I read something that referenced an internet meme called "NEDM" and I was VERY disappointed to see that it was deleted as a listing on Wikipedia. Is this the abridged version now? The way I see it... there isn't a single piece of knowledge that should be purposefully excluded from Wikipedia. Of course, there might be exceptions... but I am a huge fan and don't like to be let down.... especially since it is 'protected' and I don't have to opportunity to even see what it was previously!
It's for your own benefit. I don't think it's a very wise idea to reveal your age: A) people may look down upon you for it, B) I'm not entirely sure that it in line with WP:SIG, C) It's just something that you shouldn't be displaying in your signature. It's ok, I suppose, for your userspace to have it, but blatantly wave it around in your signature is not beneficial in any way whatsoever. Yanksox18:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.
Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Thanks for your comments and trust, even if you are completely wrong about the notability of shopping malls :) If tere are any projects that could use some more admin help, just holler over yonder. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The result was Delete. Argument for deletion is much stronger than opinions in favor of closure."
Um, I think you may have meant something else? Aren't delete and closure more synonymous than antonymous compared to delete and keep? Or am I missing something?—Chidomtalk23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, I'm using closure in the sense of security for the article. It is confusing, and my fault. I'll use better wording. Yanksox23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh.... yes he can. The vast majority of the keep arguments were along the lines of "keep, real person", whereas the delete arguments referred to official guidlines, namely WP:PORNBIO. I believe that the deletion was correct. If you have a problem, you can take it to deletion review. It's not good practice to upturn an AfD on your own. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heya. I've created my admin coaching page here -- it's deliberately a user talk page, so changes to it are immediately highlighted as an orange box at the top of my screen. It saves having to check through my amazingly long watchlist all the time.
Thanks for the first day of coaching -- as lame as my mistake with Mock Duck may have been, I'm glad you were able to explain exactly where I went wrong, and I hope I'll do better with uncertain CSDs in the future. I'm off to bed (eek, 1:24am..), but thanks again for the help! Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 14:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Derex has been consistently removing comments from the John Kerry Wikipedia article to reflect his own views. Comments from previous edits often have no justification and include:
(nope)
(oh, i've talked plenty. have you bothered to read?)
It started off as a blatant attempt to make the article POV (as evidenced by his willingness to place himself over the talks page), and now he keeps reverting any attempt to point out that Democrats have criticized Kerry as well, and that Kerry apologized in the name of "simplification".
That's quite an accusation from someone who is now consistently deleting well-sourced material that you don't like. I, and most everyone else, on talk felt this should be at most a one-line section with a link to wikinews. You persisted in adding lengthy details. Ok, but you don't get to pick and choose which detail as it suits your point of view. I've added detail, such as the view of Republican Dick Armey to match your discussion of the view of Republican John McCain. You insert Harold Ford's call for an apology, but you delete his accepatance of Kerry's explanation. I've added sources, going to notability, that almost all pollsters think this amounts to almost nothing in the election. You have removed that as well. Trying to keep a very minor incident in the scope of a lifetime brief in accordance with undue weight provision of npov is not vandalism. Repeatedly selectively removing well-sourced and notable detail that disagrees with the POV you are trying to further is vandalism. Derex01:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was NPOV before you started making your edits. For example, Kerry initially refused to apologize, and I linked to an article with confirmation of this fact. Repentance is important in politics, as what Kerry did could have amounted to career suicide; several times you deleted the statement that he even apologized at all. Another example is when you added that Democrats accepted Kerry's apology, yet failed to indicate that the White House and Republicans have as well; failure to mention this would only serve to create bias against Republicans when people read this and see that only one side accepted the apology. I've left in your comment that pollsters think that this will have no effect on the elections, though the statements by Dick Armey and the nonpartisan pollster serve to undermine the importance of what Kerry said, and turn attention away from Kerry, respectively. I attribute your refusal to participate in the discussion and continue to delete criticisms of Kerry by Democrats as vandalism because you're undermining the integrity of the article, and even calling me names in the comments and on your talks page. Way to be neutral. --PeanutCheeseBar01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by contact me via e-mail if anything comes up?? in your block summary?? This is a school IP, that I'm on, and it's part of Internet for Learning. Be careful about blocking the IP address, as it is a shared one for an entire high school, well, two actually - Formby High School, and Range High School, over 300 + computers have this IP, so be careful about blocks, OK?? --Colbber15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"it's a detail about where the band is, not about the band"
They're they same thing. A detail about where the band is about the band - how can it not be? And anyway, how is it relevant to a biographical entry about a person? 86.17.246.2901:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to take a copy of the Clergy abuse article so that I could work on it in my userspace but somehow lost track of the fact that the AFD was about to close. Could you undelete it long enough to put a copy in my userspace under User:Richardshusr/Clergy abuse? I think you will agree that the AFD debate was not an obvious consensus (majority vote rather than overwhelming majority). I believe an NPOV article could be constructed from the latest revision. In fact, if you compare the edit history of the article against the votes, you will find that many of the Delete votes were cast before the article underwent substantial expansion and revision.
