User talk:James084/Archive 2

Dead-end pages

• Hi, noticed your good work on the Dead-end pages list. However, you are removing pages tagged move to wiktionary before they are moved or wikified. As moves to wiktionary is in a huge backlog, this will take ages and those articles will probably end up coming round again, so its generally better to leave them there (provided they have no links) until they are moved across, at which point they can be speedied and removed. Basically, I recommend leaving stuff on the list until we are totally sure its not a dead-end page. Otherwise keep up the great work! Jdcooper 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose it amounts to the same, but I don't do remove AfD tagged articles, and I haven't seen anyone else doing it, there are loads of articles on the list with AfD tags, so i guess my thoughts on proposed moves to wiktionary apply to AfDs as well. Maybe we should be having this discussion on the Dead-end pages talk page!? :/ Jdcooper 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catelu

Thanks for the recommendation you made from this AfD. I had noticed {{prod}} yesterday and have begun using it. James084 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Hopefully it'll bring down the AFD workload a bit. Stifle 11:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Hi James. I hope you weren't offended by my actions regarding defeat in detail. If you were I apologize. I should have left a more informative edit summary when I removed your "prod" tag, I'm sorry I didn't. And while It would also have been good if I had made some comment on the talk page, I felt that all I had time for at the moment was just removing the tag. Anyway please don't take any of this personally, we are all feeling our way with a new procedure. I hope there are no hard feelings. Paul August ☎ 05:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. I didn't take any of it personally. I was just sick of trying to navigate through the various policies, procedures, etc. and then not finding any kind of consistent approach to implementing them. My opinion is that it makes it very difficult for users like me to figure out how or where to contribute. These inconsistencies also prompted some pretty hostile discussions between myself and some other users. All of this combined to increase my stress and basically discourage me from continuing to contribute. However, I'm going to give it another go and see if I can disregard various users from disregarding the rules, policies and procedures that are implemented here. I still think that this project is a noble undertaking that I have chosen to monitor and participate in. James084 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm glad to see you back. Yes consistency is not one of Wikipedia's strong points (some think that's a good thing ;-) And article deletion, is a contensious and unsettled issue (see deletionism and Inclusionism for example). On any particular article, a deletion debate can be highly charged and emotional. There is a general consensus that we should err on the side of keeping an article rather than deleting it. For example quoting from the main deletion policy page: "If in doubt don't delete". This is also why on AfD a result of "no consensus" results in the article being kept. So, for what it is worth, I would advise being very careful and conservative when reccomending that a particular article be deleted. This is especially true with prod deletes, since it is a "experimental" procedure, which is not yet policy (you kind of jumpted into the deep end of the policy pool there), and since with a prod (unlike AfD) the default action will be a delete. Of course the safer action would always be to choose AfD, but that is more work, for everyone. We have to strike the right balance. Paul August ☎ 17:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi James, I hope you do decide to return, as you have done so much good work in such a short period of time, especially on the deadend articles. Whatever your decision; thanks for your contribution and good luck. Martin 11:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin. James084 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

CSD

It's already undergoing an AFD; mention that it may be a speedy candidate on that page. Plenty of admins monitor it. Keepign a speedy tag on something that's already undergoing an AFD just clutters up the category admins search through to delete speedies, and right now there's an enormous backlog of them. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

All I am saying is that it is an acceptable practice. By removing it you are introducing inconsistencies into acceptable procedures. You, of course, have the right to do as you see fit but I wish you (and the other administrators) would consider consistency when doing these types of edits. James084 16:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over and most of my edits do have edit summaries. I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. James084 02:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Hejlik AfD

Hi! I see you've made comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigadier General Dennis Hejlik. I have begun to try to clean up the article so that it is not a simple copy/paste of a public domain source. I would love any suggestions you have on further work on the article that might satisfy you as to keeping the article. Let me know! Thanks. -- Jonel | Speak 04:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Chowkabhara

Hi, What further wikifying are you suggesting for this page? Dlyons493 Talk 04:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I would have said that it needs some internal links (basically to keep it off of the Dead End Page;however, I see that it does indeed have one. I appreciate you adding some references to the article. I didn't find anything when I searched for it. I'll remove my tag. James084 04:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks - I'm not surprised you didn't find anything, they're really obscure but enough to convince me the game does exist. Dlyons493 Talk 05:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

PS I agree renaming would be a good idea.

