User talk:Aplomado/Archive 1 (January-June 2006)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Alhutch 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Editing the talk page
Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please don't remove comments by other users on a talk page. Thanks. --Madchester 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what you are talking about. Aplomado 05:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove comments by other users on your talk page. You've removed Alhutch's welcome message twice for no apparent reason at all. Unless its vandalism, all comments must remain on the talk page. (See WP:TP) Madchester 05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. But is it really necessary to have the generic message up there? I don't see it on other users talk pages, including yours. Aplomado 05:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mine's been archived here, cuz I have a lot of past messages. In general, don't edit or remove other people's comments on your talk page, unless it's an obvious personal attack or vandalism.  Per Wikipedia Talk Page - Etiquette, "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile".
 * Some users have been blocked for trying to remove or edit condascending comments left by other users, especially during disputes or edit wars. I've seen some admins block users on the spot for talk page vandalism. Just a heads up. Cheers--Madchester 05:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the note. I'm still a little new to Wikipedia. Aplomado 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NP, feel free to ask me any questions. Keep up the good job with the Superbowl XL article. Cheers, --Madchester 05:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh you can pretty much do what you want with your talk page... it's just a personal preference. Generally people just let 50+ messages pile up then archive it, but there's no actual rule saying you have to do that. You're doing a great job with the Super Bowl XL article by the way. --W.marsh 21:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man is it a lot of work. :) Aplomado 21:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD discussions
As an FYI, there's no real need to repeat yourself in multiple places saying pretty much the same thing under every Keep vote; it just clutters the discussion, and people can (and do) read the rationale at the top of the discussion. If anything, reposting your point of view over and over will only serve to annoy other users. -- Andy Saunders 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry my bad. I don't know what's gotten into my tonight. Aplomado 06:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

experimentation
If you want to experiment with the details of Wiki editing, please do it in the Sandbox or in your own user pages. For instance, you could create User:Aplmoado/Experimentation. Edits like this one are really not welcome. FreplySpang (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh I was pretty proud of that one. I did revert it within seconds though so you can't complain about it that much. Aplomado 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

External links list on Big Stone Gap, Virginia
Hi, there. I recently added a bunch of Adriana Trigiani links to Big Stone Gap, Virginia. I noticed that you also added a couple of links about the Jones brothers.

In retrospect, both the links I added for Trigiani and the links you added about the Jones brothers would probably make more sense in the articles for the respective individuals rather than the Big Stone Gap article. Do you agree with me on this? --Takeel 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there are such links already in the Jones brothers' articles. You can remove the links from the Big Stone Gap article if you think they don't really belong there, just thought they might add some context. I can see your point, though. Aplomado  talk 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised! There was no section on either brother's page for external links until just minutes ago.  I added one to each of their articles and moved the links from the Big Stone Gap page into those sections.  Thanks for working on the Big Stone Gap article and, by proxy, its related articles.  I've been doing some work on them lately, but I've been somewhat hesistant about it since these articles don't seem to gather a lot of attention.  This results in a lower level of community review, which usually means that errors slip in undetected.  --Takeel 00:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Although I would suggest having this discussion on Big Stone Gap's discussion page rather than mine, just so other people viewing the article can be edified. Aplomado  talk 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, of course; I'll make sure to keep it to the article talk page in the future. --Takeel 01:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jahiegel
FYI, if you're interested in this user's wordiness, you may wish to have a look at Talk:Mike McCarthy. --Maxamegalon2000 03:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Somehow I'm not surprised. Aplomado  talk 03:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wordiness on a talk page is not particularly distressing, I wouldn't imagine, especially when such wordiness is in pursuit of a good cause, such as improving generally the grammar and syntax passim, especially on pages related to sports. Joe 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I ought to write here rather than on the SB XL page, since I think our disagreements about that page in specific are largely settled. I think we disagree about whether I actually used any more words than necessary in the article (I readily concede to using more on talk pages, since we needn't to be encyclopedic here); I believe that the two principle sentences with which you had issue needed to be enlarged in order that the grammar should be correct, with which contention I don't think you're in accord.  My edits, specifically, of the officiating section certainly seemed to lengthen the section, but not, I think, because they involved the insertion of repetitious words but because they involved the addition of new info (the King article, to which my link was bad).  All that said, I think each of us has made clear his thoughts on the matter and that, further, the article is now in good shape.  Although I undertook a major edit of the article prior to the game, I didn't touch it during February (Winter Olympics, after all) but see that you contributed greatly and well to the article, and, in view of all of your contributions and the genuinely congenial tone you take on the SB XL talk page, I believe most sincerely that your critiques of my additions have been wholly constructive, and I thank you for that.  If you were to look at my history, you would likely find (I say immodestly) that I have been a good editor, and I have surely found that about you as well.  I look forward to our continued Wikiparticipation.  Joe 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass Transit incident (ECW)
Hi Apolomado

