User talk:Iasson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from introducing vandalism to it. If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Contents

Welcome

Hello, 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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 22:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ok! thank you! Iasson 09:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Five days for deletion

Hi Iasson. It is not appropriate to start a new article for a comment, plus which, nobody will know to read it. Please add your comment to the appropriate discussion. I am about to delete the article you created, I've copied the text here for your convenience:

Five days for deletion, is also a disputed, as long as five days may be appropriate for some articles, but for some other articles more or less(speedy) days are needed. So a better voting policy could be : * Delete this after 7 days Iasson 10:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then summariaze both Delete-Keep votes and period votes in order to extract the final deletion decision.

--Woggly 10:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An appropriate place to discuss this would be at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy or the Village pump. Gazpacho 10:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Ditto rough deletion consensus: What a rough deletion consensus is is not set in stone, a few do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus". As long as "rough consensus" is not yet defined, all possible deletion decisions are potentialy invalid.

If you're using these article spaces as temporary storage space while you reword an existing paragraph, as I suspect you may be doing, I suggest that you use a user subpage instead, something like: User:Iasson/temp I also suggest that you discuss changes to the wording of Wikipedia policy on Village pump before implementing them, or they are most likely to be reverted. (You could drop a note there saying, "hey, lookit what I wrote on User:Iasson/temp, don't you think this is clearer than the current wording of the deletion policy?" or something like that). --Woggly 10:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


ok guys, thanks! Iasson 16:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wording of delete votes on VfD

I'm all for changing the deletion policy, but must you post a new version when you vote? hfool 17:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But the point of VfD is not to try and recreate VfD policy at the ground level. Creating different policy for every vote is a huge waste of time and effort on small things like an individual VfD vote. I'm sure you've been directed to the many VfD discussion pages that litter the wiki namespace. Vote on VfD using established policy, and change the policy on those pages. People are laughing at your posts (see below), which I'm sure is not your intent. and I'm not sure if people can pick out your votes from the paragraphs you post. hfool 22:05, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is the meaning of my strange votes. I dont want all VfD polls to have the same policy. I think that every Vfd poll should have its own policy that depends on what it is actually written on the article. A vanity article deserves a different Vfd policy than a nonsense article for example. And of course I dont wont to force people to follow the policy that I think is correct for a specific article, thats why I put my proposed policy into a poll along with my poll option. Iasson 11:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please, STOP creating VfD policy on actual VfDs. You don't even propose how these odd numbers are calculated. -- user:zanimum

  • After a nice break, I see you've begun to list these odd policies for your votes on the VfD page. To ask an obvious question, shouldn't the nominator deal with how they want the votes delt with? If you persist, I may consider opening a RfC page, against my better judgement and character. I ask again, please stop. hfool/Roast me 03:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Iasson's response from my talk page:
I am asking simple questions, and I dont get an answer from you. What is the voters population? In order for a Vfd poll to be a valid one, what is the minimum number of voters (as population percentage) that has to cast a vote on it? What is your decision method when you extract the decision from the poll? 2/3 majority? simple majority rule? other? Finnaly as long as you take a decision, how long this decision is valid and cannot be reversed? I am expecting simple answers from you, in order to stop proposing my own answers.vfd policy is a total mess! Iasson 09:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • My response:
Voting population:Anyone who will bother to vote and can argue good faith if asked.
There is no bottom limit to critical mass for a vote, however, if the 5-7 day period passes with a very small vote count (read: 1-2 noncommital votes), the admin handling the VfD can chose to relist or take independant action.
The result is often defined as 'community consensus', a fuzzy them that can be applied multiple ways. If, for example, a page is listed and the first few votes are strong deletes based on an early verson of the article, but a user comes along at the last minute and vastly improves the article, but only one or two strong votes to keep (under 50%) votes are cast on the article after the cleanup, the admin reviewing the VfD may not delete the article, though the majority of voters voted to delete an older version.
The decisions are valid until otherwise questioned; for a delete, this questioning can be done as a recreate of the article with new content or a Request for Undeletion; for a keep the article can be relisted after some time has passed (a month is considered the least amount of time).
This is how I understand the rules, and I hope this clears things up for you. hfool/Roast me 21:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's not your intention...

