User talk:Hamster Sandwich/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] You're welcome

Absolutely. Anything I can do to help. Feel free to personally ask me any more questions you have. --Dmcdevit·t 00:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

And I hope you haven't harmed any poor little hamsters! --Dmcdevit·t 06:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
You'll be happy to know that shut has already been deleted. I took a look at the deletion log (click on special pages at left, then logs) and see "07:05, July 16, 2005 Fawcett5 deleted 'Shut'" It was deleted because it fit the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Read throught these criteria, and in the future if you ever see a similar piece of vandalism that qualifies, tag it with {{db|reason for deletion}} replacing the "reason for deletion" with your actual reason. I'm looking at Bob White now. --Dmcdevit·t 07:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Well thanks for the compliment. And if I say so myself, you've made a great start for an article here. One major section that's missing is references. Can you provide any sources, both online and in print, that you either used to write this or would be of interest to readers as further reading? Oh yeah, and in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not an admin, :) Cheers, --Dmcdevit·t 08:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
I have a simple solution, just redirect Victor Reuther to Victor G. Reuther (by the way I moved yours to have a period after the middle initial). You can make a redirect by making the text of a page: "#REDIRECT [[article to redirect to here]]" and making the link to the full article. It is common to make redirects at places where others may look for your article, like misspellings, or names with or without middle names or initials or whatever. --Dmcdevit·t 02:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I should have said, I already did do the redirect for you. What I'm trying to say is that there is no reason to delete it. It's actually a helpful redirect now, for anyone that searches for his name without the middle initial. No harm done and no reason for deletion or anything. See? --Dmcdevit·t 02:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Sure. Everyone was new once, especially me. --Dmcdevit·t 02:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Margo

Thanks for doing some better research than I did. I didn't look on IMDb because the article didn't persuade me that was worthwhile. Clearly it was. I've changed to a weak keep, per my reasoning now in the VfD. Though I was bit cheesed-off with the comment of the last voter, I have to say. -Splash 04:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Religious Persecution by Muslims

I think that you did a good job of consolidating the Religious persecution by Muslims article. It is still weak content-wise, and the introduction is now a bit wordy. (I feel that Wikipedia articles are best started with a short intro/lead that quickly describes what the article is about, and then is followed by a introductory section that lays out the overall picture is some detail. So what is there now is too long to be a good lead and too short to be a good overview.)

This article, and indeed that whole series, has a long, long ways to go. There is a lot of history to cover, and incident after incident that needs to be described independently since they are relevant to both a persecuting group and a persecuted group. Keep working on it and I wish you luck with it. --EMS | Talk 00:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts on that article, but, like you, I don't think there's much hope for it. At another time, I might have taken the trouble to fix it, but I'm too busy right now, and life is frankly too short to keep POV pushers away from POV magnets unless the topic itself is a good deal more encyclopedic. - Mustafaa 00:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Sorry for the delay, I get distracted sometimes. If you haven't gotten image uploads working yet, did you try Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial? -- Cyrius|✎ 02:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new vfd

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republic

Wow, that thing is pretty nasty. I had only given it a cursory once-over to justify my vote to delete the big wall-o-text article that needed translating over at VfD. Your rewrite of the first para is good. If you want a hand with that monster, let me know. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] consensus

The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were

  • Delete - 21 (58%)
  • Keep - 11 (31%)
  • Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).


Would you be prepared to re-add your vote there? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Troll magnet

You see the stuff I have to put up with on my talk page? Thanks for lightening the mood. I needed that. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republic article

In case you would be wondering my reverts of the Republic article, you're welcome to discuss this on the Republic article talk page.

I saw you write somewhere "Myabe leave my articles alone till i'm actually finished with them? thanks!" - The concept "my article" does however not exist at Wikipedia (see Wikipedia NPOV tutorial, subtitle Word ownership). So if you want to work on the Republic article, consider there is a talk page to make cooperative work on the article smooth.

--Francis Schonken 15:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] vfd

You made this [1] edit. But that was to the list of VFDs not to a VFD itself. I have removed it. You may like to re-add it wherever it was intended to be put. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Authentic Matthew the sequel

The POV that was in Authentic Matthew, an article you voted to delete, before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image help

Hi, I noticed your plight on Wikipedia:Help desk and thought I could help. Here's what I said on that page, for your own reference:

Hi, I'm no admin (I'm asking a question myself below) but I'll answer your question here and on your talk pages. First, take the image name (including the extension.. eg. jpg). Next, use [[Image: IMAGENAME ]] to put an image in. There's all sorts of variables you can use. Wikipedia:Extended image syntax will be able to better explain this than I can here. Good luck, and User:Cuahl/leavemessage if there's anything I can help with! — CuaHL 04:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptional newcomer

I've given you a new award (check your user page)! I'm not sure if you still count as a newbie, so I'm giving this to you sooner rather than later. From the beginning you struck me as a good, dedicated Wikipedian in the making and I haven't been disappointed as I've seen your work on VfD as well. It'll be a good thing to look at and feel appreciated when you have your first big conflict (it'll happen before long, especiallyon VfD). So on behalf of everyone I know, and all of posterity on this great encyclopedia, er... what was I saying?... oh yes!... thanks! Dmcdevit·t 08:49, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pardon

Through a friend, i have learned that you are displeased with me, why is that? have i done something to you that i am unaware of?Gavin the Chosen 19:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hello to you too!

Nice to hear from you! It sounds like you may be a bigger fan of Boston than a lot of us who live here - I guess we tend to take it for granted. Anyway, it was good to be reminded of what a great city it is. :-) By the way, I noticed your note on Nickptar's talk page about the "slow motion car wreck." If you were wondering why things are moving slowly, part of it is that the Arbitration Committee is pretty swamped with WP:RFArs. It just takes time for them to plow through. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia and have fun editing! FreplySpang (talk) 23:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the compliment.

Also, I too am astounded by Gabrielsimon's behavior. I think you may be right about psychological issues, and I've got to wonder, is the standard Wikipedia procedure (designed for more-or-less rational people) completely appropriate? Not saying we should coddle him, of course, but I've got to wonder.

If you're brave enough, perhaps you could leave a friendly note on his talk page?

~~ N (t/c) 23:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hamster, I replied WRT this issue on my talk page. --Fernando Rizo T/C 00:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Direction

I wasn't sure if you were asking for input on your actions in making comments and the way you did it, or about the points you bring up, so I guess I'll give you a little of both. I think your comments were fine, and kind of how I feel. I won't pretend to know much about the case, but it has invaded the Administrators' noticeboard and talk pages I watch. I have never understood the typing errors, because at some point after so many had brought the issue up, a reasonable person would just put it through a spellchecker. After so many 3RRs and other such things, I'm very hesitant to assume good faith at this point. If what you say about Gavin is correct, the sockpuppetry looks pretty certain. I trust your reasoning and it was a fair comment. I wouldn't be afraid of biting this guy. Do you think this case is going anywhere? Dmcdevit·t 00:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


Hamster, having read up on the case (I have had no interactions with Gabrielsimon or any of his alleged sockpuppets myself) I think your comment is quite measured and certainly has merit. Baby-sitting errant editors is something that has been rewarding in the past. I've seen vandals become productive, although it seems that there is a very high recidivism rate in cases of truly disruptive POV pushers. There's been a couple of times where I've turned around editors who are creating poorly-formatted stubs by the truckload and helped them become productive. So that's where the impulse to guide Gabrielsimon stems from. I don't blame you for being skeptical; I'll agree that his typos ring false to me as well, but I'm certainly not qualified to comment on that with any authority. We'll see where it goes. You definitely did the right thing by calling attention to another suspected sock puppet. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thank You

For the lovely personal attacks. Kindly cease doing such though, okay?Gavin the Chosen 08:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Sure, I'll keep an eye out on the VfD. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Field Mice

Thanks for the recipe! I doubt I'll try it any time soon, but it's good to be prepared. Factitious 04:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inez

"Don't eat me!"
"Don't eat me!"

