User talk:R. fiend/Archive4

this is an archive. see User talk: R. fiend for current dicussion.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses
You voted "Merge" in this discussion. I've laid out a detailed merger plan. Please review it and state whether you prefer it or some other form of merger. Uncle G 2005-07-02 00:15:11 (UTC)

Changing my signature
I have some Unicode characters in my signature, and your computer seems to be turning them into question marks when you edit a page with my signature on it. May I ask you what you are using to edit these pages? Is it a non-Unicode-compliant browser or an external program of some sort? — Ливай | Ⓣ 2 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)


 * What you need to appreciate is that this doesn’t only affect signatures. The switch to full Unicode encoding in MediaWiki 1.5 means that IE5 on the Macintosh is no longer supported; most seriously, it will destroy all interwiki links to non-Roman alphabet versions of Wikipedia, including the third-largest (Japanese), and many to languages such as Polish where there are accented letters it doesn’t understand. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 4 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

Surnames
Some Wiktionarians want to delete surnames from Wiktionary. I'm opposing, on the grounds that this is a long-standing arrangement between Wiktionary and Wikipedia, where Wiktionary handles the lexicography and Wikipedia handles the people and places. Please come to Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion and contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 2005-07-03 13:43:36 (UTC)

Verses
Hiya,

you recently voted to merge per Uncle G at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

9 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

Re:Mario vfd
Please do not trade barbs with the newbies. This is not etiquette advice but a pragmatic request. We are being visted by a group of idle and organized young males. Their discontent is growing and could easily turn into a circle jerk of vandalism. Please remove your comment.

lots of issues | leave me a message 01:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Tidiness is imperative of course - the project is naturally inclined towards crap magnetdom. After provoking people with a nomination it's ideal to contain the anger. I don't want to remove it becuase you don't whole heartily agree. But I think you are underestimating the the petulance of a group of young males collaborating in an anonymous setting. lots of issues | leave me a message 02:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a slightly different opinion - your response to the meat puppet was priceless, and hence has been memorialized in BJAODN. -- BD2412 talk 05:03, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Who's next (song)
I'd like to invite you to come back to Votes for deletion/Who's next (song), and reconsider your vote. I'm advocating a vote of Redirect per Harmil, and you can see the recommendation that I'm making on the vote page (it's big and detailed). Yeah, I know this guy is a troll, but the fact that he's a troll doesn't mean we shouldn't have this information point to the right place. I hope that makes sense, and happy editing! -Harmil 23:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

David Madden
Hey, thanks for the support in the David Madden VfD saga. I think it's amusing how he's telling the show's experts how thick our skulls are. I would have been more elitist in the discussion myself, but I realized that he only has about a dozen edits. --OntarioQuizzer 09:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Is someone actually going to do something about the Madden VfD? It's been almost 8 days since nomination. --OntarioQuizzer 00:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What are your thoughts on the "no consensus" judgement? I think it's junk as most of the keep votes were from users who are/were, IMHO, clueless about the true point of the project. "Isn't this supposed to have everything?" Is there anything we can do now? --OntarioQuizzer 20:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Edgardo Donovan
Response to R. fiend 14:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC) - Thank you for your feedback. I did not imply that every Google entry under "Eddie Donovan" was mine. I clearly stated that entries under "EddieDonovan" were mine. The latter would bring up entries only for my personal web page. What did you mean by "rant"? Were you implying that the facts I used to support my case are not factual? If so, what can evidence can you present to support such a thesis?

I asked for feedback and I got it. Thank you. Although, some of the responseswere personal criticisms launched under the cover of anonymity of a username handle I have enjoyed the debate for the most part. Just because I do not agree with certain issues with certain people should not mean that I or they should feel alienated. That is all part of a healthy debate and the best way to prevent a stagnant group-think mentality.

Here is what I have been able to sum up thanks to this discussion:

1) Unfair as it may seem, recognition of linguistic ability hinges upon celebrity status often not related to languages. It is silly for me to think that I can in anyway change the centuries old dynamic of this field. This notable polyglot list being the only one of its kind in the world along with the absence of internationally recognized polygot awards is a testament to this cultural filtration phenomenon.

2) In order to become included in the notable polyglot directory I must get external recognition beyond test scores. I doubt that I will be able to do this with journalists for the reasons I discussed above. Perhaps by becoming more involved with people in the linguistics field a la Kenneth Hale I may be able to count on them for references once they have verified my actual language abilities.

