User talk:RGTraynor/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

[edit] Article for deletion Shiv Goraksha Babaji [1]

Hi I would like to ask you to reconsider your vote. I worked very hard on that page, and it's being listed by a user that has a personal vendetta against me because I've reported him for sockpuppeting and 3RR and vandalism..etc... anyway, I've included more evidence that it is notable - article gets 32,000 hits for search gorakhnath, which is a popular variant of his name [2]. Thanks, Hamsacharya dan 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The degree to which you worked hard on a page, or to which any particular user has a vendetta against you, has zero bearing on its notability. I agree that Gorakhnath is notable, and should anyone file an AfD on it, I'll be happy to vote Keep. This is another article altogether. RGTraynor 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia poll

Hello. In your answer on the Republic of Macedonia poll you said if the country has adopted a title we must use it. As a nuetral outsider with no axe to grind who has done some study of this, I can say the RoM has not adopted any such title. The phrase referred to comes from the resolution which admitted the state to the U.N., "provisionally referred to" by the U.N. as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".
This circuitous language, which I gave in full on the article talk page, was just a diplomatic way of sidestepping the naming issue, not a new name for the country. Note the use of lower case in "former", for example, which the option you voted under gets wrong. Would you reconsider that vote? In my view, the best way to get the naming dispute right, getting the sources correct and in context, and giving all sides, would be in a footnote, as option #1 does. This was what was done before the recent edit war. Regards, Jonathunder 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mod notability bar

I would concur that there is a "bar of notability", but I don't know for WCIII what indicates whether the bar has been passed or how to verify that. I am perfectly willing to follow such a schema if it can be described or codified. It appears that there is a lot of chaff in the WCIII custom map list, but that may simply be due to my ignorance, lack of a clearly known bar and article quality. --Habap 16:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas? --Habap 11:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Welll ... this might not be anything about which I agree, but it seems that game mod pages are prima facie non-notable, so there probably isn't any suggestion I could make short of working to change consensus on the policy. RGTraynor 17:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don't we start with some criteria so that people can't just say they are all non-notable? If there's a system, then we can base AfD arguments on that instead of just being forced to debate each one extensively. Some criteria that come to mind that make a mod notable:

1. Article written about the mod in a major gaming magazine or on a major gaming website
2. Mention of the mod on the publisher's website in other than a "fan-submitted" section
3. Tournaments held in the mod which have $X or more in prize money

Does that sound like a few good ones to start? --Habap 18:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

They certainly look sound to me; mention on the publisher's website in particular is verifiable, which people like. If you're serious about this, I strongly recommend you hit the talk pages for the most major computer games out there and see if you can whip up support for guidelines under which game mod pages can be notable. A couple people won't change policy. Fifty or a hundred editors well might. Good luck. RGTraynor 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship?

I was just wandering around, and I was just wondering if you were gunning for adminship? I noticed you've voted on a lot of AFD's recently and seem to be making more edits in the Wiki namespace... If that's what you are going for I'd be more than happy to nominate you for it. If not, that's cool too. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 04:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I certainly wouldn't turn down a nomination, and thanks a good deal for thinking about me in that respect! What the deal is, actually, is that I've got significant downtime at my new job, but it's not anything where I can count on particular blocks of time, so AfDing is something upon which I can take a few minutes here and there and research the backgrounds involved. Just doing my part in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia! RGTraynor 13:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see... that's how I basically passed the vote into adminship by piling on those AFD votes in the couple of weeks previous back in December. I don't feel like doing it today, but I could nominate you sometime this week. (I work backwards, I ask the person first before their nomination... it spares everybody involved a lot of time if the person doesn't want to be nominated). Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, and thank you kindly! RGTraynor 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

Here it is, the official nomination.

[edit] Your RfA

Hi. I notice that you have answered the questions on your RfA and that it has been posted, but you also need to formally accept. Cheers TigerShark 15:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the week-long process is a nail-biting thing, as you don't know who or when the next oppose will come from. I got pretty familiar with the 'refresh' button during my stay on RfA. And then of course some people came up with completely ludicrous remarks, and that is bound to happen. 10-2-4 though, that ain't bad so far. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

16-13, however, seems to suck. Looks like I might as well withdraw; sorry to prove a disappointment. RGTraynor 13:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Goertz

This is the author of the Eric Goertz article, not Eric Goertz himself (he is remorseful but not remorseful toward the media).

