User:Improv/talkarchive made oct2006

This is an archived talk page. If you want to comment further on something in it, I'll happily move (or copy) the old conversation from the archive to my current talk page.

Fair use images

Improv, thanks again for your quick actions. I have been experementing (as you can probalby see) with my signatre and I unthinkingly used the Disk Defragmenter image again on my page as it was tied to my signature. I again thankyou for the time that you continualy devote to help me as I still learn. Unfortunately I only discover my mistakes after I make them, so it is up to veteran, kind Admins to help me until I can cope independently.

Also how do I go about creating an Arcive for my talk page? I hope to be stepping up my Contributions into the Australian currency Article, as I posses a vast amoun of images that I want to contribute to that and related articles.

Thanks again, User:Dfrg.msc

Signature.

Due to my inability to Fix my signature, I must ask help from you. Please! I buggered it up beyond recogniton!

I want it to be this: [User:Dfrg.msc|User:Dfrg.msc] [Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg|45px] (Exept with double ]['s) and a date and time.

What it is: [[ User:Dfrg.msc | User:Dfrg.msc [[ Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg | 45px ]]]] 07:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I enter it into the My preferences box and save it. When I type my signature (~~ ~~) it just adds all the dashes ect.

Please help.

My signature is broken so follow the link. User talk:Dfrg.msc

Tamil Tigers

Hi, if you could check out Talk:Sea Tigers regarding your edits on the article that would be good. Didn't want to start a new section for getting your attention, that's why I posted the message under signature. Ulflarsen 09:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

Under which speedy criteria did you delete Template:User WP Anime? I just checked the speedy criteria list again, and I don't see "passe" anywhere on that page. If you intend to claim it was divisive and inflammatory, you're definitely going to have your work cut out for you, as the original read simply "This user is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga". --tjstrf 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

According to what consensus? Where is the discussion? No significant changes or additions have been made, either at WP:T1D, or at WP:GUS, for quite some time. --tjstrf 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. If you want to delete userboxes, we have quite the collection at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO Languages that could use your "assistance", but please, leave the project boxes alone. They meet the criteria of aiding in user collaboration the same way babel boxes do. --tjstrf 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

Okay where to now

I deleted all but what I feel is necessary for my page.

Where could I go to do edits.

Also could you walk me through a few until I get the hang of it?

Things to be fixed

ARRbitration Enforcement -Fixed

Vlocking Volicy

There are a few things overlapping each other.

--Qho 19:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a few links...

...to Cavendish, Suffolk!!

Go and check the history.

RE: Johnny Lee Clary - Please help

(trimmed, see history with revision immediately before JOHNNY_LEE_TRIM as edit summary)

my RfA

Thanks for your opinions in my RfA. Ultimately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your honest opinion was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here!
Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My Appoligies

Sorry I found it at someones user page while looking for something else and thought it would be interesting. I was going to take it down after dinner but you did it, Thanks, I am not an Interface hacker

User:Qho

This user appears to be pretty young and has been struggling lately - so I think the comments you made re putting a practical joke on their home page could have been done without so much biting. Especially since there are over 60 users who have the same thing on their pages - see List of links to practical joke page nearly all that I checked from the user space were the same kind of simulation of the system message. --Trödel 03:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree re not coddling - I probably bite more than I should - I was just trying to let you know of hte circumstances around this particular user - and why they might have thought it was acceptable to include the fake system message. See ya 'round --Trödel 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ack!

I can't believe I responded to a forum post by this twit; I should have recognized the style. Good catch! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Hello Improv! How has it been? Just a question, how do I get Quotes (quote marks) to work? I have tried and failed and my user page bears testimony. Thanks Improv, User:Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 08:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

See Gus's, like that. Yeah I know about the article contributions, I've made it my mission to make:

• Parliament House, Canberra
• Old Parliament House, Canberra

Both featured articles by the end of the year.

Much work lies ahead! User:Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

“ testing cquotes ”

• Success! Thanks again for your help Improv. I really appreciate the help and guidence you have been giving me. Thanks, User:Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 06:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Board candidate questions

Hi Pat, I'm glad to see you're running for the current board elections. I have some questions that I think would be good to know - please answer (or ignore) them as you see fit. Thanks. Cormaggio ^@ 11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops - sorry - moved them to your questions page. Cormaggio ^@ 11:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Cormaggio ^@ 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Improv

Lambs are not carniverous so why would it eat her out of spite? Wiki assassin 08:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC) PS i am new here and why didnt anyone from the wikipeda welecoming party welcome me?

perhaps you would like to help?

Perhaps you would like to help mediate a dispute regarding Democracy (disambiguation). If not, that is perfectly OK. If yes, your help would be appreciated. The dispute involves a difficultly agreeing on how to decide which criteria to use to determine which democracy related articles need to be disambiguated. BruceHallman 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the dispute is how BruceHallman alleges, but nevertheless, there is a dispute that has been at an impasse for days. I would request that we go through the official mediation process. Thank you for your time. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania

Thanks for the invite. I'm not attending, though, as I have to stay put here in Florida. Have a good trip, 172 | Talk 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Album Covers

What has four legs, is big, green, fuzzy, and if it fell out a tree on you, would kill you?

A pool table [punchline] tity boom [/punchline]. Err.

Anyway, Yo Bro! Hey, are album covers free use images? Can they be use on pages or in userboxes? Thanks, Dfrg.msc 09:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bro, it is better to ask is the stead of jumping out and getting a disgruntled Admin on my back. And why would you continualy :: bludgeon yourself over the head with your keyboard when you have my jokes? Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 08:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wireless Routers that I couldn't find...