3) To gain the respect of some of my critiques it may help to learn additional non-Indo European languages such as Russian and Mandarin to the point where I can begin to understand other lesser practiced languages or dialects within their sphere of influence. This would emulate the methodology I have used in learning Indo-European languages.

4) To ensure that my language abilities be recognized for posterity it would be imperative for me to become a famous politician, actor, author, or musician. If anyone has any advice on proven methodology towards achieving celebrity status in any of the aforementioned ways I am all ears. ;-)

Thank you for contributing to making Wikipedia possible.

Best wishes.

Kind regards,

Edgardo Donovan 05:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/I'll Get You
Hi - can I get you to have another look at this now that I've extended the article? Cheers, Grutness...  wha?  09:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Vocals in The Clash
Actually, Paul Simonon is singing "the Guns of Brixton" on London Calling. And he and Mick Jones (apart from his "Train In Vain (Stand by Me)") sing at least another track on another Clash album.

Painbearer 14:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The bible
Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Bible verses.

18:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday (1972)
Hey there. Noticed you moved the pic down a bit. I had a look and thought mayeb that it should go into the section entitled The impact of 'Bloody Sunday' on Northern Ireland divisions, since the memorial was obviously put in place afterwards. Additionally the picture at the top could go to Events of the Day. Any thoughts? SeanMack 14:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Years Survey
Hi. To get everybody thinking, I've created a survey about Year pages here. I'm telling all the participants of WikiProject Years and everyone else who has shown an interest or participated in the discussion. If you could check it out it would be appreciated, and tell anyone you think may be interested.Trevor macinnis 03:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Songs revisited
I've not been paying as much attention as perhaps I should to the VfD and I noted that you had proposed (but, I'm happy to see, outvoted on) deleting a Perry Como song and, in your comments, attacked my use of templates. It is very clear (and in your User page you explicitly state) that your philosophy on Wikipedia is virtually diametrically opposed to mine. I feel that since Wikipedia can expand far beyond paper encyclopedias, and is getting close to a million articles, anything that anyone might conceivably want to look up ought to be here. It's obvious that we differ strongly here. But I wonder, what is the reason for your restrictionism?

It is my intention, and I hereby give notice to you about this, to increase vastly the number of articles on late-40s and early 50s pop songs. This happens to be the music I like. I hope we don't see more VfD requests by you on the songs. -- BRG 15:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * You say: "I also wonder why you are so certain that Stafford's recording of the song is more popular than the original." Well, first of all, let us consider that, in 1952 when we are talking about, pop music was enough more popular than country that a #3 pop chart song probably sold quite a lot more than a #1 country song. (If you check, you'll see that those are the chart positions.) You may not be familiar with Jo Stafford's version, but I was alive in 1952 and I know I heard it a lot, while I never even knew that there was a version by someone named Hank Williams, and never even heard of Hank Williams until many years later.
 * I think you will find that many by-now-long articles started as stubs. The fact is that Wikipedia thrives on the process where one person writes a little bit, someone else adds to it, someone else adds a bit more, and eventually the articles get to be major pieces of work. Insisting that an article be complete when it first appears in Wikipedia is contrary to the whole spirit of the project. In fact, the article at Find_or_fix_a_stub encourages the creation of stubs as well as their expansion. -- BRG 14:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Smerge
I always thought you were contracting "smoosh" and "merge" when I saw this term, but "slight" and "small" certainly work. It appears to be catching on, so it'll probably need its own Smerge soon. :-) android  79  13:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

consensus
The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were
 * Delete - 21 (58%)
 * Keep - 11 (31%)
 * Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).

Would you be prepared to re-add your vote there? ( ! | ? | * ) 09:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Tonya Cooley
Nice to see you again! but this page had a no consensus at the VfD, therefore it remains as is, do not redirect. (this is by no means meant to sound hostile). Redwolf24 23:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

wanted to say thanks for help with the Cloughjordan entry
wanted to say thanks for help with the Cloughjordan entry - you really helped tidy up my first few iterations of that entry and I appreciate that!

