User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 12
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. |
Thank-you
Thank-you for your thoughtful comments at my recent RfA, which passed at 91/1/1. I appreciate the consideration you took to re-evaluate your stance. (And if you'd also like a pretty kitty for your talk page, let me know :) ) Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations and sure, I'd like a kitty! :) Best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nice, thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Venom
Please take a look at Venom (band) and tell me if the logo being used meets WP:FAIR. I believe it does, however, there is an IP that is deleting it. (he's deleted it two times so far). Undeath (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It looks okay to me, but to be safe, you may want to try here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Generation Y
JCDenton2052,
Please refrain from deleting the entry "Careers and the Workplace" from Generation Y. Peter Sheahan is an internationally recognised expert on generation change and workplace trends. Market leaders including Google, News Corporation and Ernst & Young engage Peter's consulting services to guide their strategy and train their management teams and senior leaders to understand the Generation Y mindset. The article asks for the inclusion of comments from a recognised expert, Peter is a recognised expert. He is called upon regularly for comment by the Australian and international media and he has published a book on the subject Generation Y: Thriving & Surviving...(Hardie Grant Book, 2005).
Samuel Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Michael Carter (talk • contribs) 03:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you have the wrong user talk page. I am not JCDenton2052 and I am not familiar with the Generation Y article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Heads-up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hooligan firms
Hi. Please be aware of the discussion going on at this ANI. You may get dragged into it, as you dared to vote Keep against the nominator's wishes. Just a friendly note. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 16:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the heads up! Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Final push for the textile arts featured portal drive
Hi! Say, could I ask you to pitch in with a biography for the last stretch of our portal drive? We just need 4 more: I'm doing Eli Whitney, Nishkid64 is helping with Rosey Grier, Thedagomar has offered to take on Samuel Slater. If you'd help out with William Morris or Betsy Ross (they're in the best shape) or any of the others on the list it'd put us over the top! All we need is solid B-class work with a good 2 or 3 paragraph lead and some inline citations. The full list is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Textile_Arts#Featured_portal_drive:_the_home_stretch. Hope to see you there (dangles a barnstar in front of you) ;) Cheers, DurovaCharge! 03:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have a preference between the two of which one you would most like help with? Also, sorry, I didn't respond sooner, but as you can see below, there was some contentiousness with an RfA that I wanted to address ASAP. Anyway, I'm always happy to help find citations, so let me know if you have a preference. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Either one is fine; they're both important biographies. Choose whichever fires your imagination or whichever is easier to reference. The important thing is that we meet the numerical minimum of 10 solid B-class biographies. Thanks! :)DurovaCharge! 05:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll go with Besty Ross then. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Either one is fine; they're both important biographies. Choose whichever fires your imagination or whichever is easier to reference. The important thing is that we meet the numerical minimum of 10 solid B-class biographies. Thanks! :)DurovaCharge! 05:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Your questions
I'll answer these one by one:
- Q: "Question-wise, were you to close AfDs, would you be willing to acknowledge that if an article has been improved during the discussion, you would give editors a chance to continue improving and bettering the article?"
- A: If an article has been improved during the course of an AfD, I would definitely give editors a chance to improve the article even more. I've seen a couple WP:HEY cases before where I've even informed !voters that the article has been imrpoved and they might want to reconsider their !vote.
- Q: "Even if Wikipedia is not a democracy, if there is a clear disagreement among editors in an AfD, that the closure really is a no consensus?"
- A: I assume that you mean "if the article has been improved, but even after some editors have reconsidered, no consensus is apparent"? If so, I would wait it out (maybe another five days) and see if a consensus forms. If nothing comes even after improvement, I'd just let it go as a no consensus.
- Q: "And finally even if it's for a type of article that you really don't like (such as an "in popular culture" article), if a respectable number of good faith editors argue that it should be kept, you'll acknowledge that it is either a keep or no consensus?"
- A: I definitely wouldn't show any bias. If it is, say, an "in popular culture" article, and enough good-faith editors say it should be kept and give valid reasoning, then I would stand by consensus, regardless of what I may think of the article. I understand that if consensus says keep, then keep it is, even if I don't think it should be kept.
