User talk:Artw/Archive 1

Michael Point
Jeez, dude. Could've just emailed me to say "I want to make some changes", or "you can't get away with that!". The Michael Point entry might have the stink of self-promotion about it, but it's all good hearty truth. Or it was. Cos now it's deleted. And I can't find a copy. So that's a bit shite.

-si

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelpoint (talk • contribs) 13:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

O'Reily / web 2.0 spat
Seattle, huh? Gee, I wonder what company you work for.... --Jjzeidner 01:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A list of confusing pages
I saw your edit summary question -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Earth_Battalion&curid=2018618&diff=28558612&oldid=27178786 -- crop up. Do you mean "is there a list of pages with the confusing template attached to them?" There is an entire category: Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification, part of Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories. Adding the appropriate template sticks articles into one of these categories automatically, and removing it automatically de-lists (de-categorises?) it for you; so you don't need to find and edit anything yourself. Hope this helps! --Telsa 08:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

2000 AD to do
As I see you have been working around the area of the British comic industry I thought I'd point you to the 2000AD to do list - if you see anything relevant  that needs starting or expanding feel free to throw it in, if something on the list takes your fancy tehn go for it and if you can think of anyone else who might be interested then pass it on (Emperor 01:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

2000 AD enjoyable by all ages above infancy
Browsing through some odd history pages I note that you have reverted a user's removal of the 'children's comic' characterisation. 2000 AD was and is most certainly not exclusively a children's comic.


 * However it started that way and in context the term is appropriate. Artw 16:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

2000 AD -> 2000AD?
I've explained my thoughts on the talk page but it has been niggling me for a bit and a suggestion for a catgeory renaming has brought it to a head. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it (Emperor 14:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Car Fire
You are a wanker. You will always be a wanker. If you saved the Queen from terrorists, or built 100 bridges, you would still be a wanker. If you haven't guessed, I am not a fan of sarcasm. In fact, I hope you die in a car fire. I am a big fan of irony.--ttogreh 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't even own a car! Artw 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability for Gabba AFD
Hello. Re: Articles for deletion/Gabba (band)

This to inform you that several "evidence of notability" (including All Music Guide and one CD) have been provided after your vote, which you may want to reconsider. Regards, -- 62.147.112.67 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: A large batch of sourced evidence (including screenshots of articles from Mojo and Melody Maker, and photos of BBC sessions) has been added since. -- 62.147.113.247 05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Giant Raccoon
You redirected this to Raccoon. Maybe it should just be deleted.

Reasoning: The Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory is a whimsical example used in the book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Some fool (me) put it into a short article, thinking that that was a good place to describe the "theory"/whimsical example. Out of 6.5 billion people on earth, only two or three of them agreed with me, so the GRFT article is no more. The admin who deleted it redirected Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory to 'Godless,' the book in which it appears.

Giant raccoon formerly redirected to Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory. It now redirects to Raccoon, which is fine, but I don't think there is such a thing as a giant raccoon, except in the aforementioned whimsical example. It's your call, but I'm thinking that Giant raccoon should be scrapped. Lou Sander 16:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll take a pop at it! Cheers, Artw 16:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Revised wording of AJAX suggestions
Thanks for the feedback. I've put up new wording in the Ajax discussion page for the three cases where you semi-concurred. I'll go ahead and make the other changes to the article. --Chris 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Barrett AfD
Hi I saw your vote on the Kevin Barrett AfD. It appears to me that the nomination is clearly wrong, this guy certainly passes WP:BIO. Perhaps you would like review the evidence some of us have presented in the AfD. Dionyseus 00:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Netricity
Artw, I am working on the rewrite of "netricity" and in the process of gathering/soliciting additional subject expertise/editorial help (I'm new at this). Others have suggested the addition of a tutorial section to justify linkage. What would this rewrite need to provide to overcome your vote to delete? Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Jthomp4338 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Simple answer - a clear an concise explanation of what the term means and some examples that indicate it's widespread usage. WP:NEO should be a good place to pick up tips. Artw 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see User_talk:Jthomp4338 if you want an idea of this. Calbaer 01:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The {afd} against Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli and Kako Kandahari
In your delete vote you wrote: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIbrahim_Daif_Allah_Neman_Al_Sehli&diff=70966728&oldid=70963459 Delete for now. Article can easily be recreated once any real information comes to light, for now it's rather pointless.]


