User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 14

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.

Re: List of nice Wikipedians

I just saw in the RfA I made your list of nice Wikipedians and was touched. I appreciate the kind comments and hope I can continue to live up to the expectations that entails.

I do think we got off on the wrong foot with the Weapons of Resident Evil 4 AfD (that's the first time I remember interacting with you). I may have disagreed with you on that AfD but I don't in any way think you're a bad editor. In fact, your willingness to attempt to save an article that you felt strongly about says a lot about you as an editor. In the end I'm not always right but I hope you'll continue correcting me when you feel I'm not right. :)

P.S. If you ever decided to initiate a RfA, I'd support it without hesitation just based on some of the work I've seen you do. Redfarmer (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the pleasant note. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Redfarmer RFA

I added a question under your support a few minutes ago. Realized I should let you know personally so ypu have a full chance to reply.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check it out momentarily. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't mean offense, but my gut reaction to the support and the diff was very negative. Look forward to a response and hope you can correct my view.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said there, Redfarmer said more in the above post than just expressing a willingess to support me as an admin, something I actually do not want at this time as I have declined two offers at nomination already. Anyway, the totality of his post, the humility of admitting being wrong, the kind compliments to me, etc. are all of such a generous nature that I felt it reasonable enough to give him the benefit of the doubt in the RfA and switch from neutral to weak support. Whenever an editor goes about in an RfA proactively attempting to persuade his opposition, rather than how some have done quite the opposite, it shows a good sign of character. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted in the RFA I accept your explanation (Although I don't accept the other post, not yours, that accuses me of breaking AGF.)--Cube lurker (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay have a nice night (new episode of Saturday Night Live on in just under an hour and a half). --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for sending me the welcome message. Snood199 (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

Thanks for your welcome message the other day. I'm wondering if you could advise me on the proper title and procedures for creating an article to condense all this Controversy about the 2008 Democratic Primary Superdelegates. Personally, I'm not sure why there needs to be a controversy but, in lieu of watching articles for inclusions of "So and So said they're going to cast their vote as a superdelegate for Clinton even though their constituents voted for Obama." As the two are not related, I don't see the point in including these statements in individual biographies of Members of Congress, Governors, etc. The title I came up for was "Democratic Primary (United States) 2008 presidential primary Superdelegate Controversies" but that seems a bit long. And, I think this is too controversial of an issue for me to attempt as my first article alone. Plus, I've already been threatened by someone who thinks I'm a "Clinton campaign operative" (I'm not) who says he/she will track my IP address and release to the news media that there's some kind of conspiracy going on against Obama on Wikipedia. Anywhoo...I'd appreciate any advice you have to offer. Thanks again! Smart Ways (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is important to get community consensus for such a move and I encourage you to discuss it on the relevant talk pags of any of those pages that you wish to condense. As for a title, I suppose something like 2008 American Democratic Presidential Supderdelegate Controversies or something to that effect could work. It may be worthwhile just brainstorming a bunch of variations and suggesting it to others on the relevant talk pages and see if any take off. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

re: welcome

It's me, User:Dorftrottel. 78.34.133.114 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, welcome again anyway! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just so much faster without all the monobook extensions (which I don't want to delete because they often do come in handy). 78.34.133.114 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA question

I can't help thinking this question ([1]) is a bit confusing and unfair to the candidate, and have mentioned as thus at WT:RFA.

Meanwhile, this will probably amuse you - I closed a Episodes and Characters AfD as Keep today ... and immediately got flamed for it[2] - you can't win.... Black Kite 17:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Every AfD in which I have encounted that candidate, he voted to delete (in ones in which I argued both to keep and delete, but there I thus argued BOTH keep and delete in some instances); thus, I want to get some sense of whether or not the candidate would ever close an AfD as keep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd do better giving examples of AfDs instead, because a question that long and complicated is likely to not get answered. Black Kite 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to reply sooner, but I'm just back from the auto place (my Focus's brakes aren't working properly). Anyway, because Redfarmer answered the question so well that I even changed my stance, I thought I'd give this candidate an opportunity to convince me otherwise as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Mr grand king of the pumpkins = ). I was wondering if you could tell me how I, as a non-admin, could be helpful at ANI? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Foremost, I would advise reading through the page careful, includings its instructions and all of the various current discussions. Take note of what "works" on the page. Then, after you feel confident that you understand it, gradually offer advice as input in as unbiased a way as possible. Always keep an open-mind and try to avoid overly heated discussions initially. Be sure though to not only focus on ANI, but also on article development and referencing as well. And a great way to build good will is to welcome new users. The more experience you have with article development and the more friendly experience from welcoming new users, the greater credibility your opinions will have elsewhere, such as at ANI. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi - thanks for your talkpage note. I completely agree with you in general - many people don't spend enough time looking for sources on articles, and that's why many get deleted. Indeed, one you mentioned there Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1349 Woking Squadron was started by myself because it had been PRODded but looked at least semi-salvageable.

