User talk:Agent 86/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(This is the Archive for Agent 86’s Talk Page for the period from 01 June 2006 to 23 August 2006)

Contents

Mining in Australia is the new ACOTF

Hi. You voted for Mining in Australia for Australian Collaboration of the fortnight. It has been selected, so please help to improve the article in any way you can. Thanks. Scott Davis Talk 13:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My page on basic wiki info

Thank you. I understand why my user page's GA was taken off. I have a question? Why would you want to call my Basic wiki info page a duplicate of my userpage. just letting you know, i am the creator of both of them and so I don't consider it harm. Thanks... --Mr. Mod 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Your Mr. Mod page and basic wiki info are virtually interchangeable. You may wish to read up on some of the wiki policies, including WP:OWN. I see that an editor had yet to add the "welcome" template to your user talk page, but since starting this response I see that has been taken care of. That addition should provide you with some assistance. Happy editing! Agent 86 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm still a little bit confused. Can you please take the thing on top of the basic wiki info off of it. thanks.I will try adding the welcome template. Thanks again.Oh. I'm not that new. I'm used to wiki and have used it for more than 2 years. I just recently made an account becuz that's when i figured out account making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Mod (talk • contribs)
    • No problem. However, if you are requesting that I abandon my AfD nomination for basic wiki info, I will not do that for the reasons stated at the AfD discussion. I will leave it up to determination by consensus. Agent 86 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ahh. One more question. What's an AfD? and what consensus? thanks. sorry for bothering you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Mod (talk • contribs)

Internet meme

I saw your proposal for deletion regarding How NOT to steal a Sidekick 2. Please refer to the talk page for my justification. Thank you. -- Evanx(tag?) 01:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your note. I still do not believe the article merits remaining, but I will leave it up to the community at large. Please see the AfD nomination. Agent 86 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I appreciate the gesture. -- Evanx(tag?) 02:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

German Rex

I made a new entry for the cat breed - German Rex. You made some changes to it that I would like to comment on. By the way, the source material is from Dr Rose Scheur-Karpin herself. She is 95 years old and unfortunately cannot now see or hear very well. A few years ago she donated all her archive material to the German Rex Cat Club, of which I am a founder member and the database maintainer.

But before I comment, I have to tell you that this is my first entry, and my first attempt at a talk or discussion. My apologies if it is unnecessarily long, or outside the accepted protocol. I have read the Introduction and some of the cross-linked help pages, but there are so many of them that I have probably missed something!

I was very surprised to get your edits only about 30 minutes after I saved the entry - amazing - is it usually so fast? I see the reasons for most of them, so have no problem there, but there are two changes to the textual content that I want to re-edit as follows:

1. The paragraph that now ends "but they were castrated early." still needs to have the sentence that followed in my original "Munk spread his genes plentifully through the town's beautiful lady cats, but for his owner his value was as himself, not for his curly coat."

Although picturesque, it is still true and is an essential contribution. Perhaps you would prefer that 'beautiful lady' is replaced by 'female'?

2. The phrase that you have modified to "In the summer of 1951, Dr Rose Scheur-Karpin". I assume that you did not like the word 'doctor' to be followed by 'Dr.'. Normally I would agree with you, but in this case the original phrase "In the summer of 1951 a doctor, Dr Rose Scheur-Karpin," was written that way for two very good factual reasons.

In the first place, 'a doctor,' is stating that the person involved was NOT a cleaner, orderly, nurse or whatever. Stray cats in many hospitals are normally looked after by other than a doctor! If it had not been Dr Rose Scheur-Karpin, then it is likely that the breed would never have been established.

In the second place, the title of Doctor in Germany is very important. Dr Rose Scheur-Karpin always signs herself as that - it is part of her complete public name even nowadays, let alone in 1951.

I hope this now makes sense to you? I await your reply before making further edits.

Now a couple of questions where I can't find the appropriate help page. I see that at the moment there are boxes on the entry page for Verifying and Expert. How do I change things to remove those? Thanks in advance Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamstudi (talk • contribs)

  • Welcome to Wikipedia, Tony. First things first, you should refer to the Help Page, which will get you started. You will also see that you have a "Welcome" message on your talk page, which includes links to some very helpful tips for someone starting out.
As for the specific edits you refer to, I will not make specific comments addressing each one. Instead, I will provide some general comments. First and foremost, no one owns an article on Wikipedia. Once you create an article, other editors may contribute and work to try to improve the article, using their own good judgment. While it's much more blunt than I would say, at the bottom of the edit page you'll see the message, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.". Hopefully, you did not find my contribution to be merciless! My only goal was to try to improve an article that looked like was off to a good start. If you do not like the changes I made, that is fine, I don't mind. Just be careful that if you choose to revert the changes I made. Wikipedia policy does not allow anyone to revert any one article more than three times in the same day (the "Three Revert Rule".
Two final comments. First, I saw your article because Wikipedia generates a list of New pages (click on "recent changes" on the navigation box on the left of your screen). Second, always remember to sign comments you make on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).
Have fun and I look forward to seeing your future contributions! Agent 86 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I have looked around as you suggested, tried various searches and so on but still cannot find any answer to my final question - "I see that at the moment there are boxes on the entry page for Verifying and Expert. How do I change things to remove those?" Tony 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The boxes appear because I added templates when I was in the edit page for the article. If you go into the edit page for the article, you'll see {{verify}} and {{expert}} at the very top. When the article is saved, the wiki software substitutes the two boxes you see on the article. I added "expert" because I was simply a copy-editor. I don't profess to know anything about German Rexes and from the article it looked like someone in the know should deal with the substantive matters. As for "verify", while I was simply copy-editing, I wanted to know the very basics and what I read about German Rexes wasn't entirely consistent with the article. It appears that you know something about this breed, so if you can cleanup the article in those respects, simply add the new information and delete the {{verify}} and {{expert}} from the top of the edit page. Agent 86 17:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, now the explanation clears up the question. I have dealt with the Verify by adding references, and the Expert, because I am one - on the history of the breed now that Dr Rose Scheur-Karpin cannot help. Tony 15:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Seinfeld movie AfD