I found a picture of one on Flickr while looking at wikimania pictures [1]. They were here and there, all over the campus. Yeah, silly message, but thought you might be interested. --Ericj 17:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal - request

Hi there... I am having a non-content dispute with another user and have investigated the process at the cabal. I have requested an informal mediation, called it under my name Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-09 Gay Cdn. In looking at the list of participants, you indicate you live non-content disputes. I appreciate any assistance you can provide. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what kind of time-frame this process will take, but I will be unavailable from Sunday Aug 13th-Sunday Aug 20th inclusive, on very last minute travel and will be away from all internet access. (This seems as good a place as any to advise.)--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

An email mediationis fine. You can contact me using the link in my signature.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 11:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am more than willing to abide by any form of mediation. For clarification purposes, the issue here is more specifically the possibly rude and hasty request to delete a list created, initially with only one entry, the day before. I also acknowledge that, in my trying to juggle too many screens at once, a response I had written to the above poster seems not to have been saved by me, in favor of posting a project banner. Please see the talk page of the above poster, my own, and the AfD entry for List of people from San Francisco for developments to date. Badbilltucker 12:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your call. At this point, I can see no basis for a real mediation, as I have no reason to believe that I shall be having any more direct contact with the above party, except, in the event of another extreme case, to perhaps point out to him where his proposals or opinions, like in this case, might seem to run contrary to existing wikipedia guidelines. Should I simply see what seems to me unwarranted uncivil behavior on his part, that can be easily forgiven. However, I please feel free to use the address wikimediated@hotmail.com. Badbilltucker 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement revision

Thanks for your revison of my statement. It's nice. I'll be less ridiculous :) Arno Lagrange ✉ 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Two things

Hello my friend! Two things, how do I look over my and other's contributions. People have been doing it to me for ages and I'm curious. How can you see how many edit's yov'e made? Do you have to count manually? Also I made my first userbox: What do you think my friend?

Thanks, Dfrg.msc 10:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This user's Hovercraft is full of Eels Is Yours?

Contra Dance

Hi Improv, You were right that my previous thing was too much as “essay”, and one of the Seattle-area dancers who responded to my contribution pointed out that it was phrased too negatively (that's now fixed). However, as for “stop adding the essay to the contra dance article”, I can’t agree to that request, because...

Several Seattle-area contra dancers agree with me that the existing page was too "technical" and should describe *why* we contra, not just *how*. The beginning of the page should address people who have never contra danced before and are looking at the page to find out whether they would be interested in doing it. Therefore, the opening paragraphs should:

1. Emphasize the most important thing about contra -- fun!

2. Describe the “flavor” of contra, and

3. Distinguish contra from other dance forms, so people who have never danced will say (we hope) “Hey, That sounds much easier and potentially more fun than other dances.”

The contra scene is supposed to be inclusive, welcoming, fun, and lighthearted, so the opening paragraphs should convey that in both tone and word choices. The word “fun” did not appear on the page previously.

Many people, especially men, are loath to try dancing, mostly because they are afraid of looking/feeling foolish, being snickered at, and the agonizing sense that they aren’t doing the dance well enough. Therefore, the opening paragraphs should emphasize that contra is a mistake-ridden activity and an easygoing scene that non-judgmentally welcomes everybody and is forgiving and non-competitive.

In sum, without the Overview section, the contra page “missed the point” of contra.

Minor editing matter: the incorrect uses of “comprise” have been corrected. The whole *comprises* the parts, whereas the parts compose the whole; thus, the phrase “comprised of” is *always* incorrect. The mnemonic is “Fifty states compose the Union. The Union comprises 50 states.

Matti matti.mero@speakeasy.net

Contra Dance

Hi Improv, I think the page misses the most important thing about contra and is therefore importantly incomplete, as well as boring. I disagree that an encyclopedia should not discuss the objectives or social scene of an activity -- which is at least half the deal with contra. What harm is done by my contribution? Is it not an accurate description of important dimensions of contra? Why does the contra page -- or Wiki overall -- have to be strictly limited to the "engineer's point of view", full of only boring technicalities and with nothing about why someone would want to contra? Don't you think that's a bit narrow-minded? Matti Mero

Contra Dance

Hi Improv, Please point out exactly what about my contribution "advocates". I see nothing in it that does. Further, is anything about it incorrect? Even were there anything it that that could be considered advocacy, thousands of Wiki pages could be taken as advocacy. Unless you can give me a convincing argument that the contra page shouldn’t have an overview section, I will persist in adding one. Your overarching argument is that, by your narrow criteria, my contribution is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. By that reasoning, I would be fully justified in going through the existing article and deleting everything I think inappropriate -- regardless of whether it was accurate or on topic. A lot of the existing contra page is pointless irrelevant minutiae that could substantially mislead people about the overall nature of contra, because it is ridiculously technical and gives the very incorrect impression that’s contra is all about this set of moves and how they’re done. My contribution to the page gives a realistic impression of what contra is really about: a welcoming group activity for community fun. That's not "advocacy"; it's a fact. My Wiki editing policy is, unless it’s incorrect or offensive or very off-topic, I just leave it, because somebody cared enough to include it and thinks it’s worthwhile. By contrast, you have bought into a bizarrely narrow interpretation of what’s ok in a Wiki page, and yet you seem to think that all the boring, useless, and potentially misleading minutiae on the existing contra page is ok. Perhaps you have more information or ideas to share that might convince me that Wiki content should be very narrowly constrained and provide nothing but “engineering-level” details? Unless you do, I can’t buy your argument. Thanks for reading. Matti Mero Seattle

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

A portal created recently by Mallimak (talk · contribs) - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

Thanks. --Mais oui! 08:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

??

Can unimportant non-admin vote on RFA? or are we to unimportant?

PS Do you have any pet dogs?

Re: Pictures

Thanks Mate! I will definatley be lending my camera to the Wikipedia cause, though I am on dial-up uploading is a bit of a hastle; I will look into resizing in the future. You would be amazed at the ordinary things that have little or no images.

A new picure I see! What is with the Santa hat draped dejectedly in the background? I got a new picture too.

For the Emperor! Dfrg.msc 09:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On the Internet, no one knows you're a cat.

I think perhaps you should just come clean and use a photo of yourself without the human in it.  ; ) Jkbaum 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

photo

Do you have any dogs?

• well you should get some dogs. Culverin 06:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words

Everybody has a mental list, in the back of their minds, of "Wikipedias whose opinions I value". Your name got on mine somehow, and though I'm not sure how, somehow it did.

So, when you popped up saying Embrace Weasel Words is bad advice, I thought I'd ask ya about it. I don't much care about the deletion vote going on-- I put the essay in the Wikipedia space just to signal a willingness for others to add to it if they so chose-- if the user space is more appropriate, that's cool.

