610:
would say nothing was
Blankfaze. Turns out, someone else, who I didn't know, asked him on his talk page why he opposed, since he didn't know me and I looked solid. Blankfaze said that he thought that everything I had done had been good stuff, but he just had a feeling that in the future I would be "dangerous." This is all ancient history, nearly a year old by now, but both oppose votes came from 2-3 times that I had been on IRC. I had argued with Kate that things should not be split off if they will not be sought. E.g. you shouldn't write an article about an EP that a minor band made, if no one will have heard of it or want to know about it; it makes more sense to discuss that in the band's article (see above for an ironic instance of this same issue coming back alive). Well, Kate had written individual articles about her/his favorite club performers and was outraged that someone would oppose that kind of thing. As for Blankfaze, I haven't a clue. He never would be more specific than thinking that I might be "dangerous" at some unspecified time in the future, so no one could figure out what that was about, least of all me, but he had only ever encountered me on IRC. I hope those inquiring minds are sated now.
170:
seeing people so passionate about their personal record collections that they think it's important to multiply articles on their favorite subject, so this is the type of article that I have great antipathy toward (along with all the minutia from anime, science fiction TV, etc.). In other words, I think the article's author was derelict in the extreme by writing an article with no verification, a very narrow subject, and no context, and I don't think the article's subject matter needs coverage, but I'm not interested in prosecuting it. Therefore, you have no need to worry about what I'm going to do. You also don't need to try to wrest a confession that I was "fooled" or didn't look at the article history. I'm happy to admit that I made a mistake in the speedy, and my comment above was about the article's general worth. I'm not sure what agenda the people who've been slapping delete on the page have, though. Hatred of the topic seems as senseless to me as devotion to it. I still think that might be good to get someone else to issue the page protections and to do the page watching, as I fear that you may be too irritated to have objectivity. Maybe not.
216:
IP's, so I couldn't block for more than :15), and I thought I saw that you had slapped this particular guy. Oh well. He certainly has earned it, but I gather that it's a dynamic IP. It looks like 3 different IP's have attempted the speedy delete trick on that article. (Why?) Like I said, I don't like the article, but I had figured that you might VfD it to get a definitive "go away and stop bothering us" to go on the article's talk page so that people don't fall for it again. (I don't always check histories, but I do always see if there is a talk page live with an article, because that will live on after a speedy anyway.) Unsurprisingly, I guess (if you've seen my main page), I'm generally with your opinion on prosecuting junk articles. I no longer pay much attention to them, except when doing New Pages patrol and sometimes clearing CSD (which was my mistake this time). I concentrate on writing the kinds of articles I want to read, instead, and let younger and more energetic folks fight the battles. I've retired to my tent.
494:
dislike the fact that every time I click "Random page" I come up with "Random @x!*". If you look at featured articles you will note that they are very, very big! I think they should be the standard that all articles aim to emulate. I know many won't ever, and still deserve to be here. My aim is, to find little articles that have a main unifying topic I.e albums by band X. At the moment, every single album has it's own article. If a band only came out with 5 albums, and there isn't much to say on the band, why can't all the information be on the one article under the name of the band? It can always be broken up at a later date if it becomes too large. But that means for now, there is one good, informative, organised, good sized article instead of 5 stubs. And all the individual articles can just be redirected there, so the information is never lost, and is easily un-done. Anyway, I won't say more for now, this is getting long. Please see this article I've worked on
190:
article for VfD that was previously inappropriated marked as speedy; I did not do so in this case precisely because the due-diligence Google searching I did leads me to believe that is indeed a non-hoax minimally encyclopedic topic. I have not fully investigated notability — for purposes of disqualifying it for speedy it was enough to discover that it is not a hoax, nor the neologism of one person or some small local group — but based on what I know so far it is likely that I would vote to oppose deletion.
196:
minimal-size non-local community out there cares about something, then let them have their page about it. The only thing I really object to are vanity pages and attempts by people to use
Knowledge as a platform to publicize their personal projects... the only rule is that the world in general has to take some notice of it first before Knowledge takes notice of it, and not the other way around.
