First archive of my talk page.

Why do you think sovereignty issues were settled? Do wars settle sovereignty issues? Galtieri though that, by the way. He was dead wrong. Ejrrjs 21:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. let me explain you first why I worded it exactly that way. My first encounter with Wikipedia was on exactly this article. I found it quite biased towards the UK position (to comply with the wishes of its inhabitants is the formulaic expression of their soverignty claim.) From the Argentine POV that point is not relevant; if someone enters illegally into your house, it is not the wishes of the trespasser that should prevail.

I tried to talk about it in the so-called "talk page" but instead of a reasonable discussion, I only found much agitation around the kelpers wishes (which I couldn't care less, as that was irrelevant to the outcome of the war to start with). Over there you'll find 3 facts that weren't affected by the war, but were equally non-relevant. Instead of starting an edit war, I thought for a long time on how to balance that very first paragraph. When I finally found a sensible way to do it...you change it asap.

Ok, let's go back to the exact wording. There is a sovereignty conflict recognized by the UN Committee on decolonization (see here for a random sample). It is NOT just a zany statement from Argentina. So, please, let's revert the phrase, or let's seek a common ground if you disagree for some reason on my edit.

Ejrrjs 21:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Ejrrjs 22:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is how the Koreans ike to call it in English. In Chinese, it is called <<悄悄愛上你>>. This means Love affair in Chinese. I got all this from my local Singaporean magazine, and I managed to write Kim Jae Won because I saw him starring in the drama. This drama, though not that popular and not written in the empas filmography, do exist. I would also strongly encourage to edit and create any articles about Korean celebrities. You are welcome to do so. Thanks, User:Chan Han Xiang

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

May I ask you to please read the evidence that I have posted on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP, follow and read some of the links that Google brings up, and consider whether afterwords you still want to merge the article? Thank you. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 09:00, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for adding the kanji to the Taijin kyofusho article; if you have time could you do the same for Japanese Wolf? Thanks, Ziggurat 20:49, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Ziggurat 20:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

You voted for West End Theatre, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the note (that I can't actually read, of course) that you left at Talk:Japaharinet, I'm hoping you could see if this anon, who seems to be mostly comfortable with English and Wikipedia standards, would be willing to help polish the contributions of this anon who's kinda shaky on both. Niteowlneils 04:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'm not too comfortable doing that, but I'll try to polish them a bit myself and hopefully he will pick things up. Kappa 05:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello, could you please move your signed vote from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/IntellNet Software to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Protex blue, where it belongs. The person who nominated Protex blue messed the entry so that some of the votes went to the subpage preceding it in the main listing. Thanks, jni 12:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For Korean Americans:How about the Dean Harold Hongju Koh? Mr Tan, 11.44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I guess that's the most common way his name is used in English, try googling it. "Lena Junghyun Park" doesn't get any google hits at all. Kappa 21:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article has been expanded by User:Mikkalai. You may want to change your vote on the related VfD discussion. Grue 12:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am planning to write an article on this topic, see DDR talk. SYSS Mouse 03:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with my listing of the Jigglypuff page for VfD. I think the problem is I initially created the section heading with 2 "=" characters instead of 3. It is visible through the "this page's entry" link, but does not seem to show up in today's Table of Contents on VfD. Any ideas how to fix this? Johntex 17:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! We seem to be disagreeing on a lot of VfD issues. But I've noticed that you tend to vote exclusively for keeping just about anything (possibly on the basis of "does the value this brings to our readers ultimately outweigh the cost of disk space to our servers?". I like that argument, I can vote "keep" on almost everything verifiable with that., although I hope that was a joke).

I would like to suggest that Wikipedia is aiming towards quality of information, rather than quantity, and that there are good reasons for deleting a lot of articles. Even speedily deleting them, in some cases. I don't mean to be rude but "It's a finite list" and "It's relevant to corset wearers" aren't particularly valid arguments for keeping an article.

Yours, Radiant! 15:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) Hi :) OK in order, the top one was actually a joke, but the nominator was kind enough to supply that reason, so I used it. I believe that Wikipedia should aim to increase its total quantity of quality information, rather that its average level per article, and that's generally how I vote. I agree with a lot of deletions, I watch the deletion log and I disagree with about 0.1% of them. "Finite list" isn't a reason for keeping, but "potentially infinite list" has been used as a reason for deletion, so I thought it was worth mentioning. "It's relevant to corset wearers" seems entirely valid to me, for those who want to know how safe it is, the biography of the record holder is a valuable piece of evidence.

