User talk:Kappa/3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Welcome to my talk page -
I will usually reply to messages on this page. If I have posted on your talk page,
I will be watching so you can reply there if you wish.

Previous discussions have been archived: 1 - 2

Need Your Help[edit]

I recently found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black aces in which you voted keep. Around a day after Black aces I created Black Aces unaware the other page was there but my has a little more content except the links. I need you change your vote to merge both articles together. And also try to create a new user talk page and archive this one Ty --Aranda56 00:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You don't need anyone to change their vote, just be bold when the Afd closes. Kappa 00:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This was in response to "Per WP:CIVIL I respectfully request that you refrain from describing other editors' good-faith contributions as "crap" [1]. Kappa 15:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)"Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Trolling, WP:POINT, Wikipedia:importance, Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Depth, Wikipedia:Cruft, etc, etc. Dunc| 15:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Well there's too much alliteration in my request but none of the policies you mention seem to overrule [{WP:CIVIL]], or bear much relation to it. Kappa 16:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you're implying. I did not create this article.Gateman1997 16:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • That's true, I got it confused with Oceanview Elementary School, Clovis, California and I'm happy to see you aren't recommending it for deletion. I haven't figured out your philosophy yet. Kappa 23:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • My philosohy is quite simple. Schools should be held to the same standard as other articles. If it's got either a good Beefstew score, a notable alum, or a notable event, along with a good article it should be kept, otherwise it should be trashed.Gateman1997 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kappa. I've begun rewriting Island Trees School District v. Pico as an article in conformity with our other notable U.S. Supreme Court cases. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 00:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,Kappa,it's Tan DX again.Some user wrote "Fei Yu Ching is rumoured to be homosexual."Is this considered vandalism?

  • Not necessarily, but they really should prove there is a rumour, by pointing to some evidence. If they can't do that, it should be taken out. Kappa 04:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Don't worry, I'm done with my AfD nominations for now. I'm going to sit back and watch now.... Dismas|(talk) 13:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I closed it as no consensus then in a seperate action I speedied it as an advert, In retrospect I probably should have marked it for another admin to deal with it or relisted it due to lack of discussion, however I figured that that there would be no objection stubby advert. On an entirely unreleated note I do not agree with voting keep only based on google hits but please note that Did Not affect my deleting of the article, My no consensus vote was based on the lack if discussion as well as your keep vote. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since Even though I was trying to follow the spirit of the rules and followed the rules in terms of CSD I have decided to undelete and mark as speedy since I technically broke the rules by arbitrarily sppedying the article. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

moved from User:[edit]

Deleting my edits for copyright[edit]

Kappa, I am new to wikipedia and don't know how best to contact you or why you deleted my updates to Landmark College other than it's copyright related. What exactly do I have to fix for it to comply with copyright guidelines? I manage the college's website.

Thanks, Moose123

Heavy crude[edit]

No one has objected to merging Heavy crude with Heavy crude oil. I tried to proceed, but you'll have to do it, or unblock it so I can. Thank you. Walter Siegmund 04:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Neither of them are protected, so you can merge by copy and pasting. Just put "Merging from Heavy crude" in the edit summary so the authorship is recorded. See wikipedia:merge. Kappa 10:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see they are already identical. I redirected Heavy crude to heavy crude oil but you don't need an admin to do that (I'm not one).

Just use #redirect [[heavy crude oil]]. Kappa 10:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • When I tried #redirect [[heavy crude oil]], it didn't work, but I'll be more persistent in the future. Thank you for fixing it.Walter Siegmund 15:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What happens?[edit]

Hello, um, if you vote yourself to be an admin, is it true that you can never vote again if you lose the votes? Tdxiang 12:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No, that's not true. But maybe its better to wait for someone to nominate you before trying again. Kappa 12:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fjellstrand skole[edit]

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fjellstrand skole you made your vote conditional on translation of the Fjellstrand skole article. Unfortunately, I can't translate, since I don't know the language, but I put in, what I think can be deduced from the web site. Could you take a look and decide if you think the article is worth keeping or not, at this stage. Also, I just added two Norweigan categories, which may help people notice it for the first time. --rob 15:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been nominated[edit]