There are two paths forward: a Deletion Review or a re-write followed by re-creation. I am proposing the second if you will help me by restoring the deleted text to my userspace.
So, wait: Are you bargining with me? I would have been happy to userfy it, but I feel that you are posing mild threats to me. AfD is based on strength of argument, not a head count. Yanksox17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK what happened there - I made multiple changes to the Brassiere article today, then my computer crashed and they have all gone. Although they can be found in my contributions - is that retrievable?
Yanksox, I am with the Healey campaign and we have not conceded. You can confirm this with an IP trace or by calling us at the CHQ (617-523-0844) and requesting to speak to me, Mary Joad. The current feed is at 48 percent. Articles should not be modified at this time.
You should understand that I was acting in accordance with the Healey campaign's request that the articles not be changed until the official count was completed or Ms. Healey conceded, which she did at about 10:40 PM.
It was not appropriate to issue a block in this case on the following grounds:
(1) You, yourself, violated 3RR as well.
(2) It is Official Policy that an administrator who is involved in the dispute may not block.
(3) In light of the fact that neither an official vote tally nor a concession had been made, any repeated statement that a new governor had been elected (or that the governor elect was now the governor) could be interpreted as vandalism. In response to the seconded issue taken by user:Rhobite on User talk:MJoad, the edits applied to Kerry Healey, Deval Patrick, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts up until 10:40 PM did not state that they represented projected results, but were inappropriately and repeatedly stated as fact.
I am requesting that you take the following action:
(1) Assess your role and possible violation of Official Policy in this dispute.
(2) Confirm via an official retraction on my talk page that your actions in this case were in violation of Official Policy.
(3) Engage in a continuing discussion with me regarding higher involvement e.g. sysops status for myself as an inappropriately blocked party as, I believe, I am at least as cognizant of the Official Policies and conduct codes as has been demonstrated towards me.
>>11:32 PM>> I should add that I believe you were acting without abusive intent and therefore I do not believe arbitration is appropriate at this time. However, I do believe the blocking was an Official Policy violation and should be addressed. -MJoad
As a fellow administrator on Wikipedia, I can confirm that Yanksox was acting appropriately to Wikipedia's policies. I hope this helps alleviate any potential concerns and feel free to follow up if necessary hoopydinkConas tá tú?04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, it seems as if Yanksox actually did violate Wikipedia policies in terms of using the block feature while involved in the dispute and violated the 3RR given that the dispute appears to be a content dispute over legitimate sources and not vandalism. Apologies for my initial error in assessment hoopydinkConas tá tú?05:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would have been better for Yanksox to get an uninvolved admin to block you. However given the time-sensitive nature of the information and the speed at which you were reverting, the block was appropriate. It's good that you're concerned about the integrity of the information Wikipedia reports. In the future, please make more of an effort to discuss your edits on talk pages and come to an agreement instead of reverting articles. I'm sure you understand that if Wikipedia changed its articles based on the wishes of political campaigns, it would quickly lose its objectivity. And on a side note, according to the timestamps on news articles (as well as my own memory), Healey conceded around 10 PM, not 10:40 as you say. Rhobite04:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
>>11:52 PM>> Thank you Rhobite for adding to this discussion. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on the desires of political campaigns. My reversions, however, are not a statement of campaign policy, but they are at the request of the campaign that the integrity of the articles in question be maintained until the election results were resolved.
With regard to Ms. Healey's concession, I requested a copy of the Letter of Concession which was sent by mail and hand delivered to Deval Patrick's CHQ, and those of our other opponents, and to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, signed at 10:33 PM.
