User talk:Realkyhick/Archive Oct 2007

Jewish Mayhem magazine
I'm not really sure why any entry for the magazine gets continually deleted. I'm attempting to start an article for Jewish Mayhem, but I can't seem to keep any of the moderators happy. I've read posting guidelines over and over, I've read all kinds of pages on what constitutes a significant entry, etc. Is it wrong to add a few lines at a time, while I gather more information? Nosferajoo 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

SOS
1)This morning, while leaving a message to one of the Users, I realised that I had been logged out. I tried different ways of protesting; one of the messages I received was that there was no User called BobClive! 2) On the day before yesterday, I spent a few hours adding fresh and authentic information to the article on Sri Yukteswar. While saving it, I came across a notice expressing the regret that nothing out of my modification had been saved! Any suggestion to save the situation ? Thanks, repeated.--BobClive 06:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Vision Magazine/Gary Wolf
To reply to your question on my talk page:

I was mostly pointing out that an accepted and unchallenged article had one source that was very close to the subject. I don't know if the Wikipedia article was written by Mr. Wolf or not, so I don't think it warrants a claim of COI. I'm just saying that it's a similar situation to ours and their article has not been flagged.

By the way, I like your info boxes. We apparently have a lot in common. You might have guessed that I'm a Christian, but I'm also a Dittohead and a Cats fan (Basketball, anyway). I graduated from UK in '92, and my wife grew up in Lexington. Her family still lives there. They go to Southland. I went there some and to First Alliance Church some when I lived there. My dad was the Area Director for Young Life from 1986 to 1990.

It cracks me up that the inbreds from Alabama would call you a real Kentucky hick!

Go Cats! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimMiller (talk • contribs) 19:08, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the unsigned things. I'm not in the habit yet. I never use the tilde for anything!

The article I was talking about was indeed the Wired magazine article. Again, I'm not sure the one who wrote it is indeed the one who wrote the book.

Parkette... I haven't been there in a long time. My wife's family all live on the south side.

Ale 8! I was just missing that last week. A restaurant recently opened up here that sells over 800 kinds of soda. They have something like 50 varieties of ginger ale, and NONE of them are Ale 8. Bummer. JimMiller 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't figured out how to do that cool indent thing you do for new messages. Sorry if this is hard to find. I'm glad you liked the last issue. I picked up a "Church Doesn't SUCK" wristband while I was at GracePoint. I wear it every day. Sometimes I really need the reminder because of where my own church is at. (Yes, I ended a sentence in a preposition.)

Thank you for the vote of confidence for an annual print review. We've been kicking that idea around for awhile. Your insight on the attitudes of advertisers is spot-on.

Since you have a hand in the media at your church, let me know if you ever have questions you'd like to see one of these churches answer. If you have an article idea you'd like to submit, let me know that, too. Send them to editor [AT] vision-mag [dot] com. JimMiller 14:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (I remembered!)

