User talk:Wrathchild-K

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To better keep conversations together...
If you leave a message to me here, I will reply here. (Start a new topic)
If I have posted on your talk page, I will watch for replies there.

Welcome!

Hello, Wrathchild-K, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , Los Esqueakis 19:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] New Jawa Order

Hi Aeverett... just so you know, if a case like New Jawa Order, just put a {{delete}} on the page, and sysops will be there on the double. Thanks for ID'ing it as fake though. I clued in once I saw that Anakin Skywalker was "killed" in the incidents of the story. BTW, if you ever need any help, just call on me or any other sysop, we'd love to help out. -- user:zanimum


[edit] Goln

'Advertising' is not a speedy deletion criterion under the WP:CSD - if you want this article gone (and I'm sympathetic to that) please go to WP:AFD. Thanks --Doc (?) 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody tagged it for importance and cleanup, so I'll wait to see what happens there. Al 00:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Then again...

[edit] Palooza

I redirected You're a looza, if you don't know what a palooza is... because it's not actually nonsense by Wikipedia definition. It's possible it'll be speedied anyway, you never know. My plan was, redirect it, wait for Palooza to be deleted, and then put the redirect up for speedy deletion due to not having a target. Friday (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it because whoever put the AfD tag on it didn't complete the process. The whole lot has been speedied by now. Al 18:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:131.109.1.250

This user has continued to vandalize after your warning, and another person's. S/he defaced the main star wars page as seen in its history. Thanks. The Wookieepedian 13:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flemington Circle

If you oppose the deletion of the article, I suggest you record your vote as the others have on the page so that the admins can easily identify it. (That is, add a bullet headed by Keep formatted just like that, and add any applicable discussion.)

Welcome to Wikipedia (since you've been here almost two months and no one has said it yet) and thank you for your support! TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I forgot to record my vote. And I did get a welcome a couple of months ago. I just decided to clear my talk page.
  • By the way, what is the thing about traffic circles and New Jersey? From what I gather, there were a fair number of badly designed traffic circles built there in the twenties and thirties and people have been swearing at them ever since. I know that roundabouts (to use UK terminology) aren't popular at all in the US and are only now being introduced (a couple of DOTs have brochures in the web to explain them to road users), but NJ seems a special case. Pilatus 22:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good question. Roundabouts are only starting to come into vogue. In fact, there's two of them here in my new "hometown" of Brunswick, MD. Traffic Circles, though, are huge compared to roundabouts. When they were first put in New Jersey was well-populated but not nearly like it is now. The idea was to let people get through these intersections without having to slow down. Probably okay at the time, but as traffic increased it just got worse and worse. The Somerville Circle, for instance (close to where I grew up) was (in)famous for averaging more than 1 motor vehicle accident a day. They are a fairly unique feature of New Jersey; I don't see very many circles or even roundabouts outside of New Jersey, but there were easily half a dozen in New Jersey I used to deal with regularly. (Some are gone now.) Just as unique a road feature: The jughandle. I just don't see them outside of New Jersey. Al 23:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The Somerville Circle was especially notorious, not only because of the accidents but because before I-78 was completed it was often the first one encountered by travellers from out-of-state, who had naturally never seen one before. And it was among the worst of them. A common problem was to get stuck on the inside lane and be trapped there for several laps before you could get to the outside and off. It got so bad that before the flyover was constructed to bypass it, metering lights were installed at the feeders -- which caused backups on the highways, but at least fewer accidents on the circle.
The Flemington Circle is problematic in its own way. At Somerville it was at least understood that traffic on the circle had the right-of-way, just as with a roundabout. At Flemington (as you can see from the aerial photo) not only is the feeder pattern rather complex, but one side is flattened to allow northbound (actually north-east bound) traffic on U.S. Highway 202 to pass directly through, meaning that traffic on the circle does not always have the right of way. It's a very difficult circle to navigate as a result, even though it has only one lane in places.
The other two circles in the area are much more lightly travelled and clearly non-notable. They're not even named as far as I know. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the Somerville Circle never had the circle traffic getting right-of-way. Before the flyover, 202-206 southbound traffic had right-of-way into the circle (and it still does) and 202 northbound did as well. I also remember that accidents on the Somerville Circle actually went up right after the flyover was completed. (I grew up in Bridgewater. It was a right of passage when learning to drive to learn how to navigate the Circle. Al 12:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
That's odd, because I remember clearly how I used to drive it even before the metering lights were installed, many years before the flyover went in. (I grew up in Branchburg.) Traffic on the circle itself never yielded; traffic coming in did. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I grew up in Bridgewater, and my first traffic accident was on the Circle. It's been a mess for a long time. Al 20:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your signature

I notice that your signature is formatted to appear as "AI". You might want to reconsider this so that people don't confuse you with the controversial User:AI. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam tags

Ooooh...I didn't know there was that db-spam tag. Thanks. --216.191.200.1 12:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's deprecated now. —Wrathchild (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please don't delete the saugeen stripper article

It is legitimate as per my comments on the page itself.

