User talk:VBGFscJUn3/Archive 1

Apology for changing caption
I humbly apologise for changing the caption on your comment. I remember changing "Question" to "Final plea..." in the edit summary and then in my own edit, and must have got confused when I Previewed and saw "Question" again while scrolling the edit box. I never intentionally change other people's comments, except occasional fixes to problems with links. Sorry I changed yours. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. --Explodicle (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Star
The gesture of the star was really cool. Thanks a lot Sanpaz (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert of Edit on LVT article.
Dear Explodicle,

I deleted a section in the LVT article which stated that a LVT could not raise enough revenue. Having read your reason for reverting my deletion I still think that either the section should be deleted or that it needs to be changed. My problem with the claim (that a LVT could not raise enough revenue) is that it needs more context before being sensible. As the claim implies that some other tax is being abolished and that the LVT needs to take the same amount of money as the abolished tax though this is not stated in the claim.

I hope I have made myself clear.

Yours Sincerely --Spencer BOOTH (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The section addresses a common criticism of land value taxation, and it's backed up by references, so I don't think it should be deleted. If you think it needs elaboration, by all means feel free to do so. --Explodicle (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You were quite right, Explodicle. This is a common criticism of LVT, and therefore it absolutely needs to be in the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work
I actually came over to your talk page to say thanks for your recent work on fixing up references and POV issues on the LVT article. It's beginning to look pretty good now. Kudos. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome :) 70.22.59.134 (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Days later) ...Hey! My kudos, they are gone! --Explodicle (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Marx
I removed picture of Marx in LVT, again. This article is not about Marx it is about LVT. Nor is he intrinsically related to topic as Henry George, is. He made a two bit criticism, so he is mentioned and cited. But to have his picture raises NPOV. Someone just scanning without reading could think he really has something important to do with LVT, which he doesn't. He is too much of a lightening rod, to visually associate, with anything other than himself and his own ideas. 70.22.59.134 (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have copied this to Talk:Land value tax and responded there. --Explodicle (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocks and Shoals (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)
Dear Explodicle, I noticed that you added a tag for notability to the article named above. Please can you explain why? (Other than the automatically added reasons in the tag itself) If you tag this article, are you going to do the same with the myriad other articles on Star Trek episodes? Alastairward (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've continued the discussion on the article's talk page. --Explodicle (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your input at WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive
Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King ( talk ) 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith has been chosen as the first article in WikiProject Economics' first Featured Article drive
I am contacting you because you Supported the decision to choose Adam Smith as the first Featured Article that WikiProject Economics would work on. If you can, please help out and make this goal a reality! A discussion on this has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. Thanks for your time! Gary King ( talk ) 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

rescue tag
You added a rescue tag to the instant-runoff voting controversies article. In the tag it says "Read the deletion discussion to find areas that need work" this sentence is supposed to link to the deletion discussion. Please link it, or remove the tag. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed it. --Explodicle (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sy Sutcliffe
I removed your deletion proposal from Sy Sutcliffe. The notability standard for baseball players permits articles for anyone who has played at the major league level. Sutcliffe played 7 years at the major league level and was part of the 1887 World Sereies championship team. I am unsure what your basis was for proposing deletion. If you disagree with my removal of your deletion proposal, let me know on my talk page.Cbl62 (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My rationale was that I couldn't find any sources that weren't just stats, but looking at that notability guideline it seems that stats alone are enough. Since we're not going to delete, I've tagged the article for improvement. --Explodicle (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch

