User talk:Bulldog123/Archive1

Warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Hetar 04:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Race and intelligence. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Scientizzle 20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

your edits to Genetics

I have restored the journals you deleted from the list in Genetics, because you gave no explanation for their removal. (I checked the first on the list, and it does seem to exist.) In addition, the edit was made after significant vandalism to the page, so I simply reverted to a previous version. When editing pages -- especially when deleting content -- please give an explanation for the edit in the comments section. Probably once it's explained to me it'll be okay, but I'll revert it if I don't understand the deletion. Thanks...

Regarding the rewording of the sentence, breaking into two, I've chewed over that phrase a lot. I originally wrote it intending to say something like "while genetics was implicitly used, now we actually study it scientifically"... then, it was argued to me by someone else that the "while" made it confusing, so I did the "genetics was implicitly used, and now we study it scientifically" structure. Splitting it into two sentences destroys any remnant of "contrast" I meant it to have, maybe I should just delete the part about implicitly used (a remnant from the original version of the intro before I rewrote it).

I'm working on a draft (User:Madprime/Genetics) to add content to the page, if you're interested in helping out. Madeleine 13:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On the wording -- I left your change, it's fine. I was just reflecting on it, in case you had a better idea.  :) Madeleine 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just when you thought they couldn't play any dirtier...

I thought you might be interested in this [1]. All I have to say is - how low can they go? When you have a moment, please weigh in on the AFD discussion page, so that your vote isn't arbitrarily discounted. Thanks! Cleo123 02:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Card video games

I was about to close this CFD, but I found the debate there a bit confusing. It is obvious that the two cats should be merged; it is not obvious what the final name should be. Could you please look over the suggested names and indicate a preference? Thanks. >Radiant< 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Math

Yes, it would seem that DRV is more vulnerable to vote stacking than most of our processes. Something may need to be done about that. >Radiant< 13:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations

"come from a sect of wikipedia editors…", " to note that they are not representativie of wikipedians in general but rather representative of a small sect of wikipedians."

• Your own opinion, and one designed to poison the well. -- Avi 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my comment regarding AGF with you

I checked your contribs, seems like you're not after LGBT cats/lists, but several others. Sorry if I offended you with that comment, but it at first glance appeared you were going after LGBT items. My mistake. --Whstchy 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit, I partially did (I myself am not straight), also that it was worth keeping from my view. On the other hand, not to sound rude, but if you nominate something like that, you'll get feedback like that. --Whstchy 15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

American actors ...

I'll help ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

LGBT cats

Gimme some time to look at these. But, um, Joel Schumacher doesn't make gay movies? Have you not seen his Batman films, come on. Otto4711 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey...in looking at the LGBT professions categories I can't at this point get behind the deletion of any of them. I think they're all worthwhile. If your arguments against them are the same as for the other CFDs then I have to go against you one them, but if there are other arguments I will certainly do my best to consider them with an open mind. Otto4711 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

SSP

After a few weeks of wondering if Arbcom was going to ever do anything, they really came through: [2] Surprisingly, the whole matter seems to be wrapped up now. --W.marsh 05:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion outside of the AFD

Bulldog123,

My comment on the AFD for the List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients concerning your "you do understand" comment was to note that I find that comment that you addressed to me to lack the civility we expect between editors. If you take issue with Tony's comment to you, address it to him, not to me. To tell me to "cut the crap" seems to be an attempt to escalate this into a personal grude. I've read your comments and responded with complete civility. I hope that you will do the same.

I would have appreciated it if you would have notified the article's creator and major contributors of your nomination; it is likely that the contributors to other articles that you nominate for deletion would likewise appreciate the notice.

— ERcheck (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't create an unnecessary dispute between us over a worthless AFD. Keep these messages on the AfD or simply get over it. Bulldog123 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cfd

Thanks for having the cojones to nominate the ethnic actor cats; it may not pass this time around, but in time it will. It has taken me a long while to come to the conclusion now strongly held that all ethnic, religious, race categories are wrong here at WP. Perhaps an exception can be drawn in the political arena, but not in acting. See also the African American debate in Afd. Having been a vocal participant in Afd's and Cfd's for a while, I was gratified that you nominated these and that you did nominate all of them. Invariably, when I see these types of cats nominated, the first group whose category gets nominated is the Jews, then the Kurds, and then it's as if the motivation has run out (which although I can assume good faith, it's probably true that it has run out), no one else bothers to follow through. It's part of our systemic bias and I'm glad that you exhibited great courage in your nom. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The list

If youre referring to Modern Iranian scientists, scholars, and engineers, I suggest we edit out all business people except the exceptional such as the likes of Pierre Omidyar and Omid Kordestani. That alone will clear up the list by a great deal.

