User talk:Kappa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page.
I will generally but not always reply here. If I talked to you, I will be watching your talk page so you can reply there if you wish.

Previous discussions: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6

Contents

[edit] Deprodding

While it's certainly not required, when deprodding an article it's generally considered polite to explain your objections to deletion on the article's talk page. This may also help to prevent unnecessary AfD requests by laying out the arguments against deletion before it's sent there. Thanks! Seraphimblade 03:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well quite often the prod tag just says "nn-X" or whatever, and I simply disagree with that assessment as grounds for deletion. If some kind of evidence-based discussion is provided I am more likely to respond in kind - and often (well occasionally anyway LOL) I can be persuaded that deletion is necessary. Kappa 03:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afghan companies list

The reason why I suggested it be deleted is that it *is* confusing. The list on this page is only partial. People come to this page thinking they've found **the** list - but in fact they've missed about half the companies. Check out Category:Companies of Afghanistan to see what I mean. If we keep it who will maintain it? Categories are at least self maintaining. Egfrank 14:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well OK I've just been through the category system to find all the Afghan companies I could, and it was a very unpleasant experience. I think it's worth keeping the list in order to spare at least some users the same amount of wasted time. Kappa 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I just saw the warnings and links you put at the top. I think that is a great compromise. Thanks. And thanks for the example of how to link to a category. I wasn't sure how to do that. Egfrank 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Also what made it unpleasant? I'd like to think about ways to make the category system more usable -- Egfrank 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broom (clean)

Hi. Before you deprod things like Broom (clean) please do some research and please assume that the prod tag was put up by someone that did his. You are wasting everyone's time by sending this to AfD. If you truly had evidence that this was worthy of an article then please at least go defend it on AfD. If you have no argument then please do not deprod. When you deprod things at the rate of 2 a minute as you did yesterday for instance you are clearly not doing research and your negligence is an imposition on the other editors who are spending time to clean up Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The prod tag said "Not notable" which implies the prodder felt no research was necessary. If the article is supposed to be unverifiable or an exaggeration, that should be confirmed by AFD. Kappa 23:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs on songs

I've noticed your name turning up on a couple of song AfDs recently, talking about deletion as a "betrayal of fans" and things like that. The songs are never nominated for deletion to "betray fans" or anything like that. It's always a case of whether or not a given song is in fact notable. I'll be the first to admit that there are some album tracks by some of my favourite artists which I'd love to see an article on here, but just because a song is a real fan favourite doesn't necessarily mean it's notable in a wider sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Betrayal is the result if its deleted. Someone who listens to a song and wants to know what it's about or how it was inspired doesn't care if its "notable" or not. Kappa 15:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • True enough, but why then are we honour bound to have an article on each and every song by each and every singer or band? At least 50% of the articles in the AfD this all referred to were just written along the lines of "X is a song by Y on album Z. It was written by Joe Bloggs". This doesn't tell me anything I can't gain from the liner notes of the average album. Sure, there's no limit to the number of articles we can have in this encyclopedia, but why do we have things like WP:MUSIC/SONG if every song in the world is allowed in so that fans can find out about it? My apologies for a delayed response, by the way, your Talk page had somehow fallen off my watchlist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You aren't honour bound to have a seperate article for every recorded song by a notable band but as far as I am concerned you are honour bound to attempt to explain and discuss it somewhere. If someone has written a description of the song and you delete it (rather than merging) just because you don't think it belongs on a separate page, you are betraying your audience who may not have access to the liner notes or the song itself. (Regarding your watchlist, I think there might be something wrong with my archiving technique.) Kappa 05:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yenta Claus

