User talk:Indrian/Archive 1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

EA DRM Article
I was hoping you could clarify your decision to remove my additions regarding the EA / DRM issues currently ongoing via Amazon.com.

I fear I may be somewhat lacking in my understanding of your definition "original research". I can only assume this means I am using links to a current / updating page as opposed to a news article pasted on a news site? I fail to see how the page I used was any less relevant (considering the issue is, as I said, ongoing). I did not propose anything posted in my addition to be fact (including the phrase "assuming.." was intended to make this clear) and one cannot deny that 1,958 x $50 is indeed a figure over $97,000 ($97,900 to be precise).

I'm fairly new to all this, so kindly clarify.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallmanmike (talk • contribs) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

question
Hi,

Thanks for your contributions to the baseball articles. I'm just questioning how useful it is to add the career statistics/leadership rankings to the articles though. In my opinion, it doesn't seem necessary for an encyclopedia article, and every entry already has a link to baseball-reference.com anyway. What do you think? Mattingly23 12:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mattingly23,

While I would agree in general that baseball statistics would cause unnecessary clutter in an encyclopedia, I feel that one of the main advantage of wikipedia.com is the lack of limits on space and the ability to expand the scope of the encyclopedia beyond similar projects. While the statistics are not necessary per se, they provide a useful shorthand that explicates most of a player's career without having to write it out in wordy paragraphs. Therefore, rather than tracking team movements in articles, for example, one can just refer to the statistic block if one is curious about where a player played when. As for the leadership rankings, they do a better job of showing who was dominant (or not) in a more elegant manner, than trying to compile a complete list of accomplishments (which is why in the articles I have edited on baseball I hit only the highlights in the text). For a general encyclopedia like Britannica or (shudder) Encarta, this information is superfluous since no matter how much you or I like baseball, it is not very important in the grand scheme of life, the universe, and everything. However, I believe the presence of statistics for players in a sport that seems to revolve around them so much is appropriate and useful. That being said, this is a community project, and if consensus were to dictate that stats must go, I would act accordingly. That was probably more answer than you wanted. I apologize for my wordiness; it is an outgrowth of my passion for the sport.

Indrian 15:18, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. While it is true there are links to baseball-reference.com on most pages, I personally feel that baseball statistics are important enough to the biography of a player that this information deserves to be on-site content and should not be dependant on whether another site exists or not (though I do conceed that baseball-reference.com is not likely to disappear anytime in the near future).


 * Thanks for your reply. You bring up good points to include statistics in articles.  I wish there was some sort of baseball committee that could bring some order to the articles, for example, agree that all articles should or should not have a statistics chart, or certain categories should or should not exist.  I just don't see a lot of uniformity in baseball player bio's and it would be nice if contributors could agree on a standard.  Do you think it would be possible/advantageous to try to form such a committee?  Do other sections have things like that, or is it not how wikipedia is supposed to work?  I'm new here so I'm not sure how such things work. - Mattingly23 16:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I am also fairly new here, so I do not know much, but I believe there is a method through which it is possible to give general guidelines and suggestions on how certain pages should be maintained called WikiProject (just type that into search and you should find it). I am going to be out of touch for the next few days, but after that I would certainly be interested in looking into this matter further.  I agree that it would be nice to at least provide a few general guidelines if it has not been done already. Indrian 17:46, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * I looked at some of the wikiprojects and I think it would be a useful think to do. Having something like an 'infobox' (like WikiProject_snooker) for standard biographical info would be a good way to keep standard things consistent. I'll talk to a few other users who seem to be pretty active in the baseball section if they would be interested in working on something like this too. - Mattingly23 22:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Not much progress actually. I've tried messaging some people who seem to contribute a       baseball articles but nobodys even replied one way or the other...and that was like a week ago.  I messaged User:MusiCitizen and User:Matty_j and I think some others later on.  Is there anyone that you know who would be willing to work on this as well?  I don't think 2 people is really enough to ge this done. - Mattingly23 23:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to hear that. I unfortunately do not know of anyone who could help.  Indrian 23:05, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Indrian, I had been thinking about working on a template for a while myself now and started a project to find a standard template that could be used for all players. It is wide-open and there is plenty to discuss. Feel free to play with it as you please. Yardcock 19:22, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I will check that out sometime in the next few days. Indrian 00:35, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Pharoah
Thanks for your edits to Pharoah. You may not have noticed, but I recently copied the page to Pharoah/Temp to clean it up (largely making the mark-up consistent) before replacing the existing version. I'm not done with the clean up, but the top and the bottom sections are more-or-less there; I just need to finish the middle (which it inevitably the largest part!). I should be grateful if you would look over the new page: for example, I was not aware of the misspellings, so any factual corrections would be very welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How did you run across User:Dpbsmith/Billion?
I guess I am curious about one thing, in regard to your accidental listing of User:Dpbsmith/Billion on VfD. What I don't understand is... how did you happen to find it in the first place? I haven't made any links to it that I'm aware of, and a normal Go turns up the normal Billion article, so I figured it was effectively private space, and that people probably wouldn't ever run across it unless they were specifically looking for it. How did you find it? Just curious. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:19, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, once again I am sorry for my mistake. The reason I found it is because you have a complete article there including a category listing at the bottom of the page.  This category link places your page on the page Category:Integers, which I happened to visit.  It was your page's appearance on that page that made me believe that this was some kind of weird botched edit rather than a user subpage.  You may want to remove the category from your page until you actually publish it.  Indrian 14:05, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse
Why did you tag this for speedy deletion? Postdlf 23:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hugh Laurie
D'oh!! Speedy deletion approved! :-) Adambisset 00:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Hugh Laurie? --Rebroad 18:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"I am probably opening up a big, ugly can of worms..."
You know, one of the things I have gradually learned is that when I find myself about to start a sentence with the words "I probably shouldn't say this, but..." I probably shouldn't say it.

Yes, I think you probably did open up at least a medium-sized, not-very-attractive can of lumbricids.

Did you check the article history and notice that this was an article that had already survived VfD, and by a very healthy margin?

I think it was unwise to relist this and gives ammunition to the rabid inclusionists who imply (falsely) that it common tactic for deletionists to get their way by unfairly listing articles on VfD over and over again. I also think that when relisting an article that has survived VfD, a specific reason should be given, saying what has changed and why the outcome might be expected to be different this time.

Not really a big deal though, because it should be OK to bring up dubious things in VfD. It's not a death sentence, it's not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it's not preponderance of the evidence, it's... "take a look at this, what do you think." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Quartermaines Family Tree
I have seen that you have done nothing to imporve or Contribute to the the Soaps so why have you posted a Deletion Notice over my work.

Moanalua not the only school orchestra to perform at carnegie
Look at the symphony orchestra entry on this page. I just thought that since you had identified that quality of Moanalua as what made it just barely notable, you might be interested in the fact that it is not unique in having played at carnegie. Posiduck 06:37, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My User Page
Please keep all of your comments/responses on my talk page, and not my user page proper. I've moved your comments to my talk page. See my talk page for response to what you wrote. Posiduck 00:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

5 Billion Articles
On Posiduck's page, you mention that it is infeasable for Wikipedia to have this number of articles. Most articles have no pictures, and are under 40 k. That means 1,000,000 of them could fit on a 40 GB hard drive, like this one, which costs about $60. Now, to bring that number up to 5 billion would multiply it by a factor of 5000, making the cost approximately $300,000, certainly an achievable goal, expecially when you consider that Wikipedia is not nearly there yet and storage space is growing ever cheaper. Wikipedia's main expenses involve maintiaining the server, and, while this does grow slightly with Wikipedia's size, is a far less than proportional growth. --L33tminion 16:38, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Village Pump Proposal
Indrian, I would like your input on my proposal (or some variant of my proposal) on the village pump. Thank you. Posiduck 23:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New France Sovereign Council
Hi! When marking pages for speedy delete, make sure to check their history to see that they were not just blanked.

Otherwise good work with the markings :).