Kenguest 07:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Non-admins can't close on delete?
Heya, *oh dear* um, you fiend! *no wait... um anyay*. As a pragmatic matter, that'd be pretty tricky normally, yeah, but I'm going to delete for you. Well, point me to the rule where it says that, and let's see how we can best serve consensus. One reasons I'm doing this is to see how bad vfd has gotten *now* anyhow. I'm thinking just plonk links to vfds you closed on my user talk, and I'll do the deed. The other way is to just plonk a list of vfds that should be deleted on my talk, and I'll do the closing (the pretty little box) as well, that's the worst case scenario anyway. Either way can be made to work, I figure. Ah well, let's see the rule first, it prolly says nothing about teams. We can probably bend it into working shape! Kim Bruning 20:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I vaguely recall having read these a long time ago. They're quite sane, they're to prevent inexperienced users from making a mess. :-) If you like, I could put a notice up on the VFD talk page that you're helping me out, and that people should take it as if I'm doing the work. I rather fancy teaming up, this way I get to see vfd a bit again too. Either way, if you'd like to do noncontroversial closes for a while first, I'm fine with it. Might be a good way to start eh! :-)


 * Note that wikipedia policy is editable. You may have noticed that all the policy pages are not protected at all. If you see an ambiguity like that, talk it through with folks, or be bold and just fix it!


 * I'm going to be thinking up ways to make the load on vfd a bit lighter, but fixing what's there is never a bad move.


 * Kim Bruning 20:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew the sequel
The POV that was in Authentic Matthew, an article you voted to delete, before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ( ! | ? | * ) 20:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki = "keep" or "delete"
Good evening. In this edit, you removed "transwiki" with the explanation that "it is a delete (see guidelines)". I've been over the guidelines and policy pages carefully and repeatedly. I've also read and re-read all the discussion and archives of transwiki and all the related discussions I have found. I have come very firmly to the conclusion that "transwiki" is a qualified form of "keep". Could you please point me to the discussion which leads you to the opposite conclusion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahhh. A very recent change to the Guide.  I'm afraid I will have to dispute it.  Unfortunately, I'm late for work and don't have time right now.  I understand your logic but hold a different definition.  Deletion means the destruction of content and attribution history.  Transfer to another MediaWiki project does neither.  Content and attribution history can be recovered by any editor without the need for admin rights by simply re-transwiki-ing in the other direction.  The truth is, though, that the entire Guide needs to be rewritten.  It's just too big.  We've said so for months but no one's made the time to try to pare it down.  Maybe I'll try this weekend.  In the process, we can get rid of that artificial distinction between "keep" and "delete" votes.  It's incorrectly reinforcing the fallacy that "Votes for deletion" has anything to do with "voting".  Thanks for pointing it out.  Rossami (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * (responded on Rossami's page, excuse me for joining in :) ) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jambalaya (On the Bayou)
You obviously have no knowledge of the state of the music business in 1952. Country music at the time had no market outside the small portion of the country around Nashville. In consequence, ANY pop song that qualifoed as a #3 hit must have vastly outsold, not only the #1 country music hit, but probably the entire top 20 country songs combined. And if you don't want to use sales as a measure, note that at the time there would not have been a single radio station playing country music in the entire Northeastern US, and I imagine that the same would hold for most of the country outside the area where country music was popular. It is your burden to give me any information that contradicts my statement. I think that the evidence that Jo Stafford's version peaked at #3 on the Billboard pop charts is sufficient evidence to prove me right. So please leave that article alone.


 * Would you be willing to accept the phraseology "more popular at the time"? It seems that we have no way of settling the question of which is more popular over the long haul from 1952 to the present day. I hope that you can at least concede that Stafford's version was more popular ihan Williams' in 1952 and the early 1950s in general. However, I challenge one assertion you seem to make, that "more popular" can be divorced from "biggest selling." -- BRG 14:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * You say "Specifically concerning Jambalaya, I think airplay, appearances in other media, and the song's appearance on all varieties of Greatest Hits albums (both Williams' and country music in general) speak well of it's popularity" -- of course, as for those, you need to be very careful with your assertions, as for example, there has been a greatest hits collection of Jo Stafford (which I recently bought!) which includes the song. While Williams' version might get airplay on country-music stations, Stafford's I'm sure gets play on "music of your life" types of stations. And we need to work out a compromise, as you think my wording overemphasizes the Stafford version, while I think if anything it underemphasizes it! (After all, I never even heard of Hank Williams till a long time after 1952, and for many years never even knew that anyone but Jo Stafford had ever recorded the song!) -- BRG 17:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)]]

A Red, Red Rose

 * I have rewritten this article. I would be grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 12:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert Burns and other cleanup tasks
Sounds good to me. It's fun looking at those types of things. Capitalistroadster 15:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Chicago aldermen
R., I agree with most of the redirects that you did on the Chicago aldermen, but one (Virginia Rugai) had more content than the others and I don't think it should be a "redirect" which implies that you have merged the relevant information into the other article. Of course, you may feel that there is nothing relevant in the article but I feel that listing the neighborhoods and that she was first appointed by Hizzoner is relevant. DS1953 03:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC) Bold text