User talk:Cube lurker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Cube lurker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Harry Duiven Jr. AfD
You stated earlier that you were keeping an open mind on the AfD, to see what arguments others made. I think mine answered your question about boxer's notability. Still willing to review?Horrorshowj 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your message
I understand what you are saying about Wikipedia being edited by volunteers, but I think there is a big difference between tagging articles as unsourced, non-notable, etc., versus tagging or nominating them for deletion. I'm in the position that I don't always agree with what Gavin.collins says, but have to defend his right to say it. The proportion of articles he nominates for deletion out of the ones he just tags is low.
I don't have anything against role playing games (I've outgrown them) and I like SF a lot. But, we mustn't forget that Wikipedia is supposed to be a encyclopedia, not a compendium. The Internet is the compendium; users turn to Wikipedia for insightful criticism, and as a way to parse the Internet for what is important and what is not.
If I (as a community) had a bunch of articles under attack, and they didn't have easy fixes, I would strategically withdraw most of them into my userspace or my Farscape wiki (what a luxury), and tactically reinforce the strongest articles. Fighting tooth and nail with the nominator over every tag and every article is risky, with a poorer outcome for all concerned. SolidPlaid 04:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Invitation
[edit] Good on ya
Thanks for handling it well. I understand frustration, it's best just to try to prove that the nomination is wrong rather than to attack the nominator, that rarely does any good unless you can prove that the nomination was made in bad faith. Corvus cornixtalk 00:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion will last for five days. In that period, you can provide reliable sources and explain the team's notability, and that might convince other people to suggest keeping the article. Corvus cornixtalk 00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
As a long-time Recent Changes patroller, I can tell you that it's virtually impossible to keep track of the articles you've noticed that need work. My Watchlist would be thousands of articles long. It's not that people are trying to jump on things just to show that they're on top of things, it's because if you don't do something early, you're going to forget about it, and bad stuff (not saying your article is bad) will wind up just sitting there for months before somebody stumbles on it. It becomes a "way of doing things" that, I wish, there were a better way of working. There are just too many articles. Maybe I should create a subpage of my User page and list links there that I want to revisit after a couple of days. Hm. That sounds like a good idea. :) Corvus cornixtalk 00:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ormskirk Heelers
Thank you for the advice. How shall I proceed now? Leave it and keep your advice in mind for the future? Strikeout my nom? Billscottbob (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, no hard feelings at all. I'm open to advice. You were very civil about it. My nomination was out-of-line. Billscottbob (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: AFd: James Barker
Hello Cube Lurker,
First off, congrats on you Sawx and Pats! It is a special time to be a sports fan in Boston.
I noticed your last comments on the AfD page, regarding what you thought was some kind of a beach head ... aggressiveness on the part of people supporting deletion, etc.
I can only speak for myself.
My original thought was that there was a beachhead being formed by people supporting "keep" .... that it was so clear that this person was non-notable, and that they were using this AfD for some kind of point.
As it has progressed, I have moved away from that belief. My personal belief is that there exist a great many articles that do not fulfill a number of WP policies, but they end up sticking around because group X gets enough people together to fight to keep it because they like it. I'm not seeing that here either. I feel that articles like that hanging around encourage more articles like that.
I think it has come down to this particular article fitting into a potential gray area (I don't see it as gray, but I can see that some people do.) I think that arguing out the points is educational (I was originally sent over to AfD by an admin who encouraged me to get involved, really learn policy, and learn how to argue for/against deletion using policy properly ..... that it was a good way to actively learn what are otherwise pretty static "rules".
If I've come across as strong, its because I truly believe in what I do. If I've been uncivil, then I apologize. I try very hard to stay civil while being passionate about a stand. It can be difficult.
I felt I should take a moment and explain. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfA Thanks
Hi Cube lurker - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. It's especially gratifying to receive support from an editor such as yourself who has apparently seen me in action (even if it was not my finest hour - I don't think many of us came out of that sorry episode looking good). Anyway, the RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats, i'm sure you'll use it well.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] More on objective criteria
Could I get you to edit your statement a bit? The header reads For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that TV episodes do not inherit notability from being a part of a notable series. This is a contentious issue, but this page is not the place to discuss it. Comments indicating that the discussion is useless because the notability is obvious will be quickly and ruthlessly deleted. That is different than saying that comments from people that disagree will be quickly and ruthlessly deleted ... it says that comments intended to defeat the discussion will be quickly and ruthlessly deleted. I see them as quite different.Kww (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA
Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 21:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seresin
Please don't judge the nom or the other supporters by Dorftrottel. I don't want to say anything incivil or provocative about him, but he does not speak for the rest of us. I for one am neutral except for thinking the non's OK. It's just a pity that he feels the need to flame people he disagrees with on this RfA. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know. I'm just appalled at what Dorftrottel has done. I shouldn't be apologizing for him. <<A lot of psycho-babble analysis I won't go into about what got triggered in me by his behavior.>> We may well see more opposes because of it. Such is the nature of RfA. I appreciate and respect your opinions. Who knows, maybe the opposers have the nom pegged. One must always trust to consensus. It will be what it will be, and I should not have gotten as involved as I did. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- For the record: I still firmly believe opposing per guilt by association is non-valid in this case, since I'm not at all a wikifriend of Seresin's. I have frequently supported RfAs of very different people in a very vocal way, and punishing Seresin should be totally out of the question for anyone willing and capable of assuming good faith, using common sense and playing nice and fair.
