User talk:A Nobody/Archive 20
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why Thank You!
And a very happy Labor Day to you as well. ;-) — Ched : ? 03:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I played tennis wity my dad in between on wiki sessions today; tomorrow is chili fest with relatives! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks from me as well. Tennis is always fun, I played with an old friend today (though I got crushed :) Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Olivia Ofrenda
- Here is the complete text of the article as it was when I deleted it.
Olivia Ofrenda is the dead beatnik who owns the Blue Casket Club in the 1998 LucasArts Adventure Game Grim Fandango. She wears a purple beret, a grey trench-coat like jacket, green stockings and small round shades; she like most in the game is a constant smoker.
Fictional biography
Olivia Ofrenda's origins like most in the game is unknown, what is known that she obviously didn't get a good sales package from the Department of Death and had to make her way through the Land of the Dead by other means of transportation. One way or the other, she came to Rubacava.
Somehow she took over a night-club on the shores of the port-town and called it The Blue Casket. She soon became the attraction of many men; including the cities' crime overlord Maximino; of which he proposed to her with marriage. Yet Olivia, while attractive could never love a man and went after Maximino only for his money.
However she soon began an affair with Maximino's lawyer Nick Virago, attempting to spice up the boring relationship she had withe Maximino. As for the man himself, he attempted to proposed to Olivia on the side of an airship known as the Olivia I which he built himself. The proposal ended in disaster when the airship mysteriously exploded and crashed into Maximino's Cat Track. This momentary disaster postponed the proposal for a while in Olivia's favour.
Maximino was not perturbed though; he built a new airship for Olivia, of which he called the Olivia II. Yet Olivia's affections had gone for a new more powerful gangster of whom was Hector Lemans. Hector's takeover of El Marrow had stretched to Rubacava, and Olivia had seduced the large all-powerful kingpin to her wares. She finished with Maximino; and it is believed his depression resulted in Rubacava being taken over by Lemans.
Lemans needed Olivia for another reason as well; the sprouting of Manuel Calavera of whom she had known after his time in Rubacava. She agreed to wait in Rubacava after Hector predicted that Calavera would return. Probably through the revolutionary beatniks in her club; Olivia also must have known Manny was part of the Lost Souls' Alliance, the only resistance to Hector.
When Calavera did come back through town, Olivia joined him and went with Manny to Nuevo Marrow. She ratted out the LSA's Headquarters and persuaded Salvador Limones to let her join him when they went to hunt down Hector.
The exact events are not revealed in the game; but it is presumed that Olivia beheaded Salvador with an axe seen earlier, dumped his body in Hector's Meadows and used Salvador to find Manny again. Her deception revealed she took Calavera to Hector's Meadows and told him to meet with the big boss himself. While she rifled through a case of tickets, Calavera was talking to the Head of Salvador; she proceeded to pull Manny away from the car, picked up Salvador and taunted him.
Unbeknownst to her, Salvador had an exploding tooth of which when exploded made a cloud of sproutella gas. Salvador bit on the tooth and sacrificed himself to save Manny; Olivia was caught in the gas and as her face sprouted she ran into Hector's Meadow and joined as another victim of sprouting.
Reception
She is even ranked among Game Stop's ten best female video game characters of all time.[1]
References
- ^ GameSpot Staff, "The Ten Best Female Characters," Game Spot.
Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 02:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly, I reply from work as we don't have Labour Day here. Hopefully yours is better. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto, winter (well, early spring really) here too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks ANobody-- I always appreciate your holiday greetings to all of us, inclusionists and deletionists alike. I never know what the dreaded orange "You have new messages" line will bring, but it's always good to hear from a friend. Mandsford (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, A Nobody! Acalamari 15:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whew I'm thankful for the day off as busy as I am. Thanks for the greetings! Artichoker[talk] 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Me too. Just killing time on the computer until the family arrives for chili and hopefully some Guitar Hero 5 (I like to sing...). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the nice wishes, and ditto to you! We did the family get-together yesterday. I'll be flying back home later today. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Have a good one yourself!Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks!
