User talk:AnonEMouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives
  1. January 2006 – May 2006: 2 DYK's, a Barnstar, 5+ AFD arguments, ...
  2. June 2006 – July 2006: another Barnstar, the opport, meet Phædriel, photo & other arguments ...
  3. August 2006 – September 2006: another DYK, a peer review, meet Chidom and >Radiant<, religious criticism ...
  4. October 2006: Arch Coal, Elonka, WP:CHILD, some WP:FAC reviews ...
  5. November 1 – 20 2006: adminship, a DYK, arbcom election qs...


Contents

[edit] Selig Percy Amoils

I know it's not directly related to your subject-matter expertise (at least, I certainly hope Mr. Amoils won't be doing any nude scenes <shudder>), but there is an ongoing dispute on the talkpage regarding how to apply BLP in this case. I've already changed my stance once, and I may need to do so again. I'm hoping someone who is knowledgeable about the finer points of BLP will weigh in before I get whiplash. Please note that I have no personal interest in the subject or his article, I just want to see that policy is applied properly. Any guidance you can give would be greatly appreciated :) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franchezca valentina

2nd opinion desired. - crz crztalk 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing encyclopedic. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Hi there! I've preemptively answered your questions here, the same that you asked of other people. Feel free to ask me others :) (Radiant) 14:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XPLANE deletion review

Hi AnonEMouse, Could I ask you to weigh in on the deletion review for the XPLANE article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your opinion is much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Weighed in, and have to tell you, it was a close thing. I looked at most of the references and they were passing mentions at best. If not for Uncle G's emphasis of the St. Louis business article, I would have argued to endorse the deletion. Try to rewrite from a neutral point of view, not as an ad. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please deal with Lcnj. He keeps on changing the article List of Lebanese people and adding irrelevant and useless material. I consider this as vandalism. Jaber 12:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't now enough about Lebanese people to tell which additions are irrelevant. But his edits clearly aren't Wikipedia:Vandalism, see that link. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." It's a content dispute, and apparently a minor one - will the addition of one or two debatable entries to this list really shake the world? Discuss it on the article's talk page, and try to come to agreement or compromise. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alessandra

Can you please just let it past,because there is almost no one watching,and this is a perfect time to remove that picture.When I was known as Dzoni and Ice Cold,you rejected it,but now its the third time Im asking you for this,so it could be my lucky third time.Since communistas are in power now,there is no need to discredit someone like Alessandra like that.So please let me remove it and dont put it back,and after 7 or 8 times others will get bored of putting it back and then it wont even be there.

Thank you.

YXYX 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. It's not being used to discredit her, it's an important part of her biography, and a notable part of her fame. Few articles about Alessandra Mussolini won't mention her past as a Playboy model, and she does not hide it in her interviews. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, being an indefinitely blocked user is often considered reason for being blocked again. Even though I've been given the mop and flamethrower since we last met, I won't do it myself (since an admin shouldn't block someone in an edit dispute with them, and also since I do think you do have good intentions), however I should warn you to be careful. I've looked over your edits, and they're not vandalism, but they're mostly on talk pages, and most of the messages on talk pages are rather argumentative. Don't do that. Wikipedia is not a message board, it's an encyclopedia. There are dozens of other places and message boards that you can argue Serbs vs Croats vs Muslims and Fascists vs Communists vs Democrats to your heart's content. Not here, please. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


I know,I dont mind it mentioned,but lets just remove the picture.We can still see how pretty she is on the other picture,but people doesnt need to see her naked.It is very offensive and is taking away the voters,especialy in Italia.We can leave the informations about,but no one will be hurt if the picture is removed.

It is like putting the picture of Berlu when he fainted.Those are just some thing that might be interesting to watch,but there are links for it,there is no need to put it in the front.

YXYX 16:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw you new message,congratulations for the promotion.I`ve been banned manu times,but it is just because I am trying to show them who are really Italias patriots and I dont wont Italia to got to the wrong hands again like it happend in April when people voted sinistra and now we are going to suffer for ages because of that.I also tryed to show them that it is not Serbs who are guilty for Balkans wars,but it were Muslims.I didnt even talk about Croats,but Muslims are guilty for Balkan wars and Muslims are flooding Italia and very soon there will problems like in France if they continue to come in.You cant evn go thrugh the street without seeing a Muslim anymore.My intentions indeed are good,because i want to explain it to them thta things cant get out of hand here like it happend in Balkans and in France.

