User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

format

I don't think it's a good idea to write

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hydra_in_popular_culture

when you can write instead

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydra in popular culture.

Michael Hardy 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the suggestion. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


AfD nomination of List of television characters who are single fathers

I've nominated List of television characters who are single fathers, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of television characters who are single fathers satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television characters who are single fathers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of television characters who are single fathers during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Corpx 05:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the notice; I'll reply there. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You and Corpx

I can't help but notice that it seems like you're following Corpx around, particularly on AFDs. I was willing to chalk it up to coincidence, but every edit you've made today has been to an article where Corpx has made an edit or to a page where Corpx has commented on the AFD.

Can you explain this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. No, I am not following him around. I have randomly participated in some of these discussions today and have tried to improve a couple articles, but it has nothing to do with any one editor. It does seem, by contrast, that you may have taken an interest in me (see [1] and [2]), which I hope isn't the case. Either way, have a pleasant day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Um. Are you saying I got involved in the Seven day roguelike AFD because you edited it? Are you sure? Are you really sure? Are you really, really sure?

I noticed your editing pattern when I looked at your contribs, which I typically do for people I don't recognize on AFD. (AFDs attract socks and SPAs.) The pattern seemed weird when you were commenting only to AFDs Corpx had commented on, after Corpx had commented. I'm willing to accept that it's just a harmless coincidence. It just seemed odd to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I haven't edited in a couple months, which is why you probably didn't recognize me. Anyway, I'll avoid the whole AfDs for the time being and will focus on random article improvements instead. I hadn't participated in those things in a while and I wanted to participate in just a few to show that I could contribute constructively to the discussions without getting frustrated and all. Thanks for the willingness to accept coincidence and have a pleasant day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Adopt help request

{{helpme}}

To whoever reads this, I have been away for a while. Durova suggested that I request an editor mentor me through the adoption program. I added the adopt tag to my userpage, but I don't know how long it takes for someone to reply. I want to contribute constructively to Wikipedia and would greatly appreciate if someone would be willing to help me do so and if anyone at least knows how long it takes for someone to be willing to come along. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no set time period. Basically, you wait until someone comes along looking for someone to adopt and chooses you. Considering it's summer, that may take awhile. John Carter 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for the reply. I guess I'll just be patient. I appreciate it! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! You can have a look through the list of adopters here, and get in contact (via their talk page) with one of them, and see if that want to take you on. Alternatively, just sit there, and wait for someone to see the tag who is willing to help, then adopt you. If you want to start contributing right away, you could look through the list of adopters, or have a look at the Tutorial. :) -- Stwalkerster talk 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion! I have contacted an administrator that indicated availability on that page and hope that he'll be willing to adopt me. Thanks again and have a great day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am also a student adoptee! But with the same adopter!--The source of the cosmos... 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! If you have any tips as to how the adoption process works, I'm all ears! :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions regarding help

I saw on a talk page elsewhere that you wanted some help regarding some issues. I'm not even close to being the necessarily right person to request help from, but if there's ever anything I can do, let me know. John Carter 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I have been unblocked by Durova after being previously idefinitely blocked. She suggested I use the adopt thing, because she didn't have time to mentor me herself. And so, I was really just hoping someone could see if my edits and edit summaries are good and if they had any further suggestions that I use to make the most of my come back. Thanks again! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Which edits and which edit summaries? Please specificy "since (time and date X)". Also, if you have any particular specific interests, you might see if there is any WikiProject on the Project Directory which corresponds to your particular area of interest, and consider joining it. John Carter 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Durova unblocked me earlier this month, and I have focused largely on using the Random article function to find articles that need sources, titles italicized, etc. and I also looked for a few choice AfDs to see if I can improve the articles under discussion. Essentially, I just wanted to check if my edits this month in general are on the right track. Also, I did contact an admin to see if they would be willing to adopt me. Thanks again! :) --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It really isn't necessary to add reference to the country of birth in all cases, particularly when their nationality is already indicated, although I don't think anyone has any really substantial reason to oppose it. In the List of bosses in The Ocean Hunter, I think the more common usage is "based on", not "based off", but it's comprehensible in any event so no big deal. Otherwise, no real substantial criticism, although you might be interested in going to the Wikipedia:Community portal, where they have a listing of some of the articles which are in most need of some of the kind of work you do. Otherwise, your edit summaries, while once in a while kind of short, are certainly in context clear enough and I don't see any obvious problems. Good luck with the adoption, and I hope everything works out well. John Carter 19:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind, thorough, and constructive reply! Have a wonderful evening! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Joint Venture (music) AfD