Tom Guzek
I'm appalled that no speedy deletion has taken place yet, either for Tom Guzek or The Tom Guzek Syndrome. Are the bots taking a lunch break or what? --Procrastinatrix 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm so Sorry
All articles start as stubs and need nurturing and caring to grow in huge articles like this one and there is always something to try to stunt it's grow such as a predator or in our case someone who stubles upon an article an pull out an arbritrary reason to delete it but as always it is either deleted then put back again when some competent user figures out it is a good article or the result is keep, so let's stop wasting time and cut to the part where the delete template is removed and you look back bitterly at the article you had such a grudge against or you could hopelessly try your hardest to get the article deleted and look like a biased competitor. You should also take off you Experienced and Established Editor award because your nothing of the such. Good Luck! I2E4S6 19:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikicrats
The article on wikicrats was a genuine addition to wikipedia and was not speedy deletion candidate. The article provided context for readers and users of Wikipedia. The term "wikicrats" has a good chance to be used now and in the furture as Wikipedia further matures. Balanced article on this subject would be valuable contribution in Wikipedia or on Mediawiki. By removing it you are contributing to perception presented in the blog http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/08/rise_of_the_wik.php and we are opening ourselves to further criticisms as less and less flexible. Cheers. Pcirrus 03:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The term was a neologism which has not gained widespread usage, and is therefore not notable. A redirect to the Nicholas G. Carr article seems plausible enough and I have no objection to that action, but the comments added to that article about my tagging the original for speedy deletion were out of line, and have been removed. Realkyhick 04:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned about your recent actions related to my article wikicrats. To summarize: (1) You speedy deleted an article on which I worked and documented and which was of substantial length, had internal links, and was of genuine interest to broad range of readers. I was not given resonable time to insert hangon tag; (2) After your speedy deletion I posted request on your discussion page to reinstate my entry and you ignored that request; (3) You are also removing relevant facts from the entry about Nicholas G. Carr. Namely, I wrote Ironically, an article on Wikicrats was written on English Wikipedia on August 31 by Pcirrus and immediately a tag has been placed by Realkyhick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia because: This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Because wikicrats article by N. Carr is about how community regulates itself - what I wrote is encyclopedic and documents reality; (4) I also noticed that you are now claiming that wikicrats was neologism and is not notable. This explanation seems to be at odds with your original reasons for speedy deletion. Here are my request: (a) please reinstate my article about wikicrats. If you feel that it is not suitable for Wikipedia you can AfD this article; (b) I request that my entry begining with Ironically be reinstated by you; (c) if you do not want to do so on your own please tell me how this can be discussed in such a maner as to avoid editing wars between us. Pcirrus 17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In your entry on my discussion page you mention: ''Your Wikicrats article was not deleted; it was redirected. You can reinstate it if you wish, as it does not require an admin to do so, but it will still be nominated for deletion, likely by AfD.'' First of all you deleted this article and somebody else redirected it. I am not overly familiar with the process of reinstating it; also I feel that you are deleting my work and, therefore, you have some responsibility to correct your actions?! Your second point is probably not well taken. Why are you so sure that such article should be nominated for deletion? I think it is a good stub, it is not original research, and it is serves a purpose of illustrating opennes on Wikipedia. You also write that Your addition of the comments about me in the article were not encyclopedic, but a personal point of view and therefore have no place in that or any other mainspace article.' I cleary wrote comment about both of us and I did not singled you out. My entry was not personal. It am simply documenting facts which are relevant to this article which is about deletionism on wikipedia. I do not want to go to edit wars with you and I request again that you remove your deletions. Otherwise I will ask admin to help with this case. Pcirrus 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 12

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Hi, I wasn't having a go at you but you did say in your nom that "This article is fixable, but the original author has ignored requests to do so. Right now, it looks horrible" while the procedure for AfD explicitly says that AfD is not a process for fixing up articles. My point is that there are a million articles on wikipedia which need improvement and over 100 articles at AfD a day already. The idea of having a place to list articles which need fixing but which an editor doesn't feel able to fix themselves is a good one. Maybe you should suggest that, if you did I'd support you. Nick mallory 08:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Elaine MacDonald
Firstly, you do not CSD a redirect. Secondly, the established practice on Wikipedia is that unsuccessful electoral candidates for a national, state or provincial legislature candidates are always permitted inclusion in a merged list of candidate biographies, if they're deemed not notable enough for their own articles; they are never to be simply deleted without a merger. Bearcat 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, precedent does count as policy in the absence of a compelling reason to deem the article as standing outside of the established precedent; as per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, the established precedent for unsuccessful electoral candidates is inclusion in a merged list. Secondly, another rule that's been missed here is that an AFD debate with only two participants in it should have been relisted for further discussion, not closed.
 * And unless you think I have some kind of magic ability to know every single article that's been listed for AFD, "you didn't say this while the debate was open" isn't a helpful statement. I only became aware of the debate today because her name was unlinked from Maggie's article (which I have watchlisted). The onus was on somebody in the debate to add the Canada -- ~ template to it, not on me or anybody else to be psychic. Bearcat 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As the AfD closer, I generally have tended to close debates with only three participants (including the nominator) all recommending delete; there tend to be quite a few of these each day, and the vast majority of them are uncontroversial, but that is clearly not the case here. Since both of you seem to be in agreement with the merge/redirect, which seems like a reasonable option, I'm perfectly willing to reverse my deletion of the edit history and save everyone the process of a DRV, as the debate wasn't reflective of the real situation. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, after all. — TKD::Talk 19:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Recycle Family
I think you're right that this is a hoax, but is it necessary to attack the author like that? Jakew 18:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but if so maybe it's best not to give them the satisfaction of causing disruption. I'm no expert; I just don't like seeing such things in my watchlist. Best wishes, Jakew 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!
Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. Just go to this page, sign your name, explain your limitations and what you would like to do in spite of your limitations, that way all the bid people are clear. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick Saban
Regarding your message: Could you explain the "I LOVE COACH SHULA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MOUNTAIN BROOK LOVES SHULA" you briefly added to the Nick Saban article? I know you removed it quickly, but we still take a dim view of actions like this. (Besides, I thought Mountain Brook loved Joey Jones.) Realkyhick 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not ADD that content. I simply removed it. I am confused as to why you believe I added it, especially as I hold no affection for Mike Shula and am not from Mountain Brook. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlwinton (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlwinton (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Corinthos family tree Deletion

