User talk:Tothwolf/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tothwolf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Bobstar
For your valiant efforts which resulted in the rescue of the alt.binaries.slack article from deletion, the denizens of the newsgroup alt.slack hereby award you this Bobstar: Bobstar Flair (Original Bobstar) I'd upload the image directly to Wikipedia, but it would probably be deleted as a personal image and because of lack of usefulness to Wikipedia itself. Praise "Bob!" --Modemac (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm starting to wonder if it might actually be a good idea to expand the article to cover all of the alt.slack newsgroups. Tothwolf (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
sockpuppetry and conflict of interest
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tothwolf for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Conflict of interestIt's been suggested that you may have a conflict of interest regarding Eggdrop. Please read the applicable guideline, WP:COI. Editing articles about topics which you are closely connected with is strongly discouraged, mostly because it is difficult to remain impartial and to edit in a neutral manner. Will Beback talk 21:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Usenet flood
Done at User:Tothwolf/Usenet flood. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is it better to restore and move so that the edit history is preserved? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, never considered that... I've always just cut and pasted the deleted content, and provided a copy of the deleted history when necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hadn't even checked the edit history until now. Could you restore the history so it'll be intact once I complete the rewrite? I still wish those who participated in this particular AfD had just added sources and expanded it since even Google books turns up a ton of material. Tothwolf (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Done –Juliancolton | Talk 00:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hadn't even checked the edit history until now. Could you restore the history so it'll be intact once I complete the rewrite? I still wish those who participated in this particular AfD had just added sources and expanded it since even Google books turns up a ton of material. Tothwolf (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, never considered that... I've always just cut and pasted the deleted content, and provided a copy of the deleted history when necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is it better to restore and move so that the edit history is preserved? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Cache
Hey Tothwolf. Thanks for your message. I wouldn't worry , 1,100 is nothing to the job queue. Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC).
Orphaned non-free media (File:MIRCStats_sample_screenshot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:MIRCStats_sample_screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
File:MIRCStats-logo.png
I have tagged File:MIRCStats-logo.png as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. Melesse (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Bad faith
Please refrain from repeatedly accusing me of acting in bad faith. My contribution history to the project, as well as several independent editors, have refuted your claims and your logic. Continued baseless assertions are unacceptable, and I ask that you strike them and refrain from further ad hominem arguments that clearly have no place here. Consider this a friendly request as well as a final warning. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
ANI
I have opened this discussion regarding your conduct. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
*-lines confusion in IRCd article
I started some discussion on the current organization of the configuration information (jupes, *-lines) on the IRCd article. Would be nice if you added a small statement what you think about it (or if a cleanup as I stated there is advisable at all but I don't think that's really the question). Yarcanox (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Replied at Talk:IRCd#Very strange organization regarding the *-lines - what to do? --Tothwolf (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
WHy did you remove the cliets tha are covered in the comparison of im clients? that doesn't mak sense! This comparison only tests if it has spartian support or not! and why do not put in this comarison? only because they are able to handle other protocols? shouldn't we remove opera also (I mean it is able to handle the hypertext transfer protocol!) mabdul 13:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because we can better cover those in the IM client comparison article. I'm about to add a bunch of missing table rows for other IRC clients, then reformat the tables, then then greatly expand them. The size of the article is going to roughly double and covering all IM clients (which we were only covering about 4 out of maybe 16-18 that support the IRC protocol) would be unworkable. Browser-addons and plugins I don't see a problem with, they don't have their own comparison article and tend to be limited strictly to IRC so aren't really a "multi-im" client anyway. Do you have the WikiProject's talk page on your watchlist? We've got a ton of work to do ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I did the best I could to incorporate your two edits into my own, sorry if I messed anything up. -Pyro3d (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your editor (browser?) seems to have added a blank line between every line in the article. I can strip those out without too much trouble and merge any changes though. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
DMDirc
I just came across the article of this client (which I already watched a bit longer) and noticed some people voted for a deletion but finally there was no consensus. Does that mean the article might now aswell be put back as stand-alone article and expanded? Or what exactly is now following after it just being turned into a link to the comparison page?