What is this? After one year of editing and 16,000 edits, I believe you would make an exceptionally fine admin. I have taken the initiative to nominate you for adminship, now go do something about it.  :-) Hall Monitor 21:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfA decision[edit]

I respect your decision to decline Hall Monitor's nomination, but something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia if a contributor like yourself is passed over for adminship even once. -- BD2412 talk 21:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I appreciate the confidence you showed by supporting me. There's a lot of politics in Wikipedia and it's disappointing that apparently it spills over into personal judgements of character. Kappa 21:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have to agree with BD2412—please reconsider. I've been admiring your style since I arrived ;-). >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 22:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allow me to be the third person who respects your right to withdraw from the nomination, but greatly wishes you would reconsider. Please do not blame me if you make Wikipedia history for being the first contributor to receive administrative permissions against their own will.  ;-) Although we do not all see eye to eye, you have a strong group of friends rallying behind you. Hall Monitor 22:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Sorry about how that turned out - I'm stunned by the tone of some who opposed you. I'm going to find some way to depoliticize the RfA process. -- BD2412 talk
    • Please forgive me, as I am the one responsible for nominating you, and was both stunned and deeply disappointed by some of the comments made yesterday. Your continued efforts are greatly appreciated here and I hope others can eventually overcome their personal issues and see the value you bring to this project. Hall Monitor 23:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just to inform you that your RFA nom has been removed from that page on your request. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks. Kappa 06:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I wish I'd seen your RFA before it was removed; you would have had my full support and I'm disappointed not to have had the opportunity to offer it in a more public forum than your talk page. I am disgusted by the fact that RFA is dominated by people who think that differences of POV and opinion are a valid reason to oppose. How this can be more important than selecting the best candidates for increased responsibilities is a question I'll never find an answer for. Perhaps some day it will be official policy to ignore POV-pushing adminship votes. Until then, I hope this brief saga of ignorance, intolerance, and stupidity doesn't get you down. You're clearly among the best here. Unfocused 15:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with Unfocused totally. You're a great user who truly deserves the extra powers. --Celestianpower hablamé 16:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, it's nice to feel appreciated. Kappa 16:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do You Know[edit]

Kappa, Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey song) is being listed for deletion. I was wondering if you would consider voting for it. Thank you OmegaWikipedia 12:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

School categories and your RFA[edit]

Hi, it appears I am not so well aware of all the categories we have for schools, thanks for finding a few more at Bergen Katedralskole. I made a blatant violation point 4 in Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas when writing that one, but I had a certain hunch that it would survive a deletion debate, I was almost a bit disappointed when nobody nominated it.

I wish I had been logged in between the filing of your 2nd RFA and your decline, so I could have supported it. I don't think Sn0wflake thinks you are an "extreme inclusionist" by the way :-). Still, I think the best chance you have is writing some larger articles, because they tend to impress people more than many short ones. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm glad to see you made Bergen Katedralskole. It's really nice to see old schools and schools from non-Anglophone countries in WP. Regarding my "extreme inclusionism" I think there's a new record, I voted to delete Yellowikis but lost. I hope the "keep" voters were reliable wikipedians, LOL Kappa 16:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yogi tea[edit]

Hi, Any suggestions as to content for this? I think the recipe is appropriate for cookbook, but not here, and if I remove that there's not much left. It's not a product I've come across. Dlyons493 Talk 11:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • OK, go ahead and redirect it after the Afd, you don't need me to change my vote. Kappa 23:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cyrus Farivar[edit]

I'm now confused too, extremely so in fact. I don't recall why made that edit; clearly I sensed vandalism but where or why, I can no longer tell. I don't even remember how I came to be looking at an article so little connected to anything I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. Maybe it's time to call for the men in white coats. Anyway, I've autoreverted, hopefully successully, though who knows. I blame it on having just moved house for the eighth time in a year. Palmiro | Talk 00:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you get time[edit]

