User talk:Zordrac

Welcome to my talk page

Hi there. Welcome to my talk page. In general, there is no need for you to write me notes in here about articles, as this can be done in the article's own talk page. I check articles regularly after editing them, to make sure that everything is cleaned up nicely. I would greatly prefer it if anyone disagrees with an edit that I have made, or an article that I have created, for them to discuss it in the article's talk page. If I do not respond to it quickly, or if the edit was from a long time ago, then please feel free to leave me a message here. Otherwise, I would prefer for it to remain there.

When writing messages here, please try to be polite, not offensive, and not threatening. I will never engage in vandalism or any activity which deliberately disrupts Wikipedia, and I can assure you that if you ever think that I have, then you should first talk to me and discuss it, and above all assume good faith.

If someone feels the need to revert my edits for some reason, please explain why when making your reversion, and if there is not enough space, please write in the article's talk page. I will have made the edit in good faith.

Other than that, please feel free to edit my talk page. In effect, though, this is my property (in the context of Wikipedia) and hence I may delete any comments that I find offensive. Thank you.

Note

I have moved all talk about Vfds to User_talk:Zordrac/deletions. Please go there to resume discussion. My own notes are in User:Zordrac/deletions :). Just to clean things up a bit.

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your message to me about my article. I am a little disheartened with Wikipedia as I had (somehow) gained the impression that it was an encyclopedia of things-that-stick-out. I'm a little unclear of what Wikipedia is now and because of the moron who messed up my record I can't have a credible record on this site either. I would be much more disheartened however if you hadn't written the message, so thanks. Sorry to write again (it must be annoying to keep going back and forth) but in reply to your message. I don't think I'll be joining Wikipedia but thanks again for taking the time out to give advice to a random IP address. I'm sure the 'abrupt' side of Wikipedia I just saw doesn't reflect the rest of its members. --81.109.204.222 09:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ubie

Just a note that the prior AfD was vandalized by the same person that recreated The Ubie and voted twice on the current AfD; the original results were 4 deletes and 1 keep. I have since reverted that AfD to what it was at the time the discussion was closed. Peyna 23:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamnuts

Hi, I fixed your AfD nomination per your request. The proper syntax to use is:

{{subst:afd2 | pg=Name of page | text=Some text here.}} ~~~~

Your basic problem was that you had "))" instead of "}}" after the text, breaking the template syntax. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry you had probems with that entry, good to see it's been sorted out now. Funny stuff does seem to happen sometimes with the daily AfD log page. I've had problems like that myself that I've been unable to sort out, in spite of following the instructions exactly. There is sometimes talk of simplifying the AfD procedure: let's hope it happens soon. Flapdragon 23:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tzmerth shmarya

Hey Zordrac,

I noticed your question as I was closing AfDs. Yes, articles are often renominated for deletion. That is acceptable. The article was kept last time on a conditional keep (cleanup). It was never cleaned up and now renominated. It has now failed AfD and I just deleted it. Thought you might want to know. Let me know if you need help with anything else. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Humanity

Thank you for your support on the guide to humanity. Please help me get the ball rolling on this project; help me expand this. Thanks - Ewok Slayer

Here. Try this [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]] [[User_Talk:Zordrac|(Talk)]] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Darwikinism Darwikinist], [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Wikipedians_Who_Dislike_Making_Broad_Judgements_About_the_Worthiness_of_a_General_Category_of_Article%2C_and_Who_Are_In_Favor_of_the_Deletion_of_Some_Particularly_Bad_Articles%2C_but_That_Doesn%27t_Mean_They_are_Deletionist wishy washy] and [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism Eventualist]

Looks like this - Zordrac (Talk) Darwikinist, wishy washy and Eventualist

Your sig

Ahhh, do something to clean that thing up, it hurts my eyes =] Shorter is better. Perhaps just put short one letter links to each of your characteristics and drop the "is a" and "and". Peyna 03:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better; thanks =] Peyna 04:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q about Sig and Philosophies