Thue | talk 20:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opposition to Castro
Could you have another look at Opposition to Castro? I'm not sure what it was like when you looked at it (I gather is started out very POV), but at this point it looks to me like the nucleus of a good article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:18, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
I've been monitoring your activities and would like to congratulate you on your perserverence in patrolling RC for deletion candidates amongst other things. Would you accept a nomination for adminship, thereby granting you the ability to delete these pages yourself? I would very much like to do this if you would accept. :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:19, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
 * It is done. You should probably go sign off on the nomination at Requests for adminship/Indrian. And don't let the edit counters get to you, please :) (hmm. I wonder why I was logged out there.) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:40, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

vfd
Hello, I've seen that you've contributed some great work to Wikipedia and have experience with vfd. There's currently a vfd on a particular song? Can you please help by voting? Votes for deletion/La La. Cheers. .:. 16:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speedy
Hi there. I don't think that Bimbo is a speedy...it seems encyclopedic enough to me. Maybe it should be send to VfD? Thanks. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 01:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry about that- yeah, it was a speedy before. Good job for catching that one...looks like the anon was testing the wiki and didn't understand what e should write.  I don't agree with what I said about VfD though...I think it could be expanded more.  Sorry for the misunderstanding :) -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 01:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Election articles
In the VfD on the longest article, you wrote that it needed "some Stalinist-like purges ..., and every single subpage needs to be deleted or at least redirected...." I agree that there are problems with 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. I thought that, instead of purging, rebuilding from scratch would be the way to go. To that end, I started 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, which is an attempt to give an encyclopedic summary of the matter. My preference would be that an article like that one replaces the article now being VfD'd. Evidently you and I disagree about the daughter articles; I envision that the summary article will include multiple links to cleaned-up daughter articles that would present some of the very detailed information now in the omnibus article. Putting that issue aside, though, I'd be interested in your comments on the attempt at a summary article. Is that sort of what the article would look like after the Stalinist-like purges? JamesMLane 18:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words about 2004 U.S. election voting controversies. While I favor having daughter articles, as the best way to accommodate all the detailed information that we have without cluttering that summary article, I do agree with you that the daughter articles should try to be "concise and relevant" as well.  JamesMLane 04:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Kents Hill School
Hello Indrian. The article on Kents Hill School has been refactored and expanded, with additional work underway. I'd like to believe that the fact this is one of the oldest continuously operating co-ed schools in the nation makes a fair case for notability, as it was established in 1824. In any case, I was hoping you would revisit the issue and reconsider your vote. Thank you for your time -- [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 22:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Everyking RfC
Hi, I noticed you said you did a lot of background research into this dispute on VfD, and as such, I thought it might be worth it if you could chip in at Requests for comment/Everyking, since anyone who's immersed themselves in this should know a thing or two about the dispute. Even though you weren't involved, you can still endorse the RfC and one or more outside viewpoints. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

King Ho CHEUNG
Just thought you might like to know in case you missed it that User:kinghocheung has recreated this page despite your advice. Indrian 22:50, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Oh well, you win some you lose some, looks like the original VfD is still up and running so we can just keep using that. --fvw *  23:00, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking...
I do not understand why you have given Timeline of fictional future events and Timeline of fictional historical events vfds. Could you please explain why you have labeled them as such? --DXI 22:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
I appreciate your frank discussions concerning deletion policy. No offense is taken - and equally, none is intended. Happy editing! --Centauri 23:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rebel Troop Carrier
I'm perfectly happy with the redirect, thanks for writing though, Intrigue 18:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Henry Moore
Thanks for your copyedits on Henry Moore. I'm often blind to these sorts of errors when re-reading an article after editing. I should put a note on my user page that articles I've had a hand in are probably fertile ground for copyeditors. It also shows that WP:FAC isn't as careful as it should be. :)   -- Solipsist 21:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Climatron image
Thanks for adding that picture – we've been needing it for both the MBG and geodesic dome articles. -- Kbh3rd 19:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Keller Junior High School
Hi Indrian, could you please reconsider your vote for the above article on VfD? Thanks a million... =) --Andylkl 11:27, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/La Shawn Barber
Hi Indrian, could you please vote keep on the above article on VfD? Members of a secret, but vast left wing conspiracy is trying to delete topics that do not conform to their political views. Thanks =) You Belong 00:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Star wars test case on VfD
Hi there! Please read WP:FICT rather than making test cases. It's usually easier to merge the articles than to put them through the VfD process. Yours, Radiant_* 13:22, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting Star Trek races articles
I took exception to your deletion of the Gorn article and turning it into a redirect to List of Star Trek races. I can see it being done with obscure races that have insubstantial articles, but "Gorn" in particular was quite detailed and had a fairly long history. I have reverted this change and recommend that you go through the Votes for Deletion protocol rather than doing such deleting. I have started a discussion topic about this on the talk page at Star Trek if you wish to discuss this further. I have noted you have done this wih a number of races and I would expect reverts to occur either by me or by others in short order, particular with regards to articles on Horta and a few others like El Aurian. 23skidoo 01:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:FICT
After reading your reply to User:Radiant! at Votes for deletion/Eclipse II and your recent merging of articles (and the above two topics on your talk page), I was troubled to find Radiant was the only editor of WP:FICT and is the only one using it as policy on VFD votes. I find no discussion for this "policy", so please go to Wikipedia talk:Fiction and let's start it. Cburnett 02:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cburnett is mistaken. WP:FICT has a large consensus behind it (linked from there), I never claimed it to be policy, and I am not the only person using it. Radiant_* 14:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ice and Fire tournaments
Could you wait a bit, until it's quite finished? Before that, I'd like to keep it in my user space.

(On the other hand, by placing the material on Wikipedia I retain no rights whatsoever, so you can copy, edit, and do with it what you want. However, an acknowledgement is of course appreciated.)

Turning this over, would you be adverse to transforming your encyclopedia into a Wiki? We are discussing this right now on the ezboard, and you work so far would be a strong foundation for a wikicities. (Note that by doing so, you would also lose all control and copyright of the material, which may not be what you want.) Arbor 05:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Indrian -- I understand full well about not wanting to wikify your encyclopedia (of course, I would be thrilled if you changed your mind in the future, so that a wikicities site could start off in good shape...). The main reason to put a hold on my tournament article is that I want to fact-check it one more time (especially, the dates), and make up my mind about how the champions should be displayed (currently, it's sometimes a list item, sometimes in the body text.) In it's current state, I am not sure all the information is correct, so it shouldn't spread. (Actually, why don't I just put some proper template on it, to warn people about possible inaccuracies.) By the way, if you want to add/edit to that article, then by all means to ahead! Arbor 07:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Indrian -- the tourney page is now in the main namespace, Tourneys in A Song of Ice and Fire. I fixed a few details and believe most things are correct now, thanks for your patience. Now you can improve, edit, steal, vandalise it all you want! Arbor 12:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Moe Berg
Hi, I saw the Berg edits you made (I did the major rewrite) and they were all good except the one about the State Department ordering Berg to film Tokyo Bay. From his books, it appears that he did that on his own and only when he joined the OSS did it ever come out that he even had such a movie. Could you identifiy you source for this fact. Thanks! Gorrister 11:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sandy Koufax
Hi, you did such a great job editing my Moe Berg rewrite, I was hoping you could do the same for my Sandy Koufax rewrite. Thanks. Gorrister 22:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marjorie Pay Hinckley
I saw no consensus there. Even RickK's nomination suggested perhaps a merge was the best option. I saw two keeps and four deletes, and one non-vote, all valid, which I don't consider consensus, and second opinions from more seasoned admins than I concurred. "When in doubt, don't delete." So for lack of consensus I would have kept; this was not a clear delete. However, as an editor who believes in not leaving messes around for others to clean up, I merged it myself, as seems to be what frequently happens to such articles. If you're still strongly opposed to my action, someone else's judgment may well be different. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You could go ask for an opinion on Administrators' noticeboard. I stand by my decision; mere majority is not consensus. Others may well disagree. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all speaking for Mindspillage, especially since I'm a thousand miles away right now... I really don't see how your justify your position on this matter. Since you believe that Mindspillage should have deleted, why are you complaining about the outcome? The article was deleted. That material from the article was merged is something that any editor can do and has *nothing* to do with the VFD. In the VFD process a vote to merge is basically a 'vote to delete' which requests a little additional work be done to another article first (it is a vote for delete with a prereq). It's pretty obvious to me, without discussing it with her, that her read of the votes was that without including the vote to merge as a delete that there wasn't a strong enough consensus, but if it is included (by conducting the merge) then there was enough votes to warrant the delete. That she went ahead and did the merge herself is something we should thank her for, not complain about. --Gmaxwell 02:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I voted delete on this issue but it has only recently been brought to my attention, by accident, that the article was not deleted, even though there was a majority to do so. I find it puzzling such a decision has been reached. There are a number of anomalies in the VfD process which needs reviewing. I will bring them up on the VfD discussion page. Megan1967 05:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiki has cabals
Howdy,

Indrian, it is sad but true but the wikipedia project does have certain petty cabals that form and engage in self protection. School inclusionists who organize to save every school, Islamosympathisers trying to make wikipedia safe for islam. Deletionist/Mergist admins who back support everyother. To me inclusionism is the only safe path, because all other paths result in the loss of information and destruction of work. Klonimus. 129.10.104.139 02:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary
Hi Indrian,

