User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 15

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.

United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)

Thanks for getting this. The lack of comon courtesy here is getting me down. Once I have the time I will add my refs and clean the article up some. Web Warlock (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! Happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Project Trivia

Wow... I saw what RobJ1981 did to your edit of the T&PC page. That was just plain dirty! Hes not even a member, what right does he have to say what belongs on the front page? Oh thats right, he was just trying to thwart your efforts to save a page that HE nominated for deletion... how dare you go against his opinions!? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you can see from the page's history, I was the last person to edit it prior to its nomination for deletion, which is how I stumbled upon that MfD in the first place. I do think that as a member of the project it is reasonable for me to place an article there that I have contributed to and that even has "in popular culture" in its title. If other members think otherwise, then fair enough. On a related note, I invited three editors to join the project User:AndyJones, User:Casliber, and User:Durova as I think they could help us out a lot. AndyJones created that deleted trivia page for reconsidering some previously deleted "in popular culture" articles, Casliber has provided a reasonable voice in many AfDs that I've seen him in, and Durova even helped bring an article on cultural depictions of Joan of Arc to either good or featured status (don't remember which off hand). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good... btw, he reverted your edit again, which I then reverted. This is approaching an edit war... and what right does he have to edit a project page that he isn't even involved in, and probably disagrees with? Is this a conflict of interest considering he nominated the page for deletion and is now trying to thwart any attempts at a recsue? I would think so. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

After notice this on your talk page, I decided to comment here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice. A lot of the ones I did that for were stubs that I felt were very minor pages. I will however keep that in mind in future (and thanks for pointing out the bit about "per nom"--didn't know that). Also I removed the lists from your post on my talk page... they were kind of long. If this is considered bad form please let me know and I'll revert them. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you are interested in AfD participation, I do urge you to consider that whole article that had the per nom stuff. You may also want to read some of the material on my user page for additional tips of what does and does not work on this project as I have listed everything from grammar tips to articles that all editors should read. Even if your more on the deletion side than I am, it is still worthwhile to read these essays to understand where the other side is coming from (I have similarly read through any essays and policies suggested by those arguing opposite of me in AfDs). In general, it is usually not a good idea to edit someone else's post, unless it is to correct grammar/spelling. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Thanks. I'll keep working on the country music articles I've cleaned up and/or written, and see what else I can get to GA status. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, good job on getting at least one good article thus far!  :) On a side note, the neighboring county has a tornado warning, so just in case I'm off for a time... Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note and best wishes in the future! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge and Delete

Figured I'd continue the discussion here, since the AfD is probably not the best venue for educating me on this topic. Anyway, I still don't get why the GFDL requires that we preserve that sort of thing. Could you point out to me where in the GFDL it says that? I'm a little confused that this is such a common argument in AfD's, but it's not really clearly stated in policy, guidelines, or anywhere else (as far as I can tell). I am grateful for your continuing explanation.--Aervanath's signature is boring 19:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Please see this discussion as it contains the best outright consensus process in terms of coming to some kind of agreed interpretation of this policy. Also, it's preferable for Requests for Adminship that as much of editors' contribution histories remain public as possible for those participating who are not admins need to fairly review as much of anyone's edits as he or she can. I hope that helps! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly understand the argument that it helps that editors' contribution histories remain public for the Wikipedia community to better evalute RfAs, and I can see now that the GFDL does require all this mucking about with page histories. Which, for me, begs the question: why are we using a license that requires all these attribution concerns? For me (although maybe not for others, I guess), I am perfectly satisfied if my edits on Wikipedia are not credited to me, but are simply credited to Wikipedia. I am here to improve the encyclopedia, not expand my resume. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aervanath (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As to why we use the GFDL, that is above my knowledge, i.e. someone higher up on Wikipedia would need to be asked that question. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for taking your time to explain things. It's appreciated.--Aervanath's signature is boring 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am always happy to help and to have pleasant and productive discussions with others. Have a nice Sunday! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:RobJ1981

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RobJ1981 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobJ1981. -- McJeff (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have endorsed you summary; however, you need to get two editors who attempted and failed to mediate your dispute to certify the RfC/U within twenty-four hours time. Based on ANI and the wikietiquette alert, it looks like the following could fit into that category: User:Angrymansr, User:Dan the Man1983, User:Jasynnash2, User:Mangojuice, User:Shemeska, User:Stifle, etc. These editors have all commented in the various threads regarding your dispute and probably therefore should be aware of the RfC/U and are potentially able to certify it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to comment about what you said about me at the RFC. Notifying people of things they created that get nominated (either in AFD, MFD or any other deletion) isn't required. I'm pretty sure about this. However, if you have the exact policy that states you must notify the creator, let me know. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear RobJ1981, I am not sure if it is required per se, but I do think it is etiquette or common courtesy to do so. It is one thing I suppose if it was just an article someone created (although I think an article creator should be notified as well), but in this case it concerns a page within someone's userspace and so notifying him whether it is or is not required is the polite thing to do. If I see somewhere that specifies, I will be happy to clarify. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Triceratops

I'm thinking of deleting most of the "AndyJones in popular culture" articles.

