User talk:Rogerd/Archive002

• Archive 1 -- 9 Mar 2005 thru 31 Jul 2005
• Archive 2 -- 1 Aug 2005 thru 22 Dec 2005
• Archive 3 -- 23 Dec 2005 thru 15 Mar 2006
• Archive 4 -- 16 Mar 2006 thru 1 Jun 2006
• Archive 5 -- 2 Jun 2006 thru 6 Oct 2006
• Archive 6 -- 6 Oct 2006 thru 25 Jan 2007
• Archive 7 -- 30 Jan 2007 thru 17 May 2007
• Archive 8 -- 27 May 2007 thru 15 Dec 2007
• Archive 9 -- 23 Dec 2007 thru 31 Dec 2008
• Archive 10 -- 1 Jan 2009 thru 2 Jan 2010
• Archive 11 -- 8 Jan 2010 thru 22 Feb 2014
• Archive 12 -- 11 Mar 2014 thru 16 April 2017
• Archive 13 -- 19 May 2017 thru 25 May 2019
• Archive 14 -- 31 May 2019 thru 3 July 2023‎
• Special Archive - RfA related discussions

Lost Liberty Hotel Article, Will Help Resolve Dispute?

Rogerd, I saw that you previously took an interest in the Lost Liberty Hotel article -- enough so to vote on whether or not to keep it. Might I ask you to stop by it again and help resolve a dispute about the new "commentary" section of the article? Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. --OtisTDog 16:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Muhammad as a warrior

Thank you for fixing my revert, I didn't notice 62.253.64.14 had make two edits in succession, so I only reverted to the last one he made. :) -- GregAsche 00:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Tibbets

Rich - I noticed you wikified 1945 in the Paul Tibbets article when it was already wikified in the same paragraph. Most editors will only wikify the first occurance of linkable text in an article. I personally feel that in long articles, it is good to wikify text when it occurs in far separated sections, since the reader may not have read the section where the first link occurs. Just my 2 cents. --Rogerd 17:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This is to allow date preferences to work. If you set them you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way.

In particular if your preference is set for ISO dates (1995-10-22) , it requires the year as well as the month to be wikified. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Rich Farmbrough 18:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Why did you refer to me as a "vandal"?

Just because someone classifies a certain set of edits as vandalism doesn't make it so. Kurt Weber 18:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Because of this [1]--Rogerd 18:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of what the instance in question is. It wasn't vandalism, your assertion (and the assertions of others) to the contrary notwithstanding. Again, calling something "vandalism" doesn't make it so. Kurt Weber 18:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess there has to be some kind of statute of limitations for this, especially if no other bad behavior has occurred, but it is still too soon--Rogerd 18:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That would imply that the act in question was in vandalism, which in fact it wasn't. Kurt Weber 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Garcelle Beauvais

She did move to the U.S. before she entered show business when she was still a minor, and as far as I know, she's done all her acting in the States save for one U.S./Czech movie co-production. I definitely consider her a Haitian-American actress with the emphasis on the American. Caerwine 23:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

James DeBello

Sorry, didn't mean to imply it was you. You'll note that I added back your edit when I reverted. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracer gun

Could you please drop by the AFD, read the article, and reconsider your vote. Someone's done a rewrite. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems u didn’t get the point,

of the article, but its ok, well thanks for the feedback anyways! (Unsigned by ZlatkoMinev 20:54, October 11, 2005)

Edit summaries

You are 100% correct... well, 99% correct since I figure I need to do it on my own page, but may I still should :) Well, maybe users will use any excuse but it is true that I do have things to improve on and I'm willing to admit that so if you want to put it on the page that's fine, but I do appreciate your consideration. Thanks for your support. gren グレン 04:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I do have a question. Do you find there is a need to on talk pages when there already is a section about the topic you are discussing? I typically don't add one in that case, but, maybe I should? gren グレン 04:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

unsigned vote

I just wanted to let you know that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hootie McCormick you made a vote, but it seems you forgot to sign. I have already tagged your submission as an unsigned comment, and just thought you should know. -- Malo 02:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ratfucking VfD

