User talk:WilyD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 17:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babe Ruth

I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadio-Americans

I'm leaving this off of the other talk pages because I very much agree with the overall gist of your comments on "American". However, I'm quite certain that on at least one occasion, probably two or three times, maybe more, I've heard Canadian people express the sentiment that, in theory, they are also Americans because they come from North America. Thus, they would be willing to be called "American" in a context where it was clear that it didn't refer specifically to the U.S. That said, I'm sure that you and many other people would be generally offended at being called American. Personally, I'm from Chicago, and I find it a bit offensive that people don't want me to call myself American, although rarely get worked up about it and would probably never punch anyone over it.

In the interest of greater friendship and collegiality between peoples, what say we on both sides of the border just start calling ourselves "Canadio-Americans" instead? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scarborough[1][2]

I bes saving this

Any source for your 6% or 8% quote on all immigrants coming to Canada going to Scarborough? Please provide a link if you can. Nice little comment on me from some of your friends, ie Atrian, etc. No disrespect to you Wily, but some in here really think they are the all knowing god.Dscarborough 18:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scarborough nicknames

Thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion. However, I predict that User:Dscarborough will stomp on your edits within 24 hours. --Atrian 18:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mastery of English

If tomorrow the Americans changed the name of the country to Walamazoo and insisted the proper adjective for them is Nurple, the proper name of their country would still be United States of America and the proper adjective would still be American.

Apropos of nothing, how do you feel about Mumbai? Sumergocognito 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm somewhat ambivalent about Mumbai myself, I guess Chennai is now the proper name of that city though, I wonder what becomes of Madras shorts. Where there's a genuine change of name it seems easier to go along, rather than when a non-English speaking government purports to lecture us about English orthography (cf. Kyiv, Makkah). As for the Skydome, I applaud your cussedness. Sumergocognito 23:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have access to JSTOR? It would be helpful to have a second pair of eyes look over the articles Deep is citing to. For the life of me I can't see where he gets it is apparent that that wasn't the only meaning in English, nor was it considered appropriate. out of Mencken's article. All Mencken did was catalog the various alternatives to American which had been proposed up to 1947. He didn't opine on the propriety of contemporary usage and he also documented (without remorse) how quickly any alternative term for Americans bit the dust. Sumergocognito 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROD/AFD/CSD

As a quicker way of PROposing an article for Deletion (hence PROD), you can stick a tag on the page as follows. {{subst:prod|Add reasons here, and mention WP:NOT, WP:CORP, WP:WEB or whatever the reason is }}. Details at WP:PROD, but basically it gets deleted if tagged for a week. If someone disagrees, they can remove the template. In that case you'd need to open an AFD as you've done.

You can also check the speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD. They are fairly limited in scope, and it's pretty simple, just add the appropriate db-something template. If you have several reasons, you might use db-reason and list them all, but one is enough. On AFD pages people usually write A1 or G4 rather than "Article lacks context" or "Recreation of previously deleted material". Hope this makes sense. If not, or if you have any other questions, please leave a note on my talk page. Best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, saw that comment also. You might want to read Wikipedia:Introduction to Deletion Process to get an overview of the whole thing. PROD is a good timesaver, but if you're new, it may be worth developing a sense of what deletions are controversial before starting to use it a lot. Cheers! Mangojuice^talk 03:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedantic comments

Hi. Please refrain from pedeantic comments and stick to the subject at hand, making sure that you eastablish clear logical connections between premises (i.e. propaganda for ... because, etc.) in a civil manner. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive moves

Hi. You are not being responsive and you are not addressing the issues presented in a substantively way. Do not move the page again without substantive discussion, or this will be viewed as disruption, which you may be blocked from editing for. Thanks. El_C 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated numerous times, my only concern is that WP:Consensus is followed. If you want to ban me for adhering to that policy, feel free. There isn't much I can do about it, but a wikipedian must have principles. WilyD 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to appeal my decision in however way you see fit. El_C 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Invasion of the Tribbles

Kudos for keeping your cool on the The Invasion of the Tribbles deletion page. I laughed out loud when I read your response to that IP. Geedubber 01:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice AfD message

Thank you for giving a wonderful alternative name for the NPOV policy. (-: Anville 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] portal

The other ones had ZPORT and HPORT--D-Boy 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question

From what you know, was Quebec considered one of the "American Colonies" between 1763 and 1776? If not, then perhaps the origin of the regular use of the term "American" is when the American Colonists dumped the term "Colonist" after the Declaration of Independence.