I had added a clarification to my comment to show some self-deprication and that no slight was meant before your edit here. It likely got lost in your edit session. youngamerican (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Youngamerican, I had hoped to make it clear in my comment that my remarks were in relation to what Adambiswanger1 had written, not you. Nevertheless, I should make it emphatically clear that I am not offended in any way by any of the editors in this thread and I am trusting that the comment by Adambiswanger1 was meant in WP:GF.Agent 86 04:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"embarrassed" My bad. I missread due to tabbing. I should have read more carefully, as your comments were crystal clear. youngamerican (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyRussian's RfA

Image:Motherussia.jpg Hello Agent 86, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

O Canada! Thanks!

 Dear Agent 86, thanks so much for your support during my recent successful request for adminship. I really appreciate it. Let me know if you need any assistance; feel free to leave a message on my talk page or e-mail me if it is urgent. Take care -- Samir धर्म 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Supporting my RfA!

My Request for Adminship passed by a margin of 54/6/1. I'm glad you looked into my record before blindly supporting, and I hope to "pleasantly please" you in the future with my admin duties, in which I plan to do a "fine job." However, in the odd chance I do screw up, please let me know. Thanks again, Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

Hi. Thanks for your kind note. I think it is the first message I've received, regarding a deletion decision, that hasn't been a complaint :) Cheers TigerShark 10:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Marie Trainer

I've gone ahead and nominated Marie Trainer for deletion. The article hasn't changed significantly, and she still looks pretty non-notable. Rklawton 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and perfectly reasonable. I think I will post a comment only as it seems the responsible thing to do. It wouldn't be right to remove the SD, invite an AfD nomination, and then do nothing. Agent 86 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Good work. Rklawton 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Random Question

I often recieve emails from a mailing list from a place called Tournament Warehouse in Seattle, WA, USA. Their email address is Agentone86@***.com. Is this just a coincidence? Thanks. Alexbrewer 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of Tournament Warehouse and I know nothing about Agentone86@***.com, sorry. Agent 86 00:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway! Alexbrewer 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maritime Junior Hockey

Hey oh, I've noticed you are spending a bit of time with our maritime teams. If you know anything of historical value... or even anything... like teams w-l-t records... whatever... feel free. I'd appreciate the help... I am kinda hand cuffed doing stats for about 140 Ontario teams right now... DMighton 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm updating articles with the proper provincial stubs. I'm not really one to update the articles. Agent 86 01:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, was just checking. I'm always looking for help. Especially about leagues I didn't grow up around. DMighton 02:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Agent 86, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Youth Parliament Articles

Hello Agent 86. My name is Dana and I'm the current Premier of Youth Parliament of Manitoba. I have been very impressed with your knowledge of all things youth parliament and I wanted to ask you some questions about the movement in Canada. If you're interested in my proposition, please write me at premier -at- ypmanitoba.ca. Thanks. -Dana -198.163.45.88 21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll probably do that, but forgive me if I am slow and pokey about it, per my stated problems with procrastination. However, I assure you that once I do, it'll probably become a new channel for me to put my energy into so as to procrastinate on other things!! Agent 86 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, your typo was amusing. I would have seen it when the orange "new message" template first appeared if I weren't such a procrastinator. I'm also glad you added the four tildes. Agent 86 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Benjamyn McKay, Deputy Premier of the TUXIS Parliament of Alberta, and I was curious as to why you decided to switch it from TUXIS to TPA. From the perspective of someone in the organisation its very confusing to read TPA when in common practice we refer to ourselves simply as TUXIS. Write me if you want at benjamyn.mckay@gmail.com, Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.210.207 (talk • contribs)

  • The article is not to be read from the context of someone inside the organization, it is meant to be read by those outside the organization. Calling the Alberta parliament "TUXIS" when the context of the article makes it clear there is (or was) a larger "TUXIS" organization could be confusing to the reader, who may not be able to readily able to differentiate when it is the parliament or the larger TUXIS that is being referred to. Agent 86 22:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry I also forgot to mention how it is how the organisation is referred to outside of it as well. Ask anyone if they've heard of the "TPA" and they'll give you a blank look, they would however connect simply "TUXIS" with youth parliament of Alberta.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.210.207 (talk • contribs)
      • Again, the article isn't just for those familiar with the organization. Articles should be written in a way so that readers unfamiliar with the topic can understand and learn about the topic. I think if you were to ask anyone outside of Alberta about TUXIS, "TPA", or anything related to the Alberta parliament you'd get equally blank looks. I am not saying "TPA" is the "official" abbrieviation used by the organization. It's simply used for clarity so those unfamiliar with the topic won't have to sort out when the article is referring to the youth parliament or the TUXIS movement. Agent 86 23:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Travel Cuts