In terms of article integrity, the statements that anybody had become governor-elect, much less governor, before that was actually the case is detrimental to the integrity of the affected articles. Per your point specifically, it would not have been such a detriment to state that news organizations had projected the victor. -MJoad
I stand by by block since you were editing with an agenda and because it was 15 minutes. I know my way around the Healey camp, say hi to Athena for me while you're there. This is very agitating, and to be honest, Mary you should be ashamed. Ashamed that you were trying to push and stretch out the election as long as you could, on Wikipedia of all things. I probably violated a rule or two, but I did it for the general overall interest and won't back down. Take it up for a review if you want. Yanksox10:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered your question at my RfA. Please let me know if you have any more quesitons and I'll be glad to answer them. - Mike | Talk00:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for indef blocking this guy. I was very suprised that the first two bans were only for hours and not days considering the level of his disruption. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh -- I always try to assume good faith. I just assumed that a 1 hour cool down period would end the difficulties. Wow was that wrong, but one can only hope. Alphachimp15:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think is a good that you tried to salvage that editor, suprise does not mean disagreement(for me atleast). It was very possible that the short block could have cooled down the user. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like some help in submitting everything to AfD that Kappa unprodded on his psychotic deprodding episode? His actions fill this deletionist user with Wikistress. --Shrieking HarpyTalk|Count19:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the bright side, atleast your record of incivility has been removed. Perhaps you can keep this account incivility free. Sorry about the name problem. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
your deletion was uncalled for. it is a new article, thus its content has not had time to develop. please visit the discussion page for that article, and make your reasons clear. 2D is a vibrant subculture of Princeton that helps define the larger social dynamics of the place.
You took less time to go rouge then I did. I've only recently gone rouge. I think I'd better add myself into the category. Or perhaps just block everyone for no reason, let them know that way. --Lord Deskana(swiftmend!)23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cute 1 4 u is blocked on Wikipedia, unprotecting her page negates the whole purpose of protecting the page. She would troll on her talk page and that was all she did. There is no need to unprotect it. Yanksox03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to understand she is blocked, and she was using her talk page to troll. It's important not to feed the attention span of such a user. I'm such you can talk off wikipedia. Yanksox05:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will be sending out my "thank-you's" to all the people who voted for my RfA, but I wanted to first drop by and thank you for all your help! If you ever need anything, just let me know. --cholmes75(chit chat)21:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yanksox, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as a expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75(chit chat)15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yanksox: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/4. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Your username name, not subst:ed properly], [statement of gratitude] for [your specific vote] in [link to request for adminship], which passed with a final tally of [final tally][percent in parentheses (optional)]. I plan to [statement of intentions regarding admin tools] and [statement acknowledging oppose votes as helpful]. If you [type of desire for help] or want to provide any [type of feedback], feel free to [link to talk page or e-mail]. [Statement of gratitude, again (optional)] [signature of new admin]
Because people often complain that RfA thank-you messages are impersonal, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to create your own. -- tariqabjotu04:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have been handed a NPOV for my edits on Brassiere. Perhaps not surprising given the subject matter. What happens now? Does that stay on the article for ever. I can try and respond to the criticisms, but I can't lie! And others disagree with the critic.
Mgoodyear14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Just wanted to inform you that my article was edited to include information pertaining to the artists participation in a nationwide song writing competition, in which he placed in the top 10. According the the criterion, that qualifies the article as a legitimate addition to the website. If any other further editing is needed, feel free to let me know. Thanks in advance and have a wonderful day.
Hello YankSox. Thanks for let me know about you. I'm sorry to say that some people thinks that all American and National Leagues All-Stars should be deleted and merged into their parents. I would favour keeping both categories. I find categories useful for browsing related articles and exploring people with something in common. You know what? Finally, all Dates in Baseball articles were deleted because some wiki users don't see baseball history by date as notable or useful. I think is a shame to just threw away all this hard work. Now, is the turn for the All-Stars cats. It could be a bad precedent for future projects. In any event, could you have a look at MLB All-Stars categories for deletion? Please think about this and let me know what you think. Thanks. MusiCitizen18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yanksox. The proposal is not to delete the American and National League All-Start categories, it is to delete the subcategories by year and merge the contents into the two parent categories. The team rosters should be listed in individual articles about each all star game. This is happening in articles such as 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. Listing this in an article adds the possibility of annotating the information with positions and other stats. Making categories out of this information clutters up articles such as Hank Aaron. If the information is in articles, it would MORE useful for browsing related articles and exploring people with something in common. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman03:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with this is that categories are becoming the only way that people think they can create lists to browse through articles. In the case of a team roster, it seems an article does a much better job of listing the roster than a category. In the article about each player it can say "Bob Smith was chosen for the National League All Star time in 1960, 1963 and 1964". Each year could link to the articles about the game from that year (my example here is not so linked because many of these articles have not yet been written). Here are the advantages of removing the by year categories as I see it:
It would get rid of quite a bit of category clutter
The games would be linked to the teams when it the subject comes up in the article
The articles would have information about all the players in the articles about each game
The merged category would include All-Star players from every team.
