User talk:Wikid77/Archive 4

This is Archive_4 for User_talk:Wikid77 (May 2009 - Sep 2009)

(Duplicated from article talk-- please continue discussion there).

Looks like we're treading on each other's toes here.

I've reverted your changes references. Doing it the way you do, you lose the page numbers.

A common way to do it is simply refer to the book then the Notes just give the page numbers. So the ref just says ^[1] then ONE reference to the book in ==References== section,

then goes into Notes section. I don't know if you've seen that before. It's not perfect I admit, but I've restored for now since I don't want to lose all the page numbers until it's been discussed. SimonTrew (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikid77. You have new messages at SimonTrew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks Wikid77, I'll take the baton have another copy edit then give you a nod to glance it over again. SimonTrew (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks a lot for your help with the tables within texts some days ago. I now have another problem: Is there a way to make Wikipedia display images with abitrarily small heights when using Internet Explorer? This apparently works on other browsers, bot for IE wikipedia's css (I think) seems to require a minimum height for images in the order of one row. Alternatively, is there a way to let table cells on wikipedia have a background image?

What I am trying to do is to create a template for using traditional Mongolian script on Wikipedia. Because support for this script on computers is currently not very widespread, the idea is to combine images of the indivual letters. I think I already managed to make it work quite reasonably when writing horizontally (as in ), but since Mongolian is normally written vertically, it would be cool to have a working template for this, too. I already created a template that uses position tags, but this is somewhat messy, feels unelegant, and apparently does not really work yet (I was told this revision did not look good). It would all be so much easier if displaying WP on IE would not require some minimum height for images, or if table cells on wp could have background images. To illustrate the problem, compare how the images below look on IE with the writing in the infobox of the Hohhot article, and the simplicity of the code used below compared to what is currently at Template:MoB.

.

Thanks a lot in advance, Yaan (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I've never used the vertical placement of numerous images or the setting of background images. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing prevented by:

"Editing from 70.146.192.0/18 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Black Kite..."

{{unblock-ip|1=70.146.199.202|2=Blocked 70.146.192.0/18 for [[WP:Block#Evasion of blocks|Block evasion]]: [[User:Bambifan101]] sock farm|3=Black Kite}} -Wikid77 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. --auburnpilot talk 21:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Designated, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JHunterJ (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikid77. You have new messages at Shadowmorph's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Prince Michael Jackson II, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Young child, whose only claim to fame is his father does not require their own wiki page. All content herein in covered in father's page

All contributions are appreciated, but ... if consensus to delete is reached. MrMarmite (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Children of Michael Jackson, suggesting ... concern:

All information is already contained in Jackson family#Third_generation and Michael Jackson. Children of celebrities, with no other reasons for public knowledge, do not require a wiki page.

All contributions are appreciated, but ... if consensus to delete is reached. MrMarmite (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Children of Michael Jackson requesting that it be speedily deleted]] ... any questions about this. MrMarmite (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Children of Michael Jackson, an article that you created, for deletion. ... message. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand my reasoning, even if you disagree, and that we can handle this amicably to achieve the best result for the encyclopedia as a whole. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wikid77. Nice work on the CoMJ article. Just so you know in the future, arguing that an article inherits its notability for another is a reason to delete, not to keep. You may want to rethink your reasoning, or your vote. Every article must stand on its own, which I think this one will. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recap summary is not usually done but is well written. What is your opinion about the Obama children? An article was written but, like many political articles, was subject to heated debates. The Obama children gave an interview to the press and there's been a fair amount written about them.