Would you like me to transfer some/all to your userspace instead?

Best, AndyJones (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, any ones that you're thinking of deleting, please do transfer to my userspace instead; the same can go for the Deleted trivia page you host if you no longer want it as it's a good project. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad. I would have done it otherwise. Thanks for the heads up Andy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

You're welcome and congratulations! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Michael Lacey

I noticed that you did not take part in the original discussion. I make no apologies for renominating the article as quickly as I did because there was no decision made. Even the closing admin admits that he closed it based on shaky information at best, a lie at worst. I will not try to sway your decision one way or the other, but I urge you to look at the previous debate and the article's history rather than the process and decide if this is really an article that needs to be kept. DarkAudit (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear DarkAudit, it just seems too soon to immediately start a new discussion, i.e. the next day. Why not give it a week or two at least? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This was really not an article that deserved it, especially based on the behavior of the author. The SPA and COI issues, and the state of the sources that were provided, made it clear to me that this was a case of someone trying to game the system. Maybe not so much that a block was warranted, but there was too much that didn't sit right to let this lie. Again, the article and the subject are what's important here, not the timing of the nom. Please take a good look at what's gone before, then decide if the article stands on it's merits, and not because of a procedural technicality. Good night. :) DarkAudit (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, have a pleasant night as well! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just received an email from the head of the Capital/Chesapeake Bay branch of the NATAS. They were able to confirm that Mr Lacey did not win the Emmy as he claimed, but was instead given a Production Certificate by the show's producers for working on the show. DarkAudit (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall if it closed yet or not, but you should mention that on the AfD or if it closed then on the article's talk page. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted it on the AfD page and messaged Philippe, the original closing admin. DarkAudit (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for the support.--Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Game Informer Issue 181: Gears of War 2

That article has been proposed for deletion. Maybe there is finally some common ground between us as to the boundaries of Wikipedia? Or would you argue to keep it? Dorftrottel (vandalise) 06:01, April 17, 2008

I redirected the article to Game Informer. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was so hoping you would not say and do something as wrong as that. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 18:26, April 17, 2008

See discussion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Btw, the already-existing consensus, counting User:Metros who prodded the page, as well as User:Bill, User:Krator, User:Quiddity and User:Strongsauce (all of whom commented in the discussion) and my humble self. The bottomline line is that I only wanted to demonstrate to both uf us that there can be some common ground between us regarding understanding of the non-negotiable fact that Wikipedia, in its primary quality of being an encyclopedic project, is not about everything. I'm afraid that was naive. You're now acting against both a consensus of editors and against policy. Not that I'd go anywhere else to pursue this matter. But, dude, what the heck?! I know you don't do that for a lack of good intentions or lack of intelligence. I've come across your comments often enough to know that neither is the case. But, the entire issue with that article aside: Why is it that you're so invariably determined to keep even stuff like that? Dorftrottel (criticise) 18:59, April 17, 2008

I agree that a single issue of a magazine is usually not notable enough for an individual article (some magazine issues may have achieved a degree of notability, but at this time, I do not believe this particular issue has); however, the article was created in good faith, is not libelous, is not a hoax, and can be reasonably redirected to the main magazine article lest its creator or any others with similar ideas come here looking for such information. So, as a compromise and to prevent a needless AfD and to preserve a good faith editor's contribution history, redirecting seemed the simplest and best choice. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's the wrong choice. If anything, the completely unreferenced "material" should be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines#Game Informer, as suggested by several users in that WikiProject discussion. The redirect as well as the editing history of that page are not to be kept. Nobody, and this is absolutely basic common sense, will ever enter Game Informer Issue 181: Gears of War 2 as a search term. Note that since there is varying capitalization of the words in the title, it would have to be entired exactly like that. Simply no, the answer is no. Dorftrottel (complain) 19:11, April 17, 2008