Good work! I hope you didn't take that "promises" remark as an arrogant remark or demand. I just posted it and thought, is that really the word I wanted to use? But then I thought, if I edit yet another one of my votes, sooner or later I'm going to get a lecture. CanadianCaesar 20:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Perish the thought! I always assume good faith. Thank you for the lovely picture. I'm feeling a little peckish right now.. :-P See ya 'round! Hamster Sandwich 20:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a big improvement. Thanks. DS1953 20:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • My pleasure, I plan to expand it if I get more time. Care for a sandwich? Hamster Sandwich 21:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD and the upcoming games nominations

I saw your comments in some of the withdrawals of VfD nominations for articles about upcoming games, and you sounded contrite to the point of self-censure. Dont' worry too much about it; people testing consensus on VfD is, as far as I can tell, how consensus is developed.
Don't beat yourself up over it or anything, and, even though I spend a lot of time working on game articles (and voted Keep on all the VfDs), thanks for keeping the gamecruft in check. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You just gave me a real good laugh too! See ya 'round! Hamster Sandwich 01:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You asked?

Sure, I'll always help if I can. Saw you on the help desk. I guess I'm pretty proficient in that stuff, ever since I jumped in the deep end and made list of UN peacekeeping missions from scratch. I think you are asking about fitting stuff into this table, right? Dmcdevit·t 05:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • This list of UN peacekeeping missions looks freakin beautiful! Ok I'll find the quote that is the requirement, post it here and you can add it to the article. I just don't want to screw anything up on that page, when I opened it to edit, it looked way too complicated for me. If you could find a picture of Meher Baba to add to it as well, I have no idea how to do images other than to cut and paste them from one page to another. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 03:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Meher Baba said, “I am the divine Beloved who loves you more than you can ever love yourself.” [2]
  • A few God-realized souls keep the body, yet are conscious of themselves as God in both His unmanifest and His manifest aspects. They know themselves both as the unchangeable divine Essence and as its infinitely varied manifestation. They experience themselves as God apart from creation; as God the Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer of the whole creation; and as God who has accepted and transcended the limitations of creation. These souls experience constantly the absolute peace, the infinite knowledge, power, and bliss of God. They enjoy to the full the divine sport of creation. They know themselves as God in everything; therefore they are able to help everything spiritually and thus help other souls realize God, either as Majzoobs-e-Kamil, Paramhansas, Jivanmuktas — or even Sadgurus, as they themselves are called. [3]

Excerpted from from Discourses by Meher Baba, pp. 266-270. Copyright 1987 Avatar Meher Baba Perpetual Public Charitable Trust.

  • These false answers — such as, I am stone, I am bird, I am animal, I am man, I am woman, I am great, I am small — are, in turn, received, tested and discarded until the Question arrives at the right and Final Answer, I AM GOD. [4]

Excerpted from The Everything and The Nothing by Meher Baba, p. 78. Copyright 1989 Avatar Meher Baba Perpetual Public Charitable Trust.

  • 5729 TO KNOW WHAT IS BEYOND MIND

One day, a distinguished looking, intelligent man came to garland and bow down to Baba. He said, "I have read God Speaks so many times that I have it on the tip of my fingers. Now please instruct me how to realize the Truth."

To appease him, Baba stated:

That which is meant for the mind, mind grasps through the intellect. To know what is beyond mind, destruction of the mind is required. You want to know that which is beyond mind through the medium of the mind! That is impossible. So it is far better for you to love God.

I am free eternally, still, within you, I am bound. What is required is experience. Only then will thoughts, doubts, questions vanish forever. A man may have read and studied God Speaks, but if he claims he is God, it is hypocrisy!

For example, you are a man. Is it necessary for you to tell others that you are a man? No. But if you are living among donkeys, you would vehemently declare that you are a man. In the same way, I am God, but I have not to speak of it, because it is quite natural. Yet sometimes, I have to declare it.

How can you experience the Infinite? You can try to imagine it, but you can have no real idea of it. No sooner the "I" goes, the veil is torn and the Infinite is realized. What is the veil between you and God? It is only your ego! Annihilate it and let God take its place.

How can you annihilate your own self? If you want to tear the veil, destroy your ego! How? All efforts to remove the veil strengthen it, and knots upon knots accumulate and become twisted tighter. The easiest way is to surrender your ego to me, regardless of how I handle it.

On the spiritual path, the only sin is hypocrisy. Be honest. You yourself are the veil. Realization is simple, but you yourself make it extremely difficult. From the beginning, you are God! Who has bound you? Your mind! When you are asleep, you are free, but not consciously. When you wake up, all the worldly paraphernalia surrounds you.

Therefore, you must become fully conscious in your deep sleep state. Garlanding and bowing down are not enough. If you long for God, you should long for Him on the strength of the worth of your life!

If your mind tries to deceive you, it does not matter. But beware lest your hands deceive you, resulting in the slipping of my daaman from your grasp. [5] Excerpted from Lord Meher by Bhau Kalchuri.

Oh my god! Some nice research. Let me tell you what I did. I just added the formatting to the article with his dates and one of the quotes. I also put in the reference with that quote. Now you canchange it in the table without messing up the formatting (just edit what's already there). But with all these quotes, I couldn't really put 'em all in the table. See if you can find a picture on Google or somewhere. They're most likely not going to be in the public domain, but we'll see if we can claim fair use (since there's likely few). Dmcdevit·t 04:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

How about this one? I have no idea how to progress from this point. Sorry. Thanks for doing all the hard work here Dmc! Hamster Sandwich 04:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC) photo from http://www.beezone.com/MeherBaba/meher2.jpg

[edit] Help

Two of the Motorhead singles are in VfD as the editor who redirected Ace of Spades and Motorhead live versions put them there after I undid his redirects. Ace of Spades (song; live) and Motörhead (song; live) - please help by voting to keep, the timelines will make no sense, the discography will be shot, they are too young to die, please vote to keep. thanks, Alf 13:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it does look like they'll survive, I appreciate your comments greatly, as ever still working on them, Lemmy's autobiography to recheck for items, and now I've browsed through the vast majority of motorhead discographies on the net, none compare (IMHO) to the Wiki's. Alf 23:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hiya. Just wanted to thank you for supporting my recent RfA. Cheers! --Ngb 19:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] London, ON