It sends the message that team rosters by year is not a good practice. Imagine if people start categorizing every major league team by their roster each year!
What is the advantage of having this information in a category? The only one I can think of is that the software will automatically alphabetize the roster. It might be slightly easier to browse to the category list than to find the roster in an article, but in some ways it is more difficult because they are not together in the same place. Also, the ease of browsing some categories has to be weighed against the difficulty of browsing all the other categories because there are so many of them. I'd like to understand your thinking on this better. --Samuel Wantman07:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User "Pjacobi" has marked all of my contributions for "deletion debate". I have no issue conducting a debate on whether an article should be deleted or not, but there are no rational nor constructive arguments for the deletion of any of my article contributions. If a user has an issue with my additions they should change the sentence structure, or add information to the article, not mark it for deletion. Frankly I don't think he can understand my complex writing style, for if he did he would realize that my sentences convey rational and verifiable information.
I am an autohority on the subjects that I have contributed to. I have been involved for years on a College level and have recently unconvered that Wikipedia had pages on the subject matter. I was soo disheartened with the state of the pages that I felt in necessary to contribute, and what do I get, irrational attacks by unproficient users.
I guess what I am asking for is a little special attention to my contributions, and especially the deletion debates on various articles. I feel that all attacks agains me, and my contributions are irrational and unsubstantial. Everything I add is straight forward and logical. Thank you for your attention.
Noah Seidman21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If my article contributions are decided to be kept on the Wikipedia network, yes it will make disgruntled people angrier, but it will be providing an invaluable resource that has hitherto been lacked by internet 3'rd party sources. The quality of the material that I have added to Wikipedia is outstanding, and the lack of proficiency by users demanding deletion is not a substantial reason to delete the information. There will always be users tha have a problem, or want to discredit controversial information, but if the information in question is retained a great step will be taken to squash unsubstantial stereotpes about a technology that is extremely straight forward, consistent with the laws of electrolysis, and definetly consistent with the laws of physics. The blatent arrogance that users have to discredit such rationally written information should not impact the availability of information to users that actually have interest or care about the subject at hand. The attacks against my contributions are out of malance, and I don't even think they actually read the articles. I strong urge that before deletion the entire article be read in depth by either yourself or a coexisting administrator. If the article is read in depth it will prove clear as to why the material should remain on the Wikipedia network. Noah Seidman22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, it's no problem about the Wikibreak -- I'm happy to see you back, though, and thanks for the comments at the admin coaching page. I've still been active while you were away, but I didn't come up with any particular questions to ask you, and (AFAIK) there have been no more incidents to ask for help with. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I'm at the point where I don't care whether my articles remain on Wikipedia. There are too many crackpot conspiracy theorists throwing around unsubstantial accusations. If the Brown's Gas article is indeed removed, so be it. There should be no article created in its place and Wikipedia should not allow an article about Brown's Gas in the future. If false accusations are made in a future article, such as "fraud" or "hoax", I do believe "defamation" is an appropriate terminology that most lawyers are familiar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nseidm1 (talk • contribs)
(edit conflict, typo was correct)"I do not think that word means what you think it means", deformation is what happens when an old vinyl LP gets left in the sun. You probably meant defamation which is a term that most lawyers are familiar with. Which brings me to my next point...you can use words like "fuck" and not provoke as much response as you can with words like "defamation", please consider carefully the tone and content of comments that contain legal terms, many wikipedians (including myself) are allergic to them :) --Doc TropicsMessage in a bottle22:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS to Yanksox - Pardon for having intruded on your page, but I just couldn't resist a chance to drop in an amusing quote/link. If my profanity was offensive, please delete. Happy editing : ) Doc Tropics20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
F*cuking "shit", the shitty shit, the shit who shits wont shit forver. Sorry, just getting out all of my inner feelings. I understand why the page was removed. I wasnt the starter of the page. All I ask is that when some fool tries to start the page again, that it be moderated with some extra attention. Only a court of law can conclude that something is a fraud and Wikipedia is not a place designed to perpetuate stereotypes that are not founded on prior legislation. I guess in the end its best that the page dousn't exist at all because of all the ranting back and forth. There will never be common ground on the topic until more mainstream research is conducted, and I hope this will be the case in the near future. Best regard to a tidy Wikipedia. Sincerely Noah Seidman01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um...no, a court of law isn't the only thing that decides if something is a hoax. I should know from personal experience...Wikipedia deals with Wikipedia, and this is on Wikipedia so you need to play "the game." Yanksox12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man recently offered to nominate me for adminship and created the page for it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daveydweeb. Since you're my admin coach, I'd be grateful to hear your opinion on this before I accept. :)
Heya, thanks for your support! Sorry to have jumped the sharkgun and accepted before your response, but with two nominators I wanted to get it over with. I'm glad to have your approval. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 12:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say at first I was sort of baffled and was trying to remember who you were. But no matter, now I know. Anyways, I blocked the user for 48 hours for a nonsense 3RR, I think a stern lecture about their role on Wikipedia is needed. Yanksox12:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. KafzielTalk13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me understand why you deleted my update to "satisficing" today?