I personally think that the client is notable because it is already more complex and better evolved than some of the well-known ones, e.g. XChat, and as it has already mentioned on nearly all important IRC news sites it's just a matter of time until it really gets popular (and it's IMHO anything but not notable). But does it make sense to attempt to work on that article again if there's no consensus whether to keep it or not? 87.176.250.242 (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I obviously forgot to login when posting this question. Yarcanox (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I believe it is notable too, the problem is that it is borderline when going by a strict interpretation of the notability guideline so right now it might very well end up at AfD again if it were unredirected. I had planned to merge it into the larger article that will cover all these clients and when we can find enough references we can split it back out into its own article (which I imagine won't be too long if it remains popular). Have you been following the WikiProject's to do list and talk page? Things are about to get very busy. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Confabulation (neural networks)
Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confabulation (neural networks)
In light of all the " has made few or no other edits" stuff at the top, which I think was added after you voted, can you check back on that one? Smells like socks to me.
Of course, I respect your opinion, but I'm not convinced that the term is more than generic words without specific context.
Cheers, Chzz ► 17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I followed up with the person who added that, which happened shortly before I decided to comment (see their talk page). I really don't think those templates were warranted in the case of this AfD and if they are all socks, they are having one heck of a time debating each other on the notability of the topic on the article's talk page... --Tothwolf (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Those 4 users have only contributed to either the AfD, the talk, or a couple of added refs on the article - and nothing else. I really cannot be bothered to sort out who is a sock or meatpuppet of whom; more important is, there is absolutely nothing to assert notability - per the review of the references now added by Rankiri at the bottom. Chzz ► 18:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Other than the one AfD participant who hasn't done anything on the article, I don't see evidence of sockpuppets. As for meatpuppets, none of them seem to have really done any "!voting" in the AfD, mainly it has amounted to lots of discussion (and heated disagreement) on the AfD and article's talk page. To be honest, I'm not surprised at the turnout of editors for a topic of this type. My issue here is there is no reason for deletion if the article can be improved via normal editing (ie WP:BEFORE) and that has been taking place. As for Rankiri's review, it has already been pointed out by someone else how he managed to miss a bunch of stuff so there is no reason for me to repeat it here. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Those 4 users have only contributed to either the AfD, the talk, or a couple of added refs on the article - and nothing else. I really cannot be bothered to sort out who is a sock or meatpuppet of whom; more important is, there is absolutely nothing to assert notability - per the review of the references now added by Rankiri at the bottom. Chzz ► 18:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Shell account third opinion
If you feel that the third opinion I added to talk:Shell account was based on an incorrect request, I suggest that you raise another with the issue expressed the way you prefer. Alternatively, you may find the wp:RFC process a helpful way of gaining a consensus if the wp:3O process has failed your needs. Cheers, Teahot (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I hadn't yet made it over to your talk page yet but that was something I was considering. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Linux
You might want to look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux#Constant_removal_of_Linux_on_Windows_image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.119.148 (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, I watch the talk page but I hadn't checked it yet today. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Please assume good faith
Your comments on Talk:Linux imply that myself and another editor are not editing in good faith. Please assume good faith. The fact that I choose to edit some low-hanging fruit in other articles, something which improves Wikipedia, is entirely unrelated to the issue being discussed. Using good faith edits to imply that I am editing in bad faith on the Linux article verges on personal attack. Please restrict your comments to the content being discussed rather than bring up red herrings about other editor's editing patterns. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- My comments there are valid observations and I left a rather lengthy comment regarding the issue being discussed. I call it as a I see it and I explicitly stated there that due to the edit patterns I'm seeing, I can no longer assume good faith in the case of those edits. In keeping with the spirit of WP:OWB, when an editor protests loudly (as you are now doing) and exclaims "WP:AGF" and "WP:NPA" when all I've done is state the obvious, it makes it quite clear that I was spot on in my calling of WP:DUCK. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are implying something is wrong with my editing. Please specify exactly what. Yworo (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Right. Well I interpret your silence as meaning, "There is absolutely nothing wrong with your editing. Your edits violate no policies or guidelines and as far as I can see actually improve the articles you are editing. I don't understand people who primarily Wikignome because that's not my own personal style. I don't like what I don't understand and I was having a bad day yesterday so I generalized from something I don't like and leapt to an unfounded conclusion. I'd apologize but I'm simply too proud to admit I might have been wrong to accuse another editor of being up to no good on absolutely no evidence." Cheer. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- You appear to be making large numbers of automated or semi-automated edits from a non-bot account. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Bot policy and see if this applies. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Right. Well I interpret your silence as meaning, "There is absolutely nothing wrong with your editing. Your edits violate no policies or guidelines and as far as I can see actually improve the articles you are editing. I don't understand people who primarily Wikignome because that's not my own personal style. I don't like what I don't understand and I was having a bad day yesterday so I generalized from something I don't like and leapt to an unfounded conclusion. I'd apologize but I'm simply too proud to admit I might have been wrong to accuse another editor of being up to no good on absolutely no evidence." Cheer. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're leaping to unfounded conclusions again: all my edits are done manually. And now I think I'm done with you, I don't like your attitude. Yworo (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Images
The licensing updates you have made are incorrect. The screenshot includes Windows and is not free. You MUST use the correct non-free license. Yworo (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, they are indeed correct and I'm very familiar with these templates. Go do some research for yourself on commons --Tothwolf (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I read it an I disagree. The usage is to show something running on Windows. Since it's the topic of the usage, it's not de minimus. That only applies to thing that happen to be in the image incidentally but aren't part of the topic the image is being used for. In other words, I believe you are just plain wrong about it. Yworo (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then take it up on a noticeboard, stop trying to have these images deleted. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- No. Yworo (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are hereby disinvited from participating in discussions on this talk page. Anything further you can take to an article talk page or a noticeboard. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Take it there yourself. I stopped taking you seriously when you started quacking like a duck. Yworo (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are hereby disinvited from participating in discussions on this talk page. Anything further you can take to an article talk page or a noticeboard. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- No. Yworo (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then take it up on a noticeboard, stop trying to have these images deleted. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I read it an I disagree. The usage is to show something running on Windows. Since it's the topic of the usage, it's not de minimus. That only applies to thing that happen to be in the image incidentally but aren't part of the topic the image is being used for. In other words, I believe you are just plain wrong about it. Yworo (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:DUCK --Tothwolf (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why a Duck? Yworo (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because I call em as I see em. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Fixing redirects
Thanks for your note on this guideline. - Ahunt (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- In addition to the WP:R2D guideline, why doesn't someone update the article names so that they would be the names commonly used, as in the WP:COMMONNAME policy, so there wouldn't have to be so many piped links?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Funandtrvl (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Shell account
I am under the impression that you are deliberately being disruptive and I ask that you stop. If you have an issue that you wish to resolve then I ask you to begin the dispute resolution process. --Hm2k (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Warning
Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Shell account, you will be blocked for vandalism. --Hm2k (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please stop abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Hm2k. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Hm2k (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure we need to put the information in a wikitable for this list article? What else is needed for the article? JEN9841 (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Now that I think of it, a table might be good, but it would be an enormous amount of work. After I finish up these citations I am going to want to take a break from this article for a while (as I am in the process of adding hundreds of citations). Perhaps we could open something up in namespace and recruit people to work on it. I think, once we do the table, we should be able to move that article back to List of films in the public domain and include in the table a section for the country/countries in which it is in the public domain.JEN9841 (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was something I mentioned early on and I can see from the talk page now that a number of others have played with the same idea. I had considered including the production date/year, country where the film was produced, the producer's name, and maybe the current copyright holder's name (if not the producer). Doing a rough conversion to a table format won't be that difficult and I suspect it would take me roughly one evening to do, but filling in all the details will take some work. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tothwolf (is there a Farcas somewhere in your name?).