Can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ohio_Womens_Methodist_Seminary

I think the content should be deleted and merged with Ohio Wesleyan Female College. What do you think?Jni05 03:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

GNAA FAC
I was wondering what information you would like to see added to the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

FAC comment
I very much appreciate the kind comments. They've certainly helped my wikistress :-) It does mean a lot for good editors to recognise that I'm none of those things! Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

redirects
Some of your recent redirects have attracted some discussion, I'm not sure if you were informed. The discussion is over here. --fvw *  04:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi. Let me point this out: The articles you reverted do in fact contain information that is not already found on the archery page, namely birth dates. In addition, they are part of categories. My view is therefore that redirects should be avoided. I will try adding information here and there to make them more "worthy" of inclusion. Punkmorten 00:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry revert
Hi, Indrian. I was the first to revert the anon's edits on John Kerry a few minutes ago. I reverted because a lot of good content was deleted without discussion, not because the editor was an anon. I don't go around reverting people just because they're anons. [ +t, +c, +m ] 04:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Recent OWU reverts
Hi, Indrian. I see you too have a history of reverting without discussions in other pages as well. I kindly ask you to suggest changes that involve removal of information in the talk page of the OWU article prior to uniliterally removing them. For example, you should offer to discussion why you think the Facebook survey fails to objectively measure the political climate on the OWU campus. There will be users who will be in favor or against your suggestion but just because you think that something is not a good idea does not necessarily make it a bad idea. This applies to your anti-gay related statements, the facebook reference and the activism section on the OWU article. You may have a good point that they do not belong there or need work and you should duscuss these changes.

I will post a comment and a request for mediation as you appear to be doing your own thing in the past 2 days. I think it will be a good idea to discuss and refrain from changes for some time.

Faria 12:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Facebook
Approximately 90% of current OWU students are part of facebook. Could you explain why you think the 10% who are not present are demographically different from the 90% who decide to sign up? Or why their political leanings are systematically different from these in the chart? I graduated 2 years back and I think they are pretty accurate. I didn't create the chart but I think but it is a very good one. I appreciate your qualifications from your last post in my talk page. Faria is my first name and I have yet to see a male named Faria even if it not a U.S. name. Faria 05:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hi Indrian:

I suggest we post our differences on the talk page of Ohio Wesleyan about the three issues that emerged and see what other users have to say. I respect your opinion and I merit to proceeding by soliciting more feedback from other users on our differences on the three issues. Thoughts? Have a good night! Faria 05:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Your input is requested
at Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again). — Phil Welch 23:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Burlington Transit
Hellllo. The Burlington Transit article was recently "reinstated" after your merge with Burlington, Ontario a while back. I don't see any reason for the change so I left a note on the reinstating user's talk page. I'm confused as to why it needed to be reinstated, and I wish there could have been some discussion about it first. Was there any special reason that the transit page was merged in the first place? I think there are just the obvious reasons... right now the Burlington Transit article is pretty trivial when the important info could just be listed on Burlington's page. Ah whatever... Mrtea (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Turin section removal
I would like to challenge your removal of the section on "Turin vs Torino". This IS a major issue right now and may even change what people call the name of the city in English in the future (see the National Geographic I had linked in the section). Also, I added the section with the hopes of alleviating inevitable revert wars. Please let me know what you think. If you do not respond, I will assume you don't mind me readding the section. Please respond on my talk page.

JonMoore 02:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yeh, it doesn't seem to be happening. It did happen at least a couple of times earlier.

I realize that it's not a hugely important issue (which is why I put the section towards the bottom). I mostly wanted to address the issue because, well, all of a sudden everyone is calling the city Torino in English. I'm somewhat of a traditionalist, and do hope that it stays at the original English name, but...whatever happens happens. I didn't readd the section immediate;y because I wanted to see if it WOULD make any dofference. Anyway, whatever works... JonMoore 02:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the speedy delete tag on John Fine
Hi Indrian. I've remove the speedy delete tag you added to John Fine see my explanation on Talk:John Fine. Paul August &#9742; 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Another admin FCYTravis has now deleted the article. Paul August &#9742; 14:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Smooth function
Hi. I removed the cleanup tag from that article as you did not write on the talk page or in the subject line what you think is wrong with the article, and the article looks OK to me. I would suggest you share your concerns on the talk page, and then we may consider making necessary fixes to the article. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away
You once wrote regarding the Sollog article, "Delete. Whenever a group of vandals get together in an attempt to destroy the VFD process, it confirms in my mind that the topic in question should go."

I was wondering if you might still be interested in seeing the Sollog article deleted, or perhaps moved (with talk pages) to BJAODN? A number of editors have now suggested that this article does not deserve to be on Wikipedia because Sollog is a non-entity whose only claim to fame is that he annoying trolled on Usenet and Wikipedia in order to gain attention and draw links to his deathporn sites. A couple of people now have agreed that moving it to BJAODN might be a good idea. If you are still interested in the Sollog article at all, even if your opinion has changed, I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Sollog under the section "An idea for Vivaldi: move this entire thing to BJAODN". Thanks for your time and consideration. Vivaldi 00:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Red Ames?
Hey, I saw that you have been active in editing the page for Red Ames. I was wondering if you have any connection to him at all. He's my great-great-grandfather, so I'm just curious. Lefteh 23:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

RelentlessRouge: Star Destroyer
Why did you remove the Acclamator and other class cruisers?

RelentlessRouge 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thnx for answering my comment so promptly. Anyway, the Acclamator was a predecessor to the Imperator-class. According to Star Wars Episode II: Cross-Sections, it was produced by Rothana Heavy Engineering, a subsidary of Kuat Drive Yards, which produced the ImpStar. It was also the first vessel to sport the Delta Zero planetary bombardment, a capability shared by the ImpStar.

Most Confusing High Tech Words
You tagged this as a repost. Could you please give me the exact title of the text that was previously deleted? It doesn't seem to be at this specific location. - Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gnutella Developers Forum
Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the prod tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Mango juice talk 04:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the prod tag from Umbranet, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I feel the article does describe the importance of the subject, and I can see potential controversy in its deletion. 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 05:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Hi, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

You are also welcome to add User:Vishwin60/Userbox/User VandalProof (will add a user box) or simply    to your user page.

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  09:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unitary transform redirect
Hi Indrian

I noticed that you had replaced the page that I wrote on unitary transform with a redirect to linear transformation. Can you explain why you made this change? A unitary transform is a specific type of linear transformation. All unitary transforms are linear transformations but the converse is not true. For example, a scaling of a vector by a constant factor is a linear transformation but is not a unitary transformation. I originally created this page because I had been reading an article in which the term unitary transform had been used and I didn't know what it meant without some research on the web. The short article serves as a definition The page on linear transformation does not contain a definition of the term unitary transformation and so would not help a reader in my original situation.

Is it OK to revert the edit?

--Markgforbes 07:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Upon review I agree that there are too many pages on this topic but have changed the redirect to a more relevant article: unitary transformation rather than linear transformation.

--Markgforbes 00:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by Indrian
"I just wanted to give you a heads up that you may run into difficulties down the line from a rather unpleasant user named Faria who resisted my own attempts to whip this page into shape some time ago (the history of this can be found throughout both the talk page and history page for the OWU article)"

