Misplaced Pages

Okay, I have replied there. Best, --A Nobody 05:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

How cute! Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How thoughtful of you, a very happy Labor Day to you too. :) — neuro 06:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 06:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Olivia Ofrenda

Here is the complete text of the article as it was when I deleted it.

Olivia Ofrenda is the dead beatnik who owns the Blue Casket Club in the 1998 LucasArts Adventure Game Grim Fandango. She wears a purple beret, a grey trench-coat like jacket, green stockings and small round shades; she like most in the game is a constant smoker.

Olivia Ofrenda's origins like most in the game is unknown, what is known that she obviously didn't get a good sales package from the Department of Death and had to make her way through the Land of the Dead by other means of transportation. One way or the other, she came to Rubacava.

Somehow she took over a night-club on the shores of the port-town and called it The Blue Casket. She soon became the attraction of many men; including the cities' crime overlord Maximino; of which he proposed to her with marriage. Yet Olivia, while attractive could never love a man and went after Maximino only for his money.

However she soon began an affair with Maximino's lawyer Nick Virago, attempting to spice up the boring relationship she had withe Maximino. As for the man himself, he attempted to proposed to Olivia on the side of an airship known as the Olivia I which he built himself. The proposal ended in disaster when the airship mysteriously exploded and crashed into Maximino's Cat Track. This momentary disaster postponed the proposal for a while in Olivia's favour.

Maximino wasn't perturbed though; he built a new airship for Olivia, of which he called the Olivia II. Yet Olivia's affections had gone for a new more powerful gangster of whom was Hector Lemans. Hector's takeover of El Marrow had stretched to Rubacava, and Olivia had seduced the large all-powerful kingpin to her wares. She finished with Maximino; and it is believed his depression resulted in Rubacava being taken over by Lemans.

Lemans needed Olivia for another reason as well; the sprouting of Manuel Calavera of whom she had known after his time in Rubacava. She agreed to wait in Rubacava after Hector predicted that Calavera would return. Probably through the revolutionary beatniks in her club; Olivia also must have known Manny was part of the Lost Souls' Alliance, the only resistance to Hector.

When Calavera did come back through town, Olivia joined him and went with Manny to Nuevo Marrow. She ratted out the LSA's Headquarters and persuaded Salvador Limones to let her join him when they went to hunt down Hector.

The exact events are not revealed in the game; but it is presumed that Olivia beheaded Salvador with an axe seen earlier, dumped his body in Hector's Meadows and used Salvador to find Manny again. Her deception revealed she took Calavera to Hector's Meadows and told him to meet with the big boss himself. While she rifled through a case of tickets, Calavera was talking to the Head of Salvador; she proceeded to pull Manny away from the car, picked up Salvador and taunted him.

Unbeknownst to her, Salvador had an exploding tooth of which when exploded made a cloud of sproutella gas. Salvador bit on the tooth and sacrificed himself to save Manny; Olivia was caught in the gas and as her face sprouted she ran into Hector's Meadow and joined as another victim of sprouting.

I don't want to be responsible for restoring that to article space. By all means recreate the article if you can demonstrate the character's notability using proper references! Best wishes. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody 02:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I reply from work as we don't have Labour Day here. Hopefully yours is better. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, winter (well, early spring really) here too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're wishing yourself a happy Labor Day? That gave me a good chuckle. :) Anyway, I would like to thank you for the good wishes, and I would like to wish you a happy Labor Day as well. :) Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 14:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks ANobody-- I always appreciate your holiday greetings to all of us, inclusionists and deletionists alike. I never know what the dreaded orange "You have new messages" line will bring, but it's always good to hear from a friend. Mandsford (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I always feel a deal of suspense when I see the new message line, too! Best, --A Nobody 15:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks, A Nobody! Acalamari 15:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You are welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Whew I'm thankful for the day off as busy as I am. Thanks for the greetings! Artichoker 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Me too. Just killing time on the computer until the family arrives for chili and hopefully some Guitar Hero 5 (I like to sing...). Best, --A Nobody 16:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for the nice wishes, and ditto to you! We did the family get-together yesterday. I'll be flying back home later today. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Have a safe flight! Best, --A Nobody 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks. Have a good one yourself!Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You are welcome and I did! :) Best, --A Nobody 15:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

A Nobody, MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• Thanks! I wish you a happy labor day as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You are welcome and yes, I got to play Guitar Hero 5 and G Force with my relatives, after eating chili. Best, --A Nobody 15:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mergers of current AfDs again

Hi again. I previously contacted you regarding mergers, specifically for articles currently at AfD (archived to User talk:A Nobody/Archive 19#Mergers). My interpretation of WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD is that such mergers should be done rarely, with the exception of WP:SNOW for obvious consensus. The support for your view was fairly limited.

