User talk:Wikidrone/Archive/Archive/2006-Sep

Stubs
When creating new stub articles, could you please add use a stub template from the appropriate category, rather than using  ? It makes it more visible to users looking to expand on these types of articles (and allows the article to expand faster), and saves us from having to do this work ourselves.

This page should give you more information about categorising stubs, and here is the list of stub categories. Thanks. ~  &#9658; W y k e b j s &#9668;  (userpage | talk) 15:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tip. I tried to find a page which gave clear examples on how to insert the proper stubs but all of the documentation I was able to find seemed very complicated. Thank you for taking the time to show me this. Santorummm 01:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Motorola RAZR V3. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. -- Big  top  07:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What Vandalism/Nonsense were you referring to?
You say I vandalized and added nonsense to the razr page, yet I did no such thing. All I did was remove someone elses nonsense. Please clarify if I am missing something, otherwise feel free to not harass me about things that just flat out didn't happen. Thanks. Santorummm 03:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Santorum
Perhaps we could discuss the dispute on Talk:Santorum instead of edit warring over it? =) Powers 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You got it buddy. Santorummm 06:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page User:LtPowers on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. alpha Chimp laudare 06:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Civility and No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing.. You posted a negative comment on his userpage. Comments should be posted on usertalk. I'd suggest you stop reverting my own talk page and stop posting abusive edit summaries. alpha Chimp  laudare 08:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Halle Berry
Please read the guidelines on biographies of living people. We need to have well sourced statements in articles on living people, per Jimbo Wales. I would not consider what you've added to be well sourced. And also, please do not accuse others of vandalism when all they are doing is trying to follow our policies. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I never accused anyone of vandalism :/ But I see what you're saying; so thanks for the heads up Santorummm 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing the sprotect tag doesn't do anything. Only admins can unprotect a page. The reason why the page was protected was because of PennyGWoods and her sockpuppets. I'm going to keep it protected for at least 2-3 more days just to be sure. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing AfD notices
Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages-- it is considered vandalism. You may comment at the respective page if you oppose an article's deletion. Thanks. Baseball,Baby!  balls  •  strikes  03:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New Santorum entry
Hi -- I see from your note on the delete page that you've already spotted the AfD nomination, but just to be polite, here's a note with the relevant links. ==AfD nomination of Santorum== Santorum, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Santorum satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Santorum and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Santorum during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. I'll add that although I am personally a fan of neologisms, and not a fan of the senator's, I'm having a hard time seeing how this term has the currency to warrant a separate page. If you can show verifiable evidence of usage I'll consider changing my opinion -- right now it appears to be primarily a political statement by Savage Love. Mike Christie 03:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion page before you try and have it deleted. Thanks.

Hi. Please don't remove afd notices no matter how much you may disagree with them. Instead, argue on Articles for deletion/Santorum about why it should be speedily kept, if you think that is the proper action. Thanks. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I removed it one time, and I haven't touched it since.  Thanks.

Username
Hi, Santorummm. Considering your stance that the sexual slang term meaning of "Santorum" is now the most popular (based on your Google Test) I'm afraid that your username violates our username policy. Specifically, "Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre" are not allowed. I would suggest that you pick a new username that doesn't violate Wikipedia policy and go to Changing username to have it changed. Thanks! Powers 12:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again; any thoughts on this? Powers 12:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Santorum (disambiguation)
Hi Santorummm. First, I would like to thank you for conceding some issues when you edited this disambiguation page. However, there are still a few concerns over your latest version, which do not seem to conform with Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), specifically, "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link". After all, if a dab page contains the full definition of a subject, what then is the purpose of having a separate article? Also, Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) states, "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." How could a term defined as a neologism and named after a person have greater usage than the person himself? Also, the order you have advocated may violate the policy Neutral point of view, under "Bias", which precludes "Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary." Is there something you find disagreeable in my previous version of this page? I thought it was a reasonable compromise. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Regards, Accurizer 03:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll changed it back to however you had it since have clarified the issue for me (and were even nice about it, to boot). Thanks Santorummm 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Santorum disambig
Hi -- I noticed you'd moved the redirect back to the disambig page. The AfD closing was pretty clear that the redirect should go to the senator. Can I ask what your reasoning is? I don't want to start an edit war; just wanted to check in with you to see what your thinking was. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Did it close? I'm not really familiar w/ this whole AfD thing, and didn't realize that the final decision had been reached. Sorry.  One thing that I would ask, however, would be that you at least put a disambiguation link @ the top and do the redirects properly next time around.  Thanks. Santorummm 05:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it closed; the discussion is at Articles_for_deletion/Santorum if you want to take a look.


 * Re the disambig link; assuming you're talking about the fact that the senator's page has no link to the dab page, you're quite right -- it was recently removed by an anonymous user who said "see talk page" in the edit summary, but then made no edits to talk. I've reinserted it; it should never have been taken out; though perhaps that was part of the general page movements and edits recently.  Anyway, it's back now.  Mike Christie (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As it turned out my edit clashed with yours; I went ahead and moved the dab notice to where it had been before and used the same template. So it really is there now. Mike Christie (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which template did you use? I'd like to know how to easily create that message. Thanks! Santorummm 05:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the exact string I put in:  You can see the template itself at Template:dablink.


 * By the way, I noticed you've moved the slang term up above the senator on the dab page. Seems a bit hard to justify; though it might well be more noteworthy than the other two entries.  I'll do some googling over the next couple of days and see if I can get an idea of the relative notability of all four; I'd think the senator needs to be top of the list, but the slang term might easily be second on the list.  Mike Christie (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Santorummm 05:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, in your quest for more information, you might take a look at "santorum" in wiktionary. Link:


 * I'm not sure a Google search is the best way to determine relative importance. Powers T 12:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Santorum credit
Hi again. It's not that I don't want credit -- if I'd written the Santorum (sexual slang) article, I'd be more than happy to take credit for it. As I said in the AfD, it's clearly notable, and is a pretty interesting (and quite successful) piece of political activity. But the list you edited on my user page is just for the articles that I have actually written, not ones I've been involved in discussions with. My involvement in the page stems from two things: first, I do some volunteer work on new coinages with the OED, so I'm familiar with the way neologisms make their way into the language. I don't say "santorum" will never end up as an accepted neologism, but I don't think it has so far. The OED ideally looks for half a dozen citations from different sources, ideally in two or three different decades, before accepting a word as new. Wide use in multiple sources can reduce the need for citations over an extended period of time. So, for example, if you could cite uses (as opposed to mentions) from several magazines, some or most of which were not local or small-circulation, you'd have an excellent case for the neologism. For all I know that's already the case -- I just couldn't see evidence of it in the debate. The result would be an entry in Wiktionary, of course, not necessarily here.

The other aspect is just neutrality and abiding by WP policies. I do have a political opinion of Dan Savage and the neologism, but I try to avoid letting that have any impact on what I do here. I feel that if I argue specifically for a point of view I agree with ideologically, or against a point of view I disagree with, I can't complain when someone with opposite political views does so too. I'd rather retain the right to complain about them, so I try to be as neutral and policy-specific as I can. Hope that answers your question. Mike Christie (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)