I am trying to figure out what is wrong and was wondering if labeling the AfD as biographical by an editor was the right place for a holiday folk hero?--Cuddles 03:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Well "what is wrong" seems to be that there isn't enough verifiable evidence out there to prove that it's an established, or even an emerging, cultural phenomenon. I know not everything is on google, but unfortunately wikipedia has to demand evidence (although it's inconsistent, I know). I know you worked hard to provide it and it's a pity if the article still gets deleted. My feeling is that this is a real but currently unverifiable thing, hopefully more evidence will appear with time. If you could find it in a couple more books, that would probably be enough, or it might get more net coverage during the holiday season.
  • Thank you for your interest in Yenta Claus, but alas she must be a myth, an urban legend have you, and besides, she was simply too good to be true. Maybe? Thanks for the tip, but I believe Hanukkah Harry is about to get the Wiki Axe. Too sad. BTW, Is there really a Yenta Claus or not? Merry what ever you celebrate and just a friendly hello. Have a bright life, Yenta Claus  :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.86.146 (talk • contribs) .
  • There are other places that will accept your article, perhaps wikinfo or other alternatives to wp. I'm sorry you have had such an unpleasant experience here. Also it's clearly not a biography so I've recategorized it to "society" where it fits a little better. Kappa 04:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. Even if it's deleted, with the current evidence you might be able to mention Yenta in another article like Hanukkah Harry. Kappa 04:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De-Prodding etc

Hi, just a quick request to be more specific with your reasons for de-prodding in various music related articles. Particularly, it's a bit confusing to see WP:MUSIC as a reason to de-PROD when an article clearly makes no attempt to assert that it meets the requirements. Thanks... (No more bongos 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

  • Do you want to be more specific here? Kappa 15:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you are talking about Lotta Engbergs... Kappa 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Partly that one; partly a couple of others I noticed on some page histories, and partly some stuff in AFDs a while back... I'm not criticising you or saying your deprodding/voting is necessarily wrong, but it might be helpful to explain your reasoning in certain situations. No more bongos 19:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, what was your reason for deproding Luminary (album), and for removing the linkless template, as the article is linked to by only one non-user space article? Do you have any evidence that the album is notable? Swpb 01:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's an album by Adeyto who seems notable so I deprodded it. One link seems sufficient for an album, but put the template back if you like. Kappa 01:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

Just wanted to let you know I put the notability tag back in because the AfD survived only because of no consensus. Perhaps if notability is asserted it would convince those who voted delete that it meets wikipedia standards. Arbusto 16:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Notability tags, like AFD tags, are for editors not for users. Leaving them on an article permanently just defaces the article and clogs up the category. 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
1) What's the difference between an editor and user? 2) Tags aren't "permanently" on articles, but are left to address concerns. I guess it is possible that a tag can be left "permanently" if that concern is not addressed, but I am not aware of a situation. I believe you should reinsert the tag or provide proof that it meets notability standards. Arbusto 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"User" = "reader". A notability tag is there to warn editors that the article is likely to fail an AFD - well it survived the AFD so the tag is now redundant. Frankly I'm not very interested in defending this thing, but it took all of 30 seconds to find more nontrivial independent third-party coverage. [1] Kappa 23:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It survived due to a lack of consensus, which means it may very well be up for a AfD again for lack of notability. How does that link meet WP:CORP? Arbusto 23:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
See WP:CORP #1. Kappa 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You are asserting two religious websites are meet CORP #1? CORP #1: "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." So is church news is considered "non-trival" and independent of the school? Can you find any mainstream news article on it? Or any famous faculty? That would meet notability standards. Arbusto 05:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Also you do know the sources you cited noted this unaccredited school does not have classes, but it does distance learning on the internet and at various churches? Arbusto 06:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That fact merits mention in the lead, so I've promoted it. As far as I'm concerned it passes WP:CORP but I'm not very interested in defending it so I'm not going bother looking for other notability. Regarding WP:CORP, a requirement for mainstream coverage is too restrictive for an all-purpose encylopedia. The coverage seems clearly nontrivial (trivial: "school holds car boot sale") and I don't believe the institution is in a position to control the church-related press - if it does that shows a different kind of importance. Since this is a tertiary institution, I think the question we should try to answer is "do they have legitimate tertiary-level staff?". Kappa 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bratz characters

I notice that you removed a PROD tag I'd added to various Bratz characters with the summary WP:MERGE. However, I don't think it's appropriate that the level of detailed information on the subpages should be added to the List of Bratz characters page. This was discussed with Alcy, who created most of these pages, in the context of the AfD discussion on Ciara (Bratz character).

