User talk:Krash/2006

User talk:Krash/2005

Aladin
Hi Krash, like you too probably, I'm deeply disappointed by the result the general wikipedia community had with the vote on Aladdin. We are both respectable editors with many many edits, and I was wondering if we should go forward to the official arbitration committee and tell them that we are disturbed by the lack of editorial quality in this respect and are planning to leave the project if this issue isn't addressed. What's your take on this? -- Peter S. 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Disappointed, yes. I'm too apolitical to do ultimatums or threats. My frustration with WikiProject Magic comes and goes and sometimes I just leave it all alone for a while.


 * ''There's more here than meets the eye. I've been watching List of magicians almost compulsively for the last 6 months or so but it wasn't until I started monitoring the sockpuppetry from the Aladin discussion that I noticed a really fascinating pattern. Check out the edit history and pay close attention to all of the red users and look at their respective edit histories. It would appear to me that one person or a few people (or – least likely, but possible – a bunch of individuals) is/are creating new accounts, each to start an article about some amateur/nightclub magician, slip it onto the list, and then disappear from Wikipedia.


 * ''I mentioned something about this at Articles for deletion/Aladin that fell on deaf ears:
 * It would appear to me that Magicsucks (who uploaded the image) might be related the same anon user(s) (172.215.214.127, 172.200.195.231) who started and added to this page one day before Magicsucks registered. Additional users (Themeat, Waikiwai, and the curiously-named user Selfpublicitysucks) seem to have registered just to contribute exclusively to the article only to pull a disappearing act. Suspicious activity. And then there's Thegirlinwhite, another user who seems to have registered just to add to the article and also place references to aladin into various articles. She seems to have stuck around a little longer. -- Krash 17:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are additional registered user names that I suspect being part of this "ring", but their mention wasn't relevant to the Aladin discussion. (I, again, invite you to form your own conclusions from the last 200 or so edits at List of magicians.) I guess the thing that really sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that the circumstances by which the Aladin article was created shows obvious use of sockpuppets or other bad faith and the edit history at List of magicians shows that this is not an isolated situation. It would be my hope that others could look into this and draw their own conclusions. -- Krash 03:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

List of albums (*): album descriptions
Hi, I noticed your edits to List of albums (A), List of albums (B) and List of albums (C), and I don't agree entirely with the removal of the little remarks. I left a message explaining this further at Talk:Archive of album lists because I figured that was the most appropriate place in case anyone else wants to share their thoughts. Cheers, Qirex 10:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was (and still am) hellbent on doing all of them but my eyelids were getting heavy last night. The descriptions are/were – for the most part – either badly POV or not terribly important. These albums have their own articles is really the best and only argument I can offer, and I feel very strongly about it. Lists fast become unmanageable if everyone gets to put in their own little quip about their favorite album. If you allow one description then you must allow them all. And then the lists become cluttered and not useful. I'm trying to imagine when/how/why someone might be consulting these lists and how occurances of trivial information about each album would help what they're doing rather then make the lists more difficult to skim. A good, I think, example would be to compare this version and this version; I simply believe the second one looks like a more inviting list to read. -- Krash 15:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

List of songs: vocoder, cowbells, etc.
Regarding your question: I'd vote delete, and did vote delete on the vocoder list, on both. They both seem too broad, nearly impossible to verify or keep complete and, frankly, not very interesting (not that that matters). As someone mentioned: what's next: list of songs with guitar in them? Having said that, I think it's fairly easy for questionable articles to pass or fail an AfD vote. A minute number of people participate, and a convincing argument early in the voting process can sway the rest of the user. That's my view. Crunch 20:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (P.S. no problem editing my talk page formatting. I guess I did the same to you)