Also, if you have time, take a look at the Royal Royal Proclamation of 1763 which provided for the incorporation of Quebec and Florida as British possessions after the French and Indian War. It refers three times to the "Continent of North America" but also uses the term "America" by itself. Uses of the latter are somewhat ambiguous but in each case seem (to me) to read as "the parts of North America that were already British, before the war". One could argue, I suppose, that "America" is used in an interchangeable way with "North America" but I seriously doubt that there are linguistic accidents in legal documents of this importance. Thanks- Sumergocognito 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ... then the terrorists have won.

Just wanted to say that your comment on the AfD page for The terrorists have won was 1) brilliant, 2) overdue, and 3) hysterical. Good work. Tcatts 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of Toronto schools

In reply to your comment on WP:EiC:

Thanks, that would be much appreciated! --Stephane Charette 20:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English Speaking populations

Thanks - I think the list is beginning to shape up now. -- Avenue 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gretzky

Hi, WilyD. I see that you replaced the image of Gretzky in the The Greatest Canadian article with a fair use image. I don't know if you noticed in the article history, but Thivierr recently replaced a previous Gretzky image in that photo montage with a non-fair use image, on the basis that: "fair use replaced with free - note: fair use images should *never* appear in galleries like this". I seem to recall having seen a wikipolicy at some point to that effect, but of course I cannot find the policy now. You may want to contact Thivierr to discuss the issue. --Skeezix1000 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'm not convinced it isn't fair use, but I double-checked and Wikipedia does have a public licence image of Gretzky, so I swapped it for that. When I cam across the article, the image was busted, which is why I changed it. WilyD 21:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, both the Cherry and Gretzky images (which are otherwise identical in usage) are licensed as fair use promotional materials - so I'm not clear on the overall point. WilyD 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Who knows. I just wanted to let you know about a recent edit summary. I have now found the policy reference I referred to earlier, which says: "Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo montage, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis)". It's up to you to decide if you agree with Thivierr's interpretation or not. --Skeezix1000 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Thivierr didn't go after the Don Cherry image because its fair use source information was added after Thivierr made his edit to The Greatest Canadian (according to the article history). --Skeezix1000 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need your help

I saw your comments and edit to State terrorism in Syria. It was well done and appropriate. I began to peel of individual state terrorism articles from the main State terrorism page so as to minimize edit wars. first was Syria and second is Sri Lanka. I need your help in State terrorism in Sri Lanka page too. A vandal who has a POV towards the state of Sri Lanka wants to delete the article based on what he saw in the Syria article. If you can help us there, I can continue my project of peeling of individual countries section from the State terrorism article and make it an appropriate entry. My next target is Sudan, Iran...Huracane 12:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi WilyD, I welcome your comments and your balanced observations.As you can see the existing article had a strong POV against Sri Lanka. the article "state terrorism in sri lanka" is taken verbatim from "state terrorism" page , and its content has existed for a number of days. I did not know it is permissible to delete anything even if it is not cited. My problem is users on this page tend to cite from sites which exist as propoganda outlets for the designated terrorist organisation LTTE. E.g:- tamilnet.com, tamilnation.com. Are citations from propaganda websites allowable. My preference is for neutral organizations like BBC, UN, CNN, EU and Amnesty International. Also let me know how long I should wait for citations to be added.Ruchiraw 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments WilyD. There appears to be consensus on what is State terrorism on the originating page. The following introduction at the top of the State terrorism page defines what is and what is not state terrorism.

