CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs) ThaMuseMeant |
|||
Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
I notice quite a few users have found you deprodding articles for what appears to be... no sound reason. One such article is [[Olympus Twelve]], which appears to be list-cruft and likely [[WP:OR|original research]]. I feel your deprodding is a [[WP:POINT]] issue. If you wish to actually improve the article, or have a legitimate reason for removing the prod, then do so. If not, then leave it be. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
I notice quite a few users have found you deprodding articles for what appears to be... no sound reason. One such article is [[Olympus Twelve]], which appears to be list-cruft and likely [[WP:OR|original research]]. I feel your deprodding is a [[WP:POINT]] issue. If you wish to actually improve the article, or have a legitimate reason for removing the prod, then do so. If not, then leave it be. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
:You are of no help and you waste my time and the time of others. I will now have to list this article for AfD, and you know what? It will be deleted. Thanks, no really, thanks soo much for helping us to "save" this article of shit. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==[[ThaMuseMeant]]== |
==[[ThaMuseMeant]]== |
Revision as of 02:40, 24 July 2006
Welcome
Hi, I'm not here at the moment, but thanks for stopping by. Kappa 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Previous discussions: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
Userbar
Hey Kappa, I was wondering why you keep changing Userbar to redirect to toolbar. They have nothing in common.
- Yeah, me too W3bbo 18
- 35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I believe a userbar is another term for a toolbar, but I have no further interest in that page. Kappa 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you around?
Greetings friend - on a wikibreak? Coming back soon? Reply by email, if you prefer. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Allow me to echo the words of BD2412, I hope that all is well. Best regards, Hall Monitor 00:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm fine, just avoiding wp at the moment. Kappa 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh? Wikibreak, I hope, nothing to do with leaving.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Portuguese Discovery of Australia
Greetings, my name is √αzzρεr, an Australian History. After noticing your past support for stopping the deletion of the Portuguese Discovery of Australia article, I have come asking for your support once more in the recreation of the article as per my speedily deleted edit of few days ago.
Feel free to observe and contribute to:
- My argument for re-creation at Wikipedia:Deletion review (near bottom of page)
- The article's talk page at Talk:Portuguese Discovery of Australia
sincerely, √αzzρεr 06:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
List of shock sites
Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Minor edits
Whether edits are marked minor or not isn't really that important, it's really up to the individual user to determine what's minor. Personally I mark everything that's not a contribution of new content as a minor edit. -Obli (Talk)? 22:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- What are you on about? How does marking an edit as minor or not even matter in the first place? -Obli (Talk)? 22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It will doubtless amaze you to learn that being a "possible candidate for Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight" is not actually a reason to include listcruft in Wikipedia. I know, I was surprised as well... But seriously, by all means remove prod tags if you have a good reason, but for Wiki's sake make it intelligent... Or perhaps the list-related criteria at WP:NOT (official policy) are just there to take up server space. Deizio 01:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Any reason you decided to deprod this article? Not that it matters, since your removal of the prod just caused someone to slap a full-on AFD on there. Oh well. I was trying to invite discourse and you've just gone and gotten someone to delete it. p0 24.62.27.66 01:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- You mean List of Taunton, Massachusetts businesses? Well if you'd given a reason for the prod I would probably have given a reason for the deprod, LOL. Kappa 01:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- You know what's awesome? Discussion pages. Those're the sorts of the places where one could go to see why someone might have put up a prod. 24.62.27.66 00:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* I knew when I saw this prod'ded I should have changed and improved the deletion criterion.
These areas aren't notable because they don't exist. This article is part of a series of what are essentially fanfic titles, as these areas aren't ever mentioned in the fiction or even referred to as metropolitan areas.
Next time, though, if you de-prod (or prod!) a Pokémon article, could you either send it to AFD or at least let WP:PCP know? This stuff is fanfic junk, and doing either would have made that immediately clear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
List of Liverpool F.C. players
- Indeed Kappa, no reason whatsoever to remove redlinked notable players. No reason whatsoever to remove appropriate lists, either. So could you point out which players are notable, and have another go at explaining why lists like this, which contravene policy and style considerations, and are entirely redundant to categories as they contain zero context or substantive information, are so ripe for inclusion.