Tedious lists of songs that feature things
I'm a strong opposer of listcruft (that is to say, a list that appears to have been created for the sake of having a list, or a list of little interest or relevance to anyone other than serious devotees of the list subject). Seeing as the cowbell list has survived AfD twice I don't intend nominating it again; I think each AfD should be judged on its own merits overall. Thanks for your message! Stifle 00:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jet2.net
I refer to the Afd mentioned above, where you voted "Speedy Delete" without detail. It is always a good idea to give reasons for your votes. Please clarify which of the criteria for speedy deletion you think it meets, or adjust your vote. Stifle 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Synthesizer infobox
I just fixed up the Template:Infobox_synthesizer so blank fields are not shown, including the image field. That will make things easier, and save us from writing a lot of n/a or question marks.--fataltourist 15:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
I noticed that you made sure that my proposal ended up where it should be. Thanks! :-) However, I followed the instructions to the letter, so something is not quite clear (Though, I should have included the word "Proposed" in the title, of course..). Oh well... And I got the irony in your user page ;-) --TStone 17:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your question on my talk page --TStone 00:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I also put some comments to your list of deleted people at Talk:List of magicians--TStone 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear
Well EXCUSE ME for attempting to add some serious, relevant and referenced information about Randi. Clearly Wikipedia isn't about news, although we have a section at the top of the main page called "In the news" which is all about current events. Jeez, I just returned to Wikipedia after months of wikiholiday and my first edit is reverted. What a way to be welcomed back. :( -- FirstPrinciples 01:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Frankly your edit was the best of all three but I simply can't justify its mention right now. I toyed all day with the idea of inserting that breaking tidbit (which was publically released less than 24 hours ago) somewhere into the article but it just seemed too soon and not really notable--yet. I mean it's notable today because it's current. But it might not be in a month.
 * ''People with articles are having operations and getting papercuts all the time. Some Many irrelevant details should just stay personal until there's a need for them to be inserted into the appropriate article.
 * Oh...and welcome back! :) -- Krash (Talk) 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, sorry for being rude :) -- FirstPrinciples 07:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Alpha College of English
Hi! I've cleaned up Alpha College of English. You might wish to revisit Articles for deletion/Alpha College of English. Thanks! -- Jonel | Speak 03:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem
I get a little fed up with the proliferation of POV and/or just plain silly lists. It's really getting out of hand.--Isotope23 18:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting!
Thanks for the excellent job in sorting out that long list. -- Fyslee 21:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mountain fold AfD
Hi there, thank you for voting in this AfD. I just closed it as a redirect. In your explanation for your vote you referred to the article as "unencyclopedic crap". Please remember that the large majority of articles in AfD have been written by users who were making a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. Even if we don't believe a particular contribution should be kept, we should respect their efforts and not gratuitously insult them. Thanks. Babajobu 01:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The niceness police paid me a visit and all I got was this lousy message. -- Krash (Talk) 01:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Randi (and Klass)
I like what you did to James Randi. If you want a similar but even bigger challenge, take a look at Philip J. Klass. Bubba73 (talk), 05:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

DAP Technologies
Could you take another look at the DAP Technologies VfD page? The company has 40,000 Google hits (you stated 28) for the phrase search "DAP Technologies". They are a big company, selling products worldwide, with a large user base. There is a legitimate public interest. Jehochman 19:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ''I'll quote, for you, you my vote from Articles for deletion/DAP Technologies:


 * 26k google hits. I going to have to say weak keep and rewrite. ''-- Krash (Talk) 01:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Put quotation marks (" ") around your search term ("DAP Technologies"). Sure you wind up getting fewer results, but those that you do get will be more relevant. I'm not sure why you bothered to leave me a message; I've voted in your favor. You know about quiting while you're ahead, right? -- Krash (Talk) 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quit while I'm ahead. Thank you! Jehochman 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for all your help with the AfD voting. You just got yourself noticed. Krashlandon (e)  19:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for what, specifically? I participate in a number of AfD discussions and am wondering what this is in reference to? I like your name, BTW. -- Krash (Talk) 19:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your participation. We can always use more active people to help with the deletions. I just kept seeing your vote every time I went to an AfD, so I decided to encourage you. I guess it was also your username popping out at me. That's sort of my nickname. :P Krashlandon (e)  20:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keyboard Instruments
Hi. Thanks for that merging suggestions. Like you, I think that there are some articles around Keyboard subject that are scattered in a messy way. They should be organized. Would you like to open a discussion subheading there? (do that please, if you like). While I don't think that Keyboard Instruments should be merged into Electronic Keyboard, meyself, I strongly support any discussion about organizing these topics. --Neshatian 07:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Overlinking dates

