Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Hi there. A few months ago I believe you helped out with an article I had worked on Limbic resonance which was slated for deletion as a neologism. There's a similar situation with another article Orgasmic Meditation, which has recently been tagged for merger or deletion. I'm pretty sure that notability criteria are being applied excessively and/or inconsistently here as well, but I'm not sure what the best course of action is. Any advice or assistance greatly appreciated! Voila-pourquoi (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 03:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC) In 2 reliable sources: Gremlin Bell Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Bell searches Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fitness fanatic, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitness fanatic. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the AFD nomination's claim that there is "no realistic hope of expansion", Fitness fanatic now has another section on well-known fitness fanatics. Does this help the article in your view? --Firefly322 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Col. W, Just letting you know a little of the history on the barefoot horses page and natural hoof care issue. There is a reasonable dispute over whether "barefoot movement" or "natural hoof care" is more appropriate and I really don't have the answer, and Google is not always the best source, though it is a tool. The article, as well as the ones on horseshoes and farriery, are also occasional subjects of edit wars. Basically, the natural hoof or "barefooter" crowd puts up a bunch of material, and no sooner is it up then the horseshoers get upset about it being there. Or the barefooters start to put up fringe theories about horseshoes or laminitis or whatever in other articles and the vets throw a fit. I have sort of been trying to be the neutral person on these articles to try and fairly explain the barefoot movement in a fair way with both its pluses and its criticisms, but also keep out the spam, advertising and WP:FRINGE stuff from mainstream articles. I also try to tone down the traditional folks who think the whole thing should be deleted as a fad. Anyway, I don't want to make a big deal out of which name a merged article gets as long as it can't be claimed that only one practitioner's views or terminology are being used or someone is engaging in personal PR...basically my axe to grind is that I value the NPOV approach of wikipedia a great deal and don't care much for fanaticism in any field, so will be cautious about allowing some of the more unsubstantiated claims to go forward without caveats about no outside verification, etc... Anyway, I posted this all here and not on the article pages because it's all more by the way of background than relevant to the actual question in the articles. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just wondering, are you planning to improve this? Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   14:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting old discussions on talk pages, as you did here, please consider archiving them. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not familiar with the process. If it is easy, then please demonstrate by archiving the off-topic content which I and other editors find disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • What you consider "disruptive" is what other editors considered a good-faith attempt to start a discussion about the article. There is no need to remove it from the page; you can always choose to ignore it, or to leave a message explaining why you disagree with them.
  • And I'm not talking only about messages you find disruptive; I mean messages in general. If something has been sitting on the talk page for 6 months without a response, it's still better to archive it to a subpage rather than outright deleting it. The link I gave you above has extensive instructions on how to archive talkpages; you can look at the edit history of my own user talkpage if you want to see example diffs of archiving. There are also bots, such as this one, that will archive talkpages automatically for you if you set tag the talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you de-prodded this article and added a ref, can you tell me what the ref says? Does it use the term "secure digital camera"? Does it refer to the work of Mohanty et al.? My impression is that this is just a vanity article on a topic that never got any attention, since I can't find it via book search. So what did you find? Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have commented at the AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Secure digital camera, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Handbook of research on mobile multimedia‎, p. 35 does not support the statement that "A secure digital camera or trusted digital camera is a digital camera that has built-in security features to provide immediate digital rights management and image authentication." The 'Reasons for Use' was blatant WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The source discusses the "trustworthy digital camera" in the context of DRM which is relevant. Your objection seems unclear and the article's text is subject to change as we put flesh on its bones. Please see WP:INSPECTOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong and wrong. (i) The sources does not discuss "trustworthy digital camera". The only mention it makes of the phrase is to cite it as part of the title of Friedman's paper. (ii) It does not directly connect DRM (discussed in connection with pre-recorded material) and cameras (mentioned as a potential feature of PDAs). My "point" is that the source in no way supports the material cited to it. Your comment indicates either (i) you haven't read the source page, or (ii) that you are wilfully misrepresenting it. Neither is consistent with 'Good Faith'. Please see Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders & WP:V. If you 'build' an article without sources that actually support the material cited to them, you should expect that it won't last. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's much clearer - thank you. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in frivolous, invalid de-prodding. Your rationale was "Remove proposed deletion tag as "straight definition" is not a valid reason to delete". I refer you to WP:DP, which actually says that it is a valid reason to delete. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above "warning" is of course invalid and can be ignored. However, the IP insisted that I set up an AfD for the page (after trying 3 times to get it invalidly speedy deleted). As such please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance report. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DP does not use the words straight or definition. Our articles are all supposed to start with a definition of their topic and so a stub may be expected to start in this way. I shall comment further at the AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add the page where the info on the fish Benson is found? Hekerui (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Mr. Mackey's statement about the current health care insurance proposals and the response and call for a boycott are news, and have been made quite public. I don't believe this falls under Wikipedia's Soapbox clause in any way. Please allow this edit to stand. (Posted on article discussion). Darter (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not the news nor a soapbox. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Colonel Warden. You have new messages at Dream Focus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

you where the one who monitored all the prods at one time right?