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Travel Cuts, 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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Travel Cuts. If you remove the {{dated 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. --Ardenn 00:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I'm not the original editor of this article and have no real attachment to it. I think all I did was add a cleanup template and a category.
That said, the article may or may not be encyclopedic, but the reason given, "vanity" mystified me. It isn't apparent on the face of it what the vanity is. I suspect that this entry certainly satisfies WP:CORP, so on that basis the article should stay. If there is a better reason, it should go to AfD. For that reason, I removed the {{prod}}. Agent 86 01:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I am the original editor and thank you for contributing to my article which i guess is now under reveiw for deletion and thank you for your support of the articleDr sean chronic RSX 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments. To be honest, I only contributed to the article because it was listed somewhere as an article needing some attention (I can't remember which one - WP:DEP or WP:CBM, it doesn't matter). I only chimed in on the AfD because I thought the article had encylopedic value.
I hope the AfD process doesn't diminish your interest in continuing to contribute. I see from a few things that you might be feeling a bit bitten. One thing I will say is not to take an AfD personally. Part of that is "letting go" a bit. Everyone puts a bit of themselves into their contributions, but you can't think of them as "my article" once you do (you should read WP:OWN - it can provide you with some guidance). Good luck and happy editing. Agent 86 06:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

P-1500 AFD / Barnstar

Thanks so much! Honestly, I don't often go around doing this. It all started with a content dispute on P-1000. I wanted to remove some extremely iffy unsourced information, but an editor found a source: some guy's site on Tripod. I said that it didn't count as a reliable source, and he said that according to the reliable source criteria, NONE of the article's sources were reliable. I said "you're right" and listed the article for deletion. I doubt that was his intent.

I didn't do it as revenge; I was honestly very reluctant. I've heard of the P-1000 and P-1500 many times, and so I took them for granted, but when I stepped back and looked at the situation from a standpoint of Wikipedia:Verifiability, I realized the articles didn't belong. I had never seen them anywhere but Internet tank fan sites. I wanted to find them described in reliable sources, because I am sort of a tank fan and I'm interested in German monstrosities, even their back-of-the-envelope sketches. I do think the P-1000 and P-1500 projects existed. However, I have a feeling that if/when a reliable source is found, it will have almost nothing in the way of detail; I'm thinking that most of the "information" on the Internet is fanboy speculation that gets embellished more as time goes on.

I've done a few other serious trips to the library to verify iffy claims, but none of them involved AFDs; they generally had more to do with verifying one or two claims in an otherwise good article. Superweapon stuff just tends to rub me the wrong way, and I found that, for example, some folks on an aircraft article were deliberately misrepresenting a source in order to make a plane look better. TomTheHand 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. I'm just impressed with the effort. Agent 86 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD on DAD articles

I think I remember why I didn't AfD Direct Access Democracy with the DADC article - I nominated Bioregional State (currently in AfD), and got the two confused in my mental "todo" list! - David Oberst 14:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No worries, and don't take it as a slight. I came across DAD completely independently (it was on one of the "cleanup" lists, I think), and remembered the topic from the other article you nominated. Agent 86 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The E in Claresholm

Hi, I noticed your edit removing the E from the Claresholm district in the 1913 election. Thanks for picking up the typo, I was curious as to why it would be different from 1909 to 1913 so I went and looked it up, turns out someone else made a typo along the way. An Act Respecting the Legislative Assembly of Alberta 1909 --Cloveious 22:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I notice that the typo is perpetuated elsewhere, for example, here. Agent 86 09:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dinosuar/ human coexistance

Good luck on the speedy, but don't be surprised if it gets rejected and needs AfD. It's marginally literate (only "human" is spelled correctly in the title), and clearly OR, but may not quite make it to "Patent Nonsense". Fan1967 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. Agent 86 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like it made it. May want to keep an eye out for a recreation (probably under some other spelling). Fan1967 21:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Userboxes, oh my

Curse you and your Wikipedia:Userboxes. I feel like K.A.O.S. has me under their control and now I can't stop adding them to my user page.

Would you believe that I even started making new ones?  :) -- MrDolomite 04:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't blame me! Zis is K.A.O.S. - vee don't userbox heer! Agent 86 08:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Supermodel

Trust me. I know alot about the fashion industry. You I can name hundreds of top models and describe their lifesyles, magazine covers, etc..Ask me anything about fashion. The Trinity..Editorials..I am editing the supermodel page every day. I am an expert in the fashion industry, and all of the facts in the page are true. So don't be so worried.Lil Flip246 16:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The criteria by which you arbitrarily add and remove information is a mystery to me. If all of the alleged "facts" are true, then please provide the sources you rely upon, provide objective standards within the article, and use the "Show Preview" button. I also recommend that you read WP:OWN. Agent 86 17:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! Mangojuicetalk 20:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi, sorry if I assumed bad faith at the MindTree AfD! I have a tendency to 'adopt' articles with potential that seem to be getting the short end of the AfD process (Hendrickson, Big Name Fan, Popcorn bag), and I didn't want the new users contributing to this article to be driven off by a perceived 'cabal'. Anyway, my apologies again, and I'll try to be more circumspect in future. Best, Ziggurat 22:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No worries, much appreciated. I think a beneficial "side-effect" of the AfD process is to encourage improving articles with potential, by those who know something about the topic, so the fact that people actually worked to improve this article falls within that "purpose". Agent 86 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And to be clear, I don't want to imply that I think the way to improve an article is by nominating it for an AfD! I am well aware of the various clean-up templates. ;-) Agent 86 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fashion Models