I added this paragraph, which you deleted:
"Simon once attempted to explain satisficing to a group of his students by describing a mouse searching for cheese in a maze. The mouse might be searching for a piece of Gouda, but unable to find any would be "satisfied" and could "suffice" with a any piece of cheese, such as American."
This is a good example from Herb Simon that further illustrates the example before it as well as where the term came from. This example helps to further explain the paragraph before, including a notion that is missing: satisficing isn't always immediate; people might start a search for some time looking for something specific and then decide to satisfice. The example, as I said, also actually explains where the term satisficing comes from, which isn't explained anywhere in this article (combination of satisfy and sufficing). Including as example from Simon, who put this term into economics and decision making is relevant.
Maybe you should work on how it rolls out. It doesn't quite fit in as smoothly as it can. Yanksox 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
My reply
Hi yanksox,
I've added the paragraph back with a small transition, but the content is correct and relevant, and I think it should be in the article. I welcome the feedback, though.
I think there are at least two things that going on here: one, the entire article needs some type of revision. The article should open when a description of the term, which it doesn't, where it came from, who coined it, and then talk about how it is applied in different fields. Right now, the current article makes it look as though several different disciplines came up with the same term differently, but these are really rooted in the same place because Simon was a cognitive psychologist who worked in areas such as decision making, economics (won the Nobel Prize for economics), and artificial intelligence. The article doesn't have that sense; it reads as though cobbled together.
Secondly, there are issues in the overall structure of the section which literally reads:
factoid/example, factoid/example.
It actually says "example:"
To me, this style of written is something that I think you as an admin should have been focusing on instead. I'm not attacking you. I'm still not clear what about the paragraph that I added doesn't fit. If you mean that I didn't write "example:" before it, then I agree that it doesn't fit, but that's a problem with the article, and I'm not in a postition to revise it. More feedback rather than your deletion would be useful since the content is correct and relevant.
I stand by that edit. The information was too promotional and is not necessary for the overall comprehension of the school. Yanksox22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which succeeded. I have a lot to learn but your words of support mean a lot! Any advice is welcome as I learn to use the new tools. Thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the AfD for this list, I'm concerned by the reasons given for deletion. Also, several people seem to have the wrong idea about what the list actually is. I'm thinking of going to review, but I wanted to run it by you first, to see if we can resolve this as informally as possible. These were the three main points made for deletion:
Criteria's too vague, lots of people don't have their full names known
Agreed, if it really was a list of "people whose full names are not commonly known", it would be too vague. However, it's not - if you look at the names, it's actually based around use of the person's first name. That's why I reworked the introductory paragraph there, to tighten the criteria needed to list a name, and suggested, with some support, that it be renamed to "List of people whose first names are not commonly used".
Can't be verified or checked for notability
If there's an article on Sean Connery, he's passed the notability test.
Sean Connery's full name is Thomas Sean Connery.
Due to community consensus, and based on the volume of published works which use his name, he is referred to as "Sean Connery" throughout the article.
Therefore, by Wikipedia standards, he falls into the category of "someone whose first name is not commonly used", and is a valid candidate for the list.