You said, following your keep vote, "you guys who were born after Watergate don't understand :)". To which I'd say "heh", but I was born after Nixon got the boot (in fact, I was born just under a fortnight after the PM of my own country was Dismissed the following year) and started that article. Anyway, thanks for the support on this one. --BenM 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your supporting comments

. V. Molotov (talk)
20:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of link in AT-3

[response from User talk:Mzajac#Removal of link in AT-3 —MZ]

I don't see why you need to remove clarifying links in that page. See CCC. I think that can help to put the link in some context. --Rogerd 18:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not articles, or exploration pages, but only exist to choose between alternate meanings of the term a user jumped to; they're "did you mean A, B, or C?" pages. Additional links are confusing, and not recommended (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation).

To help understand why disambiguation pages should work this way, imagine you are looking for a particular obscure meaning of the word bug. Look at the current state of Bug (disambiguation): it's a fairly simple list of links; pick the right line and click the blue link in it. But look at yesterday's version; it's a brief essay, which you have to read before you can even start reading about the topic you are seeking. All the extra text, bold words, and links just make it hard to find the encyclopedia article you're looking for.

In this case, if AT-3 (jet trainer) was a red link and Republic of China Air Force had a section about that aircraft, I would leave the link in (and probably change it so it linked to the article section with relevant info). But the Air Force article doesn't help you learn anything about the trainer, so I won't link it. If you really want to start exploring, you can type or paste the link text into the search field. If there was an article about the jet, it would explain who employed it, who built it, when it was used, etc. But this information clutters the disambiguation page, and should be omitted unless it's absolutely necessary to figure out what topic of the link is.

Sorry to lecture at you, but I've been pretty deliberate about cleaning up disambiguation pages lately, and I think keeping them focussed improves the experience. The example you gave, CCC, is pretty good, but I'm going to clean up a couple of links there, too. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-10-26 23:31 Z

AFD voting

Can you kindly explain why you keep voting "Delete NN", even when this doesn't make any sense (eg. untranslated pages)? Alphax ^τεχ 02:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Without knowing which articles you are referring, I would say that I thought the article in question was not notable, or would be not notable if it were translated. I would say that is my most common, but certainly not my only vote comment. Please let me know which vote(s) you are talking about, and I will explain. --Rogerd 03:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[2], [3] and [4] - blanket voting is stupid and unproductive. Alphax ^τεχ 05:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I should have said something original, but had agreed with the previous comments and I felt that those articles were "not notable" with respect to an english language encyclopedia. I don't know what you mean by "blanket voting", but thank you for calling me "stupid". --Rogerd 00:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't call you stupid, just the voting pattern you're following. I call it stupid because:

1. It doesn't add anything to the discussion
2. In the examples I gave, it doesn't make sense
3. There are no notability criteria.

By "blanket voting", I mean "voting the same way without reason". It comes very close to making a point. Alphax ^τεχ 06:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I had my reason, but you apparently just didn't like it. First you call me "stupid and unproductive", and now you say that I "disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Please, explain to me, and since I am so "stupid", don't use big words, how am I disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Gee, we are only talking about a couple of votes on some non-controversial AfDs. What are you going to do now, have me blocked for vandalism? --Rogerd 01:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, read it again - I said "blanket voting is stupid and unproductive". I didn't say "you are being stupid and unproductive". You're not the only one who does this. Yes, lots of crap goes through AFD. Some of it really shouldn't deserve much more than "delete, non-notable". We have a criteria for dealing with these as fast and as painlessly as possible. We also have two criteria for foreign language and transwikied stuff. We might as well use them. Alphax ^τεχ 02:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I supported your your RfA. Look at support vote #21. Was I being "stupid and unproductive" then? You're welcome --Rogerd 01:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