 * Thanks for having the patience with me to provide that source, I appreciate it. --Explodicle (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. As I expressed on the Afd page, you made a very valid argument with regards to Watchtower.  Any time an individual presents a well thought out – reasonable and valid point, that stance should be addressed without stamping of the feet – pleas to a higher power (no pun intended) or sarcasm.  No patience was required from me :-) just understanding your point and answering it.  Take care and by the way, you are doing a great job here. ShoesssS Talk 17:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Article to be deleted
HELP. This article to be deleted in id.wiki. Can you help me to SAY KEEP in its Talk page, in Indonesia Wikipedia. I don't know why they don't appreciate Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, and Assembly. Thanks for your support. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but thank you for your supporting. Deo Volente. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded on your talk page. --Explodicle (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me what a rescue is...
You are trying to say that you are on my side but unfortunately I don't subscribe to the good faith policy that protects vandals and deletionist. so tell me why I should trust you. I have to assume you didn't even go through the deletion message above your message at the top of my talkpage. I have talked to many people who want revenge for that slimy move. As I said they lied about what was in that article as they were voting to delete it. I have read the paper written by Stephen Dole and Issac Assimov called "Habitable planets for man." It was not been surpassed in the thoroughness or technical acheivement and an article should have been written covering the points that they did. Some people who seem to know the writer of the Planetary Habitability article have, from what I have seen, been very territorial about the topic. One editor went as far as to say humans don't matter but bacteria and other life do. What kind of reasoning is that, is he not a human being?? Cyanobacteria can survive ridiculously extreme temperatures, most of the range would kill a person. Really, that is a big article with a ridiculous amount of referencing and it needs a complete rewrite based on the Stephen Dole and Issac Assimov paper, or a whole other article could be written. The Dole paper is now a free PDF and I would use it to write an article that covers what human being can survive and not survive (atmosphere consituents, atmosphere pressure, temperature, direct insolation, gravity, axial tilt, eccentricity, etc.), but wait, that's what Planetary Human Habitability was about. But of course you can't have diversity in an encyclopedia, no. I see user:BlueEarth started that article and left it to the side with all his other ventures and they attacked it, even though it was clearly a good work in progess. I say bring it back in a form that is less threatening to those territorial editors of Planetary Habitablility. What are your "supportive' comments on each point. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't have to trust me at all. I said that I'd help you and if I try to double-cross you for some reason, you can just link to the post where I said I was on your side to discredit me. Even the most evil vandal will have a tough time backing me up there. I think planetary human habitability is an interesting topic that isn't really covered in Wikipedia, and would be interested in making the article happen. If you're willing to give this another go, post at User talk:Explodicle/Planetary human habitability and we'll go from there. --Explodicle (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright you have my attention; interesting template, do I guess correctly that is a "Userify" template, I've never seen that before. I have a copy of the article in a sandbox page, what is the difference? First off, I want to know what you found valuable about the article? I also believe that it is going to take some work to make sure it doesn't look like Original Research, though we are talking about basic human environment things, do you have any thoughts on that? I'm guess you mean I should be writing this at other page so I will copy this there after. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded there. -- E x p l o d i c l e TC 14:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

International Surfing Day
wow thanks, i never got a barnstar before. and i wish i could give you one for having an awesome screename. explodicle---sounds tasty to me!Myheartinchile (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. you would't know how to add an image to the user:Pastafarian-fpm/Pastafarian template would you?18:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs)


 * I took the liberty of changing the template for you, go ahead and revert if you don't like it. If you change the picture, remember to not use a non-free image. -- E x p l o d i c l e TC 18:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you support in keeping this article alive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.119.34 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent messages
Hello Explodicle, I noticed that you recently left two established users templated NPA warnings. I just wanted to let you know that it's generally considered bad form to leave templates on the pages of established users, as it might be construed as offensive and condescending. In the future, please consider leaving more personal notes that outline your feelings. For more info, please see Don't template the regulars. Thanks. Glass  Cobra  16:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the heads up! -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Certain kinds of fools make me wish to leave Wikipedia
I am sticking my neck out here and would appreciate your watching this. and letting any admins that should be watching this know.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ._Langton&diff=227525252&oldid=227525159

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gliese_581_c&diff=prev&oldid=227523424

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, for your benefit I'm not going to notify an admin. Whatever this guy did to get you mad (you've only linked to your own edits) does not justify personal attacks. Below your edit, you'll notice he apologized and responded the exact same way I would have.
 * You've got to calm down when you're editing. You're always yelling at people and cursing, and it just isn't helping the situation. Even though some people might seem like complete dicks sometimes, most have something worthwhile to contribute to Wikipedia if you give them the chance. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

not to give you more work but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Submitter_to_Truth