There're your answers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. I will change my "vote" accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Enough
No need to call enough, there's a reason I didn't respond to his last thousand words on his rationale. VanTucky 05:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I have adequately defended my stance and will discuss with the candidate my concerns to see if he can convince me otherwise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes- There is a reason to call ENOUGH! The Rfa is a discussion on the candidate’s ability or inability to have the additional tools. It is not the forum to discuses’ personal or philosophical differences. When a sidebar discussion, distracts from the primary goal of the forum, which your discussion has done, than YES, that is ENOUGH!. Shoessss | Chat 05:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I whole-heartedly agree. As you can see above, TPH has thoroughly addressed my concerns and I am going to respond positively in the RfA accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- LOL - Thank you – You guys/gals where given me a headache – and all I wanted was to go to bed! Take care and may there be more Happy Editing in your future :-). Shoessss | Chat 05:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- You do the same, I'm now on a source search. :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- LOL - Thank you – You guys/gals where given me a headache – and all I wanted was to go to bed! Take care and may there be more Happy Editing in your future :-). Shoessss | Chat 05:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I whole-heartedly agree. As you can see above, TPH has thoroughly addressed my concerns and I am going to respond positively in the RfA accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes- There is a reason to call ENOUGH! The Rfa is a discussion on the candidate’s ability or inability to have the additional tools. It is not the forum to discuses’ personal or philosophical differences. When a sidebar discussion, distracts from the primary goal of the forum, which your discussion has done, than YES, that is ENOUGH!. Shoessss | Chat 05:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
Mbstpo
While I don't deny that this editor had some positive edits, we also had; creating hoaxes, vandalism, sockpuppetry, RfA votestacking, XfD spamming and tendentious deletion templates. Is this really positive? I wouldn't worry anyway, he'll be back soon under his eighth username. Black Kite 19:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- While those are problems, I think his larger point though about the disruptive and unfriendly trend with many AfDs was spot-on, even if he went about it in a controvsersial way. We are wasting way too much time on AfDs as a community that could be better spent improving articles by fixing grammar, adding references, and so on and there are definitely a tremendous degree of "I don't like it" AfDs masquerading as policy ones, when in reality all they do is tell good faith editors and donors and readers that certain Wikipedians don't care for what they care for, even if that same content actually appears in published enyclopedias or almanacs. I fear that what may have been the correct message is lost, even if we cannot agree on his methods. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Even though I disagree with your keep-practically-everything approach to AfD, it is obviously broken. We are keeping articles which clearly fail multiple core policies, whilst deleting or redirecting some that have distinct promise. It is a shame that Mstpbo chose to show his displeasure with AfD by disrupting it, though. Black Kite 20:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't think everything should be kept, hoaxes for example won't get much support from me and there have actually been some days that I have actually argued to delete more "articles" than ones to keep, but I tend to believe that for a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit for which its founder said we're trying to collect the sum total of all human knowledge that relies on diverse contributors and asks diverse people to donate and that is billed in its First pillar as a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias and almanacs should be as inclusive as possible. Too many articles I see nominated for deletion just because it is a type of article, regardless of the articles' merits, some people clearly do not like Xena articles or episode articles or fictional character articles or in popular culture articles and so it does not matter to them if some of these articles are more relevant than others, it's the type of article. Some editors have outright admitted that bias in the ArbCom case and in AfDs. Others do nothing more than copy and paste vote to delete articles in AfDs when making almost know article improvement edits. How can we know that someone understands what a good article is if they never or rarely make any effort to build one? Plus, some of those in the arbcom and other cases have multiple "delete, per nom" or "delete, cruft" votes in AfDs sometimes several in under a minute where there is just no-humanly possible way that they actually read the whole discussion, did a quick search for references, or read through the article. Having had to contend with the wiki-harassment of Blueanode, Dannycali, Eyrian, and their various other incarnations and proxy editors, it is just astonishingly frustrating to improve articles or maintain patience in AfDs when I see similar behavior to what those blocked accounts exhbited continue to do in AfDs. If editors are able to find at least some references for the article, or if the article is a sub-article of a main article for which primary sources are sufficient, or if notability is on the fence, why not keep the article and thereby gain or at least maintain contributors and donors rather than give them a "we don't care what you're interested in" slap in the face? Yes, copy vios, personal attacks, libel, vandalism, advertisement, how tos, my space like pages for random people, and hoaxes absolutely should be rigorously dealt with, but for anyone or any topic that might be a legitimate search for contributors and donors, we should not delete such articles or at worst, because everything could have some potential redirect point, have redirects so that editors are indeed able to look at old versions of the article and improve it, if better sources do come about then they can be used to create a better version of the article which is much easier to do when you don't have to start over, and for editors like myself who have spent a tremendous amount of effort working to see what can be done on articles under AfD the totality of our contribution history remains viewable to the general community. