User talk:DeirdreAnne/Archives/2008/08

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ag articles
Hey there! I just wanted to let you know that I added a few new articles on behalf of WikiProject Agriculture. I am trying to focus more on the business side of agriculture -- I have a better grasp of that aspect (although I did recreate the Potting soil article, which was fun to create). Hope all is well -- I haven't seen you online recently. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! Great, thanks for keeping me posted. Yeah I'm pretty well tied up at present with real life.  I'm off at training with the Army until October and don't have a lot of time for recreational online stuff.  I check in from time to time but don't have a lot of time to edit.  Thanks for asking.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well you have far more important work to focus on. Be safe -- and if you bring back Osama bin Laden alive, I'll buy you a steak dinner! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds August newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A new task force under wikiproject Europe
Hello,

I've noticed that you are active in the area of Europe. I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. We sure could use your help. Thanks.U5K0 (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor Assistance Question on Possible Deletion of several articles
(Moved here from User talk:Doug for unified discussion) Neolibertarian - Right-libertarian -- Left-Rothbardianism - Libertarian center - Libertarian progressivism - Mainstream libertarianism - Thick and thin libertarianism.

These articles really annoy me because IMHO they are: Basically one or a small group of people have created these phrases, use them in their small circles, and then put up articles to advertise and promote their ideas.
 * Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including especially neologisms and original theories and conclusions
 * BLP issues since they claim various individuals are part of their faction without providing evidence

It's probably not very libertarian to want to delete them, but is it wikipedian? I need another opinion for my peace of mind and advise on how to proceed with most dubious articles, i.e., one by one or all at once? Carol Moore 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Carol, I agree, they all seem to be neologisms. If you attack Right-libertarian, I would also plan to go after Left-libertarian or explain why not.  Neolibertarian looks like nothing but a definition and Mainstream libertarianism has no cites; I would particularly support the idea that they should be deleted.  I probably won't be around to participate, and who knows the discussion might change my mind (or yours) but I don't think it's unreasonable to nominate some or all of these for deletion (curious, how did you happen to ask me?)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks for comments. I found someone who got rid of Left-Rothbardianism so will be interested in his comments as well. I asked because you were listed in editor assistance as someone who knew a lot about deletions. Carol Moore 23:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think we're on the same line of thinking here
Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard. Care to comment (further)?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, in any attempt for a ReOrg of sub-pages, I think that it would be more productive to deal with AN/I first. Consider that (at least) more than half of the postings as WP:AN would be placed at AN/I, if AN/I were fixed in such a way as most "incidents" would be funnelled there, I have doubts that there would actually be a need to split AN at all.


 * Also, note that the talk page of AN/I redirects to the talk page of AN. Hence why I posted my suggestion for AN/I there.


 * Hope this helps : ) - jc37 00:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cookie8191
Regarding your indef block of ... wat? I checked several edits of his when I commented on the MfD, and most of them were perfectly valid. They might not have been very good, but it wasn't vandalism. I'm very confused at how you came to this conclusion. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (I'll keep this note here on my page as it relates to my performance as an admin)Ned, I reviewed them and they appeared to me to be a consistent string of vandalism of Sesame Street and Looney Tunes articles. Here's one that is very clearly erroneous  if you're over 30, no edit summary, no idea where these dates come from, but I'll WP:AGF; then there is this one, which ends the AGF quest.  Following that there are a whole string of Chuck Jones related edits, all with no edit summary and no known basis for the edits, claiming every Tune known to WB was created or inspired by Chuck.  Finally, if you follow the series you can see that he's following getting reverted with changes to related articles that say similar things.  Taken together with the two above, I take them all as vandalism and I see not one valid edit (please provide the ones that you say were).  However, if you wish, I'll ask another admin to review what I did.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll admit, the date changes do leave me with the impression of vandalism, but there are people out there to believe that Chuck had a huge impact on most Looney Toons characters (I don't know if he did or not, but I do recall reading a lot of interesting debates about the claim). But then again, it could be those same kind of debates/ strong feelings that he is trying to troll.