- More general point - I know you hate to see the load on the WM servers reduced by so much as a single byte, but your campaign to single-handedly negate the prod system is, at times, a little frustrating. Prod is not speedy delete, the thought occurs that you could actually wait a few days until an editor who has the prodded topic on their watchlist because they actually know something about it notices the prod - quite different, I hope you'll agree, to getting seen by yourself while poring over the list of current prods - and actually improves, adds to or provides justification for a contentious article. Your method of instant de-prodding lessens the chance of improvement (a design feature of prod) to practically ZERO. Inclusionism is fine, and I am personally all for allowing editors the widest freedom in their good-faith interpretation of policies and practices. However, preventing the growth of Wikipedia in the name of inclusionism is quite another, and not something to be proud of. That you don't personally contribute to or in any way improve the vast majority of topics you de-prod or vote to keep is well documented, all I would ask is that you give others a chance? Deizio 17:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Any who has played professional football for Liverpool FC is notable. Prod is not cleanup, we have other tags for that. Kappa 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Deprod Soft tissue therapy?
While a quick look at your contributions suggests you do virtually nothing but deprod articles, I'm wondering if you have any information on Soft tissue therapy the rest of us on its discussion page don't. Such as references. As it stands, I think it is badly in need of them. If you don't have any references, then why deprod it?
Also, is it some sort of passion of yours to go around deprod'ing everything? That's your own business, though, i'm simply curious on that one if you care to share... —Daniel Pritchard 04:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding soft tissue therapy, I don't see any evidence of anyone trying to find references and failing, it doesn't look very hard. [1] [2]. I don't deprod everything, please refrain from making malicious allegations like that. Kappa 07:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding your recent edits, I'm not entirely sure that Daniel Pritchard's concerns are entirely unfounded. Looking at a sampling of your last hundred edits, all but a handful have been inappropriate deprods that could be handled in a less cluttered way, such as merging the information with a larger topic (e.g. H.P. Products into TT scale, Clue VCR Mystery Game into Cluedo, etc.). I'm not trying to attack you, but it only takes a smidgin more work on your part to handle these articles appropriately instead of just wantonly removing the prod tag as you see fit. Please, I'm interested in seeing everything included in the appropriate place here at Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that every little small, contentless article deserves its own page. Most of these have a home, and that's inside a larger, inclusive article about a more general subject. Thank you, -Kuzaar 12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- If something has a "potential home inside a larger, inclusive article" I deprod it, it should not have been threatened with deletion. Incidentally I believe the merges you propose above are extremely inconvenient for users and much the second-best solution to separate pages. Kappa 13:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your ears must be red from all the talk of you at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. I've suggested there that when deprodding a page that is obviously lacking, the deprodder should consider replacing the {{prod}} tag with {{cleanup}}, {{verify}}, {{importance}}, {{expand}}, etc. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I think stub tags are generally all that is needed, if I get on top of the prod situation I'll have more time to find the right ones. Kappa 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- As soon as you can explain to me how it is inconvenient to have concurrent information on a subject instead of overwikified out into hundreds of pages when the information that all belongs on the page of a topic could be listed there, I'll cease to have issue with your removal of prod tags. For example, I cannot imagine any possible reason that a user would prefer the overstretched subject of the Clue VCR Game on its own seperate page in place of seeing it in a heading or even mentioned in the main Cluedo article. Many of your deprods I agree with, however, I'm interested in seeing your reasoning behind deprodding the dozens of trash articles that do NOT merit their own article on Wikipedia. Kuzaar 13:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to point this out: specifically in one of my above examples, namely of H.P. Products and TT scale, why the non-notable creator of a questionably notable hobby standard. In an article where all of the information pertinent to the subject you're reading about (and it is a meager amount of information, by no means so much that it needs to be squashed out onto several pages), all of the subject material on Wikipedia is right there for the reader to read. H.P. Products doesn't need nor merit its own page, not meeting the corporate notability standard, etc. It is a disservice to the reader to hide pertinent information in a secluded corner of the wiki, particularly when the TT scale article itself is so sparse. I appreciate your sentiment of inclusion of information, but when it would be better served in a more comprehensive article, I think that's where it should be. Kuzaar 13:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- You appear to be confusing prod tags with merge tags - these are unrelated issues, prod tags should only be used for content which has no place in wikipedia. I