But - and I am trying to be helpful here, I assure you - what you've got to be careful of it your habit of throwing in these types of contribution on AfD. There are two main problems - you produce this sort of !vote a lot of the time, and it's not helpful - to me, it just says "this is a rather wordy default keep because I can't find any other reason to help this article out".

Also, this one is not only unhelpful but actually misleading - it looks as though you're saying that plenty of sources are available for this fictional weapon, but if you take the time to look at the link, you've actually only done a search for "Starship Troopers", which is the parent article. I say "be careful" because you don't want to get a reputation as "that editor who just !votes Keep all the time" because then your well-made comments and improvements may start to get ignored, which would be a shame because many of them are very useful. Black Kite 09:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Black Kite, thank you for the feedback. I still think my arguments, even in To Boldly Go an Morita are far more substantive than the copy and paste deletes I see used so frequently. There are many accounts like this one that literally do nothing more than just going through AfDs voting with practically copy and paste deletes and with such rapidity that it's incredibly difficult to accept that they actually read all these articles and discussions. With To Boldly Go, I don't think you can just take the first post there as the totality of my arguments as I continued to discuss with others there. Plus, what do you do with the nomination: "for the love of god"? Is it really necessary to be that worked up about an article? For Morita, my argument is that the topic is sufficiently verfiable by collecting information in all of those published sources on Starship troopers and as sub-article of the main article is consistent per the First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on Starship Troopers. As some editors argued spiritedly to keep in that instance, i.e. enough to demonstrate that it's a legitimate search term. Why not redirect without deleting to the Starship Trooper article instead, thereby at least keeping editors' contributions still public to non-admins? Plus, consider the deletes, one just repeats what another already said thereby adding nothing new to the discussion, while both are arguments to avoid anyway. Even the nom has problems: a wishy-washy "appears to fail" a policy (not just fails) and a suggestion to merge (which you don't need an AfD for, you can Be Bold and just merge and redirect without an AfD and if that's the case why not have a talk page discussion first?). Other delete votes lacked academic seriousness and were of the arguments to avoid nature, which is also just repeated by another in the discussion, thereby adding nothing of additional substance to the discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean they're provocative and induce arguments, yes those arguments of yours are doing that. But I can't say they help in the real work at Afd, which is decide on the articles in some consistent and responsible way. DGG (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They help in most instances. Just to clarify to those with whom I have discussed AfDs today (sorry for copy and pasting, but my one hand is still injured), going with my AfD participation for today, in the instances in which I argued to delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran), I provided evidence that I conducted a search for sources on multiple venues and made efforts to still do whatever I could to improve the article just in the off-chance that during the AfDs sources are indeed found and the article now has a start on being improved. In other words, I did not just throw down another repetitive “vote.” In cases where others already provided appropriate policy shortcuts like WP:HOAX, I did not merely repeat what they wrote. Once somebody has already provided a policy or guideline reason for deletion or keeping, there is no need to restate it as anyone reading the discussion should see it. After all, in a discussion, not a vote, the participants should advance new arguments and ideas as the discussion progresses. Now in the three instances (you read right, so far I argued to delete three articles today versus only three keeps) in which I argued to keep, consider them successively. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean was nominated as a non-notable book with four rapid delete votes claiming “no coverage” in secondary sources. Despite such assertions, KittyRainbow and I found SEVERAL sources including ones in which the article was given high reviews (Five Stars, Gold Award). I in turn used these sources to drastically revise the article by adding new sections and multiple references to an article only created four days ago anyway. And that is just with two of us conducting source searches in one day! So, here is an instance where you have a nom plus four delete votes with false claims and no evidence that searches for sources were even done to substantiate those claims only to have myself and another find a slew of sources with which I was able to significantly improve a four day old article. It frustrates me to no end to see so much of that in AfDs, i.e. editors just posting repetitive and false claims that could outnumber those keep arguments from editors who actually went out and found sources and spent time revising the article under question. Now, anyone approaching AfDs as a discussion would revisit his or her initial post taking into account the article’s development, but a minority of participants in AfDs ever do that. Fortunately in this case two editors were responsible enough to indeed change their stance and for that my sincerist compliments to them. But my larger concern is still, why wouldn’t the nominators or initial delete voters just do what KittyRainbow and I did, i.e. look for sources and improve the article accordingly? Think how much would be accomplished, because then instead of KittyRainbow and I doing it here, we could be doing it to another article(s) without having to also post keep rationales in the AfD. The other AfD I argued to keep (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1349 Woking Squadron) was based on the First pillar and I offered some suggestions after checking the web to see if sources suggest legitimacy of the topic. Anyway, I hope that helps illustrate where I am coming from. And with the said, I will reflect on your and Black Kite's comments prior to participating in another AfD. As a final note, as my hand is hurting and I have a class to teach, I'm giving Wikipedia a rest for probably several hours or so (maybe more, we'll see, how I'm feeling and how much job/school related work I have). So, as is probably the case, have a pleasant week to all! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about your Dog