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I admit I do have a problem with inherited notability. Whilst there are obviously many cases in which sub-articles are required, I feel there needs to be a balance between encyclopedic material and purely spurious information. I'll give you an example; I am interested in railways, a section of Wikipedia where - like any subject where there are lot of people enthusiastic about it - there can often be a problem with "cruft" (a horrible word, but sometimes appropriate). Some while back I took a terrible article - British Rail Class 47 and completely rewrote it, removing the spurious trivia and adding in relevant material, sources, and a lot of my own photos. I also spun out two sub-articles British Rail Class 48 and List of preserved Class 47s - again, sourced and relevant separate subjects. But under the "notability is inherited" idea, I could write another 512 articles - one about each of the locomotives of that type. There are plenty of sources (numerous online databases about the locomotive type, and I have a similar book at home). But we don't need that level of detail - not only do the individual locomotives not assert independant notability, but the material is far better covered elsewhere, and a link to that much better material is all that is needed. Similarly, that was my argument on the episodes RfAR - that the material could be much better covered in a separate wiki on that particular series, where the articles aren't subject to our policies and thus far more OR and trivia is unobjectionable. Incidentally, as an aside, I think obvious hoaxes and a few other categories of article should be speediable, but that's a separate issue!). Black Kite 07:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I teach history at a university and I just cannot see my colleagues ever using a non-word like "cruft" in a serious discussion. Because Wikipedia is not paper, has thousands of contributors, and from what I understand an incredible amount of memory space, I see not problem in not having 500 articles on any given topic if there is an actual interest in the subjects and editors willing to devote their time to it. The whole separate wiki thing is problematic, because editors and readers are way more apt to be familiar with Wikipedia proper and its much easier to navigate around one centralized wiki than having to search for multiple ones that many times are inferior. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- That would be exactly my argument though - many subjects which wouldn't pass our notability policies in a million years could - and do - have extensive articles on separate wikis which would be of far more interest to such readers that our rather "dry" articles. Incidentally, I am a lecturer too, and while (as I said) "cruft" is a horrible word, it's certainly easier than using an entire long sentence every time you need to describe non-notable trivia that devalues an article! Black Kite 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- What do you make of the proposal for a compromise that another editor indicated above that seeks to connect all the different Wikis somehow? The problem is that the community at large has a tremendous about disagreement over what is and is not trivia. I prefer to err on the side of including good information, even if it means not all of it is great, rather than deleting something that could potentially be of real value. Obvious hoaxes, personal attacks, and copy vios should go without saying, but what frustrates me most is that in some AfDs even when journal articles on the topic are found, some will still dismiss the article. Also, what do you lecture on? I mainly teach Western Civilization courses for now as I work on my dissertation. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this is potentially a good idea, regarding the Wikis, although there are obviously problems that will need to be ironed out. I teach Business Studies - but I don't go anywhere near those articles on enwiki (although to be fair, that's mainly because most of them are pretty good already). Black Kite 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Part of the fun of history is that there is a history to everything and so the same research techniques can turn up valuable sources for even the most obscure of topics. If there is anything I've discovered on Academic Search primer and J-Stor is that practically every topic has had some journal article or dissertation written on it at some point. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this is potentially a good idea, regarding the Wikis, although there are obviously problems that will need to be ironed out. I teach Business Studies - but I don't go anywhere near those articles on enwiki (although to be fair, that's mainly because most of them are pretty good already). Black Kite 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- What do you make of the proposal for a compromise that another editor indicated above that seeks to connect all the different Wikis somehow? The problem is that the community at large has a tremendous about disagreement over what is and is not trivia. I prefer to err on the side of including good information, even if it means not all of it is great, rather than deleting something that could potentially be of real value. Obvious hoaxes, personal attacks, and copy vios should go without saying, but what frustrates me most is that in some AfDs even when journal articles on the topic are found, some will still dismiss the article. Also, what do you lecture on? I mainly teach Western Civilization courses for now as I work on my dissertation. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- That would be exactly my argument though - many subjects which wouldn't pass our notability policies in a million years could - and do - have extensive articles on separate wikis which would be of far more interest to such readers that our rather "dry" articles. Incidentally, I am a lecturer too, and while (as I said) "cruft" is a horrible word, it's certainly easier than using an entire long sentence every time you need to describe non-notable trivia that devalues an article! Black Kite 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I teach history at a university and I just cannot see my colleagues ever using a non-word like "cruft" in a serious discussion. Because Wikipedia is not paper, has thousands of contributors, and from what I understand an incredible amount of memory space, I see not problem in not having 500 articles on any given topic if there is an actual interest in the subjects and editors willing to devote their time to it. The whole separate wiki thing is problematic, because editors and readers are way more apt to be familiar with Wikipedia proper and its much easier to navigate around one centralized wiki than having to search for multiple ones that many times are inferior. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I admit I do have a problem with inherited notability. Whilst there are obviously many cases in which sub-articles are required, I feel there needs to be a balance between encyclopedic material and purely spurious information. I'll give you an example; I am interested in railways, a section of Wikipedia where - like any subject where there are lot of people enthusiastic about it - there can often be a problem with "cruft" (a horrible word, but sometimes appropriate). Some while back I took a terrible article - British Rail Class 47 and completely rewrote it, removing the spurious trivia and adding in relevant material, sources, and a lot of my own photos. I also spun out two sub-articles British Rail Class 48 and List of preserved Class 47s - again, sourced and relevant separate subjects. But under the "notability is inherited" idea, I could write another 512 articles - one about each of the locomotives of that type. There are plenty of sources (numerous online databases about the locomotive type, and I have a similar book at home). But we don't need that level of detail - not only do the individual locomotives not assert independant notability, but the material is far better covered elsewhere, and a link to that much better material is all that is needed. Similarly, that was my argument on the episodes RfAR - that the material could be much better covered in a separate wiki on that particular series, where the articles aren't subject to our policies and thus far more OR and trivia is unobjectionable. Incidentally, as an aside, I think obvious hoaxes and a few other categories of article should be speediable, but that's a separate issue!). Black Kite 07:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think everything should be kept, hoaxes for example won't get much support from me and there have actually been some days that I have actually argued to delete more "articles" than ones to keep, but I tend to believe that for a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit for which its founder said we're trying to collect the sum total of all human knowledge that relies on diverse contributors and asks diverse people to donate and that is billed in its First pillar as a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias and almanacs should be as inclusive as possible. Too many articles I see nominated for deletion just because it is a type of article, regardless of the articles' merits, some people clearly do not like Xena articles or episode articles or fictional character articles or in popular culture articles and so it does not matter to them if some of these articles are more relevant than others, it's the type of article. Some editors have outright admitted that bias in the ArbCom case and in AfDs. Others do nothing more than copy and paste vote to delete articles in AfDs when making almost know article improvement edits. How can we know that someone understands what a good article is if they never or rarely make any effort to build one? Plus, some of those in the arbcom and other cases have multiple "delete, per nom" or "delete, cruft" votes in AfDs sometimes several in under a minute where there is just no-humanly possible way that they actually read the whole discussion, did a quick search for references, or read through the article. Having had to contend with the wiki-harassment of Blueanode, Dannycali, Eyrian, and their various other incarnations and proxy editors, it is just astonishingly frustrating to improve articles or maintain patience in AfDs when I see similar behavior to what those blocked accounts exhbited continue to do in AfDs. If editors are able to find at least some references for the article, or if the article is a sub-article of a main article for which primary sources are sufficient, or if notability is on the fence, why not keep the article and thereby gain or at least maintain contributors and donors rather than give them a "we don't care what you're interested in" slap in the face? Yes, copy vios, personal attacks, libel, vandalism, advertisement, how tos, my space like pages for random people, and hoaxes absolutely should be rigorously dealt with, but for anyone or any topic that might be a legitimate search for contributors and donors, we should not delete such articles or at worst, because everything could have some potential redirect point, have redirects so that editors are indeed able to look at old versions of the article and improve it, if better sources do come about then they can be used to create a better version of the article which is much easier to do when you don't have to start over, and for editors like myself who have spent a tremendous amount of effort working to see what can be done on articles under AfD the totality of our contribution history remains viewable to the general community. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
Here are your deleted contributions
done...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! That is part of the reason why the whole AfD thing frustrates me. I have made so many good faith edits attempting to improve articles under discussion and it's frustrating that regular users can't see just who much work I actually have put into our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I have tweaked the list a bit to make it more readable. Jack Merridew 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
Barnstar of Liberty for Betsy Ross edits
 |
The Barnstar of Liberty | |
| Awarded for well-written, cited additions to Betsy Ross. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC) |
- Thanks! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
New policy proposal that may be of interest
I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good proposal; I have endorsed it on its talk page. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
SpiritWorldWiki
Hello, I would like some input into my proposal at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Unknown_Rebel , if you can spare a moment. Have a nice day. SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good initiative and many outstanding arguments and examples! You may want to look at my user page for some essays, policies, and edits that can be cited to strengthen your points with specifics from our community. You should also check out Wikipedia:Deletion reform and Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system. Best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. I am looking to put together a development team to implement these ideas. I'm not sure what language we would use. I think a lot of work involving MediaWiki has used Java, but I'm told Ruby on Rails is superior. My own programming experience is mostly limited to implementing data structures in Java and C++ and writing text adventures, macros and such in Visual Basic, so I have some learning to do.