People say WP is not news. True as a goal. However, WP is very much like news. What I think people are really saying is WP is only long lasting and news that should be remembered. User F203 (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a recap because former closing-admins advised me that they try to analyze deletion reasons, based on each issue raised (as a logical debate), rather than how many keep saying "Delete". If reasons are not refuted, as in a debate rebuttal, then they could easily be accepted because no one bothered to give the admin a reason to discount them. I know how to make the "==" sub-sections work to separate & focus issues, but there need to be more sophisticated "decision-structures" in AfD pages. It is too tempting for admins to just count "votes" because no one listed each debate point for clear consideration.
  As for the Obama children, I have no opinion about that yet. If such children also became orphans, then I would favor a "Children-of" article, rather than keep updating the main articles of the parents.
  I agree that WP is much like news. It has worked like "news on steroids" when hurricanes approach, because people keep updating the quick-view projected storm-track images (allowing others to sleep), and many people know the expected dangers: "outer bands" of hurricanes swing at 60mph & cause tornadoes; storm surge is lower than "storm tide" so "add 4 feet" to flood dangers; the eyewall replacement cycle allows (God) to slow the hurricane speed (within 1hr?) before landfall; etc. Then, as you indicated, all that news is "remembered" rather than lost from numerous news blurbs/snippets that no one can find any longer: one of the most popular wiki articles is still 2005's: "Hurricane Katrina" (even though it downplays that Mississippi got hit 10x worse than New Orleans). Google can't keep old news, while Wikipedia does, because Google focuses on current webpages as reporters have archived old news. So, Wikipedia can be very effective, but still, notability & other policies need to be improved to help clarify real concerns versus unfounded fears. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that I've edited this page to add a {{NOINDEX}} tag to it. That will keep it out of Google and, I think make most people happy about it. I would ask that you don't remove the tag, otherwise it is likely, as Peregrine Fisher says, that someone will send it to MfD - I personally won't, but there are users with more stamina than me!

I am sorry that the AfD result has upset you, but I would rather not be referred to as being "wiki-spastic" just because we disagree on this article's inclusion. Believe it or not, I am not some rabid deletionist, and I subscribe to no particular -ism. We are all here to improve the encyclopaedia, but inevitably editors will disagree on the means by which that is achieved and I don't see a need to resort to name-calling when disagreement occurs. I hope we can work on something together in the future, and you're always welcome to ping me on my talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm quite happy: the AfD-delete has provided the evidence I need to move forward with my analysis. Please don't think my criticism of Wikipedia policies is an attack on the people, these problems should not be "blamed" on individuals who are just following the policies. I don't blame any one person for deleting the top article #497 (of current reader's interest); that deletion is the result of current policies that advise people to ignore Google hits & reader interest. As I calculated, that CoMJ article answered the pageviews of 215,000 people, very likely influencing 1.5 million, and provided quick facts to 96% of people who were interested. That's fantastic, and you also helped by suggesting areas for improvement, added during those 215,000 pageviews, so thank you as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of our policies and guidelines do suck, and we don't handle subarticling well in my opinion, where we might consider expansive treatment of specific but not necessarily individually notable topics. Perhaps you can draft a guideline - I would be willing to help Fritzpoll (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the best strategy for you to get the article back is to:

• ask for the article to be userfied to you, and withdraw your objection to the closing of the AfD
• ask the editors who most effectively argued that the article violated BLP where exactly the issues were,
• heavily prune the cited areas of concern to ensure that the article doesn't overstep the sources,
• check back with those editors to see if they are happier with the article, and
• bring the article back to DRV, citing the reactions of the editors you consulted

The notability issue was fixed in the course of the AfD, and the closer should have noticed that. But the BLP worry was not so carefully addressed, and closing to delete on just those grounds was just proper. To keep on fighting the DRV is to be both trying to get this DRV to do something it is not meant to do, and making ill will for your next DRV if you choose to follow my advice. — Charles Stewart (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not going to care what the article says. Most of the delete voters have a gut feeling, I guess, and it ins't based on any polices or guidelines. It had notability in spades before the AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds quite plausible, although I think flawed reasoning about the content of policy played a role at the beginning of the AfD . But gut feelings are much more easily turned in editor-to-editor discussions than in the group theatre of AfD. If you can convince a couple of the AfD deletists to change their minds, that almost surely would get you at least a "restore and relist" at DRV, and would quite likely get you a completely different dynamic at a new AfD.

• Thanks for the advice, but the main reader interest has passed, at this point. The comments at AfD & DRV were half-chosen to gauge the reactions & reveal the true process for "the ends justify the means" as in the The Prince. I wanted to clearly reveal the current wiki-Zeitgeist, when 13 people say keep and 7 raise non-policy fears of BLP. Chicken Little would still get many followers by shouting, "The sky is falling". So, I'm following advice from Shakespeare, as in (I'm sure you guessed it) Much Ado about Nothing with song lyrics, "men were deceivers ever...to one thing constant never, then sigh not so but let them go..." (time to move on, with another topic, such as all these major redlinks). -Wikid77 (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mean to be too snippy, so I've given more details below. -Wikid77 15:10, 19 July 2009

