User talk:Olsdude

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. -Will Beback 04:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, the above is a standard template. I didn't write it. Add ing the same link to many pages is generally considered spam, especially when it is intended to drive more traffic to the site. Even if this is not your website, please show some restraint. Thanks, -Will Beback 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracies
Heard you are interested in matters of this sort. Go to Jeff Rense's website, www.prisonplanet.com, and do a Google Search:Conspiracy Theories. Did you know that the real reason for flouride in the drinking water and toothpaste is not to help prevent tooth decay ? This is a product of nuclear weapons construction and it is intended to rot your brain. The Robertson Panel was initiated by the CIA to prevent people from reporting UFOs and/or aliens. It uses shrinks, so that claimants are ridiculed by being declared mentally unfit, thus destroying any social standing, credibility. There is more, such as matters pertaining to Concentration camps in the U.S. to imprison anyone who pisses off the U.S. govt. after Martial Law is declared. The Patriot Acts do come close to that. Martial Law 19:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

29 August 2006
Your change to the page Foresters Falls, Ontario was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. -- Armadillo From Hell 01:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on User talk:ArmadilloFromHell: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. -- Armadillo From Hell 01:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Borifying
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll add a non-template. Be civil, and stop making personal attacks, or you ''will' be blocked from editing. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cobden, Ontario
Hello, I'm a moderate user of wikipedia. My Opus for this site has to be the article I wrote on Cobden, Ontario. This is my home town and I did a lot of research into it's history and everything so that I could make a good article on it. I have received a lot of comments from people in my town about the article and a lot of them have told me they learned things that they didn't know before. Recently a user named Bearcat has merged a lot of stub articles into the article about their region. I'm not sure what the policy is on this. Most of the articles were about very unnotible places (mclarens settlement being the best example). But I'm a little unclear on why he seems to insist on merging cobden aswell. The article was over 10,000 words long. I know that there doesn't need to be articles on everything on earth but, and I realize I may be the minority on this, it seems like towns should have their own articles. I mean.... people may want information about them and it was hard for me to find it all. Now the information is all broken up and scattered across the whitewater region article.

Anyways, the reason I'm bothering you with this is because you seem like you would probably know a little more about wikipolicy than me and I saw you get involved before. I guess you could say I'm asking for your help and opinion. And my main question is this: Are towns not worthy, ever, of their own article?

Ok, thanx--Matt D (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cobden, Ontario? Reverted yet again. I will notify the administrators noticeboard now. Please see: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- Cat chi? 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what exactly the immediate admin action you were looking for. AN/I is generally for swift moves, at least that's my impression. I'm talking to Bearcat about this here - join in or lets move to a WikiProject talk, WPP:Ontario or WPP:Canada. The ANI page is probably not the best spot to figure out the specifics of this. Let's work it out though. Franamax (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject was dropped...and then you picked it up...
In the second section break, I agreed to drop the matter once someone changed the text in the article to "medal table," removing the implication I saw in "medal count." They did so. Therefore, I have dropped it. (Or rather, HAD. But since you thought it necessary to respond to me, I'm responding to you on this page.)  If you'd scrolled down a bit, you would know that. I'll buy some magic markers for my table when I drop by the store to pick you up some Focus Factor. Clearly you need help in paying attention.

1) "My system?"  Hmm.  I didn't invent it, you know.  It is used by most major media outlets in the United States.  I called the other "your" system because YOU were advocating it, not because I was trying to belittle it.  It was a use of an easy referent.

2) I was not "evading" your point.  I understand perfectly well the differences between gold, silver, and bronze.  In fact, I understand it better than you understand the difference between the numbers 92 and 63, since you seem to think that there are some cases where 63 should be listed above 92.  (More on that in point 4.)  My reply was meant to point out merely that we are talking about this in the context of a medal count, or a medal table, whichever you prefer.  Since fourth place in the Olympics never has, and probably never will, garner any medals, how many fourth-place finishes a nation accrues is completely irrelevant to a medal count.  But since bronzes and silvers are listed on there, they ARE.  And while they should not be considered equal to golds when ranked one-against-one, I do believe that a wealth of silvers and bronzes should be ranked higher than a single gold.