The discussion here on deleting a whole article need someone with experience to smooth things out. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added my $0.02 there. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you
Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Sigma Pi/Chapters
Talk:Sigma Pi/Chapters, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sigma Pi/Chapters and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Sigma Pi/Chapters during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Otto 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of intellectual property
Hi there, I have been working on the anti-copyright article, in the course of which I have created the anti-patent article... The anti-copyright article initially had the same problems the Criticism of intellectual property article has - a lot of unreferenced original research, which I have basically replaced with ref. material. Since you were interested in doing the same for Criticism of intellectual property I would suggest that the Criticism of intellectual property article could contain general criticism of intellectual property, while the anti-copyright and anti-patent article concentrate on more specific arguments. This would be in line with the fact that copyright and patent are branches of intellectual property...--SasiSasi (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. -- Explodicle (T/C) 06:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice, I still have to do some work on the anti-patent regarding the GA review (I need a copyeditor? any ideas?). There is also an article called Ethics of file sharing which needs work.--SasiSasi (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll give it a better look when I get the chance. In the meantime, you might want to check out the guide for nominating good articles. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reqdiagram at Anti-patent
It would be helpful if you wrote a description of the diagram that you want at Talk:Anti-patent. (That template, by the way, is not meant to be used simply to indicate that no image is present in the current version of the article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a more specific request on the article's talk page. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I spent fifteen minutes looking for a list of countries, but didn't turn up anything.  Perhaps someone else will have better luck.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

lolz
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDeletionpedia&diff=239230281&oldid=239229993 Well said. :-P] -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad you enjoyed it. :) 70.51.8.158 (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

List of people who died before the age of 30
It appears obvious now that the page List of people who died before the age of 30 is headed to deletion. I support its deletion myself. But this has given me an idea. Do you think it would make sense to have a set of categories called "Age x deaths," all in a parent category called "Deaths by age?" That seems like a better idea. This way, there would be no worry where to draw the line as to what age is "significant" as an age of death, and all ages people live to can possibly be included. There would be no need for one person to create all these categories in one day - they could be built gradually over time. We already have categories like 1949 deaths. Why can't we do the same with age? I would like some input. Sebwite (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't hurt, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. -- Explodicle (T/C) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Deaths by age
Category:Deaths by age and it's sub-categories have been nominated for deletion. Having previously expressed an opinion on this category, if you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Explodicle, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again,  Spencer T♦C 02:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"oversensitive" "prima donna"
Did you really have to call Logical Premise an oversensitive prima donna? If you keep alienating people like this, no one will want to collaborate on articles with you. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Very petty, but hardly unexpected. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Explodicle, you should get your context straight. this guy had already snidely expressed he wasn't going to help, and secondly he was the one who said his comments here were "oversensitive." And there is nothing forbiding me to interpret his attacks on other users like this one Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Logical Premise/editorluv, which happened to include me. Trust me to know when someone is not interested, welcome, or wanted. I won't ask you for an appology, but at least ackowledge "oversensitive" was a description he used on his already alienated self. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that I said you, along with a long list of other people, appear to be far more concerned about your idea of what is "right" than collaborating with others, is not a personal attack, and the people who decided it was such are pretty much spending all their time deleting people's user pages rather than actually bothering to contribute to articles. You still don't seem to get it. I could say that 'oversensative prima donna' is a personal attack against me. The sheer, pure, hypocritical hilarity of you attacking me for commenting on the page you invited me to comment on, and then being upset with me because I decided to point out logical and common sense problems the average wikipedian is going to have with the article, is enormous. You can trod out that link to the MfD to prop yourself up all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you currently have an RfC going where a number of people have called you out for personal attacks and wild accusations and not one single person has agreed with you or your viewpoint. I could give a flying fuck what you think about me, but you seem to be an intelligent man who can't operate socially with others, and when you pull this stunt on the wrong admin or editor and get banned, all your intelligence and valuable contributions won't stop you from being blocked. Try to see that and work with people instead of personally attacking them. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 03:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll post a response at the RfC. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A possible name change for Anonymous (group)
Hello there, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the matter of moving Anonymous (group) to something more descriptive of the actual nature of the phenomenon (i.e. Anonymous (internet culture). We are now debating this on the talk page. Your opinion would be most welcome. Spidern (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded there. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Help, see here.  Never was a disambiguation page, before see I wanted to add more information to the word Never, about funny sayings which express the notion never in different languages, like for example: When hell freezes over.

