User talk:Andrewa/archive5

''This is an archive page. Please no updates, they should be made on my main talk page. TIA Andrewa 22:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)''

Best Behaviour
Hi Andrew, is this where I add my bit? Wikipedia can be confusing sometimes. I have decided to do my darndest to be a cooperative well-groomed member of wikipedia. So I registered and created a proper user page. I suspect some people seem to have an axe to grind towards me and are perhaps unfairly voting to delete the entry Heron programming language. Care to add your two cents? Christopher Diggins 23:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

High schools
Hi. On the (now deleted) discussion for the (now deleted) article on Temasek Secondary School, you said "In 2003 there was a good deal of debate over whether all secondary schools should have articles, and the general (not unanimous) consensus then was no.". This isn't my memory of things at all, but I can't seem to find the discussion in question. Do you know where it is? --Camembert


 * G'day Camembert


 * No, I don't, and looking for things like this frustrates me no end. The archiving system for VfD doesn't work at all IMO, and as a result we keep reinventing the wheel. The format of VfD has changed, but the archiving system is the same old chaos AFAIK. That's the main reason I wanted to give day subpages another try... lost cause I know.


 * One of the common fallacies in Wikipedia seems to be the idea that if you've kept the text, you've kept the information. That's not so at all, I spent much of my twenty years in computer security trying to correct that whopper. The information is only there in any meaningful way if you can retrieve it.


 * But my memory is that quite a few secondary school articles were deleted, mainly (perhaps entirely) US schools.


 * If you do find any relevant discussion let me know, as (one way or the other) I'd like to add a link to it to the relevant entry in WIWO. And even if you don't I'm interested... what was your recollection of events? Andrewa 15:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I remember a discussion and straw poll somewhere - not, I think, on VfD but on some other page - that was pretty inconclusive one way or the other - there was plently of discussion, and at the end of it, none of us could agree on anything (that's the Wiki way!). I didn't think there was a consensus that secondary schools should be deleted, but I may be misremembering, which is why I was curious to see the discussion again.


 * Anyway, thanks for the reply, and if I do find that discussion, I'll let you know. --Camembert


 * You might be looking for Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools. Hope that helps. Angela. 23:31, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * The very thing. Thanks Angela. --Camembert


 * Yes, excellent, thanks Angela. Fascinating. A talk page which has never had a corresponding project page, is that right? Does that mean our current policy is not to have one? (-> I've added this link a couple of other places I think it will be of interest. Andrewa 19:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That's right, there was never a project page to go with it. I just started it to see if there was any consensus on the issue as it was being discussed on VfD every week, and also on the mailing list at the time. The idea was that some consensus might be achieved and then it could be written into a policy, but, with the exception of bulk automated entries, there was no consensus. Angela. 22:09, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK! Do you know where (or even whether) any of those VfD debates were archived, either ones to keep (presumably in the relevant talk pages) or to delete? Is there any easy way to find them, or the email archives?


 * I had a look at the links from the talk page itself. The email string (eternal, ephemeral) seemed only obliquely relevant, although I admit I didn't read every one of the 26 messages there. On the other hand Talk:List of schools in the United States/Delete is very relevant. So for that matter is List of schools in the United States itself, for the links to existing schools.


 * I guess I can check all their talk pages for VfD archives, and I will. I notice Iowa and Kansas don't have any schools yet. Could explain a lot. (-> Andrewa 01:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The only deletion archive I can think of other than the list of schools one you already mentioned is Talk:Sunset High School/Delete. Many will be lost in the history of VfD as they weren't all archived as often as they are now. The only related email I could find under the eternal ephemeral was this one, but the thread isn't that related really. Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools should give you a few more leads. Sorry for the delay in replying. I haven't been paying much attention to my watchlist lately. Angela. 20:16, May 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * PS I see that the article has now been undeleted, and guess it will stay. I'm amending WIWO. Andrewa 10:17, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Peer Review Request
Hi, I'm hoping a couple of people might have a chance to see my request for peer review for the West Papua article. That's about all, all best.:)Daeron 12:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Papua
Hi - I've responded to your comments on Talk:Papua (Indonesian province). While I'm glad that you concur that the version of the article I've been reverting to is superior, I was rather offended by some of the comments you made at the bottom, which seemed to be attacks on the motivation or behavior of those of us who have been disputing with Daeron. If that was not your intention, I apologize for the sharpness of my comments, but I'd like some explanation - I don't much like being the possible butt of ambiguously worded rebukes. john 22:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree with you that I'm probably too involved in the page, and am being too sensitive, and that my comments are not particularly useful for improving the page. I'd be all too happy to sit back and let the page do what it will, so long as Daeron doesn't keep reverting, or reverting to his version and then adding stuff. At any rate, I still feel like your comments pretty clearly made imputations about others of us who've been involved at the page. "Only Daeron has asked for help, and that says something", for instance, implies that he's a better sort of chap than those of us who presumably did not ask for help. Similarly, saying Daeron's commitment to NPOV is greater than that of "some other people" (unspecified), is deeply irritating - I think Daeron pretty clearly has one of the most extreme POVs I've seen. His POV may be more just than, say, Nico's pro-German expellee POV, but it is still very problematic. I've tried numerous times to work with Daeron, and he always comes out with a long stream of stuff, combined with accusations against me on other pages. At any rate, I'll try to avoid any more personal comments on the talk page. But it gets hard when Daeron is constantly making ad hominem attacks. john 18:38, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Windermere Real Estate
You said in the VfD discussion you were interested in the result of the listing of Windermere Real Estate. Ignoring the fact that blankfaze withdrew his listing, there was a clear consensus to keep it. See Talk:Windermere Real Estate/Delete for the whole thing. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