Please respond as to how we should now proceed, as I'm anxious not to waste community effort on so many pages by taking them all to AfD unless it's essential to develop a consensus. Thanks. Espresso Addict 21:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If Alcy doesn't mind there's no problem redirecting to the list. Kappa 01:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've proposed this on the various talk pages. Espresso Addict 02:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Sun and Steel (essay)

Thanks for your effort; and I must really learn to use the CSD-numbers (A7). The article in the deleted version didn't, at least imho, assert the notability of the subject. But I would have undeleted it anyway. Cheers. Lectonar 14:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kansas City (disambiguation)

Hello. Can you explain why you reverted the Kansas City (disambiguation) page? Nothing links there. There is already a disambig page at Kansas City. If people search they get the real disambig page, so what purpose does it serve? --Hobbes747 14:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone links to or searches for that title, they will be taken to where they want to go, instead of being invited to create a new article there. Kappa 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little bit late

Erm... roughly half a year ago, thanks for the close shave on the South Western AfD. Simply south 23:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votestacking

Regarding [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] You have been on wiki long enough to know that votestacking and internal spamming are unacceptable. Please stop. JoshuaZ 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You are trying to remove our voice from wikipedia, thanks for reminding me that I'm not trying hard enough to prevent this. Kappa 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_22#Finger_Lakes_Christian_School. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Wikipedia:Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking2. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you.  YDAM TALK 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This issue is relevant to every inclusionist wikipedian, because if deletionist admins can ignore us at will it effectively means the end of the inclusionist voice in wikipedian affairs. Kappa 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It is relevant to all sides of the debate. Perhaps you could inform those members of Category:Deletionist Wikipedians as well to ensure a fair debate  YDAM TALK 02:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it would be rather divisive to go and invite wikipedians to endorse the stance that the views of those who disagree with them are "absurd" and should be dismissed. Your mileage may vary. Kappa 02:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Kappa, please stop. If you continue, I am going to ask another admin to block you. JoshuaZ 02:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop indeed. I find that mass posting to be disruptive. Please find some other venue of dealing with this issue. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you suggest? Kappa 02:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Two things. Vote Stacking gains nothing. An appeal for help is one thing, if you know that the editor in question has a history of supporting the topic in question. secondly, I am willing to take a look at it. Could you give me a link of an old version that I can take a look at to determine its notability. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite know what to suggest, but mass-posting is not the way to go, no matter how strongly you feel about the issue. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have listed this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Spamming for DRV --After Midnight 0001 04:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
People have the right to be informed before they get stabbed in the back, not after. Kappa 04:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Following policy is not stabbing people in the back. Also see my comment below. JoshuaZ 04:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Not informing people that "policy" is suddenly disenfranchising them is stabbing them in the back. Kappa 05:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you were warned at 2106-UTC on the 25th and that at 0149-UTC on the 26th, you stated that you were going to knowingly violate policy, since your message above was immediately before you began your second wave. --After Midnight 0001 10:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Informing editors about their potential loss of voice in wikipedia discussions is not a violation of any reasonable interpretation of policy. Kappa 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
My misunderstanding; since your comment immediately followed mine, I assumed that you were saying that my listing of the issue at AN/I was a stab in your back. My response to you was therefore my explaination of why I felt my actions were not as so characterized. Obviously, I did not understand you correctly and your clarification renders my response of 10:22-26-Sep-2006 moot. --After Midnight 0001 02:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votestacking

[7] Behavior like this is unacceptable, and boderline gaming the system. Stop it or you will be blocked for disruption. Yanksox 03:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your spam also contained an error, because you forgot a colon in the Category link, putting all these users' talk pages in the category. Also, about half of these users are totally inactive. These are the least of the problems with your spamming. —Centrx→talk • 04:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not spamming or votestacking, I am informing editors of an issue which affects all of us. Kappa 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Kappa, have you read WP:SPAM#Canvassing? This is a textbook example. JoshuaZ 04:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Kappa you posted an "Appeal for you to help" On my userpage discussion. I agree with joshuaZ, that was a direct violation of WP:SPAM#Canvassing. Though I do consider myself an Inclusionist, an article must first have "Good content" to be considered for inclusion.
Also do me a favor and read: WP:POINT, It might help you understand what's going on here.Defraggler 13:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Your User Contributions show that you've made a bizarre number of requests that inclusionists visit a debate. It is spam. It is votestacking. Ironically, your plea for one inclusionist to join the debate brought the issue to my attention when I was visiting his user page. Why ironic? Because my contribution to the deletion review was to say that it needed to stay deleted. Spamming like that may just alienate some inclusionists and lure some deletionists. Wryspy 06:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Desperate situations require desperate measures. Kappa 02:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Kappa, are you still unwilling to acknowledge that votestacking is wrong and disruptive? JoshuaZ 02:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schools AfD et ali.