State terrorism is a controversial term (see:State terrorism. Confines and definition), which means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the International community considers the action justified or necessary, or whether the described act is carried out as part of an armed conflict. It has to be mentioned, that the opinion of the , so called, International community cannot be defined and determined with proper neutrality. State terrorism, where applicable, may be directed toward the population or infrastructure of the state in question or towards the population of other states. Although attacks on non-combatant civilians may occur during a time of war, they are usually considered terrorism, especially if these are not attacks on the enemy's war fighting capacity (for example an industrial port). The terrorism may be carried out by the state's own forces, such as an army, police, state supported militias, or other organisations, where it is more usually called state-sponsored terrorism.Care should be taken to differentiate state terrorism from acts of violence carried out by government agents which are not specified by government policy. A murder carried out by a policeman, for example, is not considered state terrorism unless the government sanctioned the action.

As you can see , it is generally agreed that state terrorism must involve a policy of government sanctioned violence.So even low level organised incidents such as My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse would qualify as state violence or war crimes (acts of violence carried out by government agents which are not specified by government policy) but not as state terrorism. As Colin Powell said , these things (civilian killings) occur in war. Every army of every nation throughout history has committed war crimes against civilians. It wouldn't be fair to say the actions of a few deranged people in its security forces constitute state terrorism. However I dont deny Black July appears to have been organised by the Sri Lanka government at the time. It has its own separate page however.Ruchiraw 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shall I add an introduction saying that the user should see the state terrorism page to form his own judgement as to what constitutes state terrorism. The main page users appear to be in consensus but the State terrorism in Sri Lanka page users are not. Ruchiraw 15:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State terrorism

Hello, thanks for your hard work in State terrorism in Sri Lanka article. I have also organized without consensus the main article of State terrorism please take a look. Thanks RaveenS 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have peeled off another very volatile one. See State terrorism by United States of America. Thanks RaveenS

Thanks for your hard work see the new version State terrorism in Sri Lanka. It is in and it is because ofyour early support and encouragementRaveenS

[edit] honeybee dance language AFD

Good evening. There have been some new facts and evidence presented in the discussion since your last edit. When you have a minute, would you mind taking the time to revisit the discussion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm stealing your bit.

"Wikipedia, she be many things..." cracks me up so much that I plan on using it when I prod articles.  :) -- Merope 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Article is hard to write?

What does "this article is hard to write" mean? Mike33 12:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not a "little obtuse" it is completely meaningless. You have a completely different understanding of verbum sap sapiente. Explaination saves time. it also saves you replying to missives like this. Be clear be bold EXPLAIN what you are trying to say. Mike33 13:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I list the Afd purely because the amount of editors involved would take months to resolve. verbosity is not clarity, and clarity is not vague phrases:

"Keep articles for deletion is not cleanup, nor is this article is hard to write a good criterion for deletion" Mike33 13:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Now this was verbose:

Given that two editors "dittoed" me, I'm not sure my sentiment was as vague as you found it. Whilst it is almost certainly the case that I could've been more precise, it ain't my natural inclination to write long essays about articles that are obvious keeps. I'm not sure it'd be possible for me to adopt a verbal style that would never confuse anyone. For what it's worth, articles for deletion is a discussion, not a vote - if it is the case that my arguments are poorly reasoned or incomprehensible, then they'll be discounted anyhow. In general, I would expect (although it may be foolish of me) for anyone reading my comments to be familiar with the rational for deletion - so I'm not sure it's all that beneficial to reiterate them in my discussion. Short and sweet can also be too short or rot your teeth - and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you - but I would worry that rehashing too much will just clutter up the discussion. WilyD 13:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike33"

Clearly we have a misunderstanding. I have no gripes about a keep (by the way when have i ever suggested that Afd was a VOTE?). You didn't make an argument, a simple keep would have fulfilled the goal. Italic this article is hard to write implied that i made the statement. To anyone not familiar to admin parlez, it is just a meanless string of words. Editors surely "ditto"ed your Keep not this article is hard to write (see All your base are belong to us). It can't only be me, that didn't understand what you were trying to say. I am not asking for a gold bull, all i need to say is that a string of words is not necessarily as meaningful to the viewer, as it was the writer. Mike33 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ok sweet, my apologies too. hope we meet in wikipedia in happier circumstances, your friend, Michael West Mike33 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

It's still heavily processed chopped-up meat, no matter how you serve it or waht you serve it with. Lurker ^oi! 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments at Talk:Canada