Re: Mohamed Khalifa

Hi! I don't mind that you deprodded it. I forgot to add a comment (I don't do so much RC patrol these days so I am a little rusty on the routine) but I prodded it because it the article doesn't show any notable achievements—I was of the impression that the wikipedia concensus on academics was that a person should stand out from the crowd to warrant an article. As an academic myself I am sympathetic to the counter-argument that most, if not all, academics are much more notable than (for example) the countless minor pokemon characters that wikipedia has articles on—however, I think that visiting AfD is a good idea. JeremyA 02:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Amber Brooks

No, the mistake was mine, prod shouldn't be replaced if removed. I'd looked at the history of another article I had open, but realised my mistake at about the same time as you dropped my the note.

The question about "notability" is a bit harder. I'd say that if you think something has no chance at afd than speedy it, even if you're not sure about it meeting the legalistic criteria. Porn girl's claims to it are usually pretty weak, "Appeared in Big Top Circus XXXIV and XXXXI" but to my mind are claims that should go to AfD. I'm pretty conservative with a speedy deletion, though, so just because I wouldn't delete it doesn't mean much.

brenneman^{T}{L} 04:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for adding the article to today's AfD list for me. My browser appears to be on strike! - brenneman^{T}{L} 04:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead End Pages

I know the feeling. Progress is being made, but in the time it takes to clean five articles, another four messes get created. The total number of dead end pages is inching downwards, but it is a slow process. - SimonP 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Connecting tubule VfD

Thanks for letting me know about it. I've commented there, recommending a merge and redirect to collecting duct system. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

connecting tubule

hi thank you for letting me know about this VfD. I have recommended the merge option which seems the most reasonable. Please feel free to message me again about stuff like this. PhatRita 16:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Reading (disambiguation)" vs. "Reading F.C."

Hello James084. Thank-you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I notice you have wikified some articles on football. I have noticed that you have on occasion linkified the word "Reading", when referring to a football team. I have disambiguated some of these to "Reading F.C.". Can you comment as to whether that is an appropriate disambiguation? Thanks, Duckbill 17:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for your reply. I just notice that I completely misnamed this section! "Reading, Berkshire" has nothing to do with it! The question is really about "Reading (disambiguation)" vs. "Reading F.C.". Ah well, I think you understood anyway. Duckbill 18:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not troll me

I would appreciate it if you refrain from "poking me with a needle" in future. It is already intensely unpleasant for me to watch people like you trying to destroy valuable contributions. Kappa 19:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD notices

I keep forgetting that you're one of the few editors that bothers to inform people about these things. See, I'm spending all my time on Wikipedia right now writing notes to users about articles that are being prodded, because I strongly object to calling it an uncontroversial deletion if we don't make sure the creator knows what's going on. NickelShoe 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. You can help me out all you want. BTW, since you are doing this do you know if a template exists to notify somebody that their article has been submitted to AfD? I found {{nn-warn}} and {{nn-notice}} and of course {{PRODWarn}} but I have been unable to find anything for AfD. Thanks again. James084 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen one. And PRODWarn says that I submitted the article, which I did not. So I'm typing everything by hand. At least it gives me an incentive to be more specific and personal. NickelShoe 03:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject: Electronic Music

Hi James,

I just got your message, but you neglected to state which article you were referring to :P

The umbrella category for the project is Category:Electronic music. In addition, you can add {{Electronic-music-project}} to the top of the relevant talk page.

If you can drop me a message showing which article you were talking about that would be great (always pleased to learn of more Electronic music related articles!)

Cheers, Martin Hinks 17:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My mistake! I see the article now, sorry. Martin Hinks 17:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cherokee Slang

Would you consider changing your vote on Cherokee Slang if I agree to transwiki the content or move it (well some of it anyway -- it's very terse and blunt about what it refers to) to Cherokee Language? Please consider saving it, it's accurate and one of a kind content. Waya sahoni 05:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• By all means transwiki the article. I don't think you need my vote to do that.

