User talk:Bugwit/Archive1

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Bugwit/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Francs2000 14:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia! I noticed that you listed "Gold Team" on the AFD, which is excellent! Good on you to get involved with the deletion process (believe me, there's tons of stuff to be rid of on here!)

The reason why I'm here is to point you in the right direction. While listing the page on the appropriate WP:AFD page is a good start, it's actually one of three steps you have to do! (Surprising, isn't it?)

For more information in a nice compact catalogue, this will help you: Template:AfD in 3 steps

Enjoy, and good work! If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask at the Village Pump, or at my talk page! Kareeser|^Talk! 02:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I did the other two steps for you already =)

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really should consider changing your user name. Per Wikipedia:Username, scatological references are not allowed. I've opened a request for comment about it. howcheng {chat} 00:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. The RFC was mainly for my benefit to see if I was reading WP:UN too closely or not. Given the responses, I probably was. I suggest that you don't bother changing the name. howcheng {chat} 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and help. However you made a huge error ... it was NOT Luagalau Levalua Kamu but the Previous Minister of Works convicted with arranging Luagalau's assassination Leafa Vitale.

YIKES

By the way when refering to a Samoan who has a title (Chiefly title) you the general rule is that you should use the title not the last name.

Thanks

Nimbus 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Actually when I wrote the article I thought that it could be missunderstood but did not have to time to rewrite it. I think I need to probably work on the pieces off line and then just paste them in latter. I was just a bit freaked out when I read it 'cause ... well I hoped no one saw it. Like I wrote YIKES

Re. the Samoan Titles etc it is kind of confusing for many people. For example in reference to the former Controller and Chief Auditor Sua Rimoni Ah Chong. Sometimes he is refered to as Mr. Ah Chong and other times by his title Sua. Proper etiquette indicates that once you know someone has a title you should always address him or her by that title. If they have more than one title it can get confusing. Generally you would use the higher title. Of course to know the standing of various titles in the hirearchy requires extensive knowledge of Samoan culture and the plethora of titles and how they fit in within various villages and districts and the whole of Samoa (including American Samoa). The only time one might address someone by a lesser title would be if she / he was a member of parmliament who had been elected under that title. An example would be the late Mata'afa Fiame Faumuina Muninuu II who enetered parliament from Lotofaga under his Fiame title. In itself it is the paramount title in Lotofaga but the Mata'afa title is a Tama Aiga title (one of the so called kingly or Royal Titles). In parliament during debates etc he is recorded in the Hansard as Fiame, but elsewhere he is addressed as Mata'afa. Another case would be when such a person goes to a ceremony or meets with chiefs or people from the village where he holds that title. Although he or she might have a higher title they would generally address him or her by the title that they recognise her or him by in their village, district, especially if it is in a capacity where that person is acting in a capacity as holder of that title, for eg in a village council (same as in parliament).

ANYWAY ... the whole thing would probably be an article of some sort. Unfortunately there are no "references" that I know of on the matter. It is just stuff you know and pick up. I looked through this section of Chinese and Japanese names etc and maybe there should be something like that for Samoan, Fijian and Tongan names. Fiji has some similarities in the proper form of address. Take for example Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. The traditional Fijian RATU honorific precedes the Knighthood. Likewise in the case of Aiono Professor Dr. Fanaafi Le Tagaloa, her title Aiono precedes her Professorship and her Doctorate.

Talking about references ... I read the pages explaining the need for references but have not figured out how exactly I am supposed to insert them.

Thanks again Nimbus 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you reverted EViews, you also deleted my additions to the article, which I had made after I had removed the speedy deletion tag. Please do not do that! Den fjättrade ankan 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies if my rv deleted changes you made to the article, but as you admit in your statement above, you removed the speedy tag from the article yourself. As indicated in the {{drmspeedy}} template that I placed on your discussion page, the {{hangon}} template should have been added to the article, and your argument for the value of the article made in the article's talk page, rather than removal of the speedy tag (which I see you have removed again). --Bugturd Talk 15:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it again because I have expanded the article considerably, making the speedy deletion template unnecessary. Den fjättrade ankan 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was amused by your response in the request for comment. So nice to see someone act so calmly and with humor. Glad you are here. Steve Kd4ttc 03:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second this. -Colin Kimbrell 21:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww....'twern't nothin'...but thanks! --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people want to know the original site. Also, I don't belive I put it in a way it was advertising the product. -- Chromaniac 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your message regarding Amal Mavani, as i did create the page i am requesting that the page be speedily deleted along with the Bina Corporation article complimenting Amals Page. This is due to unforseen resons with Amal who i am a good friend with. With further conversations today he told me hat he did not want any of his comics, or information about himself to be published, and he would be grateful if it were deleted speedily.LethalWeapon 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't know whether you are aware of it, but there is still text on your old user pages. They are invisible unless you edit the page. Normally when I find extraneous text after redirects, I delete it, but I don't feel I have the right to do this on User pages, so I am bringing it to your attention. You might want to delete the text if it duplicates what is on your current pages, or cut-and-paste to the new pages. --Russ Blau (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't like being criticized for describing a very, very well-known and well-respected academic as non-notable, even though he obviously meets about 15 different notability criteria. Maybe if you bothered to check to be sure what you said was even remotely accurate, people wouldn't say things that get you so upset. But you deserve it. Would it kill you to try to actually improve Wikipedia rather than deleting useful articles by new editors who don't write them in a form that satisfies you? Say, by fixing whatever bothers you! Monicasdude 20:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "You seem to be on a spree of attempting to delete articles on subjects that plainly meet notability and verifiability criteria, because you're annoyed at the authors."--Huh?? Yet you'll accuse me of not performing research?