Now, now, I understand your worry in a possible full-out war on high school deletions, etc. I am one person who have lived to see through all these carnage and how the debate has eventually evolved. And back then, someone actually got killed in the process. Please, I don't wish to see you becoming the next casualty, don't mass post messages on fellow editors anymore.

The main arguement that can only currently override the whole agreement on retaining school-related articles is simply verifiability, and fulfilling that through providing reliable sources will almost always solve the problem. Even if there are editors out there who wants to escalate these, please, don't add onto it.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If admins get to impose their own personal standard of notability and ignore all dissenting opinions, no amount of verifiability will make any difference. Kappa 01:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If users get to impose their way by spamming a particular section of voters to get their own way then lack of notablity won't make any difference either. Arbusto 02:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to have been following the discussion. Kappa 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Going back to Mailer diablo's comments, I don't see much evolution in the debate, we still waiting patiently for deletionists to accept some kind of compromise based on merging. Kappa 02:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Propose a policy for it that isn't wrapped up in ridiculously inclusionist keep policies like WP:SCHOOLS is and the "deletionists" might consider it. JoshuaZ 02:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you agree with Mailer diablo that "main arguement that can only currently override the whole agreement on retaining school-related articles is simply verifiability, and fulfilling that through providing reliable sources will almost always solve the problem." Kappa 03:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat. In practice this seems to not even be true as the recent "compromise" with the DRV indicates (where it wasn't even clear to me that the school met WP:V). Among other issues with the statement I don't think there is some "whole agreement" about these, merely a well-organized push by a group for keeping the articles. However, this doesn't alter that I would (and I suspect many others) would be willing to consider a general merger proposal if it weren't tied into generous keep conclusions but was made as a separate item. JoshuaZ 05:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I haven't heard of the terms "deletionist-inclusionist" for a long time since the era of Votes for Deletion. Traditionally as a trend high-school articles are usually kept, and it is also up to the quality of the school article itself. Notability is now less used as an arugement for deletion, now mainly superceded by verifiability. Just so that you know and get updated of the deletion culture at the moment. Don't get worked up, don't worry, I do not see we are ever going to undergo a repeat procedure of the Userbox Wars where thousands of school articles are put into the fire-range. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Per your vote

Per your AfD vote I would like to point out that the wanted poster is not of the subject of the article and is of an unrelated person. The issue has been brought to AN/I regarding Geo Swan's reinsertion of the image and FBI information after already admitting they are unrelated. --NuclearUmpf 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. Kappa 04:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There is discussion on the talk page regarding it, and you can see the names are quite different. Geo Swan states he discovered the link himself by assessing that arab names are hard to illiterate and the FBI must have been mistaken. Feel free to use my talk page if you need further info, I dont want you to feel like im pushing you, just wanted to bring that to your attention. I have tried removing it, he just keeps reverting. --NuclearUmpf 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It's not clear to me if it belongs in the article or not but I won't base my AFD opinion on it. Kappa 04:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
        • NuclearUmpf is mischaracterizing me here, and on the administrator's noteboard. I didn't say what he says I said. -- Geo Swan 18:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
          • [8] "I don't think you understand. It doesn't matter whether they are the same person. I didn't assert they are the same person" --NuclearUmpf 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cotwall End Primary School

Certain people seem to be under the impression at that AfD that WP:SCHOOL is not an attempted compromise but rather an attempt to include pretty much all schools. Since you seem to think it is a compromise, you may want to discuss this with them. JoshuaZ 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply to your comment

Hey, you left a comment on my discussion page but reverted it for some reason. Anyways, I'd be glad to help, and inclusionism most certainly is NOT absurd. I'll get right on it :). Mk623SC20K 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

oh, seems it's been fixed! great. sorry i couldn't get there in time, i should log in more often. Mk623SC20K 22:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your comment

