User talk:RandomHumanoid/Archives/2009/January

Deletion review for Cryptol
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cryptol. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KP Botany (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did respond on that page. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 18:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Creeks
I am just adding information on San Franciso's Creeks. I used the term creeklet since they are small but creeks and all rivers are notable per policy. I removed the deletion tag and I will be expanding the article and adding others so we can all collaborate on them. these creeks have organizations dedicated to their preservation and have gotten plently of media attention in the area such as in the san francisco chronicle and sierra club times.Troyster87 (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Patent nonsense
Hi there. When you nominate an article for speedy as patent nonsense, as you did to Angel Jin, please make sure that it actually is patent nonsense. I've deleted the article anyway under another criteria, but it was comprehensible enough (a character in a video game of some sort) to not be considered "nonsense". Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eyh, its best to give the benefit of the doubt if any exists. It was certainly very poorly written, but I think it was understandable enough to get some meaning out of.  Anyway, the article is deleted, so everything has worked out in the end =).  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Voice (Project)
Hey, RH, would you be able to revisit Articles for deletion/The Voice (Project), and reply to the additional comments I've left? Thanks. Un sch  ool  06:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming back. Now I have added to the article the source that I spoke of.  Is it any better this way?  Un  sch  ool  07:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my opinion to merge with The_Voice:_New_Testament, if your newly gathered refs are incorporated.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 17:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that
Hello. Saw your addition and subsequent revert to User talk:Joelymale. After initially declining your AIV report due to insufficient warnings, I dug a little deeper into the editor's contributions and found them all to be rather lacking. As such, I reversed my initial decision and indefinitely blocked, then went back and deleted all of his hoax creations. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused by either my initial decision or when I corrected myself. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is what initially threw me off as well. However once I did some external searching on several of the article topics, I eventually came to the conclusion the entire thing was nothing more than a web of hoaxes.  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your helpdesk request
Random comment from the ether from someone who lurks at AfD: you are a deletionist and you comment extensively within AfD debates (a trait some people find to be combative). Those two tendencies are going to, at best, lead to mild acrimony with most every person who is inclined to keep an article at AfD. At worst it is going to lead to bickering and incivility. I too wish there were a Wikipedia in some alternative universe that was not packed with every bit of pop culture known to humanity. However, I long ago decided to devote my energy to improving the good rather than wasting my time searching out the bad. I humbly suggest that you consider that alternative lifestyle... it reduces stress and, frankly, hard drive space is cheap so why not just let the Pokemon flourish?

If that is too drastic a proposal then perhaps a smaller suggestion: make an AfD proposal but then let the community continue with the debate on their own, that is, recuse yourself from the conversation. How many times has your defense of an AfD actually swayed the participants? I guess my point is not to analyze the degree to which there was incivility in the debate and instead ask how the incivility could have been avoided in the first place.

Cheers and best wishes for a happy and civil 2009, &mdash;Noah 06:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response but a house filled with garbage rots from the inside. A Proud Deletionist I shall remain. :) Cheers and a Happy New Year!  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

on my contribution on sino-pakistani relations
hi, there must be a mistake! i added only the tag for citation and expert, it must be someone else who add copyrighted material.Samar60 (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake, which I can't quite figure out, and I left an apology on your page! -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

its okay, am not that long on wikipedia en that was a surprise:) CyaSamar60 (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

advice sort
Hi, please can you take a look at Flextel and advise if you think this is now closer to meeting the wiki standard. What can be done to improve it?

Also you may want to check out Personal Numbering. I think this need to become an international page and get input from other country implementations.

Also I note you don't like bio's, but I put a short summary of technical knowledge my user page. Is this OK? All guidance very welcome. Lladoog (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, unfortunately, I still find the Flextel article somewhat incoherent and lacking background. Also, as you are the company's founder, you should not be authoring an article about it, as this presents a conflict of interest.  (See WP:COI.)  Finally, great latitude is granted for user pages.  Yours is approaching a resume, which may be crossing the line, but I'm certainly not going to complain about it.  Best. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 04:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You make a fair point and I understand wiki's COI policy, but as a telecoms expert I find the wikipedia content (normally pretty good) rather weak and confused in this area. This is why I called for international input in Talk:Personal Numbering to get an international balance. I was also going to add a detailed explanation/definition or the concept. I now think this must wait for someone else to do it, for fear of deletion.

I also hope others will contribute to Flextel good or bad, as it's (in my biased opinion) unquestionably notable. Flextel is a well well known contributor in telecoms circles (try searching Ofcom's website). As far as my technical history is concerned, it was intended to be a totally open guide about my background, COI and expertise.

Considering most experts in subjects are likely to have COI's in some form or another, isn't there then a COI in the wikipedia policy itself? i.e. biased quality versus unbiased confusion. Are we going to drink from the fountain of knowledge or just gargle? e.g. as a founder of Vodafone, am I now permanently debarred from contributing, even though I see gross errors in the content?

Anyway thanks for coming back, to me on this, I imagine you've been through this tricky debate before, so I hope I'm not boring you, but I do see a sort chicken and egg situation here, at least for new pages and the risk of them being killed-off at birth. Lladoog (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)