Was interested in your comments re: linking to message forums. My understanding is that external links should be presented only when they lead to an alternate source of information that will expand the reader's knowledge on the article in question. Is there a specific policy on links to forums? I recently debated the article on army.ca and suggested it be deleted. The result was "no consensus", but I find that most of the links in the article are to forum postings. In other words, this is a self-referential article about a web forum (non-notable, in my view) that uses its own postings as 'evidence' of some of its claims of notability, and as the sole reference to other claims such as forum membership. Is there anywere I can go to see a discussion of the use of web forums as external links and as "source" material. It's an interesting subject, and I think I may agree with your assessment that they should "never" be used as an external link but would be interested in seeing the views of others. Would also be interested in your input at the army.ca article re: the use of self-referential footnotes from the forum itself, considering the article is about the forum to begin with. At the very least, the use of an external link as a footnote to the description of every single subforum should be removed, but I find my edits are being reverted there due to personality conflicts. Would welcome your thoughts.Michael Dorosh 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Bonomo

In the AFD of that article, you 'voted' to delete because of verifiability problems. Please note that the article is now referenced, and that many more sources were discussed in the first AFD and the deletion review. Grindingteeth 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

I don't want you to get the wrong idea that I'm just going after lists for the hell of it. Like you I believe they can serve a useful purpose. I just don't think that the two we happen to ben voting on do.

I'm interested why you particularly feel that the composers list is an "obvious" keep. This isn't a challenge or a confrontation. I'm interested to know what utility it has that I'm overlooking. I'm perfectly willing to admit I could be wrong, and if I am I'd like to be enlightened. Cain Mosni 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I'm still not getting it. As I see it you're saying that any simple list - cars, composers, aeroplanes - you name it - is perfectly legitimate. Now as I see it, that function is better served by (taking the cars as an example) - tagging the Lambourghini Countach and Ford Cortina articles with category "motor car" and using the category as your self-maintaining reference list, or indeed lists because of course you can tag any article with any number of categories (so you could have "performance cars", "production cars", blah blah), and the lists track the changes automagically. Manual lists are inherently messier, simply because they have to be changed explicitly to track article changes. It's just extra maintenance, which in the case of a simple list I don't see any benefit in for the cost of the extra effort.

Where I see lists having greater utility is in carrying secondary information (e.g. in the case of the composers the years of birth/death, although I still don't thing that the list of composers is inherently useful, not because it is incomplete but because it is so generic and will consequently likely always be incomplete, amd I don't see the dates as particularly helpful so the secondary information aspect is lost too). I only see lists as being useful when the dataset is closed, and relatively small (e.g. "Formula 1 championship drivers in 2003"). I agree with you, though, that redlinks or incompleteness alone are not necessarily reasons for article deletion. You basically said the same as I did in the argument over the singers lists - Wikipedia is organic, and if you deleted everything that was incomplete, there would be nothing to complete. I guess we'll just have to differ in this particular instance and await the outcome. I still can't help thinking I must be missing something.

Thanks for the discussion. Cain Mosni 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the featured lists, and I take your point. Nevertheless, I'd still say that useful open-ended lists are the exception, rather than the rule, and even then only when they are maintained in a state of near completeness and fully populated. Lists such as that for composers with it's high density of red links just encourages people to add still more names willy-nilly, without developing the articles, and hence without any appreciable added value. As I've already agreed, redlinks are not in themselves a bad thing, quite the reverse, but when they become the expectation rather than the exception the exercise is - purely IMO - somewhat pointless. It's at that point you need to take a step back and re-consider the worth of the thing.

As for the issue of manual effort, it's not about the effort per se, but the implications it has for maintenance and human error. The fact is that requiring said deliberate effort to maintain the integrity of the list there is more scope for error to creep in, unlike categorisation where the link is immediate, and reverse relationship is maintained as a natural part of the process. (I'm a database techie by trade, and such things bug me, particularly when there's a minimum error/effort path available.) Cain Mosni 00:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your list IS worthwhile

The list (art magazines) you created is/was up for deletion. I want you to know there is a place for it: http://wikitistics.com . No one will be able to nominate it for deletion because it fits one simple rule: it's a statistic, list, or figure. Good luck with your endeavors! Joe 18:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Bush

I don't know what that list said, but see Michael Dutton Douglas. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