As the page you created has been moved to Mass Transit incident (ECW), I've changed the link on your user page to match. If you're not happy with this, just revert it, and I apologise. Good page, by the way. Proto   ||    type    11:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Can you please take another look at Articles for deletion/Chikkaveera Rajendra Tintin (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Changed my vote, thanks for letting me know. Aplomado  talk 20:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Chain Of Strength
You wrote:
 * Since when do articles get a free pass when they don't assert any notability? Hell, this should be a speedy delete.
 * But of course there is an assertion:
 * ". . . limited output . . . had an impact way beyond other more prolific bands. Their first 7" . . . is considered a masterpiece . . . The band is also noted as being one of the first youth crew bands to publicly abandon the straight edge movement. . ."
 * Here are not one, not two, but three distinct assertions of notability! What did you mean? - the.crazy.russian   (T)   (C)   (E)  05:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * According to whom??? A band isn't notable just because the author of the article claims they are. See: WP:V. Aplomado  talk 07:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, but you originally said "they don't assert any notability." They did! Three times! Which is why this is in AfD and not in Speedy Delete land. And which is why I don't vote keep - because I view these assertions critically. You have to understand the key distinction between no assertion and an assertion we reject. - the.crazy.russian   (T)   (C)   (E)  16:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Asserting notability based on nothing is the same as not asserting notability at all. Aplomado  talk 18:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, IMHO bad move to open a second nomination debate for duplicate band article. There's no guaratee that people who vote on one read the other, and that might lead to two duelling discussion with inconsistent outcomes. It's just not how it should be done. My 2¢. Thx. - the.crazy.russian   τ / ç / ë  04:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Henry College
Thanks for maintaining order in Patrick Henry College. You were even right when you reverted me :). BTW, do I know you? --DDerby- (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You do actually, I was a 2004 graduate of the school. That's as far as I will reveal, however.


