User talk:VoiceOfReason/Archive

AFDs and new users
Hello, VoiceOfReason. I understand the sentiment that you expressed in the Protest Warrior article's AFD today, but it is worth noting that the AFD process is meant to be reflective of the Wikipedian community consensus, not that of an outside community. This is the reason sockpuppet/new user opinions are often discounted in an AFD to reduce or eliminate the effects of vote rigging and sockpuppetry. In clearer terms, it doesn't matter what the subject of an article has to say about him/herself (excluding cases of slander and other crime), but rather what Wikipedia standards have named fit to be in an encyclopedic article about the subject. Wikipedia is about community consensus, and if some people want to become part of the community, that's fine; however, its processes are not meant to be tampered with via outside sources, which is currently a significant problem in any AFD or other Wikipedia process concerning a subject that has an online following. Thank you for your contributions, and happy editing, --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand the inadvisability of listening to sockpuppets or non-community members; I was just wondering about the relevance of pointing that some of these sockpuppets are coming from sites which call Wikipedians "communists and liberals." VoiceOfReason 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know if you're still around, but if you are, my explanation is this. Some new users are legitimate and should be considered in the deletion process. In the case that a user may have been created with dishonorable intention, it is the correct course of action to discount that person's vote when determining consensus. I recently registered at one of the sites that had been improperly deleted in the past (Conservativeunderground) at the suggestion of one user, and was disheartened to see that most of the members there were unabashedly polemic, divisive and inflamatory, not the kind of evenhanded people that would be welcomed at Wikipedia. The possibility that meatpuppetry from one of these communities could be coming about is a correlation of bad faith to their intentions, and thus is worth mentioning or bringing to the attention of the closing administrator. --Kuzaar-T-C- 00:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still around. Thanks for the response :) FWIW, I'm no sock puppet... I've been registered on Wikipedia for quite awhile. It's true that a disproportionate share of my edits have been to AfD discussions, but that's because I try not to edit unless I've got something to say. VoiceOfReason 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

3rr
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, after reverting your latest, I'm up to two for the day. Guess I've got one more coming. In the meantime, there is certainly no consensus for omitting plainly relevant material from the article, and removing it anyway seems like vandalism. VoiceOfReason 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that Hipocrite uses this sort of warning in the way that big corporations use SLAPP suits; he's given it to quite a few people involved in the Democratic Underground discussion.


 * Atlant 11:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 3RR is policy and a such not invoked just when it is convenient. Revert more than 3 times any article within 24 hours, get caught and you will be blocked. I can't see why reminding people of basic ground rules constitutes a threat. 84.160.247.109 20:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Democratic Underground
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

I worked hard getting that material together and it is unfair of you to delete it. BenBurch 06:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you're aware, Ben, the amount of work you put into your collection has little or nothing to do with its relevance... or, as it happens, its lack thereof. Your accusation of vandalism is unwarranted and you'd be better served putting your energies into self-examination.

Your "partial revert" in Democratic Underground
You were trying to sneak in a major edit by disguising it as a "partial revert". I find such behavior dishonest. 84.160.247.109 20:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it was a revert. I reverted the edits made by Revolucion, while preserving those made after him. As for my "dishonest" behavior, please review WP:AGF and consider registering for an account rather than remaining anonymous.

re: admin nomination
Thank you, VoiceOfReason. I'm flattered by your decision to nominate me, and I will happily accept the nomination. I am also very appreciative of your insightful comments on the article in question (Democratic Underground). You'll notice I left tea for the editors at that page, as I really appreciate everyone's hard work and cooperation. I couldn't have done it myself, clearly! Thanks again!

Peace. - CheNuevara 09:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you help please?
Hi, I saw your name in a nomination I just voted in. I need some help on a completely different issue. I filed an RfArb today and it was edited and I am afraid to change it back. Please see my discussion here please. I don't want people to get the wrong idea. But also, there is an RfC I am currently involved in where they are telling me both to revert and not to revert to become a better editor. I am logically perplexed and concerned. Ste4k 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd really only appreciate my filed request to be as it was when I submitted it. I have found the links to the clerks now. I have sent a message to one of the clerks. Thanks for getting back to me on this. Ste4k 17:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA
Well, it's alright -- the outcome was forseeable, if not ideal. Once again, thanks for the vote of confidence. I'll wait around awhile and then maybe I'll try again. The experience wasn't all bad, as some users said really nice things about me, and I learned a thing or two about the RfA process. In any case, your support was greatly appreciated. I'll see you around, I'm sure. Take care and wiki on.

Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment at AfD
Your comment about "Delete, raze to the ground, and salt the earth so that nothing will ever grow here again." at AfD:Tripping Woah made me laugh so hard, I peed a little. I had to let you know! Thanks! -Colonial One 20:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject ASOIAF
A new WikiProject on A Song of Ice and Fire has been created. If you're interested in helping define its methods and goals, check it out. Brendan Moody 06:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments re speedy delete tags
On the Bafendo AfD page you say: a speedy tag should not be removed by anybody but an administrator and should only be objected to with hangon or on the article's talk page... is that correct?. Not the way I read it (though I'm far from being The Font Of All Knowledge; I'm not even an admin!). A speedy tag includes the following text, including the part in bold: "If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." The way I read it that means that anyone (not just an admin) is at liberty to remove a speedy tag, except the person who originally created the article - personally, I'm reasonably flexible about that, even; if I place a speedy tag, say db-empty, on something and find that five minutes later someone, including the original author has added valid content and removed the speedy tag I won't make a fuss. I've also "rescued" articles by expanding something tagged as empty or nonsense, them removing the speedy tag myself. hangon comes in useful here to keep the deletion monsters away while the work's in progress.