I'm a firm believer in "where there's smoke there's fire". The Michael Jackson articles, plus debates, have provided a litmus test for WP's current state of affairs. Finally, interest in MJ's children or word "blanket" have fallen to only 3x times the typical reader-interest, not the 10x, 20x or 341x higher as during the past weeks. Now article "Walter Cronkite" has soared to 327x times the typical 1000/day readership. It is obvious that readers turn to Wikipedia in times of mourning, and might expect an adequate retrospective on these people. Meanwhile, "haters" can use loopholes in WP policies to derail good-faith efforts. Here, in July, I clearly saw that WP policies are well-written (technically), in terms of fairly viewing the real world, but those policies are being misused. It reminds me of "Figures don't lie, but liars figure". The claims, by some editors, have been outrageous: "wiki-notability is not the same" as real-world notability, so it's just an accident that all these 3 million articles use sourced-text in article names that mirror the real-world. Also, perhaps it's just an accident that WP policies carefully address aspects of reliable sources, not be confused with reports published in the real world. Another guy hopes that after AfD of "Children of MJ" then perhaps other MJ articles (non-BLP) would meet the same fate, and no one said, "Hey, that remark was totally out-of-line for this project"! Meanwhile, violations of policy or procedure are elevated, and hordes reply that this is all just fine, because, I suppose, WP policies are violated like this all the time, and so an unfair AfD gets "endorse"d en masse. What's missing is the aspect of society called "law enforcement" requiring extensive wiki-prison terms. Spare the rod and spoil the child, in each wiki-area. It is very difficult to fight the angry mob as they torch Frankenwiki, so that's why this was just a situation to test the current practices, as of July 2009. I hope that answers any of the above concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lamenta3 and I have nominated Georgia Institute of Technology for Featured Article status. Please improve the article and contribute to the discussion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were one of those who failed in their attempt to split this article. I noticed that the subarticles that you created were never deleted or redirected, and also that the primary objector to the split has not been active for three months, so I've once again attempted to implement your split. Could use your support if there are further objections, thus this little heads-up. Yworo (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take full credit for it. Looks like you did it in November 2008. The subarticles were never deleted though, which meant improvements were being made in both places. This is never a good situation because the longer they diverge, the harder it is to resynthesize the material.

If anyone objects, besides the GA review findings, I will argue that since the subarticles have existed since Nov 2008, they should not just be summarily deleted or redirected, but should be taken to AfD for a broader opinion. Yworo (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be merged with {{space}} or {{spaces}}? Given the myriad of spacing related templates being nominated at TFD, it would be great if we could consolidate them. Also, these templates can never be completely trusted to produce the same result in all browsers, so they should probably be deprecated. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I still don't understand how {{in}} is fundamentally different from {{space}} or {{spaces}}, which is why I was wondering if they could be merged. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of comparison, in my browser {{in}} produces the exact same result as {{spaces}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Template:in uses all equal spaces, while Template:Space uses alternating combinations of &nbsp & &emsp for both en & em-size spaces, which will align with the colon-indent ":" spacing on some browsers (such as MSIE). Also, Template:In is already in use in several archived (non-editable) pages, so it shouldn't be removed. Meanwhile, the ancient Template:S4 is not used, but it should be removed and replaced by some other template, and also have documentation in that other template. There are at least 50 such templates that could be quickly deleted.

Comparison

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
${\displaystyle \in }$2in
  2space
  2spaces
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
${\displaystyle \in }$3in
   3space
   3spaces

To User:Rich Farmbrough & User:Eugene_van_der_Pijll: If you are still interested in fixing it, see:

• Template_talk:Taxobox_colour#Replacing as next-generation template

I have created a newer tested-version to fix all problems, tested. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One size fits all, 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/One size fits all and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of One size fits all during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ArcAngel (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the deletion of {{in}}, please take it to WP:DRV, rather than repeatedly recreating a template deleted after a WP:TFD discussion. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no true consensus to delete the spacing template which had been in use all during 2009. Plus, as the author, I was not even notified that a TfD had been issued by User:Plastikspork, who forced the deletion of a universal template, then get this, changed several closed-AfD archives in a rabid obsession to rid Wikipedia of that universal template. I naturally restored the contents of that universal template, and on 3 occasions the template was quickly reverted to the math symbol "\in" thereby violating WP:3RR. At which point, User:Plastispork protected the reverted template as a high-use template, which is a total lie, and an illegal use of protection. In other words, the unbalanced, frantic actions of User:Plastikspork have violated so many policies and norms that the overall behavior is utterly bizarre, especially when deleting a universal template. I'm not implying User:Plastikspork is the only user issuing TfDs that omit the author, but the frantic other policy violations are just way over the edge. Here, I have been working, trying to advance the structure of both English Wikipedia & the Commons, and I am thwarted by such bizarre reactions. I'm just stating this for the record: it's all too petty for me, and I cannot waste any more time this week. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Archive_5 for User_talk:Wikid77 (Jan 2010 - May 2010)

Hi Wikid, you might want to consider deleting the subpage User:Wikid77/Morocco if you've finished working on it. I see that the last edit was in July '08. Jay (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid, you might want to consider deleting the subpage if you've finished working on it. I see that the last edit was in October '09. Jay (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikid77/Morocco, 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/User:Wikid77/Morocco and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. You are free to edit the content of User:Wikid77/Morocco during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jay (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For fixing a complex coding error in Template:Google Inc. when no one else could figure it out! - Ahunt (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth looks very good. I would suggest to add an introduction and a link to Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth. As you might know I introduced the 3, 4 and 5M limit as the maximum number of articles on the english wikipedia (the logistic model). This as contrast to the belief that growth was exponential. My model was created in March 2006, THREE YEARS ago. Until this essay I have not seen new models. HenkvD (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort you put into dealing with the issue of placing images when there is already a floating table. I fear that there were quite a few nights put into it. I'd given up worrying about a response after a week. I'll have to look more carefully at it when I can find the headspace. And thanks for the border + cellpadding tip. Cheers. -- spin^control 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits to the disambiguation guidelines, like you did here. I see that you're a regular, and the warning templates won't be needed, but other editors have already pointed out WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT in the edit summaries and on the talk pages. Please respect the consensus, even if you disagree with it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I had tagged the MOS:DAB with {{pov|guideline}} to indicate an ongoing WP:NPOV dispute. Per long-term Wikipedia policy, such a tag should not be removed during the process of resolving the dispute. I am NOT angry at you for ranting with your message "Disruptive edits" but please, let this be a wake-up, that you tend to jump to conclusions, which violate Wikipedia policy. Here's a hint: If a Wikipedia editor is experienced enough to use a POV-tag and/or Template:ombox, then consider, politely, asking them why they added those into a page, rather than claim disruption. Just a word to the wise... -Wikid77 (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice addition. Thanks for doing that. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Dysm[reply]

Hi Wikid77! Do you have an idea how to deal with this problem? bamse (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Duplicated from article talk-- please continue discussion there).

Looks like we're treading on each other's toes here.

I've reverted your changes references. Doing it the way you do, you lose the page numbers.

A common way to do it is simply refer to the book then the Notes just give the page numbers. So the ref just says ^[1] then ONE reference to the book in ==References== section,

then goes into Notes section. I don't know if you've seen that before. It's not perfect I admit, but I've restored for now since I don't want to lose all the page numbers until it's been discussed. SimonTrew (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Designated, an article that you created, for deletion. ....

JHunterJ (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Children of Michael Jackson, an article that you created, for deletion. ..... Fritzpoll (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand my reasoning, even if you disagree, and that we can handle this amicably to achieve the best result for the encyclopedia as a whole. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wikid77. Nice work on the CoMJ article. Just so you know in the future, arguing that an article inherits its notability for another is a reason to delete, not to keep. You may want to rethink your reasoning, or your vote. Every article must stand on its own, which I think this one will. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recap summary is not usually done but is well written. What is your opinion about the Obama children? An article was written but, like many political articles, was subject to heated debates. The Obama children gave an interview to the press and there's been a fair amount written about them.