With this kind of judgemental comments mentioning the word "unpleasant", you only display your own unprofessional manners and demeanor. As you might be aware, Wikipedia has no tolerance for this kind of attitude and I will alert relevant administrators about your comments. Faria 17:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Burlington Center Mall compromise
There might be a compromise breakthrough at the above discussion in which you recently participated. Drop by and give your two cents, if you wish.  young american (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Don Denkinger
The top five reasons why Don Denkinger shouldn't be held as the prime scapegoat for why the St. Louis Cardinals lost the 1985 World Series are relevent (I don't understand your logic). If they weren't then that particular show wouldn't have done an entire episode focusing on his mistake. The whole point of the program concerned his actions in Game 6 and the immediate after-effects. TMC1982 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The purpose I believe of bringing up Vince Coleman's injury is that had he not going injured prior to the World Series, then maybe St. Louis would've had an easier chance at beating the Royals (rather than having the series to to seven games). Thus, Don Denkinger's call in Game 6, in a close ballgame wouldn't have been such an issue. The Cardinals if I remember correctly, blew a 3 games to 1 lead, so Cardinal fans shouldn't use Denkinger's call as the ultimate deciding factor. TMC1982 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Call" in the 1985 World Series is the most significant moment in umpire Don Denkinger's career. If you don't think that the reasons why Cardinals fans shouldn't hold his actions completely responisible for why they lost that World Series, then (as I previously mentioned) wouldn't have focused an entire episode surrounding "The Call." I guess, you're in favor of not listing the reasons why we shouldn't blame Bill Buckner (who like Don Denkinger, is primarily known for a single mistake at first base during the sixth game of a World Series from the 1980s) for why the Red Sox lost the World Series a year later. And another thing, confusion surrounding "The Call" is generally regarded as the key moment for which the Royals gained momentum (or the momentum shifted in their favor). By God, do you even know anything about the game of baseball!?TMC1982 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because I don't agree with you're point of view and I can't seem to making you think otherwise, doesn't make things "uncivil" if you ask me! Now as for things such as the NLCS. I believe the point was that hadn't the Dodgers made certain moves, then they likely would've gone to the World Series. And had a similar controversy arupted with one of the umpires, then the Cardinals fans wouldn't have minded since it didn't happen against their team. As for Vince Coleman, like I said before, had he played in the World Series, the Cardinals would've arguably had a better shot at winning the World Series (thus, Denkinger's call in the late innings in a close ballgame like Game 6 probably wouldn't have been much of an issue). TMC1982 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Getyourcontent.com
I see you've AfDd Getyourcontent.com. If you look at the talk page, you'll see that I've been trying to work with him to see if he can meet WP:WEB guidelines. Not a big deal, but I would like to have given him a day or two to see if he could have come up with something before I threw him into the AfD mill. --GraemeL (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

VFD
What's with nominating everything you see for deletion? can you stop, please? the article i wrote is not even 5 minutes old, and you nominate it.  User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not put personal attacks on others, but i don't see the point of nominating something for deletion before the article is even finished being written! besides, it is an act of vandalism to nominate something within 3 days of being created.  User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then i'll have to bring that up.  User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject ASOIAF
A new WikiProject on A Song of Ice and Fire has been created. If you're interested in helping define its methods and goals, check it out. Brendan Moody 06:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Time Traveler Convention
I don't want you to think I'm being sneaky, so I am writing to inform you I notified editors to the article you have nominated for deletion about the AfD, in case they want to contribute to the discussion or add new edits to the article to help assert notability. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page, if you need to. Thanks! PT (s-s-s-s ) 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Skyscrapers in Windsor, Ontario
I understand why you want to take out the apartment buildings, even with LeGoyeau's unique design, which makes it stand out on the riverfront.

However, the Windsor Downtown Travelodge Hotel shouldn't be deleted. Would you delete the Waldorf-Astoria (owned by Hilton Hotels), or the Renaissance Center (which is owned by competitor Marriott)?  User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 21:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Windsor, Ontario building AfDs
In closing as I did, I basically left it as an editorial decision. If the content is deemed notable enough to get some sort of mention in the main article, then not deleting the individual building ones allows that to happen without having to re-write them. However if the content is not notable enough then the redirect is effectively the same as deleting the article anyway (and I'd certainly resist anyone trying to revert the building articles away from a re-direct). I could have closed those as delete, but I think my closure was still within the area of administrator discretion (remembering that afd is not a vote). Petros471 09:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right, the 75% figure is pretty high for afd consensus (I usually use around the 66% if I'm even attempting to vote count). Basically that exact wording was copy+pasted as one of my standard closing statements, I could have probably done a better one for those (at least for the ones that actually were 75%, IIRC one of them had two keeps and therefore lower than that overall) and said something like 'basically consensus to delete but still redirecting because...'. Petros471 23:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cincinnati Reds
You added back in the word openly and state that "most historians agree" that other teams paid their members under the table but I don't see any reference to it. Mfields1 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Empire AfD
I'm more than happy to explain my closing as no concensus.

Accounting for the votes that give reasoned explainations, the AfD was split between Keep and Delete.

I discounted comments that WP:NOT a game guide; the article is not such. A game guide explains methods of advancement in the game (Get A and B, follow X for Z results), the article discusses actual game play. I'm not a fan of such articles, I am obliged by the deletion policy to follow the community. This AfD had no concensus for deletion. Please let me know if you have any true problems with this, thank you for notifying me. Teke ( talk ) 04:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When no concensus is deamed, you are invited to relist the article in AfD. Please AGF with me that there is no personal bias regarding the article.  I am not a gamer, no do I care one way or the other.  My decision regarding the opinions was purely based on what defines a game guide; and I am a policy and process wonk :).  By all means, relist and refer to the previous AfD and my closing decision- critique away!  That's why just about anything is reversible on the 'pedia.  Happy editing to you!  Teke ( talk ) 05:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not offended me at all. I appreciate review of my closing.  Keep doing good work!  Teke ( talk ) 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The OWtsiders page
Apologies for reverting the page yesterday. I didn't see the formal VFD page. WikiprojectOWU 19:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Whyte (hoax?)
Quite simply, hoaxes are not speediable unless they are blatant enough to rise to the level of vandalism. You are welcome to nominate the article for AFD, where it may be a slamdunk; however the author's second article seems to have some basis in truth, so I am currently erring on the side of assuming good faith, and trying to engage him (?) in discussion to figure out what's going on. This may be T. Whyte's parent, based on the "references" recently added. -- nae'blis 19:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ::Edit:: Articles for deletion/Thomas Whyte now up, based on the last "reference" provided being a personal website registered yesterday evening by his mother. Thanks for keeping tabs on this with me. -- nae'blis 13:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/List of best-selling computer and video games
Sorry I didn't reply to your comment while the debate was open, I was kind of distraught.

Anyway, allow me to cross-post a bit. I asked this question from Interrobamf in their talk page.

Ignoring verifiability questions, is the topic of best-selling computer and video games a topic that is worth of discussing in the encyclopaedia?

Here's a real-life-based, extremely up-close-and-personal encyclopaedia use case for you: I'm just a random gamer. I don't know a whole lot about video game marketing statistics, but I'm interested of games. I'm dreadfully interested in finding out what are the truly best-selling computer games of all time.

Now you want me to not find this information... because there are no reliable statistics.

Okay. I can accept that rationale. I obviously don't want unreliable information. However, in this use case, that doesn't solve my problem. My problem is that I want information about the most best-selling games. At least I want to read a detailed explanation on why various sources for sales figures are questionable, and I at least want to find the small shreds of details on games whose numbers can be verified. I don't need conclusive coverage of everything. I just need conclusive, verifiable coverage on as much stuff I can.

Like I said in Interrobamf's talk page: I'm not advocating adding unreliable information to Wikipedia. I'm just saying that if the topic itself is worth discussing. When the topic is interesting and worth discussion - the primary reason why articles should exist - then the least we can do is to say that information is wildly unreliable, and do the best we can to provide sourced information.

Yes, it's true, I don't know darn about where to find game sales statistics. However, I find it odd that you need to specifically mock me for that. I'm just saying the topic is obviously worth discussing in an encyclopaedia. Or can you, perhaps, dispute that?

You commented on how I don't have clue about this field. Okay, I fully admit that. Now it's my turn: You obviously have no idea how curious computer gamers are. If you can admit that, we can start discussing. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hi Indrian,

I hope this message finds you well. Could you take a look at my recent edits on the Ohio Wesleyan article and let me know what are some suggestions for improvement of the overall state of the article. Thank you!!! WikiprojectOWU 00:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:
Hey,

Great to see your recent comment! I think we are making progress. Let me begin by saying that issues that at some point deal with a politial element are inheritantly hard to deal with in the Wikipedia environment. Wikipedia favors a participation approach to knowledge accumulation but on controversial topics competition for space and voice results in outcomes that may involve a lot arguing. It sounds like you want to improve the article and this is a great starting point: we are like-minded people in this regard.

We should definitely try to get to the bottom of how to improve the section so that we can please all contributors (I think that you both bring strong and correspondingly valid arguments) at the end. But as you know perfect is the biggest enemy to good, so my suggestion is to refrain from criticizing each other and to focus on passing the article's FAC candidacy. After having seen other schools' FA articles, I honestly feel that this is the most referenced and arguably the best article so far (and I am not saying this because I put so much time into it). There are always thinks we can improve on but can not focus on those once we are behind the hurdle.

What I think we should focus on now is issues that are brought up by outside viewers. For example, user:Tony1 brought up copyediting, improving the structure and images in approximately this order. Once we pass the FAC, we can work out the other issues.