 * why are you wanting to delete the Corinthos family tree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Car5ly858 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * then kiss my ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Car5ly858 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * so what Soap thing. I don't know what you made on Wikipedia. Don't delete my stuff that i have added. Or i will blocked you from it. stop sending me messages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Car5ly858 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just going to say i was sorry. I must not of read it all the way thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Car5ly858 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The V-Word. No, not that one :)
Hmm, perhaps. Have you seen WP:AFD. Someone probably saw it in an AfD once and sued Jimbo or something. -- B figura (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Intensive Care
Maybe encouraging editors who patrol the newly created pages to put things in this category might be a good idea, e.g. having a note on the category for speedy deletion page? Have you discussed putting a note about this on the front page of the AfD page? We need people to put things in it if it's going to work. Nick mallory 05:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD for The Summit Birmingham
Hey can you take a look at this. You have more experience with Shopping Mall notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_Birmingham Helmsb 15:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA?
I would like to nominate you for adminship via the Requests for adminship process. Please respond on my talk page if you are interested. Shalom Hello 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta
Hello, Thank you for volunteering to be a part of the Atlanta Wikimaina bid southeast team. We are holding meetings weekdays at 7:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. If you are able to make it, that would be great.

We now also have Google group for coordinating this bid. To get updates on the bid and our progress, please join the Google Groups mailing list at Google Groups wikimania-atlanta.

There is also a group on the social networking site Facebook in which interested parties can express their support for the bid.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these notifications about the bid or would rather they go to a talk page on a different project please change Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/Notify_list --Cspurrier 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Genki Rockets
Give me a chance to work on the article please? Kat, Queen of Typos 07:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added sources, and I have satisfied notability. They are unique in using holograms for live performances, and in being a hybrid band with only computer-generated visuals. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It meets 1 and 10. I would appreciate other sets of eyes looking at the article before being deleted. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Talk:Portable building-- what do we do next?
I am posing this question to you and a few other editors because I know you are an experienced editor and I have seen you in the AfD discussions. This is the first time I have had a RfC (Request for Comment) regarding an edit dispute. I have opposed the inclusion of webpage links an inclusion of what I think is commercial information regarding a manufacturer called "Portakabin, Ltd." in the article Portable building, because there is no citation to any reliable source to support the assertions made or justify its inclusion while its competitors' links and references have been deleted. The editor wishing to include the information has filed a Request for Comment at Talk:Portable building.