Thanks, I think I will approach RIC. Cheers. Joe 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Solidarity Fast for Darfur

I noted your comment on the suggested deletion page for this article which I have since completely re-written. If it is not too much trouble, please could you take a look at the reviewed version. I would welcome any suggestions as to how to further improve this article so that you would be happy to give it a Keep. LukeSurl 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Lakeport Brewing Company

Yeah, it is better sourced than probably 3/4 of the articles on here. I've no problem with the bold removal of tags I place on an article once the core problem is rectified. By the way, nice work on the article.--Isotope23 18:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yenta Claus

Article so many initially recomended deletion was edited numerous times and all objections were addressed. Web sources were added to the article and linked. Not a lot of info on the web but there are sites which are unrelated to each other and in diverse areas referencing the Yenta Claus character that appear to confirm it. There is the emergence of Jewish Holiday Mythical Characters and one of them is Yenta Claus. The new info includes a play written by a Pace University Professor where Yenta Claus is Santa's wife! [3]--Bhires 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Brandon's jail time

I got that from [4]. Augurr 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North America

Why you erased my edits in the North America article?, I fixed it, or the point is that you are treating North America as Northern America, this is not a UN article, they are posted many sources where you can check or verify about the North America geography, you are using 1 source vs many sources of information, you can leave Central America and the Caribbean as an independent article, but not grouping Mexico in Central America, is so offensive.

Wikipedia is free information source for all the people, the current version of North America is not the most accurate, the wikipedia articles must been wrote under a neutral point of view and this article is not, I feel a hidden racism inside it. Jcmenal 14:58, 14 September 2006 (PST)

[edit] North America

Sorry WilyD. I have an automatic option to mark all my edits as minors, I didn't intend to mark this particular one as minor. I edited the page because I provided a lot of sources that cite that prove that Mexico is not often included in Central America. It is frustrating that you guys don't wanna accept it. However I'm gonna revert the edit, ok? AlexCovarrubias 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wily... I'm very frustrated, I don't know what else to do. I have explained all my reasons why Mexico is not considered Central American. I, as a Mexican and Latin American, am well aware of the region history and politics. Help me out Wily, I am positive I have proved all my points... Mexico can't be just listed as CA just because some others say so...

- When the UN geoscheme was created? I'm concerned about this because it seems that it doesn't reflect today's geopolitical regions. However I am very sure that Mexico was included in CA just because they couldn't leave it alone as in the most used definitions... Have you noticed how they describe North America? US, Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean... C'mon even this guy wrote that "Middle America means Mexico, CA and Caribbean". SO??
- Historically Mexico has never been considered CA. Mexico seeks independence, CA provincies didn't want to join the new republic, they preffered to be independent. They created a CA union of provinces and only one Mexican state agreed to join, Chiapas. But the Mexican government convinced the Chiapas government to join Mexico again, and they did.
- Geopolitically, well it is the same. Although both Mex and CA are not enemies, but certainly CA and Mexicans are very different.
- Geographically most of the publications of the WORLD, consider Mexico as part of the region North America or at least outside Central America, for two main reasons. One being that not all the educational systems of every country uses the "two american continents" teaching, and they divide America (continent) in North, Central and South America. The second reason is that although some geographers consider the region to begin in the Ithsmus of Tehuantepec, that only represents 10-15% of all Mexico, not enough to categorise the whole country geographically as CA.

I still cannot understand why you guys keep saying that "a lot of sources say Mexico is CA" and you have not provided the verifiable citations. At least Mexico, Central America, South America, Europe, China, India and Japan does not consider Mexico as Central American... so only because under one US/Canadian POV Mexico is Central American we are gonna list Mexico in CA? That seems very biased. I'm very aware that some Americans and Canadians like the term "North America" only to mean US and Canada only, I know it because I have been told and I have read about it. However, this is an encylopedia and the truth most prevail: North America is also a term that includes Mexico.

