User:Joyous!/Talk archive 2
Thanks
[edit]Thanks, Joyous, and thanks also for your great compliment after your RfA. (I was in the middle of my first and only Wiki-battle at that time and was sour about life in general at the time and was not communicative.) I suppose it's no surprise that once, long ago, I was a movie reviewer, so there is something about the snarky conceit that attracts me. VfD is a good way to banish the demon of clever cutting remark to a place where it can do some good, rather than evil (well, most of the time). It's also a side-effect of working on and reading 18th c. satirists too often. ("Satire or sense can Sporus feel?" -- Pope "Who breaks a butterfly upon a rack? -- Pope "For ever reading, never to be read." -- Pope "Satire is the art of flinging a well-timed turd" -- Swift, etc.) Those guys worked very hard to "flay the vice and not the man." Geogre 14:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Help!
[edit]I seem to be having a bit of a problem with an abusive user, namely User:Fvw. This individual has taken it upon himself to be the ombudsman of what is and is not a speedy delete candidate. He's reverted my edits and left some snide remarks on my user page and the edit summaries. I've listed him on RfC as well. - Lucky 6.9 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Eddie the Shipboard Computer
[edit]I noticed your comment on Talk:You'll Never Walk Alone, and it does appear that Eddie sings it, from a cursory control+F at [1]. - Vague | Rant 10:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to interrupt you are you able to unprotect the Soviet Union article. It's been protected a day and not much has happened on the talk page (of any use) so I think it probably should be unprotected. Libertas
There weren't any fireworks I don't think on the article itself. Just one user asserting his view. There hasn't been a revert war of any note on the article at all. Could you please review? Libertas
re: The Box
[edit]Thanks for the feedback. I can't get my cache to clear so I haven't even been able to see it to tell if it worked properly through the transclusion. I'm glad it's working. Rossami (talk)
I see that you've closed a couple of VfD entries in which Iasson voted. It looks like he is still posting "meta-votes" on the VfD process rather than votes on the article at hand. How did you count these votes? Did you ignore everything after the Keep/Delete, or did you count it as a singleton? I think it might help him understand the VfD process if you could answer these questions on his talk page.
re: User Willy on Wheels
[edit]Good evening, Joy. When you closed the discussion on Meow Wars, was it a close decision? If so, you should probably know that User:Willy on Wheels (who voted keep) has been credibly accused of being a serial vandal. If it won't affect the decision, no problem. But I wish I'd known it earlier so I could have flagged the vote. Rossami (talk) 06:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations!
[edit]Thanks, always nice to hear. --fvw* 00:30, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
re:VfD/Old
[edit]Good afternoon, Joy. When all the discussions on a day-page are closed, edit the Old page. The Old page really just has some header information, the transwiki log and the series of day-links which transclude in. Cut the transclusion link for the day (which in this case should be something like {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2004 December 29}}). Then go to the Archived delete debates page and paste the link at the bottom. Remember to switch the brackets from {{ }} to [[ ]].
If you want, you can also edit the short-cut list of days on the main VfD page. There is a link (in very small font) in the header.
When you have a minute, could you tweak the instructions on Wikipedia:Deletion process? So far, you're the first person (other than me) who's tried to carry them out. If they weren't clear enough, we should fix them. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Follow-ups:
- SimonP has closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Johor Bahru City Square saying "no concensus". I would have interpreted the thread as "concensus to keep with a very strong recommendation to merge and redirect" (8 delete, 4 keep as is, 9 keep as merge, no identified invalid votes) but I won't contest his reading of the thread. It amounts to the same thing since any future editor can be bold and convert the article to a redirect.
- SimonP also closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lorraine De Blanche. I applaud your intent to stay neutral by not deciding on threads where you contributed. In this case, I think you could have closed it. 3 to 1 is a clear "keep". Even without your vote, it was still 2 to 1. (The original nomination says "merge". Even though the nomination is normally interpreted as a vote to delete, I strongly believe that any vote that recommends merging must be interpreted as keep.)
- SimonP also closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Moonniyoor nursing home but (I think) forgot to close the discussion. I've now done so.