What's in, what's out
On What's in, what's out you suggest a million copies sold (combined) as an inclusion criteria for authors. I think that will bias authors writing in the English language. See Wikipedia talk:What's in, what's out. Abigail 14:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Christian views of women
Excellent work on the new introduction, very balanced and with displays a good NPOV. -- Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thread mode
See User talk:Andrewa/thread mode warnings. Martin


 * Replied to there. Andrewa 03:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Annotated Vicar of Bray VfD
No, I was not being sarcastic. Taking your point about the length of the VfD entry, I'm replying here. I was taking your argument farther than you'd apparently take it, and I apologize if it appeared misinterpreting you. But I think we broadly agree; as you astutely note, like what deserves to be included, how much source to include is subject to individual consideration of individual cases. -- orthogonal 16:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Wikibooks/Annotated texts, etc...
Hi, I'm not very active at wikibooks either. I've mainly used it for reading and minor researching, no contributions yet. It seems that that is the place for texts which are interpretted and explained. The The Vicar of Bray is a well thought out article at this point, and I bet that if we do move Annotated Lyrics to The Vicar of Bray to wikibooks (assuming it fits at wikibooks), it would be enough to copy some of the vital info over to The Vicar of Bray and have a link from that to wikibooks, and maybe just set a redirect from Annotated Lyrics to The Vicar of Bray to the new wikibooks one. I don't know much about copying the history, I'll try to read up on how that works. &mdash;siro&chi;o 01:58, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Golden Retriever picture
Image:Spicegoldenretriever.jpg looks just like my own retriever! Did you get your dog from the Ramgold breeders? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Not my dog! I have no idea of her lineage, she belongs to one of the mothers at the local primary school, which is where this picture was taken. Andrewa 05:37, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for help!
Thanks for pointing me out the lack of my signing on "Votes for Deletion" page. I read the VfD rules, and forgot about putting the sign in - and when I tried to edit the VfD page to make everything correct, it didn't want to load. Anyway, everything is fine now, and thanks again! --Krycha 11:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rind et al.
Regarding youd vote for keeping the article about Rind et al. I would like to know why you do not agree with me that an encyclopedia article should not be named after the name of only one of the authors of a scientific study.


 * Please don't take it personally. Let's stick to the arguments.


 * The reason is that this particular study is widely known as Rind et al.. That's how people are going to find it. Similarly, we refer to the Kinsey Reports, rather than use their titles.

Rind has certainly written more than one study, should they be named Rind et al. II, Rind et al. III, ..., and Rind et al. CCXIV?


 * No.