We can then further trim the list by getting rid of mere professors. As I repeatedly stated on the talk page, they have to be chairs, directors, senior researchers, or hold distinguished positions inorder to be listed.

I am currently busy with lots of other housekeeping tasks in both English and Persian Wikipedia. Im kind of tied down at the moment. So I cant help at th this time.

But I will revisit that article in the near future (a few weeks). It does need a clean up, certainly.--Zereshk 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Contested prod

Hi.

Please see Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Conflicts. Your argument appears to be just re-iterating the PROD comments. But I'm not convinced that the PROD is uncontroversial, as I've seen similar topics survive AfD discussions in the past. There are also similar lists for other faiths (e.g. List of Islamic historians, List of Muslim philosophers, List of Hindu mathematicians, Hindu entertainers, &c.) My preference would be to reach a consensus via an AfD. Or, even better, by reaching a consensus policy. Sorry to be difficult. — RJH (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists are not the same as categories. I suggest proposing a policy at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). — RJH (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of arrested Bengals

You do realize the article we are discussing is about the Cincinnati Bengals and their players, not about the people of West Bengal, Bangladesh. Also, the "Bengal" in Cincinnati Bengals refers to the Bengal Tiger not people.--Cincydude55 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreasonable

I'm not going to keep arguing about this with you. Good day. — RJH (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you politely to cease and desist. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll try again. Please stop leaving messages on my talk page regarding this matter. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD listings

You might want to list this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your thoughts. I haven't nominated these lists for deletion because whenever I nominate or vote on any such discussions, I am almost inevitably followed around by several editors who vote in opposition to whatever I have proposed; because of Wikipedia's built-in bias towards keeping articles, it's not a particularly fruitful way for me to spend my time. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just so you get some idea of where I'm coming from, I would entirely support deletion of the above linked article, which has no historic relevance or significance.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 01:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

In the context this remark[3] reads as a personal attack on me. If you consider that I am a violator of wikipedia policy, I suggest you take it up in the appropriate venue. If not, then you might like to explain exactly what you do mean and its relevance in the AfD. Tyrenius 02:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• For the record of this talk page and that afd, it wasn't meant to be a personal attack on either you or Jay323..whatever. I fixed the comment. Bulldog123 02:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm glad about that, and no offence taken. Tyrenius 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists

The problem with these essays is that people start quoting them as if they are policy. Many people cower after seeing TLAs quoted against their opinions. This project is about collaborating, and not about coming up with rules about every last detail. After 3 years here, I've seen many pages start off as garbage and later turn into something quite worth while. This only happens in an atmosphere in which peoples contributions are welcomed and accepted as much as possible. There are many principles which I think are very important, but I see too many examples of people trying to turn those principles (verifiability, NOR, etc...) into something far too restrictive. The differencea between Over-listifying and Over-categorization is that the later was the result of a team effort, numerous previous discussions expressed a need for the page, the examples are based on clear consensus, and most importantly, the principles being applied to categories had been long established. The process of working out the OCAT guidelines helped solidify and clearify categorization policy. There seems to be fewer contentious battles at CFD these days as a result. I'd be happy to engage with you about what is going on at AFD because I find that it is becoming very harmful to the project. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Well, I guess this is a rite of passage for new admins :-). Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally. I remember what it was like to be an avid newpage patroller and not always happy with the way AFDs closed. (In my day:-\ though, admins never explained no-consensus closes because they were usually self-explanatory. Or it may be that I never challenged them (Only once did I ever do it, when this one was NC'ed before I could vote despite heavy meatpuppeting for keep. But as you can see I decided to let it go, and the article at issue since got merged into another one).

Another user asked for a more detailed explanation, so I gave it to him here. To reiterate and expand, I just didn't see consensus developing on this one either way, after five days, like it did on the other song-list AfDs that have been up recently. I closed List of Halloween songs as a delete; the consensus there was clear. Similarly, List of songs about masturbation was kept after heavy discussion that generated consensus on what to do. But this list didn't attract that level of interest.

