User talk:Dpbsmith/Archive05: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:06, 14 May 2005

Original name of Spam

You asked for it, so I went and found it out for you. Evidently the original name for SPAM was "Hormel Spiced Ham". -- — I. Neschek | talk 02:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please move you straw poll "Proposal and straw poll regarding place names with diacritical marks" from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions to the more appropriate: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions (use_English) where there is lots of discussion on this subject. Philip Baird Shearer 17:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

issues over school articles

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

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 take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge and delete

Invalid is probably to strong a term, but but "vote strongly discouraged as it is considered by some to be invalid and causes a great deal of work for admins in any case" is too long to type out on a regular basis. - SimonP 02:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings project is not

This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
It will be used only by users who want to use it.
Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Waking the Tiger

Thank you for restoring contents.--Jondel 00:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP: DICK

You might want to vote at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#April 13. Zocky 20:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More Sam Clinton

Thanks so very much for the kind words. At the risk of sounding insensitive, the guy comes off as autistic. I feel like I'm dealing with a special-ed student across a two thousand-mile rift both literally and figuratively. Sigh...I just don't know what to do. I was hoping to bring him around but I think the guy's on his last legs before this either goes to arbitration or an admin bans him outright for a bit. - Lucky 6.9 02:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All my messages

First, I was hard hit by messages about bad contributions. Now, I am being hit hard about messages about good contributions. Obviously, my bad contrast of bogusness/appropriateness from the past caused all this. It's kinda bizarre that I still have recurring messages after a big changeover of opinion from the other audience. --SuperDude 15:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My BEEFSTEW edit

Its not the result of a dispute, but it is the result of frustration about an article (Perins Community School) that is really not notable but full of facts that on the surface appear to be significant but when you know a bit about them are common to hundreds of UK schools. There is also a detailed history of the schools enrolment figures, which to my mind are no less trivial than the current enrollment figure, but not mentioned in the BEEFSTEW. Thryduulf 10:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Names of large numbers

Thanks for that explanation, it makes perfect sense now. If you feel it necessary, I could look up the words in the Chambers Dictionary I have at home this evening and add them to the list. Thryduulf 13:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vfd Blunders

Thank you for being a voice of reason and moderation. You seem very concerned with holding everything in Wikipedia up to the highest standard. I admire that, though I personally feel things should generally have a little more flexibility. The topic of blunders is clearly a magnet for controversy so your concerns make sense. I agree with you: the high standards will keep junk off the page and stop silly arguments about what should be listed. I want to be an optimist and believe "people will see this page and just want to improve it", but more and more my experiences on Wikipedia indicate that there is an inevitable childish minority who think "edit this page" is a license to try to distort it any way they see fit.

Though I consider myself an inclusionist I probably would have voted against List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder--though I would have to read through the vfd arguments to be sure. The list just seems excessively trivial and mean spirited. It is the perfect precedent, though: an excellent example of an extreme POV topic being handled in an objective, encyclopedic way. - Pioneer-12 20:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Online misunderstandings

Wow, thanks for the advice. Yes, there is an illusion similar to being among friends. Or maybe just the illusion of being among intelligent, open minded people.... There actually are a surprising number of intelligent, open minded people on Wikipedia, but the jerks and morons tend to stand out. I like the idea of saying "That's a joke". Yeah, you do have to spell everything out. Maybe pretend you are talking to alien children. I can see myself typing "This is a joke, you morons!" and then, like you, I contemplate if it's worth saying at all....

Often, it isn't. But, sometimes the joke is too good to pass up. :-) A little humor can be invaluable in relieving stress and in turning an atmosphere of tension into an atmosphere of fun. I don't mind being misunderstood by clueless people. Some people will misunderstand anything. As long as the intelligent people know what I'm talking about, that's fine with me. The rest.... well, deal with them if necessary, but better to just ignore them--let them bumble around in their clueless irritation--and deal with the intelligent people whenever possible.

Wikipedia talk history sucks. Every careless keystroke preserved in eternity. Wiki's just weren't designed for forum use, so why are we trying to use them like one? It's a round peg in a square hole.

Now, I have not yet checked out to the reaction to my satirical tour-de-force on the Vfd page, but I'll bet some people are whining about it. Too bad. That was too good NOT to say.

- Pioneer-12 21:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

p.s. That was truly a fine little essay you posted on my talk page--too important to be stranded on an obscure user-talk page. I think it deserves to be on a general tips page, like Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia.

A little help?