Your edit summary for this edit to the above-captioned page suggests that my nomination or commentary on it was not based on policy or guideline. While you may not agree with my interpretation of the relevant guidelines, the suggestion that my nomination or comments were contrary to WP:JNN is off the mark and I take offense. I'd ask you to reactor your remark, but it's impossible to do so for edit summaries. A note at the AfD discussion would seem appropriate.
Bongomatic 03:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.
- I don't think it was off the mark at all and I've made sure to clarify my point there. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Per this edit summary, I'm unsure if you know what "original research" refers to. You may want to have a look at WP:OR. I'd also point out that the link you gave is an essay and is therefore not binding; at the same time, it's the responsibility of the editor wishing to restore material to provide sources for it. If it's very important for you to keep this article, I suggest you get to sourcing it. It looks to me to be a made up concept, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. I'll start another redirect discussion in a few days if it remains unsourced. That's the exact reason it was redirected the first time. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I assure you I'm quite familiar with WP:OR and as such I do not see how it would apply to this article at all. There was no past "redirect discussion" for this article; you simply hijacked the article and turned it into a redirect. I can't tell yet whether your redirection of this article was just case of FUTON bias, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:RUBBISH, or even willful violation of WP:NPOV, but we most certain do need an article that gives an overview of Disk operating systems for platforms other than just PC/MS-DOS. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback from Thinking of England
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinking of England (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Java and Portal
Great, thanks for your support, let's rock this boat man; if you've got some other TechnoWikiGeeks, point them to the secret page... --Alainr345 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Tothwolf (whatever that means...) Now that we are more than 5 supporters, I gather from the Wikipedia guidelines that we CAN proceed with the groundwork, for releasing the project and portal in the open soon. To that effect, I would appreciate it very much if you could copy your name in the List of participants page. We're missing one name there, and even if you don't fully get involved after that, you will have the great honor of being a founding member with all the bells&whistles (whatever THAT means...) Thanks,
A l a i n R 3 4 5
Techno-Wiki-Geek 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am sure the team at WikiProject_Java appreciates your recent work tagging the Portal and Project pages correctly (if you could register yourself as a team member that would be even better). On the other end, I'm not sure I like entirely the mods you did on the project Template (especially |class={{{class|}}}) and the J2EE talk page. There is an ongoing discussion here as to how the Java project should handle tagging. I don't really see the point of the project having its own Quality ratings; it could as well use (and set when applicable) the ones from project Computing. The important point is to be able to generate specific Quality-class categories so that we get the appropriate Quality by Importance stats matrix for Java articles. I modified the example test at J2EE talk page but I'm not sure that works either until the WP1.0 bot updates. I appreciate that you seem to know these matters technically better than most, but technique is not the only issue here...
-- Alain R 3 4 5
Techno-Wiki-Geek 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am sure the team at WikiProject_Java appreciates your recent work tagging the Portal and Project pages correctly (if you could register yourself as a team member that would be even better). On the other end, I'm not sure I like entirely the mods you did on the project Template (especially |class={{{class|}}}) and the J2EE talk page. There is an ongoing discussion here as to how the Java project should handle tagging. I don't really see the point of the project having its own Quality ratings; it could as well use (and set when applicable) the ones from project Computing. The important point is to be able to generate specific Quality-class categories so that we get the appropriate Quality by Importance stats matrix for Java articles. I modified the example test at J2EE talk page but I'm not sure that works either until the WP1.0 bot updates. I appreciate that you seem to know these matters technically better than most, but technique is not the only issue here...