Of course he wasn't amused by the exploitation and defamation of character.

I realize the article needs editing, but look at the facts, look at the year we're living in, and look up the artist Borf.

There is no such thing as a vanity article when it comes to bad reporting by the media, justice has its place in history and in this case the history will be wrong if the truth isn't published somewhere.

This article is more about principle and even though this IS my FIRST contribution to Wikipedia who says I won't be contributing more? Everyone's wikipedia cherry has to be popped at some point.

Instead of making comments based solely on technicality maybe you could make helpful suggestions.

Fair enough. First off, while a number of Wikipedia editors are (not completely unreasonably) prejudiced against first time editors or those who haven't yet earned their spurs, that doesn't actually affect the merits of this AfD debate. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia isn't a public blog into which anyone can write whatever they want. It's a private (however much open source) encyclopedia with certain standards for articles, upheld by consensus policy.

For biographies of living people, guidelines for inclusion are in WP:BIO, which I urge you to read. Neither I nor several others so far believe Mr. Goertz qualifies under them. All he is is a serial vandal who got nailed in a Florida county and was sent down for it; even as a common criminal he's non-notable by the standards of Wikipedia. He bears no relation to this "Borf" fellow, save that they both committed the same crime. The verdict of "history" in this matter is that even for the locals in West Palm Beach, Mr. Goertz has probably already been forgotten.

For your part, you're certainly free to contribute more to Wikipedia, and I hope you go over the various policies so your effort has a greater chance to survive in the future. Good luck to you. RGTraynor 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship questions

Did you mean to delete your answers to the original questions? If not, you may want to restore them. -- JamesTeterenko 05:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disgusting

This is absolutely disgusting. You get maligned for talking to Ccwaters about opposing you, while other users go on a campaign against you over that silly diacratics argument. See User_talk:Hazelorb#User:RGTraynor.27s_RfA. I already posted a comment about that on your adminship page, but it isn't right. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 14:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite; I responded to that observation myself. C'est la guerre. Thanks anyway for fighting my corner, my friend; I know you strongly disagree with me on that issue, but somehow we manage to respect one another and the process without turning it into some silly vendetta. RGTraynor 14:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't really have a strong opinion either way, other than that what materialized out of that diacratics argument was just too much considering the simple argument that was at hand. I personally don't mind either way, just as long as there are redirects from both versions. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a shame, things were looking good the first day and then boom, the civility people came. But anywho, I hope you take something away from the experience, and who knows, within a few months you could be voted in with flying colours. If it makes it feel any better, you got strong support from the WikiHockey crew. However, I would like to see more admins involved with WikiProject Ice Hockey, because we are getting are tails handed to us in the aspect of vandalism, I might try and nominate someone else. We do have a number of quality editors there. Any suggestions? Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I rather doubt I'd ever be voted in, if you have to convince people on a 5:1 ratio that you're a fluffy inoffensive bunny who never, ever, ever says anything edgy -- except, of course, when they themselves think someone's being a sockpuppet or an idjit -- and if anything I'm more likely to get caustic in consequence. I agree with you on the admin shortage here (I've pleaded for one to drop in often enough), and suggest people like Masterhatch, CC and Rasputin; they've all been around for a while and are good, sound editors. I'd also keep an eye on DMighton down the road ... he's relatively new, but he's putting in some monster edits and he's a dedicated digger. RGTraynor 15:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. There are very few RFAs I would feel confortable voting on either FOR or AGAINST. My support vote for you was a no brainer. In case anyone gets any ideas: NO. :) Administrative duties are a burden, not a power. A burden I'm not willing to accept at this time. ccwaters 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey! RG, if things went my way, you'd of been elected Administrator by acclamation. As I've said in my Support Vote, I trust your knowledge, accuracy & honesty. GoodDay 01:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And you could put Flibirigit in the same category as DMighton, he's a good one. I asked Masterhatch if he wanted to be voted for adminship a few months ago, and he said it wasn't something he was willing to take on either. Ccwaters doesn't want it... I personally am not as familiar with Rasputin, every time I've encountered him he's fine, I especially like what he did with the Gretzky article. I'm an admin, but I've had to drastically cut down my Wiki-time in the previous month and a half. I was at a 2000 edit per month clip, but now I'm down to about 300-400, and less and less of them are actually in the main article space and I've also practically abandoned my watchlist cuz it was taking too much time out of my Wiki time because of the cutbacks, and because I'm still on a dial-up connection. So I was that guy that was watching all those player articles, but I'm more of a floater these days. I want to get one or two guys from the WikiProject into adminship so the vandalism doesn't go unnoticed for days at a time (there was multiple vandalism on the Radek Bonk article a few months ago, that stayed on for a month before anyone caught it). Ideally what we need to find is a guy who has no life, spends 6 hours a day on Wikipedia and who has a huge interest in hockey. Oh well, once again RG, its too bad about your adminship bid. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi RGTraynor, please do not be vindictive with me. You seem to be able to have difficulty understanding my position. I think that Wikipedia can be a great way to host information so that more people can be aware of what is happening in their communities. For instance, students from other universities in Canada might find it interesting that Laurentian has been able to produce a very interesting event. This can foster the generation of stronger intellectual communities. So, I hope that we can come to terms with a common agreement. If you need to vent, please send me an e-mail.