You might want to revisit your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint Venture (music); the discography listed in the article was for a different band with the same name (and the band up for deletion was not on that notable label). Precious Roy 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Precious Roy, thank you for the note; however, I am trying to avoid the AfDs for the time being. I just found some of the discussions and process frustrating and would rather focus my efforts elsewhere for now. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note; I'm looking for suggestions from fellow editors on where I can participate, so I'll head over there ASAP. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Note of redirect

That's a good idea. Thanks for letting me know. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re typo

Oh man, of course you can correct me :) Our guidelines actually discourage editing others' comments—with a few exceptions—, so you're probably better off leaving them alone, but I'm perfectly fine with others fixing my typos. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the reply! Have a pleasant day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin userbox

People were putting up fake admin userboxes to attempt to impersonate admins, so someone added the verify link to that box. All it does is take you to the permissions list filtered to just the one person's name, and verifies that they actually do have the admin bit. No big thing, but kind of nice to have there in case you're ever suspicious at seeing it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea actually and would proably work best if all legitimate admins had it. Of course, I would think impostors would be discovered fairly easily. Thanks for the reply in any case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Comment about popular culture articles

I'm not sure why you think Wikipedia should be an anarchy, and your comment of I am just throwing an idea out there for others to consider as I am noticing a disturbing trend as of late. Anyway, the large number of "in popular culture" articles that have been created and the tremendous number of people who have worked on them suggest that a LOT of Wikipedians see value in these articles. doesn't justify the articles much. Let's say for example I ran a website with lots of people that work on it, and visit it. I'm not going to Wikipedia to promote the site, and encourage them to make an article on it. A group of people liking something is one thing, but notability, trivia and more plays a factor here. Wikipedia shouldn't be without rules or policies, things must be deleted at times. There is no chance Wikipedia should be deletion-free ever. There needs to be limits. Also it needs to be noted: many of the pop culture articles are branched off sections of the main subject. The main subject had a big section, so instead of condensing (which is the correct thing to do), they moved it into an ever growing trivial list. A useful pop culture article: is one with paragraphs and a decent explanation of why the subject is influenced by pop culture, not this listcruft garbage. Sure we could add a cleanup tag to all the pop culture articles that are lists: but frankly, I doubt many people are just going to rush and clean them up. Many articles remain on Wikipedia with cleanup tags for a long time, before even being noticed. So frankly, the deletion of the trivial lists are the better route. People can make promises to clean up if they want: but frankly many of those promises are rarely kept. If a decent pop culture article wants to be made: then it should be done properly. One last thing: I've seen you vote keep along with a comment of sourcing, add pictures and other things. Sourcing isn't the issue, neither is pictures. The problem it's very trivial, that's something that can't be fixed by sourcing or pictures. RobJ1981 20:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think hoaxes, copyright violations, and attack pieces should be deleted, but the popular culture stuff shows the influence of various items. I actually totally agree with your statement that pop culture articles should contain paragraphs and explanations of why the subject influenced pop culture. What I am suggesting is that editors focus on converting these lists into well-written texts with references, pictures, etc., i.e. working to improve the articles and make them relevant rather than just hovering around deletion debates voting to delete the articles. Again, what I want is not anarchy, but editors working to improve articles or at least temporarily redirecting them rather than just outright destroying them. I suppose part of the matter for me is that I look at the 1000 plus edits I've made this month and the overwhelming majority of them have been to improve articles, even if it's little grammar edits here and there. I think I see the same three or so individuals (and I am not interested in calling anyone out or making accusations so I'll leave it at that) on every single popular culture AfD with way more AfD votes than edits to improve articles. I try to make sure that for every vote I made in an AfD, I make at least ten or so edits to improve articles as well, so that I am building upon the work of others rather than trying to tear it down. Imagine if the time were spent trying to make these lists into more coherent and structured essays? Also, even if the tags are up for a while, then maybe someone sooner or later will come along and improve it. If deleted, then what, editors have to start over from scratch? Take care! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome 59.167.77.190