However, I did notice that you added a tag stating that the article had been accepted by the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Since you are a participant in this project I assume that it is accurate that the article has been accepted by the project. Be that the case I will do you one better.

My personal policy is that if somebody (such as yourself or a Wikiproject) adopts an article then I will suspend my objections to the article. Since I nominated the article I will retract my nomination to allow you and/or the Wikiproject to work on the article.

Thank you for contacting me about this article and thank you for showing the article a little bit of love.

James084 13:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How about not deleting my article(s)

thanks but i do not agree with you. go ahead and delete it and i'll just put up another copy. thanks.

• Thank you for taking a look at your article first and discovering that 1) it had already been saved by somebody and 2) that I publically retracted my nomination for deletion based on the work that somebody else had done to clean it up. You may wish, however, to work on your anger management. James084 22:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

California State Students Association

You posted a notice on my talk page that this article was something of a dead end. As it happens I did not really write any of it. I don't know if I even read it. I had created CSSA as a redirect after which 198.189.231.50 overwrote the redirect with the content of the article in question. I "created" said article so as not to just delete the content of the ungracious anonymous user and made my initial redirect into a dab article to recover from this unceremoniously destructive edit. That's about it. Not a neat little history that ties a user to an article per its history link, but there you have it. Usually I would be more likely to be accused of having too many things wikilinked--especially dates--than too few, so it is kind of ironic. It's likely that this user wanted to create the article but couldn't since they weren't registered and just pounced when the conveniently named redirect appeared. -Onceler 06:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thaks for the explanation. I should mention that when doing my cursory scan of the list of articles on the DEP I don't really read them too close or look very close at their histories. Eventually, I come back to them and if somebody else doesn't wikify them then I will start digging deeper into them. I'm glad I could be the first to accuse you of not wikifying enough!  :) James084 12:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Carrot and stick

Your article Carrot and stick has appeared in the Dead End Pages list because it is not wikified. Please consult the Wikipedia Guide to Layout for more information on how to write a good, wikified article. I would encourage you to revisit your submissions and {{wikify}} them. Thanks and happy editing! James084 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have wikified this page (and reverted some parts of it). Stifle 09:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your awesome! Your my hero!! Well anyway, thanks.  :) James084 12:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Carlo Boccazzi

Your suspicions are absolutely correct - it is a repeat of the previous copyright violation. I will flag it for copyvio and warn the editor.--Esprit15d 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Connecting tubule

Thank you for contacting me! The article definitely needed some work. I will see if I can expand it once I fully return; hopefully next week. I appreciate your efforts in this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Xtreme Wrestling

Hi! We're both working away on WP:DEP. Now I'm not trying to play "bad cop" to your "good cop" but I have marked this article for speedy deletion. Its essentially an account of a school yard fight. The creator has only created this article and has not responded to your nice invitation to wikify it. SO I hope I'm not being too heavy. Let me know if you think that I am. Cje 16:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I like your style of leaving a note for authors of deadend artcles, paricularly for new users, and I will copy this. FYI on the dead end pages: since you and others are working away from the start of the alphabet, then for the moment I'll continue to focus on the second half of the alphabet. I've cleaned a good deal of low hanging fruit in T, U, V. Now I have to work on the more interesting articles which may go somewhere in time - I'll just try to get them off to a basic start (links) plus appropriate stubs and categories to increase the chances that others will notice them and start working on them. Cje 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dan O'Brien (baseball)

I appreciate your concern, but I didn't write that article, I merely split it off from Dan O'Brien. The article was actually created by anonymous IP 65.29.203.230. I've been with the project for several years and have made about 17,000 edits, so I'm fairly well-versed in proper wiki formatting already. Sarge Baldy 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's fine. I understand how problems come up when managing repetitive tasks. Keep up the good work. It's better for contributors to know how to produce clean articles of their own than have to clean up after them. Sarge Baldy 01:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)