Copied from User talk:Psy guy

I don't see anything wrong with having more than one philosophy either. However, I would caution you about having a complicated signature. Some users frown on that because they take up so much space. Also, I don't know if I understand the last question: "manually copy and paste ...?" If I were you I could at least make the philosophies small in my signature and use transwiki markup rather than external links. Check out the following:

Zordrac • talk (Darwikinist • wishy washy • Eventualist)

That is a little cleaner. To say you from open the edit tab, here is the code for it: [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]] • [[User_talk:Zordrac|talk]] <small>([[M:Darwikinism|Darwikinist]] • [[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD|Wishy Washy]] • [[M:Eventualism|Eventualist]])</small>

As for the "banners" .... I assume you mean the userboxed like what are the the top and right of my user and talk page. They are fairly simply to recreate. You are welcome to copy one into my sandbox and change the image and text and play around with userbox formatting if you want to. If you need help, just let me know. -- Psy guy ^Talk 04:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zordrac • (talk) Wishy Washy • Darwikinian • Eventualist 04:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

test Zordrac • (talk) Wishy Washy • Darwikinian • Eventualist 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to be copying and pasting your sig all the time, go to "my preferences" and copy your sig code into the nickname box and check the raw sig box. Wikipedia will insert the code for you every time it sees ~~~~ (4 tidly winks)--Ewok Slayer --(User | Talk | Contribs) 04:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Let's see. Zordrac • (talk) Wishy Washy • Darwikinian • Eventualist Zordrac • (talk) Wishy Washy • Darwikinian • Eventualist 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)~~ 04:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try again. Zordrac • (talk) Wishy Washy • Darwikinian • Eventualist 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like the dots. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you got it working. Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant by "copy and paste." There are a lot of cool things to play with in the prefs. See you around. -- Psy guy ^Talk 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well done

glad to see you've stuck it out. grats on your AfD's. ∴ here…♠ 07:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 13, 1981

I've placed an explanation about 12-31, which you may find useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, thanks?

