User talk:RGTraynor/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

[edit] Ninjaken and Good faith

Please assume good faith when making statements in public debates. Alan.ca 12:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It took me thirty seconds, using Google alone, to come up with six sound references for the existence of the weapon. As I said on the talk page, I won't even touch the "did this weapon really exist in period?" maelstrom, but there is overwhelming evidence that the weapon exists today (oh, like every single bloody movie with a "ninja" in it), and filing repeated prods and AfDs on various permutations of the article is misuse of process. The way to request sourcing for a blatantly notable subject is through the use of citation tags, not through prods and AfDs. As it happens, I stated explicitly that I was not accusing you of bad faith, but this isn't the first time you've advocated deletion over taking a few minutes to source a blatantly notable article (Brian Mulroney being a startling example}. The governing reasons given in the official deletion policy are" "Article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed;" "Because we don't see any sources and aren't looking for any either" isn't among them.  RGTraynor  14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrisy

It's hyprocritical of you to denounce me for personal attacks when ccwaters has made many against me. What are you, his personal watchdog? It's also hypocritical of you to place a copyvio on the Coco the Bear page and not on the many other mascot pages that use the same info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JaMikePA (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Having reviewed your conversations, I'm completely satisfied both that the personal attacks have all gone one way and in my assessment of your behavior and demeanor. If I needed any supporting evidence of your tendency to go off on people unprovoked, you've just supplied it; in point of fact, I have never edited the Coco the Bear page, nor was the editor who placed a copyvio notice on it. (That being said, if you genuinely think it's possible for one person to monitor each and every one of the 1.7 million articles on Wikipedia for copyright violations, go right ahead.)  RGTraynor  19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this is interesting. Another altercation over ccwaters. How interesting that Addhoc and I had a dispute because he was Muero's bodyguard (or was Muero himself, I'm not sure), and now you and I have one over ccwaters. Maybe I'll bring this to the attention of other Wikipedians, who can look over both of your edit history's, to see if this is indeed a trend. We can't have gangs on wikipedia, can we? (On an unrelated note, I also found your "WTF" box on your userpage hypocritical. Just thought I'd mention it under the appropriate heading) The strokes 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(laughs) And you have the nerve to complain about being stalked and harassed? Do you have any legitimate purpose for posting on my talk page? Cease doing so at once.  RGTraynor  20:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Now, I'm not 100% sure on this, but checking out the talk page of a user who has is writing complaints about you doesn't constitute stalking. And I do have a legitimate reason for posting here - alterting you that I've realized your motive, and will follow up if need be. (Only replying on your talk page because you asked me a question. Hope this doesn't infuriate you) Cheers The strokes 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll humour you, but I'll be blunt, go right ahead. Just what is it do you honestly expect to achieve by making other Wikipedians aware that RG and Ccwaters *watch* each other's back? Even if that were true, do you really believe other do-well editors will sympathize with your behaviour and condemn RG and Ccwaters's given all of your histories? There is no Wikipedian guideline/policy prohibiting one editor from guarding another editor's page against vandalism. There is also no Wikipedian guideline/policy prohibiting editors from supporting each other's views... and gangs? Nope... no policy prohibiting that either. In fact, Wikipedia is all about gangs. I mean as far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia has 2 gangs. A gang of editors seeking to improve Wikipedia, and a gang of editors seeking to disrupt Wikipedia. You just happen to be on the disruptive side right now locked into a dispute with three well established editors (emphasis necessary).
I apologize, RG. I don't mean to undermine your ability to respond as I am aware that you are quite capable, but I simply felt compelled to chip in. — Dorvaq (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Good heavens, I don't mind at all. You just proved your own quite accurate point; that many editors watch talk pages and keep an eye out for vandals or other idjits. I've had vandalism on my page reverted by editors with whom I've never had any interactions. Myself, I watch ten other user pages, and it's been more in the past, but when I was approaching 600 pages on my watchlist I figured to trim back a bit. As it happens, CC and I've worked on many of the same articles over the last couple years, we're both long-time AHL fans, we agree on a bunch of things, I think he's a huge asset to the WikiProject, and if I'm ever again in his neck of the woods I'll find out if he wants to take in a game. Anyone who doesn't like that or finds something sinister in that can stick it in his ear.  RGTraynor  01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

