User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness 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 Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium
You're welcome and congratulations!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Derek Smart WP:BLP article

Hi, I saw your comment on my talk page. Thanks for the pointers. However, I wish to solicit your assistance as I believe that I am now being singled out by some editors who seek to ignore the more stringent WP:BLP guidelines which guide the editing of that page. See here where I am now accused of being a sockpuppet and further threatened with banning. Ho Lee Cow (talk)

You could request a checkuser of yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser (someone who is not a sockpuppet would be unlikely to request a checkuser of his or herself). Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude into the discussion, but if you read the list of "Unacceptable requests" at the top of WP:RFCU, you will see that "Checkuser on yourself to 'prove your innocence'" is one of them. Deor (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that now. Thanks for pointing it out! Perhaps another idea would be to enable an email and email those accusing him? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting the Centurion (Scarrow Novel) page. It shouldn't be deleted :) Rigsy05 (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well now its been deleted but you continue to support it, thank you again for starting the deletion review! Mucho appreciado amigo. Rigsy05 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy to help. While I could understand closing it as "no consensus," considering that editors were actively improving the article when it closed, a "delete" did not seem correct. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hope everything is well with your hound. All the best Rigsy05 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
She's making do. Thanks for the kind word! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Something to note

[1] [2]

Interesting, no? BOZ (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jack Merridew. BOZ (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I'm willing to give editors second chances, but given the AfD and ArbCom disruption and dishonesty, I have severe reservations here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and expressed my own feelings there. He lied up until he thought he couldn't get away with it anymore, and only then came clean. And you'll notice from the link above, that he tried to sign in to that sock before telling anyone about it, and only revealed it when he realized it would not work. BOZ (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As you indicated, if he focuses on improving certain articles, then okay, but the contributions to arbcom and afd discussions were pretty universally unconstructive. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I added that account to my matrix prior to seeing if I could log into it and that CUs will note that I did so before attempting to access that ancient account. You do realize that your only knowledge that I even tried to access the account is my assertion to that effect? Feel free to ask a friendly neighborhood cross-wiki CheckUser. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Personal attack

I can ask her, not that I believe she would, nor do I believe I'm obligated to. It's certainly not civil and perhaps could have been delivered in a less blunt manner, but she is under no obligation to remove or change her comment. If she posted a similar thing on your talk page, then you would have every right to remove it, but she can do as she wishes on her talk page. Honestly, it's hardly a severe personal attack, and why you're being picky about this is a bit beyond me. Let it be. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is a severe personal attack, but it is a dishonest/inaccurate view of my arguments when even today I have argued to delete multiple articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Cordisco and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fax Machine Monster of Basildon). It only matters in that it is a comment she made to a good faith editor with whom I am discussing a complex merge for a large series of articles. I do not want that editor with whom I am having a civil and constructive discussion to have a false impression of things from some other editor who obviously just does not like me. Plus, please note that in my comment that she reverted, I even offered to work with her on an article as a means of easing any tensions and as a peace gesture. I suppose it would be nice if the same courtesy were extended. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
From your point of view, it is inaccurate. It does not belie the fact that your "keep" rationales on most articles demonstrate an extreme inclusionist stance that most Wikipedians do not possess. I'm not criticizing it, but pointing out the simple reality. You can dismiss it all you please, but that is how you've presented yourself to the community and per chaser, frankly, it's how you're going to be considered. Anyhow, the core issue here is that you attempted to remove a message she put on her own talk page because you claimed it was a "personal attack," which both chaser and I view as hardly that, and you aren't permitted to remove it in any case. Deal with it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Then at the same time those whose "delete" rationales on most articles demonstrate an extreme deletionist stance that most Wikipedians do not possess, but is how they've presented themselves to the community and is how they are going to be considered should also "deal with it." Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Which is irrelevant to this discussion, a red herring, and your acceptance of my statement. Point addressed. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I accept that I have greatly increased my likelihood to argue to delete articles and that usually any who criticize me as overly inclusionist argue to keep less articles than I argue to delete. Anyway, I agree with the general idea you and Chaser are coveying, i.e. "sticks and stones" and if I see incivil comments in the future to just ignore them per Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
More sticks and stones than trolling. The precipitating comment, at least, wasn't that.--chaser - t 09:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly Roi, extremists of all stripes tend to get a lot of flak around Wiki for their views. Inclusionists more than most, perhaps. I agree with Sephiroth. You've got to have thick skin around here.--chaser - t 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaser, as always, I appreciate your thougtful feedback, but again, I really have been arguing to delete far more frequently and so I do not think that it is fair to call me an "extreme" inclusionist any more. In the past, perhaps, but please consider User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Anyway, my concern is not about myself taking any personal offense, it is about User:Tntnnbltn being given an incorrect assessment of me. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm striking part of my comment because I haven't had time recently to read many of Roi's contributions to AFDs and I'd rather not be quoted describing Roi as an extremist if it's not accurate.--chaser - t 09:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have begun even nominating articles for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Ramos Jr and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markael James as well as this related case. If you have any advice on nominating AfDs based on these examples or filing checkusers as indicated here, please let me know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi, I should have said this earlier, but thanks for the welcome. Ashton1983 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Happy editing!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 14:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

