User talk:Groupthink/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Redwall Online Community

Hi! I've removed the speedy request from that article. I think it should go, and will say so, but I think it's valuable to let the AfD play out. Thanks, William Pietri 12:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

John Africa and Ramona Africa

Hey. These did not meet G10 for many reasons. John Africa is not a living person and the article includes a reliable source. The Ramona Africa article is a short stub and I don't think it is negative in tone. It could be turned into a redirect, though. Prolog 07:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Beatrice Ensor AfD

It has been withdrawn. G1 gg y ! 23:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Have a nice day! G1 gg y ! 04:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

AFDs

No problems. It's hard to keep track of the chain of events. If you do the listing, follow the instructions for a second AfD, otherwise it will link to the old debate. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 04:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

AllAdvantage

You're clearly of the opinion that the AllAdvantage article reads like an advertisement. Would you care to provide some guidance as to what would alleviate your concerns? You indicated during the AfD that you had a problem with a particular (factual, relevant, sourced) sentence. How would you improve upon that sentence? Any other suggestions? Please join the discussion over here.71.202.86.94 05:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) — 71.202.86.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Joel Hayward AfD req

I think the article's in pretty good shape now, and it caused Dr. Hayward to reveal another of his sock-puppets :-). Care to withdraw your AfD nom? Groupthink 11:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; your message got lost in the mix. I've now withdrawn the AFD. But may I ask, was it smart to lock the article? The change he made indeed may have fixed BLP issues: [1]. If I understand, isn't BLP applied quite liberally? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Well, that's very easy. It's being discussed on AFD whether the article is unencyclopedic and deletable. Thus the "unencyclo" tag is superseded by "AFD". The result of AFD will either be to delete the article, or that it is considered encyclo; in both cases the second tag isn't useful. >Radiant< 08:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems rather trivial. If you insist on keeping a redundant tag on a page for a few days, that's not a big deal to me. >Radiant< 11:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect request for SAT

I usually establish the borderline for protection at 10 vandalism edits a day by multiple users. Sometimes I may protect with a little less, but definitely this article is not the case. Thanks for your good work though. Regards, Hús ö nd 02:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Nathanael McDaniel

You nominated this article for deletion, claiming that my nom was incorrect; but I had previously added this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven O'Brien, so now there are two separate AfDs for this article running concurrently. This seems a problem. Deor 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the Motron page to the nom if the speedy tag I slapped on it is declined. My experience is that admins are quite willing to speedy articles that are reposts of AfD deletions. Deor 04:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You win a barnstar!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For unnervingly industrious contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 15 Struct 23:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Gotta kill the time somehow :-D. Groupthink 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Haword

What version or version do you need: there is the version deleted,by June 17, 2007 by Feshbach Fan and an earlier one with somewhat fairer wording on June 13, 2007 . . Addhoc. Email me from my page so I can send it. DGG 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hayward

Oops, I just noticed your tag on the article and didn't notice until after I had made an edit so you may get an edit conflict when your final version goes in (also see my comment on the talk page- we definitely need to include the working party's conclusions). JoshuaZ 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks for the work. KP Botany 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Joel Hayward

I really admire the way you handled the rewrite of Joel Hayward. Most people wouldn't have touched it for fear of stirring up a hornet's nest, but you did a great job of staying balanced and communicating your reasoning. So, to add to the pile you're accumulating this week . . .

		The Original Barnstar
		For fearless editing in the face of potential adversity, for carefully considering and incorporating possible opposing views and for patiently and thoroughly explaining it all, I hereby award this Original Barnstar to Groupthink for his outstanding work at Joel Hayward. Butseriouslyfolks 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL

[2] Joie de Vivre ^T 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, this is for you.

It's much smaller now; you must have gotten some good use out of it. Joie de Vivre ^T 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had a lot of need for it considering some of the articles I've found myself editing lately. ;) Groupthink 15:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

MOSDAB

You edit summarized, "WP:MOSDAB says one wikilink per bullet-point. Since there is no article on Nuts (comic), the wiki-link is to Gahan Wilson." WP:MOSDAB says one blue wikilink per entry. Redlink entries are acceptable when there is a (single) blue link in the description, whose article covers the redlinked topic. -- JHunterJ 12:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll re-read the relevant portion of the MOS, but even if they are technically acceptable, it seems to me like there should only be one link period per line to avoid confusion; not to mention that red-links are neither clean nor elegant. Groupthink 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