The problem we have is that he and I are still the only ones discussing and commenting. Everything is nice and cordial. It is the model example of handling an edit dispute... except that I don't know what else we can do to acquire a consensus opinion. How do we get others to render an opinion? No one is coming to our party and we made some very nice tea and lovely little biscuits. It has been a couple of days already. What do we do? Thanks for any help and guidance.OfficeGirl 03:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I found the procedure for "Request for Third Opinion." It appears to be what I was looking for.  It gave me a way to make a neutral request for someone to come and discuss.  So, don't worry about this question (in case you were thinking of finding something from the procedures), and have a happy day!OfficeGirl 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

HELP
You sent me a warning about the speedy deletion of the page The roll 2007. I did a 'hangon' thing, and submitted a argument, but a guy called 'NawlinWiki' deleted it without taking a glance at it. I know this because it was deleted as I completed the argument.Please Help.

Kobayashis 15:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alkalmbach.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Alkalmbach.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brascon Maneuver
An article that you have been involved in editing, Brascon Maneuver, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 21:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bhavabhushan Mitra
Dear Realkyhick, will you please have a look into the above-mentioned article and save it from disgrace ? Lots of thanks.--BobClive 05:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Very kind of you to keep it in mind.--BobClive 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The grass is green and the rose is red
 * Remember me before I am dead!--BobClive 05:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to learn that the venerable patient has been admitted in your ward. Let us hope for the best. Autumn in Paris is being prepared by a wonderful Indian Summer. Thanks.--BobClive 05:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Realkyhick, As an expert on the subject, I can humbly state that I have been working on the pre-Gandhian freedom movement (1893-1918) in British India since 1955, have successfully defended, in 1985, a PhD dissertation (supervised by an internationally famed French Professor) and published several books and a few hundred papers. Agreeing with your diagnosis, I believe that a technical cleanup will most certainly improve the patient's case. All the best.--BobClive 06:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 13

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 19:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead Air Fresheners
I totally see where you are coming from: this one has been frustrating for me, because they have been so successful in maintaining their anonymity (part of their mystique) that I can't find published sources that say who they actually are! But could you see the question I have at the AFD discussion: I agree that there are serious problems with documentable notability, but I don't see any problem with the verifiablity of any of what I've written. - Jmabel | Talk 18:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
You recently deleted the posting for "Incentive Logic" and you stated that "Articles on this subject have previously been deleted four times." I saw that the articles on that topic had been deleted several times and because of that, I wanted to write an unbiased article on the topic. As far as I could tell, the article followed all the criteria for articles on Wikipedia. The previous articles were deleted because they were biased and blatant advertising. So my question is, why would you delete the article this time when it when it met all the appropriate criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlp515 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

replacementdocs
You flagged this article for deletion so I put my argument for its existence on its talk page. Please let me know if there is something else that you think needs to be in the article because I think the subject is noteworthy and should be included in Wikipedia. There are many other video game websites([]) of no particular importance and they don't seem to be candidates for deletion. Can you explain how they are worthy of having their own articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casimps1 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the desire for "reliable sources", but I think that it is impractical to expect every article on Wikipedia to have a complete list of references. No "reliable sources" for game documentation exists. In fact, that is why replacementdocs was created. If anything, replacementdocs itself is a reliable source for game documentation information.

Here are some other possible ways to "prove" the legitimacy of replacementdocs. Do a Google search for "game manuals", replacementdocs is the first search result. The Abandonware Ring could be considered a "reliable source" for information on abandonware, and they list replacementdocs as one of their few 5-star sites in their web ring which is constantly updated and edited. http://www.abandonwarering.com/?Page=Listing.

Other than these kinds of things I'm not sure what you expect to see regarding a site like this. Do you need to see an article in the New York Times mention the site before it's worthy of a Wikipedia article?

Casimps1 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Another link to replacementdocs from a major website: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/21/docs-for-thousands-o.html Casimps1 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Electronic tech, source
Thanks for the note. And thanks. I left a note on the creator's page. If he does not come through, I'll see what I can come up with. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  21:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta meeting
We will be holding a meeting tonight at 9:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. Please try to be at this meeting as it is one of the last ones before bidding ends and we still have lots that need to be discussed. --Cspurrier 19:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosewater (organization)
Ummm... how does it look now? I think I cleaned it (up)(sic) properly. --Robertigoe 02:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 Wikipedia - I'm Just Learning...