Your sincerely,

Kevin

I'm not being vindictive at all. Nor is this a matter of failing to understand your position; it is that I -- as well as the vast majority of the respondents -- do not agree with it. I think you're still failing to wrap your head around what Wikipedia is and is not. It is an encyclopedia, just like the Encyclopedia Britannica -- and perhaps a useful exercise would be to submit your articles to the Britannica for inclusion, using the same arguments you've used here, and see how you fare. I anticipate you'd get the same result: that Britannica has a minimum standard for notability in order to merit inclusion (just like we do) and that you do not meet it. Just out of curiosity, what of the specific standards for notability in WP:BIO do you feel you do meet?

Please understand: Wikipedia is not a public service forum. If you want to foster inter-university communications, there are any number of websites, blogs, bulletin boards, usergroups and forums out there. I wish you well there. RGTraynor 18:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Response: I found your comments about model parliament as being a "make-pretend game once a year," and the fact that you would be required to mention that we are simply interested in having "photo ops with smiling politicians" to be highly condescending. Realisitically, for someone who states that are not interested in recieving "hate mail or rants," the fact that you would go out of your way to put someone else down would imply that you are looking for trouble. Anyways, my concern is that while you draw comparisons between Wikipedia and Britannica, there are major differences between the two institutions. The most obvious being that Wikipedia is available online and can be edited by any individual who wishes to. In this respect, by publishing articles in Wikipedia that are relevant to the community I am attempting to connect with, I am using Wikipedia for its full potential; to be a resource which can reach out every community. While Britannica is a service that someone must pay for, Wikipedia has the advantage of being able to communicate to anyone and everyone!

I made no such assertion about photo ops, and stand by my comment about annual make-pretend games: an activity where you pretend to be prime ministers, MPs and government ministers and debate and rule on bills you cannot actually enact is a glorified LARP, however educational it is. I was a "state senator" in a similar such (likewise annual) effort back in high school, and it was in fact make-pretend in every particular.

That being said, you're simply misusing Wikipedia, which is not intended to be a public outreach forum, and you have no more right to unilaterally decide it ought to be than I would of joining LUPSA and declaring it to be an intramural lacrosse club, no doubt in contravention of your rules and bylaws. Frankly, I'm surprised; given your interests, you cannot be unaware that organizations have purposes and rules, within which interested parties must work. Why are you so determined to ignore ours? RGTraynor 19:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

