User talk:Shoessss/Archive 11
Thank you too
[edit]Also thanks to you, those references you added were very comprehensive compared to the ones I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.39.11 (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL - I think it boild down to more time on my hands than you :-)And the fact, I actually enjoy the research aspect. Thanks again. ShoesssS Talk 18:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Seth Material
[edit]I am sorry if you disagreed with my AfD of the Seth Material, but the fact is I was not the one who said initially that it was not notable or poorly sourced. I thought it was, and then some administrators came along and slapped those tags there, and mostly convinced me that they were right. in the last month or so, it was discussed on the talk page . . . check the three or so pages of archives generated by this, with no one reaching a consensus. Some insisted that it was not notable because the sources were not "reliable" . . . others insisted this was not the case. I asked for third party opinions but no one was interested, and the arguments just devolved into insults. So I assumed the administrator who tagged the article must have known what he was talking about finally and took it to AfD so that it could be deleted if it was really unencyclopedic as they claimed or if it was of value. If you look at the talk page, you will see that efforts prior to this had been made and rejected over and over again . . . mediation was refused, an RfC was ignored and so I thought this was my only alternative left. My apologies if this was improper procedure. NoVomit (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - First, welcome to Wikipedia. In looking through your contributions, you are doing a good job. Regarding the Seth Material piece, it is not necessarily that I disagreed with your opinion, it was more so your approach to resolving the situation that I had a problem with. I understand at times it can be frustrating, and certain incidents can be aggravating. When this happens again, and it will believe me :-), ask a third party – independent editor or administrator to look at the situation. Most times, this is all it takes to resolve issues. This is the tactic I use, and believe me it works. As time goes on, you will note the editors and administrators that seem to come across as balanced and fair. Look to those for advice and opinions. In the mean time remember: “…no harm – no foul” your apology is unnecessary but appreciated, and once again, welcome aboard. Hope to see you around. ShoesssS Talk 19:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Math
[edit]I had enough trouble trying to change the article from saying the problem is a problem, so I'm okay with the title. :) Thanks for adding some references to the list article. I trust those sources clearly designate the persons listed as Nazi Philosophers... It still seems weird to me to include poets and others in an article with the word philosophers in the title. Any thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Oh and remember to sign your posts. :) I'm tempted to put up a welcome template. I saw a cool one today. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
[edit]
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was 
, 
, or 
).
A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)
I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...
Thanks again!
Hot Dog Day
[edit]I took a shot at expanding Hot dog day. If you feel inspired, please edit and add to it. But deleting Hot Dog Day would be like deleting Motherhood and Apple Pie. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, I wouldn't go that far! But I believe it does deserve at least a Weenie of a paragraph :-). In fact take a look at the article labeled hot dog. It may even give more ideas to expand upon on the article. In the mean tie I'll stop over and see if I can add anything. Happy Holidays. ShoesssS Talk 16:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi
[edit]Hello! First of all, thank you for your wishes. I whish you happy holidays and all the best in the New Year. And many happy on and off wiki moments :-) And now to your question. First of all, I see that there is an ongoing debate about renaming. Good idea. With the present content, it is somehow unintuitive to find people that were suppressed by the Nazi regime on the list of Nazi philosophers and ideologues. Maybe it would be reasonable to split the list in two separate articles? Otherwise, I think the topic is relevant and if treated well, it can lead to an good informative article. It would make sense to write a sentence or two at each name (happy to see that almost every name on the list has a reference). That's my two cents. Not much but I see you are already doing a good work there so I am calm :-) Gretings. --Tone 22:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Best wishes for the season
[edit]
Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Nazi Philosophers
[edit]Hi,
I'm afraid that the article started by the two of us and been taken over by a rather pushy guy who refuses to enter into dialogue on substantive matters because he explicitly says that wiki is a non-democratic space. I've attempted to reason with him but the only matter he discusses is Bhagavad Gita and his own fixed idea of what wiki policies are, though I presume with all his edits he is like this because someone else on here did that to him before.
Anyhow, we are losing much of the of the original nuance of the article and it is becoming merely a black list of anyone accused of association with fascism. For example Nietzsche and others are listed along with others and undistinguished from those who were big supporters and even members of the Nazi party as though there had not been oceans of scholarship already done on this complex relation and as though Nietzsche's hatred of sheep-like Nazi Germany and hatred of anti-semitism were nothing.
Nietzsche's notion of ubermensch is now given as the reason for his inclusion on the page -- and here perhaps I agree with you about not adding such simplified lines -- when his ubermensch had nothing to do with a master race. If we are to add a line on why they are included we should distance ourselves from the reason and just state that so and so in the Nazi party propounded Nietzsche's ideas but in such and such a crude way.