- You are right that Penkyamp is a stumper. I'll try. That should close the 30th. Rossami (talk)
Thank you for your comments. Your changes work for me. Be bold. Thanks. Rossami (talk)
Templates
[edit]Templates across Wikipedia have started behaving differently. The main VfD page was malformed much of the day because of a table that ceased closing, and a number of other templates are displaying incorrectly. My guess is a developer tweaked something and the table rules are now different. - SimonP 03:22, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree. With Template:vfd top, the problem is the spurious addition of a </div> at the end of the template. When you use the Template:vfd bottom, it's converting the command </div> into a text string instead. I've already asked a question at the Village Pump. No response yet. Rossami (talk) 16:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Mention anything you can lift from the article in the one I mentioned. If you can't get more than a note of the class being given there, that's fine. Mgm|(talk) 23:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Pleased to have been of help! Unless you've dealt before with headings that have to get transcluded into another page before a problem shows up, that kind of problem is really confusing, and also takes a lot of reloading to make you sure you've gotten it right. I started out, back when MediaWiki: was the only transclusion mechanism, trying to figure out how something got busted, and at that point the only fix i could think of was disabling the headings! I trust your insight made a big jump when you looked at the diff from my edit; if not, drop me a note & we'll discuss. --Jerzy(t) 06:02, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
It bubbled to the surface, in my first 5 minutes of verticality, that the non-obvious part of the edit in question might have been the light, manual, URL stripping (Hmm, not a great reference) i did, from the
provided by the "[edit]" link to the
one that i used.
--Jerzy(t) 12:52, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
Kamen-vio
[edit]I find that I have to list such things as copyvio myself, because many people ignore "it's copyvio" comments and vote "keep" anyway. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re: Misleading links
[edit]While I understand that, to my understanding the characters of Kasparov, Xbox, etc are caricatures of their real-life counterparts. Andre (talk) 20:32, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Iasson
[edit]Thanks. I guess.
By the way, I appreciate your work in acting on completed VfD discussions. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! All pages including my full name have been deleted. The actual harrassment has also stopped, so for the future I think everything will be o.k. I was impressed by everybody's speedy help! Dbach 10:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
re: Duchy of Natatoria
[edit]Good evening, Joy. I was spinning through VfD/Old to see what I can do tonight and the discussion thread about the Duchy of Natatoria caught my eye. You summarized it as a delete on the 22nd but the link is blue today. Is it a system hiccup that the page didn't get deleted or has someone reposted the content? If it's a repost, that would be a policy violation eligible for speedy deletion. I'm going to delete it per your conclusion. Let me know if we should do any other follow-up. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yup, all done with it! Let it be gone. :) Uris 01:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Infantilism picture
[edit]Fortunately I see it's already been removed, by User:DBachmann, though with no edit comment or discussion on the Talk page. Hopefully it won't be re-inserted because it's a difficult issue and not one that I particularly want to deal with.
But this fool will now march in.
I would argue that this particular picture is clearly inappropriate because it has no GFDL tag, and is unacceptably unprofessional.
OK, that much is easy... but suppose these objectons were answered? Suppose it were replaced about a similar photograph that had a GFDL tag and was of at least semi-professional quality?
I'd ask three questions here. First, does the illustration aid, in an important way, in understanding the subject matter?
Second question. Should articles on forms of sexual attraction include images that people who experience that form of sexual attraction would perceive as pornographic? I define "pornographic" as a) more than minimally arousing, and b) intended to produce arousal. Third question: is this such a picture?
My own answers would be: no, this illustration does not help understand the article. Therefore it's inappropriate.
My answer to the second question would be no, based on, I suppose, either my prudery or my common sense.