The page would looked complicated otherwise.. I thougt I create a separate article for the word and keep the rest as a disambiguation page

About the article never, people agreed on that it was ok to expand it, see my talk page. I did not wanted to make a dictionary of it, I just wanted to add funny sayings. .

Warrington (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I did not knew that. I stop than.

Warrington (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Flexibility
Are you going to do a redirect/replacement of text? dougweller (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll do it later today. -- Explodicle (T/C) 12:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks. I worry that some Keep AfDs are kept on the basis of changes to be made, and then... nothing happens. At least this was was relatively straightforward. Thanks again for doing this. dougweller (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you
Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added my opinion there. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
Hello Explodicle - I just wanted to give you a heads up on a couple of discussions that may interests you, regarding this article which you recently passed to GA status. I noticed a few things about the article that I didn't think were GA status, so I dropped a note on the GAN talk page - the discussion can be found here. In response to that discussion, I initiated an individual GAR, which can be found at Talk:Kohlberg Kravis Roberts/GA2.

It's always great to see new editors getting interested in the GA review process. However, it may be best that you request a "mentor" from among the active GAN reviewers, study the GA criteria, and perhaps read a few other reviews and Good Articles in your chosen area before attempting more reviewing. Studying other recently passed GAs and reading a selection of reviews is often a great way to get an idea about what other reviewers have issues with and what is required for an article to be GA. Please let me know if you have any questions, and please feel free to comment at either of the discussions listed above. Dana boomer (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the heads up. I'll leave this one in your capable hands, and check out some other GANs before I review another one. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability
Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Also, regarding this, please note that I have begun adding out of universe context and respectfully hope you might reconsider. Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a little bit of commentary to the talk page there, but to be honest I like the notability guideline. I just don't like that we delete stuff over it - I think we should use a pure wiki deletion system for topics of questionable notability instead. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
On behalf of the Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.
Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For a New Liberty
I've removed your refimprove template in the For a New Liberty since noe reason for it's inclusion has been given. Hope it's ok. If not I hope it's possible to get some more information on what's missing. See Talk:For_a_New_Liberty. Nsaa (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded at the talk page. -- Explodicle (T/C) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting a Philipino biography to a French town?
This seems like a really bad idea. I think you should revert it and follow-up with a refs needed tag. I think if you stated on the talkpage you intend to send it to AfD in another month or so if reliable sources don't start appearing it would be seen as quite reasonable. -- Banj e b oi   17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There was already an AfD on the article during which no one could find sources, so I don't think a tag would change anything in a month. I don't want to renominate this because I don't think it should get deleted; someone might eventually find a source. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That still seems like a bad idea but I'll leave you to it then. -- Banj e  b oi   20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly is so bad about this idea? -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * IMHO, every film Balot has been in can be cited to the films themselves assuming they credit the cast. That is not the best sourcing but establishes they were prolific at least. By inserting the redirect the vast majority of potential editors who would improve the article will never even see no less improve it. To me it would make more sense to appeal for sourcing with a refs needed tag. -- Banj e  b oi   23:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Worst Hour
Hi, I tried to look up Aaron Rowe but it seemed his page was deleted. Someone stated that he plagiarized Worst Hour, is this true?--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know. The article ended up getting deleted because there were no reliable sources, and I can't find any proof on Google or the last archive. -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate any links to his work. I remember reading a couple of his posts a few years ago, and he is damn hilarious, a little harsh but funny as hell. I didn't catch his radioshow and I'm hoping it's archived somewhere, as well as the blog.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't find anything. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Burning ears?
Just a note that I quoted you at Administrators' noticeboard, I hadn't realized thata WQA had occured on the matter when I first posted. The behaviour seems to still be going on. -- Banj e b oi   16:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Great news
Thanks for letting me know and congratulations that the article has been kept. Nefirious (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're not busy
I have been slowly working on improving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability

More so now that major life changes are now behind me. I have started several efforts to attempt conclusion of this endeavor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2009_August_30#Parameters_of_Planet_Habitability_for_people.3F_.28not_Extremophiles.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Space_and_survival

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Planetary_habitability#SURVEY_on_extremophile.2Fcolonization_ambiguity.2C_article_size.2C_and_the_coming_split.