Please see my comments on this article. --Viriditas | Talk 03:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you check the page's history, I did redirect it a day or two ago, but it was reverted because it survived VfD the first time. I think it needs to go through the VfD process or it'll keep being reverted. --Poiuytman 10:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the Norwegian Wiktionary Page. Somehow (stupid me...) I just missed it completely:) Tobyox 20:40, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please check your vote in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jeffdedejeff. It looks like the vandal managed to trick you. Check the history of the voting subpage. jni 08:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Kappa. After some votes on the vfd you have urged me to get a username to get my vote fully counted. Is that some vfd-policy? Anyway, I have one now. Sjakkalle 13:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kappa, thanks for your concern, but don't be worried, I'm not overly emotional about that particular nomination, but objectively unhappy with people using the term "notable" like it has some objective meaning and thus can be a criterion for deletion. If I had the effort, I would similarly query all silly vote rationales which provide no further explaination than "not notable" or something equivocal. Take care, nsh 11:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) (Xposted from User_talk:Nsh)

You "don't believe [my] action was done out of concern for my freedom from spam"? Why, then, do you think I did it? It certainly wasn't because I care about the outcome of the votes. — Dan | Talk 16:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not like it's solely my idea, as there were other pages already existing with Weebl and Bob transcripts, so I only felt that it was right to make the list complete. Let me contact Mr. Picking (Weebl) and ask him what he believes is good. MessedRocker 18:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Very good start on the article. I'd even go so far as to call it a short article rather than a stub. Of course it could use some expansion, so maybe I'll do a little research and see if I can come up with a little more about him, particularly his early days. One thing though, you mention some of his most famous songs, and I was wondering if those were all songs he wrote, or just songs he was famous for singing. I know he wrote "Four Green Fields", and it has to be his most famous. I wasn't sure about the others, but if they are meant to be songs he wrote then does "Farewell to Carlingford" belong? I sort of thought that was older, but I'm really not sure. Anyway, good job. -R. fiend 22:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are you putting Angel One up for deletion? There are plenty of Star Trek synopsis pages just like it. Yes, it'a a boring episode, but Angel One has survived a pervious attempt at deletion, why continue to press the issue. I seen there are plenty of votes to keep it and other users have mentioned the previous VFD and agree it should stay. I've taken the liberty of removing the VFD regardless cause it's a moot point in my opinion. I'm not here to start a flame war over it, since deleting Star Trek pages is obviosuly a losing battle around here. Cyberia23 22:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I put Angel One up for Vfd because things are changing around here, and most other fancruft is getting merged and/or deleted. I know we are supposed to value inconsistency, but I think it would be misleading to new contributors to have a big stack of Trek episodes but not allow similar articles for other TV series or mangas or whatever. I have replaced the tag. Kappa 01:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a plethoria of knowledge, both useless and useful. Since there happens to be a bunch of detailed Trek stuff, that means there are more people who happen to be contributing toward it at the moment than other things. I have seen a lot of info on other shows like anime and sci-fi. I'm sure, eventually those will be covered more and more. It takes some time. Just because BOOM it ain't all detailed yet doesn't mean what is started should be trashed. I spent a lot of time on the stuff I written, and I've gotten mostly positive support for it. Thats why I continue to do it, and I'll be more than pissed cause some lamers don't want it around. In my opinion, like everything else in the world, if you don't like something, why is it so damn hard to IGNORE it? Don't like it, then don't look at it. Theres tons of other stuff to read. Cyberia23 07:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry that this nomination has caused you stress, but I don't think you understand the situation. The majority view in Vfd is that detail like this should be merged or preferably deleted. The reason that Trek stuff survives is mainly because there are a lot of Trekkie wikipedians, who will all show up and vote "keep". Vfd voters know this, so they don't bother to vote "delete" even when that's what they want. Other fields can never become equally detailed, because there just aren't enough people working on them for detail to survive Vfd. I don't have a problem with Trek stuff being in wikipedia, but the trouble is Trek detail confuses people into thinking they can make detail for whatever other field they are interested in, and they end up wasting their time. That's why I don't want to ignore it. Kappa 11:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Well I don't agree that the deleters will win simply becuase they don't cast a vote. I wonder why Wikipeda even allows votes when they state on the main VFD page; "Wikipedia place is not a democracy". Whats the point in "voting" if that is the case? All I can say is I assure you I won't be "stressed" if my work gets deleted. Yes I'll be annoyed, but I'll live. My thinking about the whole issue is, since there are already established episodes entries, then what harm is there to "fill in details"? Most of those pages are stubs anyway, I was filling the void. I can see the cleaning up other sideline entries, like for certain starships or planets that aren't necessary to have their own entries. I try to cover their information in the episode synopis to where they were featured. I think all those should be taken down. Anyway, this something I enjoy doing in my spare time. Seeing it as "wasted time" is just a matter of opinion. If they are taken down, then thats what happens. I'll probably just leave Wikipedia in protest like so many other sites that were once enjoyable for me, but eventually become screwed over by bureaucratic B.S. I understand what your saying about consolidating and trying to keep things uniform around here. It's a never ending battle. I've been trying to keep the Trek stuff under control where I can, but I can't devote every second of my life maintaining it. I was hoping by getting it organized it would set an example for others who'd like to detail other TV shows, or comics, games, or whatever, in a similar fashon. One thing that is cool about Wikipedia is you can find something on just about anything. It's really amazing. I think my reovation of the Trek episodes would put an end to confusion. Anyway, we'll see what happens. Good luck in your crusade, no hard feelings, but I hope this place can come to a compromise. I am more than willing to help out in any clean up effort, but I wouldn't destroy everything without discussion or coming up with a compromise first. Cyberia23 22:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing the wikitionary tag. Even if you don't think it's a candidate for speedy deletion, you should not be removing wiktionary tags from those article that clearly are candidates for moving to wiktionary. Kevin Rector 19:51, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