In the models category, don't you agree we should seperate the fashion models from the fitness models/playboy models/other models??? I mean they should have their own categories. Lil Flip246 20:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I have never voiced any objection to different categorizations; in fact, my point is that there needs to be clear criteria in the article so one can tell if a particular person fits or does not fit within the term. However, I don't think being a "supermodel" precludes being a "fashion model" precludes being a "playboy model" precludes being a "lad mags model". Some fit within more than one (i.e. I'm sure Cindy Crawford would fit under both "supermodel" and "playboy model"). The article just needs to objectively set out who is or is not a "fashion model" or "supermodel". Agent 86 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"fixing" top-sorting

I was rather puzzled by the scattering of Canada stub sub-categories through the several listings pages, and had re-top-sorted a number of them before noticing that they seem to have been untop-sorted by yourself, in considerable numbers. What's your thinking here? Alai 05:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I had observed that for other parent categories, the sub-categories were sorted so that they were under proper alphabetical order. I also noticed that some of the Canada stub-subs had already been done in a similar manner, but others were not (i.e. in some cases the sort was done so that "Canada ABC topic" would sort under "A" (for ABC) and others, like "Canada XYZ" would sort under "C" (for "Canada")). It was internally inconsistent so I chose one way and sorted them accordingly, in the manner I had seen other categories sorted. (I know I could have said that all better, but I made the mistake of trying to be articulate at midnite) Agent 86 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • On further investigation, I think I see what your question was, and if so, I edited the sub-stub categories to be consistent with changes someone else had done to the BC stub category. Either way, I was trying to be consistent with prior stuff others had done. Agent 86 06:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, OK, I didn't check all the histories, so I wasn't sure if this was a change initiated by you, or otherwise; fair enough. They're shockingly inconsistent currently, as I stopped halfway through, but assuming we're not rowing in opposite directions on this, I'll finish sort-keying "Canadian bacon stubs" (sorry!) as "*Bacon", as it appears under Canada stubs, so that they appear one the first page of the listing, alphabeticised by topic; that sound alright? I agree it doesn't make any sense for them to appear under "C" for Canada, in an all-Canadian category... Alai 06:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Icelandology

It's an almost word-for-word copy of the previously deleted material. The re-creation, coupled with the discussion a little further up on my talk page suggests to me that another PROD isn't the direction to go. They certainly seem to feel that the term is in widespread enough use to justify inclusion. It might be less "bite-y" if you put a {{verify}} tag on the article, so maybe we can get some discussion started on the talk page. Joyous! | Talk 00:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Froggy RfA thanks

Paying homage to my roots...

Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re. Icelandology

Done. Thanks for the notice. -- Szvest 09:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Re.2 Icelandology

Please restore the article and permit people to talk about this article before you delete it. A chemical compound names are sometimes also very rare in use, but it doesn't mean that such neologisms are not useful.--Yuiul 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't delete it. I can't - I'm not an admin. Take a look at this discussion and at the deletion log (as well as the discussion higher up on my talk page). Agent 86 20:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the speedy tag from Icelandology, as the cited speedy deletion criterion, G4, does not apply in this case. I don't see much of particular value in the article at present, and I would suggest that you nominate it on AfD instead unless it has improved in a couple of days. Tupsharru 07:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!

Good evening, Agent 86. Thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (67/0/0)! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions or requests - either of an admin nature or otherwise! :)

Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) 23:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver Wikipedians Meetup

Greetings, you're getting this spam (courtesy of Tawkerbot) because you were listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver. In short, we're trying to have a meetup and we'd appreciate it if you'd join our Yahoo Group setup to figure out a time/place that would work. You can find the group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vancouver_wikipedians/. If you have any questions feel free to make a post there or on the WikiProject page.

Happy Editing!

This RfA thanks will destruct in 10 seconds...

Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations!
To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well!
♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support, Agent! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 02:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

Agent, I see than you've added stub tags to Kelowna-Lake Country (provincial electoral district), Bulkley Valley-Stikine, Peace River South, Prince George North and maybe others. None of these four looks particularly subby to me. in fact, all them have some election results tables, and other information about the ridings. I think that the stub tags should be removed from these. Ground Zero | t 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • You're probably right. I'm actually just going through electoral districts already marked as stubs and tagging them with the applicable province. I've actually removed stub tags from a few articles (similar to these); however, given the task I've undertaken I'm probably erring too much on the side of caution by leaving the articles as stubs. I've left a few "borderline" cases marked as stubs because they're missing quite a number of elections in comparison to other ridings that have info going back to the creation of the riding. Maybe I'll be a bit more judicial in not so as to not leave faux-stubs marked as stubs. Thanks for the input. Agent 86 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. You might want to hold off on doing any federal ridings, though. I will be destubifying all of the remaining federal riding stubs over the next couple of months as I load the election results for those ridings into the articles. I have done much of the work already off-line, but it will take some time to load it. I won't be working on provincial ridings, though. Regards, Ground Zero | t 21:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Geez. I saw your adding these this morning and it gave me pause to wonder, as in many cases I've wished there was a BC-hist-stub and/or BC-poli-stub to go with the geo stub; and other categories of stub, too, for BC; not that you guys have signed on to the idea of a WikiProject BC, but just partly fielding that again and also to suggest that the huge bulk of BC entries kind of suggests that there should be different varieties of stubs. No? Skookum1 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It crossed my mind that instead of there being one catch-all {{Canada-constituency-stub}} that there ought to be constituency stubs by province. There is currently a discussion[1] for creating separate stubs for politicians by province. The same should go for constituencies by province. However, having recently gone through and flagged a zillion articles with their respective provincial-stub templates, I know that would be a huge undertaking, so I haven't made the proposal. It would certainly do away with having to use two stub templates on a constituency article when one would do. Agent 86 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: another category of stub needed

