User talk:Doctorfluffy - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doctorfluffy (talk | contribs) at 01:39, 30 October 2007 (→AfDs: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:39, 30 October 2007 by Doctorfluffy (talk | contribs) (→AfDs: response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Let's chat! :-)

Welcome

Hello, Doctorfluffy, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sandstein 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

trying out my sig

Test. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Test2. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Test3. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Test4. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Test5. DrFluffy 21:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to plain sig. Doctorfluffy 22:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; I think even when customized, simple sigs are always the best. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been moving away from elaborate sigs on most wikis. Let people focus on what I'm saying, not how UBER L33T my sig looks. Doctorfluffy 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Infanteriegewehr Modell 1842

Hello. Please do not needlessly change spellings in articles from one variety of English to another. Misplaced Pages accepts both American and British English. We have a guideline on this at WP:ENGVAR. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:ENGVAR, the first tenet of which is "Consistency within articles". As such, since the rest of Infanteriegewehr Modell 1842 uses American English, I changed the spelling of "standardize" to be consistent with that version of English. It was not a needless edit. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, then I'm sorry - I meant to write it in British English, but it seems my English is a patois of British and American English. I can't tell what's otherwise American about it. Sandstein 21:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiLove

Oh hi, I have to thank you for the wiki love. I appreciate your efforts on editing articals because we all want wikipedia to be better. Lets all have some smiles and love. Pilotbob 03:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

I have noticed you posting rapidly in multiple AfDs lately, something I once got in trouble for last year. So, I just wanted to caution you about not repeating the mistake I made. Also, here are some other tips for discussions: you posted Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Congressional_endorsements_for_the_2008_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=167888651 this in a discussion; please read this. You posted Veni%2C_Vidi%2C_Vici_in_popular_culture&diff=prev&oldid=167888500 this and this; please read this. It is important to elaborate on reasons and to avoid words like "cruft" or "I don't like it" arguments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am familiar with WP:ATA, but that however is only an essay, whereas many of my votes are based on WP:NOT, which is actual policy. The WP:NOT collection is really just a formalization of the arguments I typically make; listcruft = WP:DIRECTORY, gamecruft = WP:NOT#GUIDE, futurecruft = WP:CRYSTAL, etc. In fact, using shorthand terms ("cruft" and "per nom" included) is specifically mentioned in the guide to deletion. That said, I suppose could reference specific policies more often, instead of using the common slang that many people employ. Doctorfluffy 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at your !votes and noms so far, and i agree with about 3/4 of the ones on subjects I think I have some understanding about, which I is more than I do with quite a lot of people. . But I think it will add to credibility if you make it clear what sort of articles you do say keep for--just as I !vote delete about one-third of the time when I think an article deserves it and i have something particular to say. It also will help to give somewhat more extended reasons. Not only quote the policy, but explain just how the article meets them. Saying "for x-cruft" says only "I think it is ....", but if you say why you think it is, it may convince other people. It's an argument, not a vote. DGG (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Misplaced Pages and I have only finite time. I don't like the term deletionist since it connotes forceful removal, so I generally prefer to identify myself as a reductionist. The analogy in that link is an apt one and it adequately explains my philosophy in its few sentences. This is going to sound trivial, but if I had more time, I would vote to preserve articles which are notable by my own intepretation of WP:N, which I believe to be the most important policy here. As it stands, I believe notability is too broadly defined, but there is little I can do to change that, so I do my best to remove the "deadwood" by involving myself in AfDs and tagging articles.

I understand your comment about credibility and fleshing out votes, but having participated in a fair number of AfDs now, they almost always degenerate into a simple listing of policies followed by the latecomers merely reiterating the votes of the first few editors. I've read many of the policies and precedents in place here and the theory of an AfD being a discussion, rather than a majority vote, is a nice one, but in practice that's rarely the case. The system evolved into its current form independently of me and I little choice but to participate in that system as it currently exists in the way that most editors do. Besides, strictly speaking, any vote is a contribution to the discussion, even if contains no rationale whatsoever. It may not sway the closing admin as much, but it still let's them know that there is one more person who has a sufficiently strong opinion about the matter to cast a vote. Thanks to technology, that only takes a moment, but traditionally an official declaration of one's viewpoint "on paper" is rather weighty in the eyes of authorities. Doctorfluffy 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)