I don't feel comfortable addressing the third question. So, I'll try to break the tension by raising a fourth:
Would the opposite of infantilism be adultery? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the merge is complete. I actually finished it even before I nominated the page for deletion. Thanks for making sure, though. Josh 21:15, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Sud-pol
[edit]I see you've noticed sud-pol is back at it again too. I've used up three reverts at Ponytail, I don't think we can call this vandalism yet (though it's getting very close), so could you revert? Thanks. --fvw* 03:45, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
- Ok, either you obsessively read your talk page or you got it already. Thanks again :) --fvw* 03:45, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
I defer to your judgement on number-related articles. Please look at Three halves. Is it something that needs to stay around? Joyous 02:20, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Probably not. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers. I'll give it a couple weeks; maybe someone can come up with something interesting to put there. dbenbenn | talk 05:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Reference desk
[edit]Your response to my reference desk question made me laugh. Take care, Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 03:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Speed Bumps
[edit]In California we call them "speed bumps", but not "speed humps" Cbdorsett 14:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All Ball
[edit]How long will it take to resolve the question of whether to delete All Ball? Cbdorsett 14:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
VfD Old and bot work
[edit]It seems that all VfD pages are moved to the Old page by the seventh day. If this is indeed true, I would like to assist in automating the copying of text of the Template:Vfd top and Template:Vfd bottom to each subpage on each day when it is moved. What do you think? -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I want to be on the safe side, so I would like to make it the eighth day. Please let me know what day is more appropriate by citing your comments at Wikipedia talk:Bots. Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- On further consideration due to your comments and Rossami's, the bot could auto-tally. But the big question leaves at whether it should be designed to decide the final results, which I believe is extremely dangerous if I do not program it correctly. There will be a big question as to how to count the votes as well.
- There are technical issues behind having the bot auto-tally. Not every person's votes are clearly marked in the beginning. We would have to spell out that everyone's vote must be formatted a certain way if we wish to make the bot easy to figure out everything. Scanning for text within the one line would be difficult because not everyone bolds out their vote, etc. Also, there are questions about the weak and strong deletes, a question regarding anyone's vote who is delete but something else, a question regarding unsigned votes, anonymous votes, and sockpuppet votes.
- Although I do not think it is impossible, explicit guidelines must be programmed into the bot for it do so, and even then, a person should be checking it over. A simple solution could be to red tag (using an outline) to indicate which ones were bot counted and which ones were human checked. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh! I know. How about the bot still does the adding text portion, but instead, it merely uses an HTML comment to comment it out? -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Adminship
[edit]May I assume that if I nominated you for adminship, you'd accept? Joyous 05:01, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Speed Bump and Hump
[edit]A speed hump and a speed bump are two different things. While yes, they do serve the same purpose. A speed bump has a very pronounced bump while a speed hump has a more gradual bump. Speed Bumps are found mainly in parking lots, while speed humps are found more often in residential areas. bakuzjw (aka 578) 02:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A cellar is usually a functional space rather than a necessity of engineering as is described by basement. Functionally, a basement has more in common with garage, shed and laundry room. A cellar has more in common with pantry, dairy (as a historic milk storage/processing room) and is referred to as a "root cellar" in food storage. --ScottDavis 05:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Here in Australia, the two terms would never be synonyms. Private homes (particularly older ones predating supermarkets and refrigeration) might have a cellar, for food storage. Basements would normally only be found in commercial buildings as a utility area, or the "bargain basement" of a department store. In my mind, a cellar is small (perhaps below part of the kitchen and back verandah), while a basement would be the same size as the building above it. I've never heard the term "root cellar" (before today). --ScottDavis 12:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deletion Policy
[edit]i am wounder We recently post a article about our company (VirtualiPhone) with short description.
After 2 days I saw that people Vote for Delete our page and 2 days after it wad deleted by your staff.
All I am asking is what are the different between our company an Skype or Vonage thus they pay you to post them and protect them from deletion?
You boast of your open encyclopedia but it not quiet "open". Maybe it is our mistake that we didn’t read well your policy but how come other companies did the same without being rinsed. please your answer as soon as possible it can help us.
