User talk:Fxmastermind/archive1

Talk archive October 28 2008
Whatever you do, do not leave me a message.

10:44 EST April 15 2008 - I keep finding pages that have been deleted. I just added a {unreferenced} tag to a Wiki deletion policy page. I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this. What degree of crap will be flung can only be imagined. FX, interesting (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I undid your edit to ignore all rules, as it was not in the spirit of Wikipedia. See Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

That should be What "Ignore all rules" means. Please sign your entries by typing four tildes. interesting (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Please do not bite the newcomers yet? interesting (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Except when you violate the rules about creating articles
You said: ''Except when you violate the rules about creating articles, in which case the page in violation will be quickly deleted, leaving no trace of what occurred. Even the conversation about it may be deleted forever. This comment, like everything else on this page, does not cite sources. This comment may also be in violation of some rule.''

That's an interesting point. Several people are starting to look into issues with the deletion system already. Will you be helping out with that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

--> Hi Kim. I don't know what "looking into" even means, in regards to Wikipedia. I don't know who people are, who does what, or who created the rules. I don't know what "helping out" means, in regards to your question.

My first effort here, at creating an entry, was put up for deletion in 4 minutes, then deleted without discussion by some admin. Now I can't find the brief discussion about that.

But it led to the realization that many many pages here, the ones that state policy and rules for wikipedia, don't cite sources. The pages don't list authors either. They are nebulous pages, that don't follow the rules those pages insist I follow.

Interesting? Damn right it is interesting. I've read a lot of criticism of wiki, and defended wikipedia for years. But now, well, I see a huge flaw in the system. FX, interesting (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

 * The only links I saw in the article (the one on Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) seemed to work fine now. Were there other ones you were thinking of? -- B figura (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page.FX, interesting (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cornfused I tell you
heh heh

Is user:Nakon some kind of Bot?
I have no idea what happens on Wikipedia sometimes. While reading the ALS entry, due to a friend having been diagnosed with it, I followed a link to the ALS Association, which gave me that page that says there is no article. I looked it up on Google, and created a short starter page on it.

Right after I hit create, I realized there was already an entry, but it was under ALS Association, so I hit edit this page, to make it a redirect. It came up as deleted! In a matter of seconds, some asswipe called Nakon had deleted the page.

(Deletion log); 03:28. . [Nakon] deleted "The ALS Association" (CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance)

Considering there already was a page, and it certainly is significant, the ultrafast deletion is an example of some kind of fucked up mentality. This idiot has to be using some kind of software to scan every new article, and s/he must have spent 2 seconds before hitting some sort of deletion key.

Unbelievable. This level of bullshit goes beyond anything I have ever encountered on the Internet before. If I had changed the entry to a redirect, I would have missed the event.

I use Wikipedia all the time, but I spend almost no time editing or creating pages. Most of the changes I have made over the years have been fixing minor mistakes or reverting vandalism. Having managed to avoid ever being drawn into the conflicts and drama here, I have no idea of the mentality of those who spend all their time on the project.

Oh I've read about it, heard about it, I just never actually have been involved in it. Thank Gopod for that. Such insanity, such fucked up behavior, it can sicken and warp even a healthy mind. Considering the plethora or mental cases and emotionally damaged people that populate the Net, it isn't hard to imagine how extremely fucked up things must be.

If you just read this, please, don't try to explain it to me. I DGAS. FX (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
I have no idea what is going on there, but I think that referencing Wikipedia in Wikipedia would be a conflict of interest. You should try Britannica Online. J.d ela noy gabs adds 17:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So you've never heard that rule either? I wasn't referencing Wikipeida, but the TV show, which oddly enough, Wikipedia has the best entry on.

Speedy deletion of "Orangutan eating fish"
It was a mistake. Don't judge me man, and don't accuse me of vandalism. FX (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I put your mistake as hidden, because I don't edit other people words. If this is against some unknown rule, please link me to that page, because I got to tell you, I can't keep up with all the rules. Thanks.FX (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

get a grip there
It was just a simple mistake. Try not to take yourself too seriously. I created the correct sandbox page, seconds after you accused me of vandalism.FX (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, edit your comment, which is also a mistake.FX (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed comment which might be construed as insulting. Best to err on the side of caution.FX (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a mistake
I was trying to make a sandbox page and left out the /

Which is obvious if you look at the source of the page, which I just corrected.