It has been pointed out that you have continued to perform these mergers:

• WP:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson
  1. Medal of Honor (video game)
  2. Medal of Honor: Heroes
  3. Medal of Honor: Frontline
• WP:Articles for deletion/Manon Batiste
  1. Hélène Deschamps Adams
  2. Medal of Honor: Underground

Please consider waiting until the AfD has been closed before merging any content. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified my claim "The support for your view was fairly limited." Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR and WP:PRESERVE, no, if I have information that can actually improve other articles and the article under discussion is not a hoax, libelous, or copy vio, I am going to be WP:BOLD and improve the other articles as should have been done per WP:BEFORE. Any editor who is here to build an encyclopedia will rightfully see that the above examples improved articles on notable games and a major figure of the French resistance in World War II. As compared to everyone I have to argue with in the discussions, my edits improved not only the two articles under discussion, but nearly a half dozen other ones that no editor would contest. THAT should be encouraged and commended. While others just go back and forth with me, I actually work to improve content. I have shown that I am here not to simply kill time and space in AfDs, but to build and improve articles and not even to solely focus on the fictional character ones that some dispute the relevance of; rather, I have shown that I will go beyond the fiction articles with my sources and devote equal time and energy to adding the sourced content to articles concerning real people and the parent game articles as well. Moreover, at worst, those who wanted to delete the character articles could still end up with a redirect, which is a far cry from a keep and again given that the characters are main characters verifiable through multiple reliable sources no reasonable editor would take issue with. Deletion is an extreme last resort. If any of us volunteers ever have the sources available when we happen to be online to improve content, we do it. We do not play games waiting to humor the same usual half dozen odd accounts in the discussion who are not helping to improve content, who in some cases have outright admitted they do not want to look for sources, and who even if the article is improved would still never argue to keep (yes, I can provide diffs of such declarations if necessary). Finally, the guideline merely cautions against it. It does not preclude it altogether and as far as rarely goes, merges from a mere two articles a week among hundreds of other editors is indeed a rarity or minority of my edits overall. As opposed to the above diffs that did more to improve multiple articles than any copy and paste WP:PERNOM or WP:ITSCRUFT, I also have scores of welcomes and happy Labor Day posts the past few days, i.e. perhaps the bulk of what I do here is just trying to make editors feel welcome and appreciated and as such, anyway, I hope you had a nice Labor Day as well! Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the discussed limitations are unreasonable or that your merges fall within them. I will direct most or all of my responses to the existing discussion at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Until there is a clear consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Merging_during_live_AfD to perform mergers while AfDs are running, given that it needs admin intervention to undo and interferes with the "delete" outcome, which is a valid outcome in some cases, do not do it again please. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What is more important: improving content when we can or following bureacracy that interferes with our ability to improve the content? Moreover, I only do so in cases that are likely to close as something other than delete anyway and only when it is absolutely certain that the merge locations will benefit from the merger. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What is more important is not being disruptive. You are substituting your judgment (on whether it's a good idea) for consensus, and if you are ever wrong, the work you cause an admin to undo it outweighs any possible benefit. Don't do it again, please. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it causes no work to an admin, because a closure that is something other than delete requires no administrator action. Any user can non-admin redirect. It actually saves admins from having to use the delete function. Afds should not be used as an excuse to disrupt efforts to improve contennt. There is no rule against doing so, only a mere caution to be careful. If the end result is that articles no one would dispute are improved and the content under discussion does not need to be deleted due to some dire legal reason, no reasonable admin closing the AfD would have to undo anything. And again, I only do so in instances where it is clear the discussion is not going to close as delete. At the end of the day, all I know is that my actions as indicated above have resulted in the establishment of an article on a real world historical figure of some reknown and improvement of articles concerning the 30th most successful video game franchise of all time. None of the handful of accounts who said to delete did anything to improve any of these articles. I am confident any neutral observer will recognize that the guy who actually looked for, found, and added sources in an effort to improve a half dozen articles did more for the project than any who just went back and forth in the discussion. I did not merely "vote", but took good faith action with my volunteer time and went above and beyond just improving the articles under discussion, but to also help improve other articles for which no good faith editor would challenge the existence of. We are here first and foremost to build and compendium of knowledge and no one case say with any honesty that with regards to these articles of all the participants in the discussions I have done the most to actually do something for the knowledge these articles present. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If something closes as a delete, and you have previously merged content, that content needs to be un-merged, which IS extra work for the admin. This was explained to you before. You must also realize that there may be cases where you are wrong about how something is going to end up. Substituting your judgment in advance of consensus at an AfD is a bad bet. I am not sure you're listening to what you're being told. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I would merge from would ever be closed by any reasonable admin as delete. In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Todd Williams (The Young and the Restless), we had verifiable information on a character from a notable show. One editor with a bolded delete actually said in his comment to add it, which I did. The other deletes are litterally carbon-copy textbook examples of WP:JNN that a closing admin would routinely not give much weight. Accordingly, the admin reasonably closed as redirect with edit history intact and as a result of my action, we know have a reference from Google News provided in an article no one in the discussion contested and a redirect that always assists anyone who types in the character's name as well as edit history available should additional sources come available, i.e. an editor can discuss them on the talk page without having to ask an admin to undelete. In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Isola (fictional island), three articles on the actual games that no one wanted deleted now have references when we did not previously. My actions yet again went beyond just the back and forths in the discussions to improve actual content and that speaks loud enough. I have shown that I am here to build and improve articles not merely argue in discussions and I am unpersuaded by those in discussions who are unwilling to help out with actual content and neither I nor anyone needs to restrict his or herself to placate such self-appointed judges. And in some of these discussions, these accounts have revealed their ignorance of the subjects, calling video game characters cartoon characters, GamePro (one of the leading video game magazine) lumped together with blogs as far as reliability of sources, saying articles with sections on Development and Reception have "no" non-plot information, etc. One of the regulars I encounter in AfDs said he would never argue to keep and has indeed never done so. How can anyone reasonably be expected to do enough to satisfy such an account? Another said he is too lazy to look for sources. Why should thus of us who aren't too lazy have to satisfy someone who is? If AfDs reflected actual academic discourse among experts, okay, but they frequently do not. No one shold be prevented from improving articles no one would contest just to please accounts who admittedly will not lift a finger to help improve that content or who admittedly do not care or know about the subjects under discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody 13:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, I would strongly suggest deleting the entry, asking all editors to keep it on the WP:AFD page. I would suggest telling lar not to post to your page again. You don't have to put up with this from an editor who thinks you are a troll, and defends the personal attacks of editors who call you a troll and the continued harrassment. Ikip (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, I appreciate the suggestion and understand where you are coming from. Lar has done a good deal lately that has made me seriously question his judgment and objectivity. The above comments add to that questioning, but Lar, you know, I actually supported him at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight_elections/February_2009/Oversight/Lar#Votes_in_support_of_Lar and he seemed to agree with me at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Slagle. And as such, I suppose I just want to give anyone as many chances as possible before declaring him or her a lost cause. I guess I am still holding out hope, hopefully not naively, that my earlier impression will return. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:A Nobody/Subscriptions