I'm not trying to exclude the term Northern America. All I'm trying to do is not to list Mexico in Central America for all the reasons I have cited. You guys can have the term listed, just do not list Mexico in CA. It is insulting to both Mexicans and Central Americans and, it is not the most extended meaning of the term. Help me Wily, I'm really frustrated. What else can I do to convince you guys? It seems nothing is enough. Respectfully I think you guys should understand that not only the US/Canada POV should prevail. Well, I know not all American or Canadians think the same, I know it because most of my friends are from USA, that is why I also know this is a convervative, biased POV. Please, be reasonable. At least, let's categorise alphabetically. =( A very sad, AlexCovarrubias 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say is thank you. You made me feel that at least I'm being heard, I had the impression of being ignored. I agree not to include regions in the table, it sounds more logical to treat the issue in a separate subarticle. But I still find it, let's say weird, to include Mexico in Central America just because some publications says part of it is in Central America. Most of the publications I have consulted (only in english) list the 7 countries of Central America and add as a side note that some geographers consider 5 states of Mexico as being in Central America. I have to be really honest, that anonimous IP guy have not cite enough sources that prove Mexico is entirely considered CA. However, I'm aware that some publications treat Mexico as CA (not that I like nor I consider it smart), and we should note that in the article, but I'm concerned about this guy wanting to present this fact as the most extended, when I have proved it is not. I would never misstranslante an article in other language I can speak only to prove my points. The only countries I am 100% sure does not treat Mexico as CA, are the ones I already cited. Thanks again! AlexCovarrubias 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment about my essay?

You seem to think that my response "fails." Would you be so kind as to explain why it fails? JoshuaZ 18:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notable collectible card game players

I noticed that you recently participated in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination). You may also be interested in the following discussions for the following collectible card game players:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Kastle
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivier and Antoine Ruel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommi Hovi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Selden
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Budde (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Long
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering people

Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You may also find Talk:Roy St. Clair to be of interest. Given the reception to the professional M:TG player above, do feel that the deletion of Roy St. Clair should be overturned for consistency? I believe there may be a case for undeletion. Yamaguchi先生 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland Schools

Just a quick word of praise for arguing so passionately (and clearly) about articles you have no real interest in. Exactly what Wikipedians should be doing IMO. Dodge 16:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Redeemer High School - Southwest Detroit

Just wondering if you are going to criticize RJH for using a personal standard. JoshuaZ 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NATO

You made a mistake. I hope you're humble enough to admit it and stop reverting. See summary of last edit. Thanks, Gustav

[edit] Finger Lakes Christian School

Kappa has posted a deletion review regarding this article, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 22 if you wish to comment. Silensor 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] America

Pardon my frustration, but I am starting to feel like I have to post this message on the talk page of every user on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages not only explains why the link should go to America (disambiguation) -- it uses this very page as the example! --Russ Blau (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == Canadian spelling -ise -ize ==

Below is a partial list of Canadian style guides. In situations in which there is a difference between US & British spelling, none recommend -ise, several recommend -ize, some that do not specifically recommend -ize, use -ize (as in capitalize, authorize, organize) ----JimWae 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.yorku.ca/ycom/style/sg42.html
• http://www.ucalgary.ca/external/style-guide.html
• http://www.caot.ca/default.asp?pageid=1063
• http://www.tc-forum.org/topicus/ru15spel.htm
• http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:iTDNSDf9STYJ:dynamic.capcollege.bc.ca/AssetFactory.aspx%3Fdid%3D27283+canada+spelling+style+guide+%2Bprogram&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14

I'd be interested in seeing any Canadian style guides that differed from this--JimWae 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of English (Second Edition) ISBN 0198610572 on the introduction page xvi says "-ise or ize? Many verbs end with the suffix ize or ise. The form -ize has been in use in English since the 16th cenyury, and, despite what some people think, it is not an Americanism. The alternative form -ise is found more commonly in British than in American English. For most verbs of this class either -ize or -ise is acceptable; this dictionary has used -ize spellings, with -ise given as an equally correct, alternative spelling." Mike33 13:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to someday dig up a reference on the issue, but style guides in general are not good manuals for spellings - dictionaries are (if we're to assume there's an American/British divide on ize/ise usage, then it may be obvious why style guides would recommend a choice for reasons that have nothing to do with Canadian English). Anyways, there are (semi)-authoritative sources on Canadian spelling, look for one of those instead (I've heard it suggested the english of Parlimentary transcripts may be authoritative, I wouldn't object. WilyD 15:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cogito ergo sumo