When I tryed to explain how Muslims are guilty for what happend in France,I got blocked.I got blocked about 20 times,but since my last return I am trying to keep out of arguments because I realized that I can never explain it to people here when i keep getting blocked for telling the truth.

I would appriciate if you could think over about that picture and agree with me.

YXYX 16:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

This person User:Chidom launched the personal attack against me first, by accusing me of libel, as you can see. The person is using wikirules of which they obviously have no comprehension. Did you also put a warning on his page for this action ? Wjhonson 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"He did it first" is generally not accepted as a sufficient defense for grossly inappropriate action. Even if it were, the text Chidom put on your talk page was:
See [[Talk:Johnny Hazzard]]. ~~~~
{{blp1}}

.

You should be aware of this, as you have now deleted it twice from your talk page. The {{blp1}} template is a standard user talk page warning template, used in dozens of places all over the Wikipedia, and is not intended to be an accusation of libel or a personal attack. Your response was extremely personal and offensive. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mouse. I wouldn't have troubled you otherwise, but it seems you're aware of the Johnny Hazzard issue now. Since you're the "local expert", could you either confirm or deny my interpretation of policy in this case? Thanks. Doc Tropics 02:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no court in the world that would consider posting a person's real name to be "defamation". Wjhonson 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
We are not a court. We are an encyclopedia. I would be extremely happy to add a clearly useful and important piece of information to an article, but it needs to be verifiable. This is especially important for a controversial fact in a biography of a living person. Regardless of the law, that is our policy. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your most recent remark on my talk page. I have never had a problem with a *normal process of discussion* as you can see I have thousands of edits. I have a very serious problem with the blp1 template which I will take to the bpl talk page. Thank you for your tact in not trying to restore it to my page. Wjhonson 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Good luck! If we can convey the same information without giving offense, we certainly should. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Cummings image

Hi. You recently paticipated in the fair use discussion of Image:Rebecca Cummings.jpg. The image has been deleted and I cannot find an archive of the discussion page. Can you point me in the right direction or is there a way to get a copy of the discussion? Thanks. --HeartThrobs 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Userfied to User:HeartThrobs/ImageTalkRebeccaCummings.jpg. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --HeartThrobs 19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenna Jameson

Nice abuse of the rollback tool for non-vandalism edits. I wouldn't count myspace as the official page unless there is no other official page to goto. We can't link to everyone's 12 different official pages. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Geez, that was stupid of me. I was in a bit of a rush, and was a little annoyed at people who think that IAR is a reasonable keep reason. I have finally went and took a look at the mailing list also from yesterday (which I didn't do before), and saw a discussion on WP:RS, among other things. But, I stupidly jumped to "I'm right and your wrong" like I said I wouldn't. I should have stepped away for a couple minutes, and it's good someone actually asked me what I was doing. Although, while looking through transclusions of {{myspace}} (how I found that), I did find some links to myspace that were blatent advertisments. So, I guess the right thing now is to ask for consensus of people, and not single-handidly do something like deleting all transclusions (unless of course it's a link to "the unofficial myspace fansite for _insertartisthere_" or "Bob's page" or a full page ad). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's kind of you. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry I'm late...

In offering my congratulations/deepest sympathies on your new status. Actually, I hope you'll always enjoy it enough to keep doing it; we need more of you! Didn't I read somewhere that they learned how to clone mice? I'll start a collection if it's really expensive....

I wish I had known about the nomination; not that you needed input from me, but you would have gotten very positive feedback indeed. Long may you squeak!—Chidom talk 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...and another thing

If there was ever any doubt that you could handle tricky situations with grace and patience, lately you've more than proven that you can—and do. Thanks for all your help!—Chidom talk 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ... and one more

Just for future reference, have a look at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Names - an interesting issue : The discussion is with regard to the Brandy Alexandre article and how that situation affects/should affect using real names for porn stars. It makes for interesting reading but I don't know if it provides any further justification for not allowing unsourced names; the policy as it stands is in no way unclear; I tried to point out something along these exact lines on my talk page as a concrete example of why we couldn't include the alleged real name of the performer.