Towards that goal, I suggest we withdraw any comments that may not help the article's candidacy. It think we ought to work towards a common goal since we are all graduates of this school. WikiprojectOWU 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the series of comments between you and Faria... I felt that Faria did go overboard in her reaction to your criticisms... I share them. But I want to echo what WikiprojectOWU said, the FAC is not the appropriate place for this... I appreciate the fact that you have approached Faria on her page to try to get this resolved. I wish the two of you luck.Balloonman 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Activism section
So, it seems that the following actions regarding the Activism section will alleviate your fears: (1) More from earlier eras (2) Proof as to its larger signifigance in the history of the university. In addition to these two, I think Balloonman will be happy if two more are added to the list (3) More representative citations to various groups and various causes to include conservative groups, not only liberal ones and (4) a more fair tone of reporting that does not convey a sense of pride.

I have several books that will help me add (1) and (2). With Balloonman's help, I will add information on (3). For (4), I will ask another person, a Wikipedia administrator, whose view should be unbiased, and who was instrumental in getting another article its FA status.

I hope this helps! As I suggested earlier, in the meantime, it might help if you refrain from criticizing other users and/or withdraw your objection on the article's candidacy (it seems to me that we can work this out fairly easily). WikiprojectOWU 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:
Your observation regarding the last edit was on target. Trying to walk a middle ground is not always without its consequences. Let's deal with the Activism section now and then we'll get to the other issue. It could open up the possibility for users like user:Pastorwayne to jump in, introduce more opinions and possibly stir more non-constructive arguing than we need now. It seems, Duke University, Dickinson College and other schools were dealing with the same issue of several users pushing a historic affiliation in the direction of extreme bias that left many people unhappy not too long it seems. I think it is appropriate to learn from their lessons and let sleeping dogs lie for the time being.WikiprojectOWU 04:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will deal with his suggestions. I was the one who solicited his advice prior to the comment, anyway. WikiprojectOWU 06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Activism section help
I started thinking about restructuring the section to accomodate for the four concerns that we agreed on above. But I need your help! Before fleshing out the section, could you take a look at User:WikiprojectOWU/Activism and see if you agree with the basic structure and key components. It is still very very much in its early stages but I want to make sure that I am moving in the direction that will accomodate the 4 key areas before proceeding. WikiprojectOWU 19:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
I was unsure of how to go at the article because the aim is to get it to FA quality but there are no other TV characters who have FA status, so it was hard to know where to start and we had to decide between doing a biography of the character, or on his real life impact. In the end, we went the biography route. Thanks for the advice and a major rewrite is now in progress. -- Scorpion0422 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:
Dear Indrian,

Could you take a look at the Activism page on my user page. I think the solution is to have a short blurb similar in spirit to the one for MSU and then have a reference to a separate article that traces activism movemements or alumni associated with them throughout OWU's history. I looked at one of the school's history books and there is a lot to share but I don't think the main page is the best place due to space and focus considerations. I finished the blurb and I am still working on the longer page. Take a look when you get a chance. I will check with user:Faria and user:Balloonman. What do you think? WikiprojectOWU 15:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Faria
I did respond to you on my own page, because it makes following conversations easier, but I wanted to come here to extend an apology. You are completely correct, I got you and Faria confused. Balloonman 23:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

On the same page.
I just read your user page today and you are so right with one exception. Average people do come to Wikipedia as if it were an authority on matters. It is perceived to be an alternate free encyclopedia, and here in lies my problem. Personally I've tried to avoid editing on Wikipedia, but inevitably I will come across a page with content that is so factually incorrect that I am compelled to try and repair it. I don't know what to do, leave people who don't know less informed, or actually try to help get them the correct information. It's a stupid fight that I know I'm going to lose and I lament this entire approach to building this resource. BcRIPster 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyberanth
For what its worth, I opened an item on WP:ANI about the same topic here, but am getting surprisingly little support. His rationale makes no sense to me. My talk edits are on his page just above yours.Caper13 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The ANI has gotten nowhere. Frankly I am pretty disgusted by the whole thing. Seems to be to be a perfect example of WP:POINT and a gross misinterpretation of the WP:BLP policy. If you want to file an Rfc I will participate, but its things like this that make me start to question why I bother at allCaper13 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I have stopped editing Wikipedia. I have decided that the direction in which the project is going is not one that I believe in and a conversation with Jimbo has crystallized some doubts I have been having for a last while about the long term viability of what we are trying to do. I am going to focus my time elsewhere and will no longer contribute my work to an organization that endorses the cavalier deletion of good faith contributions by editors just like me (though I actually wrote none of the deleted material). Just letting you know cause I previously said I would participate in that potential rfc. Best wishes and thanks for trying to do the right thing. Caper13 16:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Spain tag
Thanks for calling the over-inclusion to our attention. Please accept my apologies, and I understand that the issue has been addressed. Please let me know if any questions remain. Espana Viva 20:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FAR notification for Mo Berg
Moe Berg has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Strom Thurmond
Back in October you (I assume inadvertently) deleted the link to an audio clip of Strom Thurmond's speech. This caused the clip to later be deleted as "orphaned". I haven't had any luck in finding a copy, and as the "responsible" party, I thought you might be inclined to help out. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I was able to undelete the clip and restored it to the article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
<div style="background-color:#f9f0C9; border:1px solid #888850; clear:right; float:right; padding:2px; width:300px;"> For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award originated by Pedia-I (Explanation and Disclaimer) Harrison-HB4026 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not Stonkers
From the edit you did on the Stonkers page, it can clearly be seen that you are not yourself a member of the Spectrum community, and know nothing about it; if you did, you'd know that the in-joke regarding this game is well-known throughout that community (it's even referenced on the Stonkers page of the Russian Wikipedia), there's nothing "gratuitous" about it, unless by that you're referring to your deletion of those details. See also "It's definitely not Stonkers" on (Google Groups: comp.sys.sinclair). Also see

Ironic that you complain of Wikipedia being subverted by "a large number of individuals that have no idea what they are doing", when you have shown yourself in this edit to be one such individual. 193.122.47.170 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (usually korax1214, but because of problems such as this I seldom bother to sign in)


 * Other encyclopedias or wikis are not reliable sources, neither are newsgroup discussions, unless "produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly)". Whether there exist reliable sources or not, the editor was justified in removing material whose source was not cited; for more information see verifiablity policy. -- intgr 11:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Will it fail?
I was interested to read your lengthy editorial, and mostly agree with it. I came here as an outlet for my occasional interest in writing about odd topics, and have seen a lot of how it goes here. I have said before, and I say again, in lieu of a page-length writeup, that wikipedia is little more than a pretentious weblog and that its slogan should be "the 'encyclopedia' that any moron can edit". I have also come to suspect that its creator is just fine with that. I suspect its real purpose is as a social experiment of some kind. On that basis, it's certainly interesting, if not necessarily uplifting. Thanks for listenin'. :) Wahkeenah 07:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I too just read your editorial (nearly 23 months after Wahkeenah) and need to let you know that I like happy endings. It is fun.  Us clumsy editors need editors like you around.  Can you imagine what Wikipedia would be like if people like you weren't involved and contributing? I would have never signed up if Wikipedia had editors who only had my skill sets!  Hope I can count on people like you to help me continue to contribute (if I have the time) and have fun doing it.Pknkly (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems I may have found the area from which the threat of Wiki failure may come from. I went to assess five articles related to "popular celebrities". To me these articles looked like the type I would find on fan site type web sites. To me these articles had at various degrees some weasel, advertising, original research, current event, future event, and poor citations that gave the aura of fan site article to them.  It took me way to much time and effort to state my opinion for articles that in my opinion do not conform to good Wiki article (they could be if they followed the rules).  So, I'm simply going to stay away from these types of articles and let others with greater experience and authority deal with them.  I'm concerned that these fan site wiki articles will diminish the reputation of Wiki.  On a more optimistic note - I do also believe that those with influence and perseverance will contain the spill over. Pknkly (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As you loom above in your ivory tower, mocking the plebeians that edit and vandalize Wikipedia...
You fail to look at another source of problems for Wikipedia: Elitists such as yourself.

Your argument merits some relevant points about the faults of Wikipedia and, to a certain extent, the concept of Web 2.0. At the same time, looking through your article, as well as your talk page, you not only seem to cause as much damage as "any user" could, but you manage to represent the opposite extreme of Wiki users that you have described: The Elitists. You feign yourself a crusader, trying to set things right and make Wikipedia "relevant" to the world. In reality however, you are more pretentious than an Ivy League professor in an English class in regards to what Wikipedia is. In fact, you don't wish to make it "relevant," you only wish to shape it to your ideal image of relevance, an image that you and your like-minded colleagues can manipulate at whim. In other words, like believers in the Five Percent Nation and the dictatorship of the proletariat, you hold yourself higher than other users for whatever reason, and feel that is your obligation to not only edit articles, but to control the flow of information entirely.