A Nobody, MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thought your idea was so good, I decided to Make one myself. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Labor Day greetings
Thanks for the greetings - however in Britland where I live 7th September is celebrated merely as "the seventh of September". Hope you had a good Labor Day, without too much labor. Wishing you a happy Guy Fawkes Night in advance ☺ Tonywalton Talk 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
AfDs and sourcing
It's becoming apparently in your rush to rescue articles you're grabbing "any source that works" and slapping them in articles as reliable without actually checking in any way: it should be fairly obvious that neither That Guy with the Glasses nor RealPoor as you used them should count as reliable sources, much in the same way I've seen you cite google news and google books sources without actually checking to see if they're discussing the subject at hand or briefly mentioning it (or even discussing the actual subject at all). Please look over your sources more carefully when trying to rescue articles, it'll do them some good for later editors if they survive an AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
RE: [1] think about what you are doing sir, you are encouraging editors who oppose your viewpoint to return to the AFD. Ikip (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
freshacconci talktalk 03:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I have replied there. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Further comment is on my talk page. Short version: playing with an iPod and its potential as an editing tool = bad editing. Again, sorry! freshacconci talktalk 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for the good wishes on Labor Day. Always a pleasant surprise to receive your messages. Regards SunCreator (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
A Happy Labor Day and 9/11 to you
I am sorry that I didn't get your greeting, esteemed fellow "inclusive" Wikipedian! As 9/11 has become somewhat of a holiday like Memorial Day, I thought I would extend to you greetings in a timely manner for that day. That day is also my birthday as well, I will be 54 at 10:39 a.m. Central Time. My how time flies!. Most cordially!--Drboisclair (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Mentioned on User:Cunard
I mentioned your ingenious template User:A Nobody/awards on User_talk:Cunard#Articles_you_have_written_template. 14:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Nan Vernon
|
On September 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nan Vernon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Wikiproject: Did you know? 06:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
| |||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists:
New featured pictures: New A-Class articles: | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 Looking behind the figures, some other interesting facts emerge. First, 84% of our promoted articles had successfully passed a Milhist A-Class Review before going on to FAC. Second, of the 29 Milhist articles that failed, less than half (41%) had had an A-Class Review. Third, the 97 Milhist articles accounted for 16% of all FACs submitted between January and July of this year. The clear lesson is that if you want a string of featured articles to your credit, you may find Milhist's A-class Review process to be of benefit to you! Roger Davies talk
| |||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |||
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Merging articles during AfDs
Hi A Nobody. You've probably noticed me close a few AfDs you have been involved in, if not being actively involved in a discussion or two. I am a bit concerned by a habit you seem to be starting, of merging content mid-AfD and then claiming the article cannot be deleted per GFDL concerns. I first noticed this on the Isola AfD, but have since noticed you have done it in at least one other AfD. I am aware you are probably the most vocal inclusionist on Wikipedia - I have no problem with your philosophy on deletion - but I am concerned about some of the seemingly underhanded methods you commit during AfDs.
To me, merging an article and then claiming the GFDL protects the article from deletion is somewhat suspect and almost is a swipe at the AfD process. Many, many articles have been kept thanks to mid-AfD improvement, but merging is definitely different from improvement. It clouds the debate, distracts participants from the points of contention and doesn't seem very honest. If you are willing to submit to a merge as a compromise, might I suggest that you wait until the end of the seven days? At least that way there won't be a messy DRV. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hello! AfDs should NOT stand in the way of article improvement. We are here to build articles, not get caught up in process. I only merge for discussions that 1) no reasonable admin would close as delete; 2) the article under discussion is not a hoax, libelous, or copy vio, i.e. it needs to be deleted for legal reason; 3) those calling for delete are not acting in good faith or are making dishonest or ignorant "reasons" for deletion (if necessary, I can provide quotations from participants in some of these discussions, where they outright said they would never argue to keep in an AfD or are too lazy to check for sources...yes, seriously). In both instances you cite above, please notice that my merges actually improved several articles no one would try to delete and to a large extent I am the only one actually looking for and discussing specific sources. It makes no logical sense that I or anyone who is knowledgeable about a subject and actually willing to look for and add sources, or while I am at it, use them to improve other articles as well, would have to satisfy accounts who