What does concern me is that it might be bad advice, and that I don't want. So, let me ask you-- is it just the Title that you find bad? That blatantly contradicting Avoid weasel words sends the wrong message? or is it the actual advice of cases where I think weasel words are good sometimes? --Alecmconroy 13:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Check for copyvio on Suuwassea

Could someone check the original source of this for copyright violation? I have an intuition that it may have been copied from either the book it references or from some other website. --Improv 17:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Improv,

The original text from January does not closely resemble the reference, which can be found online here in html format or here in PDF format. A google search on random bits of text also didn't immediately pull up any copyvio.--Firsfron of Ronchester 19:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also please note that User:Dracontes is a bit of a regular on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, is a student of paleontology, has created multiple dinosaur articles, and has no real need for copying and pasting text. I appreciate that copyright violation should be investigated where suspected, but it seems to me to be quite unlikely in this case. --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be guilty of copying a word arrangement here or there from the scientific papers I read and summarize when writing up these articles, but nothing more than three to four words at any instance, rare as they are. Actually, I rather take it as a compliment that you think that Suuwassea's text is a copyright violation, even if it only means I can write concisely and clearly enough.

Anyway you may check any of my contributions on dinosaur genera to see that the text style I use is rather consistent. I took up this modus operandi to make sure I focused in the relevant bits of text from the scientific articles I read and didn't copy the article itself.

Sorry for the late response. Dracontes 08:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Jumping cheese

My userpage got messed up! Thanxs for the pointer. =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 21:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm on your talk page...I passed by Zzyzx Road twice enroute to Vegas and back during my three day wikibreak. There's not much to see: only a road in the middle of nowhere.
Thought I'll add that in since you're interested in it! (My random thought. That was an unlikely coincidence. You removed the pic on my userpage right before I left for Vegas and then I drove past Zzyzx Road, which you so happen to find interesting. It's a small world!) ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Contact 07:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RFAR MyWikiBiz

You might want to consider altering your statement--MyWikiBiz was unblocked by Jimbo himself after a private conversation in which certain agreements were made. This creates an obvious problem should any "ordinary" admin feel a permanent block is appropriate. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Lego pictures

Hello Image-master (I mean Improv)! I've some digital photo's of Lego figures that I wish to upload onto Wikipedia, is that fine? Which liscence shold I use? Any other things? Thanks Bro, Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 06:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

House

You should renovate your house. You can double the value.

Ps can i have your santa hat?

culverin 10:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bel.wiki

Please, look at argumentations on: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Belarusian_.28Orthography_Revision_of_1959.29_.2819_support_.2F_13_oppose.29 Please, change your mind on the question. It's not the way Chinese encyclopedia works! The "neoclassic" "belarusian" language doesn't even have the written GRAMMATICS! On be.wiki.org they write "as they want", and almost all the Belarusians doesn't understand their "lang" cause it's NOT what Belarusian people study at school. That why the Be-community is SO SMALL. BooXteR.

• I wish there were an easy way to get back to you on this, but you lack an account. On the chance you come back here, I believe that what needs to happen then is for the community on that wiki to decide on an appropriate, comprehensible style and to use that. It'd be just as bad for the English wikipedia if we split it for British, Canadian, Australian, and American English variants -- linguistic standards are a poor thing to divide languages by, and just as in the examples of separate English encyclopediae, it will divide the Belarusian community (not particularly large to start with right now) to have separate projects. Please return to the table with them and work it out. If the Chinese can overcome both linguistic and writing system differences in doing so, I believe your community can work out the grammar differences, and for having more people on that wiki, people writing/reading with either system will be better for it than to have two smaller wikis with divided efforts. --Improv 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, jabber (ihar.hrachyshka on gmail.com) or ICQ (300237142)? Thanks for attention:-) 80.94.230.94 08:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pirates Cove

Meeting house for The White Delight group you speedied. I've prodded it, but it might be speediable as well. exolon 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

CMU?

Hey! I'm RyanGerbil10, a sysop and freshman at Pitt. I guess we're the only two sysops in Pittsburgh, right? I think it's quite a strange coincidence. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

El Avila Mahoney

Hi! You've previously deleted the page and I agree with your decision. For some reason, the author has put the page back. I've tagged it for speedy deletion again. Hope you can help resolve this conflict. Thanks! Zephyr2k 19:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Random act of kindness

Hello there Improv, I am the creator of the little-known Random act of kindness project. I will give an hour of my time to any task on Wikipedia that you choose. What do you want me to do? Bear in mind that I have no sysop powers and limited credibilty on this project. --Dangherous 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I chose you as you were the first reconginisable admin on the RecentChanges page. --Dangherous 19:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

{{prod}}ding of Blue Hell and List of Blue Hells

I don't see the need to prod both of those articles; Blue Hell has been around for months, and I made the list to clear up the article. So why now all of a sudden you feel a need to have it prodded? SoaP 20:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I was going to try to get some pictures of a Blue Hell...maybe make the article suck less. SoaP 20:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What I was getting at was that

1) You didn't seem to care about the article for the 5 or so months it has existed before and

2) Images in the article would make it more provable; it's a lot harder to disprove a picture of Blue Hell than it is to disprove some random person (doesn't help that they're an anon) who is writing badly formatted entries on some obscure video game.

I'll see about those pictures. I'll try to get some screenies of any old games I have. Meh. SoaP 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well...then all the articles on video game glitches are fancruft in the same vein. The thing is that generally video game companies do not like to comment on their shortcomings and past mistakes. Um...okay, I just realized I don't have a leg to stand on. Crap. Should I just move it to userspace now? Or after the AfD? SoaP

Bah, shite...okay. SoaP 20:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please recheck Jesus Vidana (soldier)

I think you jumped the gun on deleting this article, but if it really needs deletion, go right ahead. RPellessier | Talk 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SRQ Racing community deletion

Copy and pasting most because I just got off work and am tired  :-/ "SRQ Racing is an automotive community with a long history (as long or longer than SRQ Magazine, but with less attractive women) in the Sarasota area... perhaps if I added more history the page wouldnt get deleted. It doent fall under wiki's rejection policies AFIK, since it isnt a company or any other for-profit entity using wiki for commercial purposes. --Jgregg 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)"

"The page was deleted because it didn't demonstrate notability. Simply because the group exists is not a basis for inclusion; not all human life is here. What you need to establish is what is special about the group, decribe what it does and who/how many are members etc. In other words why it should be in an encyclopaedia which has to be more than simply being long established. If you work up a new draft at User:Jgregg/Sandbox I should be happy to comment on it. HTH. TerriersFan 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)"

"Did you even read it? We have 50 members and are the only car organization that allows import cars in this smallish town. And to top it off, we have some of the most unique cars as well. One of my cars is a Geo Storm converted to AWD turbo, we also have a 78 240zx that runs 11s, a few rare AWD mitsu galants, one too fast turbo supra, a turbo 350zx, the list goes on. I was going to add these things to the page as I had time, but how is that going to happen if its deleted every day. Is there some Wiki god I have to pray too? Where is my friend Garreth F. from F.I.T. when you need him  :-)Jgregg 23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)"

Are you the one I must pray too? I'm about ready to say screw it, I dont have the time and we been underground for so long it really doesnt matter. At least google lists us well.  :) Anyways, thanks for your timeJgregg 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone didn't observe the rules you stated at the top!