I took a look at the diff, and it actually looked like a feasible reword that didn't add or remove much prior info. Until I got to the paragraph that started "Interestingly". Actually, interestingly, I've noticed that any statement beginning with "interestingly" really means <insert personal POV here>. It was really pro-expressway and kind of belittled the other side. So I tried to just de-POV that language in that particular paragraph without a full revert. See what you think (of course, I don't really know anything about the subject.) Dmcdevit·t 22:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Very nice work, I should have really done it myself, but when I looked at the history of those recent edits, I thought it would have been easier to just revert. I'll try to do something productive there. The quote about the taxi service strikes me as a little weird too. It should suffice to say tht London has several publicly accessed taxi-cab services. Thank you sir! Hamster Sandwich 22:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No problem, keep it up. (It was a good excuse to get away combing through the copyvio penises and breasts someone's been uploading from porn sites, blech!) Dmcdevit·t 22:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I think an EWWW is appropriate here. :oP Hamster Sandwich 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, yeah it's on my watchlist too (I'm from there), and Brady seems notable enough to me. I reverted it once and I'll do it again if I see it...I don't know that anon's problem is. Adam Bishop 18:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well you can add whoever you like, I suppose...but the anon is probably right that we shouldn't add people just because they are well known in London (Jim Chapman always comes to mind for me...and we do have unnecessary things like Joe Swan). Adam Bishop 21:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That's okay, I know it was directed at the anon, and so was my comment, mostly. This is just the stupidest edit war I've ever been involved in :) Adam Bishop 22:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Bill Brady looks fine to me...I'm sure it will give our anonymous friend an aneurysm, but I wouldn't bother putting it on VFD myself. Adam Bishop 21:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if you're still watching my talk page or not, but there's some reading material there for you. If you decide to respond, and you might not, then do be cautious — I sense a delicate balance that if tipped the wrong way will prove unpleasant. -Splash 21:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your two cents...

  • I like it - it's a good guidepost as to which pics I should vote to keep on IfD. -- BD2412 talk 01:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For reverting vandalism to my user page...have a good one.--MONGO 03:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

thank you for your help with finding ways I can contribute on my talk page. so far you have been the only positive feedback I have recieved. I think you completely understand my goal is the same as everyone else's: to contribute to the sum of archived human knowledge.

I have a personal goal that I'm unsure how to accomplish, without the article being deleted for origional research. It is outlined on my user page. I would greatly apreciate any sort of feedback, whether it be positive or negative. I guess I should tell you that shashe, a protologism, represents the concept of something being in a specific location and being unobserved, or the possibility that there is nothing there at all. It is an absolute of sorts because there are and infinite number of items that have been unobserved. It also deserves a brush up of phonetics and/or spelling

An example may be if I were to point at the ground and say that there is 'shashe' there, one may look at the ground and wonder what i'm refering to. I may be refering to the air between my finger and the ground, a small spec of matter withing that air, and electromagnetic wave passing through, or perhaps simply my finger itself. It may also become (once it is a word) a synonym for check as in something has the necesity of being observed. (look?)

There's shashe on my user page. (It has not yet been observed by you...)

[edit] Fernando Rizo's RfA

Image:Hamster sandwich.jpg
Hamster. It's what's for dinner.

Ham, I'm glad that you liked the picture, bro. I got promoted last night. Thanks for supporting me. I'm going to be getting my sea legs with these new buttons and gizmos today, but I'll definitely have a look at what you mentioned earlier on my talk page and give you some feedback on it. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your beef w/ Tony Sidaway

First off, I totally understand why you're pissed. You're a good editor, with over 1000 edits and you've been with the project for a month or so. I personally would count your vote at a VfD, without question. The sticky wicket then, is that Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is really, really open to interpretation. The process leaves quite a bit up to the discretion of the admin executing the VfD, so there's not a whole hell of a lot to be done about it. My advice is this; disconnect yourself from the conversation now. You made some excellent points, and brought a good deal of awareness about Tony's lack of tranparency to the issue. Take the high road, and don't put anything bitter on his talk page. I'm sure no one's going to discount any more of your VfD votes at this stage. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1000 edits

And here's to 1000 more. Sláinte! Fernando Rizo T/C 21:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Editcount flies when you're having fun! -Splash 22:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

L'chaim! (clink) FreplySpang (talk) 22:22, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

YAY way to go dude. Thanks for the champers, frightfully nice of you ol' chap. :) Alf 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice, that was quick. 1000 is like a coming of age. I call dibs on the admin nom in a few months. Hm, and now that I check, it looks like I'm a week or two away from 7000 edits. Strange considering I don't actually do anything... but anyway. That hamster sandwich pic is awesome, made me laugh. Of course we all know editcountitis can be fatal (but it sure is fun). Don't let it go to your head, you'll always be a n00b to me (just like me). Now, my sandwich, go forth, and, er, edit some more. Dmcdevit·t 01:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I raise my glass to you hamster-like tenacity. Salute! - Lucky 6.9 01:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] London

Ah, it doesn't matter really. I'm not putting summaries either, it just does it automatically with the rollback button. We should probably stop though...I don't suppose anyone is actually paying attention, but we're only supposed to get 3 reverts a day. I'm not even sure I care anymore (it's more a battle of wits with the anon, now). Adam Bishop 22:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I've banned the guy for 24 hours as per WP:3RR. I'll keep an eye on it from here, both of you guys are right at 3 reverts, so don't roll him back again. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Well I'm at 5, but shh :) Adam Bishop 22:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I won't tell. ;) Fernando Rizo T/C 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks fellas. Shame to let him think he wins the battle though... concensus has been reached, proofs have been given and maybe hes just mad that Brady stiffed him for a snowshovelling job or something equally lame. The guy is a clown and a vandal. Not forgetting to mention a coward. (grumble,bitch, moan...) Hamster Sandwich 22:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ham, see my response on my talk page please, before you leave that guy a msg. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, outside my bounds of knowledge - all I did there was disambiguate something or other. Congrats on the 1,000 edits, tho. -- BD2412 talk 23:32, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ham, another msg from me on my talk page, brother. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ham I have to hand it to you that you contacted other people framed the issue for them and then claimed "consenus" on your point. Every user that has weighed in has done so at your request. This is a very peculiar "consensus", consistingly only of people you contacted and encouraged to approach it a certain way. I don't appreciate the slander against me, I didn't attack you, there's no need to resort to that, unless you are conscious of the weak foundation you are on and need it in place of actually supporting what you're saying.

Hammy, I appreciate your toned down rhetoric, mildly condescending as it may be. I convinced terminousbandage to sign up to oppose the Bill Brady inclusion. I appreciate your efforts in trying to improve wikipedia and agree it is very terrific. However on this matter I think it is a mistake to include Bill Brady. I think maybe because you are well intentioned and know Brady to be a good man, you are incapable of seeing why he does not deserve to be included. By virtue of his profession as a broadcaster and columnist he has a degree of name recognition within London, but that is wholly different than being notable. To achieve notableness he must be responsible for some significant work or achievement that to date he has not been responsible for. A hodge-podge of involvement, while making him a good citizen, does not qualify as notable. As AB brings up, why not Jim Chapman if Brady?

To anticipate you might say that Brady was recognized by the Order of Canada. However the Order of Canada is not synonymous with being notable, which by the way is borne out by the fact that fully only 1/10 to 1/20 of London recipients are notable (1/10 or 1/20 depending on the inclusion of Brady)

Furthermore I have questioned the import of the organizations you cite Brady being involved with as responsible for or contributing to his notableness. For example: Transplant International. I checked and found this group to have never been incorporated (let me know if you don't understand the significance of not being incorporated). The name to my mind is only a name until there is some evidence of it actually doing something and if Brady is to get credit towards notableness for this and other involvement he must have been responsible in some way for what, if anything, the group has done.