No really, the only thing I can truely offer to the WP community is my honesty. I just read the last few posts to your user page, and I'd like to offer any assistance that I can. If there is ever a vote, or AfD that you'd like to have my opinion on, just leave a link to it on my talk page. The one thing about opinions is, sometimes you (or potentially anybody) might not like it. But, barring bigotry, or more personally, any comment that contradicts the Ontario Human Rights Code (my personal standard for correspondance in WP, in addition to appropriate codes of conduct outlined in Wikipedia pages), I am willing to agree to disagree, and still retain respect for individual editors. So, as an editor that I have had no prior contact with in the past, I remain in hope that we can work together here in Wikipedia, the most important online information resource. See you 'round the Wiki! Hamster Sandwich 02:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point about debates degenerating into name calling, nasty and sometimes neither side of the debate comes out looking particularly good. Thats the nature of a community of strong willed individuals. My personal opinion concerning the use of sockpuppets and user accounts which seem constructed simply to push a particular POV or opinion, are rather spurious sources. I would disregard them out-of-hand. On the other hand, a well constructed and presented debate would sway my own opinion in certain instances. If citations are correct (and reletively easy to check) I tend to go with the weight of evidence presented, by reliable sources. I must add this, I think your study of deletions in AfD is weighted to skew the result you are arriving at. Junk articles, and articles that do not cite sources, or meet established criteria for inclusion, or that do meet criterion for deletion, are the articles most likely to end up at AfD! Heres a suggestion, compare your result with articles that included into the knowledge base at WP on a day to day basis. The number of daily article edits that are kept vs. the number of ones put up for deletion, vs. the number actually kept as opposed to deleted. I personally have no idea how to do such a thing, but you seem to be fairly handy in that direction. My thinking, offhand and without qualification is that the vast majority of edits are ultimately kept, beacause they are good edits, good artciles. The best of the best so to speak are going to survive an AfD debate at any rate because, primarily they have met a certain standard, by the same token, a few are going to survive because only certain editors may be technically qualified to comment on the article (I stay away from techie stuff myself) and a few are going to survive because a group of editors are going to carry an agenda into the debate. I have no agenda's other than to protect the Wikipedia as a credible resource, to the average person who references the site. If you wish to continue this coorespondence, please let me know if you want to write here, or on my page so as to preserve continuity. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 03:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To make it simpler, and because someone else commented on your talk page, I'll answer this here. First up, congratulations, you are officially a Darwikinist per your statement above, "...is that the vast majority of edits are ultimately kept, beacause they are good edits, good artciles. The best of the best so to speak are going to survive an AfD debate..." You might want to consider joining the Darwikinism movement, as I did. Personally, I have joined 3 different movements, just to be difficult! You might find some others that are more suitable. Anyway, I would agree with you that probably less than 5% of articles are ever put up for deletion. Indeed, I would suggest that, if articles were put up for deletion randomly, then the average vote in fact would be about 5% of the time for delete, rather than currently which is somewhere between 55-80% average (depending on which statistic you use). However, per my arguments above, if we were to do this, it would be a good thing! If people were able to regularly see all of the good articles that are out there, then they might have a more positive approach. It'd be nice if we voted for delete on all articles, and then said "Oh wow, isn't this article wonderful?" instead of all of the negativeness that comes in. Why don't we put Ronald Reagen up for AFD? Indeed, some of the articles I have seen on AFD have been wonderful. Whilst they were almost exclusively kept, some of them were not, sadly, predominantly because of negative attitudes. The contentious article that was recently deleted, of Sholom Keller, was a wonderfully well written article, yet was deleted after a 6/6 vote. I know that there are arguments about his true notoriety - after all, he wasn't interviewed all that often, and a lot of people contend that he wasn't really important - but there can be no debate about how well written the article was. It was one of the best written articles I have seen. But such things are occasionally steam rolled. I think its because some people are having a bad day and want a pick-me-up, or else perhaps in retaliation for them being abused by others in the deletion process previously. There have been studies within the armed forces about this kind of thing, where emotional abuse leads to emotional abuse as a kind of escape. Similar kinds of behaviours are prevalent within some US university houses (the ones with the greek letters, I mean - sorry, off hand I forget what they are called). And perhaps you are right that my opinion is skewed. But of course it is! But all opinions are always skewed. I do not attempt to pretend that my opinion is neutral when it is about something that I care about. When it is something that I couldn't care less about, then my opinion is fairly neutral. For example, Sholom Keller I couldn't care less about, hence my opinion is neutral in terms of the article, since he is really only relevant to American readers. However, from the point of view of the process, my view is that it should be kept. I put it up for undeletion, and I hope that that is what happens. I think that there is a clear case of lack of process. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the american college societies of brothers are called fraternities. See Animal House. --Metarhyme 17:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. For some reason I can remember the name sororety but not fraternity off hand. Maybe if I'd ever been to america I might be more knowledgeable about its culture. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I have moved some parts of this page over to User_talk:Zordrac/deletions partially because it was getting me down and I don't want to have to look at it all the time, but partially because it was talking about deletions. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you very much for your advice.

--Papist 16:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help with Vfd nom for Skybluz

That artricle is clearly a speedy delete as a recreation of a deleted article. Placing the speedy tag on it. And by the way if you want to renominate a article on afd use subst:afd2 . Thanks --Aranda ⁵⁶) 18:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darkwars

Uncle G has a point, you know. Forums and web directories are easily abused by people trying to linkspam their forum, game or website just like Wikipedia is. Why do you think the sites you cited on this particular AFD are reliable? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a google search. But the site is a notable site. I could go through and bother to go through hundreds of links, but it really shouldn't be necessary. You don't get that many links. And remember that this is not a forum - its an online game. How about I look it up in tucows for you?