Perhaps you'd like to look at this. Snowspinner has been RfC'd for closing AfD debates and deleting the debates where the grounds given for deletion was notability, which is not a deletion criterion. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you read the RFC against Snowspinner you will see that I endorsed the RFC itself, as well as a number of critical outside views. In spite of all the respect I have for Tony, I have to disagree with him here. Tony's RFC was filed based on the judgment calls he made when he closed deletion debates, and so I opposed that one and endorsed his response to it. Snowspinner's actions, deleting ongoing AFD debates, was far more drastic and beyond the scope of what I would call "reasonable". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My deletion proposal[edit]

Thanks for your correction to this, you are quite right. I hope you don't mind me using you as an example (if you do, I'll be happy to remove the references). I am not meaning to scorn your views on afd at all - indeed (unlike some) they are quite consistent and logical. I simply wanted to bracket out the inclusionist/deletionist debate from the question of process reform. --Doc (?) 00:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks.

That's the boilerplate...but:

You mainly opposed on bringing speedies in scope, I think. That is still being discussed and there is certainly support that could use your input for taking them out of scope. I'm not too sure whether you support/oppose/don't care about the other bits of the proposal. My original intent was only dealing with VfU so I'd prefer to let speedies do there own thing in the name of ending wheel wars. -Splashtalk 02:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VFD: Bracketed songs[edit]

Just a quick message to let you know that a page that you have voted to keep in the past List of songs with brackets in their titles, is up for deletion againhere :( David 5000 18:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abingdon School[edit]

Thanks for the vote of thanks. Unfortunately my edit will need to be postponed for a short time. As regards the image it's partially a standin - I'll take my own better shot of the school when I get a camera.

As regards the discussion, my logic is that I can take an identical photograph (I believe the sign shown is the sign used in the coach park at the back of the school, not the main sign, but that's irrelevant) and nobody would be able to tell it apart from the existing photograph from another source, so the photograph falls under the public domain since anybody can take an identical photograph. ThomasWinwood 20:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I visited your personal page for the first time today, thinking that (if you weren't an admin), I'd like to nominate you for the position, and I have read with sadness about the recent controversy. Your diligence and consistency should admired by all, and if that isn't the case, wiki-politics are worse than I thought. :(

Anyway, this place absolutely needs you, so don't any idiots cause you to doubt your value around here. :) Xoloz 20:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have expanded the article providing sources. I would be grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 10:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List primary/middle/secondary schools in cities[edit]

I may out of ignorance have incorrectly removed an edit you made to "Sandefjord". Please take a look at my comment for removing your edit, and see if you have the same opinion. I may also have an additional minor "hidden agenda" for removing this specific school from a page I "care for": there has been written a few articles in the local newspaper recently which has not been "good news". Petter Nordby 20:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Maybe we can do it as a "see also" section, but people looking at Sandefjord should be able to find articles on schools in the city. Kappa 21:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schools in Sandefjord again[edit]

I like the new stuff much better. Also I took the liberty to make the "Skagerak" school almost disappear by adding lots of other schools in the city to the list (and when you made me do so, the list became close to complete) Petter Nordby 23:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have expanded the article so that it is no longer a stub. I would be grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 10:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eigenvalue etc...[edit]

I hope I addressed your comment on Eigenvalue etc... FAC page. Thank you for responding on the FAC page Vb 12:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you,my wiki-mentor,now I'd like to vote you in[edit]

Dear Kappa,thank you so much for your guidance in Wikipedia since May 2005.So,could you please accept my thanks by accepting the Rfa that I'm going to nominate you in?[[User:Tdxiang|Tan Ding Xiang | ]] 02:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Reply[reply]

  • Thank you very much but please don't nominate me, actually I just declined a nomination recently. A lot of wikipedians don't feel I am a suitable admin candidate, and I have no great need to become one. Kappa 03:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kappa,

I have rewritten the "I Want You" articleso that it refers to both the Marvin Gaye and Madonna versions. I suggest that we move it to I Want You (song) and have I Want You as a disambiguation page for the song and the album. I like keeping the song history together for songs rather than having articles for each versionms.