RGTraynor, are you communicating with a newcomer? As a member of the Welcoming Committee it does not please me to see Wikipedians arguing with newcomers. If you disagree with a newcomer's point of view, let it be. You can welcome them and give them advice and point out references to Wikipedia policy and suggest things they can do here. If they are really causing problems, there are many here (RC Patrol) who will prevent any such problems from disrupting Wikipedia. --ElectricEye 15:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Why, yes, I do seem to be communicating with a newcomer ... who, in point of fact, communicated with me first, after he's been receiving (generally rejected) advice from several parties on AfD. Now if you can point out to me the Wikipedia policy specifically forbidding veterans (err, sorry, unapproved veterans) from communicating or debating with newcomers, that is one thing, but until and unless you can, there really is no fluffy-bunny-chat way to say "you're systematically flouting the rules and guidelines" without, erm, saying exactly that, and I rather doubt Mr. Roche would feel any better by being condescended to as one would an errant three-year-old. Come to that, you showed no compunction about barging into my talk page and giving your personal opinion about my behavior, did you? RGTraynor 15:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have had similar episodes with other editors, before I contacted you. Anyway, one of the first things new comers read about when coming to Wikipedia is WP:BOLD. They vandalize, create vanity articles, write nonsense, start original research, "blogs," etc. Let them do it, while we revert/delete/speedy as needed. Welcome them. Assume good faith, and tell them about Wikipedia's policies and leave it up to them to reform. If they continue to be a problem they are eventually blocked. I see no need to breed potential uncivility by debating their actual or perceived behavior. If a new comer's first experience is from editors who are harsh, they often leave. Many recent newcomers have left because of Wikipedia regulars biting them, and some of those newcomers were somewhat notable people in society. That's all I am trying to point out. If you disagree with me, well ok. Everyone has their own POV. I'm not going to thrash it out.--ElectricEye 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Charming; so we let them piddle on the rug, smiling at them all the while and never dare even to utter the phrase "You're violating the rules" until some admin one day just blocks them outright (but without criticizing their behavior!) ... there's a way to educate newcomers, if in capriciousness and disproportionate response. Perhaps you could saunter over to the links James posted and see how well the soft approach is taking. In the meantime, enjoy your welcoming. People like James and myself and the rest of the RC Patrol will keep on cleaning up the newspapers while you do. RGTraynor 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

ElectricEye, I too am somewhat confused by your statement. Do you believe that all discussion with alegedly disruptive newcomers should come from the Welcoming Committee? Should we not be talking to you because you have only been a registered editor for two weeks? What is it that us other editors need to learn in order to communicate with new editors? Before giving this advice to RGTraynor, did you read through the deletion discussion about the article that user wrote about himself or even his user page? Or how about the edits of other users that seem to edit the same articles: Gordg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Mjclevan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Pubdownunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 63.135.25.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 208.96.78.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? Much of the disruption did get past RC patrol. I still plan on doing a bit more digging when I have a little time, since there are more questionable edits. -- JamesTeterenko 16:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

James, although I do appreciate your apparent concern, I think I've clearly stated my point above in my 2 messages to RGTraynor. Thanks. --ElectricEye 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume by your response that you did not do much digging before leaving your comment. I understand why you believe that RGTraynor was biting a newcomer. You are reading a comment that occurred after a number of other discussions that you probably did not read, thereby being completely out of context. Please assume good faith on our part as well. I do assume you mean well with your comment, but I do not believe you did much research before giving your opinion. -- JamesTeterenko 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(blink blink blink) Good heavens; it didn't remotely occur to me that a two-week newbie would be implying the grounds upon which veteran editors were permitted to speak to newcomers. Now certainly the institution of the WalMart greeter as applied to Wikipedia's a worthy one -- seeing as the number of ElectricEye's main namespace edits are outnumbered by cut-and-pastes of his welcome template on newcomers' talk pages on the order of 10:1 -- and I'm perfectly happy for fellows like you and me to do our business while they keep on smiling and waving. RGTraynor 17:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you being rude? WP:CIV --ElectricEye 18:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I rather think you have been, starting with your unsolicited statements of displeasure. May I ask what is rude about (accurately) identifying you as a two-week newbie and (correctly) citing that the overwhelming number of your Wikipedia edits have involved putting your welcome template on newcomer pages? Are these facts about which you are ashamed, for some reason? RGTraynor 18:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am really starting to feel like an "old timer". Along with this, I had advice today from an admin on what I can do as a non-admin. At least he found the humour in it when I pointed out that I have been an admin for about as long as he has been an editor. -- JamesTeterenko 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, that is amusing. Sometimes you just have to laugh! Someone wanted to lecture me last week about how being a sysop is an incredibly important responsibility, and having glanced at the bio on his talk page, I manfully forbore to reply that I was sysop of the University of Massachusetts bulletin board and forum system three years before he was born ... RGTraynor 19:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this for real? We can assume good faith till the cows come home, but when a new user plainly states goals that SHOW that he isn't creating articles in good faith it's absurd to expect us to not say anything. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure it's for real. There really are a lot of people on Wikipedia who will jump on your back and wave links at you for any statement that might possibly be construed as conceivably less-than-completely positive. That a surprising number of them show no hesitation in whipping out judgmental behavior all the way to screeching about sock- and meatpuppetry when they feel their own bailiwicks dinged is only human nature. But who knows? If they only brought the hypercivility they preach into their daily lives, the world would be a nicer place. RGTraynor 06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistician?