Pls see Talk:Caspar Phair. He's got a politician category listed, and if that's a valid category it maybe should have a poli-stub added; but he's not a politician, rather a senior bureaucrat/official. Wondering about some kind of category for BC officials/bureaucrats; as a magistrate/gold commissioner he's theoretically a justice, i.e. in the law category. Not sure what to do here, and seeking input from other BC editors, e.g. you, Ground Zero, Usgnus, Fishhead64 and so on; posting this here and will ref to this off the other ed's talk pages. This kind of thing is why, agin, I think we need a WikiProject:British Columbia, which User:Buchanan-Hermit created a sandbox for. Ideas, thoughts?Skookum1 18:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

New edits supermodel

The new edits on the supermodel page are great. It was getting to such a deadlock with no headway. Thanks for being bold. My only concern at present, is the fair use on the Vogue cover. A bit more may be needed in discussing the specific cover for it to hold water as fair use if you feel that it contributes to the page. That's a big concern with many editors just now. The copy I had added helped to be specific with that issue and it's purpose on the page. Doc 02:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the vote of confidence. I was hoping that the people like you who are actually in the know would not find it too inaccurate and would be happy with the change. I knew this work had to be done but didn't get to it because of the time it would take. I finally found the time, so I'm hoping that it helped resolve some of the problems. Agent 86 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, well done. I too didn't have the time and the whole controversy with Lil Flip has worn me out. I spend an hour or two just covering his tracks on edits. He almost always adds new names to the bottom of an alphabetical list, seldom uses edit summaries unless he is SHOUTING trying to make a point and he repeats himself without understanding of the issue at hand. He has repeatedly claimed himself to be the expert here without giving us any background. He has energy that could be useful if it were just possible to direct that energy in a helpful direction. Whew...that about covers it! Doc 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I truly believe that Lil Flip is becoming more of a troll all of the time. I'm going to try and wait 24 hrs before I look at any of his edits. He never gives a direct answer to any question he is asked and repeats the same thing at least six times. Yes, I am upset. Doc 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Supermodels

WHY?? Why did you change it?? I worked on that page for like half an hour. Why? :(Lil Flip246 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe you should read WP policies like a number of editors have repeatedly told you to do. You removed the AfD template from the article, which is considered vandalism. I reverted the article to the version with the AfD template. Agent 86 19:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Would you believe that he removed the AfD notice from this page again? Doc 03:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

You've proposed that Highest Paid Supermodels be merged into Supermodel; however, you have not provided any reasoning on the talk page. Normally it's pretty self-apparent why there should be a merge. In this case, there has been a lot of discussion of what belongs in the supermodel article and what does not. The list of highest paid was removed during these discussions and revisions. Given that history, it would be helpful to have some fresh ideas.

Point taken. I reverted the two pages. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I wasn't trying to tell you that your proposal was wrong, I just thought a new perspective would be helpful. I hope no offence was taken. Agent 86 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope, no offense taken whatsoever. I just thought the information might have been of interest to somebody, so I was looking for an alternative to deletion. But it wasn't all that important to me to try and save it. Have a good one. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Move function

"I notice that you have created a new article, Bački Gračac, and have turned Filipowa into a redirect. May I suggest that in the future that you use the move function?"

I usually use move function, but Filipowa was not an article. It was only a proposal that article about it should be written. Such proposals are usually written on talk pages, and I moved content of that page to Bački Gračac talk page. PANONIAN (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Re : Missing deletion discussion?

Oh, apparently the AfD's name did not exactly match the article's title. You can find the discussion here. I've corrected the error on the article's talk page. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Cunningham syndrome

Hi... I noticed you voted delete for Fonzie syndrome... care to take a look at this one? These made-up TV-fan "syndromes" are getting out of hand. Thanks... wikipediatrix 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:My RfA count

It's not your fault.....I think Clyde Miller messed up the numbers when he changed his vote. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

I thought you have been the most honorable person I have met during my time on Wikipedia. Therefore, I have nominated you for adminship, and I hope you have a chance to succeed. You have to accept you nomination, though, so follow the instructions on the page with about nimnations Mikeeilbacher 16:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the compliment, I'm flattered. I do not see any link to the nomination page; however, let me spare you the trouble. I think I need another month around here before I even contemplate accepting a nomination. If and when I should be nominated, I hope I will still have your confidence. Agent 86 21:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have since found the nomination page (at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/agent 86). I have formally declined the nomination and closed the discussion. Thank you again for the vote of moral support. Agent 86 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I would not want to miss your future nomination! Please be sure that I know of it so that I may support your nomination when you do accept. Doc 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks, and will do. I certainly have had my day brightened by these positive statements! Agent 86 22:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
          • To your reference in your decline speech, my description of a bitter AfD batle was not from anything you said. You were always the voice of reason. I see why you would decline this nomination, but I hope that you consider it in the future. You would make a fine administrator, and I'm sure many people would agree with me. I have no hard feelings that you declined my nomnation, but I hope you don't forget (If I need help later down the road). Mikeeilbacher 00:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA

Thanks for your support opinion on my RfA. With a final vote of (62/0/1), my RfA passed, and I am now an Administrator. I will work hard to ensure that the tools entrusted to me will not be abused, and will wield my mop proudly.
Happy editing! --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Yanksox!