 * 1) May I suggest you have been misled by a nomination that contained serious misconceptions?
 * 2) *In particular the nominator asserted that these two articles were essentially identical, and referenced "the same two links". This is incorrect.
 * 3) *I have given a fuller explanation in the {afd} page -- the short version is that although I created a large number of articles that appear essentially identical if you only take a cursory look at them, they are in fact unique. The links that the nominator describes as "the same two links" are, in fact, unique references that allow the reader to go quickly to the transcripts of the detainee's Combatant Status Review Tribunal, the detainee's Adminstrative Review Board hearing and/or the detainee's factors memo, that summarized the factors for and against their continued detention.  You see when the DoD was finally forced to comply with a court order to release information about the detainees they chose to do so in the least useful manner possible.  They released 6,000 pages of documents in .pdf format.  And those 6,000 pages of documents don't give the detainee's names, just their ID numbers.  Prior to my creation of these stub articles that Crzrussian has such an objection to, it was possible to find a particular detainee's transcript -- if you were prepared to spend several hours visually scanning through all 6,000 pages.
 * 4) *The facility to go directly to detainee's transcripts that the wikipedia has made available to the world, through considerable effort on my part, is unique in the public part of the internet. There is no other place someone can go that will spare them that tedious several hours of visual grep.
 * 5) Crzrussian didn't see fit to reveal that his nomination to delete Guantanamo articles is the twelth attempt so far. See User:Geo Swan/working/Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion for the details.  All the previous attempt, but one, failed.  And, when I had more information about that detainee, I recreated his article.
 * 6) Crzrussian didn't see fit to let those considering his nomination know that I have quietly been working away at expanding all the stubs I created. Well I have been, and, FWIW, I am about half way through.
 * 7) *Why not delete the articles that haven't been expanded, and add them back in, when someone is ready to expand them? Well that means that anyone who needed to access those transcripts would be out of luck.

I don't know if you have taken a look at either Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli or Kako Kandahari. I expanded both of them since Crzrussian filed his nomination. Frankly, I am mystified as to why he hasn't addressed those changes.

Maybe, even after this expansion, you will consider the article's pointless. If so I would sure appreciate hearing why.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 09:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

AJAX redirect
Hi Just wondering what your problem with AJAX pointing to the programming article. None of the other articles on the disambiguation page are acronymns. My expectation is that typing AJAX should take you to the programming article. Cheers. Journeyman 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ajax is not an acronym. Artw 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wha? the opening line of the article defines Ajax as short for "Asynchronous JavaScript And XML" that sounds like an Acronym in my book (a la Radar, Laser, Scuba, etc.) (cf. "Not an Acronym" and "PageMove"). RADAR redirects to Radar, so why shouldn't AJAX redirect to Ajax (programming)? Journeyman 02:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Google it. Artw 04:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, so it's a retronym. You should fix the article to remove the confusion. Journeyman 06:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

shoebox effect redirect
Hello! I noticed you redirected the shoebox effect stub to the rebate (marketing) article. I disagree with that since the "shoebox effect" occurs in other areas besides marketing rebate submissions. It also occurs whenever a reimbursement is neglected, such as a prescription receipt to a prescription insurance plan or a parking receipt for a job is lost or forgotten about. (Note that neither of those is involved in marketing or considered a rebate.) Also, if you are going to redirect what you believe to be a sub-topic, please take the time to boldface the sub-topic (shoebox effect, in this case) in its first appearance in the article, per the redirect guidelines. That should make it easier to understand why shoebox effect is redirected to that article. (Although, in this case it makes it seem as if the shoebox effect is only applicable to marketing rebates). Thanks! - Ektar 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Web 3.0
What do you mean by "deleting and protecting, not recreating as a placeholder" the Web 3.0 article? Can you please expand on this on the article's deletion page? --Peter Campbell 02:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Innova Records
Hello, Artw -- I found the Innova Records page listed under "pages needing to be wikified", as I am part of WikiProject Wikify. Although not an expert on the subject of this article, I did some research and have wikified, clarified, and referenced this article. I believe it was you who tagged the article in the first place, and if you would be so kind as to look over it and give me feedback as to the edits I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks, Emmegan 14:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message on my talk page. I'll be sure to do some work on that. Emmegan 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Xfanz page
Hello ARTW. Please indicate why you think the xfanz site is spam. The site is a news source that is owned by the current leader in adult news (xbiz.com) we do have a full community aspect. This site should not be considered spam as it makes NO money what so ever from the end users. Xfanz.com is exactly what is stated in the article, a news site with a community aspect (and will soon have its own YouTube type video service.) if you feel that the format of the article needs to be changed then please indicate what and we will see to it. But to say it is spam is unfair and untrue. Did you take the time to look at the site at all? Please take the time to check your facts before you take a credible site and shame it by saying it is spam. I look forward to your response and hope that this will be fixed. Thank you.
 * The article (by XFANZ TEAM) is IMHO clearly spam. I have no idea what the actual site is like and do not care. TBH you're probably better off raising this on the article page than bothering me directly. You could, for instance, remove the prod, which would mean your article would no longer be up for deletion. That would probably mean it going to afd and getting discussed there. You can read about that sort of thing here Artw 05:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How to place the template into articles
Place at the top of the page something in this format: 