The reason they are not redundant is because all the articles marked with the wiktionary tag are going to be transwikied in the near future. After that they are going to be deleted unless they have evolved into an encyclopedia article. There are over 1000 articles that are going to be transwikied.

What I was trying to do was to clean up a few that are already in the wiktionary so that they wouldn't need to be transwikied. But it's no big deal if we don't speedy them (although the vast majority of them have less information than the wiktionary articles). I was just trying to say the wiktionarians some work. Kevin Rector 20:04, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Given your improvements to save Golf (Videopac game) from deletion, I thought you might consider helping Laser War (Videopac game) and Morse (Videopac game). -- Cyrius|✎ 03:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree with your assessment. However, I'm now unsure as to what my course of action should be. Please could you aid me in doing the right thing so as not to screw this whole thing up? The matter of this subject has dizzied me somewhat. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience. Thank you for your help. Bobo192 20:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sincere thanks. I couldn't have previously wagered upon my confusion, but as I say, that seems like the right thing to do. I think I'll just stick to just doing things which don't get me confused in the future. ;) Bobo192 20:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe consensus holds that Australian grass is pretty much similar to grass anywhere else. Would you care to explain what your point is with this and other veiled statements of discontent you have made over the past week? It's not that I feel particularly attacked by what you say, it's just that I'm entirely unsure what you are trying to accomplish. Radiant_* 21:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Certainly. I'm all in favor of articles on Grass and Australia. However, unless there's something special about [[<plant> in <country>]] there's really no reason for that cross-sectional article. That would be a non-topic. As a matter of fact, I'm daring you to write an interesting article on Australian grass that does not duplicate existing content at Australia and Grass. I'm also all in favor of consensus, or I wouldn't be here. Radiant_* 22:06, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Why did you pull my speedy delete off Metallic fiber? The article is nonsense. "metallic fiber" isn't something you can write an article about, it's a collection of two words used in a number of industries to describe .. well.. things that are fibrous and metallic. This is like creating an article entitled Plastic spatula. Also, the initial author of the page just made it as part of a trolling run [1]. If we have no further discussion on the matter I will be putting it back up for speedy delete tomorrow.Gmaxwell 07:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay I see the EB article... not much relation to the stub, but I guess the subject is okay, thanks for pointing out my errorGmaxwell 14:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant_* 12:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there--

Another user and I have done a rewrite of the Oh! Mr Porter! article in the hopes of making it worthy of keeping. I'm wondering if you'd take a look at the new article, and reconsider your vote to delete it . Thanks!

Best wishes, Jacobw 18:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

• VfD: Blake Junior High School (renominated)
• VfD: Franklin High School
• VfD: Lake Dow Christian Academy
• VfD: Red Lake High School
• VfD: The Sage School
• VfD: Toowoomba Grammar School

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

Thanks for letting me know about the VfD terms and the rules of it. I voted in one of these, and it was my first one, lasted for a good 3 weeks. If there is anything else that either you and I came come up with, let me know. Zscout370 02:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I have a VfD'ish question... in a recent vote I called for the merging of a group of articles, and you responded by stating that deletionists are evil. I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but since when is merging a form of deletion? Deletion means the information is gone. Merging means, in general, that the information is better organized, and found amidst bits of related information. In recent example, I merged half a dozen stubs on Wedgie, Wet willy etc. into a larger article School pranks. I believe the result is more encyclopedically useful.