I'll probably go into some more detail over at DR. But I hope you feel this has been at least somewhat explained, even if you're still saying to yourself you would have closed it differently :-). Daniel Case 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since that was a delete, and one about which I could tell the keeps felt very strongly about and were not exactly newbies, I felt I had to go into detail. Thanks for the compliment. Daniel Case 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD

As the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films about Martin Luther, I wonder if you could have a look at the article which has been rewritten, as well as the proposal to Merge a couple of articles. Much appreciated. Pastordavid 19:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

its a moot point, since the AfD has closed, but I am not in favor of merging for 2 reasons. (a) I do find the Martin Luther article to be long at 82 kb; and (b) there is also an issue of disambiguation, as the title Luther is used for many films as is the title Martin Luther, a couple of which already have articles, and a couple more which probably will with time. But, as I said, the issue is decided already. Oh well. Pastordavid 23:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, it would be nice if, in the future, you would notify the author of the article (in this case, User:CTSWyneken who is still an active editor), as well as possibly WikiProjects on which the AfD has a direct effect. I realize that that is not required, but it would be quite civil of you to do so -- in this case, I know that the creator of the article didn't comment on the AfD until I posted a notice for the relevent WikiProject. Thanks for considering it. Pastordavid 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion

I tried to deal with some objections that have been voiced at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion. Please re-consider your vote based on my edits diff diff. I have made many similar edits and more are to follow. With regards to your stated reason for deletion please take note that e.g. Karen Armstrong is a former Catholic but not a convert to any other well-defined belief system. Also, what should be the categories of Ayaan Hirsi Ali if we confine ourselves to categories of converts. Category:Muslims and category:converts to atheism? This strikes me as unwieldy and confusing. Andries 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

I'm sorry, I totally missed your note; thanks for pinging me. I would wholeheartedly support what you propose. You are a regular in Afd & Cfd land, so you know what I think of racial/ethnic classifications, so you are preaching to the choir here. Carlossuarez46 06:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And I missed the whole debate too, but I think that Radiant figured it out. Say, do you have any interested in being an admin? thick skin required...I'd like to nominate you, if you'd like to help build WP that way too. Carlossuarez46 18:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you'd prefer to wait, that's fine. WP is more a struggle of deletionists vs. inclusionists than I thought. You should see (and participate at) WP:DRV for a real eye-opener. As many lawyers will tell you that nothing at a trial matters - it's all in the appeals, DRV is the supreme court. People who never bothered to participate at the Afd debate come out of the woodwork. They claim to be unbiased because of their non-participation at the Afd, then go on to say what they coulda woulda shoulda said at the Afd along with all the rest of us mere mortals. There are others who say that votes are to be counted - a vote count is always the first argument: how could you have a consensus when it was 8-3? 3-2? 46-11? Which replays at DRV, so let's take the last example and say the "real" feelings of the community run 50-20, now if we have 4 on one side who sandbag and wait for DRV and 9 on the other, we get a 4-9 of "unbiased" votes, which are always given some greater weight, showing a consensus in the opposite direction. Clever, no? The result is even starker when the vote counts are low: a pair of clever editors can sit out an 8-3 only to have it up at DRV and come in like a latter-day silent majority with 2 votes on the other side. Some have even invented a 2/3 rule - does that mean they lose their appeal if they cannot garner 2/3 of the comments at DRV? Ohhhh, that rule is only applied in favor of its proponent. If you think I have strong opinions on the process, and its gamesmanship, you're right. :-) Carlossuarez46 18:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Thank you for your third opinion on Talk:Iraq Resolution#Invoking 9-11. I'm having more trouble with that user, and I think I have a case to open an RFC for POV-pushing. Can you help me by sponsoring it? Isaac Pankonin 01:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion reasons