 CyberAnth 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Solaris
Thanks for that - I was just following up the mention on the 2000 AD boards the other day so I'll look into it now. (Emperor 17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

"covert method to gripe"
Hava a look at Special:Contributions/Janusvulcan. — coe l acan t a lk  — 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Artw 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"out of curiosity"
Shush! Quiet, you! Or I'll "lose" you somewhere in the damp depths of the washing machine! — coe l acan t a lk  — 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I lol'd. You fairly well outdid my kitty-cat and veiled cotton-and-polyester-blend threats. — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your post
Both on my talk page and on ANI and the village pump. Though it may have looked like I ignored your post on my talk page, I did actually act on it, just not on the page you were talking about. It took me on an interesting journey that lead to me working in concert with several admins, filing official complaints, exchanging emails with Jimbo, and ultimately deciding to stop editing wikipedia. Jimbo is willing to overlook Cyberanth's extreme edits (even he characterized some of them as wrong) and refusal to work with others because he agrees with the core of what he did, but the extreme edits and the refusal to work with others were the point of why most of us were screaming. If he confined himself to only removing controversial uncited information no one would have cared. Instead he was trying to force a WP:POINT. This particular episode is just a symptom of what is wrong here...not the problem itself. Even if I had won that battle, the underlying problem would have remained, including the manner I would have used to win it. Winning it, would have been at best, only a temporary political victory, good until the next idiot came along who decided to misapply policy and start ripping apart the work of others. I didnt sign up on Wikipedia to be a security guard. Best of luck. just wanted you to know I didn't ignore your post. It was what actually lead me to realize the scope of what he was doing and the extreme nature of the deletions and it lead to me deciding to reallocate my time into far more productive purposes. So thanks. It worked out good, for me anyway. Caper13 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right now I am so very, very tempted to take your example. Artw 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, fuck it, I'm quitting, at least for the duration of WP:BLP as a trolls charter and the apparent endorsement of various slimy nutjobs as great wikipedians. This whole situation fucking stinks. Fuck the deletionists, fuck the admins that back them and fuck Jimbo Wales. Fuck him in the eye. Artw 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's good to vent. he situation seems a little better now, though I doubt I'll have much enthusiasm for editing for a while. Artw 18:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Freeman Dyson
Yes, I should have checked the discussion first. I still think he merits inclusion in the Category but I respect the informed consensus view. Shawn in Montreal 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * it's worth pushing it on Talk again, since it's a borderline case. However I do think it's a little fair lumping him in with a bunch of guys who are getting kickbacks from exxonArtw
 * I agree. But I'll leave to someone more knowledgable. Incidentally, I think a "welcome back" is in order? See, the lure of Wikipedia is irresistable, even if it drives us all crazy from time to time.... Shawn in Montreal 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

House of Leaves
I noticed your recent changes to the page for House of Leaves. The title of the book is in fact House of Leaves, the color is not just a gimmick. If you disagree with my revert, could address the issue on either my Talk page of the Talk page for House of Leaves. --Scorpios 09:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rollback on Condom
You removed some text on Condom, probably by accident, so I've returned it. The thing just cut off in the middle of a sentence after your edit; if I was mistaken, let me know, and I'll endeavour to keep from repeating my mistake in the future. Thanks. --Sopoforic 06:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick question
Just wondering the basis on which you assert Jeff VanderMeer is a "recognized authority," and so the link to his blog should remain in the aticle Solaris Books? Thanks. UnitedStatesian 08:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He;s a well known SF/F writer ans his blog has a high volume of traffic (I've seen it listed in the top 10 of SF writer blogs) - seems pretty legit as a source to me. Artw 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate X-Men (story arcs): Peer Review
Greetings! In December of 2006, you participated in the discussion for the 2nd deletion nomination of Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). After two months of rewriting, reorganizing, and referencing, the article is now undergoing a WikiProject Comics peer review. Your editorial opinion would be most welcome to help us improve the article to A-class status. Thanks for your time! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 06:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[Spider Strategies]
Are you sure this article meets the CSD?