If you have no other, better reasons to oppose the excellent nomination statements, I can only hope your oppose (and all other, similarly weakly justified ones) will be thoroughly ignored by the closing b'crat.
Moreover, I think you didn't even try to see the point I was trying to make. I freely admit that it is not easy, but it is possible, iff you give it a shot. You see, there's always two things involved: The tone and the message. The tone of my postings was indeed questionable, esp. the ALLCAPS comment (which albeit was partly meant as an ironic quote of the diff cited by one opposer) — but the point I was trying to make is there, and in my opinion it is also very valid.
Both AfD and RfA are increasingly being treated as a vote by inclusionists and opposers, respectively, and nobody in charge seems to mind this. Both AfD and RfA are still ostensibly discussions, and comments should be judged solely based on the validity of their reasonings. But many seem unwilling or uncapable of understanding and embracing a culture of consensus-building by policy-/guideline- and common-sense- based reasoning and treat both as if it was a simple matter of personal choice whether to delete and article or promote a fellow user to admin — it is not. Either there are intersubjectively communicable reasons, or there are not.
The galopping egalitarianism of giving all comments more or less equal weight does imho considerably hurt the community and the general well-being of Wikipedia. And FWIW, most of the time, it is the rabid inclusionists (not the more soft-spoken intelligent inclusionists, but the Star-Wars-fan type) who throw around accusations of deletionism whenever someone is trying to remind them that Wikipedia articles must follow minimum standards. Likewise, it's an often made invalid argument made in RfAs by a certain crop of opposers (again, the type who just enjoys opposing, not those with valid concerns) that the supporters are not presenting rationales, either: But they don't have to. They simply mark their agreement with the nomination(s).
To conclude, I don't know where you stand wikiphilosophy-wise, but some of those who oppose are far more off the acceptable mainstream than Seresin as far as XfD is concerned. And the reason I vocally supported (the fact aside that I largely agree with the nomination statements) is because I can relate to his being upset about people who just won't accept any encyclopedic threshold. If you've ever been in a situation where you firmly believe to perceive a bad social pattern emerging that nobody else seems to perceive as strongly as yourself, you should understand what I mean. User:Dorftrottel 16:43, February 9, 2008
- I'll reply in this section to not clutter your page with a new one. I must say, I was a bit confused as to why Dorftrottel's comments should be an incidator as to my merits. I also made note that I didn't approve of his manner. It is within your right to oppose as you see fit, and I respect that. I just share some of the confusion that several people have voiced about it to you. Thanks for the note, though. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.
The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] That's okay
Its cool. Sometimes you just need a fresh set of eyes to see the problem. Glad I could help. -- saberwyn 03:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ideas for fluxus article
{{cleanup}} is a good general purpose tag. It could also stand some better referencing, like inline cites and stuff. Maybe {{refimprove}} too... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your post in my talk page
YOu probably confused me with someone else and your message was not delivered where you wanted. Mukadderat (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Now I understand. It was a joke. And I see it may be misunderstood. I will change the section title. Mukadderat (talk)
- "melodramatic": yes, that was the purpose. As you may have noticed, I have no interest in this religious conflict. I even did not follow-up the page in question. It was the behavior of an admin which I find utterly appalling. He threathened me with block (literally: "to be dinged", an added insult to injury) after I clearly said that once I was pointed to the commonity decision, I will follow it. But he threathened to punish me for my past actions. Obviously, this is an abuse of power, and I don't intend to leave this without consequences, however small my powers are. Mukadderat (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] afd error
{reply to [1]) The easiest way to complete the afd nomination is to click on "preloaded debate" in the article (David Lee (trader)) and follow the instructions for completing the template. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation?
Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Elizabeth Devereux-Rochester
User:Ziggy Sawdust has been, for the last couple of days, horrendously going overboard with Twinkle and speedying articles he claims are "non-notable", without bothering to do any research as to whether or not that is the case; and when his speedy is contested, he AfDs it, again completely ignorant of the actual subject. It's a real problem. He seems so excited to destroy everything in his past, and apparently has no interest in doing anything constructive. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] review me plz
plz review me.--xgmx (T | C | D | R | DR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.36.182 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help on the Dario Poggi article and saving it from deletion. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.
[edit] Battle of the Atlantic
No I didn't. I did it once and corrected it immediately. Dapi89 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Hello; Thanks (twice!). This has been a troubled week! Xyl 54 (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