 Hey, Agent, thanks for supporting my RfA, which registered a tally of 104/4/7. Which means...


I am now an admin!!!


I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yanksox 04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy

Just a note to let you know the article has been completely rewritten in the time since you voted on AfD. dryguy 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"At least a dozen high schools"

Hi, any luck on finding these "at least a dozen" high school articles from "the last few months" that "only survived because of a lack of consensus"? As I stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Elementary School (Westfield, New Jersey) I would be most interested to see these "dozen" because your claim indicates that the listings at schoolwatch may have somehow missed "at least a dozen" or possibly more AfDs about high schools. I'd like to get these missing high school discussions which were no consensus results added to the archive.--Nicodemus75 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes and no. As I had mentioned, I had more or less scrubbed continuing with making this list because I decided real life was more important, so all I have is was what the "autosave" on my wordprocessor had kept. It is also incomplete because I created in reference to User:GRider/Schoolwatch, and not Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. On re-reviewing a couple of the schools, I was unable to confirm that they were in fact "high schools", so I removed them from what I was able to recover (I had originally included them because their names sounded like high schools). Therefore, I only have four to present to you. They may very well already be on your more complete list.


The search exercise is absolutely time consuming, and I've found that a lot of school articles that underwent an AfD review do not have any mention of it in their talk pages, which makes the process longer. I'm not about to go through this again to find more, it's just too tedious. Agent 86 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing problems

I've moved part of a conversation to this new section just to make it easier to follow.

  • It still continues. Tonight Lil Flip removed a template requesting a citation without adding one. No doubt he "knows" and believes that he can deem it to be true. I reverted it, of course, but he just doesn't seem to get the message. The worst part is he does so many edits without seemingly thinking or reflecting on what he has been guided on before, he, by the way, used no edit summary on the above edit. This was on the Supermodel article, by the way. He also continues on any article of someone that at any time modelled to add the line "former fashion model" in the first summary paragraph where often it is inappropriate. I have put this in edit summaries time and again and posted to his talk page. Any suggestions? Doc ♬ talk 00:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I assume you're referring to the {{fact}} template regarding Tyson Beckford. I noticed that earlier today, but it seemed such a minor infraction that I decided not to worry about it. Flip has been doing much better as of late (not great, but better), and I don't want to be wikistalking him or her. I noticed a more serious exchange between Flip and Hotwiki on Flip's talk page, so it looks like a relapse happens now and again. As to what to do, I don't think any drastic steps need to be taken other than to continue to encourage Lil Flip to work constructively with others. But for the relapses, he or she seems to be getting it. Agent 86 01:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, exactly. No, I agree that drastic measures are not called for. I too saw the discussion with Hotwiki, in fact he left a message on my talk page asking for help and then retracted the request before I got it. What I find so frustrating is that he never does anything once, but a dozen times, then I post a message to him trying to be low key and helpful, I get not response and a day or two later he does the same thing to another dozen pages. i.e. puting "former fashion model" in the opening paragraph of multiple actors or broadcasters. I feel at times that I'm hitting my head on a brick wall. I wish he had an active email so that I could try to be more direct without seeming to wash his laundry in public. If he stayed to his other area of interest, the Simpson's etc. I would just ignore it, but the volume of his edits concern me when he doesn't seem to get the message or follow usual MOS. Sorry to lay this on you, but I just don't know how to get through to him and much of his editing is on namespace articles I care about. He has stared to put models names in alphabetical order within model agencies, although still pays no attention to column lengths...that's an easy one to fix, but it's upsetting to need half and hour or more to clean up his edits each day instead of working on what I might wish to. Doc ♬ talk 01:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • No worries about "laying it on me". I might be feeling a bit less frustrated because the problems are occurring outside of an area I personally take serious interest (I just saw an article that needed some help!). Lil Flip might benefit from some sort of voluntary wikimentorship (I just did a quick help space and wiki space search for mentoring and found that). It might be worth suggesting that. If you wish, I am willing to make the suggestion, but not serve as the "mentor" (it should be someone who hasn't been involved previously). Agent 86 02:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks, well, your efforts with the supermodel article are greatly appreciated. Yes, I think that the mentor program sounds great. Looked at the page, but not sure how to propose, so if you'd be willing to that would be great. If he didn't do such "mass" edits at one time, it wouldn't be as much of a problem, but once he is off and running he'll make an edit to as many as twenty pages, with almost everyone of them being slightly off base. I do believe that he is well intentioned, but if one follows the thread of his logic it can get frightening at times. Thanks again. Doc ♬ talk 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
          • He's at it again and I can only assume that he didn't take you up on your offer. He has almost 30 categories up for deletion again. I've left a message on his talk page as well. Thanks. Doc ♬ talk 19:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

British actors &c.