Re: the original nominator's example: if there were no references, then all occurences of "Buzz Aldrin" in his own article should be replaced by "Edwin Eugene Aldrin". However, the article can use the Buzz name, since it has several references showing how frequently this name is used, even in official publications. (That's where the change from "known" to "used" becomes more useful.)
List is unnecessary, just go to the person's page
This defeats the purpose of the list. If you're trying to find people whose first names aren't commonly used, and you don't know exactly who you're looking for, what do you type into the search box? Quote from WP:LIST:
If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).
Indeed, there is a whole category, "Lists of people by name feature", which is then seperated based on the nature of the common name. This list is now a notable omission from the category. (However, List of people named after famous people seems too vague, I've prodded it).
I made most of those points during the discussion, but they went unanswered. Based on those points, I still believe the list should be renamed, as proposed. However, if you can answer those three points, I'll happily go away. Thanks for your time. Quack 68823:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One, how exactly do we determine that someone's name is uncommon from what we expect? That's too vague and too much. Two, how many people used this page? Just a quick response, but if you really want to have true closure mosey on to WP:DRV. Yanksox23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your judgement because I have no other options, but I could've done without the insult, mild though it was. *sigh* --Kizor19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you felt, insulted, it wasn't intended for anyone but a more general audience. Please accept my humble apologies. Yanksox19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. Forget it. I know it was general. I was worked up because I honestly thought I had for once foiled the three users who are doing significant damage to our coverage of webcomics due to their overrigid-- and now I'm trying to draw you in. The point is, I probably wanted to be insulted. I'll go clear my head. --Kizor20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would that I could. What's demanded is multiple large published works with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (about a solely online art form that's perhaps a decade old and has next to no mainstream presence), or perhaps a notable independent award (there's one large source of awards, which they reject so perhaps four webcomics qualify for this, tops) or a well-known independent publisher (which, due to the unique nature of this one, would here be either pointless, infeasible or physically impossible). Notability? One of the most notable ones online had to be saved with DRV. Those are the rules; applicability matters not at all. My case was lost in AfD, it wouldn't stand a chance in DRV. --Kizor21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GNAA was nominated for deletion 18 times before being deleted. You can take something to AfD more than once, though chances decrease it. Yanksox22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we're on the subject, are there any other rules? Are those wishing for an article's deletion allowed to take it to a vote every few months until they get the result they want? --Kizor00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In theory they could, but I know where you are going with your train of thought now. If something survives AfD, chances are that it will usually again unless new facts are brought to the light. Yanksox00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heya. I may have my mop now, but I need some advice regarding the goings-on at the above talk page: it's reasonably clear that the original text of the article was a copyvio, which has since been removed and the situation explained to the creator in several places. However, should the article be deleted then selectively undeleted in order to remove the original copyvio? What happens here? :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 23:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty hard to impersonate an administrator considering how they're basically just normal editors with a few extra tools allowed by the software. Who are you talking about? --Deskanatalk13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let everyone know, Yanksox requested that I announce that he's leaving (allegedly permanently). I'm not sure if he's made this clear, so forgive me if I'm expounding a point. Allow me to be the first to say that he'll be missed. Srose(talk)22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not leaving permanently, I'm attempting to take a serious wikibreak for my life and then come back in a reasonable amount of time. Keep on trying to record all knowledge! Yanksox23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Having verified that your desysopping was voluntary and that there were no controverted circumstances involved, and in view of your request via email to me, I have restored your sysop access. Cheers, Redux13:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A 62 hour desysopping, that must be a record for a voluntary request. I think you should pay an Early change of mind penalty ;). NoSeptember 14:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Back already? a'right, you're getting blocked again for not taking a proper wikibreak. I think a week is appropriate. Or maybe a month. btw, wanted to make sure you saw this. Thanks again, my friend.KchaseT19:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request some assistance with my ISkin article, which has been marked for deletion. Unfortunately, I am still familiarizing myself with article creation on Wikipedia and would like to ask for a bit more time to gather my data for the article. Any advice or help you could offer would be greatly appreciated! Dazednconfused69322:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get off deleting and article that has 5 comments saying delete out of 19 total with the rest supporting a merge or keep? John Reaves22:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry for intimidating you. I'm not "hiding under numbers", I just assumed that you hadn't read he AfD since you deleted instead doing what the majority said, and redirecting. Please don't arbitrarily delete articles based on you opinion of the article instead of the clear-cut consensus of the AfD. John Reaves23:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding a badly needed image to the Frederick De Cordova article. I saw images on the internet, but had no idea what hurdles had to be lept through to use one, because of all the copvio stuff. Edison23:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but they're frustrating when Web sites go down or articles are removed from the site. Just for my own info -- when an article from a reliable source appears to have been removed for good, does that mean that the detail is no longer verifiable and should be removed from an article? My gut is no, the item was still sourced by the article accessed on such-and-such date, just as something in print or in other electronic media wouldn't be Web-accessible. But I'd like to get an "official" take on that topic. (And then if you have time left over you can tell me if my take on WINAD is all wrong. :-P) - PhilipR06:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since my email seems to not want to send my message (though last time someone emailed me and I thought it hadn't sent my reply, it did, so we'll see), I figured I'd just C&P my response here:
I really, really, really appreciate the kind words. I love simply editing WP, and I certainly don't do so in a quest for acclaim or increased self-esteem, but it's also nice to know that others recognize your contributions.