It's a case of using common sense, in my view. If something is clearly speedyable (and for the record I agree with you that A7 can cover companies) at one point then it's taggable at that point. If it stops being speedyable then the tag should be removed. If the tag removal is clearly in bad faith then it should be replaced and the author warned with drmspeedy. If someone decides that something isn't speedyable and AfD is more appropriate, so be it. WP:CSD looks fairly cut and dried but in practice isn't, from time to time. Just my 10¢, anyway! Tonywalton | Talk 12:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

GeeSui Ng article
Looks like you beat me too it on the GeeSui Ng article. I had to look up the tags :-) St.isaac 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Eiras (Producer)
It's no problem if someone wants to recreate a deleted article as in DRV:
 * If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub "undeleted". If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion

Check out User talk:Tatkiddluso. Tyrenius 03:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize, but drop him a note if you wish. Latitude is allowed on the front line. I deleted it anyway as A7. He said he was going to improve the article, so if he does, then he can restore it. It will be interesting to see if the link turns blue, or maybe he'll use a different name. We don't want to BITE, so let's give him the option of coming back again at least. Tyrenius 03:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a word with the guy who made this edit. He'll give you good advice. :) Tyrenius 03:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And check out the dialogue with oppose no. 1 on Requests for adminship/Yanksox. Tyrenius 04:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Snap review
I agree with removal of prod on Hashkafah.com and reasoning on Articles_for_deletion/Al-Hama. This edit is spot on. Matt Nettheim and this edit &mdash; possibly a common mistake in thinking AUTO or VANITY = instant delete (or userfy). That only applies if it is also non-notable. I think enough credits to give pause and put cleanup tag on, maybe AfD, but possibly work with the editor to see if the article shapes up. It's good to read the guidelines thoroughly. For instance there is no category to speedy delete recreated speedy delete articles, only recreated AfD articles (but the recreated speedy deletes can be deleted under the same original category e.g. A7).

I quite like the welcome and warning simultaneously on User_talk:Nick_Clark; it takes some of the sting out, and an nice helpful warning message. Lose the tone yes, obvious prod. Not sure why you didn't put this up for a speedy copyvio Intellisample. I've just deleted it as one. Ask me later if anyone's complained... Still the main thing is you've spotted it as a copyvio. How did you do that - a google search? Articles_for_deletion/N-Tegrity - I like the "undoubtedly sincere". A nice touch and gives credit, rather than slagging someone off contemptuously which happens too often on AfD, and which I comment on if I see it. Articles_for_deletion/The_Cheetah_Girls_TV_series - I think it's good that you're coming in with first comment, making your own mind up (although probably not a great task in this case) and not waiting to see what others will say (though that can be useful on occasion). Good calm, helpful, explanatory talk from you here: Talk:Todd_P.. I have found it is possible to calm people down or enrage them, depending on your response, so keep this measured tone going.

From the sample I would say you're doing good work with a firm grasp of the basics and how to apply them. Just a bit of attention to fine detail needed occasionally, but they are details a lot of people miss. You show a good manner with things, and in my book that is a great asset. If you find things getting to you occasionally then switch to something else. You're getting good all round experience, but don't forget to work on some enjoyable articles. They need doing too! Some substantial article edits are essential experience. Tyrenius 05:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Voice of Reason
I think that the list of rice dishes would be more easily found by searchers on a list, and, in addition, some rice dishes do not have articles. However, I can also make it into a category. If you would like to discuss it, please respond on my talk page. Fat Lui 01:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Fat Lui

Hah
"Plus, the article says that Windows is better than Linux, and we all know that's db-nonsense"

I've had a really bad day - thanks for making me chuckle in spite of it all. :) -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 23:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gridlink
The line that contains "Contains at least one member who was once a part of...", Jon Chang was in Discordance Axis which has an article and thus Gridlink (in my opinion) meets the criteria may be notable. I'm trying to be more careful about what I delete. Of course there is nothing to stop you adding a prod. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lord Robert Strachan afd
The deletion of this page is not under that criteria necessarily. Most of the content was copied from another page, however, there is new content on the page that is not nonsense in the speedy criteria definition. The person claims to be a lord, and as such I am willing to give them time to verify the claim and clean up the page. Ans e ll 04:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Closed as concensus speedy deletion.-- Dakota 05:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me out
I am trying to inform about a law firm (Adorno & Yoss) but the tamplet keeps appearing as WP:SPAM, self-promotion. But I am not trying to self promote. If haveing information about the business entity is considered self promoting then the whole category of law firms [(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_law_firms)should be considered as self] United_States_law_firms promoting as well. I am not trying to pull everyone down, just trying to find out the reason why my site is considered self promoting and other ones are not.

sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adorno&yoss (talk • contribs) 12:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your advice is very useful, I might seem strange that I kept deleting it, not because I was ignoring the advice. I made corrections, then I delete the advice thinking that the editing was done. Again, there is a whole category in Wikipedia dedicating to Unites states Law firms, then the whole category is doom to be delete if my page is the problem.