I'd be willing to lend a hand once you make the categories. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks! That would be nice - I already know what a chore adding the category tag will be like (assuming the AfD results in deletion). Maybe we could divide the list of lists in half and then populate their respective categories from there. Agent 86 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin of some common Hindustani words

Hello Agent 86! I am emailing you regarding the Origin of some common Hindustani words article that you put up for deletion. When the discussion is closed, I am wondering if you can inform me. I will be glad to take action to move the article (if decided) and fix all the redirect pages. The renaming you suggested seems like a good idea. Currently, there exists a grammar page: Hindustānī (Hindī-Urdū) grammar. If the consensus is to rename the article, I think modeling the new name of Origin of some common Hindustani words after the grammar article would be a good idea: "Hindustānī (Hindī-Urdū) word etymology". This way pages are consistent. As a member of the WikiProject:Languages, specifically Hindustani-Hindi-Urdu, I would be happy to do this. Please let me know if this can work out. Thank you very much sir. Jdas07 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I liked Taxman's idea of Hindi-Urdu word etymology. You could simply use the "move" feature to make that change. If you need help, I can do it for you. Agent 86 03:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I also agree that it is a good idea. I know how to move and redirect pages, I am just wondering when would be the appropriate time be to do so? I think after the AFD discussion would be the best time. Do you know when the discussion is going to be closed? Jdas07 01:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I personally would wait until the AfD is closed, but that is just how I would conduct myself. You may edit articles during an AfD and even rename them as long you make sure the page still links to the discussion page (see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for the applicable policy and more detailed instructions). The AfD usually runs for five days. Agent 86 02:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Alright thanks. I will wait till the AfD is closed. Do you think it will be possible for you to tell me when this occurs? Thanks. Jdas07 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I could, but you could just add the discussion to your watch list. Alternatively, just check the page. If it survives the AfD, the closing admin will remove the AfD template and put a note on the talk page. If it fails, the article will be gone. Agent 86 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks, I added it to my watchlist. So according to the AfD guide for deletion, this discussion should be done in 1 to 2 days. Right? Jdas07 06:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA and your vote

 Hello Agent 86,
Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I saw that you were hesitant over my lack of experience--hopefully my work in these upcoming months will earn your support! You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.


Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

You've got a Thank you card!

Open your card!

Shiny!

The Original Barnstar
I, Yanksox, award an Original Barnstar to Agent 86 for their overal work in Wikipedia, in regards to articles and the harsh underworkings of AfD. You are a fine contributor, please keep it up! Yanksox 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

SSSI stubs

Hi - can you let me know what improvements you'd like to see at the SSSI pages you've updated with the context tag, and I'd be happy to make them if I can - thanks. SP-KP 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It took me a minute to figure out which articles you were talking about, which is part of the problem. Unless you're already in the know on this topic, to a casual reader the article provides no information as to what it is about (you have to follow the links to start to figure it out). There's nothing wrong with a stub article, but the introduction should make it clear what the topic is about. It is not readily apparent that this is a biology article or a geography article. I suppose I can't say more than what the {{context}} template says without being repetitive. Agent 86 21:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks, but I'm still not clear what changes/improvements you have in mind. Can you be more specific - which terms caused you the biggest problems of understanding, for example? Thanks SP-KP 21:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not so much the terms, it's the lack of terms. There is also insufficient context to indicate what a "Site of Special Scientific Interest" might mean, unless one looks at that article as well. I must admit that I had never heard of an SSSI before, and while I'm familiar with a "down", it's not a word that has much use in North American english (I have no idea if it's used in Australia or New Zealand). There just isn't anything in the stub to tell a reader who knows nothing about the subject what the article is even about. I don't mean to be obtuse, but the article is somewhat unclear without reading a bunch of other articles. Agent 86 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • So, a couple of thoughts then - a) instead of saying "XYZ is an SSSI", I could say "XYZ is a [something descriptive about the site e.g. hill, meadow, lake]" and b) instead of just saying "it has been notified as an SSSI" I could say something like "because of its [reason why it has been notified], it has been notified as an SSSI". If I did those two things would that solve the problem, or do you think I need to do more than that? SP-KP 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't think there's any magic wording to be employed and I'm not saying do away with the references to SSSIs. I'm just suggesting that you provide some sort of context so that the uninitiated can tell what the article is about. Pretend you're dealing with...me. I know nothing about the subject. What would you tell someone like me who knows little of the subject so I would know what you're writing about? Just provide enough information so as to make it clear what the topic is about. Your suggestion of describing the subject as a kind of generic geographic area/formation that is preserved or being studied is a good one. You might also add a couple of words stating what an "SSSI" is. I'm not asking for a fully developed article, just suggesting you might want to write it in such a way that it's apparent within the stub what the subject is about. Agent 86 22:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
            • How does Burcombe Down look now? Can you let me know if I need to do anything more. Eventually, I do intend to expand all biological SSSI articles to a more reasonably fully-fledged state (Someone else can do the geological ones as I'm out of my depth there). Yanal Bog will give you an idea of what I have in mind - I'd be interested in comments on that too if you have any. With 5000 of these sites in England alone, it's going to be a long haul! SP-KP 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks good! It's pretty clear now. I've taken the liberty of removing the {{context}} template. Agent 86 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I am writing to inform you, and many others, that an AfD in which you voted delete, List of automobiles that were commercial failures, was already unsucessfully nominated a short time ago, but under a different title. This was not noted in the nomination. Please read the opposing arguments here, and reconsider your vote, because it is important that the opinions of previous voters be considered. Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 23:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I fixed the link that says "here". AdamBiswanger1 23:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. I've read it, and considered it. However, I don't think it sways my opinion too much one way or the other, particularly as I considered the "new" article on its own merits. Agent 86 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fine-- I just wanted to get the word out. : ) AdamBiswanger1 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