Honestly is a tough thing- I do feel that it's the "best policy," but it can get you into trouble. I'm proud to say that I don't pull punches, and I wouldn't want people pulling them with me- if you think I've screwed up, call me out on it!
I love 'Deis. It's going to be tough leaving- especially when I have to enter the "real world," which I absolutely do not want to do. But, of course, all good things must come to an end.
-- Kicking22219:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The links on that page have been the subject of a long, ongoing discussion of which I don't recall you previously being a part of. Many months ago an administrator named SooTHING had to step in and make a ruling on what would and would not be included in the links. That ruling was accepted by all the parties involved. However, sometime within the last 2 months, SooTHING's decision was anonymously removed from the AC/DC talk page and the edit warring began again. Please don't make it worse than it is by adding fuel to the fire of the anonymous vandals on that page. NCC1721:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your definition of w00t, but it needs a source. If that slang page isn't kept strictly enforced, it quickly becomes unmanagable. --Onorem22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 things;
1, what makes you want to delete the Priory Community School article as we have only just started building it
2, what is it about having the subjects taught and the heads of those subjects 'unnecessary and excessive'?
This is our Priory Community School wiki, thanks to Riana dzasta the article complys with all copywrite laws and website rules. it is being built by staff and pupils but you are not helping by deleting things when they are put up. if you have a genuine reason to delete sections, please do, but do not delete a section because you think thats it is unnecessary and excessive. you are abusing your rights as admin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomato3991 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I don't want to delete it, I'm questioning the notability. Also, you don't own this article, it is not yours and having a list of teachers is just plain absurd. Yanksox18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I, the author of the article, have left a message in the Deletion review/Log that I quote here:
[QUOTE]
Hi, I am the one who create this article. I did it because The video lectures of Differential Equations at MIT OCW were done by him. Several MIT professors' that are involved in the OCW project haver their article at wikipedia. Just to mention some of them: Prof Walter Lewin, Prof Gilbert Strang and Prof. Sylvia Ceyer. The article was really short and to be honest it didnt have anything relevant but the personal webpage and the ocw link to the video lectures, but my intention was to create the article as an stub. Bcartolo 18:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[/QUOTE]
Bcartolo18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi: I've contested the Bonoki wikipedia entry deletion, but the page was deleted before I finished. I would like to ask for reconsider it's deletion. The reaons are on the talk:Bonoki page. regards ,Rafahoro22:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NCC17 (talk·contribs) has taken ownership of the external links section of the AC/DC article even after you requested he stop. He has gone, by my count, 5RR today replacing his favorite fansites, blogs and chatrooms. He claims that anyone's correction to his WP:EL violations are vandalism even though there was concensus among the articles regular editors that none of the fansites were notable enough and their "official" website was not the site NCC17 keeps pushing. NCC17's edit summaries claiming that he is re-instating Admin SoothingR's link suggestion is also false. SoothingR's mediation was that only the record company links + the DMOZ link should stay. Any assistance would be great. Have a nice day! 198.164.250.4420:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yanksox. I'm coordinating the Esperanza admin coaching program. You're listed as a coaching volunteer. Would you like a student? If so, would you coach User:Qrc2006? Please let me know. Thanks! --Fang Ailitalk15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't realise I was logged out! No, not a bot. I'm preparing for the WelcomeBot, by manually welcoming 1000 users. This is for research purposes before i propose the bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval so as to study the negative aspects of welcoming new users. Please see the previous WelcomeBot proposal by a banned user at here and these comments on my page about my proposing it again some time. frummer05:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
¿Why1991ESP. | Sign Here has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Yeah, sorry about that. I frequent 4chan somewhat, but seeing that they screwed with wikipedia pissed me off. I'll remember that for next time. --Sakurina17:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Someone DID post it on my user talk. If it bothers you that much then I'm going to move the page to the Usertalk namespace. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ18:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well no duh the history says I put it there! I put it there as an archive of the talk page!!! You're a Wikipedia administrator that doesn't understand basic conventions for archiving talk? And then you have the gall to call me a liar (in violation of WP:AGF)? But I'm going to assume good faith here and guess that you have a better understanding of logic and reason than I see portrayed. So you said:
"So unless you provide a link to me, that means your lying"
Which means, if I don't provide a link to you, that means I'm a liar. Why should I provide a link to you? You made up this bullshit rule yourself. Nowhere is it written anywhere on Wikipedia "except for my talk page and yours" that users who do not provide links to you are liars.