All that said, I think what you have done in soliciting other users to support your position and slanting the issue your way when you solicit their support creates a highly artificial consensus. I think a consensus should be determined by those that are independently interested in the London page. Be that as it may I ask you, if I am able to convince more WP users to support my position will you agree to drop Brady from the list? consensusbuilder

Apologies for intervening on another user's talk page but: you should file a Request for Comment — that is the appropriate way to seek the community input in case of an irresolvable content dispute — if you really feel so strongly about one bullet point. -Splash 23:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind establishing a dialogue almost anywhere in WP if it helps to resolve an issue of policy. Splash, I would hope the Concensusbuilder reads your last post concerning an RFC about this issue. I hate to have to invite him to do so, but only because it seems provocative on my part. I would of course respond to any request for comment on this particular issue, as I have consistantly througout what has become a seemingly interminable debate. I have every confidence that the WP community that chose to comment would feel that no single user has the right to determine any "truth" based on their personal POV. I have provided evidence to shown Brady's notability, (however humble Concensus builder deems it to be) and in doing so have learned alot about a notable Londoner in the process. Although Brady was a familiar name to me before this debate began, I am now convinced of his importance to the community,and I do feel that London would have been lesser without his contributions to the community. In fact I conducted an ad hoc survey on my way to work the past 2 days. I asked 3 people over the age of 30 if they knew who Brady was, and without exception they did. One nice old lady even sang the jingle that opened segments of his radio program. "Bra-dy in the morn-ing!" Nice, eh? So rather than argue and argue ad infinitum, Concensusbuilder, I offer to settle the arguement via the community. File an RFC. Heres the link Request for Comment. Click that link, read the instructions carefully and begin. I think that until this takes place, we need not discuss this issue any further. I have made my point clear, as have you. At this stage, the only recourse I see for you is to pursue a formal Request for Comment|Request to have your argument heard by the community. Someone will surely tell me its been filed, and we can begin a formalized process. Good luck, I acknowledge that you have a point to make, I just don't think it's the correct one, or the one that best serves this project. Hamster Sandwich 05:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Note the difference between an "article content" RfC and a "user conduct" RfC. This particular question is clearly one of article content, and not content. An article RfC consists only of adding a link to the talk page to the relevent subpage of RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature in this case, I suppose). There is no final arbiter of article content — not even the Arbitration Committee will rule on 'truth' per se. If a content-related issue is presented to them, they either reject it out-of-hand, or accept it if there are conduct questions related: the determination they reach is usually to do with whether someone has been advocating or POV pushing. Thus an RfC on article content is not an especially formal process: there is no formal process for that kind of question. -Splash 15:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
You sound quite weary. Understandably so. Hopefully this will all dissipate soon. I suppose we could brutally cut that list down to the most interesting 5 or so, or something. It's too long to stay in the article forever as it is, but that just requires it spinning out rather than cutting down. Looks like your impostor is dealt with — sorry to be slow to respond. But, in general, a post on WP:AN/I is the way to proceed, and/or on WP:AIAV. If you use IRC at all, there'll be an admin in there who can do the hono(u)rs. -Splash 17:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mike Starr

He was the original bassist for the famous grunge group Alice in Chains until 1993. -- Mike Garcia | talk 14:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for fixing the vandalism to my user page - you must be quite popular to have picked up a name-copying vandal! -- BD2412 talk 15:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Go straight to the nearest admin and ask them to block Hamster Sandwich.. His username obviously violates the policy against confusingly similar usernames, and he's clearly vandalising. -- BD2412 talk 16:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, you've already managed to attract an impostor? I'm impressed! ;-) android79 16:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, I thought you had noticed he'd been blocked already. android79 16:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonator

You're welcome, HS, but credit should go to Kim who spotted it. He'd added a period to the name i.e. User:Hamster Sandwich. then he'd copied your user and talk pages. It was quite clever. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well I thanked you on your page, and I'll thank you again here, and now I'm going to thank Kim on there page too. So, Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 16:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Holy crap, dude. You can imagine my shock when I opened up the block log just now and saw "SlimVirgin has blocked User:Hamster Sandwich". I about had a heart attack. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed that. Ham, to quote West Wing, when they're shooting at you, you know you're doing something right. CanadianCaesar 07:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your very welcome

Even more so for all the nifty critters on your User page. =) --Kim Nevelsteen 17:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Now THAT is what I call an award! Worn with pride (unless I get too hungry, then YUM!)--Kim Nevelsteen 15:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HappyCamper's RFA - Thanks for your support! :-)

Hello there! Thanks for supporting me during my recent RFA. I'm now an administrator, and I wanted to thank you for your well wishes and show of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave a message on my talk page! In the meantime, I'll see you around the Wiki...Happy editing! --HappyCamper 02:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my adminship. Love your user name. :D Coffee 08:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus, VfD, and non-binary deliberations

Thanks. I wrote a rather longish explanation of my view on "non-consensus keeps" on User talk:ALoan. Frankly, I'd love to see it become the expectation for anyone who closes a VfD that any divisive vote result in something being done to the article. If not a merge, move, or placement on Cleanup, then probably a tagging to indicate the it has serious needs. More to the point, having something survive VfD by a 6D 4K 5M margin be offered up as precedent for "speedy keep" of other articles is exactly how Schoolwatch persuaded VfD voters that there was a consensus that every building with students in it, anywhere, should have a "It is on Ashland road Mr Smith is the principle and the colors are black and gray" article. Geogre 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I leave for a few days and look what happened! You got an impersonator? I've been here almost a year and no one's ever made a copycat account of me... How flattering, really. Well, anyway, thanks for your sweet words and kind regards. I'm now mostly moved in. It's been really busy, thrilling, and, frankly, nerve-wracking and awkward. Classes on Monday, I'll try to get to all the backlog of messages on my talk page and watchlist over the weekend, but, yeah. Thanks. You're nice. Dmcdevit·t 22:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My award

Thank you very much for my award, Hamster. I won't allow being a vegetarian to diminish in any way my pride and joy in it. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celebration!

Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration
Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration

As you were so kind as to invite me to celebrate your 1,000th edit at Wikipedia, (the most important online information resource!), Hamster Sandwich, I thought I'd reciprocate as I believe this edit is my 2,500th!. Alf 11:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scimitar's RfA

Thanks supporting my adminship application, and if you ever have any complaints/issues/million dollars to give away, please let me know ;).--Scimitar parley 14:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aetherometry

Regardless of whether it's crap or not, I did the right thing. These guys (or more likely, this guy) are trying to accuse me of being part of their imaginary Cabal, and frankly I'm quite sure that I haven't done anything truly stupid with my admin boomstick yet. What do you think, Ham? Fernando Rizo T/C 19:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I feel you are excersizing your administration of the article admirably. Of course the editors who most vehmently dispute your intercession are going to be the editors who feel most strongly regarding the topic. As Mel Etitis stated, if the abusive editor had been using an account with a static IP, he probably would have been blocked. I have a suggestion to help in this regard, but it would be (and is) a draconian measure, that would never ever ever in a million years get approval, so I leave it at that. In short, you took the high road, sir. No need to second guess your actions in this regard. Hamster Sandwich 19:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Edification

I didn't say you were trying to be counterproductive, and I'm not concerned with your motivations, regarding which I made no comment. However, I think that given the current contentious atmosphere over VfD, your questions have a counterproductive effect nevertheless.