99:? Sheesh. That article requires citations before it's beyond VfD range, folks. I, personally, am dead set against separate articles for every single micro-genre and, essentially, a listing of one's favorite bands therein. Genres should not get articles unless they are so well known and commonly used as terms that people will know and need an explanation of the term
643:
Who are you to judge what is and isn't "trivia," anyhow? You've obviously never lived in NYC, or at least not lived here long enough to have heard of
Kennedy Fried Chicken. The existence of the chain, and its relationship to the "real" KFC, is certainly more significant than a lot of the other trivia
215:
Sure. I don't want animosity with anyone, and I meant to criticize the author. After checking the edit history, I knew that wasn't you. Anyway, I thought that you did block the guy. I was looking in the block log earlier today, because I had to block someone (who was using one of those damned NTL
169:
be listed on VfD (once the protection is off) for consideration on significance. Indeed, I almost think you would be interested in having the matter settled that way. As I also said, I really don't care. I don't think that
Knowledge is the place for anyone to ride hobbyhorses, though, and I loathe
142:
and the fact that two other admins have also agreed it's not a speedy candidate. You seem to be arguing above that it's OK to speedy a non-hoax non-patent-nonsense article as long as you apply your own one-person VfD vote. It doesn't work that way. Actually, I don't think it did work that way... I
129:
What we have here is an exceptionally obnoxious anon who has repeatedly ignored invitations to take it to VfD, and who has engaged in vandalism, personal attacks, and has lied repeatedly (the latest deletion nominations falsely claimed an April Fool's joke, although the article long predates April 1,
609:
Well, Kate was eventually drawn out to say that she had had a conversation on IRC with me that indicated that I was against splitting articles as often as (s)he did, and she didn't want anyone to have the impression of authority who had such views. (No, I think this is a fair summary.) The one who
155:
have protected the page yourself. Page protection of an article by one of the sides in an edit war is out of bounds. Someone else should have done the protecting. It appears that there have been a few people to do the reversion, so one of them might have been good, since you did the ban on the IP
313:
I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can
178:
I am not one of the sides in an edit war, I am simply protecting the page from vandalism (and stealthily getting a page improperly deleted is surely the ultimate vandalism). If you check the article history, you can see my sole contribution apart from repeated reversion of improper speedy-deletion
160:
about VfD. I think the article would be perfect for VfD, as, without citation or verification that this term is in use by anything other than home pages as a term for a type of music, it looks altogether like a hoax. (I have repeated the Google search, this time with "power violence"+music, and I
267:
Hey, I just e-mailed you a couple of photos of spring flowers (the early ones are just coming out), and then realized I should maybe have resized them first, they were fresh out of the little old digital camera, meaning they were about half a MB each, two together in the same message. If you think
493:
Hi Geogre, Erin here. We haven't come accross each other in editing, but I saw something you wrote on user
Bishonen's page, which has brought me here. I'm trying to find out if there is a wikipedian out there who may actually agree that what I'm trying to achieve is a good thing. Basically, I
195:
You of course are free to apply your personal criteria in any Vfd vote, but as you have surely noticed by now, Knowledge has plenty of anime, sci-fi, music and other types of articles that you declare antipathy for. For my part, I shrug off the existence of such articles... if some sufficiently
189:
I don't object to this article being listed at VfD — I told the vandal to do so months ago, with no response. Go ahead and do so yourself if you wish (no need to wait for protection to be lifted, as an admin you can edit a protected page). Sometimes in the past I myself have nominated an
161:
did get hits to the babbling brook that is rock journalism, so I believe that there are people using the term. The question of why I had to repeat a search in the first place is open. It might be my shoddy skills, but it is undoubtedly an article that offers no verification or citation. Read
103:
I.e. people need to have heard "Slo-core" so often that they won't know to look in "No
Depression" for it or "Country Music." For a micro-genre, one needs to demonstratate that this isn't a neologism, that it is in use, and that it covers a substantially broad group of artworks that are not
575:
Yeah, I didn't want to sign it, figuring that I was sick of shoving peanuts between the bars of his cage and thereby giving him yet another excuse to fling offal, but when he accused Giano of not showing wikilove, of all things, I simply couldn't resist quoting two of my favorite lines from
472:
Pesumably Pound used long hall flights? I'll see what, if anything, I can dig up. Thanks for catching the typos and for prodding me to get a little NPOV about late
Victorian versifiers; with the sole exception of Yeats, poetry in English had all but died. I'll leave it on PR for now.