Hi Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles! Thankyou for your kind welcome on my IP talkpage! I'm still trying to get myself used to Wikipedia's policy and procedures at the moment (so many acronyms, and so little time! :) ). I'm not sure of the procedure, but is the welcome message on a talk page usually affixed if the user has done something incorrectly but in good faith? The reason I ask is I know I asked for an RfC last night, and was a bit worried that I didn't do it the right way. Anywhoo, thanks for helping out a (relative) newbie! 59.167.77.190 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! The welcome is for all users. It's meant as a positive greeting to all new editors. It is NOT a reflection of anything negative. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your very prompt reply. I now understand entirely :) Thanks! 59.167.77.190 05:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure and happy editing! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

while cleaning up WP:ADOPT, I noticed that you'd indicated an interest in being adopted. Did that work out for you?

The Rhymesmith 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Chaser has adopted me. Thanks! :) --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

My RFA
User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Even though I opposed it, I'm sorry it didn't work out and wish you happy editing and good luck in the future. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Berger Blanc Suisse

This article is bloated with images. A huge gallery of other white dogs is clearly gratuitous in an article on a single breed that already has 10+ images. VanTucky (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're reffering to. My question was on the basset hound article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was confused becuase you placed it originally without reference to the dog article in question. The images in the basset hound article are not of encyclopedic quality. They are home snapshots of pets that have poor composition. Some too far away, others too close, and generally with a poor background. A neutral background is what is desired in encyclopedic images. What's more, this is an encyclopedia, not a joke site. Intentionally comical images are not of the serious, informative caliber desired. If a subject is inherently funny to some people (the first non-infobox image as an example), that's of course fine. But dark, poorly-composed images should not be kept simply because they are funny. VanTucky (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I liked the way the two were sized and to the right, though. Have a nice night! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoption feedback

I've been kind of negligent about proactively providing adoption guidance, so I want to remedy that. One of the reasons I haven't left any messages is that your mainspace edits, from what I've seen, are mostly minor but excellent, so there's nothing for me to comment on. All I've noticed is that one can just say "linked campus" [3] but that's small beans.

As to AFD, I noticed you left a note to Corpx here. I thought that dialog between you two was civil and stuck well to the issues at hand. Good job. It didn't change anything, but sometimes dialog just gets an issue out in the open and reduces the chance of friction, which is good by itself.

I noticed an article you created got deleted, and I'm sorry to see that happen. AFD can be a contentious and sometimes difficult area of the site. You seem to have done a good job of properly getting back into deletion discussions. I only have two pieces of advice. First, the nomination for List of bosses... isn't really a candidate for speedy keep; the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Speedy keep. That said, I hardly fault you for wanting to speedy keep an article of yours at AFD. Having a favorite article AFDed sucks, and I've been fortunate to not yet experience it. Second, extreme inclusionism (as you probably know by now) can be unpopular with some AFD regulars. I think this has less to do with a rejection of the philosophy than with how incivil and rancorous some deletion discussions have become and how high the passions can be on both sides. The only viable solution is that, the more extreme one's deletion-related views are, the more civil and polite they should be. This isn't required by our policies, but it's a good way to make yourself more likely to be heard, instead of dismissed as some loony inclusionist. You've been doing a good job of this so far. Keep it up. Let me know if you have any specific questions on my talk page or via email.--Chaser - T 03:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Chaser,

Thank you for the feedback; I greatly appreciate it and hope that you are having a nice weekend! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A consice and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute you want to list is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for going to dispute resolution process with your dispute. User:Krator (t c) 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Thank you for the feedback! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apology

Hello...I sincerely apologize to overwrite your message that you left on another's Talk page. I certainly didn't mean to remove the message; merely, I only intended to add to mine to the space in a way that the message does not appear under the heading as the one before mine. Thank you much for bringing this issue to my attention. I will try to be really careful about this the next I have to leave a message at the end of a message list. Again, please accept my apology for my oversight and carelessness in this instance. →Lwalt ♦ talk 01:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a big deal and thank you for the nice message. All the best and happy editing! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Avoidance?