And uncle g has no right to abuse me in that manner. He can have his opinions, and that's fine, but he can tone down his behaviour. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and hostility toward newbies

I applaud you trying to convince AfDers not to bite newbies -- as I said elsewhere, it's a valiant effort, and I tried it once. The problem is that AfD has become more than a process; it's a subculture that has different ideals than the rest of Wikipedia.

AfD makes people lose perspective. They see all the newbies who are wrong, and who use sockpuppets and recruit meatpuppets, and they assume that all newbies are puppets who are wrong. If you try to argue, you get wrapped up in some debate that's internal to AfD that was unrelated to your point, like deletionism or inclusionism.

The way to fix AfD, I think, is to have fewer things end up there. Would you like to help with deletion reform?

But keep fighting the good fight if you think you can change AfD. I applaud your effort.

rspeer 21:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please reconsider your decision here. As I mention there, I don't think Transwikifying is even possible. Aucaman 06:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply! It seems like we essentially agree, but I don't see how the article can be expanded in an encyclopedic way (that's the point I was trying to make).

CP vandalism.

You're welcome. Frankly, that whole topic area seems sort of small and esoteric to me, but it seems like consensus exists for that material to be there and I can't cite any rules that would categorically deny it. It's in, so removing it is vandalism, and nobody likes vandalism. Eh-heh-heh. Tom Lillis 07:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing inherently inappropriate about AfD-nominating something that was primarily your work. I'd almost suggest just turning it into a redirect yourself, but if you're more comfortable with the AfD process, that's perfectly fine. Tom Lillis 09:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of commenting on the request for protection and the larger liberty of nominating the page for deletion. This whole affair is just not good, and a deletion is probably the healthiest way to resolve it. Tom Lillis 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Consensus vs community decision - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Impaled_Northern_Moonforest

Consensus = community decision, IMO. This seems to be just pointless nitpicking to me — while consensus is not a supermajority, it is not unanimity either. Johnleemk | Talk 00:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's all right. Precisely defining consensus is often difficult and troublesome. You might want to check out wikipedia:Consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 00:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PoE bad faith AFD nom

I am very sad that the vandals that have been attacking my talker articles have now made a bad faith AFD on PoE. I had spent so much time working on those articles. Whilst I don't know what the policy is, they have said that they can get all of their friends to create accounts so as to make sure that it gets deleted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. New accounts are generally noted as such on AfD and taken into account. Further, the article was just nominated, as I noted on the AfD entry. No doubt it will be kept, and discussion should continue on the talk/article pages themselves. ∴ here…♠ 01:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not overly worried about it. They said themselves that they found the page (CP) and decided to edit it so as to promote their site. But that's not what Wikipedia is for! They say that they don't want bad things said about them. Well, nor does Michael Jackson. Same kind of issue, as far as I am concerned. A few of them created accounts purely so as to vandalise the page and more so as to vote on the deletion. In effect, their reason to nominate the article for deletion is so as to prove their point that their talker is better than another talker, in other words disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. I am just trying to stay away from the whole thing until it blows over. I think it is pretty likely it'll result in a speedy keep, but if it goes through the entire process, well, that's fine. I have most of the history of talkers written now. Its just sad that these people couldn't contribute something worthwhile. They were just the kind of people I wanted to help to edit these articles. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preachin to the choir ;) ∴ here…♠ 02:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rachel Owen

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention! Yes, in the heat of closing AfDs, I closed it as a Delete but then went on to remove the AfD notice on the article as if it were a Keep... I appreciate your integrity! Making sure the process is followed even when the vote is against you is truly admirable. Owen× ☎ 02:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fascinated to see the results of your analysis! A few months ago someone did a large scale analysis of AfD ("VfD" at the time), to figure out what were the actual consensus thresholds of various closing admins. The results were quite interesting, although it is sometimes difficult to figure out which votes were discarded as sockpuppets in some cases, possibly biasing the numbers. One of the impressions I get is that a "highly-wikified" article on non-notable or unverified subject is more likely to be kept than an ugly, unwikified article about a notable subject. If you could give a subjective score to this quality and calculate its correlation with the AfD outcome, we may get a confirmation of this theory.