"It could be libelous, if the person whose real name is being discussed is NOT a famous porn star. Going around naming real people as porn stars is not a good thing. Without a real source, such "outings" should be regarded with great suspicion, as they could easily be malicious attempts to hurt some real person who is not a porn star.--Jimbo Wales 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"

On the basis of the rest of that discussion, perhaps the field "birthname" should just be taken out of the adult bio templates. I've posited that at the BLP talk page.

I'd also welcome your opinion on the timing of my use of {{blp1}}. There had already been two removals of the name; the first, by someone else, included an edit summary that just said the legal name was being removed; however, when I removed it the first time my edit summary was "Therre is no source stated for his legal name; please don't restore it unless a verifiable source is listed".

When I discovered that it had been reinserted anyway, I placed the template and provided copious amounts of documentation on the article talk page. Did I jump the gun? (I know we're probably not talking about the usual sort of encounter one would have in these situations, by the way.) It occurred to me that perhaps I should have provided all the information on the talk page for a second reversion and held off on the template until a third. As you may have noticed, I get irritated with people who want to argue about incredibly clearly-stated policy. I don't think the template as it exists necessarily has the best wording in situations like this, but it's what's available. (However, when broken down, the wording of the template makes perfect sense—see my talk page.) Not that any of my attempts were effective (nor were they going to be), but again, hopefully this isn't the norm.

Finally, I don't know if you came across the link to the attorney in Chicago with the same name as the one causing so much recent controversy; fortunately, there was a picture of him on the webpage so no one could possibly think the two people were one and the same. (Sheesh, it's difficult to write "around" information, lol.)

Take care.—Chidom talk 06:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A belated thank you...

...for your help with the Krog. It worked! Hurrah! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

 Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for your encouraging comments, and I hope I'll still have your support the next time around. Kafziel Talk 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yasmine Bleeth mugshot again.

I noticed you removed the mugshot from the page. I'm pretty sure we had reached a compromise, leaving a link to the image. Do we have to have the argument again? AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed to a link to it, but are you aware that there was not a link - there was the actual image of her mugshot? With only one other image on the site - that of her as a child - it doesn't make any sense to me that that one picture should reflect her entire adult existence encompassing her grief over her mother's death, her parents' divorce, her shock and anxiety over 9/11 which happened in her hometown the day before the incident with the car and cocaine - especially since her father and half-brothers may have lived near the World Trade Center at that time, her career setbacks, her breakup with her fiancee, etc. She paid her dues re: the cocaine paraphernalia possession, and I don't think that wikipedia should continue to potentially impact negatively on her career in such a brazen way as to have ONLY her mug shot as a reflection of her adult life. She has been very open about her previous addiction and her mother's death and her breast cancer advocacy (especially since it can impact negatively on her career since she was known for her natural breasts), etc. Many other celebrities refused to discuss their arrest and drug addiction and family member's breast cancer diagnosis so I think that she should be given a break so that at the very least - ONLY a link to that sad, unfortunate picture should be on her wikipedia site. Bcsurvivor 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I remember our compromise to make it only a link, but you didn't do that, you just removed. That's why I wrote to ask if our compromise was still on. Since it seems to be, hopefully my restoring the link is OK. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated commentary on JJ

Since we both got sidetracked a bit, you had asked for commentary on Jenna Jameson. My one issue with it is the pseudo-bullet-pointedness of the prose from the "business" section down. I'm not sure if there's plans to expand it further or not, but it feels very stilted. I'm also unsure about the mainstream appearances section, I'd personally either keep it all there and eliminate the list or eliminate the prose and keep the list, not necessarily both. It's off to a pretty good start, though - I never thought I'd find her interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's basically what the other reviewers wrote. I'll add it to the review. However, I've noticed that it's a lot harder for me to actually put the reviewer comments into practice than it was for you - with Babb, I would write something, and you would do it, while with Jameson, it's taking many days for me to make better paragraphs out of the broken points. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

In the interest of promoting sweetness and light, you are hereby granted the coveted:
Random Chocolate Chip Smiley Award
Originated by: Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