I suppose not. --Eyrian 03:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I could not help but notice the first person to edit the Parma article after me happened to be you. Anyway, I just located a bunch of anonymous vandalism on the article for aurora. I believe you are an administrator, so please do feel free to warn the users appropriately, i.e. if my efforts are not correct. Here are the relevant diffs: [4] and [5]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Chaser

LOL. Thx for the heads up. I didnt notice it was his user page! KarenAER 20:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Take care! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ganonoque haunted house.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ganonoque haunted house.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add something appropriate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mortal Kombat special editions.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Mortal Kombat special editions.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, do not place images (like you did with this one) in AFDs. They are discussions: not a correct place to post an image. RobJ1981 05:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, take care. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you got caught up in fair use issues. You're not the first, and most certainly won't be the last. Despite my time here, I have only the barest understanding of it and stay as far away as possible. I wish I could say misery loves company, but I don't even know enough to get myself into WP:FU trouble. Let me know if you need me to find someone to help you with a fair use issue, though. I know a few intelligent editors who are quite good in this area.--Chaser - T 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I figured a photograph of games that I paid for and owned would be okay. Ah well... Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 10:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome tag

Hi - I saw what you added to User_talk:Ashman2001. I'm not sure it's appropriate for brand new users to spam them with criticism of deletion policy - it looks like you are canvassing. New users need non-political welcome messages with handholding guidance. Only an old hand would know or care what "cruft" is, it looks like you spend too much time on afd. I'm not disagreeing that afd is broken, just that it's not appropriate to tag the talk pages of new users with it. Secretlondon 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll revise my welcome tag somewhat to make it more neutral and to include other helpful articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
What you're doing here is unacceptable. I suggest that you avoid linking to essays entirely, but linking to ones that advocate one side of an ongoing debate is repugnant. Essays, by their very nature, do not reflect consensus, and attempting to imply to new users that they do is a very bad thing. Stick to agreed upon guidelines and consensus, and whatever pleasantries you wish to add. --Eyrian 20:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps saying something like "the following are essays, not policies, that I have also found useful" would be helpful. Some of these, like Durova's essay on "the dark side" are incredibly informative in providing cautionary tales and preventing users from getting off on a wrong track. The others just encourage users to cite sources and edit rather than destroy articles off the bat. I see nothing wrong in that. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be. Again, you're still trying to introduce new users to your way of thinking. I am shocked that you do not see the problems with this. Your saying "encourage users to cite sources and edit rather than destroy articles off the bat" indicates just how strongly you want them to follow your way of doing things. You should not use welcomes as a way to encourage people to take your side. --Eyrian 20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are incorrect here. I am providing users with links that they could look over for ideas. I am not saying do what these links say or else. And this isn't and shouldn't be about "taking sides." I see myself as part of a project, not a faction. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Part of a project that should function how you want it to. Note that there's nothing wrong with that. But you're clearly trying to advance your agenda. And doing that by indoctrinating new users is absolutely unacceptable. --Eyrian 20:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not confuse trying to offer friendly welcomes to new users with links to a variety of policies and essays that I have found useful after editing here for some time as advancing an agenda when that is not the case. I do not see how my good faith effort here is somehow worse than your crusade against the in popular culture material. I don't see what more you want here. I contacted Secretlondon again requesting his feedback as well as two other admins requesting theirs and have not welcomed anyone new since I did so. Please do not harass me. I would like for us to get along and all, but again, I don't know what more you hope to achieve in this area when I contacted the other three users, am awaiting their feedback, and haven't welcomed anyone new since? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
All I want is for you to not link to essays or other divisive material in your welcome messages. --Eyrian 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, though some of these essays are incredibly helpful, such as User:Cream147/essays/Why is it important to cite our sources on Wikipedia? and User:Durova/The dark side. These are hardly "divisive" and even the ones about not deleting articles offer useful and helpful ideas for new users. I respect users enough to allow them to make their own decisions and develop their own editing habits over time. At least I didn't create a Why Popular Culture Articles Rock! essay or something! Then, you'd probably really be up in arms! :) Take care, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, surely then, you'll add my essay? Why not? Other people have found it helpful. Again, the key difference here is how you present your ideas. Putting divisive material in a welcome message is wrong. Fundamentally. And, yes, a few of those essays are probably alright. Others aren't. You can create what ever essays you like. Just don't link them to your welcome. How would you feel if I made a corresponding welcome message, filled with my ideas? --Eyrian 20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Which essay of yours are you referring to? I would have no problem if you linked to your essays in your peersonal welcome message. A friendly welcome to a user saying "here are some items" I've found useful is a nice way to get things going. I think people are generlaly intelligent enough to determine for themseleves what is someone's ideas and what isn't. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The order of things

