute, but erasing it is not going to create an article. unsigned comment by User:Paul.Paquette

Yes I did. Did you click on the link in the Speedy box? Check WP:CSD. Stubs are one thing, bare links with no context quite another. But I did leave you a message on your Talk page with an alternative suggestion. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links in signatures

Hi, Guy. Just wanted to let you know about this recent change (discussed here) to the signature guidelines, stating that external links should not appear in signatures. I do not care about it all that much, really, but there are evidently some who do. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 10:08:58Z

Noted. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic Realty Co.

Hi, I'd like an apology for your comment there. karmafist 21:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note the smiley and see here: [7]. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, sorry, nothing personal was intended, it was a throwaway remak (which should probably have been thrown away before posting). I suspect that the realtor's lack of universa popularity may be a thorny subject to those in the profession... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ackerman

What do you mean Ackerman's theory in the article tricycle. Can you put a better link? --CylePat 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, link now fixed to Ackermann steering geometry. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know... learn something new everyday, Cheers! --CylePat 03:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]