Hi, a user has raised an NPOV objection at chemtrail and I would very much appreciate your comment before I do anything to "fix" it. (For some reason, I tend to end up irritating people when I get involved in this sort of dispute.) -- FP ?? 14:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Gadget Maker

This is belated (I've just recently returned to Wikipedia in full), but I must thank you for expanding The Gadget Maker. Wonderful book with now a fitting page. ✈ James C. 06:01, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Doctor Wangs company

Hi Dpbsmith. I'm currently working on an translation of the article Wang Laboratories into the german Wikipedia. I came across a phrase I can't figure out what it exactly means: Wang calculators cost in the mid-four-figures. Could you give an explanation; I am reachable in germans Wikipedia under User-Name Jetter --> Jetter comments. Thanks a lot! --81.221.209.157 15:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Yeah, in German you would probably say "Der Preis bewegte sich im mittleren vierstelligen Bereich", which literally means "The price moved around in the mid four-digit area". So actually I could have guessed that (four-figure --> four-digit) ... --81.221.107.138 06:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klonimus and Jesus VfD

What can I say? I admit I got a little chuckle (perhaps a slightly inappropriate one) out of Klonimus' vote. While it probably wasn't a wise thing to do, he probably realized that the article was as close to a speedy keep as we can get and let off a bit of steam. (Or maybe he does believe that the West Nowhere Middle School is more deserving of a Wikipedia article than Jesus...who are we to judge?)

I'd be inclined to let it slide--if he's trolling, then we've just been successfully baited. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--

Reason (for wanting Kennedy Fried Chicken gone)? To make a long story short, I contributed this page and "Ray's Pizza" yesterday, only to have my contributions belittled and deleted by User:Geogre (sic), who then proceeded to insult me and insinuate that I'm a liar (why? I don't know, he probably has problems of his own). Evidently the people running Wikipedia have also granted him the ability to ban people from the site. So I just don't feel good about Wikipedia, and I'd rather not help them if they're going to pretend to welcome editors on the one hand, only to tell them to essentially "fuck off" once they try.

I didn't go into my reasons on the Voting for Deletion page because I'm trying not to be petty. Sorry if it's not working.

66.65.88.245 16:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dpbsmith. You know me -- desperate hot head and belittler of the innocent. Anyway, please follow our IP friend's contributions. Also be sure to check out the original state of both articles. Mean old me speedy deleted an article with no content but a statement of a negative. Terrible. There ought to be a law. Anyway, also be sure to check out the highly articulate messages he has been sending on user talk pages. (It is amusing, in a depressing way, to see current VfD voters lecturing me as if I'm a troll who knows not the ways of VfD.) Geogre 00:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy sigh

It's not worth pursuing, but see the IP's talk page, if you care to know. 1. Single sentence article on a coincidence in NYC. 2. I speedied (criterion #1). 3. Screaming insults from IP. 4. I see that the IP's only posts are now to a VfD on one of the articles (so now it's a conspiracy, since after he recreated it out of process, someone else nominated it for VfD). 5. I mention on there that the IP's reactions are bannable, but let's vote on the article, not the subject. 6. Lectures, Netoholic-like, proceed, with me, an obvious newbie to VfD, being told how sad it is that some innocent newbie is getting bitten, etc. 7. Meanwhile, IP is shouting all over the vote, removing headers, etc. 8. He decides to take his valuable sentence away, and I'm now considered a horrible abusive admin.

Yeah, that's me. I'm such a cabalist.

For whatever it's worth, the articles no longer contain the author's sentence. Therefore, they can't be SD for author blanking. (In fact, the same was true of the Kennedy's Fried Chicken, which he got SD'd improperly.) So it goes, though.

The way I look at it, new users who write inappropriate articles either learn from the experience or start threatening and calling names. The former should be encouraged. The latter should be shown the door. It seems, though, that VfD is back to the way it was in the old days, with a group of shocked --just shocked!-- people who think it their duty to go to every debate and shout "shame shame shame" at anyone who wants a thing deleted. Sic transit gloria mundi. Geogre 03:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just passing by and I saw this... (yeah, I'm nosy)

If you made the poster mad by deleting something that they posted, then you are doing something wrong. Slapping people in the face when they do something inappropriate because they don't know any better isn't going to make Wikipedia many friends.

New posters need to be treated with explanations, not condemnation.

- Pioneer-12 01:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 112: / Line 112: @@
 The way I look at it, new users who write inappropriate articles either learn from the experience or start threatening and calling names.  The former should be encouraged.  The latter should be shown the door.  It seems, though, that VfD is back to the way it was in the old days, with a group of shocked --just shocked!-- people who think it their duty to go to every debate and shout "shame shame shame" at anyone who wants a thing deleted.  ''Sic transit gloria mundi.''  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 03:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
+:I was just passing by and I saw this... (yeah, I'm nosy)
+:If you made the poster mad by deleting something that they posted, then you are doing something wrong. Slapping people in the face when they do something inappropriate because they don't know any better isn't going to make Wikipedia many friends.
+:New posters need to be treated with explanations, not condemnation.
+:- [[User:Pioneer-12|Pioneer-12]] 01:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)