I feel that we have serious problems with polarization in the community on this particular issue, and am not keen to see statements of allegiance to either side become prerequisites for people's support on RfA. I believe that to many people considering an admin candidate, your question (and the answers it elicits) is a step in this direction, and will cause voters to be less open to diversity of views among administrators. Also, I see little point in asking the question of people who may not have gone through the process of closing VfDs, especially when they have shown no interest in doing so in the future.

This is not to say that I find discussion counterproductive, but the discussion has its proper place. The details of deletion policy should be discussed on the appropriate talk pages. Requiring that admin candidates present a full exposition of their views regarding specific policies is, I believe, beyond the scope of what should be expected of them, especially when their views will continue to evolve based on practical experience. --Michael Snow 01:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"I find Hamster Sandwich's new habit of pressing every admin candidate on VfD closure percentages to be counterproductive." Well gentle editors, you must forgive me if I misinterperated the statement. You see I thought it meant that something I had done was being construed as being counterproductive. I can see now that it means, well I guess I still think it means that you think that I was doing something that was counterproductive. But thats OK Michael Snow, I understand now, why you would make the comment. And I further understand that WP is in dire need for intelligent sy-ops who are not going to be nutty exclusionists or POV pushers. My own POV is pretty obvious. A 2/3 majority is fair and equitable way to decide VfD. And I'm accounting for real or suspected sock puppets users who only open accounts for the purpose of voting on any particular item. Here is what I would consider a perfect example of an Administrator weilding a personal policy on a closure. [6] As you can see here, the vast majority wanted to see this article vanish. I get the count as 8 Del. 1 Keep 1 Merge 1 Re-direct and 1 suggestion to improve the content (count as a keep as well). Even so, I agree with the closure as a keep! Because it hasn't met a standard of 2/3. So when I ask a candidate a specific question regarding a policy, particularly a candidate I have seen at the VfD page, I want to know what they plan on using as a standard. Its a simple question, there is no need for a complicated answer, but I want to know! I want that edification, and from some of the comments the candidates answer provoked, I am not completely alone in this. It is a community of editors, and there should be a level of accountability by admins to that community. And specifically concerning the editor where you posted your comment concerning my question(s) to the candidates(s) Their answer to the question indicates that nothing less than a 100% consensus is adequite for his promotion to administrator. The WP:CON suggests a level of 80% consensus for this to happen. Who is right in this case? The candidate who set an unreasonably high standard for calculating votes, comments, whatever you want to call them, or the WP guidelines? In my opinion they both are unreasonably high expectations. 2/3 should suffice. But there is a reason why the guideline sets such a high bar for promotions, and there is a reason why the guideline suggests 2/3 majority for closing VfD's. The only agenda I have to push is to make the WP a better information resource, and by helping to keep the level of the administration at a certain level of proficiency and accountability to the contributing editors and to the user who resources WP, it makes it much easier and efficient to do so. The additional personal benefit for myself and other editors is we get to see how an admin reacts to a bold question. Will they answer honestly? Directly? Will they shy away from important and controversial issues? Are they just there to win a popularity contest? Or will they be committed and able to assist the project and the community? These are the reasons I may choose to question certain candidates, and certainly the ones who I plan on voting for. Simply for the edification of myself and the editing community at large. Thank you for your response to my comment on your user page, I am never adverse to sensible dialogue. I am taking your comments, and those of Dmc below, (an editor whose opinion I very much trust) under careful consideration. I may or may not continue to ask candidates about their potential policies regarding closures based on their personal opinion. I'm not sure at this point. I may ask the same question in a different way. I'm not sure about that either. But be assured that I take any reasonable comment under advisement. Thank you again for expressing your concern. Hamster Sandwich 04:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the practice before too, and almost said something myself about it, too. If you want my opinion, or maybe if you don't, here it is. I see what you're getting at, but maybe a better question is simply "how would you go about deciding a VfD?" I've never liked the attributing of certain percents to mean consensus, in VfD or RFA or wherever, although lots of people seem to ascribe to it (saw that in Tony's RFC). I've closed plenty of VfDs and I've never added up the votes and determined a percentage. We don't do votes. If it's not clear from skimming (unanimous), then the best thing to do is read it. That should make consensus obvious. If it isn't, then there is no consensus. If it isn't that clear cut, I will also consider the kind of comments (weak/strong, etc.), other options that comenters mentioned in the same comment, and even assess how well reasoned some of the arguments are (or if they have any and aen't just votes). And of course there's the obligatory sock check. The point is, I've always felt that stressing vote counts and percentages misses the point of consensus on Wikipedia, and reinforces the misnomer of "Votes" for deletion, and that holds true for decisions on RFA and elsewhere. That's probably how I would have answered the question if you'd asked me on my RFA. Sorry if that was a rant. Dmcdevit·t 02:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Oh and don't get me wrong, I don't see a problem with asking such a question. Perhaps since it's their interpretation of consensus you're after, something broad like "How do you interpret the meaning and application of consensus in Wikipedia deabates?" (and perhaps "with specific reference to VfD")... Dmcdevit·t 04:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Bingo! Hamster Sandwich 04:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitherometry Silliness

Too bad only the ham-fisted rehash of that topic is prominent. (You can mostly thank uniformed Registered Admin Users for that). The front page material, has been rewritten and degraded by people who don't know that Aetherometry does not put Tesla in the same sentence with Reich. Nor does it adequately show how Aeth has approached both of those particular individuals by attempting to divide their realities, from cultish myth. The material has not been treated in an NPOV, and thus perpetuates an unfortunate state of contention.

On something entirely different.... I have a looping animation on Toriodal current I would like to upload. I have not had trouble loading static images, but a looping animation like your fish, seems a bit more difficult for me the novice. Might you be able to direct me to a help page, or guide? Take care, TTLightningRod 17:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

As a vegetarian, I find your name appalling. (unsigned post by User:212.219.247.129 08:35, 29 August 2005)

  • I reverted your userpage as the above posted the pro-veggie message there saying "Note from a viewer: You're cruel, hamsters have every right not to be eaten." [7] and left the above unsigned message, (which I've attributed and time stamped). Alf 13:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Just so.... every time I look at the HammySammy... I grin from ear to ear. It a damn fine image, and the little guy looks quite comfy in his bread bed. Kinda like he was all ready for the long dirt nap after supplying a bit of sustenance to the omnivore about to snack. I just wouldn't want the wispy vegan-vandal proximity to my comment, to be confused with my comment. TTLR
Me too, hey thanks for the Sandwich of Dilligence, I've put it on my user page. Alf 23:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Blimey, the "Lemmy Kilmister Public Service Award", that is an honour, I am not worthy to stand in the shadow of his guitar! The "Sandwich of Diligence (Potato Salad of Justice cluster)" will not get lonely now. Thanks. Alf 21:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit]  :-)

What is this? Thanks a freakin' lot. Now you got drool all over my computer screen! Well, I guess I did, but it was your fault! Is that a club sandwich on sourdough? ...mmmm... Am I allowed to eat my awards? "Potato Salad of Congeniality," you're so cute. Wait, *sniffs* is that hamster meat?! *eep, squeak— chomp!* Er, I mean, thanks! You're a cool guy. :) Dmcdevit·t 00:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Lucy, I'm home! Thanks for the sandwich, brother. Drop me a line on my talk page or shoot me an email with any goings-on I may have missed while I was out for Labor Day weekend. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That was the good kind of evil deletionist, right? :-) FreplySpang (talk) 22:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So...