don't think your assessment of H P Product's notability is very well-informed, however if it really isn't very notable, readers are better served by keeping most of the information about it out of the main article so it doesn't bloat the page. Kappa 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have to apologize, I've been uncivil with you on this talk page and on some of the AFDs that have taken place on articles you've deprodded. However, I do think that you should at least feel obliged to put a little more efforts into the articles that you deprod. Simply deprodding an article that by all rights should be quietly merged or pass away with no need for consensus is something that takes you three or four seconds to do. However, it is unjust because it foists off work that you yourself could have done to improve the article or its contents onto other editors who have to either improve the article themselves or put it through the AFD process because you choose to contest it without being firmly grounded in the subject, sometimes giving a reason such as "seems notable", etc. I would appreciate it in the future if you were to put forth a little more effort to improving the encyclopedia's articles instead of leaving it cluttered with hundreds of near-contentless articles that would be served better by expanding or merging. Further, I'd like to reiterate that it's not right to make hours of work for other editors by contesting tons of deletions, something you can do in minutes. Thank you. Kuzaar 23:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- You appear to be confusing prod tags with merge tags - these are unrelated issues, prod tags should only be used for content which has no place in wikipedia. I don't think your assessment of H P Product's notability is very well-informed, however if it really isn't very notable, readers are better served by keeping most of the information about it out of the main article so it doesn't bloat the page. Kappa 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to point this out: specifically in one of my above examples, namely of H.P. Products and TT scale, why the non-notable creator of a questionably notable hobby standard. In an article where all of the information pertinent to the subject you're reading about (and it is a meager amount of information, by no means so much that it needs to be squashed out onto several pages), all of the subject material on Wikipedia is right there for the reader to read. H.P. Products doesn't need nor merit its own page, not meeting the corporate notability standard, etc. It is a disservice to the reader to hide pertinent information in a secluded corner of the wiki, particularly when the TT scale article itself is so sparse. I appreciate your sentiment of inclusion of information, but when it would be better served in a more comprehensive article, I think that's where it should be. Kuzaar 13:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your ears must be red from all the talk of you at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. I've suggested there that when deprodding a page that is obviously lacking, the deprodder should consider replacing the {{prod}} tag with {{cleanup}}, {{verify}}, {{importance}}, {{expand}}, etc. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- If something has a "potential home inside a larger, inclusive article" I deprod it, it should not have been threatened with deletion. Incidentally I believe the merges you propose above are extremely inconvenient for users and much the second-best solution to separate pages. Kappa 13:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding your recent edits, I'm not entirely sure that Daniel Pritchard's concerns are entirely unfounded. Looking at a sampling of your last hundred edits, all but a handful have been inappropriate deprods that could be handled in a less cluttered way, such as merging the information with a larger topic (e.g. H.P. Products into TT scale, Clue VCR Mystery Game into Cluedo, etc.). I'm not trying to attack you, but it only takes a smidgin more work on your part to handle these articles appropriately instead of just wantonly removing the prod tag as you see fit. Please, I'm interested in seeing everything included in the appropriate place here at Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that every little small, contentless article deserves its own page. Most of these have a home, and that's inside a larger, inclusive article about a more general subject. Thank you, -Kuzaar 12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
deprod of white rappers
In response to your deprod, I explained the prod on the talk page. Peace, --Urthogie 08:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking for your advice on trying to delete economy car comparison
They are trying to delete: Historical comparison of economy cars 2006 . Do you have some advice on how I should handle this? Thx, Daniel.Cardenas 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Vote keep, explain how it helps users to better understand the phenomenon of economy cars, and mention that you are the orginal author. Adding some discussion of the features would probably improve its chances of survival, but it may get deleted anyway so I woudln't recommend that. Kappa 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks plenty. :-) Daniel.Cardenas 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
deprodding & AfD
Hi Kappa. I wanted to let you know that I have been putting up a raft of pages that you deprodded to AfD for wider discussion. I am simply working through deprods that I feel warrant a wider airing of views and so this should not in any way be construed as some kind of targeted campaign against you. I note that several editors have made rather uncivil remarks with respect to your deprods, for which, by identifying you as the deprodder, I may be somewhat responsible; this was certainly not my intention - please accept my apologies for having elicited such sentiment. Welcome back. Eusebeus 08:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