I would be grateful for your advice.

Capitalistroadster 10:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"If in doubt, don't delete" principle sneakily removed[edit]

Aaron Brenneman couldn't resist giving away the fact that he'd sneakily removed, from the deletion policy, without discussion, the small paragraph at the end of the opener which says "If in doubt, don't delete." This has been part of Wikipedia deletion policy for eighteen months, since it was added by a non-logged-in editor and then edited and compromised to its current wording by Theresa Knott. I have restored the paragraph. Please keep and eye on the deletion policy. There are some unscrupulous people around who find the current policy inconvenient and would do anything to traduce it. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not just blank the text, instead of putting a {{db}} tag on the page? Less work for people clearing out CSD. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • But more work for everyone visiting the page. Kappa 04:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admirable Defender[edit]

Hi Kappa,

A while back, I got the idea that you should be awarded a Clarence Darrow Barnstar for the work you do in AfD, which is highly appreciated. I have now decided that designing a new barnstar is over-my-stupid-head technically, so I award you this Barnstar of Diligence in its stead. Thank you for all the content you've saved, and for finding knowledge where others wouldn't. Xoloz 05:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An Award
I, Xoloz, award this Barnstar of Diligence to Kappa, for his exemplary community service in the defense of controversial articles.

Hi Kappa! I don't know if you saw mer at Deletion Review when you made the article, but can you please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Mer? At any rate, I think your article has a lot more merit for staying in Wikipedia than the article on the neologism word. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Kappa. Please be aware that I have recently nominated another exceptional contributor for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sfoskett. Hall Monitor 22:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schoolwatch Association of Photographers[edit]

Hello Kappa. First let me thank you for your many contributions to school related articles, I notice you have been developing a good number of articles on schools in various countries. I am in the process of establishing a Schoolwatch photographers organization, and was wondering if you would be interested in joining by capturing schools within your area. Do you have access to a digital camera of any sort? Bahn Mi 01:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are you sure you don't want to be a admin. Being a illusionest really won't make people to oppose you and u are a very top article writer. I normally don't agree with u in AFD but even I belive you should be a admin. Want me to nominate you for it and become one or no. --JAranda | watz sup 02:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little research[edit]

Just to enlighten myself as to the state of school articles in Wikipedia, I decided to conduct a little survey. I reviewed every single school article for the states of California and Texas (states picked at random), with the intent of surveying roughly a hundred articles. I learned that virtually all school articles in Wikipedia have been written in this year, and better than half of all articles have been written in the past six months. The stubby nature of the preponderance of the articles attests to this. Only 12 articles date to prior to January 1 of this year. Looking specifically at those 12, each have received an average of 21 editing sessions between the time they were created and the date of their last edit. But only two of those articles have undergone significant improvement. Five others have made modest gains, but almost half of them (five) have not progressed very far from their initial state.

From a content perspective, most articles are acceptable, though I still insist that notability needs to be a consideration, and from that perspective, most articles fail. I do not need to go through that set of arguments. I will point out that Clements High School, Memorial High School (Hedwig Village, Texas), and Lubbock High School are all articles which demonstrate what I believe a good school article should aspire to. On the other hand, I have placed Villanova Preparatory School, Naaman Forest High School, R. L. Turner High School, Hightower High School, Foster High School (Richmond, Texas), Lumberton High School, and Seven Lakes High School on my watchlist. All these articles have had sufficient time to improve beyond their present deplorable state. I have not placed school articles on AfD before, but not one of these articles meets even a minimum standard of quality, and if they are not improved soon, I will do so. While you may feel it is a waste of time to nominate school articles to AfD, I believe it is harmful to Wikipedia's reputation to allow articles like this to go unchallenged, and from what I see from the articles which have been on board for over a year, it is as likely as not that an article will not improve much beyond where it was within the first month. Moreover, it is often a visit to AfD which spurs someone to bring an article up to snuff.