People "watching other people's backs", and subsequent "gangs" are absolutely NOT good for wikipedia. In fact, it undermines what wikipedia is all about. People are less likely to voice their own opinions if they feel they have to conform to a gang, and so you get polar thought processes forming on what should be a spectrum. That's the basis of political parties. You force people into certain cohorts, and whether they're 100% conservative or 51% conservative, they are only exposed to conservative POV in their political meetings. Those that are 51% eventually agree with the conservative POV (as that's all they're exposed to), and eventually become 100% conservative. Then they do things like fight against abortion, even though they may not really care either way. See Cohort effect for further reading. The strokes 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, you don't need to conform to a gang. We'd be pretty happy if you felt the need to conform to WP:VANDAL and WP:NPA.  RGTraynor  01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You know what? Post this discussion on a page for other Wikipedians to comment on. Defending myself, and explaining how things got to be as bad as they did is pointless when people are so intent on holding other peoples' points of view. Your immature responses just validate my opinion of you (and your kind). I hope when you go on to junior high next year, you'll step back and realize that spending all your time on wikipedia is not healthy. Cheers, I feel better about this disagreement knowing for sure that you're a ********. If only I'd found Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RGTraynor before engaging you in conversation The strokes 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question

hi, i was wondering if you can help me with image deletion. I have uploded some but do now know how to delete them now. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edgarszilde (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Richard Clune

The Richard Clune was magically recreated by User:HockeyPrincess who doesn't seem to grasp the concept of notability, but rather just wants to promote all of her favourite players. Should the Richard Clune article be put on {{afd}}, after already being deleted by an uncontested {{prod}} tag? Flibirigit 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not now it shouldn't be; he's playing for Iowa, and so passes WP:BIO under the "fully professional league" clause. What I would do is ruthlessly trim it to encyclopedic length.  RGTraynor  00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Which I've just done. By the bye, has anyone sat down with her and discussed relative notability? I've seen some nitpicking on her talk page, but only that much.  RGTraynor  00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The strokes ccwaters 13:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RGTraynor ;-) The strokes 23:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WesselHorst.jpg

After I see this image, I realize if we can use PD-Germany on it. Martin 14:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubt we could.  RGTraynor  15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say that "A photograph that by the very nature of the subject's death 77 years ago has to be more than 75 years old is by that very fact public domain." ? Do you mean that the photographer died 77 years ago? Chanueting 09:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it seems you (RGTraynor) did mix up author and object of an image. Since the photographer isn't mentioned in any form, this image can't be tagged with {{PD-Germany}} at all. --32X 01:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] learning is fun!

i just wanted to let you know that in reading your responses, i was forced to look up 'maelstrom' AND 'polemic.' my project for this week is to use both in the same sentence. kudos! the_undertow talk 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hah! I've always said that any day in which I learn something new is a good one. Glad to know I'm not the only one; you've just made my night. Thank you kindly!  RGTraynor  03:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
all this and 'hagiography' as well? please remember, this is english wikipedia. dood, are you using a thesaurus!? tell me. i'm seriously getting out my 'word per square' toilet paper. the_undertow talk 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I'm just one of those wordy blokes who thought that flipping through dictionaries to see new words was fun when I was a kid. (grins)  RGTraynor  13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
well, tonite im gonna have a few pints. while i imbibe, i will be making up some new words. that way, i appear smarter to those who don't look them up. dont feel bad if you cant understand them. they are going to be quite intellectual. thanks for being super-awesome <---- i just made that up. dont even try to comprehend it. the_undertow talk 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh, go for it.  RGTraynor  01:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for that. Just like to make sure people are aware of whats going on. Hate to see things slip through the cracks cause someone didn't notice. --Djsasso 01:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schools and notability