Haven't seen you around for a while, hope all is well and I see you in the AfD trenches soon. Ikip (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the sources use the spelling comix rather than "comics", as do many underground cartoonists. The spelling is to differentiate between mainstream and underground publications, and to emphasize the adult content of the books. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• You are mistaken. The comics spelling predominates in a ratio of about 3:2. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 1 (September 2009) Content News and announcements Want ads Feature: Article rescue as a team effort Featured editor: MichaelQSchmidt

Hey Colonel, thanks for all your good work. I'm not clear on why you think we should start including primary schools? The ones nominated for deletion don't seem to be special or to have received substantial coverage that would distunguish them from other primary schools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:SCHOOL. I have not followed the history of this but note that the guideline has failed to establish consensus. This indicates that such cases should be judged on their merits. UK schools recognised by the education authorities will all tend to be notable by virtue of their inclusion in the national testing and league tables published by independent examiners and testers. More general English language sources should be easy to find, as these examples show, and so we're good. In any case, there are good alternatives to deletion such as merger into an article about the town/village which will invariably exist. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention. A decent source for the wrong number technique appears to be [1]. I wondered if you had JSTOR access? [2] apparently covers differences between Greek and British telephone etiquette with regards to wrong number calls. TheGrappler (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome - it's good to find another editor who is prepared to roll their sleeves up and actually do some work. I found the first source independently and have just cited it in the article. I don't have JSTOR myself so I suggest you mention the other source in the AFD as evidence that the topic has good potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed my !vote from delete to keep (on methods of falling asleep) after considering what you'd pointed out. You're right-- how it was presented isn't relevant to how it can be presented, and it has nothing at all to do with whether this is a valid topic. Mandsford (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well said. Another Colonel Warden is said to have said "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."... Colonel Warden (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the move of the page; I think we are more likely to end up with a good article with the larger scope. Please do not erase the discussion history that prefaced the move though; it is important that that information is preserved. I'll pull it back into a discussion box. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HAMMER. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Detection of Imaginary Roots in a Parabola you have accused me of forum shopping, disruption, and now of biting a new editor. All of your accusations are completed unfounded, as I think you know very well. I can understand your enthusiasm for keeping the article, and I believe it has caused you to temporarily lose sight of the bounds of acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Throwing out such absurd accusations in an AfD discussion does not help your case for keeping the article - quite the opposite, in fact. However, please note that if you make any further accusations against me, then I will report your behaviour to WP:WQA. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My comments echoed those of User:TeamQuaternion. And now User:Firefly322 has made similar observations. Note also that more good sources have been found. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your only excuse for ignoring WP:CIVIL is that other editors have been ignoring it as well. Have you no standards of behaviour of your own ? How pathetic. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: [3]

That was a great posting. I laughed when I read that article you use to describe those who delete. Unforunatly it describes my dad to a "T" :( Ikip (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the dramatic move and curtailed your comments, for a couple of reasons:

1. one, I don't want to have an argument on the squad page,
2. two, I have found in my experience that sometimes editors innocent inquires and questions are not so innocent. Always ask yourself: what is this editor intending to accomplish by asking these seemingly innocent questions?