outright have declared elsewhere that they are unwilling to ever argue to keep regardless of improvements (by contrast, I can show over a dozen times where I argued or even nominated to delete), are unwilling to bother to check if sources actually exist per WP:BEFORE and sometimes even when they do will pretend they do not, are unwilling to try a merge first per WP:PRESERVE, and who frequently make comments that reflect either dishonesty or ignorance (calling a video game character a cartoon character, calling a blockbuster film that grossed over $100 million dollars in the U.S. alone "non-notable", etc.). I would never merge something that actually should be deleted, but again in the cases above, there was no pressing need to delete, other articles on arguably more important subjects improved as a result of the merge, and ultimately the only accounts calling for delete were largely those that have actually been sanctioned for indiscriminate deleting and redirecting. I am far more concerned about a half dozen odd accounts that show up in all of these fiction AfDs with total disregard of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE and who I have seen make enough inaccurate comments to know that they do not know about the subjects at hand are not even interested if they actually can be improved. To a large extent, myself and other actual content builders are not trying to persuade open-minded or even honest accounts and as such, no need to make things easier for their limited viewpoint. How can I or anyone be expected to humor or legitimize accounts that make immature/unacademic comments in these discussions a la this (scroll down) or this? You'll note that these particular accounts commented in some of the above and similar discussions, i.e. I have seen these needlessly hostile comments from them in too many AfDs than we would care to see and as such, why would I possibly want to hold off improving articles that can be improved to humor them? To make matter worse, some editors do approach AfDs as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, literally saying they are fighting a war to delete Sloane/GameAfD's#AfD Game AfDs, flying the deletionist flag, using AfD for a laugh, saying they have a mission to delete and will never argue to keep, seeing deletionist versus inclusionism as good versus evil, approaching AfDs as jokes and possibly insulting inclusionists in the process, mocking in AfDs, mocking those who argue to keep, and needing intervention, etc., etc. Again, those who raise protests against merging that actually improves content in these discussions are not accounts who are actually coming to the discussions with open minds or who are actually willing to lift a finger to help improve it if it can be. Some of the above examples are so over the top, that at times it is hard to believe they are even here as serious editors (there is MUCH more where the above came from). Sadly, afDs are flooded by such comments as the above and those of us building articles wind up having to go back and forth with incivil and ignorant remarks that, again, are not the kinds of things any of us should expect ourselves to have to inhibit our time and ability to improve actualy content for. I absolutely would never merge a hoax or libel and nor would I do so if there is a legitimate strong consensus against, but in the first instance, c. ten editors argued to keep compared with maybe eight for delete with a couple for merges, and yes indeed, some of those deletes are accounts who made the above quoted comments, just as we have 8 for keeping in the latter and three for merging, i.e. clearly an instance for a "no consensus" or maybe "merge and redirect", but not for redlinking and indeed, a couple of the deletes there too are from the accounts cited above. The end result here is that my actions improved an article that would not be deleted, but arguably more importantly added reliably sourced information to a few other articles as well. If only we could get some of the above to do the same, maybe we would be more of a compendium of articles than a compendium of discussions. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can empathise with the philosophical motives behind merging, and I would not disagree with the fact many, many worthy articles if there weren't people working to improve the article - I am more trying to approach you on a practical level. Again, I see improvement different from merging, as while improvement affects one article, merging pretty much closes the AfD early. That shouldn't be the main motivating reason for restriction, but it effectively ignores the opinion of other editors who for better or worse don't agree with merging at any level. While we should indeed aim to preserve information, I'm sure you'd agree that it does nothing to ease the battleground atmosphere of those contentious AfDs. It doesn't help that you do make comments such as "can't actually be deleted per the GFDL", which not only serve to ignore the others opinion but to attack - even if it isn't your intention.
- I know many articles pass AfD through improvement, but I personally believe that merging is not equivalent to 'passing'. Many administrators would close the AfD as merge as opposed to delete in the sake of preserving information - and any reasonable administrator would not oppose restoring a deleted article to gather information for a merge. The downside I'm trying to convey to you is that for all practical reasons, I cannot see that the benefits of not waiting three or four days and heightening the battleground atmosphere as opposed to simply waiting and possibly having more editors assist after a merge closure. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Heads-up
Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.
As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.
However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)