User Cogito ergo sumo was reported by me to be investigated for being the anonimous IP user that kept reverting the article North America in the past weeks. Guess what? He got blocked for being 142.150.134.57 so... anonimous IP user and Cogito were the same... AlexCovarrubias 06:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons

Decimal10 is causing problems over at this article again. In the past, you have reverted some of his vandalism in this article (done under his IP address), and commented on the article talk page in respect of some of the issues he has raised. Therefore, if you have time, I was wondering if you would help me keep an eye out on the article. For more background, take a look at the lengthy message I have left on his talk page, which details all of his inapprorpiate behaviour (User talk:Decimal10#Your vandalism of Tim Hortons), a message he may erase (or just as likely ignore). Additional details are on Bearcat's talk page, relating to one particular issue (User talk:Bearcat#Tim Hortons). I'm just getting tired of dealing with him (he called me a "nutcase" this morning in an edit summary), and I could use a hand (not to mention some third party input, just in case I am losing perspective). Thanks. Skeezix1000 18:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions

As a person who collaborated with me in the initial launch of State terrorism series, 2 questions have come up. One in the State terrorism by Syria page See this Where the title itself is being questioned and here. On the second note I am not canvassing for vote at all. Simply letting you know of an issue that you were once upon a time intereted in. ThanksRaveenS 22:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footballers lists

Actually Punkmorten's nomination is pretty sound. List are only useful when they fulfill a function a category can't. There's still people who want to see all lists deleted in favor of categories, but Punkmorten clearly isn't one of them. The lists presented have no redlink, non-alphabetized ordering, nor notes attached, so what is its advantage over a category? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello WilyD, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgian footballers and explain there why you call me a liar. – Elisson • T • C • 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to question

Hello, and thanks for the comments! It would make for an interesting editor review indeed, with one arguing I'm too deletionist and another arguing I'm not deletionist enough! However, I can certainly respond here as well.

Being a deletionist does not by any means state that I do not believe in WP:NOT paper-we can certainly cover a wider range of subjects than Britannica, and well that we should. I also don't find all lists "odious", some are useful. On the other hand, some are useless cruft, or are set up to become so huge as to be useless. "Convicted or indicted religious leaders", however, is a clear criterion which can be populated without original research (someone was convicted/indicted or was not, that's a simple issue of fact), and the information could not be as well or better placed in an actual article. (It goes without saying that "notable" should be a silent appending to any such list-if the religious leader is not notable, (s)he shouldn't be mentioned on any such "list" either.) I also made these recommendations at the deletion debate, that the list maintainers should follow.

On the other hand, to see the type of list I do dislike, I'd send you here. It's effectively one long list of original research, and could never become anything else. I happily !voted to delete that one, and it appears that it will be. I also nominate tons of stuff for speedy on newpage patrol-unless you do that yourself, you wouldn't even believe the flood of crap that comes in some days. (Of course, even most inclusionists would agree on deleting spamvertisements or 5 pages worth of random pounding on the keyboard, but I've seen some argue even over bands that "will have a demo out within a couple months!"). I've also participated in WP:SCHOOLS3, an attempt to create and tighten up notability guidelines on schools to stop the "all schools are notable" nonsense.

In the end, I don't see deletion as an end in itself, but as a means to improve Wikipedia and its editors. In many cases, I've spoken with someone who started up a speedy eligible article, and it turned out that the article could be made into something decent. In many cases, in addition to improving the article, it improves the editor as well-many of them had no idea there were criteria as to what should be included and what should not! Of course, in many other cases the article was spam or pure crap and the person who wrote it is never seen again. Still, better that that stuff is gone sooner rather then later. If no one -ever- created an article that needed to be deleted, I'd be quite happy! Unfortunately, in reality, people do spam, and submit keyboard salad and autobiographies, and write on non-notable bands, and do original research-so for the foreseeable future, admins are going to keep needing that delete button.

Hope that answers your question! If I didn't answer your question or you have more, please ask away! Seraphimblade 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pedigrees

Seeing that you have participated in things related to Romanian monarchy, you may wish to check the several genealogical trees mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek pedigree of Empress Sisi. Maed 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)