People say WP is not news. True as a goal. However, WP is very much like news. What I think people are really saying is WP is only long lasting and news that should be remembered. User F203 (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a recap because former closing-admins advised me that they try to analyze deletion reasons, based on each issue raised (as a logical debate), rather than how many keep saying "Delete". If reasons are not refuted, as in a debate rebuttal, then they could easily be accepted because no one bothered to give the admin a reason to discount them. I know how to make the "==" sub-sections work to separate & focus issues, but there need to be more sophisticated "decision-structures" in AfD pages. It is too tempting for admins to just count "votes" because no one listed each debate point for clear consideration.
  As for the Obama children, I have no opinion about that yet. If such children also became orphans, then I would favor a "Children-of" article, rather than keep updating the main articles of the parents.
  I agree that WP is much like news. It has worked like "news on steroids" when hurricanes approach, because people keep updating the quick-view projected storm-track images (allowing others to sleep), and many people know the expected dangers: "outer bands" of hurricanes swing at 60mph & cause tornadoes; storm surge is lower than "storm tide" so "add 4 feet" to flood dangers; the eyewall replacement cycle allows (God) to slow the hurricane speed (within 1hr?) before landfall; etc. Then, as you indicated, all that news is "remembered" rather than lost from numerous news blurbs/snippets that no one can find any longer: one of the most popular wiki articles is still 2005's: "Hurricane Katrina" (even though it downplays that Mississippi got hit 10x worse than New Orleans). Google can't keep old news, while Wikipedia does, because Google focuses on current webpages as reporters have archived old news. So, Wikipedia can be very effective, but still, notability & other policies need to be improved to help clarify real concerns versus unfounded fears. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that I've edited this page to add a {{NOINDEX}} tag to it. That will keep it out of Google and, I think make most people happy about it. I would ask that you don't remove the tag, otherwise it is likely, as Peregrine Fisher says, that someone will send it to MfD - I personally won't, but there are users with more stamina than me!

I am sorry that the AfD result has upset you, but I would rather not be referred to as being "wiki-spastic" just because we disagree on this article's inclusion. Believe it or not, I am not some rabid deletionist, and I subscribe to no particular -ism. We are all here to improve the encyclopaedia, but inevitably editors will disagree on the means by which that is achieved and I don't see a need to resort to name-calling when disagreement occurs. I hope we can work on something together in the future, and you're always welcome to ping me on my talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm quite happy: the AfD-delete has provided the evidence I need to move forward with my analysis. Please don't think my criticism of Wikipedia policies is an attack on the people, these problems should not be "blamed" on individuals who are just following the policies. I don't blame any one person for deleting the top article #497 (of current reader's interest); that deletion is the result of current policies that advise people to ignore Google hits & reader interest. As I calculated, that CoMJ article answered the pageviews of 215,000 people, very likely influencing 1.5 million, and provided quick facts to 96% of people who were interested. That's fantastic, and you also helped by suggesting areas for improvement, added during those 215,000 pageviews, so thank you as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of our policies and guidelines do suck, and we don't handle subarticling well in my opinion, where we might consider expansive treatment of specific but not necessarily individually notable topics. Perhaps you can draft a guideline - I would be willing to help Fritzpoll (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the best strategy for you to get the article back is to:

• ask for the article to be userfied to you, and withdraw your objection to the closing of the AfD
• ask the editors who most effectively argued that the article violated BLP where exactly the issues were,
• heavily prune the cited areas of concern to ensure that the article doesn't overstep the sources,
• check back with those editors to see if they are happier with the article, and
• bring the article back to DRV, citing the reactions of the editors you consulted

The notability issue was fixed in the course of the AfD, and the closer should have noticed that. But the BLP worry was not so carefully addressed, and closing to delete on just those grounds was just proper. To keep on fighting the DRV is to be both trying to get this DRV to do something it is not meant to do, and making ill will for your next DRV if you choose to follow my advice. — Charles Stewart (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not going to care what the article says. Most of the delete voters have a gut feeling, I guess, and it ins't based on any polices or guidelines. It had notability in spades before the AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds quite plausible, although I think flawed reasoning about the content of policy played a role at the beginning of the AfD . But gut feelings are much more easily turned in editor-to-editor discussions than in the group theatre of AfD. If you can convince a couple of the AfD deletists to change their minds, that almost surely would get you at least a "restore and relist" at DRV, and would quite likely get you a completely different dynamic at a new AfD.