If the deletion is because of my user name, which i chose after I decided to write the article, then all I am at fault is for being honest and not trying to cheat the system. Then I don't think I should be reprehended for honesty.

I would sincerely ask the editors and administrators to reconsider deleting my page.

Adorno&amp;yoss 20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Adorno&amp;yoss 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Russell
I saw that, and I agree, that's why I put it up for AfD. After hearing from him it's refreshing to see that for once an editor's not being a jerk about it. Wildthing61476 04:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ho Hum!
Hi - you placed a deletion notice on Adorno & Yoss earlier (I would agree with it). I've spent sometime putting it back and they have appealed for advice. I trust they will have found mine useful but I have also directed them to you - hope that is ok. Cheers --Nigel (Talk) 19:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I live and learn (fortuntely). Definitely not getting into the "deleting warnings is vandalism" one but I guess as the first thing they did was deleted it and then continued to do so each time I rv'd it it was kinda  winding me a little!.  Thanks and regards --Nigel  (Talk) 19:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Really just a thanks for the comments here and on the user talk page. I'm learning all the time - sometimes I think I know what I'm doing but reality usually kicks in quite quickly!  Regards --Nigel  (Talk) 09:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:COLBERT
I think that's a great idea, so I have proposed it as a guideline. Feel free to discuss it on the page. ~  Porphyric Hemophiliac   §  23:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

DB-copyvio
Hi! I'm not sure why you've changed my db tag on the Khatt Springs Hotel & SPA article. I re-read CSD A8 and the article seemed to fit all the criteria. Can you elucidate? -- Merope 18:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, we cross-messaged. I think some of the other users have been using db-copyvio as a way to tag spam, which is why I picked it up.   I'll be more careful in the future.  -- Merope 18:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Halved joint
G'day. Glad you liked the Halved joint article! Pretty mundane topic but someone's gotta do it. I've written 4 or 5 of them and the joint/drug reference never crossed my mind - hate to think what people would make of Butt joint ;) SilentC 04:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

DevPlan
Thank you for the advice and recommended readings; I have reviewed those articles and will continue to do so as I learn more about Wikipedia and its standards. In response to your request, I have included some legitimate articles and reviews on the product from very noteworthy publications in the software field.Apot360 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB- how to test for
Hi, VoiceOfReason, what is the best way to test for meeting, WP:WEB? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I forgot Alexa. cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 03:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
It is ridiculous of you to suggest that the "Todd P" article I posted lacks sufficient social significance to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. I have no affiliation with Todd P, but he is the major organizer of indie rock concerts in Brooklyn, NY, where tens of thousands of fans of this type of music are concentrated. Many writers in national music publications are based in Brooklyn and attend Todd's shows to determine which bands they should cover in their publications. By organizing concerts in Brooklyn, Todd shapes the listening preferences of fans of indie rock in NYC and across the nation. Indie rock is listened to by hundreds of thousands of people across the nation and there are hundreds of articles on wikipedia about indie rock bands, recordings, and record labels. The indie rock scene is also where major label bands are typically discovered. If indie rock warrants coverage in wikipedia, then Todd P, a major player in the indie rock scene, deserves such coverage.

Your "test" edits
I replied at User talk:24.16.18.168. --Diberri | Talk 17:52, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
I was browsing through requested articles page and noticed CWIS was on the list. I had heard about that, and googled up some info, but I didn't notice it was a typo/spelling error. I guess that explains why only two pages in the top 10 had info about it. Anyway, thanks.

“Conrad Burns”
Discourse of possible interest to you.

With regards to db-copyvio...
I just noticed the announcement at the top of WP:CP--it looks like copyvios have gotten so out of hand that there is a (temporary?) policy allowing editors to tag any blatant copyvio as speedy. Hooray! I've been putting the link to that in my edit summaries, because I don't know how many admins know of it. Happy editing! -- Merope 22:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Fauxtography
Thank you for your detailed explanation. I was not aware of some of the specifics of this case and mistook the edit for a subtle form of vandalism. We've had more than a little bit of that kind of abuse lately and I guess I'm on a hair-trigger. I apologize for my failure to assume good faith in this case. I have restored your edit to the page history (while, hopefully, leaving all the other edits still deleted). Rossami (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Automat Pictures
Just so you know I was also working on the copyvio when you slapped the tag on but couldn't find any assertion of copyright anywhere on the website. I suspect we have to accept the text as public domain.

I think there is enough assertion of notability to let the article be. Any onjection to my lifting the copyvio tag and doing some work on the article? --Spartaz 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't feel very strongly about this. --Spartaz 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Booth
I didn't notice that but he didn't even get the name right "SteveBooth". Look like someone trying to get free publicity. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)