I just felt that after seven (close to eight) years... maybe the story should be told.

There is still material on the internet about the protest. This is the event that catapulted Clark's movement into the public arena in Cleveland. For a little over a year Rosewater was in the news.

As to questions over conflict of interest... the irony is that I was not there (on Public Square). Clark did that on his own. I was in Alabama, and had been a proponent of the mayor's policy. (http://clevelandhomeless.blogspot.com/2005/11/yearly-holiday-weekend-tour-of.html)

May I draw your attention to the bottom of the article.

Do I need to explain?

RKI.--Robertigoe 03:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-consider your practices
I notice that your recent contributions consist mainly of RfD, adding { { unref } } tags and similar "attacks" on new stubs. This seems not to be in the spirit of be_bold.

Please re-consider what you are doing. I feel it is disruptive and discouraging behavior. Thesmothete 05:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the value of removing material that is unencyclopedic from Wikipedia, and I will assume good faith (indeed, it is quite evident) that you are trying to help the project. However, I do not agree that it is consistent with the principles, purposes, and culture of Wikipedia to delete, speedily delete, or tag with { { unref } } new articles that are just being started to the extent you have.  That is what the { { stub } } tag is for.  The idea that no one should start a new article unless they are ready to full-footnote it is inconsistent with the collaborative editing process.  On many articles I've worked on (and that I've seen) the reference notes come way late in the process, after the editors have decided what facts even to include in the article in the first place.  It would be wasted effort to reference material that was ultimately deleted from an article.   Again I say, a founding principle of Wikipedia is that editors should be_bold, and your approach is inconsistent with that.  In my opinion, based on my years involved with the project, the { { unref } } tag is appropriate only when an editor believes the information is possibly incorrect or violates wp:npov.  The { { stub } } tab is sufficient for the start of an article.  The goal is not to create a finished product on the first try.
 * It is true that you came to my attention because of your edit to Residential zoned parking, but I didn't decide to make my comment above until I reviewed some of your other edits that seemed to me to be excessive. For example, just looking at your most recent edits, would take issue with your RfD for Data loading, you yourself reversed your RfD for Replacementdocs, and your { { unref } } tag on Hamaas Khaalis, likewise, was another example where { { stub } } would have been more appropriate, and less heavy-handed.  I will say, however, that mixed in with these are some helpful tags, RfDs and other edits that were improvements.  May I suggest that perhaps a lighter hand here is all you need.  Here are examples of article beginnings for featured articles.  Consider whether your strict standards and swift justice might have smothered some of them in their cribs, and go a little easier on similar subs and starts beginning today. Thesmothete 15:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * | Second Crusade
 * | Vowel
 * | Du Fu (and | slightly later, still unsourced)
 * | Crushing by Elephant
 * | New Radicals

On the name Rosewater...
(Should I have answered your question on the other page?)

Clark recieved a gift of roses and water (sometimes citizens would make donations at his corner) soon after his idea for a homeless organization was conceived. (http://www.clevescene.com/2000-01-06/news/street-fighting-men/full)