 * Per Manual of Style (dates and numbers: Please advise regarding your linking to arbitrary dates. This does not appear in line with the rationale expressed in Manual of Style (dates and numbers, Manual of Style (links), & Only make links that are relevant to the context. -- Krash (Talk) 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Krash. The overlinking aspect refers to things like October or October 2004 or October 2004 or 17th Century or 421 BC. Full dates like 11 September 2004 or September 11 will show up differently depending on how each user has his preferences set, and should be linked where they appear in article txt. See Manual of Style (dates and numbers). This is to allow date preferences to work. The section Avoid overlinking dates starts If the date does not contain a day and a month,. Rich  Farmbrough. 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, I think that Wikipedia would benefit from a less liberal application of the Manual of Style'', remembering to only make links that are relevant to the context. Also, you misrepresented the quotation from Manual of Style (dates and numbers. The complete quotation should read:
 * "If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so."''
 * -- Krash (Talk) 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so." This is exactly the point I was making. "simple months, years, decades and centuries" is the subject of that paragraph, not full dates. Rich  Farmbrough. 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Cherokee Slang
Would you consider changing your vote on Cherokee Slang if I agree to transwiki the content or move it (well some of it anyway -- it's very terse and blunt about what it refers to) to Cherokee Language? Please consider saving it, it's accurate and one of a king content. Waya sahoni 05:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need my permission to transwiki anything. I simply vote to delete articles that I don't see fit for Wikipedia. -- Krash (Talk) 01:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Salvation Air Force
Hi. I notice you expressed an opinion on the deletion debate, saying that the band was not notable. I had a look at the band, and they seem to satisfy the WP:MUSIC criteria, and I would really appreciate any explanation of why you considered them to be non-notable. I'm not trying to dispute any AFD results, but just trying to work out what it is that makes people think they are not notable. Any comments welcome. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For notability concerns when it comes to bands like these, I consult Amazon, Allmusic and Google. Nothing at the first two and 478 results from Google. Not notable. But then, if you'll note the very first Google result. It's the Wikipedia article. That a Wikipedia article is the most popular page on any search term is a troubling thought to me. I don't feel that Wikipedia should be the definitive source on anything. And then, I looked at the page history. The article and all of its subsidiary articles were predominately written by one contributor who has made no other contributions. That is not a criterion for deletion, but it makes the article itself seem highly dubious to me. It's all my opinion. -- Krash (Talk) 00:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad
Oops! Thanks for fixing my fix on the John Barleycorn Must Die article.  &middot; rodii  &middot;  18:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Phil Jay & PROD template
From the Proposed deletion page "...If someone removes Template:Prod from an article for whatever reason, don't place it back. If the template was removed and replaced, the article will not be deleted. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on AfD." Please do not replace the template but you may want to list it as either a speedy or a AfD. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And just when I thought I was being nice for giving some speedy-deletion fodder a second chance. I can't stand instruction creep and rules lawyers. -- Krash (Talk) 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I ran into two of these replaced PROD's within 10 minutes of each other. So it goes. I've AfD it now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Barrick Nealy
I have expanded this article, on which you commented in AFD, and wondered whether you would be willing to look at it and possibly reconsider your position about deletion. -Colin Kimbrell 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wasted Deletion
Regarding your use of "sockpuppet" warning on the Wasted deletion page: I just wanted to respectfully state explicitly that the other "do not delete" votes are not me under other user names or on other computers. I'm enjoying being a wikipedia participant, trying to produce informative pages within community rules. . . so I just don't want to get tagged as a "sock puppet master" the first time one of my pages comes under scrutiny for deletion. --Gnhn 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really care who anyone is. Please notice that I haven't accused anyone of anything. It's standard to mark new voters in that fashion. And the frequency of them in this situation, I feel, warrants the tag. To me, it seems highly dubious that that we have multiple people voting "do not delete" rather than the standard "keep". But technically that's an aesthetic and not evidence of anything. -- Krash (Talk) 21:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They're writing "do not delete" because they're new here, too, and copying/cutting/pasting an aesthetic mistake that I made, because I haven't been through this process before myself.--Gnhn 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not make excuses for other users; they can defend their own actions if they choose. Again, I remind you that I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I do not wish to discuss this any further. -- Krash (Talk) 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have bothered you. Just trying to get my hands around this process as a newcomer.--Gnhn 22:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Revenge of the Old Queen
I don't see how my link isn't appropriate -- it proves that the script exists, and allows readers to view the script as it was written and as it would have been shot. It IS a reliable source, one of many reliable sources. (Ibaranoff24 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I changed to the Shock Treatment Network.com's version of the transcript. I don't particularly like the font of this website's version of the script, and I would have preferred the Angelfire link (which has the script in a Courier New font), but since you insisted, I changed it. (Ibaranoff24 05:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Moog
I changed my opinion to delete since you've already done the merge.--Isotope23 14:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I answered your comments, Krash, on my talk page. Article was closed before I got to your note.  Barno 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