Hi again RGTranor,

I noticed that you credit yourseld as a statistician. I was wondering if you had an statisitical analyses of the United State's welfare reforms in the 1990s, most significantly those having to deal with the TANF program.

Thank you,

Kevin

Not from here, because I'm at work without access to many of my resources and websites. Do you have any particular numbers you're interested in obtaining? I can certainly see what I can rummage up for you. RGTraynor 18:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• You're working on a Good Friday? Oh Lord. You need a holiday! I'm mainly interested in information about the impact of these programs, and if they were successful in helping people to get off welfare and out of poverty. If you know of useful resources off the top of your head, that would be helpful, please let me know. Thanks 208.96.78.122 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back on that. At least from the resources I have available (after a few hours of digging), I don't have any data I'd myself consider reliable. There's certainly raw data in abundance, but with the mass of welfare reforms over the last decade I wouldn't myself dare to present any figures from the pile that would reliably reflect the efficacy of TANF one way or another. Anything of the sort would be sheer speculation. RGTraynor 16:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rvv =

Hi, I was clicking around at articles that user:Kroche14 had edited and noticed that he had removed sections of your talk page. I left a note on his page about it and reverted it here for you. Cheers. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 03:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, good sir. I ought to drop him a line regarding Wikipedia etiquette concerning such things. RGTraynor 17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NHL page

I see the latest reinstatement by Pnatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Most of his previous edits have been speculative like this. The three-revert rule doesn't entirely apply in this case. The most recent edit is factual, even if it is not really important. So, I personally am willing to leave it for now. If he continues with edits such as this, then I will take further action. -- JamesTeterenko 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Hey I noticed my edit count was down and i was scanning my watchlist and found out that List of NHL Draft Steals was deleted. I also noticed that you were one of the few who voted "keep". I hardly sift thru AFD anymore, but since you cruise thru AFD a lot more now, if you ever see a hockey page unjustly up for deletion, feel free to let me know about it so I can add my say on it. Thanks. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think much could have been done, though; that was the latest in a wave of draft steal/bust pages eliminated from all sports, with fairly overwhelming majorities. Bleh. RGTraynor 13:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but if I can conjure up an argument that others may have thought of, it still can sway votes in a certain direction. Thats why its more discussion oriented and less about voting, and why the more users involved the better because everyone has their own POV that can be beneficial as well. Obviously you know that though. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad faith AfD noiminations