[edit] user:66.10.167.1

rather than block the school, why not sprotect Saryn Hooks? I am sending you an email as well... - crz crztalk 14:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Because
  1. it's a 48 hour block, while this been a vandalism-only IP for a while more than 48 hours,
  2. it's the only source of vandalism for Saryn Hooks
  3. my general impression is that when one user vandalizes one article, we block the user, not protect the article, so that other users can potentially edit the article

But I welcome advice or argument on the point, I even asked on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#First_block_review,_please, and they seem to think it's OK. On a side note, how do I tell it's a school IP? AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense... click the WHOIS button at the bottom of the IP's talk page. It comes up as one of two things, but edit history includes the school and makes it obviously a school IP. You try not to block schools for too long. Certain 48 is more than necessary IMO. I block schools for half an hour. That's usually enough to have them leave the lab, go to class, and allow the rest of the school to edit. - crz crztalk 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My rationale for 48 was that vandalism has been once a day for the last 4 days, so 24 might not have any effect. A half hour certainly wouldn't have any effect. There had been a 24 hour block a few months ago. If it's a school and it's Friday, the distinction between 24 and 48 may be moot, of course. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I attend The Peddie School and apologize for the vandalism. I disagree with the statement that we are vandalism-only, see my recent contribution to Cellular Automaton. It seems as though a Peddie Student finds it particularly funny to vandalize Saryn Hooks, this will be mentioned to the dean, but anonymity makes this vandal nonpunishable. I'd like to extend my sincerest apology to the Wikipedia community. nick 20:20, 1 Dec 2006 UTC

Thank you, and good luck in your efforts. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom questions for Paul August

Hi AnonEMouse. I've answered your follow-up question. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That's fair enough. :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DefCom 2 ?

Thanks for the edit to {{blp0}}. Given the serious nature of adding someone's name to the List of gay porn stars (thus indicating that they were in a gay porn film, but not neccessarily saying they're gay), would it be inappropriate to skip the earlier versions of the vandal templates and use either {{tl:Blatantvandal}} or {{blp1}} as a first warning? I know some folks are just fooling around, but I'd be in favor of communicating the seriousness of this sort of edit right away.—Chidom talk 23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom and transparency

While you're entitled to your opinion, I don't think we disagree on the basics. Regarding transparency, I believe that the core problem with the arbcom is that, the way things are structured presently, there is no clear and unified rationale for them to communicate. We've been seeing fragmented decisions because they are voted on in pieces. The way most of the arbs work is that they read through the evidence and the summaries and proposals and then vote based on what they have read. For many of the cases, you see all of the decisionmaking there is to see on the case pages themselves; the only discussion on the private mailing list is "hurry up and vote so we can close <name of case>." So the problem isn't that there's hidden discussion, it's that the thought process behind each vote is in each of the arb's heads and never gets written down or communicated at all (except to the extent that they make comments when they vote). This is why I've been putting the emphasis on improving the workshop/proposed decision process and lobbying for more cohesive opinions written by one individual speaking for the committee.

I was an initial advocate for the presence of a private mailing list for the arbcom members, and it was in fact initially hosted on one of my servers. The purpose of doing so was to provide a discussion space where the arbs could each figure out where they stood and what the points of agreement and disagreement were for each decision. The idea was that then representatives from the one, two, or N schools of thought involved would then go and put together an organized summary of all that for the community to read. I don't think that goal has ever been realized, certainly not as much as I would have liked to see. Ultimately, the arbcom itself is best served articulating its reasoning clearly and concisely since it relies so much on widespread support and respect from the community to implement its remedies.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering you have more support than any other candidate, as well as a history of support from our founder, I really, really hope that's true. I guess what I'm afraid of is a smaller version of the iron law of oligarchy. A star chamber is more efficient than an open process, no way around it. It just causes resentment. Transparency has been an important issue, enough so that several candidates cited it as their reason for running. Then, of course, they all supported you, so maybe they are smarter than I am! :-). Thanks for responding. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, if that lonely opposition can get you to pay a bit more attention to transparency in decisions when you are elected, it will have been more than worth while. :-). AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallen for the trap..?