As you will see here, articles are constructed from sources, not the other way around. The sources come first, then the article. --Eyrian 19:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think some people who create articles have sources, but forget to use them or add them. I just graded some book reviews for example, and a few of my students clearly read the books, but didn't cite the relevant areas (obviously on assignments, they lose points for this error of omission. We have a diverse group of editors here and not all of them will be familiar with the importance of citing sources and so I think it is important that we encourage people to do so, without destroying their otherwise worthwhile contributions that just need citations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AFDs

Roi, I think it is time that you cut back on your AFD participation again. I haven't had a problem with what I've read about the AFDs you participated in, but clearly this AN thread over messaging new users started out of the AFD issues. As Durova says, sometimes its better to just back away from areas where you have strong feelings. Consider it.--Chaser - T 01:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, part of the reason why I joined the welcome committee was because I figured that couldn't possibly cause issues and the truth is it really hasn't. One user cautioned me about the welcome message I created, I immediately revised it and posted the revision in his page. The user who posted the AN thing about me clearly has a larger disagreement with me, and as his talk page indicates, a LOT of other users are now starting to take him to task for his recent editing habits. It would be unfortunate for someone who is in a debate with a variety of issues himself to have his comments on me somehow hinder my editing habits. I largely have limited my participation in AfDs and have made sure to make at least five or so posts elsewhere for every one AfD I participate in. If you feel, I should cut back further, I am willing to respect that, but I am nonetheless still concerned that the whole bring my welcome message to the noticeboard was entirely uncalled for. Please note that even EVula indicated that Eyrian should have just discussed the matter on my talk page instead and please also note that I discussed the matter civily with all other users and agreed to just use the regular welcome message, which I did when welcoming the last few editors that I welcomed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This wasn't just Eyrian (Secretlondon having brought it up). In any case, all I asked was that you consider it, and you've done that, which I appreciate. Now, let's see about resolving that other issue....--Chaser - T 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand that and I replied to Secretlondon immediately, revised the template, and posted my revision on his talk page. I did not receive any further notice from Secretlondon regarding the revised version, but had he replied that he still didn't think it was good, I would have been happy to revise it further or as happened when more neutral editors offered suggestions abandoned it altogether for the the regular template as I ultimately agreed to do. But anyway, it seems that that matter has indeed been resolved peacefully. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
you know, Grand Roi, i agree with much of what you are doing at AfD, but when I happened to see that welcoming template, I did not think it very well balanced. The current 12 point listing seems better than the 10, but i wonder how you intend to use it--apparently for people who comment anon at AfD? Personally, I just send them a note suggesting their views will be more attentively listened to if they register. If this is how you intend to use that template, I'd urge you to think again. If you're going to use it on deletionists there preferentially, i urge you to very strongly think again. You might want to consider adding WP:NOT. Im quite unhappy with that page, but it's only fair to include it. In my opinion, the most useful page for new people at AfD is of course WP:Deletion policy. and WP:AfD. DGG (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive comment. I have decided to just go with the generic welcome templates suggested to me by EVula and Neil so as to avoid complicating things or stirring up controversy. I wanted to personalize the welcome in a friendly manner, but that effort was misinterpreted and so I am just going to keep things simple instead. The biggest thing getting me right now at AfDs, by the way, is the crusade by a half dozen or less users against practically any and all "in popular culture" material. It looks like a backlash to these efforts may finally be coming about. Anyway, I am sure you know what I mean. Take care! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Roi/Eyrian conflict