I'll admit, I once felt that, especially when I found that an anarchistic house music duo from the UK whose only claim to fame was making the first electronic-based music single to reach #1 on the UK Top 40 had more FA-class articles than the Beatles, of which the latter's own page is ranked only GA. It had me concerned about what Wikipedia stood for, made me livid at one point. But then I realized something, pouring over these articles: The reason why this duo has so many FA-class articles is not because they are "relevant" in context to the real world, but because people took the time and effort to write and edit these pieces so that anyone could punch in this group and read about them and end their reading having a much better understanding of them. Not the perfect understanding, but enough that if they wanted to actually learn more about them, they have something to go on.

Wikipedia is not the Encyclopædia Britannica, for its focus is not about what's "relevant." Its focus is on everything, for it is a free encyclopedia, its structure and premise built on the concept of open-source. To completely close off its development to a select few would not only be an act of selfish elitism, but it would betray the very principles of open-source. This is not to say that users can go on a bonanza about developing Wikipedia. There is a structure in place, there are rules. But at the same time, that structure is built to balance and maintain the principles of Wikipedia as both an encyclopedia, and a free flow of information: Much as it intends to stop vandals and falsifiers, it also intends stops elitists who feel that articles should be deleted because they are "irrelevant" and attack users when edits are not fit to their beliefs and specifications. It is not perfect, but Wikipedia is not intended to be perfect.

Now, if you still truly feel that you should be among those that wield more power and actually have a major impact on the day to day operations of Wikipedia, you should make some attempts at making yourself a Moderator (an Adminstrator is probably unlikely, given how often those positions are given out). You certainly have the compassion and ability to do so. But it is probably better for you as a user to take a step back and realize that Wikipedia is not for anyone, but everyone, that it is not about making Wikipedia "relevant" (which, when you look at all the press about it, it actually is relevant) or important, but something that is free and accessible. You are one of many, not one above many. 71.243.5.168 10:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (For the record, I am a register user of Wikipedia, but given your approach to other users, I thought it best to remain anonymous for the time being.)
 * Nothing you said in your entire comment was offensive to me except that you would not give your actual wikipedia user name. Believe me, I do not bite, and you do not have to worry about talking to me openly.  Your points on my talk page are largely relevant and to some extent true, but I think you have been slightly unfair to me (but then, what else am I going to think). I am opiniated, and that trait has gotten me into some heated debates on wikipedia as well as casting me as something of an elitist as you say, but I feel many of those I have crossed paths with have missed the point on the other side.  Yes I have definite views in some areas about what does and does not belong in an encyclopedia and try to enforce them, but my threshold of notability in most areas is actually rather low. The situation you alluded to about the Beatles and that other band, for instance, is not something that would bother me because I think the small group does have relevance if the article is to be believed and I know the Beatles articles will get there in time. I do not, however, believe that every school, highway, etc. deserves an article just for existing and I certainly feel that people take the things they do on the Internet in blogs, forums, etc. far too seriously.  I think we can we have a much lower threshold than Britannica, but I would disagree with the philosophy that because the people write it, it should contain whatever they want. If we have no standards at all, the project breaks down and becomes useless.  My standards may be to high, but they are what I believe are necessary and I will continue to push that agenda, but always in adherence to wikipedia policy because, as you have pointed out, wikipedia is for everyone. Indrian 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with 71.243.5.168 about the fact that the best articles will not always be written about the most deserving topics, but rather about the topics that people find the most interesting. However, I would also argue that Wikipedia makes an important contribution to "serious" topics as well. A study showed that the accuracy of Wikipedia was almost identical to the accuracy of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Check it out (this is a news article about the study; I haven't found a direct link to the study): http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html . I was just wondering what you thought about this, considering your apparent cynicism about Wikipedia's reliability. Tiger Khan (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your points about article bloat and the sometimes excessive NPOV are both very valid. However, although there are articles with poor organization, there are also many that are very easy reads. In particular, at least in some areas, such as pages about secondary schools, there seems to be a general standard that is being followed which creates a series of well organized, simple pages with the key information about the topic. Obviously there are exceptions, but the adoption of standardized info boxes and other organizational tools have greatly aided the professionalization of Wikipedia. That said, in my travels about Wikipedia, I mostly do gnome work, but I have adopted a few articles for major rewrites, most of which are not based on a need for more facts or article expansion, but rather are based on a lack of organization. However, it's not too difficult to make the necessary changes, so I hope that more editors will take it upon themselves to fix articles that need such rewrites such that Wikipedia will come closer to being a true, professional encyclopedia. I hope what I've written isn't too confusing. I think I lost track of my thoughts somewhere in there. Tiger Khan (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Appier
Indrian, I appreciate your including some of my earlier editing on Kevin Appier's page, however I am curious as to why you considered my most recent edit in "bad faith"? You list something as speculative as "demanded a trade" yet you deleted things as concrete as "rookie pitcher of the year" and his two Roberto Clemente awards given. It is a misnomer that his fall at his home caused him to miss the 1998 season, the fall resulted in a clavical seperation which healed in the off-season. The labrum tears were a recurring injury that finally required surgery thus causing him to miss most of the 1998 season. Your including his 11.37 world series era is understandable, yet not entirely representative of his performance, which is the reason I included it as I did, citing his first game as the main culprit. In addition, you deleted a parallel stat in the ALCS of the 3.48 era over two starts. I was very careful to make sure the facts I included were substantiated and would appreciate a reversion or at least an inclusion of the above topics. Thanks for your consideration.

Ok, dialogue is good. I considered your reversion in bad faith because you just undid what I did en mass without talking about it first. I agree that some of the stuff you mention above is probably worth of being put back in. The problem I had with the article was that it was largely a mess and full of random facts that made it unreadable. I do dipuste a couple of things though. Appier's biography at Baseball Library.com seems to indicate that his shoulder problems were the result of his fall, at the very least indirectly, and it is also clear from both that page and the New York Times website that he was demanding a trade at least by 1999 if not 1998. If you have sources that refute this, please bring thme forward. Also, I did not feel anymore explanation of his World Series ERA was necessary as his starts are all described in detail already so that any reader can see that the one game was the primary culprit. Some of the things like the two Clemente awards can be added back into the article, but I do feel that the cleanup I undertook has substantally improved readability and that it would be better to add back in the few things I should not have taken out rather than just revert the whole edit. Indrian 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was a bunch of facts but I didn't know how much longer of an article would be accepted so clean up there is welcome. I read the baseball library.com bio and it doesn't surprise me that it just regurgitates wrong info which is one downside to this automatic electronic age of shared information, ex. AP ticker. (Interestingly, on a less important unrelated topic, but just another example of erroneous information on that site, his "watercooler tyrade" was in Boston NOT New York). Appier's shoulder, specifically the labrum tear, caused worsening problems over a number of years. It's what put him on the DL in 1995. There was debate on the local level whether it should be at least surgically explored. After his injury from the fall caused the clavicle seperation, the press linked that surgery to the long needed labrum surgery because it made for a better story. Of course the Royals did nothing to dispell the misrepresentation that the two injuries were unrelated because they were able to do the labrum surgery (in response to Appier's recurring and worsening Spring Training pain) without nearly as much scrutiny. The Royal's CYA part is speculative but intuitively so. I know this injury history mostly from memory of articles and interviews as well as second-hand confirmation, but I found quotable evidence in a story from the Oakland Athletics June/July 2000 magazine which cites Sal Fasano (who caught Kevin for a number of years and with three different teams) as saying "He knows how to pitch through pain" also stating that Appier's shoulder pain went from intermittent to near constant over their several years in KC. As for the trade demand issue, though it's not a huge deal to me, it would be impossible to find a source which would specifically say Appier didn't "demand a trade". To me, this is a term overused by the media and encouraged by teams justifying unpopular trades. He was fiercely loyal to the Royals having been drafted by them, but after years of frustration and broken organizational promises, he did publically request a trade in 1999. Fair enough that the stats gave enough detail to the WS ERA, but I elaborated since you emphasized the high WS ERA while deleting the very good ALCS ERA. I do think the Rookie Pitcher of the Year, and Roberto Clemente awards are relevant to his career as well. Not to compare you to other writers, but looking at bios of other players on Wikipedia that seem to be written by their publicists, it would be nice to see Appier, a generally underappreciated player who gave everything he had in every pitch, given at least a fair and accurate bio. Thanks again for the discussion.