...London. Did you see my reply on my talk page? I wasn't sure where I should reply. I think we should unprotect the article soon; protection doesn't do long term good. -Splash 15:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Aw, shucks...it ain't nothing. Meelar (talk) 04:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Hi, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My Sandbox. Look out for clumps.

Nathan Bedford Forrest

[edit] War record and promotions


War Record and Promotions
Forrest's campaigns from 1861 to 1865
July 1861. Forrest enlists as a private (Company "E", Tennessee Mounted Rifles)
October 1861. Commissioned, Lt. Colonel (Raised 7th Tennessee Cavalry)
February 1862. Promoted, Colonel Fort Donelson.
April 1862. Wounded, (Battle of Shiloh)
July 1862. Promoted, Brig. General (3rd Tennessee Cavalry)
July 1862. First Battle of Murfreesboro.
Fall 1862 – Spring 1863. Raids in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi
April – May 1863. Battle of Day's Gap,
September 1863. Battle of Chickamauga,
March 1864. Battle of Paducah
April 1864. Battle of Fort Pillow
June 1864. Battle of Brice's Crossroads,
August–October 1864. Raids in Tennessee
November 1864. Battle of Spring Hill
November 1864. Battle of Franklin
December 1864. Battle of Nashville
December 1864. Promoted Lt. General and given independent command
May 1865. Final Address to his troops,


[edit] Just because

Image:Monsterthickburger.jpg

I am quite convinced that a Hamster Sandwich would go nicely with a BIG FAT HAMBURGER!
I saw this and immediately thought of you. --None-of-the-Above 16:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bagged another one of your impostors today.

You've got quite a fanclub going. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 22:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Man have I had a crazy day. Just check out my talk page. Good thing it's been slow here at work. I'm not even turning on my computer for a day or so after this. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 04:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hamster-Sandwich

Thought you'd want to know, you've been spoofed again - someone signed up as Hamster-Sandwich, vandalised William H. Rehnquist and a few other articles. Don't worry, he's blocked now. Probably the same guy as before - any idea why someone would be targeting you like this? -- BD2412 talk 22:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You know, there's just the remotest chance they've emerged from the jungle, only it doesn't really seem to be the same style. -Splash 22:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

HappyCamper (and myself!) have just blocked User:Hamster-Sandwich. (note the full stop) as yet another impostor! What have you done to deserve them? Worth contemplating the edit summary they left on your talk page, see if it helps work out why. -Splash 19:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hey, Hamster. Thanks for the enthusiastic support and for the congrats; my apologies for not getting to thank you earlier: I'm gradually working my way through the list (of 77!) whilst trying out some of my new buttons. Anyway, please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially as I learn my way around said new buttons, and let me know if I can be of help. By the way: it looks like you want your own sandbox. You could make one by editing this: User:Hamster Sandwich/Sandbox or similar. -Splash 17:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whole Lotta Gerbiling Goin' On

Hammy, thank you for your kind comments regarding my past work at SCENE.

I also want to say that there's no question whatsoever that Bill Brady is a "Notable Londoner." I read the various arguments and couldn't believe the rationale for opposing Brady's inclusion. There's still some on the current list that are more than questionable. (But I did remove Paul McKeever, the Freedom Party's leader who garnered less than 2 per cent of the last vote in the riding he ran in. I guess his initial inclusion is what's called a "vanity edit.")

Anyway, back to SCENE, a sad little mag that is now running media releases as news stories (a no-no practice amongst credible publications as it lacks even the pretense of journalistic rigour) and running softball interviews with Her Washup as snorefest cover stories.

Let's just say that the mag's publisher (who was never easy to get along or communicate with at the best of times) went sideways after his second divorce and he subsequently threw overboard the most popular columnists/ writers/ illustrators in the mag (according to a survey completed by Accumen, I believe) -- people such as columnist Bob Pegg, illustrator Bob Kio, National Newspaper Award-winning editorial cartoonist Vic Roschkov (who lives in London), Butch McLarty, Jack "The Jack-L" Robinson, columnist Andrew Bolter and yours truly.

Thanks for the crazy musician award. I'll polish it regularly and mount it on the wall along with the Notices of Libel from Les Pyette and Gord Hume and petitions against me from the two local taxi brokers.

Barry Wells 21:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What think, maestro?

Hammy, perhaps it's time to update the Jack Richardson page to include The Jack Richardson Music Awards, the inaugural year of which was 2004 at the Club Phoenix in London, Ontario. What think, maestro? I'd do it myself but I've heard that Hamsters are mean when they're loaded. Plus you're probably pretty good wit' a meat cleaver. Barry Wells 22:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Hammy the inaugural year of "The Jacks" was 2005, not 2004 -- March 10-12, 2005 to be exact. The Jacks were put together by a group that included Mario Circelli (former station manager at CHRW and TV Western, now an associate producer at the "A Channel), Ian Gifford (local musician and programmer at CHRW), Kathy Navackas (executive director of The Fringe Theatre Festival), Greg Simpson (music consultant) and James Reaney (LFP columnist).

So you were born in Woodstock as well, eh? Wow! Small world.

I'm going to edit a few things about my former employer in my initial response. Barry Wells 19:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Android79's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA and for your kind comments, from one "good egg" to another. :-) android79 22:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your support in my recent RFA! All those extra buttons might not be a big deal, but getting all this positive feedback sure is, please let me know if you have any problems or comments regarding how I use all these shiny new levers and cranks! Rx StrangeLove 00:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imposters, movers and shakers

Well they say the best flattery is impersonation. I notice that Jack Douglas got moved to Jack Douglas (record producer) but none of the edit history moved, grrr... the original is still under your original page which is now a disambig page, so I 'vandalised' your userpage. You doing good on picking through the the bin, you'll be playing EAI next! Alf melmac

Gah. That was the wrong way for it to be done. I've asked Bearcat how he wants to fix it. I think the only option may be to copy the edit history into the talk page of the new article. -Splash 08:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Hammy. I hope you will find my 4,000th edit amusing, and it's all gospel, scout's honour! To help me celebrate another milestone on the Wikipedia, the most important online information resource, I'll nod to the Floyd and sing you Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar... Alf melmac 19:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bmicomp's RfA

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina

I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 01:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I also wanted to say I like the picture on your user page, though as a vegetarian I have some slight ambivalence about it. Funny though; I just hope those aren't your standard snack. -R. fiend 19:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page needs less Image:Cowbell2.gif

You have the image Image:Cowbell2.gif on your user page; this image is copyrighted and used in the Will Ferrell article under Wikipedia:Fair use. The use on your user page of that image is unlikely to be covered by use however, and as such is probably a Copyright violation. Could you remove the image from your user page? Thanks. --fvw* 23:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] record of Sidaway conversation Re: Religion and Schizotypy

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religion and schizotypy

Hi Tony, I just counted 16 votes to delete there, and one of the keep votes was logged by Gabrielsimon. There is a stroked out entry there from Kuhuly (sp.?) as well. Even though that one is stroked through, I was wondering if you counted the Gabriel vote in your total keep votes. It would seem that since he used a sock (or two?) during that vote, his should have been disqualified out of hand. Please respond here, so as to preserve continuity. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

How does 7 Keep votes, 16 Delete votes and a bunch of Merge votes get counted as a vote to Keep? There's a clear supermajority to get rid of it, and even with the merge votes taken out Keep is still less than half of the votes to get rid of it!

