Jump to content

User talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The article in no way prevents Rowling from profiting from or furthering her success from the series. It's merely a synopsis and commentary on the character. There are no text lifts or reprints of copyrighted material. Using your guidelines, most of the HP articles could be deleted. John Reaves 08:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to the HP articles on Wikipedia, most of them are the same or similar. In fact, many of the articles at the Harry Potter Wiki or direct copies that have been "dewikipediafied". So using your logic, the articles here, at Wikipedia, should be delted as well. John Reaves 14:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Smokey Joe. Just thought I'd make you aware of Wikipedia:Deletion review, in case you still want to carry on the discussion. It is not difficult at all to restore deleted pages, and that's what Deletion review is for. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC) </left>

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter in translation series

Hi SmokeyJoe. The article was deleted because of the deletion nomination, which you can find here. The consensus was vastly in favour of deletion. See Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted? for further advice. If you are unhappy with the decision, please see Deletion review for information on how to appeal. Proto::► 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The consensus was clear. Please go via deletion review as I said. Proto::► 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Eyes and Russian Blue

Helo, I saw the comment on the rewording of Russian Blue having Yellow Eyes. Although I agree with your rewording, I am wondering if you have a source proving that yellow eyes are an imperfection found only in non-pedigrees. If you can prove this, I would like to see it, becasue my russian blue had yellow eyes, and he was a pure bred. Thanks. --Emevas 06:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know: here's a picture of the cat:


Ozy, 2 1/2 years old male Russian Blue

Thanks! --Emevas 06:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's actually a fact that purebred parents can carry genes to cause imperfections. In fact, purebreds have been bred so often, the animals have actually lost a lot of intelligence. --TylerMcBride 13:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you find a reliable citation for that fact and add your information to Cat breed. SmokeyJoe 02:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Right thing

Yes, because now the ongoing discussion is in one location rather than two. >Radiant< 12:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoblocked

user:CanadianCaesar, were you overzealous in autoblocking 129.78.64.106 due to the actions of user:Moosethemoose?

checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 129.78.64.106 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Yamla 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Advisement on Good Faith and Civility

SmokeyJoe, I ask that you please comply with the wikipedia policies of Assuming Good Faith Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Civility Wikipedia:Civility.--Fahrenheit451 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Credential Verification

I have replied to your kind message on my talkpage. Any particular reason why you invited me specifically? William Connolley is probably the chap you need more than anyone. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked you specifically because I see your edits and contributions a lot. I read far more pages than I edit. Your contributions are of very high quality and are clearly grounded in your expertise. You don't seem to engage much in wiki-policies, and I thought to ask you directly about Jimbo's proposal. I think the opinion of an expert is extremely relevent regarding a policy that would apply specifically to experts. SmokeyJoe 09:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Recreating deleted material

Please do not recreate deleted material, as you can see form the logs, Category:Neutral Good Wikipedians was deleted per a CfD an should not be recreated or readded to user pages. John Reaves (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Neutral Good Wikipedians. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SmokeyJoe 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I'll leave a comment there. - jc37 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Essays

Discussion is presently active about the definition/description of "essays" at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Problem_with_wording. Radiant, Kevin Murray and myself are presently involved. I left a note on Father Goose's page as well. ... Kenosis 21:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Adnan Oktar

Based on some of our work together in the past, I though of you as good evaluator to assist in the dilemma at Talk:Adnan Oktar. I visited this page in response to a request at 3rd Op. --Kevin Murray 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


User:SmokeyJoe/HP

Hi. I have userfied the material you requested at the above temporary page. I hope this will be helpful to you. When you've finished with it, please just tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If I can be of further assistance, please just drop me a note at my talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding fictional child stars

Hello! Thank you for this nice edit. I have a great deal of respect for such open-minded editors as yourself who are willing to take efforts to improve articles into accounts. Anyway, I just wanted to wish you a great night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. full protection of the article Albus Dumbledore.

Hello SmokeyJoe and thank you for contacting me. Sorry, but I decided to decline your request for unprotection of Albus Dumbledore. I understand that only a few users were involved in the edit warring, but it was still an edit war that can only be stopped with full protection. After all, despite their misbehavior, the users were not vandalizing the article but instead involved in a content dispute. I suggest that a discussion be created on the talk page to decide through consensus which of the disputed content will (or will not) be present in the article. The article shall then be promptly unprotected. Best regards, Húsönd 02:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

An application of BIO

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Thanks for the advice. I didn't think of that before, but it makes sense. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not disputed (yet)

In moving this essay you commented that it should be as it was "disputed"; but this is not (yet?) the case. The only contention voiced was clearly a fallacious argument using an analogy that was clearly unrelated. I'm wondering if perhaps you have a viewpoint on it (and then I'd like to hear it for my own edification) that disputes (fair enough if so). The only other "issue" was forking from the existing OSE, but that isn't even an essay, it's a tiny section of an essay. To say that this is a fork of an accepted essay is a bit of a stretch. (Not even going into the fallacies of that section and the similarities between the WP:OSE and the existing one where the points are valid.) I would like to contest the move but more importantly gain insight and assistance in improving the writing and explanation of the precedent essay. Ultimately, it's a critically important aspect of Wikipedia and Wiki's future growth (or shrink as of late?) and I need all the help I can get to make the OSE essay clearer and better. Thanks for your help! VigilancePrime (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


I replied at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Courier (comics)

Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

List of albums released in 2007

Thanks for your thoughts regarding the AfD of said article. You commented... The list (or is it a table?) needs expansion, including more notes, and may well become so large that it needs splitting. Wikipedia incorporates an encyclopedia of released albums, with some threshold of notability required. If you care to follow up on this, please feel free to leave a comment on the talk page, with more specific ideas for improvement. -Freekee (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia talk:Silence and consensus/Archives/2009/April#Oppose

I think we got off on the wrong foot in that discussion thread. Reading your subsequent comments, you effectively reiterated what I was trying to say in the Wikipedia talk:Silence and consensus#Implied vs. is section several above where you joined the page. I read too much into your comment (and choice of section header) and failed to consider that it might be a reaction to the then-current wording of the page.

My own reaction was triggered by your suggestion to "call a poll". You did appear to me to be advocating polling far more widely than is current practice. Thank you for clearing up the misunderstanding in your subsequent comment.