Someone deleted my response to your anti-Domino (Kitler) edits. Just thought I would let you know that someone is working out there (besides you) to stifle free speech.Jimjonesoo5 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments I removed from your talk page

Yeah, if you don't want me to do that, I'll try to remember an exception in your case. This was a vandal who took your image and photoshopped it to say "I'm a fag", vandalized your userpage with it (at least twice); in fact as of this writing it's vandalized again, so I'll leave it. I typically just rollback every edit of these people and block them; looking at every edit takes a lot of time, but if you want your user talk page left alone, OK. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. There is a short list of people who don't want their talk pages touched (Deeceevoice, for example) so I try to keep track. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again--no problem. I'm all for reforming vandals, and hope it works. Sometimes they discover it's more fun contributing usefully than trolling. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Careful wit dose speedies dere!

See Talk:Andrew Wilson (theologian)#Undeletion. --maru (talk) contribs 19:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Meow

Thanx 4 bein cool. Domino luvs you now (pur pur) but how old do I have to be b4 i can move pages?04:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello from afar

Just wanted to check in to say Hello & stuff. Was wondering about the elections and whatnot ... Jkbaum 09:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JPD's RfA

Thanks, Improv, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikimeet in Pittsburgh?

I'm thinking about setting up a Wikimeet in Pittsburgh, and since it appears that you currently live (and work) in Pittsburgh, you may want to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/Pittsburgh and/or its talk page. So far, a total of 3 people have already shown interest, and our initial goal is bring that up to at least 5 people. (Note: If for any reason you do not wish to participate, simply ignore this message.) Scobell302 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm...

This was rather hurtful. I'm a legit editor. Why is it garbage for me to have a vandalizm page? 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Tuesday, September 5, 2006, 23:49 (UTC)

I mean, many editors have vandalizm pages. Unorthodox for an IP to have one, yes, but still. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 00:01 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the deletion that bothered me, it was that it is a userspace page and you deleted it without so much as a warning for myself. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 01:22 (UTC)

It seems that DR requires the making of a new page, which I am unable to do. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 01:26 (UTC)

I don't really have anywhere else to go; thus, I have brought it to AN. I'm not mad, I just thought the way you went about deleting it was a tad hasty. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 01:46 (UTC)

Apologies, I hadn't seen it for a while and didn't realize it had been turned into a personal attack against Cyde. :( Forgive me, I've been gone for a while. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 02:22 (UTC)

Somebody re-created it without my consent. Per WP:DENY, delete it if you see fit. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 21:36 (UTC)

:)

A vandalizm section that has absolutely nothing in it and is prevented from being recreated? I dunno why, but I like it. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Thursday, September 7, 2006, 02:10 (UTC)

Denise Paolucci and salting the earth

I'm cool with the Denise Paolucci article being deleted. It was reviewed fairly and people talked about it and that's all I asked for. I just wanted to state for the record that I did attempt to discuss keeping the article on the associated talk page, but that during my first attempts to create it, the discussion was ignored, and that after the last speedy deletion, the person who killed the article also speedy deleted the talk page, so my commentary was gone. Anyway, thank you for listening and considering. TheQuandry 17:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Schools in jurisdiction

Please explain your edits to {{tl:Schools in jurisdiction}}. It is used in jurisdictions with articles in the relevant categories (e.g. elem, middle, and high school). You may not like the existance of those articles, but that's a debate to be held elsewhere. As long as we have certain types of articles, we should have a convenient means of navigation. You're edit rendered a navigation template useless, since you left only one link behind. What conceiveable utility is a template? You'ld apparently have a link from high school categories back to the same high school category (which Wiki Software automatically disables, and shows as a bold text). --Rob 00:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think a template (or anything) is harmful, nominate it for deletion, and we'll have a discussion. But, do not deliberately edit a navigation template, such that one can't navigate anywhere. I want you to explain precisely what an end-user can do with the template, in the form you left it. Essentially, you would have a template link to the high school category, placed on the high school category. So, there's no funcitoning link to any category. You're edit was actually worse than if you had blanked the template. What on Earth is a user supposed to think, when seeing a category, with your version of the template? If you have problems with certain articles or templates, please discuss them. But please don't engage in this kind of harmful behaviour. Again, I ask you, do actually think your version of the template is useful? If so, how???????? I'm intentionally avoiding your debating points about the notability of elem+middle schools, as that's irrelevant. The template doesn't encourage the creation of school articles, since the links are to *categories*, not redlinks to school names (which can encourage creation). Also, you could have just removed it in cases where there wasn't yet an elem or middle school category (e.g. remove redlinks). --Rob 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • You misunderstand. I said your actions are worse than blanking, but never said blanking is ok. Actually, blanking is explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Vandalism as one of the most common types of vandalism. So, I suggest not doing that. For the umpteenth time, if you think something shouldn't exist (an article, a category, or a template), nominate it for deletion. But do not intentional blank or make useless a template. I'm have a tough time understanding you, as you seem to repeatedly discuss things unrelated to the issue at hand. I'm honestly confused by your actions. If a new user did this, I would understand, and would assist them, by nominating the template for them, on their behalf (even though I oppose deletion). However, you're obviously a well established/experienced user. So, I'm baffled at why you're taking actions unexpected by an experienced user. While the *ends* you seek are goals of a number of editors (e.g. removing elem and middle school articles), your *means* are perplexing, and unexplainable. As an analogy, to show your flawed logic, we have a template for navigating between year-of-birth categories, but nobody blames such a template, for bad articles in Category:2005 births. --Rob 02:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, page blanking, like vandalism, like what you did, is often the most direct way of doing something, but its not ok. You can't run around vandalizing everything you don't like. Your comments are very dishonest. Removing links is normally just fine. But when you remove all functioning links to categories, in a template, designed to navigate between categories, then your vandalizing, not editing. Don't do it. --Rob 02:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You're still missing the point. I'm not objecting to your vandalism, because I dislike like your objectives. In fact, I made a suggestion (nominate for deletion whatever you wish to remove), which would actually help you acheive what you wish. You still have failed to explain why you selected vandalism instead of the normal consensus building approach in xFD discussions. In all this time, you've never bothered to explain why you didn't use WP:TFD in the first place. Also, your actions were clearly not done in the interest in furthering the encyclopedia. If you honestly felt the template did harm, you would nominate for deletion. But you've consciously supported its continued existance, but tried, repeatedly, to put it in a crippled/unsueable form. Anybody who intionally harms on template/article/category, with the express purpose of making it unuseable and confusing, is not acting in good faith. Now, if a newbie had done the same thing, of course I wouldn't call that vandalism. They wouldn't know there's a better way, and I would happily show them, that better way. However, you've known all along there's a better way, but opted for a way that is harmful for to our readers. --Rob 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's yellow, let it mellow; if it's brown, flush it down