 * I'm rather disappointed to see Stacey go, he was definitely my favorite after Dr. Brandly left. Aplomado  talk 06:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? prod can have a parameter.
Hello there. You have proposed the article YAAFM for deletion without providing a reason why in the prod template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that:. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 14:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, didn't realize that. Aplomado  talk 15:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion if you actually attempt to pursue the drinking game AfDs individually.
Please consider looking into whether the articles are verifiable and have nobility established with, say, published books or media coverage before sending them up to AfD. We've had a few AfDs recently with things that were blatantly obvious keeps, and it only gets people angry, and I can tell your heart is in the right place, so I figure I'd drop you a line before you jump into something you might not be expecting. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the advice, although I (respectfully) still feel that the vast majority (if not all) of the games I listed are clear deletes. Aplomado  talk 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone will tell you that verifiability will be the key, and they're easily verifiable. Just figured I'd toss it out there, good luck with however you do it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT on the drinking games
Hi, please take this as friendly advice. I noticed on Articles for deletion/Bizu-Bizu that you are saying that you don't see how your recent behaviour on the AfDs violates WP:POINT. Frankly, I have to say that what you've been doing is, IMHO, pretty much the canonical example of a WP:POINT violation and I would expect a lot of other editors will see it the same way. If you don't see it that way, that's fine, but I'm just letting you know that that is how it's going to be perceived by the community. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'm willing and I could explain things in more detail to you. Long story short, this sort of activity is going to do a lot more towards annoying your fellow editors and thus indirectly hurting your cause if you're trying to get these articles deleted. Best wishes, --Deville (Talk) 02:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I have no problem keeping an open mind about things. I've only been editing since January, so I welcome constructive criticism. What I mind is you not explaining why you believe this, which really makes it difficult for me to help you and the other editors out. You seem to be approaching this with a "You know why you did this" attitude. What I'm trying to communicate to you is "No, I don't." Aplomado  talk 02:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't think the massive PRODding to have been done in bad faith or even to have been disruption to make a point. It often happens at AfD that, toward the proposition of "keep", one adduces the existence of another article about a subject of similar notability or verifiability (for an elucidation, see, inter al., the Pokemon test); our typical posture is to say that, since the other article has existed for some time and has not been challenged at AfD, we ought to keep the article about which the debate is ongoing.  This seems, really, to be a case of one's choosing the road of least resistance, which, where one has a deeply- and sincerely-held belief that a consensus will develop toward the deletion of most of the articles, proves deleterious to the encyclopedia.  Certainly, were one to nominate the sundry drinking games for deletion (prior to PRODding), were he/she to PROD articles absent any possibility for a consensus toward deletion, or were he/she to PROD many articles having been upset at the AfDing of an article he/she thinks ought to be kept, one could impute bad faith or infer disruptive purpose.  Here, it seems simply to be a case of one's having a sincere (and well-reasoned) belief that, if one article is to be deleted, many others ought to be, and that, since the former article ought to be deleted, he/she ought, at least, to start a discussion with respect to the latter.  As I recently noted at the Le Kevin Smith AfD, I considered nominating en masse for deletion the bios of otherwise non-notable football players that were created upon the drafting of the players; such nomination would not have been done to prove a point and would, instead, have been intended to address with celerity a large-scale problem.  Whether other editors will perceive WP:POINT violations is a wholly different question; whether they should is, IMHO, well-settled.  Joe 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I've figured out why Deville would suggest this is a violation of WP:POINT. It was probably due to the fact that I added all those prods, probably should have just tagged them AfD to begin with. Still, I'm pissed off that some editors apparently love to jump to the conclusion that things are done in bad faith and rip on whoever made them. Shame on them. Aplomado  talk 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't think that there was anything really wrong with the mass prodding and bringing the multiple entries for deletion at the same time, at least in the sense that I don't think that you were acting in bad faith, or trying to make a point there. But, then, later, comments like Well, if we delete this, we're going to have to go hog-wild deleting the articles linked in "Drinking game." There's a rather long list of them and each have their own articles. do very much seem like you're trying to make the point of "Well, if you all won't agree with deleting the ones I want deleted, then noone should delete any of the articles like this", or, that's how it comes across.  Getting an article you think is bad kept because it's like another article you thought should have been deleted is making a WP:POINT.  Hope this helps clarify things.--Deville (Talk) 14:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I suppose I can see how it would come off that way. Still, the way I was arguing the point in the deletion debate should have shown that I was sincere about it. In any event I'm done with the matter. Aplomado  talk 17:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record -- as if anyone's keeping one, but anyway -- I would just like to state that I think Aplomado's edits regarding these drinking games were done in good faith and without any intention of disrupting Wikipedia, never mind disrupting it to make a point. I can see why someone might disagree with his edits, sure, but accusing him of violating WP:POINT is just silly. He was going after articles he felt vere unsourced, unverifiable and non-notable. I don't see a problem with that. Using AfD rather than PROD would probably have been a good move, yeah, but that's not the same thing as doing a bunch of bad faith edits. Not even close. -- Captain Disdain 04:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cap'n I appreciate it. Chalk one up to trial and error. Aplomado  talk 04:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. There was nothing wrong with the multiple AfDs, or at least nothing done in bad faith (I do think it was a procedural error but this was done in good faith, I am sure).  I am specifically talking about the edits to Articles for deletion/Bizu-Bizu which is an entirely different story.  Hope this clairifies matters. --Deville (Talk) 14:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple onminations - point of
At Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game), you questioned the purpose of having proceedures for multiple nominations.