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool! Are you ready for me to start reviewing the article? -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 03:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Me
Plz help me find sources for pucca episodes i will be gladly if you help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucaspet (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said on Talk:Dance, Pucca, Dance, I couldn't find anything. Sorry. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Asset voting
See Articles_for_deletion/Asset_voting_(3rd_nomination). I'm the one who created the article, and I've decided to merge it to Proxy voting. Can you help me close the AFD? Homunq (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that wouldn't be appropriate. You should wait for an administrator to close it. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

BC vs BCE
Hey guy, or gal, I guess. Stagyar Zil Doggo here. You left me a message about changing 'BCE' to 'BC' and the rest. Thanks for the tip, but your message implies that I edited needlessly. Sometimes I change from the one to the other because instances of both occur in an article, which you've got to admit is syntactically inappropriate. The reason I change Common Era notations to Anno Domini notations is that I like the Anno Domini system better. Call me romantic, heh heh, but I remember a time when no-one had ever heard of Common Era. The first time I heard of it was in my junior year of high school, when I took an anthropology class taught by an eccentric who was mildly zealous about the idea. Wikipedia articles and textbooks are still the only places I've ever seen it used - not even my local paper uses it. Seriously, everyone, everyone - but no-one - knows Anno Domini. Nobody is meaningfully rankled by it's use. I guess the bottom line is that I'm not convinced of an impetus to phase it out. Tell me otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like somebody got rankled since this comment. To avoid future conflict, you should consider discussing this on an article's talk page before changing the year numbering system. No one is trying to phase out Anno Domini - in fact, WP:ERA prohibits phasing it out without consensus. The same applies to Common Era. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I didn't even know there were talk pages - that's kinda neat. But don't worry about it. It's gonna take more than cryptic naysaying from Mr. Shabazz if he wants to manifest a conflict. And that teacher I mentioned was certainly trying to phase Anno Domini out, that's what I meant - not within the context of Wikipedia, but inasmuch as the Common Era system exists as an alternative. Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of emoticons
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of emoticons. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of emoticons. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Antonio Puig
Thanks for letting me know. Maurreen (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties
why is it that User:Malleus Fatuorum can edit AfDs such as Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties after they have concluded (the AfD was closed at 21:18 - User:Malleus Fatuorum added a comment an hour and a half later) but i cannot? do not get me wrong - if i could get away with doing what User:Malleus Fatuorum gets away with i would but i am not all buddy buddy with wikipedia admins like User:Malleus Fatuorum is Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither of you should be doing it. Thanks for bringing Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties to my attention, I just removed the post-closure comments from that one too. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Doom Troopers
I have removed the prod tag from Doom Troopers, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Thanks! -- Explodicle (T/C) 22:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Verbal
Just to present a neutral point of view that just happened to notice what was going on. From what it looks like to me, A Nobody was the one being rather offensive, not Verbal. Silver seren C 23:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between attacking someone and telling it like it is. Verbal and I have some history.  Part of that history is that he shows up in discussions after me to say that opposite of what I argue while demonstrating ignorance of the subject.  See for example here and note the nearly copy and paste style wording of his post there with his post on the list talk page as well as the accusations against the Article Rescue Squadron.  Anyway, you cannot say someone who is verified in over a dozen published sources let alone many more reliable internet sources has "no independent RS".  That is not factually accurate and doing a source search reveals as much.  Thus making a false statement reflects either not looking for sources or...  Second, when I argue based on specific sources that I also edit into the article ( and ), it is offensive to dismiss those of us opposing the merge as merely expressing WP:ILIKEIT.  No, I think it should be kept, because it meets WP:V and WP:N based on the sources I have come across and my knowledge of the character who is a starring character in one game, one of the main characters in another, a playable character in still another, who has been made into an action figure, etc.  Thus it gets old when some of these accounts who have no history of working on or interest in the actual subject making uninformed statements about it.  By contrast, someone like User:New Age Retro Hippie, although I disagree with him, has credibility in that discussion as someone who has actually worked on the article and from my other interactions is not ignorant of the franchise.  Ergo, even if he and I have a spirited disagreement, neither of us would justifiable doubt each other's good faith interest in trying to do what is best with the content, even if we disagree about how to best use it.  Thus, I would not reply to him in a manner that calls him out, because I know he will indeed actually look for and add sources to these things.  I cannot say the same for Verbal and indeed if anything when someone makes a blatantly untrue declaration about something they clearly (again look at the article's history) do not have any interest in, I, as someone who has been contributing to the article for over two years do not just let so untrue statements go uncalled out.