I was thinking the same thing until I did a search and noticed quite a few notable press references.

Redefining CMS and SMS seems sacrilegious.. but it doesn't really change their position in the press.

It seems more like a matter for "Clean Up" or at very worst an AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.97.109.162 (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Ajax
Since you are so keen to not have a disambig at the start of Ajax (programming), I am converting AJAX into a redirect to Ajax not to Ajax (programming). -- SGBailey 06:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverting (see AJAX talk). I'm really not sure eho you think you;re helping out here. Artw 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I got into this because I typed "AJAX" into the search box and pressed "Go" and ended up at Ajax (programming) when I wanted stuff about greek warriors. You can't hijack a word for just one application and deny use of it for other (probably more common) uses elsewhere. Either AJAX must point to the Ajax disambiguation page or Ajax (programming) must have a link to the Ajax disambiguation page. It doesn't matter which, but you can't deny both options. If I don't get a convincing reasoned reponse to this in a few days I'll re-revert AJAX. Assuming you re-re-revert it then I suggest we get arbitartion involved. -- SGBailey 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * TBH I'd considered someone typing it in all caps without wanting the programming term pretty unlikely, perhaps that's not the case. You should probably take this to talk:Ajax (programming) for discussion there. Artw 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Swaggart
I have absolutely no idea what a "piece by peice restoration of the pre blank-ing version of the article" is supposed to be. I reworked the article based on reliable internet resources as well as a Swaggart biography - nothing more, nothing less. Kelly A. Siebecke 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Swaggart
My intention is for us to rebuild the article from the ground up. Just try it my way. Put on talk the material you want included and the sources you support it with. What I don't want, and I'm sure you can see the point, is an article that is chockers with scandals reported in lingering detail and "balanced" with an advertisement for his ministry. Yes, he's "notable" for having scandals, but please consider that with our sourcing rules, many people are going to be. Good news just isn't news. But we have to keep in mind that the article is about the person, not just about how the person became "notable". Framing articles in the latter way is a big mistake, which leads to articles that are sensationalist, tabloidy, not really fitting for an encyclopaedia. Grace Note 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, thanks for completely ignoring mine. I'm trying to make a way forward. I don't see anything constructive from you at all. Grace Note 03:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Better researched negativity is still negativity. Anyway, I'm busy with other things at the moment. I'll come back to this article in a few weeks. If it's still just one long slagfest, well, you'll have had a few weeks of enjoying it. Grace Note 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold up
I've done it with a lot of pages and I did it carefully. Stop and talk and save me time. Otherwise I'll be reverting back. I've spent about 10 hours on this. Alastair Haines 17:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you and I'll stop for sure, but please point me to an explanation. It's easy to retrace all I've done, I didn't delete any information. Alastair Haines 17:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I'll read more tomorrow. The only pages I cut and pasted were disambig pages, most of them (but not all) small. I left all articles in place. Please note, losing edit history is a subtlety that didn't occur to me. I could have done the whole thing much more easily by moving articles. Unfortunately, now I've created new articles this is no longer possible. It'll be a lot easier to do what I was trying to do next time, so thanks for the tip-off. Alastair Haines 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Kaneva, Inc.
I'm not speedy deleting the above article at this time, because it doesn't appear to be blatant advertising and it's substantially different from the previously deleted version. It makes a better claim of notability and includes some references, so at the very least it should go through AfD. Thanks for your vigilance, though - your time and effort are appreciated. Kafziel Talk 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nordic aliens
Thanks. I have a few bits and bobs to add but I can't claim to be much of an expert. However, I'll pass it on to people who might be able to help out. (Emperor 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Swaggart
Yes, it would be nice to have some assistance on references for the Swaggart article. I will likely get to adding the refs Sunday - right now I'm in the middle of music directing a community theatre production of Oklahoma! just a couple hours north of you in Skagit County. The show closes Saturday nite so I will have more time in a few days. Thanks for the offer.

