User talk:Barryvalder

Kawaii
Nice edits (I'm not being sarcastic). I don't have any high hopes for the AfD, but as long as it's honest... freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ  14:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to subtley get the article back on track, but the whole thing needs rewriting from scratch. It's like swimming against the tide (or pissing in the wind, take your pick). Certain users just seem on a crusade to document their hobby and I guess that kind of devotion will usually end up winning out over attempts to create an acurate Encyclopedia article... Barryvalder 14:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a little baffled as to why you changed your vote to "rewrite" which essentially undermines all the commendable effort you have expended in demonstrating why kawaii isn't a "concept". Voting "rewrite" tacitly says "OK, it's a concept, it's just that the article doesn't do a good enough job of explaning why".  And I think you know as well as I that "rewrite" means either "keep as is" or "add a lot of OR to legitimize the 'concept' assertion."  The AfD seems to be largely settled but I just wondered what would make you undermine what you've already put so much effort into.  The Crow 16:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My main reason behind going for the rewrite was because I felt that a couple of the points made as to why it shouldn't be merged were grounds. For example the length of the Culture of Japan artcile. I can see your points about undermining my own argument and I think I've been a little naive in truth. I'm very new to Wikipedia and I have lost a percentage of my sanity in trying to have a discussion with one particluar user (who has now asked me to "go away"). Barryvalder 22:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, guys like that are pretty rare, and I've met a lot of logical people hanging around the AfD desk for a while. Basically I find wiki as a great place to strengthen my arguing skills, because of the general air for verifiability and the like.

By the way, ごくろうさん is a little bit insulting when said to an equal or someone who is working for little benifit; it was originally intended as praise for one of lower status (e.g. a student or a servant), though it's not always used like that anymore. You might equate it with the phrase, "Good work chump!" freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ  06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe me, it was a deliberate word choice! The spelling mistake wasn't, however. Finding it hard to keep patience with one or two of the kawaii-as-definable-style brigade. The same arguments are getting hashed over again and again... Barryvalder 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the way arguments usually go. The challenge is to figure out ways to present your opinions so strongly that they can't possibly be contested. Those who listen to logic will then back down, and those who don't will panic and start saying things like "please go away". freshgavin  ΓΛĿЌ  07:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please consider adding an "affirm" vote to the Talk:Kawaii and the Talk:Kawaii. Accepting as I do the unfortunate consensus of the AfD, I feel the second best thing is to set a clear standard of quality for the resulting article, and in doing so make a strong statement that it is not to be used as a free-for-all hobbyist trivia dump. I hope you feel the same and will record your affirmation on the talk page. The Crow 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I responded "not clear" to your poll since I agree with your perspective and since you also supported my poll as well. However, since we have only just yesterday restored a fair measure of consensus and civility, and this particular issue seems not to be actively contended in the article space, maybe it's best to let this sleeping dog alone until it begins to bark. The Crow 15:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you wrote something like "It needs to be added seeing as the discussion is still ongoing (although a number of our feline friend's hotly disputed points have since been thrown out of the reckoning).". While this is true, I'd ask you to consider not inciting him or responding to his over-the-top remarks, or referencing his discredited arguments. He's come back in with guns blazing. I'm trying to talk informally to an administrator he trusts to cool him down, and it may be necessary to make other steps, but this won't work if there is any appearance of someone re-opening the wound. I agree (and so do many others, it would appear from the document trail) that this user presents a unique challenge to one's sense of restraint, but please join me in doing the best you can. The Crow 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. What I wrote was needlessly incendiary and I shouldn't have written it given the volatile nature of that user. I'm still very new to this whole Wikipedia game and am still just learning the ropes. However, for the first discussion I choose to get involved in I've been unfortunate to encounter such a unique user...Barryvalder 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When I run into a confrontational editor, I always poke around their history, and I usually find it contains a probation of some kind, and it often happens that they're violating it. People just generally don't reform themselves.  Individual in this case has been quietly reminded through administrative channels, so we should be able to have conversations without worry of disruption or misrepresentation.  Note however in his history, some people got so irritated with him that they started following around waiting for him to slip up. However tempting, it isn't in good faith to do so, and they were censured for that. So, universe: in harmony.  The Crow 13:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, every once in a while I do a wide google search for my login to make sure that I'm not being quietly reported for being a deletionist bastard by someone that I ticked off with some blunt crufty comments. So far so good. freshgavin  ΓΛĿЌ  14:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I spoke too soon. Looks like someone suspects that I'm a sockpuppet of User:Fg2. Haha, oh well... though I must say, I'd be a pretty interesting sockpuppet to talk to myself so much in my talk page! freshgavin  ΓΛĿЌ  14:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Look it up
Why did you change it from Bicycle to Chicken? Black Carrot 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, see Wikipedia_talk:Look_it_up for my views on it. Black Carrot 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Super Yuki


A tag has been placed on Super Yuki, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ecopastadum.JPG


The file File:Ecopastadum.JPG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sleep Is the Enemy


The article Sleep Is the Enemy has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "poorly referenced for years"

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)