Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bulldog123

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ipankonin (talk | contribs) at 01:30, 29 August 2007 (Third Opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:30, 29 August 2007 by Ipankonin (talk | contribs) (Third Opinion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Bulldog123, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Angr (tɔk) 13:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The_angel_size_18.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:The_angel_size_18.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 08:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Hetar 04:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Race and intelligence. Please be careful not to remove content from Misplaced Pages without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Scientizzle 20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

your edits to Genetics

I have restored the journals you deleted from the list in Genetics, because you gave no explanation for their removal. (I checked the first on the list, and it does seem to exist.) In addition, the edit was made after significant vandalism to the page, so I simply reverted to a previous version. When editing pages -- especially when deleting content -- please give an explanation for the edit in the comments section. Probably once it's explained to me it'll be okay, but I'll revert it if I don't understand the deletion. Thanks...

Regarding the rewording of the sentence, breaking into two, I've chewed over that phrase a lot. I originally wrote it intending to say something like "while genetics was implicitly used, now we actually study it scientifically"... then, it was argued to me by someone else that the "while" made it confusing, so I did the "genetics was implicitly used, and now we study it scientifically" structure. Splitting it into two sentences destroys any remnant of "contrast" I meant it to have, maybe I should just delete the part about implicitly used (a remnant from the original version of the intro before I rewrote it).

I'm working on a draft (User:Madprime/Genetics) to add content to the page, if you're interested in helping out. Madeleine 13:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On the wording -- I left your change, it's fine. I was just reflecting on it, in case you had a better idea.  :) Madeleine 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just when you thought they couldn't play any dirtier...

I thought you might be interested in this . All I have to say is - how low can they go? When you have a moment, please weigh in on the AFD discussion page, so that your vote isn't arbitrarily discounted. Thanks! Cleo123 02:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Card video games

I was about to close this CFD, but I found the debate there a bit confusing. It is obvious that the two cats should be merged; it is not obvious what the final name should be. Could you please look over the suggested names and indicate a preference? Thanks. >Radiant< 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Math

Yes, it would seem that DRV is more vulnerable to vote stacking than most of our processes. Something may need to be done about that. >Radiant< 13:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations

"come from a sect of wikipedia editors…", " to note that they are not representativie of wikipedians in general but rather representative of a small sect of wikipedians."

Regarding my comment regarding AGF with you

I checked your contribs, seems like you're not after LGBT cats/lists, but several others. Sorry if I offended you with that comment, but it at first glance appeared you were going after LGBT items. My mistake. --Whstchy 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit, I partially did (I myself am not straight), also that it was worth keeping from my view. On the other hand, not to sound rude, but if you nominate something like that, you'll get feedback like that. --Whstchy 15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

American actors ...

I'll help ... -- Prove It 21:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

LGBT cats

Gimme some time to look at these. But, um, Joel Schumacher doesn't make gay movies? Have you not seen his Batman films, come on. Otto4711 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey...in looking at the LGBT professions categories I can't at this point get behind the deletion of any of them. I think they're all worthwhile. If your arguments against them are the same as for the other CFDs then I have to go against you one them, but if there are other arguments I will certainly do my best to consider them with an open mind. Otto4711 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

SSP

After a few weeks of wondering if Arbcom was going to ever do anything, they really came through: Surprisingly, the whole matter seems to be wrapped up now. --W.marsh 05:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion outside of the AFD

Bulldog123,

My comment on the AFD for the List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients concerning your "you do understand" comment was to note that I find that comment that you addressed to me to lack the civility we expect between editors. If you take issue with Tony's comment to you, address it to him, not to me. To tell me to "cut the crap" seems to be an attempt to escalate this into a personal grude. I've read your comments and responded with complete civility. I hope that you will do the same.

I would have appreciated it if you would have notified the article's creator and major contributors of your nomination; it is likely that the contributors to other articles that you nominate for deletion would likewise appreciate the notice.