-
- Anyway, if you know anyone who might be interested, please let me know. Having analyzed Wikipedia culture and policy at great length, including how it works in practice, it seems that some contributors are bound not to perform well under such a system. It's similar to how some students don't perform well in a typical public school; they do better in home school or at a private school. It's good to have those alternatives available. If we create a wikisphere of alternative outlets, which operate independently and have their own cultures and systems, but are interconnected more seamlessly than at present, it could be much better than just having this one monolithic entity, Wikipedia, more or less dominate the niche of collaborative online encyclopedia-building. SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I, unfortuantely, have no programming experience. But I do support any effort to make the connection among the wikis more manageable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
-
RfA
You know what? You're a real level headed and dedicated editor and you know your way around the Wiki. Mind if I nominate you for adminship? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dear TenPoundHammer, I greatly appreciate the offer; however, as I had been previously blocked twice, even though the only admin to have ever blocked me subsequently unblocked me and as you can see here has ultimately been quite positive about me, I nevertheless believe that some would still be hard-pressed to support someone with two blocks, regardless of the circumstances. I have seen that time and time again in RfAs. Plus, I have had to contend with pretty determined wiki-aggression from Blueanode, Dannycali, and Eyrian as well as their various proxies and socks that I am deeply concerned that any RfA I might have would turn into something unproductive. Maybe down the road, but there still seems to be some lingering hostility from those users and their related IPs and proxy editors that I am not sure it would be worth it at this time. Plus, I have enough fun working on articles, that I'm not sure I really "need" to be an admin to get something out of Wikipedia. Being able to see deleted articles would be great, but I'm not sure I spend enough time worrying about blocking people or closing AfDs that it would be necessary. Again, I greatly appreciate the kind offer and may reconsider at some point, but I'm still a little hesitant to take the next step just yet. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, what was with this edit? Are you changing your vote again? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, because you offered to nominate me for adminship, changed your vote in the two AfDs I mentioned, and answered my questions I asked on your talk page, I have decided to move from the neutral section to the support section. Well done getting me to change my mind! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mental note for my coachees... offer to nominate le Grand Icantspellthatlstname for RfA and you'll get his vote ;-) Balloonman (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's more than just that; he answered all of my questions and responded to my suggestions and concerns. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- As for your blocks... I wouldn't run for Admin until at least a year has passed since your block was lifted... EG wait until at least July... until then, keep your hands clean and let people know who you are (particularly in admin related areas) and people might be willing to overlook your past transgressions... but generally a year is considered the minimum length of time.Balloonman (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- For symbolic reasons, I would like wait until around Halloween. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mental note for my coachees... offer to nominate le Grand Icantspellthatlstname for RfA and you'll get his vote ;-) Balloonman (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, because you offered to nominate me for adminship, changed your vote in the two AfDs I mentioned, and answered my questions I asked on your talk page, I have decided to move from the neutral section to the support section. Well done getting me to change my mind! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, what was with this edit? Are you changing your vote again? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy First Day of Spring!
- Thanks! Same to you! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter
 Issue II - March 2008 |
|
This is the second issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts. If you think anything should be featured in the next issue, please leave a note at the Newsdesk |
Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the project talk page (don't forget to watchlist it).
|
The task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities is happy to announce that there are now (at least) stub articles for all municipalities of Germany. Now the task force is looking for help in fleshing these out a little bit. The current phase of activity for the task force is to copy in infoboxes from the articles in German Wikipedia. If you want to help, even just for a few articles, look at the instructions and links here
There are now way over 26.000 articles tagged as part of our Wikiproject and many still need either an importance or a quality assessment. Also there are many more out there that do need to be tagged like approx 8000 municipalities. If you would like to help take a browse through Articles needing Importance assessment or Articles needing a basic quality assessment. |
|
- Newsletter Bot Talk 15:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, - Newsletter Bot Talk 15:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the updates! Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