They aren't just technically acceptable, they're acceptable. If you disagree with the (former) consensus, that should be brought up on WT:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be sure to do that. Groupthink 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jericho

You rightly reverted a series of edits to Jericho (TV series) that restored a fancruft-laden version of the page. However, be aware that much of that information still exists elsewhere in the pages linked to in the Template:Jerichonav navbox. If you have an interest in cleaning up Jericho-related such OR & what not, you might want to take a peak at what's still around. MrZaius^talk 17:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... no good deed goes unpunished... ;) Groupthink 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Joel Hayward article

Thought I'd pop in and say hi, since we're the two editors who have done/are doing the most work on this article. Good decision on moving the "controversy" section out of the bio section just now. I'm currently reading through the Working Group's report towards expanding the "controversy" section; also reading other stuff towards trying to fill out some of the bio material (early life, education, professional). So, the article will be slowly expanding in the next few days. Very glad it passed AfD. --Ace of Swords 23:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Computer science

Hi! Just noticed that you've signed on as a participant in WikiProject Computer science, and wanted to welcome you to the project. If you haven't done so already, please stop by the project talk page to see what's going on right now. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Computational Complexity Theory

My "rewrite" never got far, it was interrupted by a series of rather ridiculous incidents here on Wikipedia that lead me to leave Wikipedia for a few months. Right now I don't have all too much time that I devote to Wikipedia so I end up making only small contributions, so I don't know if I can help you with the rewrite, but feel free to go ahead and be bold and I may join in. Best of luck!--Konstable 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! I was glad to see your comments on the talk page, which confirmed my initial impression. Regards, Mackan79 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer science

Hi, I was about to revert that, and you beat me to it. But I don't think it was vandalism, I think it was good faith editing by someone with poor English. --Ideogram 06:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Please see a reply on my talk page.—Markles 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

American River College ACT score deletion

For the sake of a broader audience, this user discussion has been transferred to Talk:American River College#Deletion of ACT scores and continued deletion of information. Please continue the discussion there.

Canvassing

Please don't engage in canvassing as you did here: [3]. Consensus on Wikipedia is not served by seeking out those who agree with you, but allowing folks to naturally participate as they wish. Mister.Manticore 13:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply is on your talk page. Groupthink 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in any Wikipedia policy whose application I agree with. One note to a person you selected because you feel they will influence the outcome is bad. Not enough that any kind of action needs to be taking other than saying it was done, but still not appropriate. Multiple notes to many people is worse, perhaps enough that sanctions should be imposed. If you do feel a need to contact people, it must be done in a neutral manner. Mister.Manticore 15:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well

The point is that the template is only telling half the story. You have already gotten outside reactions to your opinion (that the article should be deleted) and it turns out that no sufficient support was found for this idea. The template is not intended for situations where "one editor does not like the article", especially not after broader input has already been found. >Radiant< 13:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Any number of cleanup templates may be very much appropriate for the article (which, frankly, looks rather messy). >Radiant< 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Love it when compromise works. :-D Groupthink 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalism

Groupthink - Thanks for your helpful input "which they interpreted to mean that the nature of Christianity should remain eternally unchanged." This was beautifully stated in comparison to what I had written. Marine57 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of government agencies in comics, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 06:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/List_of_government_agencies_in_comics. Groupthink 08:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of government agencies in comics.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

21st century

I was just taking a look at the edit history of this article, and noticed that you had a go-'round with Gee Emm Christlur. I empathize, 'cause I've had a minor set-to with him recently myself. He is a rather single-minded fellow, with a penchant for altering what he regards as anti-Christian bias on Wikipedia. What I am wondering, though, is whether he has used the now-6-month-blocked IP 142.176.46.3. A look at their contributions indicates a pattern of editing the same narrow set of articles (Christmas controversy and Anno Domini, for example). They also have a tendency to use the word "faggot" (see [[4]] and [[5]]) when they get riled up. I think this is someone to keep an eye on, both for edit-warring and POV-pushing. Thanks for your time and attention. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Doing a bit more digging, I ran across GM Chrysler, whose account was blocked last month for username violation. After which, Mr. Gee Emm Christlur shows up. The edit history of GM Chrysler (see Christmas controversy again [[6]]) indicates that they are clearly one-and-the-same, and that the IP range 142.176 is used by him in his edits. His account almost qualifies as single-purpose, he has a track record of edit-warring and POV-pushing, and we can almost guarantee the use of IPs to evade blocks. As I said above, he's one to watch. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. Any time that I can be of help, just ask. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)