647:
On an unrelated note, both the articles I wrote today disappeared with NO explanation other than "NONSENSE," which is rather insulting (and a lie--it's not like I was writing gibberish). You better hope your condescending attitude doesn't drive away other potential
Wikipedians.
476:
Nice to see Bish marching on to glory on RfA. What will she do with these strange new powers? I wish I had been as rude as you were to the objector, but I'm trying to be nice to people after last week's accusation of rudeness from someone whose idea I praised!
639:
with no explanation but "Wow, what trivia! Non-encyclopedic, as it is no more than a statement of a negative." As far as I can tell, that's not a reason for deletion according to the "speedy" delete criteria, so I've rewritten the article and put it back up.
398:
Why did you speedily delete Mary Ramsey? In your comment, you said that it lacked a subject to the sentence, but you could have easily added it. Just by looking at the pages it linked to, I made the article into a stub. I think a stub is better than nothing.
527:
Thanks so much for your response and help. It's nice to know I'm not the only one with such views here. I just noticed that you're an admin. Mike has broken the 3RR, it was listed hours ago, is there any chance you could look at that?
502:, which it's just been reverted back to. I'm having trouble convincing the original editor to reason with me. Note the talk page. Anyway, sorry if I've troubled you. I would really appreciate your view, even if it's to disagre with me. --
179:
notices has been a small bit of wikification (link fixing). This is not my article, I am not the original author, I am not "devoted" to this topic and in fact never heard of it before I intervened to stop this obnoxious vandal.
201:
Anyway, this anon has now got us arguing with each other, and must be chuckling over it. But I think there has been some misunderstanding, and since we have both clarified our positions, I hope things have been cleared up
280:
If you haven't been round here (perhaps on account of exploded dialup connection? :-() since I wrote the above, I guess you checked your e-mail instead. Could we have a note on how it went, please?
348:
We haven't communicated in a while and I hope this message find you well. Lately I've not fared well with my FAC nominees, some failing to win even one support vote. I wonder if you would look at
124:
a candidate for speedy deletion, full stop. It's not an obvious hoax; in fact, it almost certainly is not a hoax at all. Do your Google search again: it certainly does turn up usage.
143:
think the anon simply tricked you. We need to be careful about POV warriors with agendas... actually stealthily getting an article deleted is the ultimate way to win an edit war. --
60:. I need the opinions of deletionists especially, because at present it looks like people hold my proposal to be another nefarious inclusionist plot to make matters worse. It's not
42:
120:
You can take your comment above and cut and paste it into the VfD page, if and when. All of your arguments above are applicable to VfD voting, not at all for speedying. It is
67:
Second, you're a careful thinker who expresses his thoughts clearly. I'm sure
Knowledge has lots of them, but I'm not personally acquainted with many. I could use your input.
598:
Hi Geogre: Please could you explain how you knew the basis of the two oppose votes that you received if the voters refused to explain. Enquiring minds need to know ... --
307:
88:
644:
on this website. Maybe if you're so confident it's "trivia" you wouldn't mind putting it to a vote next time? You know, as outlined in those pesky RULES.
353:
57:
53:
238:
for deletion policy, but that says that for SD criteria you need to look at what's listed on SD... I noticed something similar with
87:
Anon with agendas? Curps, you fucking asshole. You know full well the genre "Power violence" doesn't actually exist. Stop. Moron.
551:
Nice! I wished I had paid more attention to poetry when young it would be such an asset now in my advanced and declining years
184:
The anon IP user has not been banned, surely you have noticed him posting on this very talk page today, a few paragraphs above?
79:
Hi, please use extra caution when speedy deleting pages, and remember to check page history. Beware of anons with agendas. --
511:
246:
says that peer review is only for articles close to featured article status!). I will certainly VfD Mr. Harvey instead then.