If it's yellow, let it mellow; if it's brown, flush it down. I couldn't find a article about this subjecct, so I was wondering if it would be appropraite to make it, or if information should be in cluded in anothr article. Basicly, it would be an article about the unwasting of water and yellow that stands for urine and the brown that stands for the feces and the flush the toilet, and you can save water by not flushing the diluted urine and save water but the feces you should flush because it stinks and it is a fun way to remember, but you should flush the yellow after a day at least cause otherwise, it's just gross. Thanks.Kitler005 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Scaleable Vector Graphic

Hey Improv! I've missed you mate! I trust you have been well? I have been involved in some "unpleasantness" of late, but going pretty well otherwise. Anyway, I am here to ask you about the SVG picture format. I recently uploaded a picture (Image:CapitalLambda.jpg‎) and it got tagged with this:

This image was uploaded in a raster image format such as PNG, GIF, or JPEG. However, it contains information that could be stored more efficiently and/or accurately in the SVG format, as a vector graphic.
If possible, please upload an SVG version of this image. After doing so, please replace all instances of the previous version throughout Wikipedia (noted under the “File links” header), tag the old version with {{Vector version available|NewImage.svg}}, and remove this tag. For more information, see Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. For assistance with converting to SVG, please see the Graphics Lab.

Right. So I set about trying to convert it to SVG, by opening it with Macromedia fireworks and Paint Shop Pro respectively and trying to save as file type SVG - to no avail, SVG is not even listed in the dropdown save-as menu on either. What to do then, O Image Master?

Also, I am curious about Image modifycation. If an image is modified, is it still the same? Can it still be classified the same? How much modifycation is needed to make it into a new and seperate image? Is there perhaps a line, between an original and a new image? Appropreations are considered to be new - and they could be copyrighted (or not) freely.

Thankyou for your time Improv! Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, I'll probably go to the Village pump or somewhere like that. See you around, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 22:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sup?

Hey dude, I just made a page at Pudding Pops but it is jus a stub now. I'm tryin tO work on making it longer but cnt find info bout the pudding pops too well. How cna ia tell other people 2 add stuff 2 it? neways, thanks again for helping me all the time. FRIENDS! Kitler005 16:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures for Parole

Hey Improv, I've someone who is on parole and writing articles is'nt really his thing, but he does have a camera. Could you perhaps, give him some tips and avice before he starts? Your help would be greatly appreciated (as it always is). See User: Culverin.

Thanks Improv, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 07:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Again Improv, thankyou for going the extra mile for me, do you remember this? You set me on the right track, and I will never forget you for it. Thanks, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 09:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Images on episode lists

Are images allowed on episode list pages?? (Yugigx60 12:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Deletion of Nutter Butter

I see you deleted it. Could you also nuke the Nutter-Butter redirect to it? DMacks 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! DMacks 19:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

deletion of Tim Tam, tim tams, etc

Just saw that you deleted the Tim Tam page, why? Obviously not spam from the company in Australia... I discovered the cookie (biscuit, they call it) in Scotland at Worldcon, where it won a taste-off from all over the world... the wiki article was really useful, much more so than the product page, actually pointed out that they exist in the US under another name. Can you undelete something? Why don't you undelete it?

I deleted it as per the CSD criterion whereby articles that serve purely to advertise a product/company can be zapped. The article did nothing to make an encyclopedic claim for the product. Take care. --Improv 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think you may have made a mistake here. Tim Tams are a major cultural icon in Australia, similar to Oreos in the USA. Not having an article on them is a serious lack in Wikipedia. Imagine if the article on Oreo was deleted. If the article as it stood read as a product advertisement, then it should have been edited or marked for cleanup, not deleted. -dmmaus 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ook. That's a mighty big stick you're swinging there, Improv. While I support the removal of pure advertising, can I ask if you did any research before deciding to delete this article? - brenneman ^{L} 00:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ook². Having looked at your logs, I can only presume that you are working your way through Arnott's product list, deleting them all. Can I suggest that this is a sub-optimal strategy? - brenneman ^{L} 00:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Tim Tam because I don't think it clearly meets the CSD criteria (no offense, Improv). I've accordingly listed it on AFD for further discussion, without any vote by me at this time: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Tam. Postdlf 00:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, to illuminate where I'm coming from, I don't have a problem with the speedy deletion of Nutter Butter, based on the last edit to that article. Postdlf 00:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you read the discussion on foundation-l that led to the new criteria, I think you'll find that a massive purge of problem material was intended and is a good thing. Articles need to be clearly notable beyond being a product description in order to be kept. OTOH, I may have made an error in judgement on how clearly Tam Tams met the criteria. I don't know if AfD is likely to be helpful here -- the reason this was made into a CSD is that AfD is considered to be particularly broken in removing some kinds of cruft. I expect to be doing other such cleaning in the future. Take care. --Improv 01:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Articles need to be clearly notable beyond being a product description in order to be kept." I definitely agree with a notability requirement in any context, but consider the CSD criteria: "which would need to be substantially rewritten in order to become an encyclopedic article." If it walks like an ad, talks like an ad...delete away. But if it walks like an article... Regarding AFD, what I've seen is that when it comes to commercial products or services, it has been appropriately strict, as there is usually a community backlash against the use of Wikipedia for advertising. Postdlf 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Without dwelling on these deletions, I'd further suggest that creating re-directs when deleting products would be a good thing. Something like and Iced Vovo is a likely search term, and a red link there will only mean that some eager-beaver will re-create the article. Again, I fully support the purge, and had inteneded to do some house-claening myself... but with caution. - brenneman ^{L} 01:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, please stop