• Thanks for the advice, but the main reader interest has passed, at this point. The comments at AfD & DRV were half-chosen to gauge the reactions & reveal the true process for "the ends justify the means" as in the The Prince. I wanted to clearly reveal the current wiki-Zeitgeist, when 13 people say keep and 7 raise non-policy fears of BLP. Chicken Little would still get many followers by shouting, "The sky is falling". So, I'm following advice from Shakespeare, as in (I'm sure you guessed it) Much Ado about Nothing with song lyrics, "men were deceivers ever...to one thing constant never, then sigh not so but let them go..." (time to move on, with another topic, such as all these major redlinks). -Wikid77 (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mean to be too snippy, so I've given more details below. -Wikid77 15:10, 19 July 2009

I'm a firm believer in "where there's smoke there's fire". The Michael Jackson articles, plus debates, have provided a litmus test for WP's current state of affairs. Finally, interest in MJ's children or word "blanket" have fallen to only 3x times the typical reader-interest, not the 10x, 20x or 341x higher as during the past weeks. Now article "Walter Cronkite" has soared to 327x times the typical 1000/day readership. It is obvious that readers turn to Wikipedia in times of mourning, and might expect an adequate retrospective on these people. Meanwhile, "haters" can use loopholes in WP policies to derail good-faith efforts. Here, in July, I clearly saw that WP policies are well-written (technically), in terms of fairly viewing the real world, but those policies are being misused. It reminds me of "Figures don't lie, but liars figure". The claims, by some editors, have been outrageous: "wiki-notability is not the same" as real-world notability, so it's just an accident that all these 3 million articles use sourced-text in article names that mirror the real-world. Also, perhaps it's just an accident that WP policies carefully address aspects of reliable sources, not be confused with reports published in the real world. Another guy hopes that after AfD of "Children of MJ" then perhaps other MJ articles (non-BLP) would meet the same fate, and no one said, "Hey, that remark was totally out-of-line for this project"! Meanwhile, violations of policy or procedure are elevated, and hordes reply that this is all just fine, because, I suppose, WP policies are violated like this all the time, and so an unfair AfD gets "endorse"d en masse. What's missing is the aspect of society called "law enforcement" requiring extensive wiki-prison terms. Spare the rod and spoil the child, in each wiki-area. It is very difficult to fight the angry mob as they torch Frankenwiki, so that's why this was just a situation to test the current practices, as of July 2009. I hope that answers any of the above concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lamenta3 and I have nominated Georgia Institute of Technology for Featured Article status. Please improve the article and contribute to the discussion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Rich Farmbrough & User:Eugene_van_der_Pijll: If you are still interested in fixing it, see:

• Template_talk:Taxobox_colour#Replacing as next-generation template

I have created a newer tested-version to fix all problems, tested. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One size fits all, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. ..... Thank you. ArcAngel (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the deletion of {{in}}, please take it to WP:DRV, rather than repeatedly recreating a template deleted after a WP:TFD discussion. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no true consensus to delete the spacing template which had been in use all during 2009. Plus, as the author, I was not even notified that a TfD had been issued by User:Plastikspork, who forced the deletion of a universal template, then get this, changed several closed-AfD archives in a rabid obsession to rid Wikipedia of that universal template. I naturally restored the contents of that universal template, and on 3 occasions the template was quickly reverted to the math symbol "\in" thereby violating WP:3RR. At which point, User:Plastispork protected the reverted template as a high-use template, which is a total lie, and an illegal use of protection. In other words, the unbalanced, frantic actions of User:Plastikspork have violated so many policies and norms that the overall behavior is utterly bizarre, especially when deleting a universal template. I'm not implying User:Plastikspork is the only user issuing TfDs that omit the author, but the frantic other policy violations are just way over the edge. Here, I have been working, trying to advance the structure of both English Wikipedia & the Commons, and I am thwarted by such bizarre reactions. I'm just stating this for the record: it's all too petty for me, and I cannot waste any more time this week. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently recreated Kmbot and Htbot after they had been deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 9#More redundant conversion templates. Not only does this go against deletion rules, but as far as I can tell, they are completely redundant to {{Convert}}. For this reason, I've also deleted Volbot. If you want to contest the deletion process, you can take the issue to WP:DRV, but do not recreate these templates. Thank you. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comment of yours has inspired me to write the following.

BTW, if you are back from your Wikibreak, you might want to remove the notice at the top of this talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, my problem is that having more than one template, especially one that does the same thing but a little bit differently, is that editors are going to get even more confused. "What, are we supposed to use one in this situation and the other in that? Screw it, I won't use either!" which completely defeats the point of having Convert templates in the first place...we want people to use them, so there's less chance of completely fubar'd data. Outputs can always be modified later, but inputs are the key.