Hi Kappa Centrex reverted your comments on my talk page (as if I wanted that?) so I wasn't aware of the situation until it was evidently too late. Thanks for keeping me posted. I am interested in this type of thing, despite what the censors may think. Thanks Joe 22:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence school deletion debates. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Wikipedia:Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking2. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you. I have also blocked you for 48 hours, as this was not your first offense and previous warnings do not seem to have had an effect. --Cyde Weys 14:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be discussing this with a view to having it lifted. It was a really silly thing for you to do, but it was days ago. Blocks are preventative, not punative, and it's not anyone's place here to "teach you a lesson." - brenneman {L} 14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll unblock him so long as he doesn't resume the spam, which seems to have stopped days ago, anyway. Jonathunder 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad faith afd nomination

Hi. Empire of Atlantium has been nominated for afd - for the sixth time. The nomination has been made in bad faith by a suspected sockpuppet. You voted to retain this article in February. Thought you might be interested to know. If not, sorry to trouble you. --Gene_poole 09:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sloppy Jo's Lunchroom

Please reinstate the Sloppy Jo's Lunchroom. That entry was accurrate, informational, and verifiable. It's contents remained consistent with other similar entries ..ie Potbelly Sandwich Works.

Thanks so much and kindest regards, Debi

  • Hi Debi. Unfortunately I am not in a position to reinstate the Sloppy Joe's Lunchroom, and I wouldn't really be able to persuade anyone else to. The version I saw was, I imagine, accurate, but it was not verifiable by wikipedia standards, because it had no references and I couldn't find anything on Google. The difference with Potbelly Sandwich Works is both one of size and of the fact that it's easy [9] to find evidence that it not only exists, but that people care enough to talk about it in reliable sources. I recommend that you create an entry for it at wikinfo, yellowikis or someplace like that... it if does accumulate some verifiable external coverage you may be able to try again later. Kappa 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North and South Downs

Eh? Why? - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puxatony Middle School

Thanks for your interest in Puxatony Middle School. I consider that schools are generally notable, but this article seems to be a hoax. I don't think there is a place called Puxatony in Nunavut, and the name doesn't sound right for an Inuit place name. Puxatony does not appear in List of communities in Nunavut or in Category:Communities in Nunavut. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puxatony Middle School. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "deprod"?

You forgot to add your rationale for removing the {{prod}} from "On The Way To Cape May". Without doing so, some could take it as being a baseless decision — rather a capricious action than one with merit and reasoning. The tag itself also recommends that you do the same: "To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." Since you didn't annotate either place, I worried you might not have realized that that inaction could be mis-interpreted. Thanks for working on Wikipedia, we appreciate everybody's contributions! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If my edit summary is just "deprod" it can generally be taken to mean "I don't agree that this article should be deleted". Sometimes it means "I think this article should be deleted as it stands, but I'd like to give others the chance to save it", or "I think it should be deleted, but others might disagree, so they should get a chance to voice their opinion". Kappa 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haverford AfD

I know exactly what you mean. Thank you, and I apologize in turn if I became too touchy. Deletions, especially on this particular topic, tend to get somewhat heated, and it's important to remember that the people arguing against you are still trying to improve Wikipedia. On the plus side, it does look as if the article's improving a bit, even if it's all just demographic data so far. Shimeru 04:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I found that the middle school shared a campus with the high school from the 1930s to the 1950s; the high school moved into a new campus in the 1950s, leaving the middle school with the old campus. WhisperToMe 05:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Betrayal on books

Planning a bonfire?
Planning a bonfire?

Deletions are proposing a guideline which will almost delete any book unless its been covered in "works serving a general audience". Attempts to tone this down have been reverted [10]. I don't think it's fair to betray wikipedia users who want to read about specialist-interest books like this, but your mileage may vary. Kappa 18:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deprodding articles

You are continuing to deprod articles without providing reason, and place undocumentde redirects.