Your point on trust is interesting and probably ought to be worked into this or some other page somewhere. (I'd also like to see if this page can be effectively consolidated into another "how the wiki works" page somewhere. I still think Kevin had some good points about instruction creep that we haven't yet resolved.) Thanks for your time. Rossami (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll to merge "Alternative terms for free software" to "Free and open source software"

Can you please comment at Talk:Alternative_terms_for_free_software#Survey. Thanks. --Karnesky (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Syracuse Zen Center comment

I wanted to thank you personally for your honest and forthright assessment of our efforts. It is good to see someone outside of our small community support us. Thanks again! Golgofrinchian (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

sign last comment at PROF

--Kevin Murray (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

W.marsh

Exercised his right to vanish (I was sad). The account was renamed to something innocuous and the new account was created at W.marsh to prevent impersonation. I hope this explains things. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

King of wiki

Hi. I appreciate the reasons you made the request and indeed applaud you for doing so. If the username was the only reason for the block, I would probably agree. The deleted contributions of this user, however, are not particularly pretty. There is one extolling the virtues of a road, one dedicated to the "dude that sits next to me in I.T.", one telling us that a country called "Amrica" can be described solely by the word "MCDONALDS" and one accusing someone of being the only queer in school. This is quite obviously a disruptive user. I do still applaud your concern. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your mistake

I would like to notify you regarding the end of our discussion on my talk page. Your non-acceptance of your error in accusing me of misblocking has wasted a great deal of my, and other editors', time. I cannot force you to accept your mistake, but I am not required to respond to further accusations, foul-cries or disruptions. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Martial arts Notability

I saw you mention in the Edgar Sulite AfD, that you hadn't come across Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability before. It is a relatively new essay by some members of the MA project and any input to improve it would be appreciated. As it is currently only advisory it is informal in tone. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Atlantichurricanecenter

I was of the opinion that it was a "Misleading" and/or "Promotional" (More misleading) to this organization's Atlantic center http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ . MBisanz talk 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with nicer worded templates. We do have a straight "warning" of a bad username,{{Uw-username}} that puts the account in Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over, but that category has a 1,062 account backlog at the moment. And we have 2 levels of username block, {{Uw-ublock}} for run of the mill violations and {{Uw-uhblock}} for egregious things. You might try looking around Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings or asking at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace to have a different wording. I'll note that in a given day, I think 6,000 accounts are created, so even giving them a once over catches only the most straightforward issues; and we've recently changed the username policy to discourage blocking of confusing names (as opposed to disruptive, promotional, role, or offensive names). Thanks for the feedback though, it does help shape my actions, and policy in general. MBisanz talk 01:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice of deletion debate for Instant-runoff voting controversies

You have either participated in a previous deletion debate over this article, or edited the article or its Talk page. If you are interested in contributing to the current debate, please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination). Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Refactoring and removal of my rationale in an AfD debate

Stifle, you [1] removed my rationale in an AfD debate. This is offensive and improper. Please put my comments back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, I refactored it (and other long comments) to the talk page. This was because the comments were so long that they impeded the reading of the day's AFDs. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

“minor” edits, Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)

Looks like we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of environmental websites

You voted to overturn the deletion for List of environmental websites based on the fact that the AFD did not reach consensus. Were you looking at the right AFD? The nominator for this article says that it was mentioned at the AFD for List of environmental periodicals, but I can't find any mention of it there. There was a separate AFD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_environmental_websites that the nominator did not mention. eaolson (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jbirdman

Hey, why did you post a welcome message on a MfD discussion? :S Ironholds 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Substing

Hi, just to let you know that when using certain templates on talk pages, for example welcome messages and user warnings, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:welcome}} instead of {{welcome}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you, Cenarium (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to your question

On my userpage. :-) - Philippe 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Bollywood update

Rossami has refused the speedy deletion and restored the dab page; so you can now see what the fuss is all about. Please note that every attempt at adding the cited phrase "Queen of Bollywood" has been reverted by User:Shshshsh (he was the one who tagged the dab page for a speedy without giving a valid CSD justification). Just wanted to let you know before I call it a night. B.Wind (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Bollywood

Replied to your note on the AfD page - please answer. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 12:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lobotomyrules

I've replied to your comment on the WP:BITE policy. Ironholds 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Miss Pakistan World

The article was well done.. the issues stared when some users just wanted to highlight the negative side of it meaning the controversies only with no proof.... The article needs to b e restored as there may be some parts which were promoting the pageant... but administrators should have a look at it and decide properly. I think there has been noone who has read it properly. The article has not been through a proper review.--Sonisona (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour?

I always find you bring something new and useful to XfD discussions (even if it isn't always something I agree with). Would you be able to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Robbins? Ironholds 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Robbins

Thanks for helping, even in retrospect :). I treat the policies/guidelines as variable things; yes, most cases should follow those, but there can be extraneous variables which can change the case around. So thanks again for helping, and it's always interesting to hear another users wikilosophy :). Ironholds 13:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Assistance Needed with "Gabriel Murphy" Article

Hi SmokeyJoe. Thanks for voting on the "Gabriel Murphy" article in deletion review. As you may know, the concensus was to move to mainspace, which occured on July 4. The next day, a user by the name of Wolfkeeper nominated the article for deletion (which he/she had done on 2 prior ocassions). The AfD discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Murphy_%283rd_nomination%29#Gabriel_Murphy. Once again, if you have time would you please chime in on this conversation and vote on the AfD? The article just passed a deletion review and it has been nominated for deletion by the same user again only one day after it was moved into mainspace. Thanks for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeBoater (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 20

Hi! Was this edit meant to refer to The Mana World or OdinMs? You put it under The Mana World but it seems to be about OdinMs (since The Mana World wasn't a contested speedy). --Stormie (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong forum?

You are entitled to your opinion about the merits of the MfD, but I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that MfD cannot be used to remove sections and that it is the wrong forum to do so. Please see this clarification from admin Chillum.