(Disclosure: I am Roi's adopter/mentor.) The two of you have obviously gotten into it a lot over the past few weeks. Leaving aside the issue of who's in the wrong for what, I think a pragmatic solution is available. That solution is for you to voluntarily avoid each other. I'm not saying don't edit the articles you are already editing or AFDs for articles you've worked on. But what I do suggest is that you don't comment on each other's actions or start editing on pages or in areas that the other had already begun editing. I realize one objection to my proposal may be "but how do I stop the other guy from screwing something up/violating Wikipedia policies/deleting good articles/whatever." My response is that you don't. Neither of you is the last defender of the Wiki. If the other one of you is really doing something horrible, then someone else can deal with it (like Secretlondon messaged Roi above). The interpersonal tension b/t you two is pretty high. Let's try to eliminate it by simply cutting out the interaction.--Chaser - T 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is what you would like for me to do, I am willing to abide by your request. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. I left a message on Eyrian's talk page asking for their input as well. Now we just need to hear from Eyrian.--Chaser - T 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The larger disagreement between Eyrian and I may also share some similarities with those between him and User:Artw, User:DGG, and User:Dstumme. I have NOT come to these three users' defense in these possibly related disputes and nor will I get involved further per your recommendation above, but there may be a broader policy dispute at play that a few other editors may need a neutral party to help resolve. So, I'll just throw that out there for you and Durova to consider and as for me, I'll work on other stuff now as you requested. Also, please note that any and all future welcome messages I send out as a member of the welcoming committee will be using templates suggested by EVula and Neil, who I think offered constructive critcisms in a civil manner. I will NOT use the old template I tried to create in the past couple of days. Thanks again! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the similarities are minimal. You all have your different styles of argument and attack. You seem to, as in this case, love to point out that there are other people who might be involved in a dispute with me. It happens every single time. --Eyrian 03:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I already do. Our friend of Citrouilles tends to show up at AfDs that I've participated in. I was finally motivated by what a perceived as illogic to leave a comment, when I discovered the behavior above, and took what I believed to be the appropriate action. Any more avoidance simply isn't possible. --Eyrian 03:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not Eyrian? Secretlondon noticed this and left a comment; surely one administrator is enough to resolve a single situation.--Chaser - T 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. I have no regular contact with this user, and I intend to unwatch this page as soon as we're done. The only reason I came here is because of the arguments he was making on AfDs I was participating in. I took action beyond Secretlondon because subsequent inappropriate welcomes had been left, without any kind of attempt to check whether they were acceptable. Unless I stumble upon such indiscretions in the future, I would have no reason to contact this user unless he initiated something. --Eyrian 04:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That is simply not true. I posted the revised version on Secrtelondon's talk page and again, I next used a revised version. Secretlondon continued to make edits after I did that and without telling me anything further, I can't just assume that the revised version is disputed. As to AfDs, I did not respond to you, but to the nominations; I have avoided engaging you as much as possible on those discussion. When Corpx nominated an article of mine for deletion you were the first to vote to delete. I had earlier suggested that we avoid each other: [6] and [7] and then I make some edits here. And who was the FIRST person to edit that page after me (a page I don't believe he ever edited before)? you. Next after Chaser suggested I offer you "an olive branch", I thought I might help edit some of the articles you create and when you suddenly deleted all of your pages, I actually felt some concern that something bad may have happened and tried to contact you to see if you were okay and posted about it on the ANI board. The manner in which you have discussed with me, and User:Artw, User:DGG, and User:Dstumme just really seems "chip on the shoulder"-esque, but what really is bothersome is that you posted the thing about me at AN BEFORE discussing it with me on my talk page (notice the times of these posts): [8] followed by [9]. What's with that? Why take me to AN when I was still waiting on a response from Secretlondon and had already revised my welcome message and decreased the amount of welcomes I gave? On top of all that, you also nominated a userbox that happens to be on my talk page for deletion. I am entirely willing to follow and abide by Chaser's recommendation and I hope that you will be able to do so as well and not stalk or harass me beyond this post. Please let's get on with our lives already and focus on improving this site. Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(In reply to Eyrian) Let me illustrate what I mean with examples. If one of you initiates or participates in an AFD, the other voluntarily avoids it. If one of you edits an article, the other voluntarily avoids it. I'm not saying check the whole history. But if you notice that the other person has participated in the history, then recuse yourself from editing that article or participating in that AFD. If it's another issue like new user msgs, then drop perhaps drop a note on an uninvolved experienced editor's talk page and let them try to resolve it (like Secretlondon was doing above). In sum, pro-actively try to avoid each other.--Chaser - T 04:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Chaser your request sounds entirely reasonable to me and I will make a conscious effort to avoid Eyrian at all costs; if he fails to do the same, what should I do then? On another note, we both tend to participate in AfDs on "in popular culture" articles. How should we deal with those? Just not comment on each other's comments or should we both avoid these AfDs altogether? Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, what I'm suggesting is voluntary, so it depends on both parties consent. If Eyrian agrees, then the first person to comment to an AFD precludes the other from doing so. We could agree to some more flexibility in that area, though, such as just not responding directly to each other.--Chaser - T 04:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It would probably be more fair or easier to either have us just avoid certain AfDs about which we are in total ideological disagreement about, such as any pertaining to "in popular culture", or to participate in them, but not debate with each other over our posts. You'll notice that I avoided responding to some of Eyrian's comments on my posts in discussions today, for example. Also, we probably would be less likely to arouse suspicions if we agree to not nominate any articles created by each other for deletion. Finally, I definitely think your suggestion about some other admin contacting me should they notice something problematic about my editing is a good one as it would diminish any likely inference by myself or others of something suspect from Eyrian contacting me. I absolutely can live with such terms and if it would be help, I'd be totally open-minded of another admin chiming in here and saying: "Le Grand Roi and Eyrian, avoid each other plain and simple, one of us will notice and take care of any suspect behavior on either or yours parts." In any case, if Eyrian posts anything further on my talk page, dramatically edits any articles I created, etc., should I contact someone, ignore it, or what? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent). Well, you're always welcome to contact me for a second opinion. In the event things get hot between the two of you, I'd suggest contacting me or a neutral party who happens to be online with a message along the lines of "Another editor and I disagree about something on [[(article)]]. Could you give us your outside opinion to help resolve the issue?" Let's see if these problems continue after today.--Chaser - T 02:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay out of any personal disputes. Just commenting to say that the fact that I don't reply immediately doesn't mean I am happy - I have loads of admin and bureaucratic things I could be doing and like to edit too. This means that I will ignore some admin work so that I can edit (otherwise I'd only do admin work). I found you using my talk page as a scratchpad quite annoying as I couldn't tell if I really had any new messages. Your revised version wasn't substantially different from the one I complained about and when I did comment I suggested you discussed it with the welcoming team rather than with me. I am much happier that you are using a generic welcome template. Secretlondon 01:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, take care! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. The interaction we did have today over disruption on an article he created and that I edited heavily to seemed constructive at least. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary to avoid AfDs where you and Eyrian disagree--what I think would help if you avoided specifically attacked his position, but comment instead as if you were making a comment on the matter without having seen the previous discussion. I say this knowing that i am also sometimes perhaps doing this more than i should, and I recognize how extremely hard it is to avoid getting personal in such debates. I try, but it takes constant trying and watching oneself. I think Eyrian is way off on a hobbyhorse about this & I intend to continue to oppose, but it is essential to always do it in a good humor, which I say as much for my benefit as yours. As I say on my user page in general about such opposition, he and i are most unlikely to convince each other, and we might as well accept it. DGG (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)