Misplaced Pages

THANK YOU!

Thank you so much for voting in my RfA, and especially thank you for supporting me. I really appreciate it, and will wield the mop and bucket the best way I know how. I, like RoboCop, promise four things:

1. Serve the public trust
2. Protect the innocent
3. Uphold the law
4. Classified

I hope to do all those things and, even if I can't keep my fourth classified, will do all I can to be a great admin. I appreciate your comment about me being a good contributor, it really warms my heart and soul to get a compliment like that ;). Stop by my talk page, or on article pages; I look forward to working with you. A belated thanks again, ] _{04:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)}

How lost?

You wrote on the wp:an archive: Well, in all fairness, Ed Poor did lose his bureaucratship. But still, I dislike the presence of the Ed Poor barnstar since it seems to encourage vigilante behaviour from admins.

What does that mean? Thanks for your time. Travb 11:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you again

Thank you again for the detailed explanation on my talk page Travb 17:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Physical punishment

As my record shows, I am not only a fairly active contributor, and I dare say a rather serious one, but also an active believer in appropriate redirects, like you. However in this particular case I can NOT agree that my article in the making would be aborted by a redirect to Corporal Punishment, where I originally contributed most of the material now restored as a first work-draft.

Firstly, as will become clearer when I elaborate on P.P., this notion is (used) wider, since C.P. (though etymologically parallel, as I point out) is usually limited to beatings, excluding Amputation, deprivations, excessive exercice and other forms. Secondly, and actually even more importantly, C.P. is the only of my many contributions (well, most of it was mine) that has fallen victim to perhaps the worst kind of vandalism: a bunch of 'contributors' (mostly anonymous, but I stress many anons do a fine job) who systematically demolish every eleborated section (they don't even get the point of the echelon structure), throwing out so much content that it is no longer informative, let alone encyclopaedic, but little more what I knew around the age of 10 on the subject, and even that bit is often misleading or even wrong.

I have tried to reason with them and am generally willing to accomodate for sensitivities, but such arrogance and ignorance as i never read on othertalk pages are both close to insufferable and indicative that a compromise is not within reach. I realise that this sounds to much ad hominem, but I really could not find any objective rationale in their destructive rage, while suspecting there may be a hidden agenda, such as avid opponents of C.P. planning an ostrich approach: the less is known about it, the better? So rather then engaging in an endless edit war -wasting time better spend on actual contributions of content, in my view the measure of all things Wikipedian- I sat back for a while, gazing how every wave brought more harm, and cooled off just enough to realize that all the wasted material can fit in a wider context, see point one above.

Therefore I urge you to endure missing out on one technical redirect which would really be something far less desirable: wasting most of the material contributed in this context, since the present dribble in C.P. is no substitute by a long shot, nor a workable basis for the further additions I plan to make under P.P. as well as in various appropriate specialized articles (none of them seems to have contributed there, I still do). I would of course be ready to consider any obeservations and/or suggestions made in a constructive spirit, as a dare hope to find with an Admin. After the next few weeks, in which I expect not to find the time to do much more than try to follow up my watchlist (in fact, there are periods without access to Internet, so please be patient if my reply is slow), I hope then to resume work on the P.P.-material; while reading up I found it's actually a subject on which it is very hard to find out abut the basics, such as terminology, so this is a 'niche' for Misplaced Pages we would be unkind to the interested readers (and judging by the flood of material of unsatisfactory informative content, there is quite a public for it) to neglect. Fastifex 14:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Answered on your talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the good block

Just want to say thanks for finally blocking that vandal. It was getting hard to keep track of changes done by that guy. --LifeStar 16:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Jerk-er, not Jerk-y