Anyway, the de facto consensus supports your position. From now on, when people come to at WQA and complain that someone has a permanent user page criticizing other users, I will simply tell them that the community does not have a mechanism for enforcing WP:UP#NOT point #9. I am not being snarky or WP:POINTy, I really believe this to be the case based on my experience with a number of user pages that clearly violated it. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If we want a tolerant community, it is necessary to tolerate things that are offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That is fine, if that is the consensus. WP:UP#NOT does not reflect the consensus. Like I say, when people come to WP:WQA and they show a user page that clearly violates WP:UP#NOT point #9, I need to know what to tell them. Now I will tell them that, since Wikipedia is a tolerant community, we do not enforce that prohibition on user page content. That's fine, I just need to know what to tell people. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It is consistent with my reading of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. From the nutshell: "resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages". Resolving disputes through administrative avenues is not the way to go. It is combative. It fans fires. In the case in question, I see nothing that can't be ignored. If someone is really offensive, ignore them. Pretend they don't exist. WP:UP#NOT point #9 is indeed a problem. It would be better if it weren't there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well, as I mentioned, these cases have all come from WP:WQA after several days of attempting to mediate the dispute through civil discussion failed. Trust me, I am not the kind of person who runs off to ANI at the first sign of trouble. I know there are a lot of those folks out there, so you are forgiven for assuming I am. As I mentioned, none of these cases involve me specifically; they are cases where I tried hard to get the involved parties to reach a civil compromise and was unable to do so.
Actually, that's not quite true... in the four recent cases I am referring to, in one case we reached a compromise that made both parties happy. It took several days to reach said compromise. No administrators were ever involved.
So believe me, I understand how the dispute resolution process works. But compromise is not always possible. It's interesting you suggest the "ignore them. Pretend they don't exist" solution, because that's exactly what I've told other people -- but if they reference WP:UP#NOT, what do I say? If a compromise cannot be reached, and one of the parties is in clear violation of an existing policy -- do I tell the other party, "Yeah, but just ignore it?" Heh, well now I will. (Actually, I will say, "Listen, I've dealt with cases like this before, and yes I know that WP:UP#NOT says that, but after repeated tries I have never been able to get it enforced. Either find a compromise or ignore it.")
I am sorry to be so confrontational with you. I have been a bit tense the last couple weeks (and as a result I actually have way scaled back my participation in dispute resolution, because you can't really be a civil moderator if you're already pissed off, heh) and there's no way you could have known that compromise has already been attempted. But trust me, it has. I would never dream of bringing a page to ANI or MfD or something without first trying to convince the user in question to find a compromise. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if this next question comes off as impertinent, but do you have any experience working in WP:Dispute resolution? I looked through your contribs and it seems you are mostly an XfDer. You do a lot of work in WP:DRV, though, which I suppose gets pretty tense, heh.. :D Just wondering... I am wondering if you speak from experience (in which case I'd like to pick your brain) or if you are speaking from an idealized picture of how dispute resolution is supposed to work. If the former, I would ask what you do when one party demonstrates a persistent inability to understand the concerns of the other party. If the latter, I'd advise you that some people are simply unable to understand the concerns of others, and this sometimes makes compromise impossible (sometimes you can get people to say, "Well, I don't understand why you feel that way, but I'll give a little ground anyway" -- but not always). --Jaysweet (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: vanity

I don't know where was the insulting word, the phrase "Vanity page" refers to creating a autobiography that does not asserts notability, so I don't know why are you complaining that, and please, do not alter someone's comments. Thank you. doña macy [talk] 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've reverted your comment as it is considered alteration of someone's comments (however, didn't restored the vanity comment) . Thank you. doña macy [talk] 01:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New Great Game AfD

I think you should know one of the editors who argued so vigorously against the New Cold War article is now trying to do the same thing the New Great Game on AfD--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussion, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines--SaraNoon (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I replied here. -- Suntag ☼ 05:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit on Various Ava Nieves...

The comment of "Delete, but allow the user to move the stuff off-site." However, since I hae moved a majority of the aricles onto my INNewsCenter Wiki, I do need help on that site.

Aeverine Frathleen Nieves 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Smokey Joe

With regard to the DRV comment of yours on THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS): I certainly agree with you that the article would need reliable sources. However since I am coming at you completely COLD ON THIS ARTICLE, it would be nice if you could MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO ME TO READ. If you want to see what I can do with an article once I have begun to show an interest in it, look over my previous two efforts here in Wikipedia. I stumbled upon Danny Casolaro about a month ago. I spent about three weeks, providing every footnote, note, and citation that you see. From there, I moved onto Inslaw completely rewrote, edited, and referenced that article too. Meanwhile, I am currently working on Michael Riconosciuto and keeping PROMIS in the background ('cause it needs a great deal of work). All of this is exhausting work since no one bothered to reference a single thing before me. Whether or not I have time to monkey around with THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) is doubtful. But the point that I am trying to make is that whatever was written before it was deleted could be a valuable base from which to begin since THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) covers an extremely noteworthy period of the history of the United States, and should not be deleted haphazardly by four or five people who offered absolutely no input, contribution, or reason to anything relating to THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS), or any of the tangential elements surrounding that story. Hag2 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You can read the contents are goolge's cashe, which is here: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_(politics) It is linked in the header of every DRV section. The contents at the moment are:

Octopus (politics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007) This article may not meet the general notability guideline or one of the following specific guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This article has been tagged since November 2007.

In politics, the Octopus is the form of government identified by Danny Casolaro before his death in 1991.


"The Octopus is alleged to exist and is an entity of individuals who actually control, create and manipulate world events..." [edit] Overview The many arms of the octopus that can extend a considerable distance provide the name to the many means that this form of government uses to affect its policy decisions. The exact forms by which policy decisions are arrived at in this form of government are poorly understood, and its operational implementation is often shrouded in official and unofficial secrecy.

This form of government can coexist with many other forms of government by infiltrating the official security bureaucracy and other governmental institutions, inducing individual collaborators at each level of the bureaucracy to effect the policy dictated by the secret superstructure.


[edit] See also Illuminati



[edit] External links UNTANGLING THE OCTOPUS

This article about politics is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_(politics)" Categories: Politics stubs | Forms of government Hidden categories: Articles lacking sources from November 2007 | All articles lacking sources | Articles with topics of unclear notability from November 2007

.