If you would like to continue the argument here, I can't object, but I suggest strongly against it, for the same reason that I suggest A Nobody not converse with hostile editors on his talk page. Ikip (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Commercial credit reporting, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commercial credit reporting. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Userification_with_no_user_consent I appreciate your enthusiasm for the project. Ikip (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Epistemics of Divine Reality, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

colonel, without any prejudice to what the community may decide, the move you made to Epistemology of religion is not really appropriate during an AfD where this is one of the questions at issue--I think it would count as a major move. I've reverted it. Please don't take it as a reflection or as the expression of my own opinion--I merely think the move would have just further confused an already confusing discussion. By all means continue to discuss the correct title at the AfD, or, if the article is kept under whatever title, afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption of good faith efforts to improve the article seems improper, especially when you have opined for deletion. I do not consider the move a major one as the essential nature of the topic is unchanged. The main point is for us to focus upon the potential of topic rather than the minor details of the term epistemics and the naive status of the original author. Editors in the discussion already seem quite confused as they seem to be judging a book by its cover. Changing the title to conform to the usage of most sources still seems a sensible move and I shall continue to work upon the article with this in mind - see the rewrite of the lead which resulted in an edit conflict. I shall retire for now as it is unsatisfactory working upon an article when edit conflicts result. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: why not simply start the new article at the new title? Much as I've been tempted to do so, I;'ve never radically changed a title in the middle of an AfD unless it was blindingly obvious to everyone, or purely technical . I'm sad to see this quarrel with someone whom I agree so much 99% of the time. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a content fork and they are usually deprecated for the good reason that they scatter our efforts rather than concentrating them. And if I were to take ideas from the first article, that might also be plagiarism. If I were to credit the original author as a source, then we have licence issues for which it seems simplest to keep the original edit history. And, most importantly, building upon the work of the original author shows some respect and courtesy for it and him. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you done this? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It did not seem to be a constructive edit. And so to bed; more anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it for now, hope you don't mind. I removed unsourced statements and replaced all the external links with a single link to DMOZ - as is recommended in policy, IIRC, so I'm not exactly sure what it is you object to! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My objection was to the suppression of information about the UK body but this will keep. I shall attend to it later in my copious free time ... Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at WP:AN3#multiple users at Bulbasaur (Result: ).—Kww(talk) 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"My own preferred version"? I've never edited that article in my life. As was pointed out, the discussion should be taking place at the relevant WikiProject page. If consensus there is that the article should be reinstated from a redirect, then the deleted piece of history can be merged into it when that happens. Restoring the article without consulting the Project which redirected it to begin with can only end up in an edit-war, which is what happened. Black Kite 10:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely if a WikiProject actually redirects one of their own articles, they are admitting that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines? That is hardly self-serving, more the complete opposite - admitting that their own article isn't good enough. But more to the point, the problem I have is that if I re-instate the article, the edit-war will almost certainly start again, given the number of users that were involved in it. And there is the problem of GFDL attribution. If you can suggest a course of action that would solve these issues, I'd be happy to consider it. Black Kite 11:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I've got an idea - hang on. Black Kite 11:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#RFC - Bulbasaur - to redirect or not?. Black Kite 11:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Col. Warden. Your input is requested here: [4] Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

• I have commented on the See also matter but have nothing to add on the GA matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