Lighten up there, it is a user driven website, mistakes happen.FX (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fish-eating Orangutans
Hi! =) I'm not sure about using Wikipedia as a reference, but the page should only include Orangutans natural food sources. I'm sure they would eat a whole lot of things if trained to do so =). In monkey world they drink soda for example. Apis (talk ) 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages could be improved
Considering the amount of "talk" some people engage in here, it is hard to believe how bad the design is. But how to improve it?FX (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

more on stubsorting etc
Hi, I've just discovered Glossary (can also use shortcut WP:G). If you'd looked for "stubsorting" there, you'd have found an item about "stubs" which includes a link to WikiProject Stub sorting which would have helped. But I didn't know the glossary existed until yesterday! Telling you about it, now I've found it, in case it's useful next time you hit a cryptic bit of wiki-jargon. PamD (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Super Galaxy
I have nominated Super Galaxy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Super Galaxy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cosmo0 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Assume good will
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Assume good will, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did read the article. For such an article, a proposed deletion is your best bet for longevity. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If discussion is what you want, I'll give you discussion, but your article won't last an hour. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 02:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
I know what you were trying to do, and I want to help.

First, you say Wikipedia ought to have a policy about assuming good faith. The thing is, it already does. You can read it at Assume good faith. The problem was with how you tried to suggest a policy change, that is, by creating an article in the article mainspace about the rationale for that policy. But since you posted that in the article mainspace, and it is not an encyclopedia article per se, it has to go.

Looking at your edit history, I can see that your main beef is the number of articles you created that were quickly deleted. As frustrating as it can be, there are subjects on which Wikipedia articles are not desirable, and such articles must go. It is up to the article creator to demonstrate that the articles he creates are desirable, but borderline cases are usually kept. Articles are never deleted on the grounds that the article itself is in bad shape, except under cases that fall under the policy on blank pages. You may want to take a look at your first article for suggestions.

For suggesting policy changes, you want to go to the Village Pump.

Finally, I took a look at another article you created, that is, Well.com. That article is well within Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles. Keep improving it, and, if you can't, don't worry. Others will do it for you. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 03:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You asked, How is that? Or are main page articles not allowed to go to wikipedia pages?


 * Indeed, we don't want policy pages on the article mainspace. One of the reasons is that most people won't think of looking for them there. The policy page is easy to find, and it is linked to from the WP:GUIDELINES page. Another reason is, suppose that, later this year, a song hits the top of the charts and is titled "Assume good will". Wikipedia will have no room for it. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 03:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No room?
Haha! That was funny.

Re Super Galaxy and welcome
Hey FX-

Regarding the nomination of Super Galaxy for deletion, I want to say thank you for your efforts on the page, and I also want to urge you not to take the nomination personally. I know you're frustrated about the endless arcane policies on Wikipedia; you are very right that they constitute a problem because it takes time for a new or infrequent editor to learn even a small fraction of the policies. Moreover, as is the nature of everything on a wiki, policies keep evolving as consensus further develops.

Also, note that because the decision was not to delete the page, all of the content and research you have done is still present in the archives and can be added to more appropriate places, if it's not already there. As you're learning the ropes, please don't worry about proper formatting; if you add constructive information with a reference that provides enough information to find your source, a more experienced editor can clean it up to make sure your edits match the Manual of Style and the style used in the article you're editing.

I see that you're unclear about the meaning of the term "namespace". See Namespace. The "main" or "article" namespace is any article without a prefix, such as supergalaxy, galaxy, star, or civility. Articles in the main namespace are the content of the encyclopedia that is Wikipedia; the overall aim of the project is to make the articles as good as possible. Note that article names are case sensitive, excluding the first letter of the name, so Super galaxy and Super Galaxy do not point to the same page.