— ERcheck (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't create an unnecessary dispute between us over a worthless AFD. Keep these messages on the AfD or simply get over it. Bulldog123 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cfd

Thanks for having the cojones to nominate the ethnic actor cats; it may not pass this time around, but in time it will. It has taken me a long while to come to the conclusion now strongly held that all ethnic, religious, race categories are wrong here at WP. Perhaps an exception can be drawn in the political arena, but not in acting. See also the African American debate in Afd. Having been a vocal participant in Afd's and Cfd's for a while, I was gratified that you nominated these and that you did nominate all of them. Invariably, when I see these types of cats nominated, the first group whose category gets nominated is the Jews, then the Kurds, and then it's as if the motivation has run out (which although I can assume good faith, it's probably true that it has run out), no one else bothers to follow through. It's part of our systemic bias and I'm glad that you exhibited great courage in your nom. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The list

If youre referring to Modern Iranian scientists, scholars, and engineers, I suggest we edit out all business people except the exceptional such as the likes of Pierre Omidyar and Omid Kordestani. That alone will clear up the list by a great deal.

We can then further trim the list by getting rid of mere professors. As I repeatedly stated on the talk page, they have to be chairs, directors, senior researchers, or hold distinguished positions inorder to be listed.

I am currently busy with lots of other housekeeping tasks in both English and Persian Misplaced Pages. Im kind of tied down at the moment. So I cant help at th this time.

But I will revisit that article in the near future (a few weeks). It does need a clean up, certainly.--Zereshk 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Contested prod

Hi.

Please see Misplaced Pages:Proposed_deletion#Conflicts. Your argument appears to be just re-iterating the PROD comments. But I'm not convinced that the PROD is uncontroversial, as I've seen similar topics survive AfD discussions in the past. There are also similar lists for other faiths (e.g. List of Islamic historians, List of Muslim philosophers, List of Hindu mathematicians, Hindu entertainers, &c.) My preference would be to reach a consensus via an AfD. Or, even better, by reaching a consensus policy. Sorry to be difficult. — RJH (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists are not the same as categories. I suggest proposing a policy at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals). — RJH (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of arrested Bengals

You do realize the article we are discussing is about the Cincinnati Bengals and their players, not about the people of West Bengal, Bangladesh. Also, the "Bengal" in Cincinnati Bengals refers to the Bengal Tiger not people.--Cincydude55 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreasonable

I'm not going to keep arguing about this with you. Good day. — RJH (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you politely to cease and desist. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll try again. Please stop leaving messages on my talk page regarding this matter. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD listings

You might want to list this one. Jayjg 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your thoughts. I haven't nominated these lists for deletion because whenever I nominate or vote on any such discussions, I am almost inevitably followed around by several editors who vote in opposition to whatever I have proposed; because of Misplaced Pages's built-in bias towards keeping articles, it's not a particularly fruitful way for me to spend my time. Jayjg 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just so you get some idea of where I'm coming from, I would entirely support deletion of the above linked article, which has no historic relevance or significance.--RandomHumanoid 01:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

In the context this remark reads as a personal attack on me. If you consider that I am a violator of wikipedia policy, I suggest you take it up in the appropriate venue. If not, then you might like to explain exactly what you do mean and its relevance in the AfD. Tyrenius 02:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists

The problem with these essays is that people start quoting them as if they are policy. Many people cower after seeing TLAs quoted against their opinions. This project is about collaborating, and not about coming up with rules about every last detail. After 3 years here, I've seen many pages start off as garbage and later turn into something quite worth while. This only happens in an atmosphere in which peoples contributions are welcomed and accepted as much as possible. There are many principles which I think are very important, but I see too many examples of people trying to turn those principles (verifiability, NOR, etc...) into something far too restrictive. The differencea between Over-listifying and Over-categorization is that the later was the result of a team effort, numerous previous discussions expressed a need for the page, the examples are based on clear consensus, and most importantly, the principles being applied to categories had been long established. The process of working out the OCAT guidelines helped solidify and clearify categorization policy. There seems to be fewer contentious battles at CFD these days as a result. I'd be happy to engage with you about what is going on at AFD because I find that it is becoming very harmful to the project. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Well, I guess this is a rite of passage for new admins :-). Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally. I remember what it was like to be an avid newpage patroller and not always happy with the way AFDs closed. (In my day:-\ though, admins never explained no-consensus closes because they were usually self-explanatory. Or it may be that I never challenged them (Only once did I ever do it, when this one was NC'ed before I could vote despite heavy meatpuppeting for keep. But as you can see I decided to let it go, and the article at issue since got merged into another one).

