User talk:Kingboyk/Archive 1

This page is an archive. Please add new discussion to my active talk page. Please note in my early days I deleted a few old threads instead of archiving them. There was nothing controversial. Please look at the talk page history in reverse chronological order if you're doing detective work on me :-) Archive 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 20 30 Moving articles on afd If you move an article that's on afd, please make sure that it still points at the discussion instead of a redlink; this helps the discussion be found if you stumble across the article (or actually wrote it), instead of just reading afd. You can do this either by making a redirect (as I've done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merry Christmas From The Morse Family), or by editing the link in the afd notice. —Cryptic (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Ah OK, I didn't know that would happen. Will do! --kingboyk 17:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) AFD Comments on Veritas Society page I'm a little confused as to why you edited and signed my comment on the afd:veritas society page. it doesn't really bother me a lot, but I'm confused as to why you've signed something i wrote. - Kuzaar 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Did I? Must have been a mistake, as that page had got messy and I tried to fix it. Can you tell me the comment and I'll take a look. --kingboyk 13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Not a problem! The original comment was the 13:38 4 Jan 2006 revision of the afd page (don't know how to link individual page diffs). It reads better now, though, so I'd have no problem with leaving it as is, just wanted to call it to your attention. Thanks :) -Kuzaar 13:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Something weird has happened there. I'm looking into it. --kingboyk 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) My bad. Looks like I accidentally clicked on the signing button in the middle of your comment. When I cleaned up the page I thought the comment was mine. Sorry about that, you now have credit for that wonderful summary I was thought was mine ;-) --kingboyk 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Heh. Excellent though, thanks for clearing that up. -Kuzaar 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! Cars. Kingboyk, Michael 20:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) here. One of the cars was a Triumph, like you said, and there was one of the first Porsche 911s. That one was the one that Varla(Tura Satana) was driving. The one that Lori Williams was driving was a Ford Mustang, and one of the first ones of that make and model also... Michael 20:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks Michael! I wasn't sure if it was a Porsche 911 or a Volvo fastback. As for the Mustang, well, not the MG that I imagined it to be :-) --kingboyk 20:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) re: reply. Kingboyk, Michael 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) here. No problemo. Catch you on the flip flop, sometime... Michael 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Google I think Google must be giving Wikipedia an unfair advantage. This talk page ranks higher than my own site at home.kingboyk.com. I'm not amused! --kingboyk 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC) merle travis pic hi kingboyk- considering its the only pic of Merle Travis that we have at the moment, mightn't we just leave it up until a more suitable one is found? while it does seem to be a pic autographed for the uploader, it isn't all that obvious. the caption doesn't say "pic merle autographed for me" or anything like that. so i personally don't really see the harm in leaving it up, provisionally, until a better one is found. your thoughts? --Heah talk 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC) The user in question created a vanity article about himself (which has now been deleted), and uploaded a slew of images showing him and his buddies with famous people. Some of those were deleted today, and I'm putting the rest up for nomination now. I figured the autographed photos should go too, as they're dedicated to the uploader and aren't really very representative pictures. Of course please feel free to reinstate it, but I hope you'll get an idea of why I did it and perhaps you'll be able to find a better, free picture on the internet somewhere :-) --kingboyk 00:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) although i didn't check, i assumed your reasoning was along those lines and that the user in question had done something of the sort, otherwise removing the pic would have just been kinda random. So i'll go with you on this, and look for a better one. thanks! --Heah talk 00:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Catherine Bach/Daisy Duke Photos I see what you mean about that user uploading vanity images, and I agree with your edit of placing the Catherine Bach posed as Daisy Duke photo that was originally on the Daisy Duke page on the C.B. page as well. A few days ago I fixed both of those articles (not that I have a particular interest or knowledge of the subject - I just came upon the articles randomly). Before I edited, both articles had both images there (which really made the styling look crappy), and at that point I thought it would be suitable for the promo pic to go on the Daisy Duke page and the autographed picture to go on the Catherine Bach page. From the thumbnail alone, it looked fine, but I didn't click to enlarge the image. But anyway, I think the photo issue is fine now, but if you think another picture would be nice on Bach's page, I would suggest one under her gallery at IMDB.com - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000280/photogallery-mptv-0 - there are several nice, albeit not extremely high quality - images there to choose from that could be listed under the promotional license. Fabricationary 22:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks, I'll look into that. It would certainly be nice to have a different image on each article. At the moment that one image, good though it is, is used on several pages. --kingboyk 09:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Sadly all the photos at imdb are from MPTV.net and unless I'm mistaken there's no legal basis for us to use them here. The search continues! --kingboyk 10:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Articles For Deletion Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions. You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 199 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20 