Having said that, I will add that I am all in favor of achieving some sort of consensus. I hope you can appreciate that it must take the form of some kind of minimum standard which school articles must meet. I know I have lost the battle to keep school articles out of Wikipedia, but I will continue to fight for quality articles if they must be present. Denni 03:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A friendly rebuke[edit]

Hi Kappa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Watch broadcasters. You are quite right - not only was there no mandate to delete - GFDL demands that the article redirects to the merged target. Well spotted. But could you please take undeletions up with the deleting/closing admin before listing on VfU. It cuts down the paper work, and saves an admin who has made an honest mistake public embarrassment. Thanks. :) --Doc (?) 22:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'd think it would be more embarassing to have it on one's talk page, but OK. Kappa 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"part of the deletionist plan"?[edit]

And you don't think labelling people as "deletionists" and accusing them of having hidden agendas is a personal attack? Pfft. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "deletionist" isn't a personal attack, and I was only asking. Kappa 20:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danese Cooper[edit]

I added information about the only source you cited in the AfD on the above topic. You might wish to reconsider your vote, or might not. Barno 20:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

more AfD[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if you could check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musicianforums and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mxtabs? Punkmorten 21:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'll have to revisit this later, I can't get an Alexa rank (404). Kappa 21:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • OK. But as for the Musicianforums article, you don't need an Alexa rank as it passes WP:WEB as a forum with 10,329 active members :) Punkmorten 16:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My username[edit]

Hey! My user name is "Rune Welsh" not Esperanza! (Re this comment [2]) No harm done though. Cheers! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your thanks[edit]

... re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Borden's maid. You're welcome, and thanks for your cordiality. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Kappa, are you ever on the IRC channel - I'd like to chat. If not I'd like to send my email address, but not post it on WP (for what I think are obvious reasons)--Nicodemus75 09:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kappa, I noticed a few weeks ago you added several red links to this page and today you added red links to another county. When I created this page, I intentionally did not do that because until there are more active links we would have a full page of red links. We are still at the point that I think it would look bad. I can do a search and replace to add square brackets to all entries in a matter of minutes when the time comes, but until then I would personally prefer no red links rather than a scattershot approach of having a few counties with red links and others without. Do you object to my removing the red links you added? --- DS1953 talk 22:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep checking back and then do the red links in one fell swoop when there are a higher percentage of active links. -- DS1953 talk 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories, Lists, AfDs, oh my[edit]

Hi Kappa. I have seen you be active in a few AfDs before regarding getting rid of lists in favor of categories. There's an AfD at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of companies] I thought you should know about. While I frankly don't really understand what's going on there, I thought you would want to know about it. --Jacqui 23:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks, I'm glad you let me know. Kappa 01:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for informing me.[edit]