Just as an added note, I'm hardly upset...I simply find it amusing that you will bite the heads off of anyone who dares hold an opinion contrary to your own, yet will cry foul when someone shows a little backbone and feeds it back to you. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Further added note I added a slightly more wordy version of this response to Monicasdude's talk page, since his comment above was added there as well. The comment has since been removed by Monicasdude, citing WP:RPA and personal one bite standard. For anyone interested in seeing what constituted that "personal attack", the link to that version is here [1].

• There is also the issue that WP:BITE was cited here: [2]...of all the users to cite WP:BITE... --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's be honest, Bugwit, you did make a bad call here. Better to send Mr Ego to the timeout bench and acknowledge an error made. It's actually quite rare for people with a real contribution history to work up articles on non-notable professors. If a decent-sized stub is stated in reasonably neutral terms with some credible claims to authority it's probably best to at least check Google Scholar. There are about 3,500 refs for this guy, less 500 of his own publications, which is enough to at least justify a more careful check. No harm done in the end, it's been caught at AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 23:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed...to a point, which is why I retracted the AfD nomination as soon as some notability was provided. The article, as written when originally prodded, is here, with the only assertion of notability listed with no citations. In that state, it could have easily gone up for speedy deletion, but I figured {{prod}}ing it was fair. Its true that the tone in which Monicasdude contested the proposed deletion did nothing to improve my outlook on the article. But given the fact that no improvement was made to it, the nomination for AfD was made in good faith. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't disagree. We have processes precisely so that one person's view of what is notable does not go unchallenged. Monicasdude should not be half as aggressive - but my experience is that it is better to put your hands up to a mistake than to argue. Perhaps the best thing would be to include a longer justification in the {prod} next time? If you'd made it a full sentence I would find it much easier to support you. I think Monicasdude is being very aggressive right now, and I'd like to be able to calm the situation down without resorting to blocks and formal proceedings. Ah well, I'm just trying to help, you know? Just zis Guy you know? 11:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand, and will try to include more information when prodding/AfDing articles. My reaction was primarily due to the fact that, after ignoring similar actions by Monicasdude towards me previously, and seeing that I was not alone in being in his crosshairs, I found that this is nothing new, and that RfCs have been filed here and here for exactly this kind of behavior. I realize that referring a user to WP:DICK is generally considered bad form, but given his history, I felt (and feel) that it was perfectly appropriate, and long overdue if it had not been done previously. It seems to me that Monicasdude likes to leave certain articles in poor states as "bait" (see User:Monicasdude/deletionwatch) for any poor sap who would dare come along and try to delete them. He doesn't edit them to improve them, just adds them to the deletion watch (obviously this is purely opinion, but seems like a reasonable assumption). According to the final disposition of the 2nd RfC, an RfAr is in the works, and I fully intend to participate. Users like this create vastly more harm than good, and (once again) in my opinion, have no place here. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 12:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see such a clear display of the value you place on WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. And if you're going to harp on RfCs, you should at least take note of the fact that the community has ended up supporting my position in the initial controversy. Monicasdude 14:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• They have? Could you direct me to where I might peruse such support? I'd be most interested in seeing that. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Read the RfC and articles involved, including the relevant histories and talk pages. I would have thought that obvious. Monicasdude 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no doubt that you would have thought that to be obvious....just as I would have thought that the sarcasm in my comment above was obvious. With the level of "support" that you had garnered in the first RfC (if you're actually willing to call that support), you managed to have a second RfC opened against you in less than 4 months....impressive. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 15:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally Prod'd Article

[3] Page History

My response on talk page

My response disappears

AfD Edit 1

AfD Edit 2

AfD Edit 3

[4] Interesting...

[5] Referring other users to WP:DICK

No prob. I hope you read the original content of The Robber Barons (band). It was amazingly bad. The only reason I didn't nominate Rockefeller for speedy deletion is because I thought there might be some underground New Mexico emo movement of which I was not aware, and that someone might have something to contribute. If you think it's best for speedy deletion, go for it. What do you think about the stuff at The Robber Barons (band)? I realize it's thin and from their website, but I think it's NPOV, and since they've one album available (apparently, soon two), I think it's valid to have an article letting readers know the basics of who they are and what they do. Turly-burly 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as The Robber Barons (band) goes, the article has already been {{prod}} ed by another user. The article does state they have have one album out, with one in the works, but I don't think that their record label (Homewreckords) would be considered as "one of the more important indie labels". That being said, you can buy their first album on Tower Records [6], so it could be a case of a borderline-notable band having a non-notable article written about them. Given that, I would likely vote weak keep if the article were to go to AfD, but I'm also content to let the proposed deletion ride if it isn't contested. How's that for wishy-washy? --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note! (I took the opportunity to thank jiff78 in public but don't want to overdo things). I could see that there was effort being expended to try and meet Wiki guidelines so I thought I'd try to help the process along. I really enjoyed the challenge! Cheers, Sliggy 00:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I too think the original motive was spam, but the effort, application and flexibility was there, and those are the main things as far as I am concerned. Sliggy 00:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I would like to have helped out more directly, but I have no knowledge of the UK optometry market, so I figured it best to try for suggestions rather than direct edits. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 01:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Bugwit! (I feel like I just called you an insulting name). I just deleted the article Dhong Syndicate, that you'd PRODded a few days ago. You may want to check out the pages that link there, as they seem to be virtual copies of the original article. Joyous | Talk 17:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not nearly as insulting as some names that I've been called :). (<--Smiley with a spec of something on its chin?...I don't know I have little experience with smileys) I thought I had {{prod}}ed the rest of the associated articles. I'll try to get to them and {{prod}} them if appropriate. Thanks! --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 18:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bugwit! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Xyrael ^T 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.