84.203.2.215 (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest an RFC. I respect DGG and his opinion is welcome any time, but I see no reason to limit input to just his. Also I would like to see the anon get on board with whatever "mediation" approach we follow. Thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Also there is a thread at wp:ani#Move, renames, lost history, that mostly got ignored for spicier fare :) It looks like someone reunited the edits separated from discussion page (although most of it doesn't seem to show up in the actual history). I haven't looked to see about the edit history on the article. Salva and the anon need to make sure that things are done properly, and we should all avoid overreacting or exacerbating what is merely an encyclopedia building dispute. I'm happy to work collaboratively towards a good outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, that is not a problem. The only thing I noticed with RFC, though a good idea, rarely works. Great concept, just poor participation. I usually find, asking uninvolved individuals, who I believe are balanced and forth right, which I view you as one, but you are already here, works a lot better. And like all things here at Wikipedia, everything eventually works out Don't Worry, Be Happy:-). ShoesssS Talk 19:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I see no harm in asking him. What's a neutral way to phrase the request? Or does it matter? "DGG, a couple of us were wondering if you'd take a look at this article: Nazi Philosphersand see what you think of the title and contents?" He'll check the history out and figure out what's up pretty quick. :) Go for it. I'm interested in what he'll say. I'd still like to try an RfC, I'd like to get a consensus and I'm not sure DGG's input will be enough. I noticed some of the article seems to have been cleaned up a bit. Are you okay with some of the removals, for example of artists? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, concerning some of deletions, yes. However, I did ask for Richard’s help, and to avoid editing warring, I’ll wait for him to be finish up – take a breath – relax for a day or two and than start, adding back some of the more obvious individuals that should be included back on to the list. That’s the one thing I love about Wikipedia, given enough time, we do have a tendency to get it right eventually :-). Regarding DGG, I did drop a note on his talk page, just asking for his thoughts, not mentioning any of the on going discussions. I believe in consensus, even when it is wrong :-). I believe any editor I ask an opinion from should not be influenced by me making a case on their talk page. Rather they should review the ongoing discussion and base their opinion on what they read, not on what I tell them. ShoesssS Talk 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I see no harm in asking him. What's a neutral way to phrase the request? Or does it matter? "DGG, a couple of us were wondering if you'd take a look at this article: Nazi Philosphersand see what you think of the title and contents?" He'll check the history out and figure out what's up pretty quick. :) Go for it. I'm interested in what he'll say. I'd still like to try an RfC, I'd like to get a consensus and I'm not sure DGG's input will be enough. I noticed some of the article seems to have been cleaned up a bit. Are you okay with some of the removals, for example of artists? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, that is not a problem. The only thing I noticed with RFC, though a good idea, rarely works. Great concept, just poor participation. I usually find, asking uninvolved individuals, who I believe are balanced and forth right, which I view you as one, but you are already here, works a lot better. And like all things here at Wikipedia, everything eventually works out Don't Worry, Be Happy:-). ShoesssS Talk 19:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year Shoessss. Are you planning to address the elusive title issue soon? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL - yes I am - after every thing calms down :-). I should be back by Saturday. In the mean time Happy New Year be safe to you and yours. ShoesssS Talk 20:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
If there are specific issues that you're getting reverted on I'm happy to weigh in with an opinion. But it seems like one assertive editor has replaced another (the anon). :) I appreciate and enjoy a reasoned and reasonable approach based on discussions and collaboration, as I've had with you, and I like to reach comrpromises and consensus. But that hasn't been the way that article generally progressed, and as it's caused me some headaches, I'm content to let those leading the charge run wild within reason. When things get touchy I try to choose my battles and minimize frustrations. :) I think I've tried to be pretty fair and reasonable, yet others have seemed a bit bitey with me. Mostly I'm just hoping the article will stay in one place for a while. Have you told me what you think the title should be or if you're okay with the present name? Are there specific parts you're unhappy with? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - LOL – I agree with the headache part. You handled it exactly right. Back off for a while, let it run its course and revisit later. As I give the advice, I also take it :-). Regarding the title, its current one List of Nazi ideologues is not that bad, but a little misleading, in that the piece is about the thinkers and not the ideologues. Possibly naming the piece Nazi ideologue proponents would be closer to the truth? As to the content of the piece, I am a little confused as to the criteria for inclusion or exclusion. We have Martin Luther on the one hand, but discount individuals such as Reimond Tollenaere. Again, areas that I will address later. In the mean time, tons of things to do at afd to keep me busy :-). Happy New Year. ShoesssS Talk 14:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]
|
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| For saving Col Stringer from deletion. Schuym1 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC) |
- Congrats! I came by to wish you a Happy New Year! I posted a couple ideas for the article on its talk page (I would give you a name, but I don't know what it is now, or what it will be when you read this) :) Have a good one! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
your comment
[edit]Hey is your comment in reference to my latest afd or something else I have done wrong? 16x9 (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL- getting a little paranoid there? By the way, paranoia is good :-). No the AFD that we have been discussing :-). ShoesssS Talk 20:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
SPA tags