What I find multinoms are best used for, is when you have a small walled garden of directly related articles you would like for deletion, for example: a band failing WP:MUSIC plus the individual articles on the band's members (who fail WP:BIO otherwise), or an article on a person whose only claim to fame is the two flash games he/she has created, both of which have individual articles.

Trying to multinom large amounts of more loosely-related articles, such as all the drinking games you listed (whose only commonalities were that they were all drinking games and all lacked sources) is, while and admirable effort, doomed to failure.

Hope this enlightens you. -- Saberwyn 07:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You also stated that the time taken to nominate was the barrier to listing them separately. Consider adopting JNotheman's AfD helper at User:Jnothman/afd helper. Just zis Guy you know? 09:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the tips. Aplomado  talk 17:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sample recreations
Re the above, while you were posting, I was in the middle of bundling the near-identical articles Scorccio and Sample replay into the AfD. You might like to revise your comment in the AfD accordingly to ensure that it remains unambiguous. Thanks, and regards, --BillC 23:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Gaming articles
You've been going around claiming that "gamers" are introducing a lot of crufty articles into Wikipedia. While I'm sure that is true, it is only fair to also mention that those of us who are active in this area have gone to some lengths to discourage this kind of work. Take a look at WikiProject Computer and video games. Anyway I'm a gamer and I encourage your efforts to counter cruft. Just try not to generalise all gaming contributors into one category, since there's a lot of excellent contributors in this subject area. Cheers! jaco ♫ plane 19:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, my apologies, I'll include a note about that on the deletion page. Aplomado  talk 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

List of prank flash animations
Hi there. I've added the "prod" template to the article List of prank flash animations, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:List of prank flash animations. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

deletion of this page has occurred before, and has simply led to the main prank flash article becoming a spam magnet. therefore its better to leave this page up. Zzzzz 01:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I dunno that that's a good reason, if it's being spammed it needs to be reverted or, if it's bad, semi-protected. If it violates policy, ax the thing, I don't care. I encourage an AfD. Aplomado  talk 01:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just gonna clean it up (brutally with regard to the spam), and if it's a big enough problem I'll request semiprotection. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 02:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also been a slight problem with Zzzzz once again accusing anyone who liked the article of being a spammer and dumping the article onto a user, this time Ganerer.--Tenka Muteki 17:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA
Just a brief note to compliment you on the exceptional work you're doing at this AfD; in view of the many sound arguments posited in favor of deletion and paucity of reasoning behind many of the keeps, I can't imagine that it'll be closed as anything other than delete, but a no consensus is always possible, after which we'll head to DRV, I imagine. Notwithstanding our past differences (specifically vis-à-vis grammar and syntax in the SB XL art), and setting aside initial inferences that I made apropos of you (which inferences were wholly wrong, I now see), I should say that I'm glad to see your increased participation at AfD; tensions are often heated there, and it's great to find editors who are able to reason well, cogently and succinctly articulate their views (hmm, maybe I could learn something about that...), and who stay calm. You're a user whom I'd be very comfortable supporting for adminship (although I'm sure other voters would prefer you to have more edits). Joe 05:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that. Of course, don't take my previous comments about your writing style personally. Aplomado  talk 14:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