So you obviously understand my concerns... well, thanks anyway, but unless people's attitudes towards the whole un/deletion process change, we're still going to have a crappy encyclopedia, lots of people's time wasted, and stupid petty arguments like this one. If I still had a wikistress meter it would have just gone up a notch. Sorry for being such a moron. You're right, voting for me was stupid and unproductive. I should have left permanantly instead of for only 4 days. Alphax ^τεχ 02:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we can close this discussion now and both of us calm down. Good day! --Rogerd 03:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Gladly and likewise. Alphax ^τεχ 05:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

ROC aircraft

Please see my response on my talk page. Thanks. --Nlu 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Research in ireland

Hi, I've re-written this article and done a Move to Expertise Ireland as per Isotope23. I'm now notifying Delete voters accordingly. Would you mind having another look and seeing if you think it's keepable at this stage? FWIW, I was involved in setting up the data feed from one of the Irish Universities to this site. Dlyons493 Talk 16:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to your comments on Ken Olsen's MIT degrees

You disputed my edits on Ken Olsen regarding his MIT degree. Allow me to rebut.

First off, your link that you gave me, which is here [this] is itself wrong. That article states that he has an M.A. degree in electrical engineering from MIT. MIT has never given out M.A. degrees in anything, and especially not in engineering.

Secondly, I will tell you my source - it is the MIT Infinite Connection website, which is the MIT alumni website that lists every alumni's degrees. If you are a member of the MIT community, you can go there and check it for yourself. Infinite Connection states the following. Infinite conection is available at this website. https://alum.mit.edu/login.vhtml

• 1950, SB - Bachelor Of Science, Course 6 - Elec Eng & Comp Sci • 1952, SM - Master Of Science, Course 6 - Elec Eng & Comp Sci

That's MIT's own alumni database. If MIT itself says that Olsen has a degree in EECS, then he has a degree in EECS. You might say that MIT is wrong, but hey, I don't know what to tell you. MIT has the right to say whatever it wants regarding what degrees it hands out. (preceding unsigned comment by Sakhalinrf (talk • contribs) 19:53, November 13, 2005 (UTC))

Requested moves

Just a friendly reminder that voting for moves should probably occur on the respective talk page, not on Wikipedia:Requested moves itself.—jiy (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

Hi, Rogerd. You may not realize, but voting on the entries listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves should take place on the article's talk pages, not on WP:RM itself (see the directions at the top)—that's why you don't see anyone else's votes there. I removed your comments; you may wish to add them to the appropriate talk pages. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. That way you can be sure your votes and discussion will be counted! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You scared me!

That was me not logged in. Don't block me! Энциклопедия* (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks.

Take care. Энциклопедия* (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most liked classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Blanking?

As an admin I take the acusation of blanking very seriously. Also I would like you to provide me with the text in the referenced link that shows that the information provided in the preceding sentence is, in fact, the case. It does not show that Bush's execution record is higher than anywhere else in the world. -- Francs2000 23:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok sorry about that, the database got in the way, obviously. -- Francs2000 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I saw you just reverted vandalism on George W. Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and weigh in (there's a bit of a large discussion page, so be prepared.) Hope to see you there. -Mysekurity ^{(have you seen this?)} 01:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

C-17 Globemaster III

Errant edit. My fault, sorry. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben Stein article

I appreciate your changes. However, I don't see why HTML is discouraged, it performs the same functions and more than wikitext. Эйрон Кинни 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I also know how to do this, just to clear that up. I've been on Wikipedia since May (I think), and I do know my way around. I work on HTML quite a bit, and it is somewhat of a habit to use it on Wikipedia, since I am accustomed to predominantly using it. But nevertheless, thanks. Эйрон Кинни 08:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks, anyway. Эйрон Кинни 22:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bob Irsay article

Looks good, thanks! Very quick work! Qutezuce 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Daryn Kagan

Yeah a lot of them do, but what can you do? When it's anons, it's impossible to stop and it looks like these guys use a dynamic IP besides. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks !

Thanks for the welcome and the tip on signing name and date! (now if I could just find the thingy on my keyboard... Aha!) JJM 05:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)