I saw those pix of your dog on your page and as a dog lover I wondered how it was doing without it's eyesight. How old is your dog? I look foward to reading your response.

--122.106.31.217 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

She is almost ten and gets by quite well (bassets have large ears and an excellent nose, so they can make do without eyes). The other basset we have with eyes somewhat helps her out too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD discussions

Wow, you're certainly not afraid to state your mind. I like that. Seriously though, I still don't see much in the way of notability for To Boldly Go, so my !vote stays for now. As for the Melting of Maggie Bean -- good work there. I actually did try to find sources for that but wasn't turning up anything; I guess it helps to have more than one person doing the searching, eh? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear TenPoundHammer, thank you for the reply, kind word, and reconsideration regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean. Have a pleasant day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I really have to agree with 10PH on this one, unless someone is expert enough to find something. If you really think that everything shouldbe included, you should spend some time at Special:New Pages. DGG (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think everything should be included: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran are just some examples. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

socks

Interesting. Especially brand new users just stumbling into an AfD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, hopefully something constructive will come of the SSP case I submitted. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

knight of Wikipedia

I hereby dub thee a knight of Wikipedia, with all the privileges and responsibilities given therein. ----69.86.173.19 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind offer and nice message; however, I must decline at this time as my efforts on Wikipedia are probably best used in article improvement. Happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please accept. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 02:18, April 10, 2008

It's definitely a kind and generous offer, but I, aside from being able to see deleted contribs (which would be a self-serving reason) and while I suppose it'd be easier to be able to block obvious vandals rather than have to report them, just do not at present have a compelling reason/desire to be an admin. I could not see myself closing AfDs and I really prefer welcoming users and other pleasant things rather than blocking editors. Plus, as I continue to work on my dissertation, my participation on wiki could with reasonable likelihood drastically diminish as I have to focus on my career. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon Dorfy, don't leave us in suspense...you sound like you've got an opinion on it, does that mean you'd support Le Roi? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not interested at the time, and I am unlikely to be persuaded either way so could we please not discuss the possibility further at present? Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, consider it dropped. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD Talk

I thought this discussion might interest you. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite. I am, however, focusing my Wikipedia time today on a complex deletionist sockpuppetry case. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Boldly Go

I have explained why the redirect you want will not happen. Dorftrottel (canvass) 02:17, April 10, 2008