How can we have far and away more votes to get rid of something and still have someone come along and claim that the vote was for the exact opposite of what it really was? DreamGuy 20:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. We can compare and discuss the votes and see if it would have changed the result.
In the interests of transparency, this is the method I use for counting a vote:
  • Firstly I look at the article history. During this phase I don't read the article or the VfD, I just look at the editing history of everybody who has participated in the discussion.
  • I have pretty strict standards. I expect someone to have edited for one month and to have done at least 100 edits before showing an interest in VfD. At this stage, I also often reject votes from people who haven't done much editing in articles, or those who wouldn't qualify by the standards above if one ignored a small number of edits many months ago. People who appeared recently and made a bee-line for VfD are regarded with particular suspicion.
  • Then when I've decided whose opinions matter and whose are to be discounted, I step through the edit history of the VfD, recording each vote that I find.
  • Sorry, I don't take any notice of strike-outs by persons other than the person who placed the original edit. Deciding who can and cannot vote is something that I do and the on-page bickering about who can and cannot vote is completely ignored, because by the time I've seen it I already know at least as much about the editing history of the participants as they know about one another.


  • In my original count, I placed Robchurch in the "keep" column by accident. But it doesn't make any difference to the result. I'll explain.
  • When the votes are in, I look to see if the numbers match my standard for a clear consensus (80%+ for any option). There wasn't.
  • Then I look for the possibility of my establishing a rough consensus (anything in the range 70-80%). On this range I use my discretion and may be swayed by the arguments one way or another. 72% and convincing arguments beats 71% and a lot of handwaving. There wasn't such a possibility. The numbers were wrong.
  • If there isn't a rough consensus, the policy is to default to keep the article. So I kept. This doesn't preclude redirecting, merging, etc, but anyone can do that.
  • I made an error in counting Robchurch's keep vote. If I counted it, the vote was 12 votes to delete, 7 votes to keep and two others (12 out of 21 to delete, 57%). If I discounted it as I should have, the vote was 12 votes to delete, 6 votes to keep and 2 others (12 out of 20 to delete, 60%). It doesn't come close to 70%, where I would start thinking of calling a consensus, or 80%, where I would call an unquestionable consensus.
  • I didn't get to the point of looking at the article. I don't know or care what it's about. I would have read it if the vote had been closer.
  • Note that with 6 keep votes and 16 delete votes, and 2 others, I would have been calculating 16 out of 24 to delete, about 67%. Still not enough to make me start thinking about rough consensus. There are some sysops who would call that a rough consensus, but I'm not one of those.
  • I want to open a dialog on this, so please ask questions, supply corrections, and so on, and we'll see if I was wrong. My standards aren't negotiable, but I may have the facts wrong or I may have made a miscalculation as I did with Robchurch's vote. If I did, then I'll change my call and possibly in a direction you would favor. Please place a message on the talk page of the article inviting anyone interested to join this discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well the fact that you disregarded my vote seems that you are taking liberties with your qualification! :oP It's not as if I concentrate merely on the VfD page, or this entry in particular. Also if your using 100 edits as criterion, I seem to have slightly passed that mark. So please regard this as a request to regard my vote as a valid one and count it as a vote to delete. Also, I noticed that you decided to count the Gabrielsimon vote, this somehow seems rather inappropriate as he used a less than acceptable method of using a sockpuppet to register more than one vote there. It would seem incredible to me that you would condone that behaviour. Although I did register as a user on July 15th. the date of the closing should regarded as the baseline for your one month criteria as opposed to the date I registered the vote. If I had known tht was the case, I surely would have waited until sometime in the past three days to cast my vote. Hamster Sandwich 21:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I count the date of voting--that's when you registered your intention. These are my standards and I can't change them without a good reason. You've passed the edit count, but not (at the time of voting) the time editing. When I do the counting I don't care who voted in which direction, I'm just trying to find out who passes the criteria. I think that is the fairest way of doing it.
Gabrielsimon possibly did sock puppet, but I only registered his opinion once. I think it's fair to register his opinion. Can you give a good reason why I should not? When I discount your vote because you're too new, it's because I suspect you could be somebody's sock puppet, and for no other reason. If you did then I've probably already counted your vote. As I said earlier, I ignore these accusations and concentrate on determining which votes have been cast by real people. I'm convinced that Gabrielsimon is a real person. You don't have enough edit history for me to make up my mind. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, if you are going to toss out votes you need to explain why on the talk page of the VfD in question and not just say "the vote was for Keep" when all the indications were that it was not at all. I think you need an actual process here that is agreed upon by all admins processing VfDs, one that is transparent and not up to personal whims. 80% sounds like an exceedingly unrealistically high threshold for consensus, especially as Keeps by default then end up getting consensus by a mere 21% of votes. The definition for consensus in other cases has been set at two to one margins. Even by your own processing of votes, Delete clearly wins in that case. Consensus being a four to one margin is just not realistic.

A number of the disqualified votes seem extremely arbitrary... As Hamster points out, many of them would be valid if they had been timed right, and since no mention that timing was necessary was posted anywhere, you disqualified votes based upon rules people didn't know.

The process really needs to be a lot more transparent than this, as it smacks of admin fiat this way. DreamGuy 22:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Consensus", outside of Wikipedia, actually means "everyone in accord", DreamGuy. It doesn't mean "a majority wins". Not even if two thirds agree. It means the two thirds must convince the third that its view is correct or, at least, acceptable. This "as Keeps by default then end up getting consensus by a mere 21% of votes" is, I'm afraid, wrongheaded. There is no need for a consensus to keep. The idea is that if there is not a consensus to delete, the article is kept.
My view of consensus is much more stringent than Tony's. His allows

a fifth of the people involved in a discussion to be ignored, in effect. Personally, I believe no article should be deleted if there is significant dissent. What is significant dissent? I think three from ten would be significant. Two from ten probably not, if one was the article writer. Twenty out of a hundred and fifty is significant. Percentagewise, it is lower, but twenty editors is a lot. Most votes don't even attract twenty. That twenty are concerned enough to vote to keep is enough, in an environment where we default to keeping, to keep an article, regardless how many feel it should be deleted. The notion that everyone should be taking into VfD debates is that we don't want to delete articles. We are aiming for the sum of all human knowledge, not a restricted set of it, such as you might find in Britannica.