Namaste RGTraynor,

I went to the WP:NOTE talk pages and read the two old discussions regarding trying to set notability guidelines for schools, its not very encouraging. This seems to be a battleground for the Inclusionistas and Deletionieros and neither side seems willing to give any ground. I have to say that I would probably be considered a running-dog Deletionist. I think there are many things that are verifiable and sourcable, perhaps even notable, but are just not encyclopedic. There is the whole rest of the web out there, isn't there?

But...The greatest thing I learned in college was when I was arguing an obscure point on a test question I had gotten wrong on some minor point relating to the Kreb's cycle (relates to energy creation and use in cell metabolism). The instructor let me go on for a while and answered my points and then said, Bill, is this the hill you want to die on?"

Well, I looked at her for a moment and then felt rather stupid and said, "No," and she said, "Very well then, lets move on."

She meant it in a joking way and it wasn't at all a putdown. She was a great teacher and we became friends after the class was over, but I never forgot that question.

When my daughter was in her pre- and teens there were times when she wanted to dye her hair green or do her school shopping at Goodwill and wear polyester Marcia Brady shifts or three full-length black slips to school or make soup out of one of every vegetable from the Albertson's and I would think, "Is this the hill I want to die on?" and decide that no, it wasn't.

Really Bad News friends? Riding with people who have been drinking? Yeah, I'll die on those hills, but few others are worth the fight. I was a single parent and I credit that teacher with my sanity and Amelia's unique perfection.

I bring all this up because I see so much time and energy being wasted over this debate and whatever I think about it, this hill is not worth dying on. I also feel that the issue is hindering the advancement of civility here, and if I have any ulterior motive, for this or WP as a whole, the promotion of civility is it.

I am thinking about proposing that all schools be considered notable, subject only to verifiability and as far as I'm concerned, a phone book entry would be sufficient.

You've been around awhile, certainly longer than me, so I want to ask you if you think there is a snowball's chance of this being accepted. I think the inclusionists have an advantage in this battle and the fact that 85% of the school AfD's are resulting in keep seems to show a broad consensus in general, if not in every case.

If you feel this worth persuing or have any other thoughts on the matter, let me know. If I do persue it I would like to have a group of people from both sides onboard to launch the proposal. I'm not trying to stack the vote, I just don't want to fight old battles over again.

I'm posting this on some other talk pages to get a sense of the mood out there. Thanks!--killing sparrows (chirp!) 08:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well ... here's my answer. For one thing, the mood is changing. That "85%" you read about in an old essay is, explicitly, based on two-year old data. The number of school-related AfDs that succeed in deletion is well up over 50% now, and the ones that survive are the ones that come up with some serious sourcing, which is all to the good. There've even been two high school AfDs succeed in the last month, something that would have been inconceivable two years ago.

Now beyond that ... yes, to a degree, the hill is worth dying on, because Wikipedia's future is being fought out in a lot of these tiny ground actions. The degree to which the "who cares, it's all notable" attitude takes over is the one that will lead to "who cares, the facts are probably right" that you see a lot in AfD discussions, with "seems notable" answers that plainly just take the articles' assertions on faith. That's the problem I have with the inclusionist creed, because for every inclusionist who believes "Everything should stay in if the facts check out," there are two who believe "Everything should stay in," and we don't have a worthwhile encyclopedia: we have Myspace.  RGTraynor  20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize the data was 2 years old, I guess I should have noticed. I actually agree, as mentioned above, about setting a high bar for what is encyclopedic rather than notable. I've only been around a short time and felt that the acrimoniousness of the debates was more harmful than the inclusion, that was the reason I was sounding people out on this. I've since learned that it was much more acrimonious in the past. Hard to believe. Anyway, thanks for your input, based on it and the other responses I've received I'll probably drop it. Maybe it was just a late-night bee in my bonnet.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freeholder AfDs

I see you've commented on the Sue Shilling AfD. There are also discussions regarding Freeholders Joe Kelly and Alisa Cooper.