AFD: H.P. Products
In what way would cutting the info from H.P. Products, putting it into TT scale, and leaving the H.P. Products article as a redirect or empty article prodded to expire quietly violate the GNU Free Documentation license? Kuzaar 13:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- If a page is merged, then deleted, the original author(s) are no longer credited for their contribution. Kappa 16:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
From your deprod comment I take it you do not object to moving this to Wikiquote. Is this correct, and if so, can you point me to the proper procedure for doing so? In the same fashion, wouldn't it make sense to do the same for Gujurati Sayings as well ? (I'll watch this page for replies) -- Hirudo 17:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I would rather keep a few examples here but I don't strenously object to moving them somewhere else and leaving a pointer or redirect. I found some instructions at Category:Move to Wikiquote and they are reasonably GDFL compliant as of the last edit. Kappa 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks I will take a look at that page and find some time do do this. -- Hirudo 23:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Please don't do anything like this again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I second that request. Please don't violate WP:POINT. Thank you, Johntex\talk 23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't violate WP:POINT. Kappa 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Come now, please don't insult our intelligence. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Games featuring London you argued that article should be kept because we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books set in New York City as a precedent. Then you listed the literature list for deletion just because the video game article is "under attack" in your view. You did this purely to try to make a point. Johntex\talk 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, I did this to try to preserve the users' ability to learn about how London is depicted in popular fiction. I am disappointed that I appear to have failed them. Kappa 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Which means that you listed one article for deletion in an attempt to prevent another article from being deleted. That would be a violation of WP:POINT. The policy even includes an example not to try to list other articles for deletion in order to try to save one from deletion. Johntex\talk 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Don't list hundreds of articles" is not the same as "don't list any articles" Kappa 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- And every single possible example can't be listed. Doing it once is less bad than doing it 100 times, but it is still a waste of people's time and a violation of WP:POINT. I am mindful of your incredibly significant contributions to this project, but no-one is above policy. Please don't do this again. Johntex\talk 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- At the risk of insulting your intelligence, we have already seen that I didn't violate WP:POINT. Kappa 00:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree - while I empathize with your frustration with harmless and possibly useful articles getting tagged for deletion, it is counterproductive for you to make such a nomination as you made unless you truly believe that List of books set in New York City actually should be deleted. BD2412 T 00:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- And every single possible example can't be listed. Doing it once is less bad than doing it 100 times, but it is still a waste of people's time and a violation of WP:POINT. I am mindful of your incredibly significant contributions to this project, but no-one is above policy. Please don't do this again. Johntex\talk 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Don't list hundreds of articles" is not the same as "don't list any articles" Kappa 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Which means that you listed one article for deletion in an attempt to prevent another article from being deleted. That would be a violation of WP:POINT. The policy even includes an example not to try to list other articles for deletion in order to try to save one from deletion. Johntex\talk 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, I did this to try to preserve the users' ability to learn about how London is depicted in popular fiction. I am disappointed that I appear to have failed them. Kappa 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Come now, please don't insult our intelligence. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Games featuring London you argued that article should be kept because we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books set in New York City as a precedent. Then you listed the literature list for deletion just because the video game article is "under attack" in your view. You did this purely to try to make a point. Johntex\talk 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't violate WP:POINT. Kappa 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll be clearer. Please don't nominate articles for deletion unless you want them deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Deprodding