8/3/07 Indrian, didn't hear from you so I went ahead and made the few additions to Appier's page based on our discussion. The facts are sound, and I think the "readability" is still acceptable.
 * Did not realize you were waiting for another response. I think your changes are all very good and the article is in fine shape now. Indrian 08:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Adcock
I don't know about Billy Joe, but I do know that LSU officially calls him "Joe Bill Adcock." See: LSU Hall of Fame and http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?SPID=2173&SPSID=27865&DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=177326 Seancp 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Soap Opera Update magazine

 * Hello, Indrian, I'm sure that I can provide notability for the Soap Opera Update magazine article. I am very busy with fixing up soap opera supercouple articles, though, in my also trying to hurry up and fix up those articles before another one of those articles is nominated for deletion. So it will take me a longer while than you might expect to fix up the Soap Opera Update article, as in more than just a stub. However, if you are only asking for notability of that article, I can do that sooner, even though making the soap opera magazine articles better is not my main focus right now on Wikipedia. I'll remove the proposed deletion prod that you put on the Soap Opera Update article, and I'll tackle your concerns regarding that article later. If, at any point, you feel that I've taken too long in not fixing up that article with notability, feel free to nominate it for deletion, of course. Flyer22 19:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Emma Watson rewrite
Hi there. I know it's far from finished, but I've added User:Indrian/Emma Watson to my watchlist and have been following your (admittedly brutal) edits to it closely. I want, before the discussion goes any further, to thank you, because I've just had the penny-drop moment. Looking at diffs like this, with the offending sentences picked out in red, has brought the nature of those phrases home to me in a way no ammount of discussion ever could. They are unencyclopaedic. They are Seventeenesque. And they do have to go. I know I don't agree with you on all the cuts you've made so far, let alone any you might make tomorrow. I know there are some things you've cut that I'll fight for tooth and nail. But I also know that what I think is appropriate is now a lot more closely aligned to your idea, Melty girl's, and reality, than it was an hour ago. So thank you, and happy editing. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Legendary" Joe Nuxhall
Re: Marty Brennaman: You would likely get an argument from a lot of folks in greater Cincinnati about Nuxhall not being "legendary." After all, they did put his signature phrase in big neon letters on the side of the Reds' new ball park. But the word's use does express a POV, o Iguess it should go. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

PROD
Why did you prod the articles on James and Peter Hayward, who are the subjects of a book by an important author, and a documentary film? DGG (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoeless Joe Jackson
I get the feeling that a significant chunk of the populace knows nothing about The Fix beyond the point of view expressed in Field of Dreams. A great movie, but not exactly a documentary. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Camargue
The amendments have been and, despite having a new little sub-section, the article is about 2.5k smaller than before. When you've got a moment, could you stop by and perhaps now consider supporting. Many thanks, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with the prose of an article
I see you did a lot of work on the prose of Emma Watson to get it to FA status. I woundered if you could look at James Milner for when you can find the time. Buc (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mary Gaines Bernard
You PRODed the article, but I opposed(removed) it for two reasons:


 * 1) I've found a couple references, and I believe more exist.
 * 2) Since it's a BLP on a singer, I'd prefer AfD if it's to be deleted.

On another note, your talk page is a little on the long side, dude. Ever thing about Archiving? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! &spades; / &diams; 06:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your user page statement
I just read your user page reflections. I must say they are very well expressed, and (sadly) I have to agree with them. I'm always amazed how a few people with that fatal combination of arrogance and ignorance can cause so much damage and waste so much precious time. Thanks for your remarks on the Talk Gandhi page as well! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Information from your userpage
Hi, I was reading your userpage and it is very well-written, interesting and true. I have added the information in User:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Why Wikipedia Will Ultimately Fail and clearly stated above that the information comes from your userpage.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi Name
Hello. I just want to make sure that you're not insinuating some sort of bad faith or improper conduct on my part. The only agenda I have is correct following of WP policy. And as you point out Fowler has a pretty good hold on it. However, as you say, the common use I point out is correct, but then you go on to say that Fowler is right in his detailed logic. Yes he is, however, the fact is that common usage is first, than comes the rest. And as common usage is Mahatma Gandhi the issue with Qualifiers doesn't affect it. Sigh. Anyway I wanted you to actually take a look at my account. Fowler was quick to insult me and discount me, I hope you are not the same. Thanks. Beam 16:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no agenda other than that Wikipedia's naming policy is followed. Mahatma Gandhi is the common usage and the common way this man is referred to by the majority of English speakers, WP users. As this is true, and honestly hasn't been refuted, Fowler's further details are moot as the common usage and common name in English trump all other naming concerns, other than disambiguation, which isn't the case for Mahatma Gandhi. Beam 17:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

why wikipedia will fail, you say
No, just don't be a stickler for your particular version.

Wikipedia as a pop version of an encyclopedia. It's not Shakespeare. It's what ordinary people write. So just accept it. Of course, it will be a little disjointed. But people can read through it and gain some good facts. If you wanted it perfect, then you would have to ban editing and then have a committee approve every change.

Just like the New York Times. It is informative but has to produce so many pages every day that some errors slip through. Yet nobody says the New York Times will fail. Presumptive (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

userpage
I agree wholeheartedly with it. And to the guy above me, this isnt the New York times and thats part of the point he was making for goodness sake. There should definately be a better quality assurance thing, although id have no idea how that would work id definately do my part to ensure the absolute truth in every article i know something about. I will add your statement to my userpage as a quote attributed to you of course (when i figure out how to have a drop down list with a title such as "Wikipedia the Reality" or somesuch), thanks for it; its how ive felt recently too. I mean have you seen the utter lack of a "Controversy" (or similair) section in Jimmy Wales' page? thanks again :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (<sup style="color:purple;">Ταλκ ) 07:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter
-- <font color="#008040">jj137  <font color="#008040">(  talk <font color="#008040">)  03:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

victor aldridge
How can so many people be discussing someone they know nothing about, except for articles they have collected. Each article was someone's opinion, but the children have made it fact. BUT, the facts in each article, are facts. None of you will ever be Grantland Rice. So many "facts" are not accurate concerning Vic Aldridge. Where he was born, where he was raised, what he did after baseball. Discuss on, it gives you something to do.Diablos82 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO
According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (Moe Berg) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well said
"Over the last few years, I have come to the bitter realization that very few users are actually working towards a quality product. Instead, quanity is valued over quality and inclusion is valued over selectivity."

I totally agree with you but every time I attempt to do something about it I get blocked by interest groups. For example, I tried to argue that 30,000 low quality soccer players articles hurt Wikipedia's credibility but editors blasted me.

Hey, if you ever decide to lead a drive to increase Wikipedia's quality standards count me in as support.

BTW I got here through Otolemur crassicaudatus.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  15:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

October Baseball WikiProject Newsletter
-- <font color="#008040">jj137  <font color="#008040">(  talk <font color="#008040">)  00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

2600 pac-man
Just shot an email off to Al then, I'll see what he says. Looking at the passage from Kent's book, Al doesn't state any date. The date is Steve Kent's and he uses Al's quote to illustrate it, so my guess is its another one of Kent's many many errors. What I'm leaning towards is if you look at the date Pac-Man was released in Japan (end of May 1980), Joe would have joined Atari at the end of May as stated and taken and taken the described "just after joining" trip to Namco then or very early June before Pac-Man was any sort of a hit. It would jive with the time period as well, as it was after that Atari started releasing a flux of Namco designed hit games like Dig Dug, Kangaroo, and Pole Position. Besides all the home console and computer ports of games that were released. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Ok, just got a response back. First is the email I sent: ''Trying to clear up something date wise that I'm hoping you can help. In Steve Kent's book (Ultimate History of Video Games) he has a quoted passage from you that talks about Joe Robbins going to Japan to deal with Namco for Atari and getting the rights to their coin-op games and that's how you guys got Pac-man. Now in the book above your quote, he states 1978 as when the trip was made and uses your description to back it up.''
 * That all makes sense to me. Hope Mr. Alcorn can be of help.  Thanks again. Indrian (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is that as far as I know, Joe didn't join at Atari until Spring of 1980 (the Coin Connections from the time actually lists June 4th as his official "introduction date" during a Coin meeting, and I'm assuming he would have started late May.)