SkagitRiverQueen 07:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly A. Siebecke (talk • contribs)

(The above comment was moved from the user page to to user talk page by Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 07:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC))


 * No special reason. SkagitRiverQueen 07:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly A. Siebecke (talk • contribs)

Dave Perry
Thanks for the heads-up - I do remember him from GamesMaster although I'm not sure I have much I can contribute to the entry (my thinking he was a bit annoying is opinion/OR ;) ). Looks like a bad faith nomination and it'll stay. I'll pop it on my watchlist and if anything occurs to me I'll drop it in. (Emperor 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Removing comments
Is wholly inappropriate, except in cases of blatant incivility. Don't do it again. --Eyrian 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops - my mistake - that was a revert intended for the main article. Of course I probably would have noticed myself if you hadn't sent me this message 30 seconds later - no need to jump down my throat! Artw 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Theres a certain irony to this, given your recent actions on AN/I. Artw 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between removing unrelated attacks, and removing someone's comments on an active discussion. --Eyrian 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you seem to have a habit of deliberately doing the later. Artw 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly. My behavior was being discussed on ANI, and people took the opportunity to hurl some unrelated bitterness. It simply didn't belong there. --Eyrian 17:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, that's kind of ironic given your attempts to drag your half-assed accusations of wikistalking into that discussion. Artw 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was considering that. The difference is, your actions are directly driven by the fact that you've been stalking me. Material about an entirely unrelated AfD had no place in that discussion. Even still, I would not have pursued it any further if you hadn't replied. --Eyrian 17:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you like having the last word don't you? Now go away. Artw 17:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Inconsequantial" vs. "Minute"
The discussion on the talk page makes it clear that inconsequential is favored by everyone but yourself. Don't revert war. --Eyrian 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking
So, how's that working for you? --Eyrian 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, You're the one who makes it necessary to visit your contrbs page to keep track of all your deletion comments. Not my fault if I happen to notice further examples of your rampant deletionism while I'm there.


 * Clearly you want to be noticed. You have been. Artw 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a "deletionist". Wikipedia has very clear rules about what articles need to have; all I do is enforce them. Almost every articles I delete is constructed from whole cloth by Wikipedians. Articles about actual subjects are treated much more kindly. --Eyrian 21:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would disagree - many of your recent edits have been extremely heavy handed and indiscriminate. Artw 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heavy-handed? Perhaps. Indiscriminate? Never. The problem is, many of these sections are all the same; long lists of straightforward interpretations that convey no meaning. Indeed, I take a more careful approach with other articles, which get pruned much more selectively. --Eyrian 22:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can go ahead and stop that now. Please read WP:STALK. I'll take additional action as necessary. --Eyrian 22:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read it. Nothing in there about following the contribs of an editor who's edits give cause for concern and taking reasonable action. If you interpret it differently feel free to take this up somewhere. Artw 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also point that if I had left your original edit stand the article would have been deleted under a false transwiki template, since no transwiking had actually occured. I suppose you consuider that a good thing? Artw 01:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I would consider it a mistake, that could've been corrected. It doesn't excuse your behavior. Following a user around and messing with good-faith changes just because you're angry at them is not acceptable behavior. --Eyrian 02:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The bulk of your edits may or may not be in good fasith, but they are frequently shoddy. Your edits since that template was removed are just plain poor and border on vandalism. As for editing in anger, well... Artw 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you claim they are not in good faith? What makes you think that? What edits (beyond the ones you've tried to discuss constructively) would you say are shoddy? --Eyrian 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With your last couple of edits to Flibbertigibbet you've actually started behavinglike a real editor again - I would ask you to compare those edits with the ones you made before. Artw 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Planet killer
Hi, I am trying to rewrite Planet killer in light of the AfD. I've started a user subpage at User:Wl219/List of fictional weapons of mass destruction and would appreciate your comments. Thanks. Wl219 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

removal of material by an ip
I have protected a few pages against ip addresses for 24 or 48 hours. I have now seen the extent of the destruction. Feel free to revert all the others, & let me know if they need semi-protection. I can't really block the guy myself, since it might seem personal, but you might ask at AIV or AN/I, & I will comment there. Nor should i be the one to apply full protection. In general, per WP:BOLD, bold deletions of material are permitted, but certainly can be reverted, and then must be discussed. Please add a discussion on the talk page every time you do such a reversion. If it is then deleted again without responding to your comment, it makes the vandalism apparent. If you think the ip is a sockpuppet but aren't sure, please let me or someone know by email.' If you are sure, report it. DGG' (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * more than one of them, unfortunately If you can demonstrate it, i strongly recommend you take it to AI/V. DGG (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario RPG lists
Currently, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars has two lists pertaining to it (List of characters in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, and List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars). User:TTN decided it would be best to merge the lists into the main article and split Smithy Gang into those articles. I recently merged Smithy Gang into the list of chatacters by removing the non-notable characters, and I have asserted that a cameo section in the list of characters is valid, per Trivia sections and Handling trivia that uses Alex Trebek as a good example. I have suggested that we rename the articles per Requested moves to something along the lines of Characters of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars or Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) just like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and World of Final Fantasy VI or Gaia (Final Fantasy VII). I believe if these articles are to evolve beyond a non-notable list, they should be renamed. For example, List of Final Fantasy VII locations was merged into Gaia (Final Fantasy VII), because a World article is notable, but a simple list of locations is not. That is why there are other secions of the article to make it a World article. It simply has not been renamed yet.