RKI.--Robertigoe 05:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC) --Robertigoe 02:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Inactivity check and news report
Hello, Realkyhick. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:
 * 1) Please update your information at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
 * 2) There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambox
Do talk page boxes follow ambox? Just wondering, because of this discussion over on the ICU talk. Cheers, -- B figura (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that I know of, but I'm not really a template guru. And yes, off to bed for me too. -- B figura (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Voluminous speedy deletion requests
I have recently observed your frequent habit of nominating new pages for speedy deletion only minutes after they are created, especially before giving editors any chance to actually add content to the page. It seems that the pages you nominate for speedy deletion are rarely ever deleted speedily and only enter the nomination category after the creator is seemingly harassed. Is there a particular reason you are pouncing on these new pages minutes after creation? You should give pages a couple days (or at the very least, a couple hours) before posting a request for speedy deletion. I believe you would then have more success getting your requests to stick. I recommend that you read over Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, specifically "Gaming the system", and I humbly request that you give these new pages more time to mature before requesting speedy deletions. Not only will this better the entire Wiki community and give contributors a little more leniency when adding new material to the Wikipedia, but it should reduce the amount of page discussions you will have to participate in, as well as reducing the number of hostile comments posted on your talk page. Thank you for your time, and please consider my suggestions seriously. :) -- Zylox 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I seem to have been mistaken. However, your social skills could use a little more grace. Resorting to personal attacks over such a small misunderstanding as this must be quite embarrassing for you. I hope you learn to be a bit nicer towards other people, especially people you don't know, which was one of my original points. Good luck in the future. :) -- Zylox 13:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to offend you. I appreciate your apology and hope your day starts looking up. :) -- Zylox 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As an act of good faith, I've undone some vendetta vandalism on your user page and reported the user. Hope that jerk gets the message. :) -- Zylox 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly take a look at those pages. Thanks for the information. -- Zylox 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambox
Do talk page boxes follow ambox? Just wondering, because of this discussion over on the ICU talk. Cheers, -- B figura (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that I know of, but I'm not really a template guru. And yes, off to bed for me too. -- B figura (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Voluminous speedy deletion requests
I have recently observed your frequent habit of nominating new pages for speedy deletion only minutes after they are created, especially before giving editors any chance to actually add content to the page. It seems that the pages you nominate for speedy deletion are rarely ever deleted speedily and only enter the nomination category after the creator is seemingly harassed. Is there a particular reason you are pouncing on these new pages minutes after creation? You should give pages a couple days (or at the very least, a couple hours) before posting a request for speedy deletion. I believe you would then have more success getting your requests to stick. I recommend that you read over Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, specifically "Gaming the system", and I humbly request that you give these new pages more time to mature before requesting speedy deletions. Not only will this better the entire Wiki community and give contributors a little more leniency when adding new material to the Wikipedia, but it should reduce the amount of page discussions you will have to participate in, as well as reducing the number of hostile comments posted on your talk page. Thank you for your time, and please consider my suggestions seriously. :) -- Zylox 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I seem to have been mistaken. However, your social skills could use a little more grace. Resorting to personal attacks over such a small misunderstanding as this must be quite embarrassing for you. I hope you learn to be a bit nicer towards other people, especially people you don't know, which was one of my original points. Good luck in the future. :) -- Zylox 13:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to offend you. I appreciate your apology and hope your day starts looking up. :) -- Zylox 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As an act of good faith, I've undone some vendetta vandalism on your user page and reported the user. Hope that jerk gets the message. :) -- Zylox 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly take a look at those pages. Thanks for the information. -- Zylox 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

afd comment
I am a little puzzled at the as they fail WP:PROF at the Klenner AfD. multiple nomination. Had you actually looked? I recognize we disagree on many things, but I try to support your general goals, and this leaves me a little puzzled about objectivity. Surely at the least they needed individual discussion. DGG (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you instantly flag my post for immediate deletion even before I have attempt to create the page? It is very hostile conduct. I am offended by this. Am a new contributor and really shocked by your hostility towards my time and effort. Please undue your flagging and stop harassing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rideshare (talk • contribs) 06:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete tags
Hi Realkyhick - you are quick on the draw! How is it possible to put a delete tag on an article WITHIN ONE MINUTE of it being created? I could understand that if it were a joke article, but not if the only objection is that it is too short - i.e. we haven't done enough work on it yet. Get real! --Doric Loon 08:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WHY
You have no reason to delete my editing of The Wacky Adventures Of Super Alix! No one would even look at that page so why does it even matter. Alix was my hero so I made stories about him declaring my love for him is that so bad. So please let me post this page on Wikipedia it would mean a lot to me, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monopolyguy19 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is why Chuck Barris created The Gong Show. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shane Jolley deletion
Shane Jolley is a candidate in a provincial election taking place right now in Ontario, Canada. The basic information on this page was edited down and made more timely than the original. Now the deleters are 1) doing so for the political gain of Mr. Jolley's opponents and/or 2) They don't think who is running in the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound -- where is that, right? -- matters. But people who live there do matter, and if they are searching the Internet and Wikipedia for information about a candidate in a major election, they should be able to find it. Should it stay up forever -- especially if Mr. Jolley loses -- is another matter. But if Wikipedia is a snapshot of the world as it stands today, he belongs here. Deletions of political content during an election is a slippery slope. Gurgeh 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shane Jolley
What an insulting response! There was absolutely no reason to be so rude. That was my first Wikipedia entry and I am a well-meaning person unconnected to the candidate or the party in question.