On the Richard Teitelbaum pages, you deleted and queried the line that "he brought the first Moog synthesizer to Europe". He plays Moog synthesizer on MEV's Spacecraft recording from Cologne, 1967. His sleevenote for that CD say "In the fall of 1967 I returned to rejoin the group in Rome, now equipped with a very early Moog modular synthesizer (tough without any keyboard) and a custom high-gain differential brainwave amplifier designed and assembled for me by Bob Moog." That seems to establish an early usage, but are you aware of anyone's earlier use? AllyD 17:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Man of Nature
I have updated my vote to include all the nominated articles. Daniel Case 17:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Pittrock and other hallucinations
It's always difficult to tell with contributors like that. We had one apparently very young user some time ago who kept writing articles about a cartoon series that he imagined. No kidding. It appears that the child was schizophrenic and was actually delusional. Unfortunately, it's hard (for me, anyway) to swat such users, as what they're doing generally never crosses into the sort of explicit vandalism (changing an existing article) or explicit hoaxing that can make a block a non-ArbCom situation. In the interim, all we can do is be vigilant and deny him or her the fun/satisfaction/hallucination validation of letting the articles remain. It's a pain, but it's better (for me) than acting out of procedure. N.b. there are some admins who are much, much quicker on the trigger than I am when it comes to users. Paradoxically, they're also much slower on the draw when it comes to articles. Thanks for the heads up. Geogre 16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD Discussion
Regarding the article on CybOrgasMatrix, your vote was for deletion based on the view that it was an advertisement. Some others felt it non-notable. I don't know if you are watching the article or the AFD discussion at Articles_for_deletion/CybOrgasMatrix, but it was re-written, due in part to your input. Thank you. The word count was reduced by 1/3, and intensifiers were removed. You may attribute that to an abundance of zeal for the invention, and that has no place here. The edited article is more consistent with NPOV standards on that account. Since the review will be closing soon, your opinion with regard to the new Adjective and Adverb Lite version would be helpful.

With regard to notability, the discussion page links to a 15-second video clip that speaks to that issue (you have to scroll down the Keep entry to find the link). If you are moved to watch it, the 2 things that make the invention notable should be apparent. If I could conceive of a more effective way to communicate the distinction short of seeing and touching the thing yourself I would do so.

