Not to be rude, but why did you remove my welcome? I don't really care, but some editors don't care for it when people blank their talk page. Just curious. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it was a form letter. Quatloo 02:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. I'll try and do better. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Quatloo. I have no idea what your name means, but I had noticed this edit of yours. I had seen no one had officially welcomed you, so I thought I'd do the honors. It's not a common letter to have a user name start with, "Q". I see you're interested in Perl. Did you know that the dude who developed Perl had cornea surgery? I learned that a few years ago. He used to have the pictures from his surgery on his website, but like I said, it was years ago and may have changed it since then. I really hope you enjoy your time here. I see you are also interested in peak oil. That's a touchy subject for some, so I would suggest peeking at WP:NPOV if you haven't already. Rockford Files, eh? That's a little before my time, but I sure do like James Garner. I saw you signed up right before Christmas, so if you celebrate, I hope WP turns out to be a great gift for you. If you don't celebrate, I hope WP turns out to be a great gift for you. Yep, either way, Wikipedia can be a wonderful thing. Well, this wasn't a form letter, but it was rather long. Sorry for that. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you try to talk to someone, you should post on their talk page, not their user page. When you post to the talk page, you get a little orange banner saying you have a message. You don't get that when you post to the main user page. Just a little word of advice. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. That's how we learn. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your work on some American colleges and universities. If you see a copyright violation, you should simply type {{copyvio|WEBSITE IT'S PLAGERISED FROM}}, and it will automatically put a copyright warning on the page. this is better than simply blanking the article, because it allows Admins to go through and delete plagerised or libelous material from the history. Thanks. Keep up the good work. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admit you are a rabbit. Jerkcity

The result of the AfD was to delete and merge, but the result has been not much more than a delete. Surely something can be done to keep all sides happy? Gretnagod 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift response but we go back to the original problem that Death List is not a Dead Pool as member do not make selections, they just keep the committee updated on the latest health of the chosen 50. But the whole problem is bigger than me or you can deal with, so thanks for your help and I'll see what I can do elsewhere. Gretnagod 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True comment! But the definition of Dead Pool is a bit too unspecific for my tastes. I presume if the Death List was to get a lot more recognition in the main stream media its credentials as an entry would be reconsidered? Gretnagod 01:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to drag this out, and I agree with most of what you said, but a lot of entries are completely inane - look at the Simpsons-related Can't sleep, clown will eat me. That's a pure waste of space and that's still there. I might as well sit down and catalogue every phrase made in cartoon, nay broadcasting, history and add them as entries. Gretnagod 01:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uncertain as to why you're so adamant about not letting information about Deathlist stay up on the Dead Pool site. The wiki consensus as per the deletion log was that the Deathlist information be merged, not deleted. If you think the article should be balanced, then that's fine, but balancing it doesn't mean removing information, it means encouraging others to contribute to the article to make it balanced. Wikipedia is not your personal fiefdom. Clearly, as Gretnagod pointed out, there are lots of articles that carry lesser merit than Deathlist. Pages for everyone who's been on Survivor? Or Family Guy? Or every episode of The Simpsons? But the strange thing is, no one is even asking anymore to have Death List as its own article. The consensus was against that, and that is fair enough. But I reiterate. The consensus was merge, not delete. I would be more than happy to make the article more balanced by not only encouraging others to add information about the other pools, but by adding some myself. Your opinion is valid and respected. So is, however, the one of every other serious contribution to Wikipedia. Let's work at making the Dead Pool article an excellent article instead of just deleting the efforts of other members. Canadian Paul 03:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the votes for deletion page had deemed it significant enough not to delete, I shall reiterate a few points. First of all, the first list came out in 1987. Not only was that before the longest running online Dead Pool (the Derby Dead Pool [1]), which began in 1996, but it also came out one year before the Clint Eastwood movie. Check out the "history of deadpools" section on the Derby Dead Pool website. Yet you'll notice that Deathlist.net is not present on that history. That's because Deathlist.net is not a Dead Pool. Deathlist is a unique concept and community based project that, while admittedly is not totally seperate from the idea of Dead Pools, is different enough to mark its significance. Consensus has forced those who support it as its own article to acquiese our right to a seperate page, but the recommendation was still to merge, which meant that the information should have been kept mostly intact. Furthermore, you'll note that the page didn't even exist until it appeared in a major article in Britain's The Sun.

Your view on significance is a bit skewed I think. Why should numbers be the be all and end all? Should we do a seperate page for every episode of every show that has more than X amount of viewers? I don't think it's necessary, because Wikipedia is an informational source, not a fanclub for TV shows. What about Ertugrul Osman V? Not many people know about him. He hasn't done much. But by virtue of his status as the patriarch of the Ottoman Dynasty, he is significant and worthy of his own article. But chances are, only people who study Middle Eastern history will have heard of him. I'm sure that there are similar articles in the field(s) that you specialize in.

The consensus was merge, not delete. If you wish to change the consensus, I'm not the person to be arguing to. There's a giant community willing to host the issue on Wikipedia, I encourage you to bring your fight there. Until then, please cease in your attempts to prevent the proper merger. Canadian Paul 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]