Why do you think this article needs its own article at all rather than being covered under "pedophilia" or so? Get-back-world-respect 03:58, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Because it's a notable article. Why do you think it doesn't? Andrewa 04:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bitten Newbies
First, I do try not to bite them, especially as I am, myself a newbie, to some degree. (I've heard of the case of BigFatBuddha.) However, when an article gets to VfD, I feel like the comments there are directed toward reviewers, and not to the original author. If people in the process of reviewing are clever or flip, they are not speaking to the author, but to each other. Since I gather that some articles are going onto VfD hours after their creation, their authors are frequently following the debate and feeling injured. To some degree, this is regrettable, but to some degree I, at least, do not regret it. In the case of a vanity pager, your reminders to be careful are well noted, but I, personally, see a sharp line between those with and without an agenda. Those with an agenda are exposing themselves, are thrusting their words forward and trying to pull one over. This is a non-violent attack, and people generally counter-attack not the person, but the words. It's true that some authors are shy and vulnerable, and Wikipedia is for everybody, but I question whether spammers, in particular, but also any self-aggrandizing individuals (and it generally is the over-the-top bragging that gets a snarky comment) are often in that camp. On naming, I feel strongly that the usefulness of the project is limited by the fact that there is no equivalent yet of having three or four entries on a page in a paper encyclopedia. The disambiguation pages do a good job, but there are too many overlaps, and a lack of criterion for determining who gets the main entry and who gets a redirect is worrying. The example I come back to is schools. All the Westminsters in the US, UK, and Australia can't just be "Westminster School." Who gets the name first? In the case of books and their adaptations, who gets the name? In the case of multiple composers having an identical song title, who gets it? In the case of songs and movies and books overlapping, who gets it? If there is no taxonomy, it seems like it's a race. If people generally agree, informally, that the most notable one goes first, that's ambiguous. For me, Brecht's Three Penny Opera is much more important than a film of it. For a lot of other people, it's the other way around. I strongly disagree with laissez-faire here. All that said, I certainly enjoy your comments and find them helpful. I disagree with some, but that is all, and I don't want reply "Comments" to be construed as anything other than frustration with the competing demands of making my position clear and not wishing to make VfD or CU cumbersome. Hence my comment here. Apologies for rambling and for being a contrarian. Geogre 22:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

MWOT
I agree with every letter on User:Andrewa/minimum waste of time. This will one day become WP:MWOT. Until then, VFD will be an endless battle with inclusionists... JFW | T@lk  20:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS: Archiving your userpage would spare me a lot of WOT...

Archiving VfD discussions
On Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion]], you said that our archiving process is not well documented or consistently followed. I found at least three different processes and you are right that we often follow none of them. In an attempt to at least have a chance at structure, I have proposed a standard deletion process. I'd appreciate your builds on it. The cynic in me says that it still may not be uniformly followed, but the optimist says we have to try. Rossami 23:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sleeping Beauty Paradox
If you want to spend some time on a diversion, please have look at Sleeping_beauty_paradox and its talk page. I initially created the page without the "solution", as I couldn't think of a clear presentation despite thinking it's easy. Now various contributors present their formulations, going back and forth. The page definitively needs some fresh input. Pjacobi 16:45, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ovulation
Hm, first of all: Greetings from Austria to Australia. If you are willing to help it might be a nice experiment. ;-) - Robodoc.at 09:24, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've done it - maybe shame on me. If you would be so kind to check the links as well as my english? -- Robodoc.at 10:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Request your input
The article Undeath just showed up in New Pages, created by an anon. There is quite a bit of overlap with the article we already have, Undead. I wasn't sure quite what to do with this one, so I thought I'd hand it over to you. Merge / redirect? Enough difference for a separate article? SWAdair | Talk 08:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merge Redirect
Merge and redirect

G'day. I notice in a recent VfD discussion you voted Merge and redirect. Mike Storm beat me to making this listing.

IMO that's not consistent. Merge and redirect doesn't need to go through VfD. Anyone can do it, without permission of anybody else. So if that's what you really want to do to the article, listing it on VfD would have been a waste of everyone's time.

Or am I missing something here? Andrewa 00:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * MikeStorm made the VfD listing before I could do anything with the article. Also, though, I wanted consensus on the matter before merging and redirecting. Given the fact that this was a Star Trek thing, I didn't want to be accused of having acting peremptorily in making the merge and redirect. I'm already suspected of being a hater of small fictional breakouts, so I didn't want to go around stomping on the rights of the Romulans to have their very own articles for their very own battles. After consensus on VfD, I'd be happy to do it. I.e. I would merge and redirect if I thought the case were undebatable, but I want to err on the side of caution with some things. Both Mike Storm and I noticed the article on Special:New Pages, apparently, and he did a VfD listing before I did anything. Once on, it needs to be voted. Can you see any other course of action that would have been appropriate? Geogre 01:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW, just copying my response here for convenience sake. The answer's also on my page.  Was there something I was missing, btw?  I've not been an admin for long, and I'm really reluctant to jump into authority.  I want to be as sane as possible, and I thought that a VfD listing, once made, cannot be removed unless it is wildly inappropriate.  Geogre 02:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

European Union Olympic medals count for 2004
Hi there,

I wonder would you consider reversing your decision to delete this article. I have substantially rewritten it. A united EU team is not going to happen. I've discussed potential EU co-operation towards the olympics, and kept the table. I beleive the table is valid, for us Europeans/EUians to see how the area has fared as a whole. Please comment on my talk page if you still feel the article should be deleted.

zoney &#09608; &#09608; &#09608;  talk 00:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)