Hi again. Aren't you an IRC wizard... Qnext has a {{prose|section|date=November 2009}}. That's tailored for you... -- Alain R 3 4 5
Techno-Wiki-Geek 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I tagged it with {{prose}} back in November. I'm not sure when I'll have time to work on it right now. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Removing Speedy at Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
ANI
I started a report at ANI. Joe Chill (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: popcon numbers
The Debian popcon link tells you that there are over 2k installations, of which ~600 actually used; the Ubuntu popcon link (they don't have the pretty verson, just the big overall table) tells you that there are over 10k installations, of which ~380 actually used.
Because popcon submissions are opt-in, this is really only indicative in relative terms, for example, it can tell you something about the population of people submitting their popcon results. In this example leafpad is less often used than joe, but also less often used than more similar programs such as gedit or mousepad. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah ok, thanks! I knew they were opt-in but I wasn't sure how to interpret them. That is certainly telling with regards to gedit. I could tell just from a Google search that Leafpad was fairly popular compared to some editors but I had no idea it surpassed gedit in terms of users. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
ANI
If you reply to my ANI post, please post it on my talk page because it is off topic now. Joe Chill (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I replied on my talk page. What you said isn't the truth! Joe Chill (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Z-net afd
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z-Net
Since you relied on my arguemnt to some extent, be aware that I changed my !vote. -- see my explanation there. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Joe Chill
Hey Tothwolf, I just came across your Leafpad conversation with Joe Chill, and I am happy to see you two guys were able to resolve your differences. At first I also was a bit frustrated with his AfD nominations, but then I realized it's his implicit (or inverse?) inclusionist stance meaning that by nominating a software article to an AfD he prompts attention from people like you, Joy, me, and others to improve the articles, sometimes significantly such that they are kept as a result. In fact in most software AfDs I managed to observe, which Joe Chill nominated, resulted in keeping (or no consensus keeping) of the article. You can also call his nominations a "lazy call to arms" to make article improvements to stale articles. Perhaps a view Joe may not agree with of himself, but it certainly helped me maintaining good faith there. :) Joe also does !vote keep, etc. on other subjects and articles and their AfD. Anyways, good job at resolving it; we don't need more drama here that's for sure :) Assuming good faith, Miami33139 and JBsupreme perhaps can be addressed in a similar way, or just DGAF (a sanity-keeping "policy" :)) to their AfD comments should they become out of bounds. --Mokhov (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there is actually a lot more to it than that. You may want to have a look at the WP:AN/I discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I skimmed through it; I hope that drama resolves sooner than later. It's amazing how much effort goes into those discussions -- if it were all redirected to the constructive Wikipedia content building, Wikipedia would be so much better and precious. I think a half of the content the database server carry are those ANI, ArbCom discussions, and the like. The other half are the articles. Anyways, 'nogh philosophy. I hope you can get back to normal editing soon. --Mokhov (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), which was closed as "no consensus", you may be interested in a subsequent DRV. Since I disagreed with the close, I contacted the closing admin, who responded, "To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV; if you would like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, I've commented there. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of PsyBNC
Do you think PsyBNC is not notable? Probably not - still it got deleted. Is there anything we can do about it/should we do anything about it?
I mentioned some print sources here User_talk:Sandstein#Deletion_and_Notability_of_PsyBNC but it doesn't seem to convince the deleting administrator. Does it convince you? I'm too new to wikipedia to judge if this is truly not enough to make an article notable, but if you ask me, PsyBNC seems fairly popular :-/
I am not sure what do to now, so I'm asking for your advice. Yarcanox (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry to interject, but PsyBNC was userfied here by the closing admin, and you can help Hm2k and others to revise it before it is moved back to the main space. Go to it and improve it; it's not like it's really fully dead. --Mokhov (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know, but I am not sure what is there to improve - the article seems well-sourced to me. And content-wise it's hard to add stuff when you're not really familiar with the product yourself (e.g. through long-term use or development contributions so you know a bit of the technical internals). I feel a bit like the decision to delete this was wrong, but simply want to know what Tothwolf thinks of it. Yarcanox (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way: There *are* some sources I might put in. But I'm wondering if it should have been deleted even in the state its currently in (and if those few book references make such a huge difference as those two already being there seem fine). Yarcanox (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I do believe it is notable and I doubt there are many who use IRC who haven't at least heard of it. The original bnc may be more notable since it was the first of these programs [2] although it would appear the website is no longer online. Even Google books (which only indexes a fraction of the computer and networking books out there) has quite a bit of coverage of psyBNC. [3]
It seems like it would be a very good idea to also expand BNC (software) as the general concept of a network connection "bouncer" is without a doubt notable. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Even if we can't cover each software program comprehensively in its own article, we can always have a Comparison of Internet Relay Chat bouncers to detail the features and functionality of these programs where we can merge and redirect these individual articles.