''I'm going to go ahead and assume the '78 date is an error on Steve Kent's part (as his book is full of such errors). Pac-man was just released in Japan at the end of that May and wouldn't have been a hit yet, so were you describing a trip that Joe made that June or early summer 1980?'' Thanks again for you time, and any help in clearing this up. And his response: '' Marty,

''I think your interpretation of events is correct. Warner bought Atari in late '76 and the honeymoon lasted til '79. Manny hired Joe because he didn't trust Lipkin to run coin-op. Joe Robbins was a real businessman who didn't follow orders very well. After the Pac-man deal, arguably the best deal ever made under the Kassar administration, people started saying "who shot JR?"'' Hope that helps in weeding out which references to use. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ron Gordon at my talk page
Just wanted to let you know there's been a few more responses back and forth in case you weren't keeping up. I posted the email I got back from Al, and wikinizerwoman posted a nested response back to you that I've responded to as well. As far as the one NYT artilcle from 2003 that states "president", a lot news papers routinely use supplied bio and press kit material for quick summations like that, fact checking is usually applied to the major material the article is about. As you point out, the previous article in '84 contrdicts the later one. I might try tracking down BARNABY J. FEDER (the author of the 2003 one) to question it if you think its worth it, but so far I don't see anything specifically documenting the time period providing anything concrete as him having had the actual title of "President". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dave Nutting
Your edit summary here is unnecessarily sarcastic and unhelpful. Since you did nothing to establish notability in thr article I have reverted your removal of the notice. If you can establish this person's notability please do so by adding reliable sources, explaining it in the article and establishing a consensus at the talk page. Anna Rundell (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama
Have you seen the latest copyedit of the article. I did not notice any response at the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:FAC is so tough these days that I do not expect anything I do to pass in one round. I just hope to get other people interested in my articles who will help me clean it up or give feedback. I think there is at least one other editor interested in the article now.  I think we really need to wait a bit more for her to have more robust First Lady content to balance out the detail of the campaign.  Thanks for the note however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

SMB3
Comments left at Talk:Super Mario Bros. 3. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Feedback request
You seem to know a lot about writing Baseball articles, so I was wondering if you could take a look at 2004 World Series for me, when you can find the time. I'm hopful of getting it to FA status at some piont. I already know about the lack of info about TV ratings and I'm working on it so you don't need to piont that out.

Thanks for any help in advance. BUC (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Thank you for responding so quickly. The first three piont were easy enoght to fix. Regarding the final piont, could you piont me to an example of how best to do the statistical section. I've now added a section about the TV raitings but I don't yet know what you want me to do for a statistical section. BUC (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've now started a PR. See it here. BUC (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi talk
I apologize if I mischaracterized your argument regarding bias/praise/scorn and their place on Wikipedia. I suppose I just see a difference between something like including reviews of a film or movie on it's article, and the placement of "praise"-words in an article, without breaking the explanatory "flow" of the album to make it clear that the words/phrases/qualities being attributed are included on the basis of scholarly consensus. As I said, I will let the issue rest as far as explaining my views on it, though I hope that someday another user is able to employ a more intelligent, reasonable argument for it's removal (and the removal of other examples like it), than I was able to. Pleasant travels. NeutronTaste (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You participated in the recent Avatar (Ultima) AFD. You may be interested in the merge discussion.
I'm contacting all those who participated in the AFD for Avatar (Ultima) about a merge discussion affecting that article Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters  D r e a m Focus  03:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

2004 World Series FAC
You gave feedback on this article a while back. I thought you might be interested to know that it is now a FAC which currently needs feedback. BUC (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Columbus Museum of Art.jpg
File:Columbus Museum of Art.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Columbus Museum of Art.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Indrian/Songs in Rock Band
User:Indrian/Songs in Rock Band, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Indrian/Songs in Rock Band and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Indrian/Songs in Rock Band during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, I should've asked first. And there are some sections that have one row too many. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like I said I removed some info from the original table when I copied it there, so the table is messy, but not broken since it still displays the info I want it to; I just did not bother cleaning it up because it was for me only. Anyway, I am going to go ahead and remove your deletion tag and just have the page speedied. Indrian (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional future events
You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip 18:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Indrian! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Justin Kaplan -
 * 2) José Luandino Vieira -
 * 3) Kevin Appier -
 * 4) Johnny Antonelli -

Brad Pitt
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for your offer of help. If you're pressed for time, feel free to stick whatever you want in and I can copyedit it or deal with the MoS compliance later. I'm sorry it descended into a bit of an argument. Best, <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJ Mitchell | <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts?   18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart
I read your userpage, and to say what happened is trivia, i mean in some aspects yes. But at the same time, it is notable that it happened. A incredibly well respected actor was told by some british comedian that hes watching him die. Are you telling me you are gonna delete the Kanye/Taylor Swift incident because you consider it "trivia"? Also, i would like to say about the other piece i reversed the deletion of, unless you know Stewart personally, it is very hard for you to say it has not affected him. Just because he hasnt published symphonies or chamber musicals doesnt mean its hasnt affected him. Phaeton23 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Atari merger question
As you're active in these pages, though you might want to participate in the discussion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Rock band song list
Why did you make this edit? I'm not seeing any visual change, and I'm just curious because I can't see what the new bracket closes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no closing bracket for the table because it is included by transclusion from 2011 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. Hmm. Well, it seems to be working now, too, so I guess that it is all OK. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Could not agree more
I wholly approve of this user. --Armins (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Shootem up talk page
Once again, I will be removing this erroneous information. This is an excellent example of why articles should only be policed by individuals that actually know something about the subject in question. Indrian (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was with you right up to the last sentence. It is quite arrogant of you to think that articles should only be "policed" by certain individuals.  A person does not have to know anything about quantum mechanics to revert vandalism or edit for grammar.Asher196 (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100%, but since the edits in question had nothing to do with either of those tasks, the editor in question was in way over his head. Indrian (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indrian- I know you are doing what you can to improve the article. But I strongly suggest that you make more of an effort to work with your fellow editor. Disagreements are a common thing here, but handling them properly is how we successfully build the encyclopedia.
 * My first interactions with Marty were a disagreement over the release of a Space Invaders port. We sorted it out and went on to collaborate on several retro articles. We still contact each other for help in our areas of expertise. Him for fact checking retro articles and me for navigating/applying Wikipedia policies.
 * I know this is all unsolicited advice, but I hope that you at least consider it. There is no question in my mind that you are an asset as an editor. And I think you'd be even more effective using your strengths in conjunction with those of others. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Guy and Asher, I understand your point regarding interaction and thought the same thing at first. In the same token though Guy, when we had our first encounter you were much more amicable and approachable than Birdies is. He is a very hard person to have any interaction with and basically comes off of in general as "my position is what's right, your logic and approach are wrong, why are you wasting everyone's time?"  When you're faced with that kind of constant condescending attitude, its rather hard to have any sort of constructive interaction and exactly why his conduct brings calls for incivility and ownership.  The way he's even going around in circles with Indrian now on his interpretation of the reliability of that source (which again demonstrates that only his interpretation matters) is precisely why I gave up on the parallax scrolling discussion.  Again giving undue weight in value to the source he feels is important, yet downplaying the value of the direct quote from the author of the game and the fact that 99% of the other sources also say this vs. his single source that says otherwise. I'm sorry, but where the source is getting their own info from vs. presenting it as an opinion has to be taken in to account.  There's just not a lot of room for constructive editing there if every time he's involved you need to come in and add levity or a consensus needs to be formed.  It becomes rather disruptive actually. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Marty, I think that sums it up pretty well. Look, I admit I overreacted at the start.  I often correct video game history articles and it usually goes pretty smoothly.  When its controversial, I also usually go to the talk page first to present my case.  This edit seemed straight forward because the facts are pretty well known in this case, and I was taken aback by bridies response, which one can see in the edit history was essentially calling me a vandal even though I explained what I was doing in the edit summary.  The best thing would have been to take it to the talk page right then with just the facts, but his dismissive attitude and apparent lack of caring for accuracy caused me to go another route.  Not excusing that choice, just saying that one or two cheap shots aside I have been presenting factual information and he is presenting belittling comments.  I do not think this would have become a major issue if he was willing to deal in facts rather than insults. Indrian (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Marty. As I've explained on the relevant talk page, I'm not disputing the reliability of Indrian's sources but due weight, or lack of it, and that we are dealing in subjectivity, not facts (these "just the facts" arguments are moot and the notion I called anyone a vandal -implicitly or explicitly- is completely spurious). You gave up on the scrolling discussion because you couldn't find adequate sourcing. If you ever did, evidently I wouldn't stand in the way of change. Policy does indeed forbid asserting ownership, but I do no such thing. Any suggestion to the contrary is again baseless. Look at Jagged85's contributions to the article, for a start. And there's plenty of further evidence of collaboration in my contributions. bridies (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talking about me, eh? ;) I answered the shoot 'em up points specifically on the talk page. But generally, these comments range from hyperbole to baseless. If Marty wants to tell me specifically what he's talking about I'm sure I could address those. I have collaborated with plenty of editors producing quality content and edit in-line with policy. If anyone thinks otherwise there are steps you can take other than discussing my character on someone's talk page. I'm confident my editing, "approach", whatever is fine. Thanks, bridies (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)