I think you should look at this discussion [3], where Eusebeus says quite directly that he looks only at the reasons for the prod ("prima facie case") and ignores the reasons for the deprod. Whether one calls that "bad faith", "disruption", or a WP:POINT violation is mostly semantics; it's not consistent with deletion policy, and it's irresponsible. The Thayer article is a paradigmatic example of why this is bad behavior; the subject is clearly notable, under previous AfD precedents, given his substantial Google Scholar presence -- a factor I cited in my deprodding, and which Eusebeus takes pains to avoid, citing other, mostly irrelevant, Google counts as grounds for deletion. I also believe it's quite accurate to say that Eusebeus has been targeting me for unexplained reasons, which is what attracted to me his track record. He has been going through the list of articles I deprodded yesterday and nominating virtually all of them for deletion, typically simply repeating or rephrasing the original prod rationale, even when that rationale is demonstrably inappropriate. His contribution list makes clear that his real criterion for proposing deletion is the identity of the deprodder, not the merits of the dispute, and his behavior should be viewed as Wikistalking, and as bad faith effort to damage the Wikipedia project. his only explanation, which he has since posted on my talk page, is that he wants to encourage discussion; since he doesn't seem to ever have posted on the relevant talk pages, it's hard to view that explanation as credible. I find it particularly hard to seen your comment that responding to an editor who is trailing me around Wikipedia as a "vendetta"; I think you should either retract that comment or direct it at Eusebeus, whose activities more properly reflect that description. Monicasdude 16:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the comments you linked, and he says nothing about "ignoring the reasons for the deprod" or looking solely at the reasons for the prod. Further, it's disturbing that you feel free to charge others with bad faith, while suggestions that your own behavior constitutes bad faith is only "semantics," or that for some reason WP:POINT is a policy that can be ignored at will as long as you claim to defend your own interpretation of deletion policy. RGTraynor 17:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're not reading my comments correctly, or at least as I intended them. When Eusebeus says that his criterion for nominating a deprodded article for deletion is whether the prod nomination makes a "prima facie case," he is saying that he looks only at whether the original prod claim is consistent with deletion criteria, and that he disregards the deprodder's argument. As the Wikipedia Prima facie article indicates, a prima facie case is one which, if unchallenged, is sufficient to justify an action; whether a prima facie case has been made is pretty much irrelevant after a challenge on the merits. And Eusebeus consistently ignores the merits. My comment about "semantics" refer to the description of Eusebeus actions, not mine, and your reaction puzzles me. As I said elsewhere, if the motives behind a set of nominations are inappropriate, it's fair to base one's decision on that. If I nominated every article created in a given one-hour period for deletion, regardless of its content, I think an across-the-board speedy keep response would be appropriate. My point is that Eusebeus is acting indiscriminately; that some of his nominations might prove appropriate doesn't support a claim of good faith (as with my one-hour hypothetical). Monicasdude 17:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't that I don't understand what you're saying; I don't agree with what you're saying, and in that light, no, I'm not taking from your comments the meaning you want. You are not pushing what Eusebeus actually said -- you're pushing either (a) what you think what he said means or (b) what you want people to think he means. The intent doesn't matter; the speculative nature of it does. Beyond that, I disagree with your other assertions as well, although I don't think it's a fruitful use of either of our times for me to spell out what and why. RGTraynor 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• At the very top of Eusebus' talk page it says, "As a result, I am working to bring contested prods, where the prodder has made a reasonable prima facie case, to AfD for further discussion." When you take your list of deprods from "known deprodders" but don't actually consider their arguments (if any), and paste the prod reason in the AfD template, that pretty much says he's choosing who to believe. In the case of Gypsy Sun Experience, for example, it would have taken all of thirty seconds for Eusebus to ask Monicasdude what he meant by so obviously meets notability standards there should be no argument. This morning he nominated 6 articles for deletion in 14 minutes, when contacting the deprodder for an explanation or working on cleanup would have meant working on fewer articles. I won't say its bad faith, but it's certainly nonselective, and its a priority that I certainly don't share. Thatcher131 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't consider arguments any such "known deprodders" didn't actually make, myself. For my part, it would have taken Monicadude thirty more seconds to say what he meant by "so obviously meets notability standards" etc; it is not my job, nor that of any other editor, to drag out of anyone more than he chooses to say.

In any event, whether you share Eusebeus' approach isn't at issue; you don't see me flooding AfD with noms either. It's whether someone is deliberately and explicitly subverting the process. In your rush to judge Eusebeus' intent in AfDing some of Monicadude's deprodded articles, you're ignoring Monicadude's clear and unambiguous intent to interfere with all of Eusebeus' AfD nominations, his complete lack of intent to judge any of those noms on the merits, and his ongoing (and one-sided) personal attacks against Eusebeus. From looking at the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Monicasdude, this behavior is near-to-chronic on his part and levied against a number of editors. RGTraynor 19:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aye!