I've looked further, and you're not removing the links to the pages that you're deleting. This is a pointless activity, as this simply means that they stand a good chance of being re-created. I'm asking you to stop deleting now, and not delete any more until you clean up the pages you've already done.
brenneman ^{L} 01:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'll make some effort in the future, and might go back over some of them, but wikipedia is *full* of redlinks for albums and songs everywhere, and thankfully people arn't super quick to create every bad redlink. I don't intend to stop though. --Improv 03:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • With respect, that's a terrible argument. People create redlinks when there is an expectation that an article should exist. You're creating redlinks for articles that you have determined should not exist. When deleting something, the job is not just to mash the buttons and move one. I don't see a compelling argument for doing half the job. - brenneman ^{L} 04:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • In fact, one of your deletions has already been recreated. Please at least stop until some consensus about how to handle this can be reached. - brenneman ^{L} 04:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't intend to stop, although I'm putting more effort into removing redirs and incoming links. Take care. --Improv 04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, I pretty bloody dissapointed with the "I'm doing it, stuff you" attitude. I think that your use of protection is totally outside policy and massive overkill to boot, but doubt that you'll listen on that front. You do realise that this doesn't have to be finished tomorrow, right?
          brenneman ^{L} 04:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Sure. I'm probably done for this evening anyhow - I have OTRS tickets to take care of, among other things. I'm not trying to say "stuff you". The CSD was added as a result of a board conversation, it's going to be unpopular, and everyone in the world will want to drag their feet on it. If you want to help me with the cleaning up afterwards, that would be great, and I *do* appreciate your pointing out that I'm leaving a bit of a mess -- even though I don't think there's a *need* to pick that up, it's good to be reminded that it's there. The way you phrase things sounds to me like you disapprove of putting the new CSD into action (perhaps I misread you on that), and that you're trying to suggest I avoid doing so entirely. If I do misread you on that, I apologise. --Improv 05:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Crikey, no. I love the new CSD. I just think back to the pointless waste of energy of previous "unpopular" actions, and want this one to proceed smoothly, without fuss. To my mind, starting with Famous Amos and Tim Tams is putting a hat on a turd and blaming the hat when it stinks. These are things that people have already heard of. The advertising margin for them is diminishingly small, and thus I believe that these are not useful applications of the criteria. There are bucketloads of small-fry out there for whom Wikipedia is a massive advertising boost, that's where we should be directing the energy: It's more effective and will cause less blowback. Are we both back in our boxes now? ^_^
              brenneman ^{L} 05:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
              • My apologies for misjudging you. I think in the end we should eventually work our way up to even those, but it seems like a productive route to focus on the small stuff first. If you feel the need to undo anything I've done, I don't mind. I've just dealt with a number of people who oppose sensible new rules by digging up technicalities and doing everything they can to prevent any action. I suppose I've dealt with too much of that on IRC recently and that probably is what led me to misjudge how you were talking. In the end, I think we want practically all of this stuff gone, at the very least if it lacks published references, but ideally a bit more stringent than that to maintain focus on the encyclopedia. I think we're undergoing a bit of rot from wikianarchism and people losing sight of the difference between Everything2, product directories, and an encyclopedia. Again, apologies for letting my inertia in other conversations carry into this one. Take care. --Improv 05:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I'd have to agree that the deletion of Famous Amos was a mistake, and so have restored it. There is far more information in the article than just a simple description of the product, and not only is the product line famous (ahem), but the backstory has received significant media attention as a textbook example of American entrepreneurship. Maybe the proper way to consider the CSD criteria is "does this article tell me anything useful that I can't learn from seeing the product in the store"? Postdlf 05:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Arnott's Biscuits Holdings Deletion

Deletion of Arnott's Biscuits Holdings is a mistake - Aronott's is one of the most iconic Australian businesses. It would be akin to deleting Coke Cola or McDonalds for an American. If Arnott's is non notable then Australia offers no business that is of note. Every Australian knows what Arnott's is and is one of our oldest and culturally iconic businesses. Please restore it, or bring it to VFD - UnlimitedAccess 05:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Based upon the note above by Improv, I'll restore this. I'm not going to restore just anything deleted by him today, all that "nilla" stuff is fine gone, but this is article worthy. - brenneman ^{L} 05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

An idea...

Please see User:Postdlf/library; I think this might be something you'd be interested in helping to set up. Before I go "public" with this proposal, I think it needs some suggestion of how this can be implemented. I really don't have a concept of how the software side of this would work... It also needs some glowing rhetorical expression of why this would be a good thing, such as "the effective linking of the collective personal libraries of Wikipedians around the globe." Feel free to make any edits you see fit to that subpage. Cheers, Postdlf 17:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Nestlé brands

I've restored List of Nestlé brands as it doesn't meet any speedy-deletion criterion and it seems to me like a useful page. It's not promotional material, it's a value-neutral list of products of one of the world's biggest and most controversial food companies. The list is potentially useful for doing research on Nestlé or, say, to boycott Nestlé. Your deletion also left some redlinks, a dangling redirect and a dangling interwiki link. Not a big deal but it's usually better to clean those up as you go.

I've spoken up for an advertisement CSD in the past and I'm happy that one has been formalized but I think care must be taken in implementing it. Borderline cases can be prodded or sent to AfD, which is unforgiving when it comes to promotional materials. Haukur 09:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

House Made of Dawn (analysis)

Can you restore the deleted text as a subpage of mine?--HQCentral 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Great.--HQCentral 08:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. Congratulations on the trustee election.