I suggest that you request userfycation (move the deleted version to your userspace, where you can improve, retaining full credit for whatever was already there, and when it is ready, move it back to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Smokey Joe, I want to thank you. You are the only person who provided me with any satisfaction today. I have to laugh though: At the same time that you were directing me to the cache, I had already stumbled upon that link, and had read the article. It is a truly terrible article, and is a waste of time. Anyway, thank you very much for taking the time to direct me to the cache. I am new around here, and am learning each day; and to be honest with you, I was about to say "frig this place" because of the lack of help and the lack of understanding over something as simple as directing a newbie, or telling a newbie like it is. All it would have ever taken would have been to provide something as simple as what you did for me. Thank you. I am indebted to your thoughfulness. Hag2 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

more

Smokey Joe, would you take a look at THIS and explain how to proceed? I would like to comply, but I get terribly confused by all the "language" in all of the "directions" on all of the referral pages and easily frustrated, especially when dealing with a mindless and indifferent robot which fails to recognize human frailties. I'll look for your comment throughout the day on the Talk: Danny_Casolaro page. Thanks. Hag2 (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks

I understand. Is there a department (or collection of Wikipedians) who specialize in helping others find appropriate images, or helping in securing premission of copyrighted material for same? Hag2 (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  • You went out of your way for me, Smokey, and I certainly appreciate your effort. I will try and try again to find some way to provide an appropriate image for that darned article. But until then, I am moving onto other things.

Regarding the Da Costa's syndrome subpage

Smokeyjoe; Following on from your comments on 30-8-08 here [[2]], and my intitiaI response immediately aftet it here [[3]] I have added text to the Da Costa's syndrome subpage which was provided by Avjay for NPOV editing and would appreciate your comments. ThankyouPosturewriter (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

SmokeyJoe: I have recently completed the subpage here [4] which contains a much larger range of information from top quality sources than the existing text here [5].
I would like you to use it as a replacement for the current article page and would appreciate your commentsPosturewriter (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Re NWT MfD

Hi. Thanks for your response at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marvin Shilmer/New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. A few days ago, I saw three user subpages of the article in question (belonging to User:Marvin Shilmer, User:Seddon, and User:Cfrito listed at Category:Jehovah's Witnesses literature. I left a comment on the Talk page of each of the users' articles on 28 September. One objected with no reference to adhering to policy, one gave no response, and one has not been actively editing for several months. I place a PROD tag on the subpage of the inactive user, and was subsequently advised that it should have had an MfD instead. Because I did not want to be accused of favouritism (because all three are in breach of the guideline), I then placed an MfD for all three.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

DRV comments

My original comment was a followup to your comment to Alison, where it came across to me that you were suggesting that perhaps the deletion was reasonable but you felt an overturn may still be in order as "putting it through an MfD represents less of a problem than relaxing the limits on speedies.". To me this does suggest a guarding of the policy rather than a broader consideration. However I can't read your mind and I noted early on in the discussion that if your objection is not that, but because you agree with the policy as it stands and no expansion (or believe the community in general believes that, if it matches your personal view or not) then that's fine. It really was just a meta comment, not anything else. I believe using DRV to try and chide admins is using it as a form of dispute resolution, that's what we have things like WP:RFC for. Part of any review should enable the admin to assess their own actions against the comments received, it should be perfectly possible that a deletion is upheld whilst the admins sees issues with their approach and vice-versa. I doubt I'll say anything more on this since I've already said far too much, but I'll look back and read any response of yours. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you got a critical part of intended message backwards, and this might explain why we have not been understanding each other. Yes, “perhaps the deletion was reasonable”, as the final result, but the process was wrong. But no, I don’t advocate “overturn, list at MfD, delete again” for the sake of process. I hadn’t changed my “overturn” !vote, and this probably contributed to the confusion. I think chiding (a touch of humour intended, perhaps chiding has a different meaning to you?) is OK, especially as a mere comment from someone unimportant. Everything was done in good faith, I think a wrong minor decision was made, I think the comments have been constructive. There is certainly no call for any real sanction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

request your opinion

Hello, Smokey Joe, I found your input on an issue located at a discussion here very helpful. (You need to click open the collapsed box and scroll to find your name.) Currently, I am engaged with another user on a similar discussion here and I do not want to involve him yet in a WP:RFC. After I wrote my 15:56 (UTC), 19 November remarks to him hoping that he would take to heart what I had opined, he instead deleted the image-deletion notification on the image-file upload page. Now, I suppose he considers our discussion moot. I would like your opinion; I do not know what to do next. Should I let it go? Or should I request the WP:RFC? Or am I incorrect in my opinion on the entire matter. Thank you. Please merely answer me here with a simple sentence or two. I would appreciate your opinion. Anne Teedham (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Smokey. Your WP:Third Opinion is a valuable addition to the talkpage discussion. [6] Sadly, after I requested your assistance (Wednesday night), I discovered the following morning that the primary editor's feelings are very sensitive. I had suspected that, but I had hoped that he could be more objective. You and I have given him much to think about. Hopefully he will see our reasoning. I have abandoned this issue (and his article) altogether on happy terms. Anne Teedham (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment

Thank you for your complimentary words on WP:IS. However, even if I managed to be comprehensive and neutral in my argument, I was still arguing when I crafted it, and it is still an argument even now, regardless of that argument having carried many people with it. The power of the argument will either carry people or not, and asserting the argument as fact will not change that strength. In fact it does the argument a disservice, by weakening the idea that it is open to challenge and therefore that it must be constantly tested. Given all of that, I feel it best to refer to it as an argument. As you say, neutrality is already the best route to take. Best, Hiding T 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that "argument" occurs in that section too often, as a matter of style. I'd remove many of them. I also think that you shouldn't assume that in general an essay is an argument. "Argument" implies POV, and the best essays, which serve to summarise an issue, read as NPOV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we're probably not going to reconcile our differences then. An essay is an argument, that is the very definition of an essay. Not just on Wikipedia, but elsewhere. I would like to invite you to read Template:Essay, which supports my argument as to the nature of an essay, and hope perhaps that will bring some small clarity to the matter. And regarding this particular essay, I think possibly I may be on better ground asserting it is an argument given that I authored it. But you are welcome to disagree. I just doubt that there is any value in furthering the argument when we have irreconcilably different definitions of a word. You have a point on style, but I have always preferred substance to style when the two collide. Best, Hiding T 11:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you're overinterpreting my conviction. I expressed my opinion, thank you for responding, you may be right. If this is our biggest difference, we must be on the same side. I was previously involved in debating the definition of essay, I don't remember a precise definition, but I remember that the term gets used very loosely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick Savoy Review

Hi SmokeyJoe,

I've been working on a biography and I could use some feedback on the page. You were one of the administrators who responded to the DRV of Nick Savoy and I would like your honest feedback on the article. I've followed the guidelines of WP:BIO but I'm not sure if everything is fine. If you have time to review it, I would really appreciate that. The page in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coaster7/Nick_Savoy.