I must warn you, however, that another editor has taken up a very dogged defense of these articles. He demands to see policy where none exist, then declares our position invalid when we try to cite a guideline. The Frank Finnerty AfD went on far longer than was truly necessary.

It's up to you if you want to take up these discussions. I just thought a fair warning of what may come of it would be in order. DarkAudit 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of WP:Canvassing

As noted on DarkAudit's talk page, the above is almost certainly in violation of WP:Canvassing. I have asked DarkAudit to provide an acceptable explanation for his actions, before the violation is be noted on all of the relevant AfDs. Alansohn 03:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Beyond which I am more than a touch angry at mudslinging going on in defense of an article which was a clear copyvio and speedied as such. I strongly recommend, Alansohn, that you rein in your rhetoric and take a good hard look at WP:OWN before daring to do so again, because while I just had doubts about your objectivity before, your credibility just took a huge hit.  RGTraynor  13:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You have been directly involved in a violation of Votestacking and refused to take the appropriate action and step away from the matter in question, instead choosing to dive into a series of AfDs you had studiously ignored for over five days. These seems to be a rather clear cause-and-effect relationship from the tainted solicitation and your decision to ignore the warning included above and participate in the AfDs you were pushed to participate in. If you have a specific claim about a copyright violation, you can address it as appropriate. Unfortunately, you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Alansohn 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You cannot imagine that I am looking towards you for neutrality, credibility or approval in this matter; I'm quite astonished that someone with as massive a conflict of interest as yours and who has posted copyvios in clear violation of federal law, never mind merely of Wikipedia policy, would dare to levy any charges at all, never mind ringing defenses of his own tainted actions. You certainly gave me no "warning," explicit or otherwise, but I'll accord you an unambiguous one; should DarkAudit feel compelled, as he implied he might, to file a RfC, only some serious evidence that you felt Wikipedia policy applied to you just as much and as readily as you invoke it against others would deter me from lending my own observations on your conduct.  RGTraynor  14:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Alan gets quite unhinged at times. He has accused me of nefarious motives and poor faith. I am wondering if an RFC might be in order. I take that back - a suggestion that the user be more civil and WP:AGF is perhaps in order. I will so undertake. Eusebeus 23:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... I didn't like his style terribly much before the past few days, but there's no law requiring people to conform to my beliefs. This bad faith nonsense over copyvios, though, that was an eyeopener, and it really looks like this guy is obsessed with "winning" over other considerations. For a number of editors, "bad faith" nominations seems to mean "I really don't like this AfD!!" Even as caustic as I get, I'm very chary about slinging that accusation around, and I never have when an article I've created myself has come under fire -- it's a huge conflict of interest, and if there's genuine and obvious bad faith someone else will raise the subject anyway. Who knows, a soft approach might work. We can but hope.  RGTraynor  13:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Worth a shot, particularly since Alan is a committed participant, even if I personally dislike his tone and have been on the wrong end of several ill-conceived accusations from him. I left him a message and he has delivered an answer that could almost be seen as polite, in the dusk with the light behind her. If no change is forthcoming, I think an RFC might at some point be appropriate, if but to solicit a wider expression of concern (or potentially lack thereof I suppose) and to get him to understand that at times his actions towards other editors is wanting - particularly a failure to assume good faith. Eusebeus 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah ... he's a jerk, but I've no reason to doubt his desire to improve the project.  RGTraynor  19:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I see (below) it just keeps getting better and better .... My sympathies. At least the E. Conference Final is shaping up to be a classic. Eusebeus 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and what you don't see below are several more posts, reversions of the same and reposts. I wound up having to file a report on the Admins' Noticeboard from which an admin punctuated my request, and even there Alansohn filed a countercomplaint that *I* was harassing *him*. I'm beginning to believe that he sees the world in two ways, his version and the "wrong" version, and possibly I was overhasty in telling the admins that he ought not to be blocked outright for harassment; that degree of blind self-righteousness doesn't bode well for the project.  RGTraynor  12:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The rude outburst on your talk page is only one of a number of incidents. Alan has made accusations of canvassing, stalking, sockpuppetry, bad faith nominations, not to mention being extremely uncivil and truculent with anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. My suggestion that he cool things down a bit, noted above, was met with a thinly veiled attack. I think the time has come to launch an RFC, since this behaviour is beyond acceptable, particularly when aimed at newer editors. Eusebeus 18:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow ... and I know you're a very levelheaded guy even under extreme provocation. I am certainly willing to put my oar in on any RfC filed concerning him.  RGTraynor  04:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Insight.