Okay, replied there. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Thanks for the update. Frankly, I don't usually pay a lot of attention to who else is participating in the AfDs in which I choose to offer an opinion. Although I don't like to see noms that are obviously without merit, I try to just do my research, offer my take on the disposition of the article, and fade off into the night. Of course, I occasionally feel compelled to point out obvious !vote stacking, to respond to queries or comments by other users, to highlight what seem to me to be deficiencies in understanding of policies and guidelines … Deor (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for your help with improving Timeline of the future in forecasts. It's a quirky little timeline, but I am growing quite fond of it ! Let's hope it survives the AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Recently there has been discussion about how sockpuppets have influenced the result of afds/mfds that result in deletion. A reason given for this being bad is that sockpuppets should not be able to influence deletion discussions at all. What would be your opinion of a sockpuppet who argues "keep" in a debate? Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In any instance in which sockpuppetry has been confirmed, a deletion review or reopened AfD would be appropriate. It is probably most important that any AfD close is not tainted. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. As you can see here and here, just as surely as I am willing to go after accounts that use sockpuppetry to get an article deleted (and in the past couple of weeks, we have determined several such sock farms), I absolutely am also willing to argue against and identify those accounts attempting to create nonsense articles as well or compromise an AfD in any fashion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Apocalypse

I am aware of all those sources of course and indeed the many others for the Beatus. It is the most famous collection of Iberian mediaeval illuminated manuscripts and Williams, Neuss and Klein will suffice as an encyclopedic source. You should have checked with me first before you wasted your time collecting material that to the specialist is fingertip ready, but well done for the good faith effort. Eusebeus (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AnteaterZot

I have encountered him in AFD debates before, but I haven't seen Lord Uniscorn or Noble Sponge voting along with him. I have seen those two PRODding articles before, however - for what it's worth. BOZ (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...But, it looks like you're better at that than I am! Good catch on Anteater and Uniscorn at the Hairbag deletion debate - naughty naughty! "They" were the only ones besides the nom voting for delete. BOZ (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you notice any accounts with similar edits, please let me know. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - will do. Last thing we need around here is another Pilotbob case. BOZ (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove? There seems to be several different deletionist sockpuppeteers operating multiple accounts. The AnteasterZot/Lord Uniscorn farm was getting pretty nasty with me, so, I guess it is some relief (although still disappointment in a larger sense) that my suspicions about "him" were correct. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure inclusionists do it too, and for the same reasons (though I can't say I've witnessed it), but what's with all these deletionists trying to vote stack and/or create new accounts just to come around and keep deleting things? It certainly doesn't help keep people from seeing the lot of them as "bad guys", although I'm trying to assume good faith on the rest despite the bad apples. BOZ (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It has really gotten out of hand and I've been dealing with these sock accounts for months now. Last year I had to content with Dannycali, Blueanode, and Eyrian and their related socks, which made any AfDs I partcipated in with those accounts intensely frustrating as you can see from how AnteasterZot/Lord Uniscorn tag teamed me: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. You may also be interested in such AfDs as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyluth and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy) in which sock accounts AnteaterZot and Jack Merridew participated or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beltar. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly remember Eryan, as he was the first deletionist to give us any real trouble on the D&D pages since I started editing them. I'm not sure how much we can do with the Osyluth and Beltar AFDs, since even if removing the votes which should be discounted, there were still some perfectly legit delete votes, and we were lucky to get redirects in both cases.  :) BOZ (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I could be misjugding, but I think here's what happened with the SolidPlaid thing. Looking at Zot's userpage history, it looks like he changed his name [12] and then the old user name page was deleted. I would guess that Grawp, as is his wont to harass deletionists, picked up on that fact and re-registered an account as SolidPlaid to continue his harrassment. I could be off base, but that's what that looks like. As far as anything else Zot has done with other sock accounts is another story, though. BOZ (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

With now sock account AnteaterZot and the earlier exposed Jack Merridew having particpated in the Episode and Character Case, I wonder to what extent their participation influenced the outcome? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - I didn't follow that case very closely so I don't know how much Zot was involved. I noticed that Jack was pretty involved with discussing it, so that's something. I'd push for one thing at a time - get someone to make an official ruling on the Anteater, and then worry about cleaning up his mess. I don't know what to do about cleaning up after Jack, as he had his hands in a lot of stuff. BOZ (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what happens with the checkuser casse. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've seen it - looks bad for him/"them".  ;) BOZ (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet, another report has resulted in User:Henrik Ebeltoft being blocked for using an alternate account and IP as socks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've encountered that guy before. Geez, these guys are popping out left and right... BOZ (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see on his talk page, we're giving him the benefit of the doubt for now. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)