Your spirited and articulate defence, of my good faith in bringing contested prods to AfD and of the general process itself is highly and warmly appreciated. Your response above is better expressed than I could have done. Eusebeus 20:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you kindly. It isn't as if I know you from a hole in the wall, but there's nothing any more sinister in you deciding your shtick on Wikipedia is AfDing removed prods, any more than there is in me being on a current kick of AfD voting and research ... whereas this guy, like Kappa, is fairly blatantly out to subvert the process and is a pretty nasty customer to boot. All those other posters to the RfA on him are exactly right: he seems to reflexively interpret anyone who disagrees with his POV as doing so only out of perversity and evil. There are already too many people like that in the world -- radio talk shows seem to spawn them -- and I see no need to encourage them. Serious props to you for keeping your head in all of this; you've been far more even tempered than I'd be in your shoes. RGTraynor 13:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say except that Kappa, while undeniably an extreme inclusionist, is one of the most effective and conscientious editors on WP and the project would be sorely diminished wihout him. As if to underscore the point, I nominated a raft of his deprods for AfD and you don't see him screaming up and down like a three year old. To lump him in with this paranoid and incredibly rude editor is quite unfair. Other than that, though, I appreciate your efforts. Cheers! Eusebeus 18:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not suggesting that Kappa is a nasty idjit; as you say, his demeanor is perfectly civil. But it is clear that he's out to subvert the prod process, and that's not nearly so charming. The whole notion of a consensus-driven process is that sometimes you're on the wrong side of it, and after a certain point you simply have to shut up and either get with the program or get out of the way. RGTraynor 19:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kappa has a standard that many feel is too low (though not all!). However, I doubt he has a problem with his deprods being subjected to review and aired for full discussion. After all, anyone can, for any reason, object to a prod and that is as it should be, even if they do so at a rate or with a reason that you or I might find somewhat extreme. MD, on the other hand... well, what to say. However, I suspect that MD deprods will become a lot more circumspect after his needless, bad faith and unjustified provocation of this mean-spirited, petty contretemps. That was certainly not my intention in bringing some of them to AfD for review, but it will be a most salutary development. Heh! Eusebeus 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libraries

I'm searching the WorldCat database. The university where I work has a subscription, and I can only access it from a computer with a hard IP connection to the campus network. It shows the number of libraries holding different titles (useful for requesting interlibrary loan, for example). I don't think there are free access points to the full database but I may be wrong. It's a tool I sometimes deploy on AfD, especially regarding books published more than a few years ago that currently have low amazon rankings but were once popular and notable. Thatcher131 15:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =========

• Well, let me take on your points one by one.

Thanks for "cleaning up" the Eurogamer entry. Can I therefore assume that the entry for Gaming Age Forums (as mentioned in the discussion of the Eurogamer entry) will be completely deleted also?

• • Beats me. Do you have any intention to do it yourself? I edit the things I feel like editing, as does every other editor on Wikipedia.

I find it ironic that you delete it for "self referential" reasons and yet you are listed in the section "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_who_use_Mozilla_Firefox". If that isnt self referential and useless to anyone other than "Wikipedians" themselves I dont know what is.

• • It seems like an automatic listing for anyone who uses the Firefox userbox. That aside, I quite agree with you that such a list has no useful purpose.

I really dont understand the issue. The site itself was explained in great depth, and at the same time a little bit of the history of the site and its mannerisms were explained. Many of the things in the "forum" section crop up in the main reviews, and as an outsider viewing the site, alot of that information would have been useful. None of them were factually incorrect and have been part of tradition for over 5 years now.

• • If you want a long, lyrical section detailing things about your forums you want visitors to know, I recommend putting one on your webpage. As it happens, while you're citing "tradition," Wikipedia has a strong tradition of deleting out trivia deemed useless. Certainly -- among other elements edited -- there is nothing whatsoever notable about a list of (pseudonymous) forum users arbitrarily deemed important by ... well, themselves. Information, in order to be included on Wikipedia, does not merely have to be verifiable; it has to be notable. If any of those users fulfill the notability requirements of WP:BIO, please inform me.

Can I ask, if I were to make a page about the Pittsburgh Steelers and drew attention to the fact fans wave yellow towels at alot of games, would that be subject to moderator deletion?

• • Almost certainly not, since that is a thirty-five year old tradition famous in the sports world and known to quite literally millions of sports fans, an order of magnitude greater than will ever visit your site.

All of this was covered in the discussion page of the Wiki entry, and yet none of it was addressed before you took the unilateral step of deleting it. I understand the importance of keeping the Wiki a valid source of information, which was the entire reason myself, and others who have contributed have been careful about what we have put in there inline with guidelines, and also deleting information which is flawed.

• • All articles on Wikipedia are subject to change by any editor, none of whom are generally bound to gain permission before making edits unless there is a strong chance they would go against consensus.