u are so unruly
yes i mean it. you proposed an article for deletion steph mekwuye and you included that the name mekwuye does not have anything to do with this person. do people have to prove to you that they own their own sur name? or you are just bored? it is inappropriate to write things you have no idea of and has no iota of truth about whatsoever. next time, please be sure to keep your mouth shut! when you have no information.Stillwaters111 18:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What? First of all, I'm not the one who proposed it for deletion, I simply voted in favor of it being removed. The reason I voted in favor of it is because there is no evidence presented to prove that she is notable. This is a requirement for all articles in Wikipedia. See Verifiability for more information on this rule, which states clearly: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." If you can find these sources, then more power to you. Aplomado  talk 19:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I randomly came across this, but I just wanted to point out that WP:BIO is indeed an official guideline, but WP:N is actually not; it's been rejected by the community and is now an essay. I was surprised to learn this myself, but it's true!  Mango juice talk 13:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While that is true, it doesn't change the fact that articles still need to demonstrate notability. Aplomado  talk 15:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I do know that person, Steph Mekwuye, and I do know people that can verify that she is what her brief bio in wikipedia claims to be. Is that enough for removing the deletion status? 09:36, 18 May 2006 (GMT)

deprod
I have removed the prod tag from Ivy Close, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. The article is tiny, but as a former Miss Great Britian, some people would likely find her notable, so I think a prod is not the way to go. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to it, as Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial deletion. Instead, feel free to list the article at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mango juice talk 13:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT
I have opened a discussion at WP:NOT based on the debate we had over the game manual clause and its aplication to the page Structures of the GLA. This link leads to the debate. TomStar81 01:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Voting symbols
Hello. I noticed that you've used the "vote" symbol on AfD. Could I persuade you to not do that? While it often looks like a vote, it's not. Emphasising the binary/counting nature makes the discussion appear less important, when in fact it's the whole point. Thanks. brenneman {L}  13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I stopped using them a few days ago since they seemed to irritate some people. I don't see it as much different from putting delete or keep, but I won't do it nonetheless. Aplomado  talk 16:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

FDR
Good to see the work you're doing on FDR - excellent points all. And thanks especially where you're cleaning up some sloppy grammer left by me. Sam 00:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Carroll H.S.
I grew up in Churubusco, Indiana about 8 miles from Carroll. As an adult, after college, I also worked as a journalist in Northeast Indiana covering, among other things, small towns and local government issues (including the Northwest Allen County Schools district) for about six years before I moved to California. Davodd 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Very cool. Well done with the article. Aplomado  talk 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Hi Aplomado, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Patrick Henry College and have been temporarily blocked from editing. When you return, please try to reach a compromise on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding me. Aplomado  talk 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I was wrong to violate the 3RR rule and was correctly blocked. My apologies and I will not do it again. Aplomado  talk 07:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gansbaai ext. links
You re-added the two external links in the Gansbaai article; any specific reason why? They are unsiotable for a number of reasons according to WP:EL: So I'd like to propose that we delete them again, unless you feel very strongly about it? Thanks, dewet|✉ 06:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) They are both commercial operators, and therefore have an additional interest in extra link exposure;
 * 2) They don't really add 'value' to the article; information should be added to the article itself instead.


 * Alright I'll remove them. I added them so as to be references to the material in the article, but I suppose they don't add a lot. Aplomado  talk 06:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick (and positive) response ;) dewet|✉ 06:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good work with the article BTW. Aplomado  talk 06:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fort Wayne Observed
Just to clear something up Natan actually started the Fort Wayne Observed blog and then gave up the duties to Harper. I beleive that Nathan was the one who had the dispute about the book on line. Just wanted to make things clear to you since you are not in Fort Wayne and probably don't know the history of this blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.246.144.226 (talk • contribs)
 * OK, if you're sure that's the case I suppose it's not a big deal. Aplomado  talk 00:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)