TTN believes the citations in the development and reception sections of the list of locations, books and magazines, are trivial sources. When I added that the 3D perspective of the game is reminicent of Equinox to the main article, TTN removed it since my souce was "the opinions of the Nintendo Power player's guide writers". Although it was actually Nintendo Power magazine, I do believe a magazine is a reliable source, and I gave a page from Next Generation Magazine which also said the same thing. In addition, I was surprized that TTN said that it was from the players guide, since he claims to own the players guide for the game. He has not verified this, since I asked him for citations in May, "Could you look in the back of the Player's Guide and tell me what “types” of … Magic? I forgot what they call it in the game … well, anyways, what types of Special Attack or whatever it is (actually, could you find out what it's called?) there are? I remember some vaguely when I owned the guide like “Fire”, “Jump”, “Electricity?”, etc. Could you provide a citation, like the page number with a quote in context?" TTN replied that he was going to "get to it" (User talk:TTN/Archive 5). TTN claims the player's guide is "at the bottom of a box that's behind at least five others in a cramped space". Seeing that TTN did not recognize that the page was not from the player's guide when I provided a scan of the page in question from Nintendo Power shocked me. However, I have continued to assume good faith by not questioning TTN's honesty.

Per Consensus, I have offered five different reasonable, temporary compromises that might integrate my idea with TTN's. TTN rejected my compromise because it still keeps the articles. I agreed I would consider a redirect, but Article size does not allow that, since the list of locations is currently 82 KB long. Instead, I agreed to help cut down the geography section that is the bulk of the article, but TTN rejected that as well because TTN states, "I am not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it." and "get past this "having sources automatically means that this information is good" mentality." TTN states, "I don't think they have or will ever assert notability." I have replied with, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if you don't think the articles will ever assert notability, we cannot yet know this, per Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
 * 1) Go over the list of characters so we can delete non–notable characters
 * 2) Rename the articles by following the steps at Requested moves.
 * 3) Cut down the geography section list of locations by cutting it into the regional maps the adventures use when traveling from one to another. I can get pictures and write the fair use rationals, and someone can cut down the text that has no citation and does not allude to other media.
 * 4) Write the concept and creation and reception sections for the list of characters
 * 5) Write the concept and creation section for the main article

Would you please take a look at Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and give us your thoughts? Taric25 01:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Buffy CCG
I've already started a review for this closure at WP:DRV. If I actually had old copies of those magazines this would be open and shut, but unfortunately, I do not. I'm working on finding sources, but it may take a while. -Chunky Rice 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my assertion here is that with or without sources in hand, the closure was improper. If the review doesn't overturn, then I'll recreate whenever I do turn them up. -Chunky Rice 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for the end of the relisted AfD before we pat ourselves on the back. Looks good now, but you never know. -Chunky Rice 21:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but I didn't think that the last one was going to close as a delete, either. Good work with the ref. -Chunky Rice 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0 And Germany.net
Hey - Sorry if I messed something up. But why did you revert?

Thanks. Klaus Efernie 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efernie (talk • contribs) 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because your edit looked like an attempt to insert a spammy link in favour of the more important Amazon example. Take it to the relevant talk page if you disagree. Artw 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Artw. I have already entered my thoughts in regard to that issue into the discussion page for Web 2.0 . Nobody (so far) seemed to have a problem with my suggestions. Why do you believe Amazon would be more important? Because it's bigger? It's American? Because we buy our stuff there? Just curious. Efernie 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Spime (2nd nomination)
Good morning. You notified me of a deletion review on the Spime article, and noted that I should participate as the closing admin. Periodically, I doublecheck categories at CAT:AFD to ensure that all debates listed by category are open and, in the course of one such review, I removed the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING template from the Spime debate, as it had been closed. As a result, I was listed as the closing editor. However, the closing editor was actually User:Mikkalai, per this diff. I have notified Mikkalai of the review, though you may wish to provide notice as well. Thanks, and I apologize for any confusion. Best, ZZ Claims~ Evidence 16:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Future Shock
Good one this week. It felt like part of a bigger story - did it start out that way or is it proof of concept for a bigger story pitch or just as it is? I'm just being nosey I suppose but thought I'd ask ;) (Emperor (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks for that - it is an interesting glimpse into The Process. I have to say I do like the sound of the original version. although we all should Trust in Tharg - it does lend itself to a more effective twist (within the constraints of a 5 page story ;) ). (Emperor (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Seattle
I see you will be attending the Seattle Comic Convention and there are still an awful lot of creators who need images added to their infoboxes, The list of the projects needed image is vast so if you are up for it either pick some folks you'd be looking out for or snap at random and see how it goes ;)