The truth of the matter is, all those AfD nominations were done in retaliation because I tried to call community attention to the nom's behaviour. Some of those, such as the client stub articles, in the past I've just redirected if they were prodded as there is little to be gained from keeping them as stubs with nothing but a list of features. The nom did not like that it was possible to do this and decided to AfD them instead to make that more difficult. For those of you who have not seen it, check the RFD that is linked from the AN/I discussion as it is quite telling. A lot of people have contacted me via email, IM, etc, since I started that AN/I discussion and while I really appreciated the support and encouragement for bringing all that stuff forward, I'm still disappointed in the community for not speaking up more on-wiki because as of right now the issues brought up in the AN/I discussion are largely still unresolved.
--Tothwolf (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)- Since this should be publicly noted somewhere, I figured out why the RFD did not show up in article alerts. The nom intentionally subst: the {{rfd}} template even though the template explicitly says not to. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Anything we can do to stop this nonsense? are admins notified already? or do they think it's not worth interventing? Yarcanox (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can tell you with absolute certainty that a large number of admins are aware of what has transpired (some to the point of being slightly annoyed with me due to the size of that AN/I discussion...) but I honestly do not know what will happen next. Right now I'm just trying to work with others to figure out how best to clean up the mess they made with all these AfDs. I doubt the cleanup task will stop with the small number of IRC articles as I uncovered quite a pattern of prod/AfD abuse with one of the involved editors. At least we had the article alerts bot set up and had the IRC-related articles tagged and tracked, otherwise those would have been much more difficult to keep up with... Even with the bot, it still kept me quite busy documenting the whole thing. Those editors who were directly involved in this mess all monitor my talk page and they know quite well by now that this time their actions did not go unnoticed by the community. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Anything we can do to stop this nonsense? are admins notified already? or do they think it's not worth interventing? Yarcanox (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Since this should be publicly noted somewhere, I figured out why the RFD did not show up in article alerts. The nom intentionally subst: the {{rfd}} template even though the template explicitly says not to. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neustradamus (talk • contribs) 02:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply at Coffee's talkpage
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
AFD
It closed as keep. I always revisit discussions. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see that. What I mentioned on your talk page is this is a case where software is covered well in a book, but that book is not one of the relatively small number of books that have been indexed by Google books. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neustradamus (talk • contribs) 17:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyw7 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Article alerts
- From user talk:ikip
An edit of yours popped up 'Article alerts' on my watchlist and I saw you had this [14] on your user page. I'm currently making use of several of these and if you need a hand with one, don't hesitate to ping me. If ARS had a talk page banner it too could also make use of the article alerts system as well as the WP:1.0 statistics. WP:AFC has been making use of this for quite some time so I don't see why ARS couldn't do the same. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, please pursue it, I have several huge, time consuming projects I am working on right now. Keep in touch. Ikip (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neustradamus (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neustradamus (talk • contribs) 11:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that you have misunderstood my words, and I apologize for not choosing them more wisely
But this edit is not appropriate. Please remember to wp:assume good faith. I have long ago read and understood wp:no personal attacks. I would encourage you to do so, and read your talk page posting with it in mind.
Please let me assure you, as I already stated:
- as I have already stated: I made no insinuation.
- I made no assumption about what you would or would not see.
I believe you should redact your remark at the article talk page.- Sinneed 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)