I've recently filed a request for assistance on a sourcing dispute. The path is at the bottom of my post, but before you read the request, I would ask that you please not respond to Endroit's request for comment unless you agree with him, as I do not want to be accused of attempting to solicit support.

The reason I am approaching you is to obtain your insight on the issue. I basically would like to know if I'm reading into policy right, or if the source is in fact reliable enough without secondary sources. Thanks. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See: Request for assistance

This is a slam dunk, actually. WP:SPS, an official policy, holds that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." A personal website is generally held - and emphasis on the "generally" - to be suitable only for uncontroversial vitae curriculae such as birthdates, birthplaces, family info and other suchlike. Under no circumstances whatsoever would I consider an assertion that this hairdresser services specific, named top actresses reliable on nothing more than the hairdresser's naked word, and neither should you.  RGTraynor  22:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, but could you also comment on my external links concerns. They were:
  • Points 3, 4, and 11 of Links normally to be avoided.
  • The fact that the article is about Frédéric Fekkai, and not about his products/services, and
  • Under EL guidelines, external links should add information about the subject at hand that can not be readily added to the article. As I have mentioned before, the website doesn't add anything about Frédéric Fekkai that the article doesn't have already, other than his date & place of birth — which can easily be added to article as opposed to linking the website.
Now I know point 1 of WP:EL#What should be linked is pretty explicit as it states, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." (Emphasis added). But, does this mean official sites should be added regardless of what they offer? Perhaps I should bring this up for discussion on the WP:EL talk page to have this be made more clear within the guidelines.
Feel free to dispute/support my concerns on the Frédéric Fekkai discussion page for all those involved to see, as my points were listed there as well. Thanks again. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, thank you for your input RG. However, as mentioned on the talk page, I am not fully convinced that there are no exceptions to the addition of official websites, but I will pursue clarification on the WP:EL discussion page where it would be more appropriate. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that was fruitful... I guess I shall stick with your interpretation plain common sense and allow any official website on the subject matter as long as there's no blatant reason for removing the link (ie. illegal material). On a side note, I hope everything settles down with Alansohn. I actually thought my father was the worst of his kind... — Dorvaq (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's my "interpretation" as much as plain common sense that the subject's official website should be linked in the article; I don't think there's overt policy requiring or regulating the same. That being said, thanks for the good wishes.  RGTraynor  13:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There ;-)
You're correct in that regulation is perhaps unnecessary, but at least I now have something to refer back to when arguing for the addition of an official website. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Gaiman AfD

Can't speak for the others, but I was deliberately not taking the bad faith element of the nomination into account; just because a nomination's been made for the wrong reasons doesn't necessarily mean that there's not a case for deletion. In this case there patently isn't, and the nominator seems unable to see the difference between an unnecessary content fork and a useful splitting of an over-long article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you RGTraynor, for voting on my RfA. Although it failed, I will try to improve in the ways pointed out to me, and maybe I will become an admin next time. If you have any comments, questions, etc., you know where to go. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 22:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseless accusations of fraud in Blue Ribbon citations