Why do you reverting my changes without explanation? Stop removing prods now. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • ROFL "Stop removing prods now.". OK, I'll wait 5 days then take them off. Kappa 01:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop removing prod tags. People write ""NN" or something like that in their prod statement. Just because you think that's not sufficient, don't remove the tag. Either, fix up the article yourself and remove the tag, or just leave it alone. Almost all prods are deleted within 5 days, and when we do delete them, we systematically review over the article, and judge if it should be kept on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
If a prod tag says "Not notable per WP:BIO" and I think "Notable per WP:BIO" I'm going to take it off. Kappa 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Guys, just send all articles to AfD. That's what's supposed to happen when something's deprodded. Yanksox 01:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you feel have to clog AFD with notable Pakistani actresses and harmless redirects go right ahead. Kappa 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't like your argumentive tone, and I'm going through your contribs and taking it to AfD. Yanksox 01:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:PROD that requires a reason to be given. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not often on Kappa's side on this sort of thing, but if Kappa thinks that it passes an actual guideline then he has every right to remove the prod and should do so. If you disagree, take it to AfD. (And I for one am not worried about "clogging" AfD since they often bring articles to peoples attention and result in improvement that would otherwise not occur). If Kappa were systematically deprodding articles because he liked the topic and it clearly didn't meet the relevant guideline that would be possibly a different case. In any event, vandalism templates were not necessary and unhelpful. JoshuaZ 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I do think Ayesha Sana is not notable. Judging from the lack of links from other articles and the number of G-hits (although not always accurate), I don't believe they are notable. And I can't find any external links that can verify any possible future additions tot he page. The appropriate thing to do here is to send to AfD then. Nishkid64 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that no reason is required to be given per WP:PROD, however, it is certainly advised that in most cases a rationale should be given. Removing prods for any reason is allowed, but removing prods for no reason seems pretty close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Seraphimblade 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly within the "rules" of Prod to remove the deletion tag without any explanation or edits or anything. It's considered polite and helpful, when de-prodding, to give at least some brief explanation in the edit summary, even if it seems that it should be obvious. Edit summaries make page histories and watchlists more useful, and there's no real reason not to use them. Still, if Kappa sometimes neglects to provide a reason for de-Prodding, I don't see that as a reason to throw rules and warnings at him, more of a reason to ask politely for increased communication.

Kappa, do you think you could make a point of leaving a brief explanation in the edit summary when you remove a Prod tag, to help other editors keep track of what's going on? I get the impression that several people would appreciate it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle, GTBacchus, but the problem here is that this particular user is removing prods pretty much anywhere they're placed, without an explanation. To draw a converse analogy: If I hit the random article button one hundred times, and place a prod on each article without even looking at its content and without any reason, I would quickly and correctly be found to be acting in bad faith and wasting the time of other editors, even though in principle anyone is allowed to place a prod tag for any reason. WP:POINT addresses exactly this type of situation-if you disagree with a policy you should debate it, in the appropriate place, not sabotage it to get your point across. Seraphimblade 02:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want an explanation of any particular deprod, you can get one. For the general case I have made User:Kappa/deprod. Kappa 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not put a link to that in the edit summary, if you have nothing more detailed to say? It seems it would be easy, and it might help.
In reply to Seraphimblade, it's not clear to me that Kappa is trying to sabotage anything, but I can see how frustrating it would be for someone who has added a bunch of Prods in good faith to see them removed without explanation. Kappa, I'm curious, do you find that a majority, or very large portion, of the prods you remove are for some particular common reason? In other words, is there a particular way in which you see Prod being misapplied more than others? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say he meant to. I said he is. Seraphimblade 02:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The most common misapplication is for articles that can be merged, or simply redirected. However I try to say "mergeable" or something in these cases. Kappa 02:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