...but you make me smile every time you post a new voting policy along with your vote. I can't help but look at it as a parody of Wikipedia voting procedures. (And if it is your intention, here's your honorary mention as a Department of Fun candidate: <:-) JRM 12:22, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Well, I wish you the best of luck getting people to accept these policies. For the most part, you should realize that the main idea behind a vote is to get consensus; we are not necessarily interested in calculating the "correct" outcome. Everyone understands a decision to Delete or Keep the article. The same does not hold for introducing four additional variables with each vote, then letting admins sort out what it all means. Voting is, first and foremost, a simple way of expressing your opinion. Interpreting the results is likewise subjective. It may be suboptimal, but it works to the satisfaction of all involved, without requiring a degree in statistics.
Of course, you are free to talk this out on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion if you really want to. I don't think many people will get enthusiastic, though. JRM 12:06, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Hey Deb here, question/fear

I felt forced to go through the pain of recommending a deletion because a person would not listen to me, not read my reference material nor give my credentials a second thought. For a few days he actually followed me and totally changed (for the wrong) all my work. So.I'm having his article which competes with mine deleted. What's to say he won't plop it right back? Both articles as it stands are horrible and need a total rewrite, which I want. What's to stop him from kiling my explanations with his, as he has over, and over, and over. I finally gave up on one article.

--Dkroll2 03:08, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

GROUPTHINK

Naturally I agree. I was lead by your word consensus to a word called groupthink. I liked it. People can make a mess and all be wrong together for a time. Cool. My new friend would not play that game, nor would even return an email.

"The process of achieving consensus involves serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion, and a collective trust in each member's discretion in follow-up action.">>He wouldn't talk to me. "...the ensuing debate will improve the consensus." >> what debate, I just got my stuff hammered over and over. For the final definition I invited about 5 people so far to help get started groupthink and come to a consensus. All are welcome. I LOVE the party. Just not the guy who double dips the chips...no I like him too, if there's no herpes. Oh baby, it took a lot before I went running to mommy and daddy to delete the page, since it's a major pain of syntax to do so, I did not take it lightly. Everyone else has helped me 100%. peace.--Dkroll2 22:27, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

VfD

I am asking simple questions, and I dont get an answer from you. What is the voters population? In order for a Vfd poll to be a valid one, what is the minimum number of voters (as population percentage) that has to cast a vote on it? What is your decision method when you extract the decision from the poll? 2/3 majority? simple majority? other? Finnaly as long as you take a decision, how long this decision is valid and cannot be reversed? I am expecting simple answers from you, in order to stop proposing my own answers to those questions .Vfd policy is a total mess! How I calculate my results? I dont know yet. I have read majority rule, average rule, quadratic rule e.t.c. and I am trying to find out. Iasson 09:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look. We're just like any other democracy here. You hold a vote, basically just an election. If only 0.0001% of the population turns up, so be it. They vote, they decide who's the victor. We can't force anyone to vote. I think I heard there's almost 100,000 registered users on Wikipedia, but there's really only 1,000 or so users that have edited in the last month. VfD should be a simple procedure, based on a normal majority. xx users said delete, yy users said keep. If xx is greater than yy, delete the article, if yy is greater, delete. -- user:zanimum
You have to understand the nature of the VfD process. Many of the listings there are just formalities: "this is pretty blatent vanity", "this is an advertising page for a company", "this is clearly original research", "this is sub-trivial nonsense". Most of the time, people reading the page recognize them for being a formality, and don't go to the effort of voting. You'll get a half-dozen delete votes, and maybe a keep vote from a hard-core inclusionist. Sometimes there'll be issues like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abraham Lincoln's Burial and Exhumation, where it goes the other way, and there's a clear case for keeping the article. It's only occasionally that an article is contentuous enough that the actual vote count matters, such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America. --Carnildo 23:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the minimum number of voters that has to cast a vote? One. What is your decision method when you extract the decision from the poll? Admin's discretion. Finnaly as long as you take a decision, how long this decision is valid and cannot be reversed? It can always be reversed, have a look at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Are those answers simple enough for you? —Stormie 11:34, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