303:
563:
Oh, hey, that was you, Geogre? Nice indeed, thank you! It wasn't signed, but I should have figured. Of course.--
230:
Sorry, I was absolutely sure I'd seen blatant self-promotion speedied in the past. I tried double-checking on
108:
meets all that, cool. Otherwise, it really should be on Votes for
Deletion, and, when Google doesn't turn up
299:
52:
The reason I'm asking you (and only you, incidentally) is twofold. First, you are as proud a member of the
46:
268:
they'll explode your dialup, avoid downloading 'em and I'll send you more manageable versions tomorrow. --
529:
162:
140:
357:
306:. What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at
254:
Hang that, I can't find it any more! I think a rather more aggressive administrator got hold of it?
43:
Knowledge talk:Votes for deletion#Straw poll: are our current deletion tools working well enough?
384:
373:
242:- there it recommends that in cases of accuracy dispute, you should call for peer review, but
636:
621:
602:
255:
247:
136:
8:
499:
495:
64:
as one, but if it's seen as one, I'd like to know what the problem is and how to fix it.
578:
568:
548:"All seems infected that the infected spy As all seems yellow to the jaundiced eye."
482:
416:
286:
273:
335:
49:, I'd be grateful. (The former is actually more important than the latter, though.)
533:
519:
515:
503:
411:
How about getting offline already so a person has a chance to phone? Or onto IRC?--
618:
599:
556:
380:
315:
583:
400:
224:
105:
96:
564:
478:
461:
453:
446:
412:
372:? I just don't see the reference value of lists of people named "Robert"? ---
282:
269:
349:
331:
243:
239:
235:
231:
130:
as he's perfectly aware, since he first started vandalizing it months ago).
611:
587:
424:
392:
327:
217:
171:
113:
17:
139:
to see what this anon has been up to, including anger management issues
552:
208:
144:
80:
330:, although still a stub, more will be added later. No need to delete.
457:
442:
68:
32:
352:(even if it is a bit out of your usual ambit) and its nomination
369:
135:
I don't wish to criticize you, but you should have checked the
441:
Is this in reference to how I responded to Everyking's vote?
41:
If you'd be so kind as to leave your signature somewhere on
488:
437:"(But remembering someone else's grudge only sustains it.)"
308:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland)
234:
but I think that that page needs a re-write (it says see
74:
586:
had a way with words that few have had before or since.
379:
My mistake. I misread the change list. Real culprit is
45:
and, if you really feel like wasting time, going over
101:without associating it with its overarching genre.
518:has put up a notice about my edits. Thank you, --
423:And there I was looking for you on IRC. :-(
456:, in order to keep the discussion in one piece.
165:for why that's important.) Further, I think it
390:
298:In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over
293:
314:take shape. Take part if you are so willing.
368:Can we talk about that list you copied onto
635:Hi. I saw you "speedy" deleted my article
104:overlapping with other generic terms. If
489:When Nothing Is Better Than Something...
14:
431:
363:
112:it can well be on Speedy Deletion.
23:
304:Talk:Sunset High School (Portland)
24:
657:
498:compared to it's original state:
223:
593:
467:
302:. The debate was archived under
262:
543:
341:
321:
33:Request for comments (no, not
13:
1:
300:Sunset High School (Portland)
156:user. As for my comment, it
617:Sated, indeed. Thank you. --
75:speedy deleting "hoax" pages
47:Knowledge:Countdown deletion
7:
406:
338:) 05:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
294:issues over school articles
163:wikipedia:cite your sources
151:And, of course, you should
10:
662:
360:15:54, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
356:and offer your comments.