Have a good one. (Emperor (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Masters of Horror episodes
Why are you undoing the approrpiate redirecting of the unnotable individual episode articles to the episode list? You are not giving any reasoning at all in you edit summaries, just undoing without cause and without addressing how ALL of those articles fails WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:MOSTV. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are yet another out-of-the-box deletionist and I have very little interest in hearing your views on anything. No, you are not an assest to wikipedia. Please stop. Artw (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I observe the good work you are doing and will leave you to it for now, to avoid edit conflicts. We seem to have a good number of energised editors pulling together on this.  Thanks for leading the way. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm basically just doing some reverting and adding unreferenced tags - any references that can be dug up and added would be extremely appreciated. Artw (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will do more on specific articles, probably starting with the John Carpenter ones. I need to be careful though as I haven't seen any of these yet and don't want them to be spoiled for me.  The Screwfly Solution was already familiar to me from the short story.  Anyway, here's a barnstar for your efforts.

August 2008
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yadda yadda yadda. I'm failing to see anything but generic deletionism from you. Certainly no constructive efforts. Artw (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No Peronal Attacks Warning
Please do not make personal attacks on other editors, as you did here. Comment on articles and content, not editors. Dayewalker (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Git
I'm slightly puzzled as to why you reverted my cleanup of this dab page. I simply re-ordered is as suggested in mos:dab. You gave no edit summary so I am in the dark. Reply here will be fine. Abtract (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted with minor eidt. Theres a lot of work to be done here to reverse an Americancentric bias that has crept in, but I suspect it will be wasted effort. Artw (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
A Wikiquette alerts has been filed about you. Wikiquette alerts -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I advise you read WP:BAIT and watch your words accordingly. On the substantive issue, you seem quite correct to challenge User:Collectonian and I have started editing accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Art
How can I help you save all those articles which got the summary-deletion ("redirect") treatment without consensus?  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone stopping by looking to help improve the articles can fin out more here. I've thrown some resources in but the more people pitching in (finding useful articles, helping improve the articles when we have enough material together, etc.) the better it'll be. (Emperor (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

I'm inviting your comment
Here (and also, if possible, ) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     05:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look if I get time. It's a little off my usual beat. Artw (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Baba (honorific)
I'm inclined to agree with you. The page was initially just supposed to be about the honorific, and once again Bkonrad keeps resorting to using a reflist for no good reason. Don't you also think that the individuals belong in Baba, or possibly Baba (name)? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like it's a sufficiently used honorific that the list shouldn't be there, as it would arbitary and open ended, but by the same argument I think it probably should remain it's own article. I have no opinion on the the reflist thing - they both look pretty much the same to me, and TBH there's not much there worth fighting about. Artw (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not entirely certain I want to be cited like taht if you pick a fight with the guy though. Why not take it to the talk page? Artw (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, but can I rely on your support? (He reverted ). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Sessh, in what looks very much like WP:forum shopping, has dragged this here....the list is inappropriate for the Baba page, since most of these are at best only informally referred to only as Baba. Similarly Baba (name) would not be of much use for these instances since Baba is not a part of the individuals given or family names (although there might be some rationale for a name page for those whose family name is in fact Baba). I'd argue that the list is appropriate for the honorific page since the number of articles about such individuals is limited. As far as the reflist thing goes, the guidance you are so fond of citing does not state that reflist should not be used for list shorter than ten items and you (Sessh) really should stop editing articles only to swap out that template. To Artw, I'd suggest consider very carefully how closely you want to ally yourself to an apparently insatiable edit warrior such as Sessh. older ≠ wiser 00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started a straw poll on the talk page, other than that I will be staying out of it for now. Artw (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh-oh
Thanks for your kind words at the recent AFD. I now realise that we've met before and it's good to see that The Screwfly Solution (Masters of Horror episode) is still in good shape. I see above that you have an interest in 2000AD. I like it too but haven't looked up the Strontium Dog, Tharg & Co on Wikipedia yet - must take a look. Be seeing you ... Colonel Warden (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You should definatyely check out the 2000ad stuff - It's very well covered. Artw (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please consider refactoring
This comment is rude and uncivil, assuming very bad faith about my nomination. Please consider refactoring. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I've met you before. Don't pretend. Artw (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reported you to WP:WQA. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Cartel (record distributor)