The rescue tag is for articles that need references, are written poorly, lack information readily available, or need cleaning up. None of those apply. The debate hinges on interpretations of the policies on biographies of living people and notability of criminal events. Could you please remove the tag, as it will only attract !voters, not article improvements. Thanks. Fences&Windows 23:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see begging the question. It seems that insufficient attention was being given to the subjects's musical prowess and Olympic performance. Olympic performers get articles as a matter of course. Developing this aspect of the article seems a promising line for rescue work. I might done this myself but it was late and so I placed a rescue tag to give others a crack at it while I slept. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't begging the question. Sufficient attention was indeed paid to her as a musician as she wasn't an "Olympic performer", and before this case nobody knew who she was. She performed at the opening ceremony of the Sydney Olympics when she was 17 and got no press coverage for doing so. See hyperbole. Fences&Windows 00:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I agree that the article is not neutral. Maybe you could trim the intro a bit to clear out some of the skeptical tone? It would be a great help to have a someone else's ideas there. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems best to remove the entire page as being a POVFORK and attack page and I have so moved. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thought you might like to know that I've nominated this article that you started for T:DYK, here. Smartse (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good show. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Greg Pritchard, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Pritchard (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I42 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving this. :) I'd forgotten I'd created it, but I do think the place is definitely worthy of note, as is Belgo Centraal on Shelton Street. :) --Veratien (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. I'd walked past the place many times but had never noticed it. Belgo is better for food though, especially if you're wanting seafood. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've raised a query re your hook. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article De Hems, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats(?)) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It got 3800 hits - close but no cigar. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this notification because you commented at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. I have started a follow-up discussion at WT:Articles for deletion#Revisiting Merging during live AfD. Flatscan (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The thought that this might be covered somewhere, crossed my mind, but i didn't see the related, completely unreferenced article, maybe because i was focused on someone seeming to promote their website at Koofer and Koofers so maybe you can keep it watchlisted as well. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify the removal of the PROD tag and talk per guidelines. Otherwise it will go to AfD. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't "amend" a tag on Human suit, you added a rescue tag. Please don't use misleading edit summaries. No summary at all is preferable to one that misrepresents the edit. Fences&Windows 02:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In that edit, a notability tag was amended to become a rescue tag - I replaced one word with the other. They both exhort editors to add sources to the article and so are much the same but the rescue version is more appropriate during an AFD. I considered and still consider this to be an amendment which, in my normal usage, means "words proposed to be substituted for others" (OED}. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that what you actually did was change the tag... amending the tag would have been to substitute words in the tag for others. Anyway, don't quibble about the definition, respond to the reasonable request that FencesAndWindows made. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 07:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, misleading edit summaries seem to be a continuing issue here. Also, please justify on the talk page why the Jesus mention isn't OR and is connected to the concept. Verbal chat 07:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User Hrafn has explained the matter of Jesus' human suit to you. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have created a glossary to assist editors who have difficulty understanding me. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." Fences&Windows 18:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Impenetrability! Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was handled all wrong. First Fence accuses Colonel of being "misleading", which set the tone. Colonel, I would delete or archive this discussion. Any amount of "amends" will simply not satisfy certain editors. Ikip (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Thanks for raising your concerns. While I'm not a huge fan of three-letter acronyms, I'd like to bring up WP:AGF here. Closing as no consensus, in my opinion, isn't very productive; nobody is satisfied with the result, and nothing real comes of an otherwise productive discussion. However, with relisting (as it has been with Greg Pritchard), we get a viable result; in this case, a consensus leaning towards delete.
Also, don't worry; my comments do not run the risk of making anybody decide anything. Their opinion remains theirs; I'm just suggesting a possible, policy-backed option.
I appreciate you taking this up with me, though. Cheers, Master of Puppets 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, however, there is no compromise; people want it deleted or kept. The issue isn't that the article contains libelous material and should so be kept or what have you. Some people think that there is not sufficient notability, others do not. With relisting, you give more people the ability to contribute input and stronger arguments, which are sometimes all it takes to shunt the flow of an AfD one way over the other. It's not a matter of the majority (I've had AfDs where the article has been deleted even though 80% of voters went for keep; however, they did not provide sufficient rationale). Hopefully that makes everything clear! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets 18:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

now that it has been unfortunately deleted, if you want to carry out the merge you suggested, I could move it to your user space? Let me know on my talk p., please DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV--good option; there was clearly no consensus, and the close is out of line with all similar articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do not know how to reopen. I tend to avoid anything that cannot be done by twinkle. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall try asking the font of all knowledge... Uncle G. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden not suspected of any wrongdoing in this RFA.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I think I'm watching all the relevant pages now. Interesting times, eh? :) Colonel Warden (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spend a few minutes on it and added some references to the article. The official Men in Black II book even calls it a human "suit" that the alien is inside of! Found mention of it back in a published short story from 1957 even. Should be enough to save the article. Dream Focus 14:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the Yorkshire project banner from Lassie Come Home?[5] The film is set in Yorkshire, so the banner is appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic is not geographical. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Most country projects include topics of works set in or created there. Also, are you still stalking my contribs? You have never edited that article, yet within minutes of my doing so, you pop in to mess around? I'm less and less inclined to believe you just happened to be interested in the topic when this continued pattern emerges. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is on my watchlist and this is the nature of watchlists - bold edits tend to attract immediate attention. Per WP:BRD when your edit is reverted, you should start discussion at the article, not immediately repeat it. As for Yorkshire, note that it is a county not a country. Shall we also add project templates for England, Scotland and the UK which all might make similar claims? Most topics take place in a variety of locations but it is not sensible for geographical projects to try to own them as this will commonly lead to tussles over primacy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong, the edit was new, so per BRD it should not have been reverted but discussed. The image clearly violates WP:NONFREE and the use of reflist over references is clearly stated. If was not your place to replace the image when it is questioned, but to respect BRD by starting a discussion if you disagree, instead of trying to redo the disputed edit. And of course the article is on your watchlist, now. And the template is explicit. If the project doesn't wish it to be there, they will remove it. Removing it because you disgree with the system is not appropriate, unless you are going to go remove all such country templates from every media talk page, and every company page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lassie Come Home. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo this, leave the page alone, discuss on the talk page until there is consensus, and bring in third opinion(s) as necessary. (I'm declining RFPP, you are both seasoned editors). tedder (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this for DYK here, feel free to reword the hook if you can think of an alternative or add more to the article. Cheers Smartse (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking of doing that myself - thanks for saving me a job. I was thinking of adding his quote about equasy as the hook. I'll take a look... Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The ALT hook looks good - great minds think alike. And the article is coming along nicely - I especially like the graph. Thanks again for your good work. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Colonel Warden/Agilo for Scrum Hi Colonel Warden, some month ago the Agilo Page was removed, because of missing links and references. In the meanwhile things have changed and I have added now some links, articles and videos. It would be great if we could put the page "online" again. Please let me know what I have to do for that, or if, whats missing to reactivate the page ;-) Thanks a lot Teck Teckmx5 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It could use some reformatting to turn some of the links into inline citations which support the text. I'll do this later today and then move it back into mainspace. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources still need work as self-published sources are inadequate. I'll have a look round. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there :-) Some of the article e.g. are published officially in German Magazines. I made the translations in english, because Agilo has many international Users. Do you think its a good idea to create a wikipedia page for the company agile42 too? Looking forward to your feedback Teck Teckmx5 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again :-) there are 3 Links now regarding independend references added. Please tell me if thats fine now to put the Page online again ;-) Thank you Teck Teckmx5 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of female stock characters. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female stock characters (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have been a previous participant in the AFD.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I spotted your name while I was doing some research into a bit of a potential dispute I'm having on the Daily Mail. The problem being, constant edit reverts. Most of the time using very questionable reasoning.