Thanks in advance. Coaster7 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, you have a message

Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at Hag2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See subsection marked User_talk:Hag2#Inslaw. (Feel free to delete this entire note [here upon your talkpage] at your leisure. I will see your reply on my own talkpage. Thanks.)--Hag2 (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Idol Hot 100 singles (2nd nomination)

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Idol Hot 100 singles, the first AfD for American Idol Hot 100 singles, I thought you should be aware that it was brought up at Afd for a second time Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Idol Hot 100 singles (2nd nomination). Aspects (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fictional element notability

You referenced my position during your comment at WT:Notability (fiction). This is to inform you that due to revisions of the guideline, I have had to switch my position from support to strong oppose.—Kww(talk) 16:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the subject of a bit of edit-warring: [7] is the revision to which I refer.—Kww(talk) 17:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

afd redux

Hello. An article that you had previously commented on in AfD has been resurrected. If you feel like chiming in before a new AfD is submitted, please share your thoughts at Talk:Christina Machamer. SpikeJones (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OLDIP

Deleting the guideline was very bold. However, there are two problems:

  1. WP:OLDIP now doesn't point to anthing relevant;
  2. Deletions are continuing with the above link as the summary.

I'm not sure how to resolve these issues. Just saying :) Martinmsgj 23:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC/N on User:Becky Altringer

In the future, please follow the instructions at the top of WP:RFC/N. It states (emphasis in original):

The user in question should first be notified and allowed time to discuss on their talk page about the concern regarding their username before adding the report here. Do not post the issue here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply.

This is important because users are often agreeable to changing their name (or have a good reason to keep their name) that is not readily apparent unless one speaks to them directly. -kotra (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Becky Altringer

I have moved the RFCN discussion to the user's talk page, which is what i think you were suggesting. Is that fine? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your quick response. These are the articles.

The nominator had nominated a similar article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Bradley. I didn't know about that {{afd}} and asked the closing administrator to userify it for me.

The original creator of the article then made two redirections from user space back to article space. And the nominator then promptly nominated the userified version for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley

The first ten of the thirteen other nominations followed shortly thereafter.

Thanks again! Geo Swan (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a request for clarification on your position at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Miscellany or deletion

SmokeyJoe:

Your vote on MfD:Why dates should not be linked was met with a request for clarification from Xeno, an admin. Would you mind clarifying what you meant? Should the essay stay where it is, or be moved in order to userfy it? Greg L (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Posturewriter

There wasn't a consensus to restore the page at DRV, but I've userfied it to User talk:SmokeyJoe/Posturewriter for you to glean what use you can from it. Given the objections at the DRV, once you've gotten what you can, I would advise that you request it be deleted once you're finished with it. cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DanielDeibler/Investigation_of_Rodhullandemu

What makes you think this is worth another month when its creator hasn't added to it, or anything else, in a week? And what makes you think I am prepared to stick around for that time under the chilling effect? I'm not, sorry. Rodhullandemu 02:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if the above seems unduly abrupt, but by 2 a.m. I am reaching the end of my 14 hours daily here and naturally may be tired, if not emotional. There has been, as long as I've been reading WP:AN, a general consensus that this sort of thing should take no longer than three weeks to solidify into a proposal; the editor has already had two weeks, and was given the option of withdrawing the page or adding to it a week ago. Since then, he has done neither. I'm merely asking how long I should be expected to wait, and I am sorry if anyone finds that unreasonable. Rodhullandemu 14:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA, past names?

Hi Chillum, I'm just curious. You used to be Until(1==2)? Have you edited under other names? Where is your RfA? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I will e-mail it to you. Chillum 15:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Project User Rehab

Thanks for starting this page:

It was needed and we may need other such pages where we collect resources for use by project members and others. Good work. Please make a section on the Project talk page, announce this page and appeal for others to help build it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw polls

The article wasn't completely undeleted so you've only seen a very small portion of it because of transclusion. I request that you hold off on a decision until the entire article has been undeleted. Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A semi recent MfD

Howdy. I just wanted to comment on a semi-recent MfD. In my initial comment I wasn't giving 3 rationales for deleting the userfied page. I was trying to show reasons why Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages might apply. Mostly the long-term archival purposes part. I figured since the subpage hadn't been edited in over 2 years and since the editor hadn't edited in over 2 years that it may qualify as long term.--Rockfang (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Finding relisted open Afds

Hi there. I am posting this from my phone so it may be funny looking. In any case I believe such a list can be generated by finding a cross section between pages that transclude the relisted template and pages that transclude the afd category template. I could have this list autogenerated on a daily or semidaily basis. Sounds worthwhile? —harej (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The template {{relist}} is supposed to be substed on each page, which makes it slightly difficult. So what I can get a script to do is search out all the active AFDs (via transclusions of {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}) and then doing a text search on each AFD for "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached." I actually have time now, so I will try to get this done as soon as possible. —harej (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Have fun! —harej (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Society for General Systems Research Presidents

Thanks for showing this alternative lay out. On the Template talk:Society for General Systems Research Presidents I have explained why I like it the way it was. I hope you understand. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the copyedit. Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Blanking pages in userspace

I wonder if it might be good to propose a change to userspace policyguideline to encourage blanking of (other people's) material as an alternative to MfD. It doesn't appear that consensus is going to form on making userspace noindex. There's a lot of crap in the userspace policyguideline now, that doesn't particularly make sense, such as: "Pages which have formerly been in a different namespace and moved to a subpage of the user namespace may not be deleted in this way. These must be listed either at Articles for deletion, or if they were not found originally in the article namespace, at Miscellany for deletion." Also it says that blanked userspace pages might be deleted by a passing admin that takes it as a CSD G7 request. I don't believe any of this reflects the current practice at all.

What do you think? Gigs (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have made an effort at Wikipedia:User_page#Deleting.2C_or_otherwise_fixing.2C_other_users.27_userpages_and_subpages. Please help. If people disagree, we'll discuss further at WT:UP --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendments

Requests like that are actually usually archived after they've gone stale, usually somewhere between a week and ten days, although at times they go on for longer as here. Generally the ArbCom will let the clerks know when they think a request can be archived. As for the accessibility, I know it does get difficult to keep track of things at times, but the ArbCom has a very large number of pages under its control (see Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Arbitration and Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration), and with as many of these requests as we get, it's easier to just lump them together. One thing I've found useful is to leave a "note to self" on my talk page with a link directly to the relevant section. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith?

User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion.