I think Tony's method for excluding voters is reasonable enough, although I wouldn't share it and I'd hope it's not widespread. It would tend to discount sockpuppets created for the purpose of winning votes, which is fair enough. I'd hope that he'd look at the tenor of the close calls' editing to see whether he felt they were bonafide on that basis.
DreamGuy, the process is done by admin fiat! Maybe you don't like that. I'm not keen on it. But it's down to editorial judgement, like so many other things. I do think Tony is taking VfD for a bit of a ride, and he's using the powers he's been given to impose his view, but that's the way it works here and I for one support him, so long as he's pursuing the goals of Wikipedia, which he is. Alongside his campaign to keep articles where possible, he also fixes bad articles and tries to steer deletionists to an acceptance that they cannot just delete what they personally dislike. He's walking it as well as talking it. Grace Note 03:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


I understand your concerns and think you should take them to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. I'm following my understanding of the consensus on how an administrator should act, but we need to make sure that there is substantial agreement that I'm acting correctly. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One good reason to not count the Gabrielsimon vote is that through subterfuge, he attemtped to cheat on the vote count. This should disqualify him. There is an arbitration regarding his misuse of secondary accounts proceeding at the present. Second, your standard of my having provided 100 edits surely was met by the time i registered a vote on this article. Once again I ask that you count my vote to delete this article. Quite frankly, it osn't much matter to me if the article is included in the knowledge base or not. I would never have cause to refer to it, and as I pointed out in my vote, the premise is ridiculous. Of course there is room here for any number of inane and useless articles. I am merely one user registering one vote, based on the subject and content rather than who edited it. You made a statement in your last comment "When I discount your vote because you're too new, it's because I suspect you could be somebody's sock puppet, and for no other reason. If you did then I've probably already counted your vote. I have a slight problem with words like probably, in that they are vague and don't really indicate anything that you could be held accountable for. Also please explain the phrase "If you did" in this context. I can't seem to make any sense of it, so I ask for clarification. Another statement you made above was a bit distressing to me ":* Firstly I look at the article history. During this phase I don't read the article or the VfD, I just look at the editing history of everybody who has participated in the discussion." I would hope that your vote to keep or delete is based on the content of the article rather than any personal bias you may have concerning the contributor. I suppose we all have our own ways of going about these things. But I am at least heartened to know that I do at the present time meet all of your criteria for voting and will no longer be disregarded out of hand. See you at VfD! Hamster Sandwich 22:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it's arguable that the opinions of a person said by some of the editors to be using a sock should be disregarded. If Gabrielsimon has been determined to be a sock puppet by our Sock-smeller Poursuivaunt, David Gerard, or by consensus of administrators on WP:ANI, then I'll discount his vote.
When I'm saying I think it's plausible that you're somebody's sock, and go on to say if that is the case I've counted your vote already, it's to illustrate that I'm trying to level the playing field. I know these votes attract socks, so I use a uniform criterion: 100 votes and one month (that's AND, not OR) and some other nonsense filters. If you pass it, you're in. I discount your vote because, as it is plausible that you're a sock, you would probably have voted already. We have thousands of editors. If an article really needs to be deleted, some of those thousands of editors will come forward and ask for it to be deleted. There's no need for me to take notice of votes from very recent newcomers.
Now as to the content of the article---for the most part, I'm content to let the two dozen or so other people involved in the discussion to deal with that. If you can't agree among yourselves that something needs to be done to the article, then I call "keep" by default. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Just a small point, Tony – Gabrielsimon has all but directly admitted to creating not one, but three sockpuppets: User:Ketrovin, User:Khulhy, and User:Gavin the Chosen. That last is actually his attempt at creating a "clean slate" username for himself, and as such may not be a sockpuppet in everyone's estimation, but I digress. I don't believe Gerard did an IP check or anything, but if you view the relevant users' talk pages and Gabrielsimon's RFC and RFAr, the evidence should be pretty clear-cut. Normally, I'd agree with you and say, if there's established sockpuppetry, count each opinion once; in this case, though, given that Gabrielsimon created the article in question with Sockpuppet #2 and attempted to defend it with his original username and Sockpuppet #1, well... android79 16:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards discounting Gabrielsimon on this basis. Could you provide diffs showing the admissions? --Tony SidawayTalk 18:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem with that is, I don't believe he has flatly admitted to sockpuppetry, but when called out on it, he hasn't made any effort to deny it, and continues the conversation as though he has admitted it. He's an odd fellow, to say the least. I'll look for diffs that illustrate this. android79 19:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Here's what I was describing in that last comment: I call him on it, and he doesn't admit it, but acts as though he has. Evidence presented at his RFAr does not offer definitive proof or confessions from GS, but there is far too much coincidence here for even the most trusting editor to believe that these four users are not one and the same, the most damning piece of evidence being the existence of a "Khulhy" page at gabrielsimon.com. android79 20:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


I can't accept this line of conjecture (but see my response to DreamGuy below). The RfAr, for instance, suggests that he's a bit clueless and careless of the rules, but not an aggressive troll. At one point I myself changed users from User:Minority Report. So the Gavin thing isn't an issue. Since the only problem here may be his problems working with others, I'll take his expressed views as sincere. It also counts as a good point with me that he is the primary author; unlike some administrators, I view a primary author prepared to defend his work on a VfD with some kindness. If the vote were close (which it isn't, even if I discounted Gabrielsimon's vote) I'd be prepared to favor a well-expressed opinion by the author in defence of his work. It's all about respecting the sincere intentions of the main editors of the contents of this encyclopedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


Gabriel admitted sockpuppeting to USer:SlimVirgin and User:Ed Poor, who are acting as unofficial babysitters for him. You can ask them about his sockpuppets. DreamGuy 20:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow this up with them. --20:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


--Tony,

I take particular exception to having my vote discarded. I have read what seem to me the relevant policies, and find no support for this decision. Notably, I find in the deletion guidelines for administrators the following: "For example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." I do not qualify as a bad faith voter under any of those criteria. I understand that you are entitled and enjoined to use your "best judgement," but I nonetheless submit that your standard is too high and rejects too many authentic votes, mine included. Is there any written and generally accepted policy that marks me as some kind of "probationary user," inelligble to participate in deletion discussions? If so, I will gladly withdraw my complaint. But this seems to me arbitrary and unsupported by policy. I oppose and protest your decision.

Respectfully, --Craigkbryant 22:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I second this view and ask that you, Tony Sidaway, rescind your decision to ban any user from this vote, who makes an appropriate response here. I have been feeling rather put out by this all day. Rather Bitten. And I feel that my time at VfD was completely wasted, that my opinion was disregarded out of hand, and that you Mr. Sidaway have taken a liberty with the proceedures here that you cannot explain away as easily as you have been trying to do. I ask you once again to reasses your criteria. I am obviously not a sockpuppet. I am and hope to be a long term contributor to the project. You have done nothing to foster any good will with me concerning my, well concerns, but you have supplied a great deal of circular dialogue. If I wasn't so angry over the issue of being dismissed out of hand, arbitraily by you I might be amused. Hamster Sandwich 22:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently considering removing Gabrielsimon's vote--I've asked SlimVirgin and Ed Poor, both of whom know far more about the case than I do, to give second opinions and I'll go with two out of three (my vote is to reject it).

On your request to count all other votes I regard votes on VfD made by any editor who has no significant experience of Wikipedia as suspect; I regard an editor who shows such interest prior to one month passing since his first edit with particular suspicion. For me this is non-negotiable. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay I checked with Ed Poor and SlimVirgin and they both thought it was right to count Gabrielsimon once. So no change there. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Now suppose I include the four delete voters, the keep voter and the merge voter that I excluded (still excluding Khulhy which was an admitted sock puppet).

I would have 16 votes to delete, 7 votes to keep, and 3 others. We'd have a delete vote of 16 out of 26, or 61%. I'd still default to keep.

Suppose Ed Poor and SlimVirgin said we should exclude Gabrielsimon's vote altogether.

I would have 16 votes to delete, 6 votes to keep, and 3 others. We'd have a delete vote of 16 out of 25, or 64%. Still a default to keep.

I hope this helps. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)