I notice how you said "badgering back". Does that mean you badgered first, and then I badgered in kind? If so, then I totally agree. But the difference is, I'm just a fucking random contributor to Wikipedia, while you're an Administrator. That's the scary part. MfD, ooookay. I can't decide whether that's a violation of WP:POINT or WP:STALK. But ultimately, you're just wikilawyering at this point. Cut the crap. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Juliolugo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof14:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the replaceable tag to the following images as well:
The reason is that while free alternatives for the above photographs may not be available, they can be created because they are living people who appear regularly in public. Mosmof15:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote, and your earlier expressed support for the idea of my seeking adminship. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I didn't realize that the Shania Twain video screencaps were being used in the articles for the videos themselves, so I apologize for being hasty not being attentive. But I think they should still be removed from the Shania Twain article, since they are either decorative, or can be replaceable for the purposes of describing Shania. Mosmof13:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, I meant to respond earlier. You know, I'm not sure where the Derek Lowe fist pump falls on the iconic scale, so I won't worry about it. You're right that it's only Wikipedians care about fair use, because, well, Wikipedians are nerds by definition and we care about nerdy stuff like the minutiae of copyright. Also, I think there's a tendency to include too much, and pages with unnecessary images taken from the web can look unprofessional, like a Myspace page or a web shrine. So that's where my approach to fair use comes from, because it keeps things down to the bare necessities.
Hi, I saw that you'd blocked MYUM, who'd been posting vandal userboxes on new users' user pages. Would it be appropriate to undo those changes and remove the userboxes? I would have felt a bit appalled if I'd found that on my user page when I was all brand new... (I posted to MYUM's talk page before I saw that you'd blocked them.) --Bonadea18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your gracious note to Konstable. For what it's worth, I think you made an entirely understandable mistake (indeed, it's exactly what I predicted would happen when I had previously urged that the wording on the decision page be changed).
It's unfortunate that since November, Konstable has encountered what can only be called a comedy of errors every time he's tried to edit. We can't force him to edit, but he was a good contributor, and I hope your note helps him realize that he is welcome whenever he wants to be here. Regards, Newyorkbrad02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for the apolgy, probably the first one I have received since all the nonsense started :-) I understand that it was just a simple mistake, I'm not holding anything against you. --Konst.ableTalk02:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Deval Patrick:
You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
03:20, 25 December 2006 Yanksox (Talk | contribs) blocked "Finneydsd (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (ED troll)
This guy rocked up in #wikipedia asking why this block was placed. I don't see anything in contributions to explain the block, and the block reason is less than informative. It looks to me like this guy was banned for having an account at Encyclopedia Dramatica, which isn't actually a part of our blocking policy, nor is it accepted practice to gratuitously block all Encyclopedia Dramatica users. Nothing in contributions shows any requirement for a block for disruption, which seems to be the only halfway-sensible reason to place this block. Please let me know if I'm missing something. — Werdnatalk09:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Might have been more useful to note this in the block summary so I didn't have to speak to you to get clarification. Thanks for letting me know. — Werdnatalk06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Spintasser (talk·contribs), whom you blocked with a somewhat cryptic block summary has asked to have his block reviewed. I have left a note for the user indicating that I would ask for an explanation. It does look kinda like a sleeper account (no edits after creating the account until he started moving pages, then the comment to Ryulong) but nothing there looks overtly like vandalism. --BigDT06:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk|Count 19:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You have been indefinitely blocked for depriving Wikipedia of a good admin by desysopping yourself. --Deskana talk 23:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
