User talk:Woland37/Archive 9

Preservable traits becoming more common
For example preservable traits become more common and unpreserved traits become less common. The word preservable and the term more common are a synonymous play on words that alludes to the same observation that traits increase but it doesn't tell us the actual reason the traits become more common.

Why is this being deleted by Woland. Please motivate why this isn't a tautology because it is. Please discuss at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tautology_(rhetoric)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.48.160 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deltion of Chromatic_(Person)
Cripes, could you at least let the ink dry on the page before scheduling it for deletion? My last edit wasn't even 5 minutes before your SD request. Let me get some content on there. --Schwern (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Phantom Deathwish
Hi Woland37. Just to let you know, I declined the speedy on this article, since it did not qualify. Prod or AfD may be in order, however. Best wishes, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

expressions and propositions in tautologies
I want to add the following to the article but there is a dispute concerning it please resolve: Please discuss at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tautology_(rhetoric)

The Pragmatics or context with 'unmarried bachelor' by the user would determine whether it is a tautology or language verbosity. In an academic setting such as a peer reviewed journal propositions are put forward in an attempt at deriving an independent explanation for an observation. Tautologies in such a setting would be a tautological proposition and unacceptable. Tautological expressions used in an informal setting such as a sports event with its associated colloquial speech is acceptable because of the pragmatics with it. The dividing line between a tautological proposition and expression is pragmatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.48.160 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians
Sorry to see you go - the more who help the better. I know how you feel, however. Hope you will come back and assist again in future. Wdford (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Are you leaving the article? I scrolled up the talk page and saw your name as a contributor to the discussion, so I dropped by to ask your input regarding some suggested language to replace the existing lead. If you have a change of heart, it'd be appreciated if you'd stop by to register your questions, thoughts, suggestions and your opinion. Trying to get this article unlocked and moving along again. Thanks. :) deeceevoice (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Woland37/CSD
Hi Woland, I've created a CSD subpage for you and changed the link at the top of your userpage to point to User:Woland37/CSD, instead of User:Cunard/CSD. It belongs in your userspace because I don't want to receive hate mail from angry article creators who wonder why their article has been deleted. :) See for CSD subpages of other users. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, I didn't see that. --Woland (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please revert?
Can you please revert this: ? Thanking you in advance. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone already has.--Woland (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi, Swastika References Being Purged from Syrian Social Nationalist Party
Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How is being chief of police in one of north america's major cities not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by College and john (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How is being chief of police in one of north america's major cities not notable?
How is being chief of police in one of north america's major cities not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by College and john (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the message at the top of this page. You may also want to read this.--Woland (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given Wikipedia's definition of notability in terms of sources, having a source in an article (that actually discusses the topic) is a direct assertion of notability for the purpose of A7. Read Notability--carefully this time. You may also want to read this. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the message at the top of this page. You may also want to read this.--Woland (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you seem to have missed the gist of my previous message, let me make myself perfectly clear: If an article cites a reliable source that discusses the article's topic, do not tag it for speedy deletion. It does not meet A7. The editor who contributed this article is exactly the kind of editor Wikipedia wants to attract, not repel. Wikipedia needs more sourced articles, and fewer unsourceable ones. Tagging sourced articles for speedy deletion harms the project. And if you don't "give a fuck," then feel free to stop editing Wikipedia and occupy your time with something that you do give a fuck about. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You should reread the essay again. That's not what DGAFism is about; i.e. it is a positive outlook not a negative one. I help new editors all the time. Go have a nice cup of tea maybe.--Woland (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually have any justification for trying to speedy delete a sourced article on a notable figure or are you just going to keep referring to that don't give a fuck article which is actually a complete non sequitor to the question?


 * I nominate many many many articles for spd (some quite similar to that one). Some make it while others don't. Its completely up to whatever admin reviews it and I don't care if any of the articles I nominate get deleted or not. Its all part of the process and I believe it makes for higher standards and better articles. I'd say more than 90% of the articles I nominate get deleted. Its ok to hate me. Those of us who spend our time reviewing new articles are used to it. Now get back to work. Hippie.--Woland (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnographies of Online Cultures and Communities
Hi there. Thanks for your editing work on the online ethnography section. I was wondering why you were using "online ethnography" as the generic term to represent the section. I prefer the term "ethnographies of online cultures and communities" but I'd be happier if someone came up with something else other than "virtual" "digital" or "cyber" or "online." It seems to me that "online ethnography" is likelier a school of this ethnographic approach (like "virtual ethnography"). Do you have any references or citations to back this up? That would be most helpful. It's still a confusing, emergent, area. It would be nice if the wiki entry could help to clarify things a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozinets (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ethnographies of online cultures and communities has some pretty serious WP:Title issues for starters. Given this, it seems to me that Online ethnography is a pretty good, generic title for what are all essentially related methods. As far as I've seen, all of the various terms you have given above are used interchangeably.


 * I did just attend the NEAA conference (North Eastern Anthropological Association) and went to a talk about the ethnography of Second Life. The anthropologist did prefer the term  virtual for some theoretical reasons, but-by-and large it is my understanding that we are talking about the same thing. It would seem to me this generic title should work, which could be followed by different reasons (if any) for the differing naming conventions of the related methods.


 * It is a fairly small field and relatively new and as such I would expect there to be quite a bit of variation in terminology but I just don't see any real, differing schools-of-thought, methods, or theoretical issues between the different terms. Unfortunately I have not been able to find any references that directly deal with naming conventions for this. All I can find are people using related terms to describe what is essentially the same thing. --Woland (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Trevor Veitch - notability established?
I was reading the Trevor Veitch page and saw the notability caution from last October. I am wondering if notability is established through his production credits of notable songs from the 80s in particular, such as Toni Basil's "Micky", and which are discussed in the article.

Dreadarthur (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What to do ?
Hi Woland37, What to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abloux&diff=291438650&oldid=291437616 ? I wrote the article following the 2 (official) sites given in the references section. So, what can I do to avoid ? Thanks in advance. Alvar ☮ ☎ 12:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Abloux at the Sandre database The Sandre provides an alphabetic list of the communes along the course of the river, its length...
 * The geoportail provides very accurate maps which allow to find the precise coordinates of the source and the mouth (with their elevations), and to build the list of communes ordered from source to mouth.
 * I would look at WP:foot and Help:Footnotes. Both of these articles should provide you with what you need to know and how to do it. Its not a huge deal with smaller articles like this but it lets us know which statements came from which sources. Ciao.--Woland (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think the template will remain a long time on the article. I don't know how to explain... for example, look at this. How can I cite my source ? I found this information on the map provided by the Géoportail. But, in fine, you are right, it's no big deal ;D Ciao Alvar ☮ ☎ 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)