  • DO NOT edit other people's words on the RfC page (on this occasion hfool's initial description of your behaviour. If you do this again I will request that you receive a ban. Thryduulf 18:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • i strongly advise against editing other people's comments on the RfC. You could get yourself into further trouble. Xtra 08:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Iasson#Iasson's poll. You are hereby put on notice. RickK 23:10, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

two questions: 1) why do you always refer to yourself in the 3rd person? 2) why are you being such a baby? your ideas of random policies are just fantacy and you pushing them as if they are reality is just childish and takes up the time of serious editors. whatever happened to you in the past does not justify this nonsense. either grow up and conform to policy now, or you will find yourself out on the preverbial pavement with a very sore rear. Xtra 11:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy

If you insert content into Wikipedia:Deletion policy again without first obtaining consensus via Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, I will consider it vandalism and revert it and block you from editing. Consider yourself warned. —Stormie 15:39, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have a question

Have you EVER edited an article other than to make extremly minor grammatical or formatting changes? Looking through the history of your contributions, I see none. RickK 07:14, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have edited some articles, but most of the times my changes are reverted. I have never create an article Iasson 07:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By my count, you have made three article edits: creating a disambiguation page between two articles that don't exist, wikified the word "person" in the article average rule, and made a few minor changes to Athenian democracy that have been undone since then. You have made no edits in the "Talk" namespace, one edit to someone else's user page, asked one question in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace, started a poll on whether you should be allowed to disrupt VfD, and made approximately 250 edits in the "Wikipedia" namespace: a mix of VfD votes and edits to policy pages that have been reverted. Have I missed anything, such as anonymous edits? --Carnildo 08:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes you are right! I forgot SASE disambiguation! This is the only article I have ever created. You are correct for all the others. Iasson 08:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I believe he made significant edits to List of Active Vfd Voters. --Carnildo 07:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
yes...I edited the List of Active Vfd Voters but I have not created it. The accusations that I have created this article are false. Iasson 07:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson

Don't rearrange other people's comments. RickK 07:20, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for threatening at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Average rule to disrupt Wikipedia by your continuing trolling. If you would like to actually CONTRIBUTE to Wikipedia instead of just jerking everybody around, you are more than welcome to do so when you return from your time out. If you continue your disruptive behavior, you will be blocked again. RickK 05:21, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

FaethonXX

Iasson, just stop with the Faethon business, okay? You're no fooling anyone, and if you're hoping to give yourself a built-in excuse to cover sockpuppetry, it's not going to work.--Calton 13:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Arbcom

As per regulations, you are hearby notified that an arbitration request has been filed against you at WP:RFAr. humblefool® 01:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against you. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt   ҈  04:06, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee injunction

A temporary injunction has been enacted on the case against you; it is as follows:

Due to a demonstrated tendency toward disruptive editing habits on voting-related pages, you are prohibited from editing any deletion-related page for the duration of the case. Should you do so, you may be blocked for up to a week by an administrator.

-- Grunt   ҈  21:13, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

Nice one. Especially given this member's inability to vote. Chris 23:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Chriscf for bringing that up. In this case, ones ability to vote does not matter. This was merely a notification that the following schools have been nominated for deletion and may possibly be in need of improvement. --GRider\talk 16:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bank of Wikipedia

Are you the Bank of Wikipedia? ‡ Jarlaxle 21:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/a/s/User_talk%7EIasson_38a3.html"