Thank you for informing me about the List of companies vote on delete. "Afd" CaribDigita 03:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great quote![edit]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: I am blatantly copying the Jimmy Wales quote from your user page ;) Nihiltres 01:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, I appreciate your comments and respect your inclusionist philosophy. But please do not bait me by misrepresenting my statements, I think that you understood perfectly well the distinction between casual audiences ("people") and over-infatuated videogame enthusiasts (otaku). Personally, I do not think that wikipedia should cater exclusively to the latter community, as this often comes at the expense of article quality and irrelevant clutter. This stance is more egalitarian than elitist. --anetode¹ ² ³ 05:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I understood (and undertand) you to be insulting users who want to share detailed descriptions of their games. I don't see how you can use the "exclusively", wikipedia has the capacity to cater to everyone and users are not in competition for space, rather the more users there are, the better wikipedia is able to organize and repair itself. This particular article is valuable to anyone who clicked on the link to it, and harmless to anyone else. Kappa 06:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You are misinterpreting my statements in bad faith. If you want to twist hyperbole into diatribe, go ahead, but I think that such dismissal says much about your opportunistic tendencies.
    • Wikipedia does have the capacity to cater to everyone; still the responsibility to create a high quality, factual resource should take precedence over absolute completeness. Minor videogame characters barely fit under the strict guidelines of WP:FICT and would be better catalogued at Wikibooks[3]. --anetode¹ ² ³ 06:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I may be misinterpreting expressions like "over-infatuated" and "obsessive videogame fanatics" but I genuinely feel they are insulting to me, to other contributors and to users who would wish for access to this kind of information.
      • Wikipedia has no responsibility to improve its average quality over its total usefulness, because the average quality is only of relevance to random article users, who should hardly be the priority. This article is a description, not a how-to, and so has value for people wanting to understand the game (encyclopedic) as well as those wanting to know how to play it. Kappa 07:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I'm sorry that you choose to take offense to these characterizations. It seems that we have completely opposing perceptions of wikipedia and its standards. --anetode¹ ² ³ 08:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that we know for sure this school has been closed for years, and no realiable info exists, I hope you'll consider changing to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Altar Christian School. A clear useful de-facto precident has been established of keeping verifiable real schools, while deleting the unverified (or non-existant). Surely, such as "dividing line" is ideal. We need a predictable line, for people making articles, so they know whether their contributions will be kept or not. Creating articles likely to be deleted or nominating articles likely to kept, are both things that should be discouraged. Only if people are realistic, on both sides, can conflicts over AFD be avoided. --rob 08:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for directing me to look at the list again. :) We may be fighting a losing battle, but I think perhaps a no consensus may still be in reach, at least. Jacqui 15:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It's a pity to lost this, especially since there are also a lot of books and films set there. Kappa 16:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually, the tide has turned since I was last there -- a couple or a few more keeps have been added, nothing else added. May still be in reach yet. Keep your chin up! :) Jacqui 22:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have built a script to speed up voting on AFDs and am looking for feedback. Please have a go! jnothman talk 11:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry that we do not see eye-to-eye on this article's deletion. I just wanted to let you know that this is nothing personal, and I respect your oppinion greatly. I'm not sure about a compromise on this AfD, but I hope we can work something out. Thank you, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, after reading that thing, I think it ought to be deleted... It is up for a second debate at Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chore Boy Article[edit]

A phrase's Google hit count is not criteria for notability alone. If you look at the results, most of them are links to stores that sell the product, or are entirely unrelated. This product was not the first of its kind, and I don't think there is anything special about it compared to other brands. In my opinion, this makes it unfit for a stub, much less an article. Unless someone can provide us with some sort of information that goes beyond a description of the item, like cultural significance or historical perspective, this article is useless; and I don't believe anyone can do that. Let me know what you think on my talk page. --mdd4696 16:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chore Boy article aside, I am getting the impression that you think using the number of Google hits alone is a valid way to justify an article's notability. It is not, and I hope that I am just mistaken. What I was saying was that just because a phrase turns up a certain number of hits on Google, it doesn't mean that all of those hits are relevant to your search. I looked through the Google results for "chore boy" and I did not see any pages other than those selling the item and pages that used the words "chore boy" in a context unrelated to the product mentioned in the article on Wikipedia. Therefore, the number of Google hits does not support your claim that it shows enough people know about the product to expect it on Wikipedia. --mdd4696 02:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now those are some valid Google hits... Thanks for pointing that out for me, I had no idea something like that was out there. --mdd4696 02:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Songs in triple meter[edit]

Thanks for the support on the afd page for Songs in triple meter. I created that page and added all but about 3 of the songs and you may know now that it has now been deleted even though the vote was something like 11 to 8 with half or more of the 11 knowing little or nothing about time signatures. I didn't know it was a raw numbers kind of affair. Live and learn I guess. I asked for the page to be undeleted and any suggestions you have or support you could show in this regard would be welcome. Thanks. Hraefen 02:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD Help required[edit]

Hi! You probably do not remember me, but a few months ago you voted "keep" on the Article for Deletion vote for Three Dozer Build. The archive of that vote is here. The article has been put up on AfD again, by a somewhat crazed poster (read the correspondence here, who again wishes the page to be deleted. Can I ask that you please vote "keep" again at the current nomination. A simple "keep for reasons on previous nomination" should suffice, and would ensure the survival of a page you felt deserved to survive last time. Thanks in advance. Batmanand 16:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why were you so opposed to merging this? The info would be retained but put into context with the game it came from. Does "think of the users" mean you believe they are too dumb to try another search term? - Mgm|(talk) 11:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "Think of the users" means "don't bloat main articles with excessive detail". Kappa 12:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