GHe's RfA

Hi Agent 86!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Unfortunately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank you again for your trust and support and better luck to me next time! :)

 G.He 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Professional Degree Articles

I noticed in your comment on the AFD discussion for Professional doctorate that you included a suggestion that Professional Master's degree should go through a similar AFD. I thought you might want to know that I've posted that AFD discussion here. Please feel free to participate. Thank you! — NMChico24 01:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Goldom's RFA thanks

Thank you for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (53/2/1). I've spent the day trying out the new tools, and trying not to mess things up too badly :). I was quite thrilled with all the support, both from the people I see around every day, as well as many users who I didn't know from before, yet wrote such wonderful things about me. I look forward to helping to serve all of you, and the project. Let me know if there's anything I can help you with. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Wikimentoring"

I saw this idea of yours of Editor Review Page, I really like it. You should create this. Yanksox 16:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I may well do that. However, it may take some time until I have the time to think about it and do it right. Agent 86 02:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Question on your nomination

Are you nominating all lists of actors by nationality/ethnicity or just the ones you list? If all, you should probably list them all as to not confuse people etc.. Thanks. ...And Beyond! 20:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm nominating them all. If there are any I missed, they should be nominated, too. Agent 86 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There are but they aren't necessarily "nationalities" (Quebecian Montreal) Some are. For example:

More Specific:

...And Beyond! 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Good sleuthing there. I would have nominated them along with all the others had I known about them. That being so, I'll probably let the AfD on the current nomination run its course and then, depending on the outcome, nominate these remaining lists. If you want to nominate these yourself before the current AfD completes, feel free to do so. Agent 86 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • We should probably wait for this one to end first like you said. Plus I'm working on a few other AFDs at the moment. But if it works out, then there's not reason to delete Iranian ones and not Pakistani ones if you know what I mean. ...And Beyond! 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • By the way, Quebec and Montreal don't have categories but all the others do and essentially they're just Canadian actors anyway. Also, what's your take on the more specific ones? ...And Beyond! 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I'd nominate them all, for same reasons as the others. As for categories, see Category:Quebec actors. For the list of Montreal actors, I'd either ensure they're included in the Quebec actors category or create a Category:Montreal actors and add that template to all the people on the Montreal list. Agent 86 23:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali actresses

Hi, fellow procrastinator. I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali actresses is not the right place to discuss German actors, so I'm doing it here.

The List of German actors (from 1895 to the present), much more appropriately titled "Liste der Darsteller des deutschsprachigen Films" on the German Wikipedia (User:Austronaut actually suggested renaming the page "List of actors in German movies" or "List of German speaking actors"), was compiled there and then imported. Since then it has been carefully maintained, expanded and updated by a relatively small number of contributors. Now, for some reason I cannot even start to fathom, you want it deleted. "For consistency", as you put it? Is consistency your, or Wikipedia's, ultimate goal?

You say that "no consideration had been given to the encyclopedic value of these lists." Well, that depends on how you define "encyclopaedic". If the word means "providing information to those who seek it", the list in question certainly is "encyclopaedic". It offers users at a glance a survey of chronologically ordered names, even specifiying whether actors active during the Weimar years later worked in the BDR or the GDR. What is more, it gives potential contributors a chance to see, also at a glance, which articles are still missing (and there are lots and lots!)—something the Category:German actors can never achieve.

Personally, I don't mind if this particular list is deleted—I've made a copy, so I can access, and use, it any time I want. But I think that's beside the point. I'd want all users, including future and potential ones, to be able to benefit from that list. The simplest argument against deletion would be that it doesn't do any harm, but there is much more to it really, as I've tried to point out.

Also, though I'm not really in favour of slippery slope arguments, I'm afraid more and more lists which do serve a purpose will be nominated for deletion. (Just some months ago, someone even nominated the alphabetical List of people.) Finally—but that's another matter altogether—I'm against the deletion procedure where "Keep"s and "Delete"s are simply counted but no attention is paid to the weight of the arguments presented.

I'll take the liberty to create a link to this message from the Bengali actresses.

All the best, <KF> 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, are you out or about?

I hope you're safe and having fun, when you have time, please e-mail me. Thanks, Yanksox 21:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Impromptu spontaneous road trip! I'll touch base when I'm more "in". Agent 86 02:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Cyclone Catarina
Cyclone Catarina

Thank you for voting in my RfA. I would especially like to thank those 18 people that supported me. But I'd also like to thank those that may have not voted for me, but gave me advice to make me a better wikipedian. Once again, I thank you all. Unfortunately, the final result was 18 supporters, 32 opposers, 9 nuetrals, therefore I wasn't promoted to sysop. I hope to see you vote in my next RfA in late 2006, early 2007. Hopefully you'll support me. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)