The amount of time you devote to minutiae such as this astounds me. Really, I am amazed by the lengths you have gone here...okay you win, feel better now? Why spend so much time ruminating on something you hate so much? Reminds me of the anti-porn crusader fixated on pornography. There are so much more positive things you could do. You know Dorftrottel, you do have considerable energy and command of the English language that could be of great use in improving many articles written with good intentions by non-english speakers - eg Władysław I the Elbow-high (great name that), or Plovdiv or Košice, I picked some notable ones which would are pretty notable, there are alot more less notable ones that are screaming for an eloquent English speaker. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of term Christian terrorist in Joe Scarborough article

I like your philosophy of respecting user contributions and also that you are a fellow dog lover. I was hoping you could advise me on this issue. I read the article on Christian terrorism and found it quite interesting. Shortly thereafter I read the article on Joe Scarborough and came to the part where he offered to defend the abortion doctor killer. It seemed to me the man mentioned (the killer, not Scarborough) fit the description of Christian terrorist and I added the term in front of his name. This stood for a long time and occasionally was deleted - I re-inserted it from time to time. But then recently it was deleted and labeled as vandalism. I understand it is not flattering to the subject of the article, but I think it is nonetheless accurate. Other references (external links) that I had added were also deleted without discussion. I will eventually let this issue drop but was wondering if you had an opinion or a perspective that you would be willing to share. Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a killer of abortion doctors could be accurately described as a Christian terrorist (if convicted and not just accused), but the key is to discuss it with the editors on the article's talk page and with the anyone who reverts you. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for your recent support of my RfA application. Regretfully, I withdrew my application in order to get some more experience as per advice from opposers. I look forward to hearing from you in the future. Regards, CycloneNimrod^talk? 20:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best luck next time! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Some advice please

If time permits, can you take a look at this, can you explain to me why marking topics with {{notability}} without apparent notability is wrong? Thanks SunCreator (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it may have something to do with how subjective notability is. There are things that I have not heard of, but may very well be more "important" than other things that I am familiar with. The key is to discuss with those removing your tag and maybe open up a village pump discussion. If you believe those removing the tag are doing so unconstructively, you can always ask for a request for comment or seek administrator opinion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How or where do I ask for a request for comment or seek administrator opinion? SunCreator (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. SunCreator (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Video games

How exactly do I become a member of Wikiproject Games or whatever it's called? I really want to join, as I love video games and most of my edits are on video game articles. Thanks, Prepsear (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! To join, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank for helping me out with Wikipedia! When I first created a username, I was like "How am I supposed to do this?" But then you welcomed me to the site and helped me out A BUNCH! Now everything seems kinda easy to me. Thanks, Prepsear (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy to have helped!  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Athach

Thanks for your show of support!  :) Gavin.collins (I'm sure you've encountered him before, with as many AFDs as you've voted on) is another "problem" deletionist. I really don't think he's got any sockpuppet issues or anything like that, but civility is a big issue for him; I and two other editors just warned him today on his talkpage for that. In fact, his talkpage archives are an exercise in people warning him about civility. *shrug* It doesn't seem like there's much we can do about that, because he ignores such warnings and no one has taken up any serious action against him about it. BOZ (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but that has done little or nothing about the civility issue. That RFC is too spread out and unfocused, and never led to any decisions. BOZ (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is big enough problem, there's always ANI or Arbitration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true. We'll see how it goes trying to work with him in a less severe manner. Sorry about the drama, just felt like venting.  :) BOZ (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fiction & Notability

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 as your input would be most welcome and would encourage other editors to contribute to the debate, which will remain open until the end of the month. Sincerely, --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check it out. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Congratulations and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SingStar (PlayStation 2)

Hello! I noticed you made the above nomination. Please note that per the GFDL, we do not delete articles from which content was merged. Therefore, if what you are porposing is that all those articles be replaced by a list, then we would redirect the smaller articles to the list without deleting them. In other words, the discussion on the Singstar talk page is sufficient for such a move and the AfD is thus not necessary. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the list article (List of SingStar titles) was not merged from the other articles. It was created from scratch at User:Tntnnbltn/olddraft2 using only external sources, with the introduction based on material from SingStar. None of the content in List of SingStar titles originated from any of the articles being nominated for deletion, hence they do not need to be kept under GFDL. However I have already noted my mistake in listing the articles at AFD when what I was really proposing was a redirect. I am rarely involved with AFD and whatnot, so put it down to a novice mistake. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then if you are proposing a redirect, which you do not need AfD for, I recommend withdrawing and closing the AfD and just either being Bold or continuing the discussion on a normal talk page. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:N/CA

Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help!  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Los Minosos

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Los Minosos, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rwking2 (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice! Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)