You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. --Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC) the yawning pit of collective concoctions= hi there, you said P.S. Comments such as you left in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sharp are not called for. We try to be civil round here, and we try to keep our comments in deletion votes concise and nicely formatted, so that other people can actually read them! --kingboyk 22:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC) i'm sorry about those but I'm really trying to be a contributor here. I have interests and knowledge in women's studies, the new age, sociology, and psychology and would like to help by cleaning up stubs or whatever but I'm a bit frustrated with this process. I read the rules and it clearly doesn't matter who posts articles or bios. The criteria are notability and verifiability and NPOV. Nothing else is supposed to matter. I keep providing evidence for notability and it keeps getting totally discounted. I put another article up (Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) thinking it probably shouldn't be there because its not verifiable and some of the statements (like jesus created the universe) are so far outside of standard church cannon as to be questionable, and am told that issues of verifiability and etc. are better dealt with on talk pages. (???) One other article slated for deletion I argue to keep, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_betting_forum and the nominator, who is also an administrator, says he will delete it whatever the consensus unless his opinion (i.e., it needs to be cleaned up is honored). And that a clear violation of two rules I've read a) the nominator shouldn't delete, and b) deletion follows consensus. I'm just frustrated. I read the rules before I started posting and am trying to learn the ropes but its just very frustrating. You know, I can think of other authors (not all new age) and books I'd like to post here that I don't represent but who I know have audiences more than 5000 but at this point I'd consider it a waste of my time. It doesn't make any sense to me. Who else but interested professionals can provide the quality information you want in this wiki? just thinking out loud. . I'll reply on your talk page --kingboyk 23:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC) ok Kingboyk, what about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Productivism In my mind this was nominated for deletion unfairly, and even after I defend the article and verified its contents (and even offer to clean it up), its still getting votes for deletion. To me, there is an obvious and now documented political bias in operation here. ????? 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC) I dunno, are you purposefully hunting out these articles which are listed for deletion and editing them? For a newbie you sure get into a lot of scrapes! I can't comment on that article because I know nothing about it. --kingboyk 00:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Kinda of. Not in a "bad faith" way but in a "let's improve the process" sort of way. I'm tracking the deletes and looking for things that I know about, like "productivism" and then trying to verify and support the article. From what I can see, people vote "delete" based on "feelings" (you admit this) and that's just not right. IN an encyclopedia, what stays and goes should be based on at least a semblance of objective criteria. Right? I wouldn't say I 'admitted' that. My point was that there's no central committee deciding these things, so it's all down the interpretation of the objective criteria of those people discussing it. Also, because of that, the rules themselves are up for discussion. If you can think of better ways to do things, you are quite entitled to get in there and suggest it (in the correct place and with a civil manner of course! :) ) The rules and discussion pages are in the Wikipedia: namespace, if you want to study them. Can we end this thread here, I have plenty to do? :) --kingboyk 00:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC) ya we can end it here. I've seen the rules and discussion pages but my opinion now would be that worrying about the rules here is a waste of time. It might be cynical but what is really necessary is to find out how to "play the game" according to unspoken or "tacit" rules. The "rules" clearly state criteria for verifiability and notability and in two cases now these rules were blatantly ignored. One is discountable because of potential charges of bad faith but the other is not. I'm brand new but as as I look around, I see others say the same thing. Not good for the reputation of the encyclopedia esp. when a professional in the field finds information being ejected for no good reason (i.e., productivism). Bad press for the WIKI.. Yep, I hear what you're saying. I hope you stick around and try and change things for the better. Just keep your arguments good tempered and concise, and you might find that you convince some people. Worth a shot anyway. See you. --kingboyk 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC) well, after considering what some people were saying, and trying not to see the thing as a personal attack, I actually agree with deletion but not on author notability but on WP:RS and WP:Verifiability. Its just too early for these entries. maybe in a year. anyway, i want to thank you for being patient with me. Not sure I would have been so patient with a newbie like myself Re: the article I stated I would delete. See WP:IAR - Ignore All Rules. It is general policy on Wikipedia that all policies, rules and guidelines are here to aid us in writing an encyclopedia. When those policies, rules and guidelines, in someone's opinion, get in the way of writing an encyclopedia, they may be freely ignored. That article, as it stands, is not encyclopedically suitable for Wikipedia. All I see are a bunch of people going "keep and cleanup" yet not volunteering to tackle the project themselves - which would include finding a new name for it, sourcing it and generally rewriting it from scratch. At that point, one might as well just delete the whole thing and start from scratch anyway. In my opinion, Wikipedia will be best served by simply deleting and allowing someone to start from scratch. When there are 11,000-plus articles awaiting "cleanup," I take a dim view of anyone voting "keep and cleanup" without volunteering to tackle the job themselves. If I delete the article under WP:IAR, someone (including yourself) may appeal said decision by opening a discussion at Deletion Review or simply finding an admin willing to undelete it, in which case I'll open a DRV myself. Also, there is no rule which says a nominator may not close his or her own deletion discussions. FCYTravis 02:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. I know about IAR. It might be stretching it a bit to use that philossophy as an admin to close your own deletion debate however, not least because it would send a bad signal about how we do things. (Really, if an article is so bad it can be deleted under IAR then it ought to be a Speedy Delete candidate). I would prefer to extrictate myself from this subject now as I have other things to do :)--kingboyk 09:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC) AFD Eeyore's I just wanted to thank you for voting Keep on the Eeyore's AfD page. I know it is important not to take these things seriously, but it is hard not to be a little upset when you create the beginning of a well researched, verifiable article with cited sources only to have it immediately nominated for deletion. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 00:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) I actually went over to the nominator's talk page to suggest he withdraw, but you'd already done it. The counterculture deserves to be represented here, and that looks like an interesting event with a useful, verified article to match. I'm happy to vote to keep it. --kingboyk 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC) He doesn't seem interested in withdrawing the nomination, but I don't know if another voice of reason who is not the author would do any good to change his mind. I appreciate the thought anyway and your kind words. Anyway thanks again. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC) is there a list of deleted pages somewhere. an archive or something. Ginar 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC) No but they remain in the database. Do you want to get back a copy of your deleted article? It can be done. --kingboyk 01:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC) No. I can write that one again when "its time" (i.e., when it becomes notable and verifiable). I'm more interested in them as data. I'm kinda curious about any delete bias that might be in operation.Ginar 02:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC) In that case, no. I'm intending to set up a site where the 'worst' articles get sent to, the hoaxes and the vanity and so on, but I don't think that's what you're after. You can of course look through the old deletion debates - you'll not see the articles since they've been zapped, but the debates remain online for ever. By the way, I vote delete on a lot of articles and believe me, you'd do the same. Mostly it's only trash that gets nominated - web site adverts, vanity articles, stuff kids made up at school, etc. --kingboyk 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) I think you're probably right. But then again, bias is a funny thing and it can be pretty pervasive and it can enter in in funny ways. For example, the criteria that an author has to have a bio in the new york times or some other "establishment" paper introduces a huge bias towards mainstream ideas and thinking. I'm sure there are arguments either way in the logs some where but I'm concerned to see a resource like this NOT simply reflect establishment values. f if did, exactly what would be the point? We already have an encyclopedia britannica. Ginar 03:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC) I totally agree with you. Not much more to say on that, you're spot on there. --kingboyk 03:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC) What's does "appearing as a redline wherever you go" mean? Ginar 03:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Red link - it means you're a user with no User page. Not a problem, but it's like going to Tokyo and not handing out a business card (I guess ;) ) --kingboyk 03:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC) I see. I was actually working on my user page anyway. I just L*O*V*E those little user boxes. MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE :0( Ginar 03:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC) I'll pre-empt you and assume that's what your after. Any administrator can get a copy of a deleted article, unfortunately I am not such a person. I suggest you ask User_talk:JzG who deleted the article. He can send you the text or, at his discretion, put it into your user page. --kingboyk 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your support, the nomination for deletion has been withdrawn. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Yes I noticed, and you're welcome. It would have been kept anyway. Cheers. --kingboyk 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Yes I think it would have been kept too, but I appreciate you letting me vent my wikifrustration here anyway. :)Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 01:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks Stephen! Aww thanks, Stephen =) I'm flattered that you liked my page so much. If you want, I can enhance yours a little - just let me know if you do, k? Again, thanks! Kisses, - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 14:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC) You're welcome, and thanks for the offer. Mmm, I don't think I can match the attractiveness of your photo so you'd need to be something of a miracle worker to make my page as good as yours, lol. I was about to ask if you are a designer by profession* but judging by the link on your page the answer must be no! --kingboyk 14:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC) (p.s. I prefer 'Steve'). Hey Steve! (I'll be sure to keep in mind to call you like that ;-) I'm sorry, I didn't reply to you yesterday, but I was able to log in only a few minutes - sometimes my work can be very demanding =( You made me blush with that flattery on my pic, and trust me, I'm not easy to blush! No, dear, in fact I have never ever designed a page prior to Wikipedia, but imho the code is easy to figure out. But hey, you still haven't answered my q - want me to have a go at your user page? Perhaps you could provide a self pic to beautify it ;) Hope you're doing fine, Stevie, kisses! - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Sharon, that would be really nice of you. But, I tell you what, since I'm a guy with no artistic flair at all, and anything would be an improvement, why don't you just reuse a design you've already done for someone else? I can see you're getting busy with design requests and I don't wanna eat too much of your time. Anyway, sure, please edit away! I have a reasonable picture ([1] or maybe [2]) - should I upload it? Oh by the way, I'm very pleased to hear I made you blush :) --kingboyk 01:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Aaaall right! I've just finished working with a very long user page for my friend Orane, and let me tell you, Steve, that was a true challenge - but guess who's next on my list? That's right: you are! =) So please, do upload your pictures, as I intend to use them on your new user page. I especially like the one with your scuba suit - that's impressive! Where is it taken, if I may ask? Agreed - nothing wrong in just flirting in the humorous way we do, my two Steves... that's one thing I've learned working surrounded by guys who are not intimidated by an uniform ;) Kisses! - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 04:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Hi Sharon, sorry, your reply got lost amongst the newer messages! No, I'm not intimidated by uniform (au contraire) unless you are planning to arrest me, of course :( I think I'll go without a picture if you don't mind and, honestly, I don't want you to waste your valuable time on my sad little user page, so please do feel free to recycle an earlier effort :) Edit away! --kingboyk 19:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Hey! You stole my name! My name's Steve too! Spawn Man 01:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. She has a BF y'know..... :? Spawn Man 01:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC) lol, sorry about the name. Sorry about the bf too but there's no harm in a little flirting - makes the day more interesting I reckon ;-) CU. --kingboyk 01:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (tongue in cheek, I should point out) 2006 already?! Hi, Kingboyk. I guess copying and pasting could be problematic when we're nineteen days into a new year. ;) Thanks for fixing the dates! Cheers, Sango123 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC) No worries. Happens to the best of us (and me). --kingboyk 20:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC) how do you revert?? also, is it possible to interact with the wiki at a DB level?!!!! Please sign your comments. what, you can't read the energetic imprint behind my words? yuck, yuck, yuck.Ginar 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) lol, I knew it was you but others wouldn't :) You click on the version you want to restore in the History, then save it. Be careful, reverting can be controversial and there is a rule about it. No, you can't interact with the database (at least not read write. You can get a dump and import it into your own MySQL server, which I have done). --kingboyk 19:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC) well that's too bad. that was a whole month of processor time though. How big is the dump? I imagine that wouldn't include user tables huh? Ginar 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Nah, the import takes 'only' a couple of days. It was the optional rebuilding of the category link and search index tables which took the time - I'd recommend against doing that! A highly compressed XML dump of the current versions only of all articles runs at over 1GB (1.2GB last time I checked). --kingboyk 19:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC) pft that's nothing. my god. its costs about 1.00 to store this databas. when you include the total archive (talk pages, deleted pages, etc. ) how much?Ginar 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Well it's highly compressed, but I agree that storage isn't the issue, and if you're at all interested in the technical side of Wikipedia then having your own Mediawiki installation to play with is certainly recommended. It's just the rebuildall script I advise against running - unless you're happy to have it running for weeks on end! --kingboyk 19:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC) And another thing, if you want to extract an article in XML you can use Special:Export --kingboyk 19:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC) And no, you don't get the user tables but I think you get the user pages. --kingboyk 02:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Donation Soliciting on a User Page Hi Stifle, the user page User talk:Shanedidona has a image which is hotlinked to a donation page for the Catholic church. Do you know if this is against rules and if it is where the issue should be lodged? Or should I or an admin leave them a message? --kingboyk 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC) I'm not aware of any policy prohibiting it. User space is pretty much unpoliced unless someone's blatantly using WP as a free wiki host. Stifle 21:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC) OK, cheers --kingboyk 21:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Images Well, it's always a no-brainer to say that our servers should be bigger and faster. Point is that they're not, and our collections only net us $150k, not millions. Images require bandwidth an order of magnitude above plaintext, and do require processing because the server modifies their size as necessary. They also require database fetching, and are not any more or less cacheable than regular pages except for the fact that they're a lot bigger. Radiant_>|< 11:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Yikes. Dynamic resizing has to be very 'expensive'. I take your point, thanks for coming over here. --kingboyk 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Questions here Hmm, I noticed you were opposed to me due to some questions not being answered right? Which question did I fail to answer to your satisfaction? Perhaps I can improve on my statement! :-) Kim Bruning 17:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC) It was more the responses to the questions. I'll have another look. Thanks for spending your time writing to me and if I don't change my mind please be assured it's nothing personal! --kingboyk 20:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for doing that. Guettarda 17:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC) RfA Thanks Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Thank you for voting! Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC) E-mail Hi there. I dropped you an e-mail a few days back. Was just wondering if it had arrived as I haven't had a response yet. If you're just busy then no problem, sorry to hassle you! Essexmutant 11:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry, email overload. I can't face opening my inbox at the moment. Is it regarding admin nomination? --kingboyk 19:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Hi there. Yes it was about admin nomination, but no worries. Whenever you're ready. Essexmutant 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)