I still don't admire the metaphor, you know... Fallen, or walked, into the trap, perhaps? Taken, or swallowed, the bait? Bishonen | talk 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Beaten with the trout? All right, will correct. AnonEMouse (squeak)
See the first draft of User:Freakofnurture's responses to one of my ArbCandidate questions to him, and the associated comment on his talkpage, for further relevant discussion of traps. Newyorkbrad 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I need a couple of links. I looked through a couple of histories, and have no idea what you must be talking about. I think I'm more dim than usual today. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
See here (click on image link at bottom) and here. Newyorkbrad 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I tried to make those responses a tad more clear for people reading, though I didn't change too much.Voice-of-All 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can rewrite so I can understand what you mean, I won't change to support, but I will even withdraw the opposition. I'm big on intelligent, understandable arbcom statements. You've achieved the intelligent part - probably - now if only I understood what you were writing! :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I added a "bottom line" comment to most of the answers that state my conclusions.Voice-of-All 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long comments on Arbcom vote

"Voters are requested not to add extensive comments to their votes. An uninvolved party may move long comments to the talk page." —Centrx→talk • 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. I moved the UninvitedCompany comment to the talk page; I assume this is the one you meant: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/UninvitedCompany#AnonEMouse_concerns. Though I'm not an uninvolved party, I hope that's still all right. :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFd Request

Hi there,

Would you mind taking a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bryan_Brandenburg

It needs more input from seasoned editors.

Thank you, Linux monster 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd actually like to second that request. If you have time to review the comments and perhaps some of the editors' contribs, I think you could provide some useful insight : ) Doc Tropics 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like it closed before I got there. The article Bryan Brandenburg is overloaded with minor sources, but doesn't look terrible. Don't kill yourselves over this, it's not the end of the world. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for looking Mouse. I actually didn't care much about the subject either way, but the page blanking and sockpuppetry was a little out of hand.
Given the number of times I've come to you with BLP issues since you made admin, I must be your #1 pest; I hope you're not getting blisters from wielding the mop : ) Doc Tropics 13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Doc Tropics 13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Betancourt - crz crztalk 02:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone keeps asking me to weigh in on closed articles for deletion! :-) In this case, right decision.

We seem to have most if not all of the Playmates of the Month, but not every Playboy model - this one seems to have been an online-only and of-the-week. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul August oppose?

Wow, worse than Geogre. I thought I knew your problems with Geogre, related to turning up the heat in the Giano case ... but what has Paul August done? He seems quite innocuous, dedicated, and non-controversial. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He said Geogre was better than him. I think he is a bit of an enabler. Fred Bauder 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] *

Well, mostly because I'm late for work - this sucks. There's got to be an easier way to get these out quickly.NinaEliza 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent ArbCom Candidate Questions!

My compliments on your synthesis of questions to ask the candidates in the ArbCom elections. They do a very good job of drawing out the opinions of the candidates on very important issues. In addition, as stated, they are quite difficult to answer completely, due to the incredible complexity of the issues you raised. They have served as an excellent gauge of candidate's experience, opinions, and judgment, and I'm finding myself clicking on your subsection for most of the candidates when I go to read their responses to the questions.

Again, thanks and good job! —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A reward

The Barnstar of Diligence
In honor of your ideas, patience, and concern for the project. Olessi 05:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Not prompted by anything in particular. Over the last several weeks, I have been very impressed with your demeanor and attitude, your discussion style, and your ideas (such as the ArbCom questions). Keep up the good work. Olessi 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Cocktails