Is your systematic deprodding of articles an attempt to game the system or a WP:POINT, or both? You wasted some of my time by deprodding Opening light, so I should AfD it now if I am to follow the rules, which would also waste more time of other wikipedians who would vote on deletion for many stupid articles. In summary, your 15 minutes of systematic deprodding will cause hours and hours for other editors to deal with that stuff. (You can reply here if you prefer.)Duja 15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I generally deprod things because I think users would like to be able to read about them. Kappa 17:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- When you deprod things about which you are not knowledgeable, you create headaches for other users. If you're going to deprod something about which you are not knowledgeable, please send it to AFD for review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Deprodding 24 articles on April 30, 2006 really was overdoing it. Doing all the necessary AfD votes to clean that up is very time consuming. The outlet mall, VF Outlet Village? That was a bit much. And the bridge tactic, Opening light, was marked for deletion by the editor who writes good contract bridge articles. If you actually improved the articles, that would be one thing, but all you're doing is removing "prod" tags. This is getting close to becoming vandalism. Please stop. Thanks. --John Nagle 18:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding VF Outlet Village, deletion was already disputed on the talk page: "This concept was the first of what was to become the 'factory outlet mall,' where multiple brands are sold at one location. The VF Outlet Village is a popular destination for bus trips and is primary source of Reading's former title of "The Outlet Capital of the World." 69.137.26.122 00:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Carrie. Also, as you are aware, wikipedia already has this thing covered in Reading, Pennsylvania. Kappa 08:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Kappa, you really shouldn't look at a prod as a genuine attempt to get an article removed. It might stand for proposed deletion, but it also just plain says prod which is really what it is. It's an attempt at prodding those who care about an article in the right direction of generally improving the article, expressing just what in there is noteworthy, that sort of thing. Heck, rather than deprodding, why not post in the discussion area asking why there's a deprod. Or perhaps the person who put up the prod has already posted to the discussion area. I know that in the prods I put up that you deprodded (business in Taunton and Tomb Raider outfits) in both cases I had explained why I was prodding in the discussion area. By rampantly deprodding without making a concerted effort to improve the article, all you're doing is systematically getting what were merely prods turned into afds. Look at your own track record. How many of the articles you've edited are now red links because of your deprodding? If you think people would want to read about the articles you're deprodding, don't deprod them. Help to make them better! 204.69.40.7 13:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the prod tag will get the article deleted whether or not that is your real intention, so I have to ask you not to use prod except in the case of non-controversial deletions. Perhaps there is scope for an alternative system which advertises the fact that improvement is desired without threatening to deprive people of information in order to get that improvement carried out. Kappa 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Poppycock. The only person depriving anyone of information is you when you remove a prod tag without improving the article. 204.69.40.7 11:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
PlanetShakers Albums listed for deletion
Dan, the CowMan 00:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you would want two identical articles St. Hilda's College and St Hilda's (disambiguation) to exist in the Encyclopedia? We would only need one disambiguation. --WikiCats 11:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've restored Kappa's removal of the prod template. WikiCats, it is not necessary to give a reason when deprodding — though it is good practice — and articles can not be prodded once someone has objected. In this case, it's a bad idea to delete the natural title St. Hilda's College, which is bound to collect incoming links and search hits. Personally, I slightly prefer having both disambig pages, but at the very least St. Hilda's College must be left as a redirect. ×Meegs 12:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- You know, I feel I disagree with Kappa on many of his rather controversial deprods, but I agree in this point, though I don't know if it's for the same reason. It's stupid that someone who types in "St. Hilda's College" should be sent to a disambiguation page that lists the elementary school. I'd propose:
- St Hilda's (disambiguation) -> Delete. People should learn to type the whole name of the school they're looking for. In fact, I think ridiculous disambig pages like this should properly be titled "List of Things That are Called St. Mary's."
- St. Hilda's College -> Disambiguation (this should ONLY be a list of St. Hilda's Colleges).
- St Hilda's School -> No change. It's the only St. Hilda's School on WP.
- My basic premise here is that you shouldn't be shunted to a disambiguation page that lists things you clearly specified you don't want (here, by specifying college, you're not interested in St Hilda's School. What do you say, Kappa?
- --Dan 23:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- You know, I feel I disagree with Kappa on many of his rather controversial deprods, but I agree in this point, though I don't know if it's for the same reason. It's stupid that someone who types in "St. Hilda's College" should be sent to a disambiguation page that lists the elementary school. I'd propose:
Miami Subs
No such stock. See here [3]. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, it's a subsidiary of Nathan's.
- "Nathan's Famous acquired Miami Subs Grill in 1999 and eventually created a family of brands, "The United Tastes of America." The family now includes Nathan's Famous, Miami Subs Grill, Kenny Rogers Roasters and Arthur Treacher's."