  • In the discussion it was asked for a "reliable" (according to Wikipedia Policies) source, supporting that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4, because the current article claims the contrary in this section: Aktion_T4#T4_and_euthanasia.
  • There are a lot of sources, but at least one "reliable" source was provided in this post:Talk:Action_T4#propaganda_pro_euthanasia_.3D_crime_apology. This source (Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, No.241, pages 39-47) states that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4
  • Like the mentioned section of the article, also User:Ratel claims euthanasia has nothing to do with Aktion T4, and he is involved in the mentioned dicussion.
  • Therefore: why is he allowed to archive exactly all the discussion including the post providing the demanded source?
  • Note that User:Ratel posted his first attempt to autoarchive the discussion some hours after the post providing the demanded source.
comment made by 190.25.102.181 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"minor edits"

Just so you are aware, both "undo" and "rollback" tag the edit as a "minor edit".—Kww(talk) 03:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mat's RfB

Hey there Smokey. I changed the formating of your comment slightly at the RfB as when I tried to add my vote just after yours and it broke the numbering when i viewed it in preview. If you didnt intend your comment as a vote of support, maybe you could move it out of the support section. Or there is a special way to make a comment so that it doesnt effect the numbering, but i cant rember what it it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haliburton Sculpture Forest

I noticed that you !voted "keep" in the first AFD on the 14th. This was 12 days after I closed it. Were you by any chance trying to post to the second AFD which I just closed today? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi Ron, probably I was. I wouldn't have intentionally voted on a closed discussion. Before !voting, I typically open a lot of pages on different tabs, then vote, then close the whole lot. I guess I made a mistake here. Usually, I only go back when some activity shows up on my watchlist, and as no one edited that page after me, I didn't notice. Thanks for finding my !vote and considering it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:The Suburbs (web series)

Hi SmokeyJoe. User:Starsking, who started the article, The Suburbs (web series), and made most of the edits to the article blanked the page. Another user tagged the page with a {{db-g7}} tag requesting deletion. I deleted the page per WP:CSD criterion G7 as page blanking by one or more major authors is considered as a request for deletion. Perhaps Starsking may be able to elaborate on why they requested the delete. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 06:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WT:CON#Discussion

I don't want to make this sound like an easy question, because it's not, but in general at RFA and on policy pages and policy talk pages, I like the ground rule of ignoring any statements that seem to have the effect of knocking someone down a peg, regardless of whether that was the intent. I know that, per WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF, and a lot of other pages, it's supposed to be a general rule ... but we both know that it's nearly impossible never to make statements in a discussion that might reflect badly on one or more participants, and it's human nature (and sometimes does people a favor) to point out that one of the participants is wasting people's time. I don't think there's anything wrong with the instinct, but the effect is typically to spin the discussion off on an irrelevant tangent. On policy pages and talk pages, we generally have a critical mass of people who don't need these things pointed out, because they're keeping up with all the discussions and see who's being helpful and who's not; they don't need to be told. The analogy to RFA is that we've got crats at RFA who perform the same function: we don't have to kick any of the voters for being obnoxious because the crat making the decision will already be aware of any behavior that would deserve a kick, and if the vote rationale wasn't made in good faith, they'll generally know that and discount it. There's no one person operating as a crat on policy pages, but there are enough people with the same skills that I think the same logic applies. Thoughts? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dank, I really enjoy being asked these sort of questions (I think), but after a few days of rereading, I'm not sure where you are coming from, going, or what the question is. This doesn't seem to follow what I said at WT:Consensus. Are you telling me I said something in bad form? Could you re-word the above more plainly? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
My mistake completely. I was keeping up with the history rather than previous comments at that point, I noticed your "Indeed, M is now finding his work being wholesale reverted", I had seen that others were responding to M's bold edits by making comments about M rather than the edits, and I thought this was part of that pattern. If I had read your comment immediately before, I would have realized that what you were saying was great and very balanced. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


Feel free to complain now

Comment for SmokeyJoe: Please feel free to direct any more complaints to my now 'oh so nice and clean' talk page. The much-despised WP essay - which I got from Wikipedia in the first place by the way - has now gone the journey. I hope that brings a jolly smile to your face.--Beehold (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think A1 appliues, then please edit the page so people can tell what it's about. Right now it says pretty much nothing. Eeekster (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply in

Nursing and Consent in Australia discussion page

thanks --Jones.liam (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_clarification

FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Nickelodeon/Invader Zim/to do

What's there to keep? As I said in the MFD, none of the tasks can even be done anymore. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hot Stain DRV

Regarding the DRV, it looks like it's not going to go anywhere, so this conversation is academic, but I'd still like to bring it up with you. Surely a keep !vote that does not address an utter lack of independent reliable secondary sourcing is invalid, and should be disregarded, right? If it's a closer's job to only disregard obviously bogus !votes, then all one must do is make more subtle invalid rationales? Is the guideline "closers can just assume that a wall of text is a valid vote"? Gigs (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gigs,

Thanks for following this up. I’m largely on your side, but on the different side on a subtle point here. Perhaps it looks like process wonkery, but actually I think it is important that you convince the community at AfD that you are right, and that you don’t ever try to convince and administrator that the community was wrong. The administrators are supposed to implement community consensus. DRV is not best used for reviewing arguments, but for reviewing whether the process, especially the administrative decision, was proper.

In this case, there are many reasons to keep something beyond “independent reliable secondary sourcing”. Some few of them are good reasons, although more are not. It is for the community to decide by criticising other’s reasons.

The closer should disregard bogus votes, nonsense votes, and votes that conflict with consensus established elsewhere (normally called policy). “independent reliable secondary sourcing”, although it is at the heart of a pseudo policy (WP:N as cited in WP:DEL#REASON) is not simply “policy”.

Walls of text can be dismissed as WP:TLDR. This is slowly but steadily becoming accepted practice. If someone can write extensively on a point, then they should be expected to write in an organised and concise manner.

So, I think that you may be right in that the consensus indicated by the AfD may be wrong. However, the remedy is to try again, or try differently, but it is not to get a community decision (bad or otherwise) “administratively overturned. You need to prepare fresh arguments for AfD3, or perhaps establish clarification in a relevant policy or guideline, clarification that would better inform AfD3. This can be hard work, but it is important work.