 * Since he didn't even bother to challenge the block at all, I'm starting to think you were correct to just block him. I'm probably just thinking about this too hard. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Need (or not) for mediation
Doug, regarding the dispute over deprecating the use of the IEC prefixes on Wikipedia and some editors who disagree with that decision, it is my understanding that both parties to a dispute have to agree to mediation. As Fnagaton and I have both indicated above, we on our side of this dispute, feel that mediation would be an inappropriate venue to resolve this. Mediation often results in a compromise solutions and, as I’ve written above, compromise solutions have been tried but resulted only in chaos and poor quality in Wikipedia. We feel the issue has been settled with a clear and unambiguous consensus. I appreciate your willingness to step up to the plate and help, but I think we’ll have to deal with Thunderbird2 and Tom94022 via different means. Regards. Greg L (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
No abuse of the privilege as you yourself say -- hardly any use at all, for that matter -- and you pull it, why?

Lemme guess, Deputy Doug: a need to exercise your authority, by God, not mention to punish someone insufficiently respectful of your shiny badge. Having gotten no response from your intended victim, you've decided to up the ante with your posting at AN:I. Could you BE any more petty? Is that possible? --Calton | Talk 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Since you asked for no Barnstarts on your user page, here is a meta-barnstar for you. Thank you for contributing to the Sexology and Sexuality Wikiproject! ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomaton (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 August 2008

AN proposals
While I appreciate the enthusiasm (and I realise that this wasn't your intent), by combining the two proposals, you've pretty much killed any chance of consensus on either of them.

That's why I was trying to keep them separate.

As I would guess you probably know in hindsight, the moment you mix proposals, threads often go off on tangents, leading to confusion, and difficulty in determining consensus (leading to "no consensus" results).

I was going to wait until my initial proposal archived, to re-propose the AN one. But now it looks like I will be waiting until your combined proposal archives.

I really would like to see the AN one gain the consensus that I believe that it has. (In every ReOrg idea discussion I've seen, using AN as a nav page has rarely had objectors except from those few who object to something just because it's a "change".)

And after that, discussions concerning AN/I may happen, and may be more fruitful. (In my estimation, everyone has an opinion oconcerning AN/I. The main stumbling blocks in the past have been: move protection; watchlisting; keep it simple for newbies; and no consensus on which ReOrg system is "best";)

Anyway, I guess we'll see what happens from here : ) - jc37 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In response...
...to your question, it is very simple: I had no idea how Wikipedia worked when I got started. There were no instructions or guides or anything. When I finally figured out the protocol and etc., things improved. That's all there is to it.

I have no involvement with the Portuguese site. I live in the Anglophonic world now, so I prefer this site.

Some other stuff that I've done that could be considered clever: Going the extra mile to save an article: Anna Borkowska (Sister Bertranda) -- the one-into-zero-into-three story (see this on Keeper's page for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keeper76&diff=prev&oldid=230472555#One_goes_to_Zero_and_then_to_Three (easier for you to read it than for me to summarize).

For DYK stuff, all of these articles were originally deleted. I rewrote them all from scratch with new research and they got DYK honours: Young Religious Unitarian Universalists, David Zolotarev, Potting soil (from the Ag Wikiproject), Cupid's Mistake, Stephen Soldz, Dollis Hill Synagogue (twice deleted, no less), and Duty to God Award.

If you are interested in lending a hand, as per my e-mail (no details, please -- don't want to give away too much here), let me know. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

lost
I contributed (in a fairly basic manner) to an article named Legends of Motorsport (band) upon a request from a lazy journalist who noted that there was only scarce details about the band (in which I play) in the existing article. Now it seems the article has been deleted due to, from what I can discern through all the gobbledygook that serious users of this resource employ, a lack of notiablity, which seems to denote an absence of public profile, ie not having been broadcast et al. I can assure you this is not the case - while the band is steadfastly 'underground' in terms of mass appeal we have graced the Australian radio waves many times and appeared at large events like the Big Day Out and Meredith Music Festival, so I fail to see why this deletion has gone ahead (granted the article was, as I have noted, lacking in many of the hallmarks of a truly great encyclopedia entry). Can you perhaps assist in furthering my understanding and perhaps indicating whether or not the page can be reinstated? I do not believe I have a talk page of my own with which to recieve a response, but I can always be contacted via the contacts page on our website www.legendsofmotorsport.com.au - my nom de band is 2stroke. Many thanks. 15:11, 29 August 2008, 2stroke 58.105.51.140 (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New Ag article in AfD debate - input request
Doug, can you please check this out: ? My new article for the Ag WikiProject is up for AfD. Thanks Ecoleetage (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS One good thing came out of this -- a new Ag-related article on Farm Credit of New Mexico. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)