Tokyojoe2002 21:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. You can call me Al 16:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] oxxiox

Thank you for your impartial and fair contributions to the discussion on the saugeen stripper page, it is appreciated. -Oxxiox 20:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Over 30

Over30club is more for CS and DoD rather than Planetside but your still more than welcome to join us --Jsmp01 16:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Dmoz

Template:Dmoz has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz. Thank you. Adrian Buehlmann 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Username change

Your request has been fulfilled. Regards — Dan | talk 20:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbshot

Are you aware of WP:3RR? Step back, let an admin help you out. pfctdayelise 05:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving articles on afd

When you move an article that's on afd, could you please create a redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTitle to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OldTitle instead of moving the afd discussion? My bot can account for redirected afd discussions automatically, but it can't detect moved ones, and there isn't really an easy way to make it do so. —Cryptic (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Is there anything I can do to fix what I've broken? --Wrathchild (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not actually broken, per se, in that it works fine for human editors. The problem is that I run a bot every morning to find incompletely-listed afd nominations, and (because of the way the move log is set up) making it be able to detect when an afd nomination subpage has been moved would double its running time and sometimes cause false negatives. —Cryptic (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I won't do it again. --Wrathchild (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikidweb

Hi, Let me start by stating that I did not put the reference to wikidweb in the article, but since noticing it, I have been watching it. Anyways, I would like to dispute "full of spam". "Noteworthy" is something that only time can tell, or other Wikipedia editors, but the wiki directory has many anti-spam measures, a small community of editors, and is fairly spam free. I also figure you're a bit biased, as you are a dmoz editor, but that also means you can talk about directories with some authority. I'm trying to overcome some (perceived, at least) shortcomings of dmoz in the wiki directory. So, as a dmoz editor, I'd love to get your input. Stop on by and check it out.  :-) --Aerik 02:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page. --Wrathchild (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wrathchild - thanks for continuing the discussion. I'm not looking for an argument (in the bad sense of the word), but I think you have judged me, and the site, too harshly. I will note try to convince you that the site is "notworthy", but I get a very strong impression that you think I am just catering to website owners. I also feel that you are, at least somewhat, laying out some bad PR for me, and I would like to convince you of my intentions and in the process stop the bad PR. On my talk page, you mentioned the Wikipedia link policy - let me reiterate that I did not link to my site, nor author any part of the Web directory article - your comments left the impression that you thought I had violated a policy, when in fact, I did nothing, and I don't think the author violated any policy anyway (the text did not link to the site, it was just text). I can appreciate the policies about links as I, like any good wikizen, abhor spam, and I am currently contributing ideas on Wikitech-L to develop anti-spam filters.
In regards to your example of spammy sites listed in the directory - I'm sure there are lots of useless, crummy sites listed in the directory. My goals are to be inclusive - on the other end of the spectrum from DMOZ - that a site is "good enough to be listed until proven otherwise". This policy does appear to favor webmasters, but my philosophy is that most sites have some unique value somewhere. Certainly there are a few that are just garbage, and when I have reviewed those, I have declined those listings.
Your comment specifically was "full of spam" which gives the impression that the directory is not watched or edited, which is not the case. Certainly many new listings are not edited - it is a very different thing than Wikipedia - but we do have a small, dedicated community of editors. And I have put in place several filters to promote good content and reduce spam. You'll find very little wiki spam (completely irrelevant links posted in the middle of legitmate content) in the directory, and when it occurs, it is reverted pretty quickly (less than 12 hours, typically).
At this stage of the directory, I am trying to attract new listings - yes, some are garbage, but most are good, useful sites - because a general purpose directory needs to be large to attract surfers, which is the real audience. But I will not get surfers with 100 or 1000 listings. With tens of thousands of listings, surfers will come, appreciating the ability to find listings in multiple categories, review sites, and even re-write or recategorize a listing if it is required - but I need plenty of content first.
When I read your user page (that you are a father, programmer, a dmoz editor, and wikipedia editor), I suspect that we actually have common interests and philosophies. I would love to win you over. Best Regards --Aerik 20:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have an awful lot invested over a single editing comment. There is no need for you to "win me over." While I am editing here, I try to work in the best interests of Wikipedia. I wish you luck with your endeavors. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't underestimate the power of bad PR - I have a lot invested (time, emotion) in the wiki directory. I just really thought that with your background, you might appreciate what I was trying to do - it would have been nice to "win you over". Thanks though, and I'll drop it now.--Aerik 05:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Make it a worthwhile, indispensible, "go-to" resource, and I'll be won over. —Wrathchild (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NAVCRUIT 1133.101