Another alternative is to let it go and see what happens. It took me a while to learn to trust the community, but I found I could. If it is meant to be deleted, it will be, by other editors, in due course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case, however, you have two editors, one of which is the creator of the article, and the other heavily involved in the subject matter at hand, who are, and will always be, the primary keep voters. I don't believe "the community" is represented by these two, as you can plainly see from their creative keep rationales. It seems to me that the community is indeed convinced, but a tiny vocal minority has the power to filibuster. You know that I'm no newcomer to XfD processes, and sometimes I don't even look at the outcomes of the XfDs I file or participate in. This one in particular bugs me on a pretty deep level though; I guess in the sense that it shows how easily the system can be gamed. Gigs (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You suggest one or two key editors (User:Skipsievert & User:Kgrr I presume) have WP:COI issues. That is an interesting point that I hadn't noticed. I am now watching the article Hot stain and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hot_stain_(3rd_nomination), which I suggest could be opened in a couple of months. I don't think it is a terribly bad thing to host the article in the meantime, and if it is bothering you, consider having a nice cup of tea and a sit down. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would call it a COI, but it is obvious that the subject is one they are close to, in what sense I don't know. And no, keeping the article around another several months doesn't bother me too much. Back to writing the encyclopedia. Thanks for the chat. Gigs (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for defending the Dof so well. I am happy to know that you will have your own copy of my page on your userspace. Thanks again.Darkside2000 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nalxhal

Reverting a closed xfd will not get the page back, if you object talk to the admin, or file a WP:DRV. Triplestop x3 22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MFD_process_check. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"the arbs carry no obligation to respect the wikimedia privacy policy"

eh? Don't they have to agree to the same privacy policy, given that they may request and receive access to the checkuser and oversight tools? –xenotalk 15:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • If given checkuser access, they become checkusers. The problem is that there can exist people with access to the arb com email list who may not formally be checkusers, or others who are agents of the wikimedia foundation. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, "Arbitrators are neither Wikimedia Foundation employees or agents". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I see the distinction you're making, though I thought they were still held to the policy. Admittedly, this was a hopeful assumption rather than something upon which I can make a firm statement. Cheers, –xenotalk 15:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

I am sure it was not your intention, however your edit summary on this edit only reflected part of the change you made. When altering a policy so significantly as to change something from recommended practice to a mandatory requirement it is a good idea to also mention that in the edit summary. I almost missed that change.

Also, I think such a significant change requires consensus first. Chillum 15:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Your edit has no effect on my intention, so, I'll assume you are correct, and thank you for fixing what I overlooked. From my careful reading of the talk page, disclosure to CUs instead of arb com email list can be reasonable assumed to be justified. Disagreement with this precise question has not been stated (unless I missed something?). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully that if one does choose to reveal a secondary account in order to avoid misunderstandings that checkusers are the people to talk to. My concern was the change in wording that transformed it from a recommended practice to avoid misunderstandings into a request for permission. I see now that this was not your intention, as you have said my edit had no effect on your intention. I retract my suggestion regarding edit summaries as one can only really describe that which they intend. Peace. Chillum 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Awarded for creating Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Update on Mysterious Universe

RELIABLE SOURCES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE PAGE

THESE ARE THE REFERENCES FROM reliable sources which satisfy claims of notability as per WP:N. The previous AfD


NEWS OUTLETS SOURCES : PRWEB[9]

NEWS.COM.AU [10]

They clearly stand for reliable sources and multiple items of media coverage to satisfy WP:N. Regarding PRWEB: News outlet that works with distribution partners such as Yahoo! News, Google News. Regarding NEWS.COM.AU: A widely known Australian news outlet.


DestroHolmes failure to see the changes may not be the most reliable point of view given to the fact that his edits and alleged clean up selectively erased the reliable sources. Please note that his edits worked more as surreptitious academic protectionism than acceptable encyclopedic criteria. What kind of concensus can we have if only DestroHolmes makes all the decisions?

Regarding recent edits by User:Absolutemetazero the present version does NOT have issues with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, nor citation problems and rather it was reverted (diffs here) because it had been consistently suppressed by DestroHolmes. Wikipedia is about collaboration and not arbitrary deletion by one person such as DestroHolmes who seems to be defending Benjamin Grundy's interests instead of respecting encyclopedic guidelines.

I want to publicly denounce DestroHolmes and his attempts to suppress this page and its complaints of online fraud despite the addition of reliable sources. Furthermore, I want to publicly question DestroHolmes's real identity as a a possible acquintance of Benjamin Grundy or as Benjamin Grundy himself.

The edit war with Tonkacres/Zhenboy/Destroholmes was deliberately started when Benjamin Grundy and Aaron were sent private messages on facebook notifying them about the changes on Wikipedia and in less than an hour (Australian time) the edit war had started.


DestroHolmes then proceeded to block the accounts and then acted as expected: started protecting Benjamin Grundy.

The page was then subsequently changed by DestroHolmesin a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the evidence of possible online fraud in the section "Breach of contract" DestroHolmes was clearly manipulated to show how biased his views were.

The main purpose of the edit war was to draw DestroHolmes into making arbitrary decisions and cast light into his surreptitious academic protectionism and abuse of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines by blocking users and making personal decisions to delete a page he has a conflict of interest with. Unfortunately for DestroHolmes his editing history clearly show his protectionism towards a podcaster involved with online fraud. Should wikipedia rely on DestroHolmes as a supporter of online fraud?

Please feel free to compare his edits since now it is too late for him to change them or cover his tracks.


This page should not be deleted because it has consistent relevance to the Wikiproject Podcasting as well as present and future Podcasters interested in avoiding the same pitfalls Benjamin Grundy went through. Benjamin Grundy did not respect acceptable business practices and all his listeners were lost due to accusations of Online fraud and numerous complaints.

Lastly, allow me to ask a logical question: Which one has more value?

A)Mysterious Universe and its possible case of online fraud where victims stated the events. B)An inane internet meme such as "Raptor Jesus"

Both are facing deletion yet only one has relevance to Newmedia and Podcasting.

