User talk:Spa toss

Well, I suggest you change your name, through the methods described at WP:RENAME. It would demonstrate good faith on your part to correct an inadvertent mistake, and not lead to this sort of concern. I don't know that your name violates the Username policy outright, but it could be considered disruptive or offensive based on the SPA part. FrozenPurpleCube 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about that. Again, it is "Spa" not "SPA". Spa toss 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no difference to me, I still see no reason why you're using the name. Whether it's capitalized or not isn't the problem, the appearance is. But perhaps we're wrong. I'd still suggest renaming so nobody is in doubt in the future. FrozenPurpleCube 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume good faith, and not simply dismiss you as a throwaway sock based on your username. Your behavior indicates that you either don't understand a lot of things about wikipedia yet or you're being deliberately obtuse. I'd recommend you refrain from nominating articles for deletion until you've read up further and/or discussed with other editors so you have a better understanding of when lists are acceptable and when transwikiing to wikisource is a good solution. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That conversation was occuring, and a movement toward the idea of using a category was under discussion. Spa toss 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as the idea of a category goes, I'd say, no, that would not be an acceptable solution. Categories do not duplicate lists, and in this case, I consider a list far more useful. It offers immediate sourcing by county, or whatever organization is desired, and provides the ever-valuable redlinks. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a single page to search than numerous categories and subcatergories. Besides, if you're going to discuss that issue, the appropriate place is not a single AFD discussion, but rather something that involves the entire Category:Lists of schools in the United States. I don't think you'll find much support for your proposal, but there are better places than AFD. Such as WP:SCHOOLS. FrozenPurpleCube 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The good of the project"

Let's work for the good of the project. Attacking my contribution history is not pertinent to the Afd review. Thanks. Spa toss 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)^{The preceeding was moved or copied from Alansohn talk page to this talk page by Alansohn.}[reply]

A single purpose account whose edit history consists entirely of deleting articles in not working for "the good of the project". The retaliatory AfD created after being outed and exposed as a single purpose account only demonstrates your bad faith and that your actions are in complete contradiction to any part of "the good of the project". Alansohn 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on WP:CIVIL. Spa toss 02:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help

{{helpme}} Hello. An article I wrote was deleted via the Afd process and closed within 4 hours, faster than some speedy deletes. How do I undo the delete and debate to gain a wider set of perspectives. Spa toss 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most speedy afd can be found here Spa toss 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spa, I don't think you'll have much luck appealing your case. It looks like your article was deleted for good reason, and probably should have been speedy deleted. Sorry. Hoof Hearted 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure under which criteria it could have been deleted under speedy delete. But even if you are correct, I was not notified of the Afd (or the Speedy Delete). The process was steamrollered. Spa toss 18:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I can't view the text of the article first hand, but from the descriptions of it in the AfD, it may have qualified as WP:CSD#A1 (little or no context), or WP:CSD#A7 (unremarkable group). I don't think anyone is required to notify anybody about a deletion, speedy or otherwise. Sometimes the original author of a new page is notified out of courtesy. You can try taking your argument to deletion review, but I doubt you'll have much luck. As someone pointed out, the title "List of atheists who support evolutionary theory" is about as pointless as "List of Christians who believe Jesus resurrected". It sounds like you're very passionate in your assertions, but don't take it personally. Hoof Hearted 19:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? for options. You can appeal to the administrator who deleted your article. Hoof Hearted 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were sound reasons for the deletion of your article List of atheists who support evolutionary theory, as indicated by the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheists who support evolutionary theory. A casual observer of your history could conclude that your objective here is to antagonize other contributors, by campaigning diligently to delete articles built by others, while creating offensive articles yourself. --orlady 19:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmn. What was so offensive. It was in fact supported with RS, objective, etc.. Spa toss 19:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having seen the article, I'd say that the problem was that you choose to make an article indexing people with criteria X who supported position Y. Such lists generally enjoy little support. I suggest if you believe this article would be appropriate, you discuss it on talk:list of atheists to see if there's support for this as a section there. That would be the better way to go about it than protesting the deletion, as the information on the list is hardly determinative. You could also try discussing the relationship between Atheism and evolutionary theory, on Talk:Atheism as I note that concept isn't covered on the page. FrozenPurpleCube 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, where you and other admins will learn that "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Likewise, disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user." Furthermore, if you take a look at Afd, it is was a Steamroll, closed within four hours, without notifying the editor of the article to see if he had a rational basis for the article. I would suggest the closing admin read Wikipedia:Five pillars, and the opening contributor *should* have notified me as a courtesy (but, to be fair, he may have gotten around to it if the Afd hadn't been speedy/steamrolled closed). Spa toss 02:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken, the problem was not with the content. The problem was with the concept. I don't think anybody made any objections as to what was on the page, as opposed to what the page was. I suggest you take a good look at the situation and consider the options I gave you. The sum total of work on the list? Minimal, there were a few names in a table, with one reference. If you believe the inclusion of this information is valid, then I've given you options for places to argue the issue. The protests you're giving are not effective in persuading me about the article itself, and are making it hard for me to help you, since I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying, but are instead focusing on the idea of persecution. I'm sure you do feel persecuted, but I think you'd be better off ignoring it, and working to improve your understanding of Wikipedia and making a better history of edits. This will benefit you a lot more than what you've been doing. Take a look at people's reactions. You can either assume it's their problem, or consider that maybe, just maybe, there might be a valid concern here. I am hoping that these are just mistakes on your part, and that there's no malice involved, but it will help a lot if you take a chance to learn a lesson from what's happening. Really, if you want to continue on the path you're going, you can, but I just don't feel it'll be effective. FrozenPurpleCube 07:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be helpful to read WP:SNOWBALL. --Michael Greiner 05:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think this? Shouldn't we strive for NPOV? Or are you concurring that there is a consensus on editorial judgment that gives wikipedia a WPOV? Spa toss 17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aid Township