Delving a bit deeper into the history, it's become apparent to me that one of the 2 Editors doing a lot of the reverts, collect, is actually quite notorious for edit wars, and trying to excert influence over political pages. His talk page even shows him offering advice to the other editor, on how to make all the reverts he wants, without getting into trouble, by spreading them over a number of days, and keeping them to "3 a day, so the admin can't touch you".

I didn't really know what to do, so just set up an editor discussion on the article on the subject, to get some wider input on whether what's going on with the editing is fair. I just noticed that you've already had a bit of experience with this issue, and user, so is there anything else I can do? Or is bringing the page to the attention to more editors the best way forward?

Cjmooney9 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- two edits since July is not "edit war" -- I have no idea who "cjrmooney" is. Collect (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, no such quote from me on my talk page exists. Norwegian myth applies here. Collect (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read of the talk page yourself, if you want to know what I was referring to. I don't want to get drawn into petty squabbles. As for your lack of action on the actual edit page, thats not my real worry. It's more the collusion of editors. The sum of 2 peoples editing work, and discussion board alliance being that it's impossible to change anything.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 edits since July is "collusion"? And as near as I can tell you made zero edits on the article? Um -- who are you? Collect (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have commented on the matter at the article in question. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Colonel. I read the article. There's no mistaking the power of the press, is there? Did you find any evidence that these terms existed before the publication of the print articles cited? I'm familiar with the phenomenon; in other garb it is one of Freud's psychopathologies of everyday life (and now I find there's more work to do), but I don't know either of these terms.