There seem to be a few unresolved issues left festering from the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timberview Middle School in which you had repeatedly implied that claims regarding Blue Ribbon Schools Program awards added to school articles after AfDs had been initiated were manufactured. In the following snippet (followed by my response) you have the nerve to call me a liar, without basing your accusation on a single shred of evidence. It's time you put up or shut up. Alansohn 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what I persist in asserting, as I always have, that the evidence is that this award is not nearly as notable as you like to believe it is - as witness how very few school article creators know squat about it - that the "five percent" total seems to be BS, and that if it were it would be a part of the article well before a frantic scramble to prove notability under the gun of AfDs; you present, and persist in presenting, the same old straw man. In no instance have I alleged that a citation was fraudulently made, nor do I have any reason to believe that this has been the case. Is there some reason we ought to know about why you have been so persistent in asking about fraud?  RGTraynor  18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ignorance and non-existence are not one and the the same. As you well know, many of these middle school articles being subject to AfD had been created by well-intentioned sixth graders who are more familiar with the burritos served by the hair-netted lunch lady, than the Wikipedia rules and policies that constitute notability for the Blue Ribbon Schools Program. I have provided five quotations above that show that you persist in believing that I have made false claims of notability for Blue Ribbon schools. Now, in a staggering violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, you have now explicitly called me a liar without even a shred of evidence to support your allegation, despite the fact that I have provided you with all of the sources required for you to make an appropriate judgment. My claim of notability for the award is not based on a 5% threshold (the actual percentage is a bit lower); the claim of notability is based on statements that the Blue Ribbon Schools program is "the highest honor the U.S. Education Department can bestow upon a school", a statement contained and sourced in the article for the program and the articles for nearly every single one of the schools were I have cited the award in response to an AfD. Alansohn 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, I refer you to the disclaimer at the top of this page regarding keeping AfD discussions on AfD, or the talk pages thereof. Secondly, I stand by my repeated statement that these awards seem to appear far more frequently than the oft-quoted 5% would support; that you keep insisting on reading more words into that terribly simple statement than exist is your problem, not mine. Thirdly, speaking of putting words into someone's mouth, this is the definition of explicitly calling someone a liar: "You are a liar." Seen those words from me? Hm, guess I didn't "explicitly" say anything of the sort, but from a person who conflated "You are mistaken" and/or "You are careless in fact checking" with lies, I shouldn't have expected differently. Fourthly, no matter how much the notion seems to drive you berserk with fury, we disagree about the innate notability of these awards (the US government likewise claimed that Iraq had WMDs, and 3000 dead American soldiers still hasn't made that anything other than bullshit), and the degree your haranguing is likely to change my mind is remote. Fifthly, I've neither the time (yet) or the inclination (yet) to go through DOE's records and give the true figure on how many schools, total, have been given these awards since the start of the program, and the inclusionists would regret provoking me to do so, because I think the total's far closer to 20% or better, which would blow holes in the notability defense.

Finally, this is the second time you've barged onto my talk page over your one-sided vendettas - you can't claim any other motive for this one than Having! It! Out! - and it is the last. I didn't respond to your latest diatribe on the AfD because it had already spun out far too long and far too off topic, and keeping within the bounds of WP:CIVIL over your numerous and ongoing direct insults wouldn't have gotten any easier. Cease posting to this page at once.  RGTraynor  07:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix Coyotes

You kindly "reversed" my hard word on this site: "Corrected? Slashed, more like. I see no reason to slavishly follow the Yotes' website, and indeed several policy-based reasons for not doing so." "several policy-based reasons"? What the hell does THAT mean? What "policy-based reasons"? BTW, "Slashed, more like" is hardly grammatically-correct English, as you pride yourself on using. Worc63 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries seldom have room for complete, well-parsed sentences. That being said, "slashed" is accurate enough in describing hacking a half-dozen paragraphs of information from the previous version [1], for which no reason was given and which (come to that) represented the hard work of other editors. One of the project's fundamentals, represented on each edit page, is "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."  RGTraynor  03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Hockey League