What do you think of my latest version? I definitely don't have any quarrel with you; it's simply that it shouldn't make it sound as if that's the current population. Nyttend 18:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure ship

How would you suggest we describe these things and the claims for them?--Filll 22:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the talk page. Spa toss 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did not notice that you had been an editor when I placed the tag. Spa toss 22:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that phrase is my writing. I tried to clean up the atrocious English from before. I am not sure how to word it exactly. If the claims of 400-600 feet in length are accurate, these were certainly the largest wooden ships of all time. However, no one who knows much seriously believes these claims. If you look on the talk page, a naval architect did some calculations to prove in several ways that these ships had dimensions that are impossible, or at least highly unlikely and probably exaggerations or mistaken.--Filll 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "If the claims of 400-600 feet in length are accurate, these were the largest wooden ships of all time." But without a reference, could be original research. If you think the article is fine, and the peacock doesn't apply, just remove it. Spa toss 23:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have tons of research to back it up. Just look at the entry for the ship on List of the world's largest wooden ships.--Filll 23:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like somebody else took a stab, and understood my concerns. I like the result if that matters. Spa toss 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles proposed for deletion

Um, you do realize that the "articles" Author (botany) and Author (zoology) are redirect pages, not actually articles? If you have some POV issue with them, it seems that you should be tagging the articles that they redirect to, rather than the redirect pages. MrDarwin 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came to these articles from the Author (disambiguation) article. Not sure how to fix this but Author (disambiguation) pointing to redirects to completely different subjects seems odd. Maybe author should be deleted instead as WP:NOT dictionary. Spa toss 20:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Brya has been blocked from editing Wikipedia (in part because of similar POV issues in numerous articles) you would do better to post your concerns to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life, where several editors are already familiar with the issue and may be able to suggest solutions. Also try at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, as Brya primarily edited botanical articles so these editors will be particularly familiar with the issues. MrDarwin 20:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyGRAIN

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on MyGRAIN. I have nominated it at WP:AFD instead. Carlossuarez46 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Spa toss 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longview (Amtrak station)

You are obligated to explain how this article falls under that deletion criteria, rather than blindly reverting. I have left a note on the talk page and hope to see you there. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use Speedy-Delete tags recklessly

I'd like to assume good faith, but it concerns me deeply that you attached a {{db-bio}} tag to an article which clearly did not meet the speedy deletion criteria.

While the issue was resolved quickly and without much tumult, it was an annoying disruption and at least three users had to stop what they were doing to give it our attention. Given the other comments on your talk page, I wonder if maybe you were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

Having experienced the frustration of having an article of mine zapped unceremoniously and with only derisive comments, I know how frustrating this place can be sometimes (especially when it feels like the whole structure is against you). (My article deserved to be zapped, I suppose, but those doing the zapping certainly could have done so with less cruelty.)

My advice is — instead of slapping tags pointing out all the problems in various articles — to find a WikiProject that appeals to your interests and help to build.

Thanks for your attention to detail and I hope we meet again on better terms. -- Scartol 21:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Which article did you think clearly did not meet the speedy delete criteria?" Oops — I should have mentioned I was referring to Bruce Nelson (historian). Please note that I don't wish to discuss that particular page's nomination for speedy deletion; the matter has been resolved. -- Scartol 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, if you had looked on that article's talk page, you would have seen that it was not as clear (to me) as you claim it was, and that I acted in good faith. The article survived, live an learn. I won't touch it again, lest I stir up a hornet's nest. Thanks for the oversight, though. Spa toss 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Director General of Police

Hi! I request you to please get a hang of wikipedia editing policies and editing styles before putting up pages for speedy deletion. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julianna Raye submission by wmmarc

It appears that I have been granted a second chance, and I would like to make good use of it as this was my first submission. My original thought was that I would start the page and add to it, hopefully while others added to it as well. I see now that it needs to be more complete. I will take into account your suggestions, and ask you, if I may, to review it before I attempt to submit it again. Unfortunately, since I am not that versed in placing wikipedia entries, I do not know anyone else I can request to review my submission. If you have any suggestions, I'd be glad to consider them. All the best, Wmmarc 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)wmmarc[reply]

Political correctness

Hi there, we met before on Talk:Political correctness. I left the page for a month because I was both busy and very disgusted by it. When you have a minute, could you please let me know what you think about the recent developments there? Thanks. 83.67.217.254 22:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Talk:Modern evolutionary synthesis/NeedsHelp

Talk:Modern evolutionary synthesis/NeedsHelp, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Modern evolutionary synthesis/NeedsHelp and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Modern evolutionary synthesis/NeedsHelp during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rocket000 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]