This example didn't persuade me with respect to neologisms, but really I think the central issue in the asset voting AfD discussion is independent support for the topic itself. We can talk further about names, of course, but what I objected to was not that Black or Carroll had not used this term, but that we have only one source to say that the ideas of Carroll and Smith are consonant, in my opinion a flawed source. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another example of a neologism which I renamed is Snuggie and its title seems to have stuck. I tried a Snug Rug for the first time myself, yesterday, but was not impressed. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing WP:TLDR like you did in this deletion discussion might come across as somewhat dismissive. If someone's writing style needs improvement, you may want to consider letting them know on their talk page instead of in a centralized discussion. Other readers who think it's too long will just ignore it anyways. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It seemed to need some sort of acknowledgement - hence my comment, to indicate that I wasn't going to address all those points in detail. The editor who posted it is fairly new to Wikipedia. I supported him in the AFD with which he started and so we may hope that he accepts my impartiality. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not responding to all points in detail is fine, but I'm concerned that by saying you won't even read them you've bitten a newcomer. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Colonel. To be honest, I took it for a field maneuver, but I did adjust the format to make it easier on the eyes, just in case. (To be honest, I sometimes find Wiki markup to be a poor substitute for a word processor.) Say what you like, as you like. If I'm ever injured, I'll be sure to find a way to squirt WP:Tears. Please boys, don't fight over this. Santa's coming! Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, did you find that Economist article on their web site, or in the magazine? Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your edit to this article, as it had just been merged following an AFD. The content is now found at Dust#Dust control, so you can add your material there. Given the different location and context, I have not copied your edit over to the new article - but you should feel free to do so, if you wish. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have commented on your action at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Move a disputed merge to AfD.2C retitled Articles for Discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...for the barnstar! I'm honored; it's my first! (One question of procedure; am I meant to leave it on my discussion page, or may I transplant it to my user page?) --Vivisel (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an opinion at Mary Dimmick Harrison as to whether articles should have a header to separate the lede from where the chronology restarts? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you're a regular at pop culture AfDs, could you keep an eye out for sockpuppets of Dalejenkins? I just filed the latest report against WossOccurring, see Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations/Dalejenkins. His style of deletion sprees and poorly thought out nominations is characteristic and disruptive. p.s. Happy New Year! Fences&Windows 23:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion sprees and poorly thought out nominations sounds like User:Ironholds. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the problems in trying to keep up with the flood of that editor's nominations, but I;ve been going back over some of your speedy and prod removals and adding necessary clean up tags. Even when good enough to avoid deletion, poor articles shouldn't escape attention. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't do speedy removals - I leave those to the admin. As for tags, I will usually place a stub tag on the article and a source notice on the article's talk page, creating the talk page if it does not exist. These seem adequate guidance markers for interested projects and casual passers-by. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a notability template (which was in place since several months) in the middle of an ongoing AfD which cites these notability concerns, as you did for Valhalla Vineyards with this edit, looks very strange to me. You are of course completely free to place the "rescue" template on the article to bring in the views of other editors devoted to improving Wikipedia, but I don't see that it is helpful to have behaviour which potentially could lead to edit-warring over templates in parallel to an on-going AfD! Regards, Tomas e (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Valhalla DRV is crazy. I am trying to think of any non-BLP article I've seen deleted with this much sourcing.--Milowent (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you confuse the number of sources with notability. You may wish to read WP:N. All the best, Tomas e (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:N does not support your position. Presumably that is why your project is trying to create its own separate guideline. As for templates, these should be removed when an article is improved and/or does not exhibit the fault. Such removal is, by their nature, to be expected. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Colonel. Thank you for your assistance at the article Snih. I'm not sure with this redirect, Czech word for snow (sníh) now refers to a classical composer's article, which is a bit irrelevant in my opinion. I think the best solution would be to delete this redirect, or moving it to Sníh (song). --Vejvančický (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved as you suggest. Deletion of the Snih link is up to you. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pittsburgh A To Z is also nominated for deletion. I made a comment on the deletion page asking for other editors to comment. Please do so. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a vote underway to merge this article. I've expressed concerns that I feel are not being heard on the talk pages, requested mediation which was declined by the other parties. So I'm wondering what's the best way to get input from a neutral third party? One of the editors voting for merge suggested I open an AFD, but that would be requesting deletion of the article I'm trying to save! Is there a better way? thanks Voila-pourquoi (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jerem43 has added two stub templates to Lee's Diner. While this may draw more attention to this article, I have rated it class=start on the talk page, since it has 5 inline citations, which I consider to be sufficient to have it not a stub. I am consulting you about whether you or I should remove the two stub templates on the article itself. What do you think? --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like stub templates - they have cute icons and do not seem intrusive. The article is not long and so they seem fine in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a book reference, and then ran AWB on all of [:category:York County, Pennsylvania] which means a tidying up of Lee's Diner references, but it also added an orphan template. I have added two links, but perhaps you can figure out ways to add more. I am working on more diner and diner manufacturer articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the maintenance templates on the quantitative fund article, as I don't believe the issues have been addressed. Regards, PDCook (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning on improving the article? PDCook (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought the page As of for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 18#As of. Since you have edited the page in the past, and since I don't quite understand the history of this redirect, I hope you can comment there. Thank you, Cnilep (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

I think 'civil passport' in your source refers to an internal ID (in the way that the term was frequently translated in the USSR) and not the international travel document intended in the article. Would you re-consider its appropriateness Best. RashersTierney (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The matter cannot be pre-judged as notable content is determined by sources, not by editorial intent. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Colonel Warden, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored) Ikip 04:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm hand. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good work there. There seem to be 5 such cases currently and I'll be looking out for more. A stitch in time, saves nine. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]