User talk:Minos P. Dautrieve
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Hello, Minos P. Dautrieve, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I've left you a reply on my talk page. Happy editing! - Spick And Span [Talk] [Contributions] 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I get nervous when people start hacking huge peices out of articles.
I freely admit I may be wrong. Revert if you wish. HalfShadow (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
Thank you for your message. It was no problem, the AfD template was broken in some way so I just replaced it with a fresh one and pasted your wording into it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] sourcing
Done. It's on the AFD page, or on my talk page if you don't want to dig that address up. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- PS: My apologies for calling your nomination ridiculous. It actually was not ridiculous. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Prod removal
See here, here, and here, for starters. This caused quite a stir in the US two years ago. Groupthink (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Those citations do not deal with the group, but with the South Dakta ballot initiative. The ballot initiative is probably worth an article on its own, but the group itself has no meaningful existence (which is demonstrated by the tiny number of independent Google hits. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- The initiative was sponsored by the group, so I disagree, but feel free to open an AfD. Groupthink (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, and that's part of my point. The group has no meaningful existence; it's simply a front organization for a small number of crank activists pretending to be a larger group. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with your second point, but unfortunately, said crank activists managed to gain a lot of traction with the press and the conservative vox populi, especially in the wake of Terri Schiavo's death, and provided talking points to Tom DeLay and company in their heyday. Groupthink (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- And therefore any notability attaches to the activists, not to the front groups. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with that line-of-reasoning. I agree that notability is not inherited, but in this case, I would postulate that the activists and the group are inextricably entangled... but like I said, I wouldn't object to an AfD, and I'll even reserve comment until others have chimed in, because I think you make some valid points. Also, I think it might also be useful to copy this discussion to Talk:J.A.I.L. 4 Judges as it might be of interest to others.Groupthink (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- And therefore any notability attaches to the activists, not to the front groups. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with your second point, but unfortunately, said crank activists managed to gain a lot of traction with the press and the conservative vox populi, especially in the wake of Terri Schiavo's death, and provided talking points to Tom DeLay and company in their heyday. Groupthink (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, and that's part of my point. The group has no meaningful existence; it's simply a front organization for a small number of crank activists pretending to be a larger group. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- The initiative was sponsored by the group, so I disagree, but feel free to open an AfD. Groupthink (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Allen Klein
I wouldn't call the mention of Oldham "losing his battle with drugs" derogatory; it's more of a statement of fact, from things I have read. He was, and it took him awhile to come back. You made an OK edit there, though... and indeed, it isn't really necessary to say Oldham was; it's not pertinent to Klein's history. (I didn't write that part, btw, so I'm not speaking from bias there.) Cheers. Zephyrad (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- A problem is picking the right shorthand term to use in BLP deletions, and I'm still working on my edit summaries. Accurate or inaccurate, BLP requires comments like that one to be sourced, even if the statement is accurate and factual. Thanks for the good word here. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Joachim Koester
I have nominated Joachim Koester, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Koester. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Marlith (Talk) 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal
In case you missed it, you got hit by a vandal impersonating you. He's been blocked, and most of the damage removed, but if anything in the future comes up again, feel free to let me know on my talk page for a quick response. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD of Kevin Weeks
Thanks for checking up about the festival - I could see nothing notable other than that, and had no idea how to confirm the value of the award one way or the other. Your work was much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unreferenced material
Hi there. I note that you have been removing material of late that is not referenced. I wonder if a more subtle (ie helpful) approach might be to simply add an unreferenced note such as this [citation needed]? The material you have removed may be true and it may be false, but with a note, it will alert 1) the reader to be cautious in using the info, or 2) an editor to go seek out the fact. With no info at all - ??? Verne Equinox (talk)
- Most of the material involved was removed under WP:BLP, which I see as quite explicit in discouraging the use of the [citation needed] tag with regard to disparaging, derogatory, or otherwise "contentious" statements/claims. I believe that, in the other cases, the statements, even if they were to be sourced, are of such a nature as to be dubious, at best, for inclusion in an encyclopedia, or are merely statements of personal opinion. Perhaps you could provide an example or two where you think these criteria are inappropriately applied? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User talk:Lar
Hi. I noticed you were unhappy at the Gary Lynch deletion. Rather than sounding off about Lar (who I happen to know is one of the best and fairest admins we have), can I suggest taking it to DRV? This was not a bad-faith deletion, and, while you are free to disagree with Lar's interpretation of policy or his gauging of the consensus, you should refrain from maligning his character as that is not how we work here. Best wishes, --John (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you read Lar's comments, he rather gratuitously described my actions as "deceptive," and followed his comment up with an objectively false mischaracterization of material I had posted. He maligned my character. I questioned his judgment, which I view as a restrained response; he responded with further mischaracterizations. If this rather strange episode is typical of the "best and fairest" at Wikipedia, I doubt that any rational person would have anything to do with this project. Coming to one's friends' defense is in many ways admirable, but I think this is an occasion when it is not so much. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did read the comments both of you made. I am sorry you didn't like what I said, but I stand by it. Please don't be uncivil; it is possible to disagree without being. Always comment on content and not the contributor. I know it is easier said than done, and in the heat of the moment we can all slip up sometimes; this is to be human. I suggest you move on from your annoyance, and either take the article to DRV, or do something else and forget about it. Best wishes. --John (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your comments make no sense whatever. Your friend User:Lar, with whom I had no prior contact, personally attacked me as "deceptive" for no reason whatever. When I objected to this, he refused to apologize, retract, or to respond to comments he made on the underlying dispute. Instead, he made further, somewhat subtler, efforts to impugn my character. Now you arrive here, and say that I am uncivil for objecting to his personal attacks. Exctly how did his attack on me amount to commenting on "content and not the contributor," and why does that bother you so much more than my response, which called him nothing worse than "careless"? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did read the comments both of you made. I am sorry you didn't like what I said, but I stand by it. Please don't be uncivil; it is possible to disagree without being. Always comment on content and not the contributor. I know it is easier said than done, and in the heat of the moment we can all slip up sometimes; this is to be human. I suggest you move on from your annoyance, and either take the article to DRV, or do something else and forget about it. Best wishes. --John (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pamlico 140
Just wanted to thank you for raising Pamlico 140 at WP:AN/I - I was planning to do the same, but you managed to beat me to it. I'm glad it was resolved fairly. - Bilby (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notification
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 5#Gary Lynch. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] OK
I will always change something like that on request from an established good-faith editor. I got a little confused and left a message on your page just now, thinking for some reason you had undeleted it yourself, but in fact it was an edit conflict with myself. Sorry if there was any confusion.DGG (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