If however, inspite of highlighting why we feel certain items should be included, it can be deleted with no explaination other than the subjective opinion that it was "self referential" then this really seems to be against the very ethos of an opensourced, user-contributed resource.

I'd be interested to hear your comments, my email is fowler9@gmail.com.

Regards Furbs

• • Ultimately, the issue is this -- if you are monitoring the deletion discussion, you will see that the objection to the article comes principally in the greatly overbloated and trivial sections about the forum. Gaming fora are not notable in of themselves; they proliferate like weeds, all talk about pretty much the same things, and their contributions to knowledge are scant at best. Editing out all of that (while keeping the only important fact, that Eurogamer has a forum) improve the article's survivability.
  • That being said, since this article represents your sole contribution to Wikipedia, you may be unaware of the various rules and guidelines governing the notability of articles. I recommend WP:WEB, WP:NOT and WP:VAIN as applicable points to start. RGTraynor 18:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OnRPG Forum

when you checked out our thread about the article and said that the locals were by and large furious about the flamers and sock puppets, was that a good thing? Anyway, post a reply on my user page or talk page. see you around (PowerGamer6)

[edit] Couple questions

Hey RG,

I noticed you've updated the ECHL pages, I'm new to Wiki and still learning. Many of the scores for the playoff wins are in Bold textboldBold text but don't have the required bold tag when I go to edit them, does the bolding tag not show up or am I missing something obvious?

Another question, Friday's game the Storm got beaten not only by the Nailers but by the Refs (to be fair, we played bad and would of lost anyhow) but exactly how often does a team get 62 penalty minutes in a game?! I'm a sql admin, was half tempted to write up a script to download pages an import the relevant text for a couple years' history to compare, but I assume someone out there has similar data already, any pointers? Toledo plays rough, but the penalties in that game were far from excessive, to the point that I would use words like 'vindictive' and 'punative'.

Finally, good to see you're a paralegal! After 20+ years of being a techie / applications designer / sql code monkey I went back to school last fall and just got my paralegal. I'm going to start doing some volunteer time at A.B.L.E. and the NW Ohio legal services to get some real experience and decide if I want to quit the computer job (or just get a part time one) and go to law school. Who knows, maybe I'll like it, maybe it'll suck and the paralegal degree will just be another wall decoration, at least I can say I tried.

Thanks for any responses!

Nik

Sorry for the delay. For one thing, a 62 PIM game is nothing horrifically unusual; the NHL record is 213. For another, the format for bolding text is BOLD, in comparison with what you have above. Hope that helps! RGTraynor 22:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). The issue of the name has not been resolved and therefore people are now recruiting others to delete. Feel free to make your judgement known, thank you. Nomen Nescio 21:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing that out. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 22:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RGLE

I agree. I saw that too so I put the speedy tag on. The other option is to start a second afd, but I'm afraid that would just get stacked with anon users 'voting'. Speedy is really the best option. Ardenn 04:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

An admin told me it had to go to afd. Ardenn 05:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NHL Team Infobox

Just notice that you revered these changes. This usere has a tendency to do what he did in the way that he did it, most of the time in my experiences it has eneded up being more problems then not considerng the the css for wikipedia does not work correclty in many situations. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I figure that if any changes to the Infobox are to be made, one ought to gain consensus on the Talk page first, is all. If he can get that, more power to him. RGTraynor 14:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goodspaceguy

nicely argued. I had been a little less direct about the fact that, after all, it was the Libertarian party, and his vote total was damned low -- but you really put it in perspective. and I'm not sure what I think about 15,000 people voting for someone named "Mike The Mover". bikeable (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, either Mike ran a heck of a campaign or there are a lot of bored people in Washington state! RGTraynor 00:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Virginia Scholastic Hockey League

Hello I made a new Category for Northern Virginia Scholastic Hockey League and would like you to check it out to see if I did everything correctly. I think I did I would just like someone to check it over. Thanks John R G 18:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

It certainly is a well-written article, but I wouldn't bet on it passing notability standards myself. Generally the only league articles revolve around professional, collegiate or major junior loops. RGTraynor 18:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the Category at the bottom of the page that I made that includes the teams. That is what I wanted you to see if it looks good. John R G 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that looks fine. RGTraynor 18:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)