I've noticed that you tend to be on the "Keep" side more often than most. When closing AfDs, I look for every possible way to escape an actual deletion, within the limits of consensus, of course. If, when you vote Keep, you could also provide an alternate "Redirect to" option, it would often give me an easy way to avoid deleting, especially if someone seconds your idea. If you vote early enough, others are likely to follow your lead. Redirects are cheap, and allow non-admins to retrieve text from the history.

You may also be interested in scanning CAT:CSD on a regular basis. I find that many articles are incorrectly nominated for Speedy deletion. CSD:G1 and CSD:G4 are two major offenders, although in many cases no reason is provided at all. Regrettably, some admins do not apply much scrutiny to those nominations, and I often see articles speedied improperly. When I check CAT:CSD, I usually end up removing speedy notices and changing deficient articles to a redirect as often as I do deleting them. You too are authorized to do that; it is perfectly legitimate to remove an incorrect speedy notice if you provide a valid reason. When in doubt, replace it with an AfD. I don't want to load our AfD pages with every speedy in sight, but many good stubs get lost daily to an often indiscriminant CSD process. Owen× ☎ 03:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shanna_Compton

Not petty at all! AfD is a delicate process, and I appreciate your feedback. I am not infallible, and having you audit my work is an excellent way to find any mistakes I made. Don't hesitate to bring any other such cases to my attention! Owen× ☎ 03:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to consensus thresholds, I wouldn't be comfortable deleting an article with a mere 2:1 consensus. Therefore, it is only fair that I also close a 2:1 Keep as a "No consensus", although in that case the practical outcome is the same. The total number of votes also matters: two-thirds of 30 votes is statistically significant, while two-thirds of 12 votes probably isn't. Owen× ☎ 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_political_epithets

I counted the votes again, and this time got 15 "Keep", instead of the 14 I said when I closed. However, on your page you claim there are 17 Keep votes. Did I miss anything? Again, this wouldn't change the outcome, but I'm interested in your feedback. Owen× ☎ 03:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My head got dizzy. I don't think that it makes much difference. I will go back and change it if its wrong. This is taking me a while to do. :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I counted 16, which is 15 if you ignore the anon (I am including the anon since I can't see any reason why we would assume that they are a sock puppet). Anyway, yeah, I will amend it to 16. I did the count before the voting closed anyway. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sockpuppet? I disagree. The entire history of this anon consists of 3 edits, of which two are minor additions to the article itself and the third is a vote on the AfD. All three edits were done in a span of 6 minutes. Do you really think this is a new editor who happened to stumble on this page and then decided to vote? As a minimum, this is a meat-puppet who was invited to participate. If I saw a registered user with the same edit history I would also ignore his vote. This may not be enough evidence to go and block someone for sockpuppetry, but it's more than enough for most admins to ignore a vote.

Regarding anon votes, on RfA we simply ignore them. On AfD we are more accepting, but generally I only consider the ones which are clearly established editors. If it is a dynamic IP, as evidenced by large gaps in the history or varying editing styles, I only look at the last batch of edits. All in all, I think more harm is done by taking anon votes into account than by ignoring them in bulk. Even the non-sock voters usually have a very poor understanding of our inclusion criteria, and their votes are often personal testimonials as to their familiarity with the subject matter, rather than its encyclopedic value. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD bot

I noticed that you have an AFD bot that automatically puts the entire contents of articles listed for AFD in to a subsection of your user page. This is very useful I am sure. But who uses it? And why isn't such a thing maintained on an official site somewhere? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't know who uses it. 2) It has been traditionally placed there. The previous user before me also placed it under a subpage of his userspace. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:168.174.253.221

Hi Zordrac,

I came across the above-mentioned talkpage and saw your message.