If an article such as "Raptor Jesus" finds space in Wikipedia where does wikipedia take its cues for credibility? Furthermore, does keeping "Raptor Jesus" as an article make Wikipedia different from Uncyclopedia's "Raptor Jesus" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sincerely, Absolutemetazero

Proposed deletion of Outline:Outlines

The article Outline:Outlines has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no "Outline" namespace; this is currently in the main namespace, and is inappropriate here.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Melchoir (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at Abecedare's talk page.
Message added 12:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abecedare (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Namespace vio

"Outlines … don't belong in mainspace proper" - who was it said that? I have moved Outline:Outlines to User:SmokeyJoe/outline. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken

Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

LMAO!

thank you ... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was serious. There is purpose and benefit in learning to laugh at yourself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be polite

Smokey Joe, your comment on my user page activities was out of line. I know and admit that i have barely contributed to wikipedia thus far, however, i was busy constructing my userpage, AND i was, and still am, having serious problems with linking and sourcing, limiting the articles i can create. i am also dealing with a lot of stress and schoolwork in real life, and i am a new user, but i get really pissed when anyone mentions my user page activities, so please don't say anything on the subject again and i won't blow my top. okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakkinx (talk • contribs) 03:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply re: Shanilea DoE pages

Hi SmokeyJoe, I saw the message on my talk page about the Shanilea DoE pages. Judging by your comment, you weren't suggesting what I thought you were. I thought you wanted to leave those user pages as they were, and just redirect the any links to those pages to their article space equivalents. I thought that's why you were referencing WP:PERF, and suggested redirection instead of deletion. Misunderstanding--I guess I was tired! - Gump Stump (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Smokey joes cafe

Smokey joes cafe (talk · contribs) is unconnected and unknown to me.
I have no association or connections with Smokey Joe's Cafe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Got any idea who Smokey joes cafe (talk · contribs) is? I assume that they are not you. Tim Song (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

User:Smokey joes cafe just voted in an RfA. I don't know if it's relevant to you or a coincidence, but I figured I'd let you know. Gigs (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Helping Hand Barnstar
I really respected your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band) Keep up the wonderful work helping new editors! Ikip (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron
Hello, SmokeyJoe.
You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Oversight

It is important that we suppress unwitting minors from revealing personal information on Wikipedia. Keegan (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree.
My opinion is that it is better if ordinary editors just remove/blank such information on sight, and counter productive if the location of such information is flagged at MfD.
ie. Either quietly remove the material or go to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Admins sometimes delete with an uninformative reference to G6. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
100% correct. Keegan (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Did anything ever come of this? It appeared there was consensus

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_33#Stop_the_wholesale_Deletion_of_the_Usepages_of_Indefinitely_Blocked_Users.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sort of. I'll just try answering from memory here... There were several connected discussions. Many were subsumed by the MZMcBride arb case, even of they didn't related directly to MZ.
Along the way, there was agreement with my position the userpages if indef blocked users should not be routinely, mass speedy deleted. Others disagreed. There was certainly no consensus either way. Many didn't see the issue as important. I believe the deletions continue.
There was consensus that talk pages of indef blocked users should not be speedy deleted. The strongest point was that recorded of the warning tags were to be preserved. This is why Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages is now full of talk pages, but nearly devoid of userpages.
A result of the MZMcBride case was a renewed emphaisis that CSD criteria are specific, and can only be used where they are specifically met, and that IAR deletions are to be the exception, not the rule. Another result was that it was agreed that speedy criteria must be documented at WP:CSD, and not, for example, at WP:UP. The message has got out that WP:UP and WP:NOT are not speedy deletion criteria. I don't think anything was written clearly into stone.
But, the way the wiki works, is that practice evolves, boundaries are pushed, others form anew, and if no one jumps up and down, then all is OK (WP:SILENCE).
Why do you ask?
I ran across the conversation. I have been in or on the sidelines of several discussions of the whole CAT:TEMP thing for a while. Started with Calton when I untagged about 600 pages he had tagged as spam and he retagged them with CAT:TEMP.
So, you're saying that we had concensus not to delete user talk pages yet we still let them go into CAT:TEMP? Why? That should be an easy fix to put the cat call within an #ifeq: namespace. If the templates are subst. we'll need to get a bot run or at least an AWB run, if the templates are transcluded they'll all be fixed in an instant. Clarify if that's the issue because there are two damned many people out there who don't understand and decide "oooh, it's time to clean out the cat". If it is, I'll take a look in the next few days at the templates. Also, far too many pages get in by accident - unknowing editors, self-proclaimed vandal warriors, tagging the user pages and talk pages of known socks with indef blocked tags and then sloppy admins who reply to me that "it was in CAT:TEMP and sock pages don't get put in CAT:TEMP so it's not my problem".--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi. I noticed your comments at DRV regarding attribution of deleted articles. You may be interested in WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll read. Were my comments right, wrong, or in the gray zone? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm mostly just gratified when I come across an editor that understands that the attribution requirement exists. As pointed out, true rewriting from scratch doesn't require attribution, but I can understand erring on the side of extra attribution. Since the change to dual CC-BY-SA/GFDL, I think that WP:Copyrights is the preferred document to wikilink. Flatscan (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Debating at MfD

Hey, SmokeyJoe. I've responded to your question about WP:NOT pretty thoroughly at WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page. I would appreciate it if you'd respond with some counterpoints so the secret page issue can be debated to a greater extent. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we should copy or link the discussion to WT:UP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cfd Reform

Just to clarify my intent re the historical tag. That page has not been edited since Oct 13, whether at its former location of the 'Cfd is broken' category, or now at CFD/Reform. On the other hand we have significant and substantial debate at WT:CFD. I wasn't trying to make any particular point (procedural or otherwise), just reflecting the facts on the ground, that CFD/Reform is inactive.

Xdamrtalk 02:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Copying articles within Wikipedia

I have just seen a message from you that the articles in my domain have been considered for deletion. First of all, I am sorry I was late in seeing your message. The explanation for this copying is as follows:

I work on the Google-Wikipedia translation project, in which we use the Google translator toolkit to translate the English wikipedia articles to Arabic wikipedia articles. So the English articles I copied in my domain are for translation into Arabic articles using the Google translator toolkit. I have to copy the English source into my domain, so that the toolkit uploads the Arabic translation in my domain as well, before the article is edited and transferred to be a mainstream Wikipedia article.

I hope this explains the issue for both myself, and for MayNassar as well. Thank you.

WikiDocster —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

Category talk:Wikipedians_who_say_CfD_needs_more_diverse_participants

Given that your edit summary was "test" and you've created a talk page for a non-existent category... what is one to think? All "orphaned" talk pages show up regularly at Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages - which is gone through by admins on a regular basis. There's a list of the "housekeeping" stuff at Wikipedia:Database reports. So, the likelihood that this will be deleted again is very high unless you put a note on there giving the exact purpose of the page and a good rationale as to why it shouldn't be deleted. Skier Dude (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You have replies at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Mnyakko/aboutme. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive_2&oldid=1143953082"