.

Let me be a happy IP. I know it's probably a robot sending all those messages to my (my? It seems there are a couple of guys who got a chance to edit stuff under it too, but anyway) IP talk artcile, but it's not like if I'm breaking stuff on wikipedia or whatever. Registering is pointless, knowing the clique-like mentality of the wikipedians and the fact that I don't have anything good to contribute, but thank you for the invitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.206.254.35 (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to join?

Hey Le Grand its Truco, if you remember me, and I was wondering whether you would consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional Wrestling?--~SRS~ 02:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sure. Thanks for the invite. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Your Welcome! Now as you just joined, you may not know all the regulations at WP:PW, so before you are aware of them, can you read Backlash (2003) and comment on it's peer review =)?--~SRS~ 17:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing; I'll check it out momentarily. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I responded to your comment on the peer review, and thanks for taking to time to comment.~SRS~ 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks to you as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source

What on Earth ever made you think this was a reliable source? --EEMIV (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The detail. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
GRC, you would needto show that the owner of that site is an acknowledged expert.DGG (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure to what extent he's an expert, but it seemed like a start, i.e some source is better than nothing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

GRC, I know yo've said this elsewhere, but consensus does not agree with you. The web already exists and it suffices, when people want to find low quality sources. If we're an encyclopedia, we need to have a minimum level below which we do not go--and that one is in my opinion below it. I would like to expand the acceptance somewhat of blogs and the like for popular culture and internet stuff, butt hey have to be shown to have some degree of acceptance. The model for this is the various accepted SF blogs. But it does not make sense if carried to far, and perhaps it is counterproductive to getting the good ones accepted here. DGG (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Some blogs and even "fan sites" have a degree of reliability; it varies from blog to blog and fan site to fan site, just as newspapers and even published books vary wildly in terms of actual reliability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Question Regarding Watchlist and Recent Edits

What is the green or red integer that appers next to edit data on watchlists or the Recent Chenges list? How is it determined?

Adam Schwing (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think green indicates number of characters added to the article in the edit, whereas red indicates the number of characters removed during the edit. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with your sourcing