ArmadilloFromHell is way out of line here. I'll quote from my own user talk page to explain my position: "...anyone can remove the prod immediately and at any time, with or without a reason. Merely removing the prod isn't necessarily a statement of disagreement with the person who placed the prod, but it is a statement that at minimum, further discussion is desired, although it could also mean more. A prod is a Sword of Damocles, an immediate threat of speedy deletion that is removed when a deletion is debatable. It's intended to be easy to remove. Please don't take it so personally when people remove your prods, don't put them back, and don't tell people they can't remove them unless they meet your arbitrary standards first." Posting vandalism warnings in response is absolutely wrong. Unfocused 02:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that warnings (especially a final one) may have been counterproductive-removing prods isn't a blockable offense by any policy, nor is failing to comment on them (and I disagree that a single subpage constitutes a meaningful comment). I would, however, like to see specific objections to the deletion of specific articles. If nothing else, the person who placed the prod may have overlooked something in favor of the article remaining. In that case, a specific explanation would prevent an unneeded AfD request, while removal without explanation is likely to immediately send the article to AfD.
However, keep in mind that we do have an ArbCom for a reason-and much of that they deal with is those who are gaming the system per WP:POINT, violating completely the spirit of a guideline or rule while keeping within a strict interpretation of its letter. Kappa, I believe that you are following the letter of the PROD rules, but by failing to examine each PROD proposal on its individual merits (or at least in failing to provide your rationale in anything other then a single "form letter"), I believe you're violating the spirit of them-that prods should be removed by those with a specific, genuine objection, not with an ax to grind against deletion in general, much the same as in the reverse situation I provided above-prodding a bunch of articles and figuring "the ones that should really stay will get sorted anyway." You're rather doing the reverse of that-removing prods left and right so that "AfD can sort it." Seraphimblade 02:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


(edit conflict)I'm petty sure ArmadilloFromHell made an honest misake, and it would be frustrating to see 100 prods removed for seemingly no reason. The excerpt you quoted, Unfocused, is correct and well-stated; focused, even. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
For your information, you are mistaken, none of the prods that were removed were put there by me, so there was nothing I could possibly take personally. --ArmadilloFromHell 02:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Kappa, how can you be sure that other users will think that the article should not be prodded? If you are thinking about what other Wikipedians will think, then you must also believe that there are others who will want to delete the article. You have to look at both sides here, not just one. Nishkid64 02:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, it does not matter. Perhaps we should have called it "uncontested deletion" instead of "proposed deletion." It is kind of like seeking unanimous consent for deletion. Kappa's actions amounted to the Wikipedia community noit granting unanimous consent, therefore the article should go to AfD to seek a wider consensus for deletion. Before prod, all of these articles went to AfD and it was tedious, to say the least. There were tons of uncontested AfDs, so hence, WP:PROD. The authors of prod wanted to make it crystal clear that it was only meant to act as a pressure release valve on AfD and be wide-open to objection. As I said, it can be frustrating, but the system works. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

You may wish to comment on the RfC about you: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kappa. Regards, Kavadi carrier 12:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tags

Related to the prodding issue, I have a question for you. I think we both agree that merging is in many cases preferable to deletion. I hope you would consider, when you edit an article to "deprod per WP:MERGE", to add a {{merge}} to the article. Of course this is not a requirement or anything, but it may be helpful to other editors, as well as spread the "idea" of merging (which, to my perpetual surprise, many editors seem not to have heard of). Yours, >Radiant< 08:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes I'll try to do more of that. Does seem to be a lost art. Kappa 08:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Calling admins "parasite" ([11]) has no possible good outcome. I recommend you review WP:CIVIL. Guy 00:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to deletionists in general, not this admin in particular. Kappa 03:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh that's charming, so instead of making a personal attack on a single editor you made it on a class of editors. Does that somehow make it more ok? JoshuaZ 06:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Deletionists are people who take knowledge away from the world because they don't acknowledge that Wikipedia has any obligation to provide it. Kappa 19:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
First, the knowledge is available elsewhere so the "deletionists" aren't taking anything away. Second of all, Wikipedia has no obligation to anyone or anything. This is a project to make an encyclopedia. Third of all, some information is more important or more relevant than others and `having unverifiable or unnotable topics leads to cluttering, more vandalism to deal with and a variety of other issues. Fourth, if you think Wikipedia should have all information why distinguish between Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects? Furthermore, why ever remove any sourced information. We should then have entries on every sinlge human with their name and date of birth if we can verifiy it. JoshuaZ 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
And regardless of your feelings on the matter that is no reason to call other editors "parasites" (I am however, happy that you are at least not attempting to votestack the newest DRV). JoshuaZ 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The deletionists are taking it away from every human being on the planet who needs help getting it, to whom wikipedia is obliged to help provide "the sum total of human knowledge". Kappa 04:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Repeating yourself doesn't make the claim more true. Again, the information is still out there, just not on Wikipedia. Do you think we should have a biography of every human whom we can find any verifiable data point at? Because that's where your claim seems to lead and I think even you see that as absurd. My earlier responses to this comment still apply (a long with a note that in common parlance "sum total" when talking about an area of information doesn't necessarily mean every single detail). JoshuaZ 04:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes repeating myself doesn't seem to be getting the point across, so this will be the last time. You are betraying every human being on the planet who needs help getting access to knowledge. Kappa 07:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Rom

