User talk:Шизомби

User talk:Шизомби archives

 * [ Archive 1] December 2005 - May 20, 2006
 * [ Archive 2] 24 May 2006 - 5 January 2011

Talkback
Hmmm, no, I had not seen that ANI discussion, I'll take a look at it. Thanks.

Well, there's a couple of things. First of all, it's a contentious subject, and a number of editors have pretty established positions. So there is a lot of heat. It's not just me, I would say. I think on contentious subject like this, editors should expect it might get a little heated. That's life in the Agora if you're going to take a contentious position. You don't seem me complaining, at least not an ANI or whatever. We're big boys here.

It's a political fight, I would say, or an ideological or philosophical issue if you prefer. I don't really think that a lot of editors are really so much offended as looking for ways to win the political fight, or at least get rid of a political opponent. That's OK, that is human nature, and if they can make the charges stick, hey: he shoots, he scores.

It's kind of like what, according to some people anyway, is happening to Julian Assange. I lot of powerful people would like to see him put away, but they can't get him, so they're using an incident that, if he was just an average schmoe, would probably be ignored or maybe settled with a quick plea-to-a-lesser-charge and probation, or something. Same thing with John Sinclair in my day. Abbie Hoffman.

On the other hand, as a practical matter, Assange should have probably been more careful if he was going to piss off so many people, and I should be more careful too. So I will try harder. However, you said trying harder wouldn't be enough to satisfy you, so what would you suggest?

Yes, I have used various noticeboards and other things such as RfC's. I've offered mediation a few times, and have been consistently refused. The Wikipedia dispute resolution system is set up on the assumption that, at the end of the day, everyone is trying to get the articles to be the best, so it's based on voluntary cooperation and the assumption that everyone - or at least most editors - will be fairminded, when it comes to things like vetting references and so forth. It kind of breaks down in this kind of situation, so we are more on our own.

By they way, are you Russian? Your English is really good. I've translated a number of articles in from the Russian Wikipedia, you know. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you make an excellent point. Yes the ammunition point is a good point, as I said above. Not too concerned on focusing on other's misdeeds, except on an ad-hoc as-needed basis or to defend myself against charges. I hate litigation.


 * Yes I will try to adopt the "Ralph Nader" standard. Nader, like Assange, pissed off some powerful people (in this case, General Motors, which is not a government but was at the time (1960's) the world's largest corporation) with his assertion that that General Motors had deliberately made unsafe cars. Well, GM put private detectives on his tail and combed through every detail of his life. And they found nothing. He's Ralph Nader; he'd never even returned a library book late, smoked a cigarette, said "gosh darn it", etc. let alone anything worse. So is that acceptable? I will try to apply the Nader Standard to my actions in future. OK?


 * I wouldn't go so far as to say "control oneself" or compare my situation to someone with an uncontrollable neuropsychiatric disorder. I don't see myself ranting like a madman or anything like that. Willing to stand corrected, quotes would help.


 * Yes, Cyrillic. The familiar, but skewed. You're not alone, Faux Cyrillic is an amusing article. Herostratus (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And thank you, again, for finding and correcting a blunder of mine. -- JN 466  16:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

UOJComm (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of J. X. Williams


The article J. X. Williams has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Hoax article written (and repeatedly re-created) about a character created by a performance artist as if he were real. Apparently re-created by someone involved with subject, and moved from the actual subject Noel Lawrence (who is himself of unclear notability).  Should be recreated only with reliable sources and repeat hoaxers should be unable to move/edit.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. T L Miles (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Talk:J. X. Williams for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:J. X. Williams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:J. X. Williams until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. T L Miles (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I already undid my mistake.
deisenbe (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Independent Party of Utah for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Independent Party of Utah is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Independent Party of Utah until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Toa Nidhiki05 12:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Edward Winn for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edward Winn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Edward Winn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Helen Halyard for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helen Halyard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Helen Halyard until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Curbon7 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joyce Dattner


The article Joyce Dattner has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No useful sources. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. Overly promotional"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maria Elizabeth Muñoz


The article Maria Elizabeth Muñoz has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG; only one source referenced which is a results page. Googling for subject yields no significant coverage or reliable sources."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reppoptalk 07:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fred Mazelis


The article Fred Mazelis has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Does not appear to be notable; no substantial coverage."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"EGAFD" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EGAFD&redirect=no EGAFD] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Harley Quin" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harley_Quin&redirect=no Harley Quin] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)