Other namespaces refer to ancillary stuff that, ideally, helps with that goal, but isn't actually part of the encyclopedia. For example, the "Wikipedia" namespace refers to articles that begin with "Wikipedia:" or, for short, "WP:", such as Manual of Style (or WP:Manual of Style or WP:MOS), Civility, or WP:Welcome. Articles in the Wikipedia namespace are mostly articles about how to edit and other policies and essays about Wikipedia.

There are also the User: and User talk: namespaces (where this page is), which are about individual users and discussions related to individual users.

I hope this explanation helps. If you have any questions about editing or policies, please ask me or poke around in the WP:Welcome pages, or just WP:Be Bold (but don't be reckless) and edit pages while being fully prepared to have your changes ruthlessly edited&mdash;having a thick skin and not taking things personally is part of the WP:consensus process that is central to editing Wikipedia. ASHill (talk &#124; contribs) 04:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Citizendum
Hi, I enjoyed reading your essays, especially the one with "Because while the dream is to have free access to all the knowledge of the world, you don't get knowledge from reading a Wikipedia page. A Wikipedia page is just information. It isn't Knowledge. And knowledge is never free. You have to work for it."

If I may suggest that you check out Citizendium, I believe it may be of interest as uneducated numbskulls aren't equal to NASA researchers there.

All the best, — Jan Hofmann (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 3c321
A tag has been placed on 3c321 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Abhishek Talk 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess its a valid article, sorry for that. -Abhishek Talk 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

3c321 redux
Hello, ... I noticed that  may have been tagged for speedy deletion a little too quickly ... please take a look at Flag templates for deletion warnings and let me know if following this protocol might have avoided some bad karma? Happy Editing! &mdash;  15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, my IP changed the other day ... again. :-) Happy Editing! &mdash;  18:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew that. What is up with the I.P. thing any how?  My I.P. changes as well, but I still use the same account. FX (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh ... please see Anonymous WikiGnome or Sockpuppet? and Not a topic for conversation ... BTW, have you tried using the flag templates yet? :-) &mdash; 72.75.82.202 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. I duplicated this on your current page so you would know it was added. FX (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK ... still waiting for feedback on the FLAG templates & protocols. :-) &mdash; 72.75.82.202 (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

According to your current (subject not fit to discuss) you live right next door to me. How cool is that? FX (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Good example of how Wikipedia can work
A stub is created. Nobody tags it for deletion, but instead lots of people add information, links, and within days it is an article worth keeping.

FX (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

user sandboxes
Hey again, ... Speaking of user sandboxes and "living next door", check out this one. (I don't share this with everyone. :-) &mdash; 72.75.82.202 (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. I wonder just how many such articles are hiding here. FX (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just can't find enough WP:RS to satisfy WP:BIO, so it'll remain just a sandbox, but it does show up in Google searches! :-) &mdash; 72.75.82.202 (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Chaundon
Hello again, ... I'd like a 2nd opinion on this article: The PROD-2 was contested ... do you think it's worth the hassle of an AfD?

Happy Editing! &mdash;  20:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ … article has been rescued by Some Other Editors. :-) &mdash; 72.75.82.202 (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Another sandbox
Hi again ... I plumb fergot about my Example of a stub with good WP:V to establish WP:BIO ... Share & Enjoy!&reg; &mdash; 72.75.82.202 (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Something completely different
Hi ... I thought that you might enjoy this collection of memorable quotes from life, TV, and film. :-) &mdash; 72.75.82.202 (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Some wise words
You have been quoted here. Congratulations! -- Fyslee / talk 04:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring
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. MastCell Talk 04:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments I left on Mastcell's talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaccine_controversy

I've tried repeatedly to get those vandalizing the article to talk. They won't. Some of the reverts were to my own edits because I somehow messed something up and couldn't fix it. But don't take my word for it, you can see for yourself.

If you had a bot issue the warning then ignore this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxmastermind (talk • contribs) 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to amend my earlier response. The parties are now using the talk page, rather than the edit summary to discuss their objections. And I apologize for all those bad things you say I did. Somebody used the edit summary to accuse me of vandalism, and I bit back. My bad. FX (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC) FX (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)