I wasn't sure what to do with the edits to notable players. Well, I really don't think that Federov is going to stand the test of time, but otherwise, one person's notable player is another person's "who is he?" I'm glad you reverted it, and it is really a POV to state who is notable these days and who isn't. Orangemarlin 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. The way I figure it - and have applied the practice to other such lists - in order for another player to be added, he'd need to be clearly superior to one or more of those already listed. So ... any new forwards would have to have resumes surpassing Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Hull, Messier or Joe Sakic. Five of those names are in the top ten all-time leading scorers, and the one who isn't is third in all-time goals. Neither Shanahan nor Forsberg are close to cracking their resumes, and Fedorov isn't remotely close; about the only recent forward who would be is Ron Francis.  RGTraynor  06:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] List of the writings of William Monahan

Hey, this stupid list is up for deletion again. As someone who voted on this issue previously, please feel free to express your opinion again. Also, billdeancarter has taken the liberty of notifying those who voted to keep in the first debate, so I am doing this to be fair. WhiteKongMan 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AlbanyChoppers.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:AlbanyChoppers.GIF. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:AlbanyChoppers.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:AlbanyChoppers.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkbuster

The Boston Globe did a feature piece on them in 2000. I've linked to it on the AfD. Thanks, Darkspots 17:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GSIV

Thanks for adding those three references to the article. If needed we could probably find more in various press articles, I've certainly read a number of the claims in articles before, though I don't recall where or when. If needed we could possibly ask Simu as I'm sure they kept a record of every article written about them or their games.--Caranorn 11:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It'd probably be a good idea.  RGTraynor  14:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murugesapillai Koneswary

Regarding your vote in the above mentioned AFD, can you take a look at the article now. Thanks Taprobanus 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Union Party

This page has been nominated for AfD before. However, nothing much has been done to improve it (I am not an expert on the topic so I cannot be bold and improve it) since it was kept. I have added a tag at the top and mentioned what needs doing on the talk page, but I doubt anything will be done- when it was first nominated for AfD, there was a rush of edits, but since being kept t, this has stopped again. Do you think it should go on AfD? During the last discussion, someone thought it should be a Speedy Delete. I am inclined to agree:

  • It is a stub.
  • It contains very little information.
  • Despite the page existing for a few years, relatively few edits have been made, by only a few editors. This shows how the page's subject could possibly hinder the page's viability.

Please read the page and list it for AfD if you see fit, I do not want to do this in case I am "barking up the wrong tree."

Thank You for considering this. Dewarw 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Errr ... I can't imagine upon what grounds this article could be deleted. Being a stub or not being heavily edited are not among valid grounds. Let me get this straight: this is a valid, extant political party with (I just checked) current representation in a sovereign state's parliament? One that's part of the ruling coalition? And the article's sourced to boot? I'm glad your instinct led you to get more than one opinion, because there would be no way I'd support an AfD on this.  RGTraynor  06:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The British Isles and Ireland

Hey. Irish editors are stuck with using google.ie. While there may be a way to configure google to do a wider search, I haven't found it :-( As Goldheart has pointed out, google.ie is only returning 1.46 million hits for "British Isles". Any chance you could include a link on the AFD debate to the search results page you got with 35 million hits? Thanks, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure can. On my way.  RGTraynor  18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: Ethnic English