WHY are you trying to delete my vitally important article on NAVCRUIT 1133.101?? I realize that it proves that McNeight was rude and obnoxious when he vandalized my contributions---but surely TRUTH and ACCURACY are MORE important than protecting the 'pathetic' rantings of McNeight. (Note: McNeight called ME 'pathetic' first---so if this is a persoanl attack be sure to delete the jackassery of McNeight as well.) Thank you very little. T`sitra Yel Darb 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

WTF? "Vitally important"? Yeah, right. It's not worth an encyclopedia article. Nothing personal against you at all. I don't even know who "McNeight" is. Remember the Wikipedia mantra: Assume good faith. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the lunacy. Thanks for adding your $0.02 to the RfC. McNeight 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Wrathchild-K" <<< PLEASE STOP DELETING THE WORK OF OTHER USERS, OR IT IS YOUR ACCOUNT GOING TO BE DELETED!... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.249.49.111 (talk • contribs) 19:23, January 27, 2006.

Yeah, right. Go for it. Feel free to begin the WP:RFC process. Meanwhile, grow up. —Wrathchild (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


AH---that IP address is in Amsterdam----please explain how you plan to BLAME me in Eau Claire, WISCONSIN for that one?? You all need to take a big step abck and stop jack-booting it all over the place. AMERICA---Land of the free and home to pathetic bullies like McNeight!!!Vinnie von Go 03:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Go harass someone else. —Wrathchild (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone seems to miss the FACT that McNeight was a rude and abusiv eto me before I started my campaign to show the World what an out-of-control individual he truly is. "LOOK at thr record and see HIS rudenes FIRST. With that---to quote the great Bender Rodriguez: Bite my shiny metal ass!!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinnie von Go (talk • contribs). (But actually —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Braaad (talk • contribs).)

You might want to read WP:POINT. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the note

Thanks for the note especially on my name showing up as a region! :o Strawberry Island 05:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl XL article

Consistent with your suggestion, for which I thank you, I included the respective overall ranks to the stats chart. Apropos of my source, I copied the statistics from the print versions of USA Today Sports Weekly and The Sporting News. The NFL's website, though, has a better compendium, and we perhaps will put a footnote to that. Joe 05:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. When editing Wikipedia, you have to have an edit summary. Furthermore, when reverting another user's edits you should comment on the talkpage to explain your reversion. Randomly referring to good-faith edits as vandalism is just childish. You will not succeed on WP:RFA by violating WP:3RR. Growup. 165.247.91.219 21:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Harrassed twice in as many weeks. I guess I'm getting popular. —Wrathchild (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Soos

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article. Although it is highly unlikely, a "famous theologian" (who would be turning 18 this year) is a claim of notability. As it stands, I'll leave it as a test case for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sudoku

In the External Link section: I don't understand, if the Sudoku Programmers link can be there, then what's wrong with a link to a Sudoku Solver implemented using computer spreadsheet software? --Zero0w Feb 11 2006

First, read Talk:Sudoku. Then read WP:SPAM. Do you know how many links we have to trim from that article on a daily basis? If we allow one or two, reasoning says, we have to allow them all. Like any fad, Sudoku has been glommed on by get-rich-quick schemers everywhere. Do you know how trivially easy it is to put up a site with a few Sudoku puzzles from a third party, some ads, and rake in the money? Anyway, links to external sites are better submitted to places that specialize in them, such as the Open Directory Project. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the BBC trying to shape Wikipedia in its own immage ?