We hope that all was be mistake and you soon will correct it as well
Thank you VirtualiPhone Team
No problem
[edit]for reverting your user page :) what's with those diaper fetishes anyways :S Thanks for your message. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Columbine massacre victims
[edit]I'm inclined to re-direct all the articles on VfD (Feb 1) about the Columbine massacre victims to the main article, as Korath suggests, rather than delete them outright. What do you think? Joyous 02:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
WP:VFD/Old
[edit]Ugh. What a pain the arse... WP:VFD/Old that is. After being through it myself, I award you the Barnstar of diligence. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thanks for the barnstar! VFD/Old isn't really going to be your passion, is it? I love tedious, mindless stuff like that; at work, I love to collate papers. I think there's something wrong with me. I see from the indicator that you're feeling a bit of stress; I hope clearing out VfD entries didn't cause that. I really do appreciate the help, though. When the page gets so full, it feels as though we're constantly swimming upstream against a current of horrible articles. Joyous 12:13, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. Because I've been messing around the pywikipediabot framework, I think I have figured out a way to create a way to clean out VFD very easily. It would be manually run, bot assisted work, basically. I actually used it recently to help me out adding the {{subst:vfd top}} stuff. It still could stand some improvements, and I was thinking of making it better when I have a little bit of free time. However... cleaning out VFD/Old takes too much of my time. Would you be interested using the manually bot assistant to clean out VFD/Old? You'll have to have access to Linux or some UNIX variant.
- I will need to make a menu that makes the bot better... something like:
Current page is [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Article on VFD]]
# Add link on talk page
# Result is delete
# Delete article page
# Use {{merge}}
# Redirect page
# Transwiki
# Block error page
# Insert tally count
# Keep: remove VFD notice from article text
- Hmm... this is how the program will essentially work:
- Check if the text from Template:Vfd top and Template:Vfd bottom is present
- If not, check if subst: was not included. Correct if necessary.
- else, prompt to edit page
- If yes, print out menu
- Options would be: Add link on talk page if not present, insert the tally count (manual), mark result of debate as delete and delete the page, mark the result of the debate as merge (remove VFD text off article) and place merge notice on article(s), mark the result of the debate as transwiki (add to transwiki log), mark the page as undeletable due to block errors (add to block error log)
- If no, skip the page
- If yes, print out menu
- The add link on talk page will check if the link exists, including whether or not {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}}} is used.
- I'll expose my computer ignorance and reveal that I have no idea if I have the capability to run the bot or not. Joyous 23:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Postvfd template
[edit]I have created a postvfd template. This is to be used with the subst: so it can be left on discussion pages. The use is: {{subst:postvfd|date=January 2005|result=delete|sig=--~~~~}}. I would like to finalize the template before using it. Please correct the template as you see fit. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
WikiStress
[edit]Don't worry... there is another matter which is increasing my stress level. I don't mind doing VFD, but you know... you, Rossami, and Mgm tend to beat me to the big delete button. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deletion Policy
[edit]I'm not trying complain unnecessarily, but I am a bit new to wiki in terms of major changes and knowing about deleting pages and such. Earlier today you decided to delete the Ruddock_House page. There had been a vote and two votes for deletion about a week ago citing things like it being a substub that hasn't been expanded since creation and duplicating information already available. Two days ago a friend of mine updated the page and voted that "Article no longer contains only duplicate information; basic history has been added. It is no longer a substub." which in my opinion invalidates all of the previous arguments for deletion. Your comment that "The result of the debate was delete." does not so much as suggest that you might have read the comments to see what they said and if all of them were still valid or if a major change had been made to the page. Further, maybe this is supposed to go on a Talk page for the now non-existant article as suggested on the delete page, but it seems weird to me to have a Talk page for a recently deleted article.
- Wikipedia has a process to handle cases where you feel that an article has been wrongly deleted. You can bring up the issue at WP:VfU, which will trigger what is essentially a re-vote on the expanded article. I generally make the "delete/keep" decision based solely on the votes that appear on the deletion discussion. It often occurs that an article is re-written and improved while listed on VfD, but usually people who voted "delete" will go back and actually change their own votes. It may be that your comment about expanding the article was added a bit late, and the original voters didn't see it. If I can help with anything else, please let me know. Joyous 12:06, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you!
[edit]Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... Grutness|hello? 
05:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
VFD nomination process clarification
[edit]I would like your opinion about my suggested VFD nomination process clarification. Please see: Template_talk:VfDFooter#VFD_nomination_process_clarification. Thank you for your time. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi. You closed discussion on this page's vfd a couple days ago as "delete", and deleted its talk page, but don't seem to have ever deleted the article. —Korath (Talk) 07:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)