  • regarding "reining in the invective", yes, indeed you are right. i wouldn't normally have said it but i liked the irony and yes, i was a little frustrated by the progress of the discussion. sorry about that... i was originally planning on leaving the whole issue some 4 comments ago but i was irked by the accusations of POV-pushing and moving talk-page comments and felt i should defend myself. now i really am leaving it. the article realistically isn't going to survive with the level of defence it's getting, and as someone's grandfather once said, "never argue with a fool, for passers-by cannot tell the difference". thanks for yr advice. tomasz. 14:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • just a quick question, are we allowed to edit other people's signatures if we don't like the look of them? i'm asking in good faith as i genuinely dunno. cheers. tomasz. 07:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We sure as hell aren't, barring them violating a Wikipedia civility rule. I just sent a cease-and-desist to Sidway; he's completely out of line.  RGTraynor  12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
He's done that to me before [2] - indeed he has a habit of refactoring people's sigs, but probably best not to pick a fight over it. WaltonAssistance! 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've every intention of doing so. It's an obnoxious, uncivil act, and I doubt he'd care for it if I did it to him claiming that his all-boldface sig was distressing to the aesthetic sense of other users. Left unchallenged, he's just going to keep on his self-righteous gig.  RGTraynor  01:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI and your name

In an ANI, I have used a quote from you (see here) I hope you dont mind. Thanks Taprobanus 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. Mind you, I don't pretend to have made an earnest study as to whether Tamilnet is biased or not (and any such still wouldn't be anything more than my personal opinion), but by the same token such examinations shouldn't be made by a faction that feels it stands to gain by its discrediting.  RGTraynor  14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Some reading material for you about Tamilnet. Thanks Taprobanus 14:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It never hurts to be a little more civil!

Can I kindly ask that when you participate in future requests for adminship, that you try to remain civil and not bite the newcomers. I am specifically referring to this where I feel that your comments were innapropriate. There is nothing wrong with a simple oppose and an simple explanation. Please take this into consideration as RFA is often a treacherous place for newcomers who feel they are ready for adminship. Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Err ... that's not a criticism of the nominee at all, which you should realize in reading the discussion. That's supporting the nominee's contention.  RGTraynor  19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I apologaize, that was the wrong diff. this is what I was referring to. It is just a friendly suggestion so take it or leave it! Good luck editing. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Jonjonbt's RfA

OK, check through my recent admin logs and tell me approximately how old you think I am. This will be interesting... :-) WaltonAssistance! 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the point of the above exercise is to try and demonstrate that age in years has little to do with actual maturity. I don't disagree with you that maturity is important, and I also agree that Jonjonbt was not ready for adminship (hence why I only offered moral support, in the face of an obvious WP:SNOW). But there are undoubtedly many users on Wikipedia who are younger than people assume, and who don't reveal their age because of the danger of being judged on a basis of ageism. Maturity is demonstrated through actions, not numbers. WaltonAssistance! 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the inference in your user name is that you were born in 1989, but if accurate, you surely can't be asserting that there's little or no perceivable difference in the maturity of a twelve-year-old over an eighteen-year-old. Certainly our cultures don't think so either, given the legal ages for voting, soldiering, sexuality, alcohol and tobacco consumption, ability to give legal consent to contracts, marriage, attending certain movies and the many other aspects of life in which someone below a certain age either cannot participate or has his or her participation curtailed. It's a hell of a lot less silly a ground to judge someone's likely fitness as an admin than on which percentage of his or her edits are in mainspace.  RGTraynor  20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, guess what, I'M ELEVEN! ROTFL!!
According to the page history, the above comment was left by Jonjonbt. Regarding my own age, it was perceptive of you to notice the clue in my username; I'd almost forgotten about that, but you are, of course, correct (I'm a couple of days short of my 18th birthday). But there are admins who are much younger than I am; I'm told that Ilyanep became an admin when he was twelve, and I can think of several who admit to being under 16. When it comes to judging candidates on editcount, I substantially agree with you - I dislike arbitrary standards such as "must have 1000 edits in mainspace" - but the justification for such standards is that mainspace edits demonstrate a commitment to building the encyclopedia and/or fighting vandals, while projectspace edits show experience that will be relevant to using the admin tools. WaltonAssistance! 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)