Hi Improv

I fixed your page on Wikibooks... that's what you were trying to do, right? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Village Pump

Howdy! I've made a post to VP related to a deletion you made and a new CSD that may need some work. Just an FYI. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your recent G11s

Improv, I think you've gone a bit overboard with your G11s. Can I request that you restore them, and if you still feel they're improper, AfD them? I think the idea that an article on Chips Ahoy!, for example, exists only to advertise the product is a bit much, and the product itself certainly meets basic critera. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• As per the note on your talkpage, I'm replying here. You stated that you oppose CSD in general. I believe that my deletions were within the intent of G11 - read the foundation-l posts that inspired creation of G11 and expansion of other CSDs. I don't intend to restore. --Improv 17:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a hard core deletionist, Improv, and I happen to agree with Badydrawnjeff on this specific subject. The conversation on foundation-l was not advocating the removal of all reference to commerce on the project, just getting rid of spamvertisements. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not intentionally being a bother here, but I am unconvinced that the G11 deletions I did were inappropriate. If you want to try to convince me otherwise, do so, but the mere fact that people disagree, as far as I understand disagreeing with the intent of G11, isn't enough to make me change my mind. --Improv 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll be taking them to DRV then. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Curly Wurly

I've undeleted the page Curly Wurly as it does not meet the CSD criteria for blatant spam. If you feel I've made an error, I recommend putting it up for AFD or lobbying for a change to G11. Thanks. Turnstep 01:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Passion Pop, Magic middles, HobNob, Duberry cookies, and Iced Vovo as well. Turnstep 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All of the articles and images listed on the DRV have now been undeleted. If you have issues with any of these pages, please deal with them individually through processes other than speedy deletion. Thryduulf 14:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Restored speedy deletions

Two of the articles you speedy deleted that were restored per WP:DRV have been listed on AFD: Dynamic Images and Passion Pop. Cheers, Postdlf 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Block

Hey geek boy. I thought you were going to delete my user and talk pages and my account? Why is it still up? One thing you marxists are good at is silencing voices you don't like, so I am surprised you are having this much trouble. So do it right or don't do it at all. You idiots can't do anything right, look at how your buddy Kim Jong Il is doing with his nuke. Never trust a communist. I look forward to the deletion of my account. Cestusdei

• I did ask for a reminder. I'll remove your pages now. --Improv 18:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 19:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

G11 deletion stuff

Hi there. Just a quick follow up to the discussion we have been having at the CSD talk page. You may have noticed the analysis I did of the recent batch of 'cookie' CSDs you performed. To avoid any misunderstanding, I just wanted to say that I fully support deletion of spamvertisements through G11. Where we seem to disagree is on what a spamvertisement is, and whether the whole "check talk page, page history, article log, what links here" thing is needed. As I say over at the analysis section, I hope the points I raise there, which I found after only a few clicks, help convince you that a little bit more investigation before deletion can help avoid problems, rather than be a waste of time. If you want any help in tracking down G11 CSDs, I'd be happy to use the tag to label them. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Having just learned of this situation and read the various discussions, I'd just like to add my voice to the mob of people who believe that you misinterpreted/misapplied G11. Are you under the impression that the idea is to eliminate all articles pertaining to commerce? I can't think of another explanation for your deletion of Pepperidge Farm, Famous Amos, Arnott's Biscuits Holdings, Tim Tam, Hydrox, Chips Ahoy! and countless other articles. Do you honestly not realize that these brands are extremely famous and notable? I'm an American who's never been to Australia, and even I've heard of Arnott's and their Tim Tam biscuits!

I'm not sure why you started with cookie/candy-related articles, but given your insistence that you were right and everyone else is wrong, I'm seriously concerned that you intend to move on to other product categories. Will you be speedily deleting Coca-Cola, Pepsi and 7 Up next? I'm not being factitious. —David Levy 16:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that this conversation seems like it's going to happen anyhow, I might as well address it here. The question is not whether the products are widespread, but whether they're notable in the encyclopedic sense (or even make any claim to be so in their article). I believe that apart from one article that I deleted by mistake, there were no claims to notability in these articles -- they were just product listings, which are not encyclopedic no matter how common the product is. 99% of the existing product articles are crap. The few that merit inclusion need to make very clear what cultural or scientific significance they have in their article. G11 is designed to create a large culling in our articles (focusing on commercial listings) to weed out problems. Read Brad's post on the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list and the extensive discussion connected to it to understand the full story. In the end, I believe that we'll have almost no listings on cellphones, cookies, toilet plungers, toothbrush models, shavers, and the rest of that stuff, with any articles that do remain being on products that have a greater impact on society than merely bring yet another member of some product line. --Improv 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, which is the one article you consider a mistake? Turnstep 20:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be Arnott's_Biscuits_Holdings. --Improv 23:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem most people seem to have with what you did, Improv, was not that the articles weren't worthy of nominating for deleting (some of them probably were), but that they were not suitable for speedy deletion. I know you have said that AfD is "broken", but using CSD to circumvent AfD is not going to win you lots of fans, even if you consistently claim (as you have done) to have the project's encyclopedic goals in mind. CSD is intended for easily defined criteria that won't generate controversy. That distracts from the task of building the encyclopedia, and is bad.

