User talk:Zzzzz/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Zzzzz. 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.

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! Job E 6 20:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

An email posted on someone's blog is not a reliable source of information for Wikipedia. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 12:51

Sturmgrenadier

Don't have much to say, sorry. I personally disapprove of such campaigns, but most of the people contacted are regular AfD patrollers anyhow (and are also people not related to the club; I can assure you of that). And in any case, my status as an admin doesn't give me any special privilege to say, "Hey, this is wrong." Johnleemk | Talk 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If there's anything wrong with such a campaign (I asked people to look at it, not to save it, as seen in this example User talk:Average Earthman#Sturmgrenadier AfD), then it is probably cancelled out by the counter-campaign.

Zzzzz, I am curious why you seem so intent on this. Why do seem you eager to delete ALL gaming groups from Wikipedia? --Habap 21:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Kindly quit spamming talk pages. There are lost of noticeboards on which you can place your notice without bothering anyone who isn't interested. Thanks. — Dan | talk 21:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Zzzzz, I don't really feel strongly either way on this article, delete or keep. Ordinarily I'd be tempted to agree that gameplaying groups are not notable, but the size of this one begins to push it towards notability. If it had ten thousand people, it'd certainly be notable - almost any cohesive and distinct group that size would be. As of now, it's in a gray area. For the record, I'm not bothered at all by the note on my talk page. --Improv 22:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Zzzz: thanks for contacting me; I'm sorry about the small delay in responding (I was out taking photographs). I hate such campaigns too, and something has to be done against them; I find them anathæma to the truly consensual basis on which Wikipedia was meant to stand. If I were conventional enough to have one of those wikistress things ;), mine would boil at seeing them. I will look into the article, look at the company behind it, and pull out whatever arguments I can find against it. Unfortunately, it will probably end up less impressive than that sounds, but you have and will have my whole support, at least. Iinag 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't know how I got on your list, but on the merits I agree. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a triviapedia. Unfortunately, the free "nature" of this wiki makes it rife with personal (or collective) statements, and all kinds of rationalizations are used to make them "notable". Try to clean up or police trivial articles, and you get your head bitten off by people with their feelings hurt, whining about free their rights. As Jimmy Wales has repeated til he's blue in the face, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a democracy. Trying to make WK better is becoming a thankless job. Thanks for taking this one on. J M Rice 23:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
How did I get on your list? I agree, it's non notable, voted it down. Swamp Ig 00:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me about this Sturmgrenadier nonsense. It was a pleasure to cast a delete vote. Soltak | Talk 00:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me guess...did you get the list of Wikipedians off the deletionist list? =P - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that is too rich! I'd wondered how he picked his notice recipients. He went to the prime list of deletionists and sent 70-100 user talk page notices. I thought he was spamming at random instead of going to the source for people who believe less is more. I didn't realize he was bringing in the big guns. I only contacted people who seemed to be interested in gaming articles or their deletions. No wonder so many people seemed to be going into the process with pre-conceived notions (reference iinag's comments above). I don't know what qualifies as bad faith, but Zzzzz has not impressed me with signs of good faith thus far. --Habap 14:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should call in some admins to have a look. If you want to start an Rfc against him, I will gladly sign on. This is exactly the kind of behaviour Wikipedia doesnt need!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Zzzzz looks to be going through the rest of the gaming articles on Wikipedia and requesting merges and deletes.... See information about it at the CVG noticeboard. --Habap 15:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, terribly sorry I couldn't respond sooner, but my computer's motherboard was fried and I just recently had it fixed. I take it you were hoping to have the page deleted, which was the result; in that case, the system works! I share your opinion concerning organized groups, especialy for pages such as this, which shouldn't even be on WP in the first place. --Impaciente 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

yea i edited the zombies page to include stuff about theoretical zombies. it was quite within the context of the page, so i'm wondering why you felt the need to take it down? if you found it to have been trivial or not enough information, or even you found it to be unreliable i can provide a 5 page paper on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.38.229 (talk • contribs)

as requested here is the paper [1]. hopefully we can come to some agreement on the article. also my original account was deleted so i was lazy and didnt post via a new one. my apologys. --Korith17 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In reply to your questions: 1) yes i wrote it a while ago. 2) i post on their forums occasionally, though i can safely say some of them dont enjoy my views. 3) yes by all means. 4) i propose we add the theory of possible zombies. mainly add some stuff about rabies and possible mutations. more detailed then what i had originially posted. --Korith17 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mahabone

As a note, the reason it is a group of Masons wanting to get rid of Mahabone is because first of all, the information given in the artricle is wrong, and only Masons know that it is wrong. Furthermore, it's not encyclopedic because it's not a real word (no one s going to say "Excuse me, do you have a spare Mahabone?"), and any attempts to make it such are entirely speculation. It was, is, and always will be a specialized term, and no one is ever going to come across it unless they specifically look for it (as you did - did you happen to see how much was simple cut and paste, as well as the types of sites it was coming from?) The article will neveer be more than a stub, and if it is to be considered a "word", it belongs over on Wiktionary.

So, rather than looking at it as an organized POV attempt, you might want to look at it as "people who know" vs. "people who don't". Our anonymous poster, BTW, posted an internally contradictory argument to the Talk:Mahabone page, so I can see why some might be skeptical of the validity of his vote. MSJapan 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I would rather use the term people who know best. The article now has five (5) sources of references; yet (by looking at the Jahbulon entry), not a single statement such as "UGLE doesn't use it". If it is not used anymore, simply state so.

BTW I gathered a user account, called after my first article contributed (I could have also chosen asdfgasfd), I am the 'anonymous' poster who expanded the article Mahabone 16:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Level Treadmill Redirect

Thanks for the second opinion about what to do with those redirects. AeroKnight 23:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

File format article merger

Hi. As the nominator, can you please kickstart the discussion on the article merger of List of common file extensions into List of file formats on either of the discussion pages? It just seems a bit strange to start a discussion without the nominator providing the opening explanation/reasoning. Thanks. Zunaid 06:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:French Collaboration Project

I'm not sure that the article on the French Wikipedia is sufficiently high quality to warrant FCP time. If you disagree you should probably make your rationale more clear on the FCP talk page. Thanks for the input though :) - FrancisTyers 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

fair enough--Gusiman 01:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I put in his trivia section?--Gusiman 01:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)