The problem is that I was the one who called him a jerk. He'd done a lot worse, but still I lost my head. I've got to get some new method. I'm fine with an argument, an exchange of ideas, someone violently objecting to what I say and providing concrete reasons with citations. I was actually really happy when some evidence came in, even though it was against my position.
But when it's all hysterical language and bluster, I let myself get sucked in. Boo. But, hey, thanks for the message!
brenneman 09:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right "deletionist" really is "a lot worse" than "jerk". Please.--Nicodemus75 09:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. If you have something to say to me, use my talk page.
brenneman 09:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly when "deletionist" become a cuss word? I joined the only association which specifically says I am not a deletionist, but I don't consider it a swear word. Let's see, some of the things I like about deletionists: they are concerned with quality, they usually write pretty good articles and they usually behave responsibly. Some of the things I like about inclusionists: They like to make information accessible to everyone, they are usually tolerant of newbies who write articles on non-mainstream subjects. I don't endorse the view of conservativism either, but it just is an opposing viewpoint. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Just so you understand the context here, Sjakkalle, about a month ago, Aaron put forward a block request against me because he felt that when I referred to him as a deletionist, that it was a personal attack. I agree with your statements completely.--Nicodemus75 09:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

User 212.85.15.86

The vandalism continues. Please put an end to this -- thanks! BeteNoir 10:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I blocked them, then regretted slightly. I will be keeping an eye on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Understood but disgruntled

I understood why folks had referred to another page, but, as I'm sure you know from my own user page, it's antithetical to my philosophy on VfD/AfD. I personally (and thunderously, sometimes) reject the idea that there are blanket decisions or blanket reasonings. Because I believe that it is the article and not the topic that is ever to be debated on VfD, I don't believe that anyone should use shorthand. If it means retyping until our fingers fall off or until war breaks out again, then so be it, but I think we must visit every single article and judge it as an article, not as a possible article. This particular article, for example, could have been speedy deleted as a substub, IMO. It didn't say anything. However, it invoked the old arguments -- arguments that belong on an RfC for the subject -- instead of a consideration of whether this particular article should be deleted. Did it establish the importance/significance/need for an article? Did it pursue NPOV? Did it fail to advertise? Etc.

I do understand that part of the judgment in the past is a decision on "notability," and the various school arguments are about that, but that's merely one criterion among many.

For what it's worth, I agree that merging is sensible. I would not have a problem with school district article, nor city schools articles. To me, those would be logical, as well as significant and useful. We need to be considering "useful" more than "pleasurable for the author" more, IMO. Geogre 13:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 17:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ernie Dingo

Thanks for catching that. I've restored to the version prior to the copyvio. User:Zoe| 02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to chuck a barnstar at you

Thanks, I'll put in on my userpage! Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Arthritis edits

Sorry about that. I'll stop editing now, methinks. It's not worth editing all these arthritis articles. --150.204.105.126 15:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you suspect a campaign is going on against these articles?? Should we get registered accounts?? --150.204.105.126 15:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

User talk:4.242.198.138

I notice that you gave this user a warning earlier. This person comes in from the whole range of 4.242.*.* and edits. While one or two of the edits are useful most of the work is vandalistic in nature. For some strange reason they hit Circuit City and Pumpkin pie with edits that are easy to see. The big problem is that they also make sneaky edits to pages of the type 1986 to 1987. With the exception of someone from that range who was making proper additions yesterday I have taken to blocking the IP as soon as a vandalistic edit is made without a warning. Thanks CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

School mergers

I just noticed that you added a good section on arguments for merging in the school arguments page. Thivierr has also added some anti merging arguments. Since all schools are kept now, regardless of the size, quality of the stub the merging issues seem like the most likely to succeed with regard to gaining a consensus on both sides (Please don't laugh ;-), we need to try something.). I'm not sure if you're aware but there has been a huge amount of activity on the Wikipedia_talk:Schools page regarding this issue. Specifically I have outlined the arguments for NOT merging and would like some constructive comments regarding why these arguments are not really that strong. I have looked at all these arguments for not merging and I personally think they are baseless. One obvious contradiction in the arguments against merger is the worry that district lists are too large with say, 200 schools, yet they endorse categories such as Category:High_schools_in_California. Ironically the most useful links in that category are the lists such as List of high schools in Orange County, California.

I was wondering if you would like to contribute to this debate as you have in the past. So far I have seen very few of the users who are active participants in the school Afd's make comments. Those that have shown up seem to be discouraged. Hopefully if we don't let this drop they will see that a truce and real discussion has to happen to stop the atrocious waste of time that is currently sapping energy from constructive editing. I know for a fact that I have wasted too much time there. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)