Turning from the method you used, to Brad's post. You know as well as I do that there are pages out there that really are spamvertisements. These pages are, in Brad's own words, examples of "corporate self-editing and vanity page creation". Brad also talked about "new usernames and page creation [that is] blatantly commercial". The pages you deleted were not examples of this. They were created by normal editors (not one purpose spamming accounts), had in some cases been created over a year ago, and in some cases had been edited by many editors who had failed to spot the "blatantly commercial" aspect you seem to have seen. I think you should stop using Brad's post to justify your actions, and point to some articles that are genuine examples of what Brad was talking about. Carcharoth 00:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I understand that it will not win me lots of fans, and I accept that. I'm not a politician, nor do I think that people with fans necessarily often merit them. I am devoted to producing a good encyclopedia, and my eyes are on that. CSD is not purely for uncontroversial deletions -- there is precedent for, in some cases, CSD being used to bypass consensus when necessary, e.g. CSD A9 (office actions) and CSD T1 (divisive/inflammatory userboxes). When it comes to consensus versus high-level policy/project goals, the latter wins every time, because the community is a means to an end. Things that are product listings without any claim to encyclopedic merit do not belong on Wikipedia. Some articles, such as the Arnott's Biscuits Holdings, actually are on (sometimes borderline) notable topics, and they mention why they are notable in their text. Other things which are purely product listings, no matter whom or where they come from, need to be "shot on sight" in a "draconian fashion", as Brad notes. The real issue is the article content - a lot of articles will need to disappear, and it is going to disappoint a number of the more rabid inclusionists. There's a need to do so in as polite a way as possible, but when policy changes come mostly from above, especially controversial ones, we cannot expect AfD to do much beyond trying to interpret the changes in a way that they have negligible effect on the project. This is one of the reasons AfD is not a good venue for these things and Deletion Review may be better. Alternatively, reforming AfD to focus less on votes (perhaps using RfC-style proceedings, with closers being required to judge things based on threads of arguments and policy weighting rather than something that again resembles votes) would possibly fix AfD. As noted before, I understand full well that what I did was unpopular and likely to upset people. I think it is a necessary step in implementing recent new policies that are sound and wise, and that I have interpreted these policies, by and large, correctly. Take care. --Improv 06:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a few more points. (1) Thanks for expanding the point I made about you consistently putting the encyclopedia's goals above consensus. Given that we both agree on this, I trust this point will not need repeating in the rest of the discussion. (2) Your arguments about encyclopedia notability are good, and I wish you would feel confident enough to bring them to AfD. Getting more people to understand what you are talking about would be more productive in the long run than 'going it alone' (with or without others) using CSD. (3) You do the inclusionists a dis-service by characterising some of them as 'rabid'. The same could be said about deletionists. Using terms like that does no-one any favours. (4) I agree with the inclusionists that one of the things that makes Wikipedia more than just an online version of Britannica is its breadth of coverage. Instead of ruthlesslesly weeding out the inferior articles by deletion, I believe it is better to weed out and tag the best articles (keeping them, obviously!), and leave the borderline articles to evolve and adopt a 'wait-and-see' policy. Suggest ways to improve something, rather than tearing it down (this requires imagination, and is harder than pressing a delete button). (5) Returning to my point that episodes like this disrupt the task of building the encyclopedia, I'm still not clear whether you think a future episode like this will be another "necessary step", or whether you will think twice before doing something like this again. Recognising something is unpopular is one thing. Recognising that something that is unpopular might be better done another way is another thing again. Even if you do attempt similar deletions in the future, I would hope you would explain them beforehand (instead of explaining them after the event), and would consider other methods. Carcharoth 09:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in taking my arguments to AfD, but as Brad notes, taking things to AfD and following that full process is not desirable for articles that fit this criteria. We cannot and should not be voting in the specific case to overturn general policy. I do take efforts to explain my reasoning to anyone who asks - being "polite but firm" is usually better to actually get things done than following broken process. I understand that there are rabid deletionists as well - I've come across a number of inclusionists though who feel that every time people write anything on encyclopedia, it is sacred and deleting it would be a great evil. This is both unworkable and a push for us to lose sight of our goal to make an encyclopedia (and only an encyclopedia). Being broad in coverage is one thing, becoming a product guide is quite another. I have worked in other ways to improve the encyclopedia, but it's important to remember that this is not a random fit/episode -- this was called for. Sometimes disruption is necessary to correct things when they're growing in the wrong way -- not all growth of the encyclopedia is good growth. Explaining them in greeat detail beforehand is a sure way to get people to drag their feet and prevent what needs to be done from happening. Establishing G11 as a response to the foundation discussions *was* explanation anyhow. Take care. --Improv 15:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think presenting your case at AfD for the articles currently undergoing review would help? I haven't checked, but I don't recall you taking part in the AfD discussions after those speedy deletions were overturned. You should at least read them to see some of the arguments being presented for keeping those articles. Another thing is that an encyclopedia needs to think about its readers. If there will probably be interest in reading about a topic that is borderline notable, I would err on the side of keeping it. Anyway, apart from that, we are starting to repeat ourselves here. I think we both know where we stand on these issues. Thanks for the discussion. Carcharoth 15:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You removed my added photo????

Why did you remove my added image to Hyak, Washington? The photo was given to me to use as I wish, as I stated in the description. Bill, who took the photo gave that to me to use on my website or anywhere else I would like to use it. I don't understand why the removal?--Mrhyak 06:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey number 13

Number 16 here. Maybe I'll see you in Philly. --evrik 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Email me if you want lodging info ... --evrik 17:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

AVG Anti-Virus prod

I've removed your prod from AVG Anti-Virus. It most definitely meets WP:SOFT #1, aside from the large number of users making it notable independent of WP:SOFT. Anyway, have a nice day. Cynical 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My Scary Girl

Hi. I removed your prod tag from My Scary Girl. I very much doubt that you really thought that this was an "uncontroversial deletion candidate" given that it clearly meets WP:NOTFILM. Please respect existing policies. Pascal.Tesson 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But it is policy to use the PROD tag only for uncontroversial deletion candidates. Which this, most clearly, was not. I am extremely concerned with your constant disregard for other editors and their opinions in the name of your proclaimed knowledge of what constitutes the greater good. Pascal.Tesson 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could admit to your mistakes. And let me re-explain the PROD policy: the question you are asked to answer before placing the PROD tag is "is this deletion uncontroversial? Will anyone but people unaware of policy seriously object to the deletion?" not "Do I really want this article to be deleted?" Pascal.Tesson 00:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you can't ignore that AfD exists even if you feel it is broken. This is not about the proposed film guideline, it's about a deletion that you know full well would not go through AfD. That you would choose to bypass the process through an inappropriate use of the prod tag is a dereliction of your admin duties. Pascal.Tesson 02:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Huckanddog.jpg

"Uploaded under fraudulent license" is not a speedy criteria therefor could you be supporting my attempt to turn A8 into a general criteria?Geni 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:ULCHQModesto.jpg

Why was it removed, all licensing information was correct and accurate. Copyright owner gave express permission for use on wikipedia as well as general fair use critria. Contact information for Copyright own was provided as well.ULCGUY 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Art Uploads

Hello Improv, I was wonderining if you could help me by providing me with some more information about uploading pictures of art works onto Wikipedia. Thanks, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 06:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response Improv. Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 02:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Border Crossing (book) cover image

I'm not exactly sure who originally posted the image in the article, but can I ask why it was removed? Thanks! Ackatsis 06:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for supporting my RfA and thank you especially for your kind words. But I am a bit concerned that when my wife sees "...has been around for long enough that I recall him w/o having any negative impressions", she may decide that would make the perfect epitath for me someday ;-).

Atlant 15:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)