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care what history you two have or who is right about the content. Telling someone "please don't be a liar" or to get lost is inappropriate. Article talk pages are for discussing content, not contributors. -- Explodicle (T/C) 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see where anyone was attacked, Can you provide diffs of the specific edit where there was an a personal attack? I see a heated debate about content that may be going on a bit to long but no personal attacks. Ridernyc (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Verbal told A Nobody to "please remember... not to make untrue statments", a flowery way of calling A Nobody a liar and aping A Nobody's faux-polite "please remember". -- Explodicle (T/C) 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also why did you give him a level 3 warning? Ridernyc (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the comment was made in bad faith. -- Explodicle (T/C) 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems like a bit much. I don't think a level 3 was warranted for this situation. Silver  seren C 02:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree they are both experienced long time editors so giving them templates is questionable to begin with. Ridernyc (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that philosophy. -- Explodicle (T/C) 02:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can quote essays too, you know. :P Silver  seren C 02:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Verbal agrees with me. -- Explodicle (T/C) 02:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. Verbal agrees with you -- that's a good one. Verbal's specialty is attacking articles he doesn't agree with. After tangling with him for 1-1/2 years, I've come to the conclusion that he never writes an original word of his own. He's a self-appointed censor. He knows all the rules, but he interprets them to favor his position, and in the process he ends up breaking the rules himself. He doesn't care if people get upset -- in fact, he takes pleasure in upsetting them. He won't collaborate in a meaningful way because it's too constructive and time-consuming. Instead, he'll take unilateral action, like reverting your edits, or cutting chunks out of the article you are working on, or stealth-deleting it with a redirection. Basically, he's a control-freak, and Wikipedia is his adopted domain that he is trying to control. He single-handedly soured me on Wikipedia, and I'm sure I'm just one of dozens.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I support appropriate use of templates. This one was inappropriate and assumes bad faith. Level 3 was ridiculous. Caleb's comment above is a good example of a personal attack. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No assumption was required. Don't engage in flame wars. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I confess that I was also somewhat surprised to see this warning directed at Verbal, even after reviewing the page in question (for the record, I agree with you that templates are handy and intended to be polite). I can see your point, Explodicle, but I am wondering if perhaps some other approach to dispute resolution might have been more productive. Anyway, sorry for dragging this out - as a latecomer to this party I think it might be best if everyone just disengages sooner rather than later. Enjoy what is left of your Pi Day (unless I already missed it due to those wacky time zones). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm experiencing some difficulty getting verbal to engage in the talk page for allopathic ... I've tried a message on his talk page, the article talk page, and exchange with some admins over the page protection etc. I wonder if he's watching this thread and might care to engage? I don't really want to have to drag admins in as a stroppy edit war has already just served to annoy me and others. 90.201.152.78 (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't really anything you can do to force someone to respond to a discussion, but now that allopathic medicine is protected, he'll have to use its talk page if he wants a say in its content. I'd rather not get involved in that dispute because I would probably be biased against him. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep your uncivil opinions about other editors to yourself. By engaging with edits like this you are enabling their behaviour. The page was protected at my request, because an IP keeps removing the reference for a quote, while leaving the quote. Hence there is an unreferenced quote. I restored the ref, and left their tag, and after then repeatedly removed the tag I requested semi protection to force discussion, which hasn't been forthcoming. If you make further personal attacks and enable further harassment, such as that by Caleb above, I will ask for preventative sanctions to be taken. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to enact "preventative sanctions" myself and save everyone the drama. Regardless of his behavior, it's not fair for this page to be the center for all things anti-Verbal. If anyone else has a problem with his edits, please follow the dispute resolution procedure. Any new Verbal-related posts to this page that aren't notifying me of a fair and centralized discussion (example: RfC) will be removed. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Humorless
A tag has been placed on Humorless requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WWGB (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sacred Band of Stepsons
Need more guidance as to how to satisfy OrangeMike's problems and hopefully have him remove the tags from this page. A previous editor tagged this page earlier in its evolution and I rewrote it totally for him; he was satisfied and deleted his tags. Now I am doing this again, differently, for a different editor. I don't mind putting in all effort required, but one hopes to reach samadhi on this. Please provide any suggestions to my talk page. Thanks so much.Harmonia1 (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started a section at Talk:The Sacred Band of Stepsons. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census
Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot. 13:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you for signing the census, and an apology if you are one of those editors who dislike posts such as this one for messaging you again in this way. I've now got myself organised and you can opt-out of any future communication at WP:WikiProject Economics/Newsletter. Just remove your name and you won't be bothered again.


 * Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to invite your comments on the census talk page about the project as a whole. I've given my own personal opinion on a range of topics, but my babbling is essentially worthless without your thoughts - I can't believe for one moment that everyone agrees with me in the slightest! :)


 * All your comments are welcomed. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 13:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your merge/redirect of Edoras into Rohan
Hello there! I see that you merged the article Edoras into Rohan over a month ago. However, there was a discussion over at WikiProject Middle-Earth about merging (you can see it here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth) where it was decided that Meduseld would be merged into Edoras, rather than merging both into Rohan. I took up the task of merging the two articles together and editing the result extensively, which I've been working on here: User:The_Fiddly_Leprechaun/Sandbox. I also put notes on the talk pages of both Edoras and Meduseld notifying people of what I was doing.

I did become very busy for a while, and didn't have the chance to edit Wikipedia for over a month -- and you evidently stepped in during my hiatus :) There was a merge notice on Meduseld and Edoras at the time suggesting a redirect to Rohan (which I had forgotten to remove), so it's not right to blame you fully. I thought I would let you know, however, that I will be moving the article from my sandbox out to the mainspace at Edoras, and redirecting Meduseld there. (And you're welcome to offer any ideas about what I've written.) Thanks! – The Fiddly Leprechaun ·  Catch Me!  19:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's good to see someone is improving these articles. I've been intermittently working on the backlog for Wikiproject Notability and there are a lot of Middle-earth-related articles there. The current version of your sandbox article looks like it's kinda in a gray area for notability, though. Considering the backlog is at 2+ years and getting longer, it's not a terribly pressing concern - but you should probably add some more secondary sources to insure its long-term survival.
 * Is there anything I can do while clearing the backlog that would make your work easier? Should I postpone dealing with the Middle-earth articles with merge tags? -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would imagine there are a number of Middle-earth articles in that backlog -- we have a horrid blight of unreferenced or barely referenced articles in our WikiProject, plus a number of merge/redirects that need doing (although the latter category has happily seen a spurt of recent activity). I agree with you that my sandbox article needs more references; adding a few more will be the next step before I put it in the mainspace -- it's scary to think that it would be one of the better-referenced Middle-earth articles even as it is now.
 * Thanks for offering to help! You could postpone dealing with the tagged Middle-earth articles, which may be helpful, but the best option would probably be to drop a quick note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth about whatever you find, just to let everyone on the project know what's going on (and give them the opportunity to speak up if they are working on it by any chance). Alternatively you could tell me on my talk page, and I'll look into it, though I might not see the message for a few days. However, I think I would approach the matter on a case-by-case basis: if there's very little content, and the article (or its talk page) hasn't been active recently, then you could most likely go ahead and merge it without any problems. – The Fiddly Leprechaun ·  Catch Me!  22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)