Hi there. You asked, apropos, about my reasons to delete one article but not another superficially similar one, and in good faith, you deserve an answer. I read your question after it was deleted, so I am responding to your talk page. I "voted" to delete the English-americans article because (1) they are not that notable by themselves -- they have been and remain the dominant ethnic group in the US, thus the article is in violation of the notability rules and that what is ordinary is not encyclopedic, (2) it was a poor article, requiring too much work to fix, per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and listcruft, and (3) I agreed with others' reasons as noted above in the discussion per the reasons to delete policy. I "voted" to keep the German-Americans article because (1) It is the largest, non-dominant ethnic group in the USA, meeting WP:N and general reasons for what is encyclopedic, (2) the cruft and trivia (for example, a person who was 1/8 German) could be excised easily from the good content per WP:LIST, (3) it was well-sourced per WP:RS and WP:V, and (4) again, I agreed with others' arguments. There were many other options to fix the latter article. I can not possibly spell out every single reason to delete or keep, and no editor is required to do so in explicit detail at every single nomination for deletion. I don't think I contradict myself. I am ideologically neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist, and take each case on its merits. Thank you for asking, and I hope I answered your question. Please, post on my talk page any further concerns that you might have. Bearian 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Overlistification

I see your last contribution to the policy was 2 months ago. I also see a fair amount of recent opposes by established editors on its talk page. I've proposed that a final discussion on whether to accept, reject, or ammend this proposal. As its main contributor, you're welcome to comment. Thanks! - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an eternal battle which will never get settled. It's best to go on a case-by-case basis, establishing the unique qualities and flaws of each list. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 23:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Expanded

Hi, I expanded on your delete nom for List of Jewish American fashion designers by nominating List of Jewish American engineers and List of Jewish American inventors in one nom. Basically for the same exact reason. Bulldog123 06:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominations for Deletion

In July you nominated for deletion an article that I started. It should be common courtesy to contact the initial author of an article that said article is nominated for deletion. I wound up not having any say in the article's future. I wound up not being able to defend the article. Please in the future be sure to notify the initial author of an article you nominate for deletion. Thanks, Kingturtle 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Chrono-sorted edit combined edit history tool

I was just reading your page User talk:Bulldog123/sandbox for its data on last year's Newport/Taxwoman/Poetlister situation, and I wanted to know what tool you used to generate this. I've had to do this manually for some sockpuppet checks in the past, and I'd like to try it out, as well as understand its capabilities and limitations. Thank you for any help you can provide. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry for the delay, I haven't been on wikipedia for a long time. I made a C++ program to do it. You simply copy and paste the contributions by hand into a file and it sorts it. Not anything very professional. I can probably get it to you but the server that I currently stored it on is down for a few days. Tell me if you're still interested. Bulldog123 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to get a copy when you get a chance to pull it. No rush. Thanks! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Overlistification

Please create an essay based on Wikipedia:Overlistification so the essay can be cited in deletion discussions. I feel odd citing to Wikipedia:Overcategorization in article deletion discussions such as this. Thanks. -- Suntag (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to create a new page since Wikipedia:Overlistification is tagged failed proposal. Look over the items at Category:Wikipedia essays to arrive at a snappy essay type name, create a new Wikipedia page, copy the text from Wikipedia:Overlistification and paste it into the new essay page (tweeking it into essay language rather than guideline language). -- Suntag (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can just plunk the text into Wikipedia:Listcruft (which is an essay)? Suntag (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Danish Americans, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Vandalism by mass content removal and redirection. Hmains (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by Badagnani section

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to List of Estonian Americans. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Badagnani (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to List of Danish Americans, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to List of Estonian Americans, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to List of Norwegian Americans, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to List of Americans with Finnish ancestry, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to List of Norwegian Americans, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to List of Americans with Finnish ancestry, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to List of Dutch Americans, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to List of Dutch Americans, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to List of Americans with Finnish ancestry, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

insults get you nowhere

I do my own thinking--something you might consider instead of just emotional reactions. I was noticing and reacting to your vandalism before others did. I am quite happy work with other helpful editors on overturning your vandalism and general misbehavior since you didn't get your way to delete these articles. It is a shame you do not use your knowledge and education to actually achieve something positive. Hmains (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic group articles

Hi. In light of the failure to reach consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British‎ I've suggested that there be a discussion of the various issues raised, here. Your input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Page Lock

Your welcome, unfortunately I cannot protect an article on a selected version, see WP:The Wrong Version. I would try and solicit conversation, and if there isn't a consensus after the protection expires and the same users make the same types of edits, then report them to WP:AN or WP:AN/I. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)