Hi, you said if I had any troubles, well I may be just may not be correct here but, after stewing on this one for maybe about a week, I am still POed, and maybe need some feedback: I think Wikiwoohoo (I may have the user name spelled incorrectly since it would not link) is some sort of BBC proxy or sockpuppet or something which they are using to control content here, and I tripped over him (Grant is what editor claimed to be his name was which maybe is not even relevant here) while ham-handedly trying to do an article about a BBC News Anchor. I'm quite sure that she (the BBC News Anchor-Martine Croxall) took offense to my article. There may actually have been very little in the article that was offensive, and most of that (if it even was offensive) was in the talk section (and honestly there was no true intent on my own part to actually be offensive). Some of this stuff was perhaps relevant biographical info that I guess for some reason the BBC or the News Anchor itself appearantly doesn't want in Wikipedia. After some series of constant deletions from Wikiwoohoo, I finally saw what had happened to the article, and began a discussion. Simply from the tone of this editor I was pretty certain that I wasn't getting the chance to have any sort of say as to the content or tone. I tried very unhappily to at least figure from where this mess was going how to have a little give and take, but after trying a bit harder than I should have just plain gave up. It may be that I am not all that opposed to the BBC being happy about the articles here about their stuff. 'But, where do they get the right to control Wikipedia content? Maybe this is all hot air, however I was completely quashed, and that was intentional, and I was and am still quite angry about it. Maybe Martine Croxall deserved an appelation (didn't post it though perhaps admitting that I was considering doing so) that came up in my research (happy to share that tidbit if it will help, though it is a bad name based on insulting her name, and well, when I started out I liked her and didn't realize that she wasn't very nice, and really as far as starting a fight or throwing stones, all I want to do is keep her and the BBC from quashing others work [especially mine] even if it isn't perfect).152.163.100.130 17:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)still very inexpert here, I forgot to sign in, sorry, hopefully John5Russell3Finley 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not been around lately. I only just saw your message. I'll reply on your talk page. —Wrathchild (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sorry not to be replying earlier, me too with the real world stuff, I guess that the "edit war" was a while ago, and well, I guess I like Martine Croxall and Wikipedia too much to have let the Wikiwoohoo edit stuff drag me and etc down into a conflict, I guess I've gotten over that kind of stuff, when I was doing genealogy I got into some stuff like that, and it doesn't help anybody at all, and it does kind of mar what you are working on which I guess can ruin the thing for the folks you are actually trying to reach. I guess that my posting was more of a heads up than anything else, like maybe this is something to be watching for in case it happens to other contributors. The BBC is not per se a bad thing, but if it gets repressive, well, maybe folks need to be watching for that sort of stuff. Thanks for the reply, John5Russell3Finley 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Throne

I don't think the Dark Throne page should be deleted. Why is it being considered for deletion? -- Jowan2005

I'm just the nominator. Discussion should go on the deletion discussion page. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
If you don't answer I will assume your AfD message was vandalism and remove it. -- Jowan2005
It is poor etiquette to remove content from a user's talk page. And I did answer. You deleted it. Not nice to make threats, either. —Wrathchild (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I didn't see that it was moved to the bottom, I thought you took it off. So after a while of what I thought was putting it back on I decided to take it back off to be nice (since I thought you removed it before). As you said "I'm just the nominator", so why did you nominate it? --Jowan2005
My reasons for nominating it are right there on the discussion page. —Wrathchild (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzle spam

As a relatively new Wikipedian, I'd like to understand why you deleted the links on the Puzzle page as spam. The Grey Labyrinth and National Puzzlers' League links are non-commercial, and exist certainly as resources for those interested in puzzles (the latter, in particular, provides both solving resources and historical information). I'm not sure why they are substantively different than the rec.puzzles newsgroup. The two other links, Mind Bogglers and Puzzle Choice seem less informational and more like collections of non-notable puzzles, and I'd agree that they are less appropriately encyclopedic. (Including them sends the page down a slippery slope, where to be complete it would need to link to every page that provides collections of puzzles, which I would agree is not the intention here.) Thanks. --Glp 14:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links has a couple of points which come to mind. "Links should be kept to a minimum" is one. Under "links to be avoided" is "open wikis" and "personal websites" which fit here. Certainly "Wikipedia is not a web directory" comes to play as well. In my opinion they didn't need to be there and I removed them. Articles are done by consensus, however, so it wouldn't be out of bounds to begin a conversation on the talk page about what links to include. In fact, WP:EL recommends it. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Wrathchild. I think your point is well taken, especially regarding both minimal linkage and web-directory-ness. I appreciate the pointers to the Wikipedia info pages as well.--Glp 21:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Segway Geeks
Because of your outstanding contributions to Segway PT and/or Geek, you have been selected for the Wikipedia group Segway Geeks.

Geeklera Segway Geek 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/r/a/User_talk%7EWrathchild-K_6125.html"