[edit]Have you read WP:SPA? If so, on what basis is that tag not an accurate description of this single purpose account?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and your point is? Are you saying that Citer is “…suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking”? That is an assumption of bad faith, which is extremely frowned upon.ShoesssS Talk 17:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- No. It's hard to imagine you did read SPA. Because if you did, you would find this in the lede: "A singple purpose account is a user account that edits either a single article, a group of related articles, or performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia." This fellow is definitionally an SPA, and that tag is generally used for AfD discussions. He also has an apparent conflict of interest and those articles will have to be stubbified if they pass AfD because they do not contain any reliable sources sufficient to determine notability or allow for independent verification of their claims. I suggest you read these guidelines before you defend articles that don't meet them and then presume to tell others what's frowned upon.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I believe the guidelines go past just the opening sentence, don’t they? Regarding the tag, where do the guidelines say that it is used for every AFD? Doesn’t it in fact say “…These tags are not an official Wikipedia policy, and may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion.” And than go on further state “….Before adding such a tag, please keep in mind that it will probably be taken as an insult or an accusation. Use with consideration.” Please before quoting policy and guidelines read them throughly. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is a cluster of articles all written by one user around an obscure religious sect of 3,000 people (which has its own article; that article has major problems but should not be deleted) none of which are supported by any reliable sources sufficient to establish notability and this user attacks and casts aspersions upon the motives of anyone (i've gone through his history since he attacked me) who tries to bring these articles in line with policy or nominates them for deletion. Whatever the merits of that tag in other cases, in this case and with this user, it's more than appropriate.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - OK, we are talking about three separate and distinct issues here. First, lets talk about the article in question Dalet School. I know that the article is cited and referenced for notability, by 3rd party – verifiable – creditable and reliable sources, because I was the one who referenced the piece. Two, bad writing is not a reason for deletion, rewrite yes, deletion no. Three, a personal disagreement of opinions, does not warrant an assumption of bad faith. Four, going through a contributors history, looking for reasons to assume bad faith is considered trolling, and once again is frowned upon to the point it is considered a“…deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces”. Five, bringing an article to afd, based on personal opinion, is not only considered wrong, it once again assumes bad faith and has no place here on Wikipedia. I understand that you are a relative new editor here on Wikipedia and do appreciate your contributions. However, you cannot let personal views or opinions cloud your judgment. If you run across a situation that makes you grit your teeth, step back for an hour or two, and than revisit. It will make you a much better editor, and Wikipedia a much better place. Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 20:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and your point is? Are you saying that Citer is “…suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking”? That is an assumption of bad faith, which is extremely frowned upon.ShoesssS Talk 17:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shoes
[edit]Was just searching through Wiki looking for my monobook and saw me in your archives ([1]). Wow, once again, I'm sorry for acting like a total maniac in that one. Still surprises me that I took everything anyone did back then as a threat to the Wiki :-D - So how are things? I've noticed that you're not as active anymore. I do hope that that turns around and you come back to full strength. Let's work on an article one day together when you're around :-) Take care my friend! ScarianCall me Pat! 05:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You're invited!
[edit]You're invited to the
Seventh Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009
Time: 3:00 PM
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I made the categories into links. That's what made the page appear in the categories. If you're done writing the article and are ready to move it to mainspace, you can remove the colons I added. - Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron
[edit]|
|
Hello, Shoessss. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. |
- If you have material which is deleted, and you want recovered see: User:Ikip/AfD and talk to me. :) Ikip (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem, I usually work with DGG and a few of my other favorite administrators, but I can always use one more name to call upon :-). ShoesssS Talk 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You're invited!
[edit]
You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University
In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.
Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?
In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local Italian restaurant.
This has been an automatic delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to ARS!
[edit]
Hi, Shoessss, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! -- Banjeboi 00:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC) | |||||||
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyright problem, User:Shoessss/Tuan Nguyen
[edit]Hi. Just wanted to let you know that the article you're working on salvaging was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 April 28. The problem seems to be limited to a single sentence. Since it does seem to have been mostly pasted from that source way back in the ancient days of February 2007, I've "nullified" it by turning it into a clumsy quote. Since it's in your userspace now, I thought I'd let you know what and why. :) I'm off to mark it "resolved" at CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. And a pleasure to talk with you again :-)ShoesssS Talk 19:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- You, too. :) (And I always feel funny editing stuff in people's user space.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. And a pleasure to talk with you again :-)ShoesssS Talk 19:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Kasper Toeplitz
[edit]Hi, I recently nominated Kasper Toeplitz for deletion. You disagreed that his notability could not be shown. You then said you'd add refs to the page, since the refs you found are all in French, and I'm unable to do anything with that. I was hoping you'd do this. I cleaned up the page considerably, and removed all the self-promotion/artist statement/"I am great and clever" stuff, but there's still a ton of info that the guy wrote himself without backing it up at all. Thanks.
Here's the AFD to refresh your memory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kasper_T._Toeplitz Conical Johnson (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)