Secondly, I keep getting the feeling like you are blaming the template creators for perceived inaccuracies in articles. I'm not an engineer, and I though I love working with and building templates, this one is far too complex for my comprehension. Yet I actually took the time to understand how to use the damn thing, which the vast majority of people can't or won't do. If the output in an article is incorrect, blame the editor, not the template. It's their ultimate responsibility to get it right if they're going to use the template in the first place. As "intelligent" as I find it to be, it is ultimately just a dumb passive piece of code.

In other words, I completely disagree with the creation of a "GConvert" template, but of course I'm not going to delete it outright. The only reason I did that with the previous ones is because they were essentially recreations of TfD'd templates, with even the same names. You should have taken it to Deletion Review rather than simply making them all over again.

In any case, if you'd like to reply to any of this, please do so, and then I'll launch into how you should have conducted things at the Convert talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was checking page 1619 in science between WP:EN and WP:FR, and I noticed the sentence: "Edel's Land, in Western Australia, is discovered by Jans Van Edel, a Dutch seaman" that you added on 25 April 2007 (I hope I checked the history properly). I googled a bit, but it was difficult for me to find anything relevant. Could you add a reference or create an article for one or both red links? Thanks - --Anneyh (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For fixing the convert template's ft-in to cm conversion and eliminating significant conversion errors in thousands of articles, I award you this barnstar. And so should WikiProject Basketball! JN466 09:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if you could do the same thing for {{convert|36|m|ft}} {{convert|37|m|ft}} {{convert|38|m|ft}}, which at the time of writing comes out as 36 metres (120 ft) 37 metres (120 ft) 38 metres (120 ft), ... JN466 09:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikid77. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey there, I've unprotected the template per your request. Thanks for the help fixing! m.o.p 17:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ... - fetchcomms☛ 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for not deleting: that page contained calculations I needed about article-pageview counts and saved me about 1hr of rework when travelling to another computer site, just in time to copy that page before deletion. I had forgotten the user-space name as User:Wikid77/Test_convert. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikid77. Your draft page for the Infobox Musical template ( User:Wikid77/Template:Infobox Musical ) is appearing in the template category Category:Theatre infobox templates. The real one also correctly appears but the draft one should not. I tried commenting out the category in your draft to prevent this but it didn't work. Perhaps you will know better how to do it. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, where is "Oh, get off my skirt, Mary" from? 174.3.102.6 (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know where originally; it's just a strong expression I've heard: "So get off my skirt Mary Martin - you don't know sh*t about the railroad."   Look at other webpages using a search-engine hunt for: "get off my skirt". -Wikid77 08:23, 21 November 2009

Template:C2YearEnd has been nominated for deletion. ... Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:C2YearInTopic has been nominated for deletion. ... Plastikspork 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikid77. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michaele_Salahi.
Message added 16:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I found a potentially better article for one of your points, and left a note on the AFD page. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Trial of Knox and Sollecito. ...

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) 01:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Rturus: You have repeatedly deleted sourced material from Wikipedia article "Trial of Knox and Sollecito", in particular under article section "Claims of police brutality", as the complete deletion of a paragraph listing 4 headlines from 4 reliable sources, with their 4 complete footnotes (page-revision 12:15, 17 December 2009: link856). Wikipedia does not have any policy that permits complete deletion of sourced, verifiable text simply because a user doesn't like the information. It is not justified by claiming the text is "POV": there is no such policy in Wikipedia to delete sourced, verifiable text which is documenting a major point-of-view in those sources. Do you understand that claiming "POV" to remove text is bizarre? It is not a valid reason for removing text that one person doesn't want in an article. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid, please note Wikipedia:TPG#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages. Users should not be addressed in section titles.LeadSongDog come howl 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To User:LeadSongDog: You seem to have radically misunderstood the title of this topic: it is not worded as "Dear user" but rather as "[A] notice to User:Rturus". I think you've imagined that this is an open topic for discussion; however, the topic was intended for one user only, but please feel free to respond further about it, if you wish. In the future, please note that when I address a user, I typically state the idiom "To Username" so that other users realize the focus. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally ignoring your comment here, your constant POV editing on the Kercher POV-fork page gives the impression that you are campaigning. rturus (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kercher Knox house Perugia Italy.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FormerIP (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]