- I am gonna make a redirect. Thx. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
At your suggestion, I will redirect; I was hesitant to do so because I cannot imagine that USC v. Texas, 2006 is a likely search, but I suppose our having an additional redirect can't hurt. Joe 23:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Deprod of Ah Hing (Comic Artist)
It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from Ah Hing (Comic Artist). Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. cholmes75 13:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Seeing as you have a history of unexplained deprods, consider this your first official warning on the matter. --cholmes75 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Prod tags are not content, and I do not have to provide any reason for removing them. On the other hand, you have no right to replace them. Please consider this an unofficial warning. Kappa 13:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- As a third party, I'll chip in that cholmes75's revert and warning were, well, completely without any sort of plausible legitimacy. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Happiness is the key to not being eaten by the Robot Overlord
1942 AFD
I see you voted in a 1942 mod AFD vote. Well Finnwars is up for AFD again, and you may be interested in the List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD. Bfelite 03:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Origin and Growth of the English Bible on AfD
For your information, the article Origin and Growth of the English Bible has been nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin and Growth of the English Bible. --LambiamTalk 13:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Rfa?
It's been time, Kappa, if you'd like an Rfa. Your edits and skills amaze me. If you could, will you kindly accept my offer? :)-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 13:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, no cutting in line!!! ;-D I've had Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kappa 3 on deck for months now! BD2412 T 14:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, just for the sake of the doubters, I'm congratulating you here for becoming an admin on a different WikiMedia project. Well deserved. BD2412 T 23:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Which project? I'm curious...-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 和 CCD Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Um hi, thanks for the kind words but I have an extremely low opinion of WP at the moment so I'm avoiding it as much as possible. I do stuff over at Wiktionary instead. Kappa 02:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
AFD
As an AIW member please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity and please take a side.
Cyrus Farivar Reloaded
I'm a relatively new user reopening this issue: The following comments are a reply to Morton devonshire, who questioned my notability tag (and I suspect, removed the tag without either addressing the issue, or knowing the background. Sorry to clog your page quoting my comments in full but I see that Vfd, notability tags and other stuff mysteriously disappear from the Farivar page, and I think it's important for WKP that this issue be decided and the legitimate majority view be carried:
Hi, thanks for your prompt feedback. I don't feel you addressed my reasons for tagging the page, and these reasons are not affected by what happened last year (I have read up a lot of the past discussion, but I'm not at all convinced). On consideration, I feel the Cyrus Farivar page will eventually go as it is clearly:
decidedly not notable - the subject is not notable in himself, andn greenlighting was not a notable hoax
the count of the last deletion vote (Aug '05)came down firmly on the side of 'delete' - how does this come to mean 'keep'?
mainly based on a trivial subject - a non-event, in fact
a page intended as a self-promotional tool, rather than to be informational
refers almost entirely to itself - no importance in the wider world
a bad precedent
The issue of CF 'criticising' WKP is simply begging the question, I wasn't aware that he did so. I note that my notability tag has been removed without any notability being added. I am determined to have a debate about this page on principle, and if notability is not discussed, will take it further. I'm also confident that if I take the discussion wider, I will find reasonable support for my stance.
IMHO the majority of the 'keep' votes are based on weak arguments, and/or a lack of perception of the issues: the hoax, notability etc.
Further, I am aware from my background reading that past raisings of this issue have disappeared. See Mrtourne's comments during the Aug '05 deletion discussion.
I should add that I am also going to push for the related 'Greenlighting hoax' page to be merged to 'hoaxes'. Again, it is extremely trivial, and almost entirely self-referential.
I would draw your attention also to the following comment by user Snowspinner (during Aug '05 deletion discussion).
Quote: Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC) End quote
I note also that the announcement of the result of the Aug '05 deletion vote being a 'keep' was made by the same user Snowspinner. As a new user, I respectfully suggest that he made a bad counting error.
My suggestion is that the page be deleted, and perhaps userfy-ed.
Centrepull 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Something good
I know that we almost never agree, but I simply wanted to say that I'm glad to have you around. - brenneman {L} 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
of interest
Thought you mind find this MfD of interest. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
And this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Craig Schoonmaker (3rd nomination). Ground Zero | t 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
deprod of Olympus Twelve
I notice quite a few users have found you deprodding articles for what appears to be... no sound reason. One such article is Olympus Twelve, which appears to be list-cruft and likely original research. I feel your deprodding is a WP:POINT issue. If you wish to actually improve the article, or have a legitimate reason for removing the prod, then do so. If not, then leave it be. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are of no help and you waste my time and the time of others. I will now have to list this article for AfD, and you know what? It will be deleted. Thanks, no really, thanks soo much for helping us to "save" this article of shit. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I've restored and tidied it a bit. Both it and Live At The Mineshaft Tavern need work though. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)