Hi,

The G11 choice on my part was heavily-influenced by the lack of sources, and the article's lack of clarity. ("Given that the article is presently unverified, confusedly-written, and a bit fan-ish, I can justify CSD G11 as the best option for Wikipedia," thought Xoloz to himself) Knowing your talent for cleaning-up anything, I'll gladly undelete if you'd like. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you didn't reply directly, I've gone ahead and userfied her for you to clean at your convenience: User:Kappa/Jenny Rom. FWIW, I agree with Unfocused below. You do enormous good for Wikipedia, and no one should ever forget that. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Work

It seems to me that Wikipedia in general is getting less inspiring and more depressing, but you're doing good work. I don't understand how anyone could prod Vitsœ without doing the ten second Google search to verify that they truly are notable, and then nominate it for deletion without doing that same ten second search, but they did, and that's the environment here lately. I think that the expanded deletion powers may have made some editors just plain lazy.

However, please don't let people get under your skin. It seems possible that some you've sparred with are doing this intentionally to have an excuse to block you. Don't give authoritarians any excuse to do that. You're adding value here by helping prevent the removal of valuable content added by other good-faith contributors. If you have to, step away from the deletion arena for a while; we'll miss you greatly, but it'll still be there later.

I appreciate almost all that you do here, and thank you for doing it. Unfocused 15:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Regarding [12], simply dismissing arguments as "bullshit" is both uncivil and counterproductive. Comments like that are why the current school AfD situation is so toxic. Please don't do that. JoshuaZ 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't simply dismiss it as bullshit, I explained why that's what it is. Kappa 02:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, weren't you arguing to me recently that AfD wasn't toxic? Here? I'm completely cool with it if you've changed your mind, it would indicate perhaps you're feeling empathy with the editors whose good faith efforts are being removed. Unfocused 09:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Mcdonalds fruitnwalnut salad.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mcdonalds fruitnwalnut salad.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Rail Class 37 37025

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article British Rail Class 37 37025, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:British Rail Class 37 37025. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engro

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Engro, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Engro. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Brianyoumans 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for letting me know. Kappa 01:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Since I haven't seen any improvements or arguments about why this is notable, I have sent it to AFD. --Brianyoumans 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks again. Kappa 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Since I was wrong and Engro does meet WP:CORP (I should have done better research in advance), I have improved the article somewhat. I hope you like it! --Brianyoumans 17:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoshin kanri - we can delete the copyvio part

On Hoshin kanri, I didn't notice the copyvio - the copyvio passage can be (should be?) deleted. Is the copyvio against http://www.tqe.com/hoshin.html? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's here [13] , the bit starting "In 1965, Bridgestone Tire". I'll go take it out of the article. Kappa 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Can't get at it because I don't have a Google Books account - but that's trivia. I augmented the PROD reason a bit as well and will excise the copyvio from the transwiki entry. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Categories of Jewish Athletes

Hi. I know that this is an issue that has interested you in the past. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Jewish_fencers some people are suggesting that Jewish athletes, beginning with Jewish Fencers, should be deleted. I do not think that is the correct approach, or consistent with wiki policy, and thought that others might want to weigh in on the discussion. --Epeefleche 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to University of Guyana

Hello there!

I made some changes tonight to the University of Guyana, mostly the adding of the notable alumni and notable faculty and administration. Clearly, the University has had many notable people go through it, it is amazing that the article has been abandoned by almost every editor. Feel free to tweak my edits and let me know what you think (particularly if you can find a good source for the alumni, I just added them by the "what links here" connection). Thanks and happy editing.--Thomas.macmillan 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lee jung hyun - nuh video screenshot.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lee jung hyun - nuh video screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Dominic Larrey

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dominic Larrey, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Larrey. Thank you.EnsRedShirt 10:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Afghan companies

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Afghan companies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

I've been cleaning up categories for companies, and believe this list is now redundant. Egfrank 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/p/User_talk%7EKappa_594d.html"