Alternatively, it has been suggested that the article be merged with Sex doll. After due consideration of the above, your views on this would be appreciated. If you ARE watching the discussion, I apologize. Please feel free to blank this. --Esoterik1 08:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Date links
You have discussed date links before. It seems that more and more people are becoming interested in the debate in many talk pages. I do not know if you have seen the discussion and votes at: new bot application. Voting may have ended, so I am not soliciting your vote. But I thought that you might like to read what has been said by other editors. Several editors feel strongly about it and the issue will inevitably be discussed again. bobblewik 11:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunter Ellis
I've put this article up for deletion review, after re-writing a stub focused much more on his non-Survivor notability as a TV host, which was then speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted content. Since you commented on the initial AFD, I thought you might want to participate in the discussion here as well. -Colin Kimbrell 17:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Your wiki-stalking
Because we have a pending conflict on one page doesn't mean you have to revert other edits I make to other pages (diff). Especially not an encyclopedic edit sourced from Eno himself with an authoritative source. And reversion of what's not obvious vandalism has to be motivated in the edit summary, which you conveniently didn't do.

I have reverted Brian Eno back to my edits, and opened a case on Talk:Brian Eno.

-- 62.147.113.138 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You lost your case when you started ranting like a lunatic. Thanks for playing. -- Krash (Talk) 19:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

 * ''Oh shit...he's got the power to delete articles now. Nothing's safe now...RUN!!!
 * I'd congratulate you, but it's no big deal. Just don't abuse your powers, think you're above the rules, or turn into some megalomaniac and you just might wind up single-handedly changing my opinion of sysops. Regardless, I'll probably always keep thinking you're a good guy. -- Krash (Talk) 17:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Darren Hayday
Please see notes on the deletion page for this article &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.41.241.203 (talk &bull; contribs) 14:07, 10 March 2006.

Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation (second nomination)
Krash, a vote for the deletion of this article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Mmeinhart 13:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate being told how to vote. -- Krash (Talk) 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I honestly didn't mean to tell you how to vote. Thanks.  --Mmeinhart 03:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge dBc into Phase noise?
I added have my arguments against this merge to the talk page. I notice you added the merge banner in January, I am thinking of removing it, but i'd be interested to hear any counter arguments before I do so.DJIndica 05:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

List of shock sites nominated for deletion for a fourth time
The article List of shock sites has been nominatied for deletion again. I noticed that during its past nominations for deletion you voted to have the article deleted. If you have time, please support me in my attempt to have this article deleted by casting your vote in favour of deletion. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah...it's a shame no consensus will keep this shit around. Best I think is ignore it...it won't go away, but maybe it won't bother us so much then. -- Krash (Talk) 04:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler
FYI...This article is up for vote on AFD. OSU80 01:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with ya, dude. -- Krash (Talk) 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It just blows my fucking mind that all of these users would be voting to keep this article...OSU80 11:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

bullet catch
Hi there!. Way back in May 2005 you added an article on the bullet catch including a reference to an Annie Vernone. This person seems to be one of my wife's ancestors, so I wondered what your source was - she isn't mentioned in any of the external links you quoted. If you can't remember, don't worry about it. Cheers. Jeff Knaggs 21:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

ROGER / ROGER
A while back you moved the page for Roger Joseph Manning Jr. to Roger Manning. These, however, are two different musicians. I'd like to have it moved back, but I don't know how to move the page history with it. Can you help me? Please see Talk:Roger Manning for more details. Thanks. -MrFizyx 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I figured out how to reverse the move and I've started the stub for the anti-folkie at Roger Manning. Now, I still need to build up the article, and parse out the links to the two.  It would be great if you took a look before I get too carried away. -MrFizyx 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Colonel Marksman Here
I see you were involved in the Adolf Hitler page in some way, and I've also noticed by the ouiga (sp?) article that you may agree with me on POV. (I'm here to discuss it further and bring it to attention) See my comments on the WP:NPOV talk page at the bottom. Thanks. Colonel Marksman 22:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)