Thought your idea was so good, I decided to Make one myself. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Labor Day greetings

Thanks for the greetings - however in Britland where I live 7th September is celebrated merely as "the seventh of September". Hope you had a good Labor Day, without too much labor. Wishing you a happy Guy Fawkes Night in advance ☺ Tonywalton  23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks as well! Best, --A Nobody 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

AfDs and sourcing

It's becoming apparently in your rush to rescue articles you're grabbing "any source that works" and slapping them in articles as reliable without actually checking in any way: it should be fairly obvious that neither That Guy with the Glasses nor RealPoor as you used them should count as reliable sources, much in the same way I've seen you cite google news and google books sources without actually checking to see if they're discussing the subject at hand or briefly mentioning it (or even discussing the actual subject at all). Please look over your sources more carefully when trying to rescue articles, it'll do them some good for later editors if they survive an AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: think about what you are doing sir, you are encouraging editors who oppose your viewpoint to return to the AFD. Ikip (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

freshacconci talktalk 03:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have replied there. Best, --A Nobody 03:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Further comment is on my talk page. Short version: playing with an iPod and its potential as an editing tool = bad editing. Again, sorry! freshacconci talktalk 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said there...nothing to lose sleep over. Take care! Best, --A Nobody 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the good wishes on Labor Day. Always a pleasant surprise to receive your messages. Regards SunCreator (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to read that! Best, --A Nobody 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A Happy Labor Day and 9/11 to you

I am sorry that I didn't get your greeting, esteemed fellow "inclusive" Wikipedian! As 9/11 has become somewhat of a holiday like Memorial Day, I thought I would extend to you greetings in a timely manner for that day. That day is also my birthday as well, I will be 54 at 10:39 a.m. Central Time. My how time flies!. Most cordially!--Drboisclair (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Best, --A Nobody 02:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned on User:Cunard

I mentioned your ingenious template User:A Nobody/awards on User_talk:Cunard#Articles_you_have_written_template. 14:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That is cool. Best, --A Nobody 14:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nan Vernon

Merging articles during AfDs

Hi A Nobody. You've probably noticed me close a few AfDs you have been involved in, if not being actively involved in a discussion or two. I am a bit concerned by a habit you seem to be starting, of merging content mid-AfD and then claiming the article cannot be deleted per GFDL concerns. I first noticed this on the Isola AfD, but have since noticed you have done it in at least one other AfD. I am aware you are probably the most vocal inclusionist on Misplaced Pages - I have no problem with your philosophy on deletion - but I am concerned about some of the seemingly underhanded methods you commit during AfDs.

To me, merging an article and then claiming the GFDL protects the article from deletion is somewhat suspect and almost is a swipe at the AfD process. Many, many articles have been kept thanks to mid-AfD improvement, but merging is definitely different from improvement. It clouds the debate, distracts participants from the points of contention and doesn't seem very honest. If you are willing to submit to a merge as a compromise, might I suggest that you wait until the end of the seven days? At least that way there won't be a messy DRV. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)