 * There's now a new article at The Cartel (record distributor). I think there's about 2 lines left from the old one. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!!
Just got my prog with the announcement of Thrills of the Future - that was unexpected but really good news!! The series has an awful lot of potential (more than most Rogue spin-offs) but seemed to be floundering slightly from a lack of... attention/focus and it looks like this could be just the shot in the arm it needed. I can't wait. (Emperor (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Looks like it's jsut going to be the 6 parter, but hopefully it will give it a proper send off - and leave room for a return, though I don't think Tharg is keen on that. Artw (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be a pity as I got the feeling Gordon Rennie left a few hanging threads to pick up on at some point in the future. (Emperor (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Books edited are never listed
This is inappropriate. A book simply edited by a user is never listed unless there is an award or some high honor. The worldcat link was put in for Price's complete bibliography to be present. Please don't put in such things like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Titzer AfD
Indeed, I have defended it, Previously. I've realized there are many problems with it(And by that I mean another user told me : I have AfD nominated it, using Twinkle, because: It is a stub, there is little to no content, it is orphaned, and several administrators decline it being on Wikipedia.

Cheers! Veraladeramanera talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Robert Titzer
Thanks for catching and fixing this egregious mistake! Best, Cunard (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NP! Artw (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal  chat  19:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that User:Verbal is revert-warring at Orthomolecular psychiatry again, contrary to the good advice above. Note that User:ScienceApologist has recently been banned from editing such articles and so matters are not as black as you suppose. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've requested the RfC be closed. Once that's done the unmerge can be pressed forwards with clear consensus. Artw (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ScienceApologist rocks. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you're certainly doing a lot to imitate your hero in terms of general civility, contributions to reasoned debate, appropriate recourse to bureaucracy and general coherence of argument. Artw (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith
This edit fails to assume good faith. Is there no other possible motive you could think of for why SA is making minor corrections to the articles? Perhaps he wants to fix them, knows that he will get in trouble for making fringe-science related edits and can't restrain himself from making corrections? There's no need to assume bad faith - don't do it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

rescue tag
I am not sure that adding the rescue tag to the article Campus Crusade for Cthulhu was really a good idea. Thee is no reasonable possibility that sufficient sources for an organization like this will be found to meet the objections at the AfD. The tag is more effective when there is a real chance of rescuing an article. DGG (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seemed like something that should have some sources out there... it's looking like their aren't though. Seemed worth a shot at the time. Artw (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you mind if the article was un-tagged for rescue? -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and done that. There is actually one promising lead for a ref, but that's not going to be enough for WP:N. Artw (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirmed that ref, too late now though. Artw (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Julian Todd
Thanks for the note. I checked out the Julian Todd page - he was cited as the inspiration rather than the inventor of Mundane SF so I've corrected that, but it looks like he's plenty notable for his work on the Public Whip and related sites. I've added some more info and cites in there so it should hopefully be clear enough to anyone looking at that page, and boldly deleted the comment re notability. --Zeborah (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Aidan Gould
I'm sure I speak for MQS also when I say thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloudbuster: Keep or redirect and merge?
The 2nd Articles for deletion discussion for Cloudbuster closed as "keep," with the note that "any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages". However, the article was immediately merged and redirected into Orgone energy. The editor who participated in the discussion and then performed the merge believes that the merge/redirect is supported by consensus. I am posting this notice to the talk page of each of the editors who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, to ensure that this is the case. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I don't think a merge is out of the question, nor do I think that this merge was performed inadequately. My principal objection is that the consensus of the discussion appears to have been overridden. --Shunpiker (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I had not myself been involved with any merge/redirect discussions on the talk page, not do I think it was a consensus to do so. Since that "discusion" did not take place, the information and article should be immediately returned so that a discussion can indeed take place.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Verbal made no mistake in being bold and merging and redirecting the article, when the afd hinted that this would be the outcome. If the debate changes the consensus then so be it, but in the meantime I hope you'll refrain from edit warring and breaking 3rr.--Sloane (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Gnosticism in Modern Times
Thought it more appropriate to move it here.

If the page isn't properly listed for Deletion, does that mean it's appropriate to remove the deletion tags? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father.rassbach (talk • contribs) 21:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably better to complete the process with a note indicating that it was incomplete. Artw (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)