3) Of course, there are problems with this too.  As I said before, I am willing to accept the consequences of ranking a nation with 51 bronzes (and no other medals) ahead of another nation with 50 golds (and no other medals).  No, I don't believe that's absolutely FAIR.  An ideal ranking system would take into account, with perfect relative weight, both the amount of medals won and the quality thereof.  But sadly, no one worth mentioning ranks that way, and an encyclopedia can't invent new ranking methods.  Wikipedia has available:  1) the IOC's gold-centered method, and 2) the American media's total-medal-centered method.  Regardless of what you think, #2 is better than #1.  We'll get into why right below.

4) As it happens, the system I advocate DOES NOT make a gold and a bronze equal.  It simply ranks by total medals FIRST.  THEN it ranks by quality of medal.  So when you say that three nations which have 20 medals each, (let's say) Spain all gold, Japan all silver, and Argentina all bronze, would be ranked equally -- you are absolutely mistaken.  They would be listed on the table like so:

See? Even though they all have the same number of total medals, Spain IS STILL RANKED FIRST. Similarly, a country with 50 golds would be ranked ahead of a country with 50 silvers (assuming they had no other medals), based solely on the quality of the medals. They wouldn't "tie." However, a country with 51 silvers would be ranked ahead of a country with 50 golds (assuming thgey had no other medals), because the total medal count is given priority. I am willing to accept that system because it does NOT result in Russia winning 29 more medals than China, but still being placed behind them in the table because China won 5 more golds (as happened in Athens). THAT is unfair, full-stop. If you and I and eight other people competed in fifty athletic events where medals were given out a la the Olympics, and you placed second forty times (but never first or third), and I mostly finished at or near the back except for one footrace, where I won first by a fluke...are you seriously telling me you would think it was FAIR if I were listed ahead of you in the results? Wouldn't you clearly be the better overall athlete? Wouldn't you clearly have achieved the better overall results? Yet the IOC's system would rank you below me.

5) You seriously think there are JUST AS MANY examples where the IOC's system is better?  Why don't you go to the medal table and test your theory by sorting the teams by total count?  You'll find that in most cases, teams don't move more than a few places in either direction.  And yes, there will be some teams who have won several more gold medals than others, yet are ranked below them.  (The USA and China, and France and Germany being the most obvious examples, as of this post.)  Yes, there are teams with three silvers, or even three bronzes, ranked ahead of the Czech Republic, which has two golds.  But you won't find as severe a numerical discrepancy ANYWHERE on that list as the Russia-China one I have cited so often by now.  And notice how often the systems agree.  South Korea is still above Australia.  Italy is still ahead of France.  And India and Thailand are down on the lower part of this list where they belong...but notice, they are NOT TIED with anyone else who has only one medal, because no other country has only one gold. This is what I meant when I said that system was MORE FAIR. I never said perfect. Just better.

6) It is not a "blatant over simplification" [sic] to say that how countries feel about the system, one way or the other, has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything.  No doubt the United States feels slighted at the current system, since they have won more medals than China but are ranked lower.  No doubt some French citizens were (until France won their first gold) a little peeved because two countries with one medal apiece were ranked above them.  None of that matters, though.  Emotions should not be allowed to influence reasoning.  Even though I am an American citizen, and even though I would agree that the IOC's current system needs to be replaced, I would not side with the President of the USOC if he sent a letter to IOC President Rogge that said, "We don't like the current system, and we demand you change it; this concludes my letter."  Examples must be given as to WHY a new way would be better. That is what I have tried to do. I have never argued my point on the basis of "A switch would make this nation happy." I have instead said, "A switch would be much more fair to this nation." You may not see the difference; I assure you there is one. Please note that I was not the one who said, "It would Piss off everyone but the US to switch the ranking system now." You were the one making a blatant appeal to emotion there. (By the way, I noticed you never responded to my refutation, where I mentioned other countries who would benefit from the change. I guess it wouldn't piss off EVERYONE else after all.)

Unless you respond again, I will consider this matter closed. You kept your ranking system; I got my change in terminology. That should be enough to satisfy everyone. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
This comment is incivil. As per Civility and No personal attacks, please remove, strike, or reword your comment. Thank you! -kotra (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Centreside Dairy


The article Centreside Dairy has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Searching on Highbeam, Jstor, GHits, GNews, GBooks finds no significant coverage of this company. I believe it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Logos Land for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Logos Land is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Logos Land until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Madg2011 (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)