You may be comforted to know that I do share the same views with you on how newcomers are treated. But I'd assume good faith that the community isn't as xenophobic as it seems. There are fellow sysops that I know who are more than happy to actually welcome newcomers into the family of Wikipedians.

BTW, there is a page on Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (a guideline, but not policy) as well.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 20:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Re: Sock puppetry

Mass anon attacks on an article or an AfD can be very frustrating. When there is a clear violation of 3RR, you should get an admin to act. I'm online almost every evening, and would be happy to get involved. If there is no clear violation, it's best to get a few people familiar with the subject to take a look. A quick look at the major contributors for related articles is usually a good place to find such editors. With suspected socks on AfDs, add your observations below the offending voter, e.g., "Anon's 2nd edit after 3 weeks of inactivity. Tried to remove this note twice.". It is OK to revert as many times as needed to correct vandalism on an AfD, but a quick note on WP:AIV or on my Talk page would usually get that vandal blocked.

Which brings me to my next topic: would you be interested in adminship? I think you are more than ready for it, and I'd be proud to nominate you. I believe we would all benefit from letting you delete, undelete, and block when needed. Let me know, and I'll set it up this evening (EST). Owen× ☎ 20:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One dollar Federal Reserve Note

I noticed the deletion debate here has fizzled somewhat, but I made some changes to the articles that may further illustrate the points I had been trying to make. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Paul 23:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

response re Ti Tree

All towns/cities (except some capitals) in Australia should have the state/territory added to the article name, with a redirect or disambig at the plain name. Utopia is not in List of postcodes in the Northern Territory, which I normally use as a guide. If it has over 1000 people and is famous for its art, it probably deserves an article.

I have redirected Ti Tree to Tea tree, as that's what I thought of first of the name. I of course added Ti Tree, Northern Territory to the things in the disambig list at Tea tree. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Girafa

Thanks for the heads-up. Someone recreated it after I speedied it. (Argh.) FreplySpang (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talker articles

I can easily understand your frustration. We have lost many good editors due to orchestrated attacks on their article by people with an ulterior motive. You do raise a few troubling issues, though:

Making legal threats is against our policy: Wikipedia:No legal threats. Can you provide diffs of those threats? Most admins would be quick to act on such violations.
WP:3RR is also a policy. There has been some talk about expanding the definition to include "meat puppets" – groups of editors acting as a team. If the pattern is obvious, most admins would block the offenders.
Unexplained blanking of portions of an article is considered vandalism, especially if done more than once, after the issue was brought up on the article's Talk page. If an explanation is provided, this becomes a content dispute.
I think merging the articles is a good way to go. As a minimum, you'd be bringing the content into higher traffic pages, where you are more likely to get neutral editors to participate in the discussion, and help you resist blanking and deleting by POV pushers.
You can easily find out whether someone is an admin here; an admin would show up with "(sysop)" next to his name, like so.
Review Wikipedia:Protection policy. When edit wars get out of hand, we sometimes use this feature. It's not a secret; many non-admins frequently ask for it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

Get me or any other admin involved when you spot violations such as the ones I mentioned. As an Eventualist, you know that the truth will prevail. Hope this helps! Owen× ☎ 19:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to thank you for the great work on expanding the Talker article, it was sorely in need of expansion. I think there's lots more that could be added but the trouble is that its hard to verify independently of our own knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.247.235 (talk • contribs)

If you looked at the references, there are about 100 different references. Whilst they only represent one point of view, they are nonetheless references. It would be useful to have references to represent the other point of view, but to date I have been unable to source them. If they exist, then it would be very useful. It's certainly not original research though, as you can see from the references. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talkers et alii

The subject matter is not something I'm familiar with (even though I was using Relay for AberMud back in 1987) so I'll need to actually look over the articles before I can form any clear thoughts on them in paticular. However, as to redirects and merging, I can comment with some authority that no authority is required. Be bold and do it, of course staying cool if someone disagrees.
I'll comment more after I get a chance to do my research, eh?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]