Do you have a copy of "The Helmet of Horror"? Even the limited material from Google books makes it clear this isn't any sort of academic text; it is disingenuous to cite to this book a claim of it "stud[ying]" anything. The blurb that comes up for page 117 is vague -- not even a complete sentence. Although much of the sourcing you've done for a variety of articles seems above-board, this and the earlier Honorverse thing make me wonder if you're willing to overlook dubious reliability just for the sake of having a footnote. Please be more careful and discerning when citing sources. --EEMIV (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to go through any Star Wars or science fiction related publications? If they have not been exhaustively confirmed not to have any releveant articles, then outright deletion is undeniably premature. I hope you are not just trying to delete Star Wars, Honorverse, Battlestar, and Star Trek articles for whatever reason, regardless of sourcing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This is pretty much entirely off topic from what I've pointed out/requested, but since you ask: no, I'm not trying to delete all of those things. I what to see erased in-universe trivia and plot better suited and better treated by in-universe wikis (e.g. Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia and whatever Battlestar wiki there is out there) so that good, encyclopedic, out-of-universe content focused on development and critical response on Wikipedia is not diluted by other articles' OR, plot minutiae, unsubstantiated fancruft and general tripe. I have, in have, in fact made a variety of sourcing and other improvements to a bunch of Star Trek and Star Wars articles; keep digging through my edit history and I'm sure you'll find them. --EEMIV (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because material exists elsewhere is not a reason why it should not also exist here. Every non-hoax article we have is covered in some other wiki or some publication. Wikipedia, however, is a compendium of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs and so is in effect the amalgam of all wikis. It is much easier to navigate one master Wiki. And "cruft" is never a valid argument for anything. The in-universe material just needs to be balanced out with out of universe stuff more, but even so, for obvious sub-articles or spinoff articles, it's not really a big deal. I'm far more concerned about Wikipedia being less useful and interesting as the less useful it is, the less worthwhile it is, and the less interesting it is, the less editors, readers, and donors will be attracted to it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another source problem

I'm not blaming you for this, as so far as I know you haven't used these this sources in an article, but you might want to look at [3] as at least one of the sources you've put on your List of unsolved problems in Egyptology when looked at doesn't say what you seem to have thought it said. Where did you get the Kolbe quote? And will you please at least consider changing what your page says about Lockyer? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That article was one that was userfied for me, but it is not one that I've personally spent much time editing. Thus, the majority of it is from other editors and you are welcome and encouraged to fix any problems with it. I only asked for it to be userfied for teaching purposes, i.e. to show my students how much we still don't know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was just wondering about where the Kolbe stuff actually came from as I can't find the quote on the web. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not one I added, so I don't know. The only reference I added was [4]. Again, you are more than welcome to correct anything on the article as I'd rather whatever my students see be as accurate as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done some research and edited the footnote now. I hope that's ok. --Doug Weller (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes and well done!  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Article review

Hello. My name is Angie. Would you be honored to look as an article I created?

Pretty Little Dutch Girl

Thanks in advance. Angie Y. (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! My main suggestion would be to add in-line citations and a reference section. If you are not sure what I mean by that, let me know and I'll be happy to show you. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your RfB comments

Hi, LGRC. May I ask why you seem to give more weight to that AfD discussion, as opposed to here or here where I most probably single-handedly contributed to the acceleration of the heat death of the universe with the amount of wiki-bandwidth I was chewing up . As a matter of history, WP:WING is a contribution of mine to the wiki essay space, so, in a sense, I am referencing the rationales I am using. Also, have you looked at my contributions to RfA? I think that in general, the ratio of explanation to non-explanation is rather weighted in my favor, but I appreciate you concerns. I would request that if you are worried about my ability to explain, if you could please look at a representative cross-sample of discussions that required detailed explanation (to wit, where consensus was difficult to achieve) for a more complete view, but that is solely your prerogative, and I respect your decision—regardless of what it is, as I know from seeing your comments on RfA that you have the best interests of the project at heart. Thank you for taking the time and demonstrating the interest in bettering the wikipedia project! -- Avi (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually focus on my own interactions/experience (see here) with candidates in these discussions to see to what extent the candidates are ones that I'm likely to agree or disagree with and so RfAs aside, that was the only discussion I really remember you from and those "ipc" AfDs have just been particularly exhausting. In any event, I think your post above is polite and now that I checked the edit history of the article under question, I see what you mean about your contribution to the essay, though I might suggest if you use it in the future outright saying "per this essay to which I've contributed". Anyway, I am definitely reconsidering my stance based on your reply here to maybe go from the neutral to the support column. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Der große König der Kürbisse, just dropping in to see if you had a chance to reconsider. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I just went to change my stance from neutral to weak support, but it appears to be already closed: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2. I doubt my chance would have tipped the favor one way or the other, but for what it's worth, it was my intention after reading your message to switch as I even said in my reply to Keeper: "he did leave an explanation on my talk page that is making me reconsider my stance, i.e. possibly leaning toward weak support". Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)