Cheers! I left you some responses to our earlier conversation at User talk:Willscrlt#Wikipedia:WikiProject Cocktails template placement. When you have the opportunity, it would be nice to take a look at and salvage any useful information from those deleted articles. Thanks! --Willscrlt 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Got another one for you: Incredible Hulk (cocktail). It was successfully AfD'ed several months ago. Someone recreated it. It was deleted again. Someone recreated it (again). This time I noticed some good info in it (not much, but better than what we currently have in List of cocktails), and I requested (uselessly it appears) that the article remain alive until we finish our cleanup (on or before March 1). Sadly, it was deleted again before I had time to cull the usefull stuff. It sure is frustrating when people delete stuff right and left on you while you're trying to improve things. No pity, no mercy, I guess. An AfD appears to be a permanent seal of doom no matter how someone tries to fix it. *sigh* (Yes, I'm frustrated, can you tell?) Any suggestions for reducing the chance of this type of thing happening again? Thanks. --Willscrlt 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I put the text from several deleted revisions in User:Willscrlt/Incredible Hulk (cocktail) - but, frankly, there's not much there. One was actually referenced, which looked good, but the reference doesn't actually say what the article writer wanted it to say. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and more general advice? Don't take it so hard. It's not the end of the world that Wikipedia sits a few weeks or months without this information. Really. It will all turn out for the best in the end - eventually someone will find or write a better source for this information, and we will be able to write a good enough article with sufficient content and references. Meanwhile, even if a few people did come looking for a recipe for the Incredible Hulk, and had to find it elsewhere, or even make Martinis or Screwdrivers instead, I don't think they suffered long. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here, I think I found a source for you. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQE/is_3_15/ai_n6025787/pg_3 This actually gives the history of the drink, and that it's popular. Add in the previous one (this time not misrepresenting what it says), a couple more, and you just might squeak by. The article should focus on the drink's popularity among the hip-hop crowd, its influence on the popularity of Hpnotiq, and history, rather than the recipe. Here is another source that it is the most popular at a specific club in GA. http://www.augusta.com/masters/nightlife/touchofclass.shtml Anoter in CA (it's a New York Times article, which helps a bit) http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/fashion/sundaystyles/17BOITE.html?ex=1166072400&en=9cc9d21c53c736d4&ei=5070 Here is a source that cites the cocktail as a reason for the popularity of Hpntiq. http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2004/05/10/tidbits1.html?page=4 http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2004/05/10/tidbits1.html?page=5 Here is a weak one from Honolulu. http://starbulletin.com/2003/11/27/features/story1.html

Put them all together and you just might squeak by. I'll lean on Crz a bit not to speedy it while you're working for a few days. But if by chance it gets deleted again, don't panic even so, see above. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need your advice

Thank you for your clarification on WP:FRINGE and whether it relates to non-scientific fringe theories or not. I would like your advice on just such an application. I am in the middle of a very contentious AfD dispute. The article in question is Jahbulon (there is a link to the AfD on the article page). Here is the debate in a nutshell (and I will try to be NPOV in discribing this)... Some of us (including me) feel that the article has problems with WP:Fringe, and should be either deleted or merged (into another article where FRINGE would not be an issue). Obviously, those supporting the other side very much disagree, and say we are misapplying FRINGE. At this point, I don't know what to think anymore. I think I need a neutral party to read the article, the AfD discussion and the debate on the talk page, and tell me FRINGE applies or not. I will not quote you (you can add your two cents if you fell like it)... I just want a reality check to see if I am completely off the radar or not. Thanks Blueboar 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoo. Deep waters. Yes, from reading the article, it seems the main backing for the controversy is a single book by Ankerberg and Weldon. (By the way, the links pointing to it don't work for me.) I'll opine in the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahbulon (3rd nomination). AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Err. On the other hand, the Talk:Jahbulon#Mainstream sources talk page note about the Religion in the Contemporary World makes me change my mind. That seems to be a mainstream book, and if it really says, "They have therefore been repeatedly embarassed by repeated accusations that theirs is an occult faith which worships a composite deity called Jahbulon, who is different from the god of the world's great religions.", then it clearly thinks this is a notable concept. FRINGE calls for extensive discussion, and while this source isn't extensive discussion in itself, it does assert that there has been such. That's close enough. "Jahbulon" also seems to get 18,000 Google hits, which isn't everything, but isn't chopped liver either. Sorry. Keep it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the imput. It is good to know that I was not losing my mind, and that my initial interpretation of FRINGE was sound (as the reference to Religion in the Contemporary World was just added and was not among the references when we filed the AfD). I can accept your take on things. Disappointing, but so be it. I think both sides in this debate (and I will include myself in this) have let their personal POVs about Masonry influence their arguments on the AfD, and in editing the article ... and it is nice to have a reality check from an outsider. Blueboar 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/o/User_talk%7EAnonEMouse_d7a1.html"