485:15:16, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
419:21:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
403:02:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
387:23:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
376:21:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
318:02:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
614:18:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
605:14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
590:02:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
559:22:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
506:16:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
464:07:46, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
449:23:37, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
427:21:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
276:23:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
250:02:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
220:03:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
174:02:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
116:22:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
83:17:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
71:00:49, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
624:19:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
571:22:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
536:21:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
522:17:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
289:05:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
258:02:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
211:03:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
147:00:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
91:21:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
630:
26:April 6 - May 8, 2005
637:Kennedy Fried Chicken
452:I've answered you on
326:new stuff's added in
358:PedanticallySpeaking
500:Mark Garcia version
579:Essay on Criticism
432:Comment on the RfA
512:AMA 2.1 Skin Yard
364:All those Roberts
110:any usage at all,
653:
532:Thanks again, --
391:Speedy deleting
661:
660:
656:
655:
654:
652:
651:
650:
633:
596:
546:
540:
514:as well, where
491:
470:
434:
409:
396:
366:
347:
344:
324:
296:
265:
256:VivaEmilyDavies
248:VivaEmilyDavies
228:
137:article history
77:
56:as I am of the
39:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
659:
632:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
595:
592:
573:
572:
545:
542:
538:
537:
524:
523:
490:
487:
469:
466:
439:
438:
433:
430:
429:
428:
408:
405:
395:
389:
365:
362:
346:Salve, Geogre!
343:
340:
323:
320:
295:
292:
291:
290:
264:
261:
260:
259:
227:
225:Stephen Harvey
222:
213:
212:
204:
203:
198:
197:
192:
191:
186:
185:
181:
180:
149:
148:
132:
131:
126:
125:
106:Power violence
97:Power violence
93:
92:
89:141.154.234.84
76:
73:
38:
31:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
658:
649:
645:
641:
638:
623:
620:
616:
615:
613:
608:
607:
606:
604:
601:
594:RfA reasoning
591:
589:
585:
581:
580:
570:
566:
562:
561:
560:
558:
554:
549:
541:
535:
531:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
505:
501:
497:
486:
484:
480:
474:
468:Armory plated
465:
463:
459:
455:
450:
448:
444:
436:
435:
426:
422:
421:
420:
418:
414:
404:
402:
394:
388:
386:
382:
377:
375:
371:
361:
359:
355:
351:
339:
337:
333:
329:
319:
317:
311:
309:
305:
301:
288:
284:
279:
278:
277:
275:
271:
263:Oops, bigguns
257:
253:
252:
251:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
226:
221:
219:
210:
206:
205:
200:
199:
194:
193:
188:
187:
183:
182:
177:
176:
175:
173:
168:
164:
159:
154:
146:
141:
138:
134:
133:
128:
127:
123:
119:
118:
117:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
90:
86:
85:
84:
82:
72:
70:
65:
63:
59:
55:
50:
48:
44:
36:
30:
27:
19:
646:
642:
634:
597:
577:
574:
550:
547:
539:
510:please note
492:
475:
471:
454:my talk page
451:
440:
410:
397:
378:
367:
350:Katie Holmes
345:
325:
312:
297:
266:
229:
214:
166:
157:
152:
150:
121:
109:
100:
94:
78:
66:
61:
51:
40:
37:kind of RFC)
34:
28:
25:
544:Quelle wit!
534:Silversmith
530:Here it is.
520:Silversmith
516:Mike Garcia
504:Silversmith
393:Mary Ramsey
342:Maybe Katie
328:Chen Deming
322:Chen Deming
95:It's about
18:User:Geogre
496:my version
483:Blarneyman
381:Marksie531
316:Kingturtle
202:somewhat.
584:That guy
565:Bishonen
479:Filiocht
413:Bishonen
407:On line?
283:Bishonen
270:Bishonen
62:intended
385:Isaac R
374:Isaac R
332:Colipon
622:(Talk)
612:Geogre
603:(Talk)
588:Geogre
425:Geogre
370:Robert
218:Geogre
172:Geogre
167:should
114:Geogre
619:Theo
600:Theo
553:Giano
383:. ---
244:WP:PR
240:WP:AD
236:WP:DP
232:WP:SD
209:Curps
153:never
145:Curps
81:Curps
16:<
569:talk
557:talk
462:Talk
447:Talk
417:talk
401:LDan
354:here
287:Talk
274:Talk
35:that
631:KFC
582:.
458:JRM
443:JRM
207:--
158:was
122:not
69:JRM
58:AIW
54:ADW
567:|
555:|
481:|
460:·
445:·
415:|
334:+(
310:.
281:--
336:T
285:|
272:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.