From your response: "You had ample opportunity to participate and did not do so."

I just joined today! What, you get points for being here longer?

You, somebody in the United States hiding behind a nickname, are not a valid judge of who is notable where I live. I'm finding out that that is Wikipedia's central flaw. That and a case of terminal smugness amongst many of its frequent users. I will spend time on other sites, thanks. (You'll say Good! Good riddance! -- and that's why you're a poor person to be acting like an administrator.) Gurgeh 21:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I based my entry on the small portion of text available in the Wikipedia link that showed up in my Google search result for Shane Jolley. It was an outdated sentence about Jolley being a candidate in the 2006 federal election. But I when I followed that link to Wikipedia, it had been deleted. I'd never done a Wikipedia entry and this seemed like a good one to do -- a simple update since the provincial election is GOING ON NOW. He is not a failed candidate, he is a current candidate -- and I believed he belonged on this site.

So I took that partial sentence, checked the bio on his website and wrote a very clear three sentence entry. I am a new user -- I had to look up what "sockpuppet" and "checkuser" meant -- but trust me on this: I'm going to find out how to report you for being so incredibly rude and unhelpful to well-meaning outsiders.

You wrote: "Why don't you just go away?" Is this how you want to represent yourself and Wikipedia? Neither of you are coming off in a good light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurgeh (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the message you recently left to. Please remember to try not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. GreenJoe 21:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Zouches
Realkyhick,

Since you appear willing to attack articles without regards to your own personal safety... (you should arguably be brevetted...) I would like you to turn your attention to the Zouches... Try though I might, I cannot verify their existence beyond a few articles mentioning the murder of either Alan or Roger by an earl over a (legal) land dipute. There does appear to be a castle Joslin (or Josselin) in France (Brittany)... this was supposedly built by a Guithenoc, given to his son Josselin (yes, that's a boy's name), who gave it to his son (or son in law) Eudo...

And then there's some trouble keeping the story straight. Eudo should have a son Geoffrey who begats Alan (who moves to England) who begats Roger who begats Alan... (that should be Alan la Zouche de Ashby, the created barony)... but now since Alan married Helen de Quincy, who was related by direct descent to many famous royals (all the way to Charlamagne)... that means his descendents would be in direct line of descent to the throne (of england, at least...)

Which leads to some rather interesting claims... because it is through the Zouches that many American families (who claim royal blood) trace their descent...

So...

...Eudo (II) (who married Milicent de Cantilu -minor royalty herself)who is sometimes listed as a son of Roger la Zouche and (therefore brother - in - law to royalty), is also frequently listed as Alan and Helen's son. Alan supoposedly died without issue and his estate fell into abayance(sp?) among his daughters...

If that isn't enough trouble...

Eudo had three to four children... among them a supposed "Lucy la Zouche" who married into the de Greene family (who apparently were major land holders at the time)... --Robertigoe 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

THE ONLY PROBLEM HERE, IS THAT I CAN FIND NO CREDIBLE SOURCE FOR ANY OF THIS. (Some of the events seem to have credible basis; but Eudo (II) and Lucy are without firm?(use) evidence...)

Can (we) find some source beyond the internet in it's origins (books published before... ???)...--Robertigoe 18:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)