Another user asked for a more detailed explanation, so I gave it to him here. To reiterate and expand, I just didn't see consensus developing on this one either way, after five days, like it did on the other song-list AfDs that have been up recently. I closed List of Halloween songs as a delete; the consensus there was clear. Similarly, List of songs about masturbation was kept after heavy discussion that generated consensus on what to do. But this list didn't attract that level of interest.

I'll probably go into some more detail over at DR. But I hope you feel this has been at least somewhat explained, even if you're still saying to yourself you would have closed it differently :-). Daniel Case 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since that was a delete, and one about which I could tell the keeps felt very strongly about and were not exactly newbies, I felt I had to go into detail. Thanks for the compliment. Daniel Case 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD

As the nominator of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of films about Martin Luther, I wonder if you could have a look at the article which has been rewritten, as well as the proposal to Merge a couple of articles. Much appreciated. Pastordavid 19:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

its a moot point, since the AfD has closed, but I am not in favor of merging for 2 reasons. (a) I do find the Martin Luther article to be long at 82 kb; and (b) there is also an issue of disambiguation, as the title Luther is used for many films as is the title Martin Luther, a couple of which already have articles, and a couple more which probably will with time. But, as I said, the issue is decided already. Oh well. Pastordavid 23:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, it would be nice if, in the future, you would notify the author of the article (in this case, User:CTSWyneken who is still an active editor), as well as possibly WikiProjects on which the AfD has a direct effect. I realize that that is not required, but it would be quite civil of you to do so -- in this case, I know that the creator of the article didn't comment on the AfD until I posted a notice for the relevent WikiProject. Thanks for considering it. Pastordavid 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider your vote at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion

I tried to deal with some objections that have been voiced at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion. Please re-consider your vote based on my edits diff diff. I have made many similar edits and more are to follow. With regards to your stated reason for deletion please take note that e.g. Karen Armstrong is a former Catholic but not a convert to any other well-defined belief system. Also, what should be the categories of Ayaan Hirsi Ali if we confine ourselves to categories of converts. Category:Muslims and category:converts to atheism? This strikes me as unwieldy and confusing. Andries 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

I'm sorry, I totally missed your note; thanks for pinging me. I would wholeheartedly support what you propose. You are a regular in Afd & Cfd land, so you know what I think of racial/ethnic classifications, so you are preaching to the choir here. Carlossuarez46 06:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And I missed the whole debate too, but I think that Radiant figured it out. Say, do you have any interested in being an admin? thick skin required...I'd like to nominate you, if you'd like to help build WP that way too. Carlossuarez46 18:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you'd prefer to wait, that's fine. WP is more a struggle of deletionists vs. inclusionists than I thought. You should see (and participate at) WP:DRV for a real eye-opener. As many lawyers will tell you that nothing at a trial matters - it's all in the appeals, DRV is the supreme court. People who never bothered to participate at the Afd debate come out of the woodwork. They claim to be unbiased because of their non-participation at the Afd, then go on to say what they coulda woulda shoulda said at the Afd along with all the rest of us mere mortals. There are others who say that votes are to be counted - a vote count is always the first argument: how could you have a consensus when it was 8-3? 3-2? 46-11? Which replays at DRV, so let's take the last example and say the "real" feelings of the community run 50-20, now if we have 4 on one side who sandbag and wait for DRV and 9 on the other, we get a 4-9 of "unbiased" votes, which are always given some greater weight, showing a consensus in the opposite direction. Clever, no? The result is even starker when the vote counts are low: a pair of clever editors can sit out an 8-3 only to have it up at DRV and come in like a latter-day silent majority with 2 votes on the other side. Some have even invented a 2/3 rule - does that mean they lose their appeal if they cannot garner 2/3 of the comments at DRV? Ohhhh, that rule is only applied in favor of its proponent. If you think I have strong opinions on the process, and its gamesmanship, you're right. :-) Carlossuarez46 18:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Thank you for your third opinion on Talk:Iraq Resolution#Invoking 9-11. I'm having more trouble with that user, and I think I have a case to open an RFC for POV-pushing. Can you help me by sponsoring it? Isaac Pankonin 01:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)