School articles[edit]

I hope you will take the time to visit Wikipedia talk:Schools and participate in the dialog there. Because I have seen you not only vote to delete articles, but even nominate articles for deletion, I feel you are weighing each article on its individual merits. This is an enormously important factor in ending the current dispute on school articles. I believe your input is important and would value your opinion. Denni 04:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! This is not systematic bias. I am an Indian. I've nominated US lists for deletion as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005). Could you please do a rethink on your vote. utcursch | talk 05:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I Doc award this for making me laugh 11/11/05. Keep, per WP:NPOV. Please don't assume wikipedia users have internet access. Kappa 06:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've no idea whether you collect these or not. But I'm awarding this to you for a woderful sense of humour. --Doc ask? 10:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm glad you like my sense of humor but that was not an example of it. I take this very seriously: "The Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with a vision to bring a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet. This includes people who currently do not have electricity, computers, internet, or even clean drinking water." [4] Kappa 13:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hm, they say people who currently do not have electricity, computers, internet, or even clean drinking water - I'd sort of assume they envisage that these people might need to get electricity, PC's amd water before they get Wikipedia - otherwise I think there are some practicality problems, neverminds some rather screwed-up priorities. I guess getting water might be a higher priority than knowing what's on Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005) ! --Doc ask? 14:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC) (wondering if the world has finally gone insane - or if it is just WP!)Reply[reply]
  • See WP:1.0. For people without electricity, they are thinking of a printed version. I wouldn't say the Newsweek lists are a priority for that, but something like 100 Best High Schools in Africa probably would be. Kappa 14:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Crazy, but well, heck, you can keep the barnstar anyway.


"Please don't assume wikipedia users have internet access" - How else would someone access wikipedia?? Am I missing something here? 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • See the conversation above. Kappa 19:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kappa,

This is just a petition for you to reconsider your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of results of the England national rugby league team.

While it would be a good thing if all the analysis that you discuss were done, frankly, I can't see that it ever will be.

Leaving this list in place is an open invitation for lots of other analysis free lists of every sporting result known to mankind.

Do we really need to record

  • England A def. Russia 98-4 (24 October 2004)

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My question is do we really need to take that information away from users? Readers would also be interested in knowing what the England and Russia rugby teams were doing in October 2004, and we should not refuse to tell them.
This list would be more valuable with more information, such as why the two teams were playing each other. If you don't want it to look like an open invitation, maybe you could find or develop a cleanup tag which says something like "The individual items on this lists are insufficiently explained, you can help wikipedia by fixing it". Kappa 01:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't England, it was England A. The seconds. I agree that tagging the page is the best available option now. Not sure what tag I'd recommend. I guess I could point out that many of the keep votes were on the hope that the page might be made somehow useful, but I'd be stunned if anyone ever really expected that to happen. Ah well. Worse things happen at sea. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pointless destruction of knowledge, vandalism...[edit]

Destruction of knowledge, when it is done on Wikipedia, IS vandalism. What's wrong with calling it such? Kurt Weber 00:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference is that vandalism is done with the intention of harming people, while deletionists have good intentions behind their actions, although the result is still harmful. Kappa 00:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I go up to your house and spray-paint my initials on your wall because I genuinely thought it would make it look prettier, I am still a vandal. Intent is irrelevant. Kurt Weber 00:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, the deletionists do NOT have benevolent intentions. As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, it is impossible to destroy or seek to destroy the good with benevolent intent. Such acts necessarily come from malicious intent. Kurt Weber 00:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure what Ayn Rand said, but IMO it's possible to do harm while still having good intentions if one doesn't fully understand the situation. Deletionists want to help the world by creating their vision of an encyclopedia. Unfortunately they are willing to destroy a comprehensive encylopedia to get their refined, selective one, but that's the only way they understand. Kappa 00:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You're featured on User:Karmafist/users to watch; recently described by another editor as a "hate page". Andy Mabbett 11:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]