Yours, Radiant_* 08:48, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Good point, though having an index in the Graffiti page may help. Would you know why we can't redirect to sections within a page? That would be a useful solution. Radiant_* 09:06, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kappa: Thanks for expanding Chamfer. The article now seems to have two spellings of the topic, however. As I understand matters, Champfer is a Swiss village and an uncommon (not wrong) spelling of chamfer. Should we have a redirect from Champfer and use the "chamfer" spelling throughout this article? Or is the "champfer" spelling more prevalent than I think? --Theo (Talk) 21:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That was not a strict rule, but rather one of two polar examples (hardly anyone was going to write about wikipedia in the Shakespeare article; although it is quite possible that someone might say something like" "Wikipedia has a broad coverage of Shakespeare's works"). The article in question is something in between: it is not about online communities. Writing about self is considered bad taste. Following my example above, one might squeeze wikipedia as an example into a half of its articles. So a reasonable judgement is required: whether wikipedia reference is crucial to the topic or not. Let us not pretend that wikipedia is just one of many. It is the greatest! :-) So let's be modest. Mikkalai 21:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I created the sub-sub-stub after I noticed that a certain User:Coolcat had removed a red link from the Meiji page. User's primary deletion activities are related to Armenian Genocide denial; see its talk page. — Davenbelle 22:45, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I know we hold very different opinions on most VfD issues, but will you stop posting personal attacks about me, whether disguised as a joke or not? If you have a point, make it. If all you want to do is complain on how people are evil because they disagree with you, do it somewhere else. I've been patient since I do consider you a good contributor, but I really grow tired of your badgering. Radiant_* 11:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• How about recent accusations of censorship and deliberate misinterpretation of policy? Radiant_* 12:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't mind dismay (well, it's unfortunate but there's not much I can do about it; see Meta:Eventualism and Meta:Immediatism). I do mind accusations of censorship, whether or not they're against me personally. Radiant_* 13:21, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've left a comment on Talk:Doctor (game), asking if there are good reasons to keep the article, and explaining why I think it should be deleted (I'd rather not go straight to VfD in case anyone has a good reason for keeping that I've overlooked). I don't know whether you're committed to the article, but if you are, would you like to discuss it there? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've created an article on Children's games (role play), as I suggested on Talk:Doctor (game). It's a stub so far, and I'm not exactlky happy with what's there so far, but I think that it's better than a lot of stubs on individual games. Incidentally, I also discovered had also created Doctor (children's game), which I've also made a redirect. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Doctor (children's game) is that it looks like little more than personal research (at best), making general claims which at least one other user on the Talk page found dubious; the reference to “parenting professionals” is pretty peculiar — and what source is there for it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've just waded through eight pages on Google (doctor + children + game) and found nothing relevant. Anyway, I've placed a request for comment on Talk:Doctor (children's game) to see what people think of making it a redirect. I hope that you'll give your arguments there. (If there is anything of value on it, i'm sure that it can be merged with the new article — it's a pretty small stub, after all.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The {{Wiktionary}} heading in Sectility was not intended as a provocation. I probably overstepped my bounds. If you think it shouldn't be there I'm willing to drop it. I have a lot of respect for you. I got caught up in the VfD thing for awhile and thought the consensus for deleting questionable material was broader. I have thought about things I have read from you about navigation and keeping anything that was written in good faith. I agree with the latter and would like to learn more about the former. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by navigation, other than disambiguation pages and categories. --Smithfarm 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kappa, twice now in the past few days you've voted against pages that I put on VfD saying they had the potential to grow. Since you didn't answer my request for clarification there, I'll ask you here--

How exactly do you expect the article on Compromise, and the articles about Tri-Rail stations, to grow into encyclopediac articles? In neither case can I think of anything that might be said in such an articl, except perhaps if someone comes up with the reason the West Palm Beach Tri-Rail station is a historic place; I noted that that station in particular may merit its own page in my nomination.

So, would you mind clarifying your position, by giving a couple examples of what might go into these articles? Thanks! Jonathan Christensen 17:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I'm still skeptical, but if compromise does grow into an encyclopediac article, I will be very impressed. As for the stations--once someone decides to go take pictures of all of them, I might support them having their own pages, simply because I don't want that many pictures on a page and I wouldn't want all of that person's effort to be wasted. I don't think the pictures would make them any more encyclopedia, but I suppose compromises must be made. --Jonathan Christensen 18:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I was a too hasty with the nonsense tags there. DDerby 00:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop using 'cruft' as a reason to vote 'keep'. It goes against the meaning of the word and has and can confuse the newbies. --InShaneee 04:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should know that InShaneee has begun an RFC against you (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kappa). I will be posting there in your defense shortly. —Korath (Talk) 05:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Korath, but actually I don't think this RfC meets the criteria, since it needs two people to try to resolve the dispute and fail. Inshanee may yet succeed in persuading me not to use the word fancruft. It does look like I'll have to do more typing in VfDs though. Kappa 05:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Judging by the message InShaneee sent me, it seems he assumed me to be his 'second' for this RfC. Let me assure you that I will not. As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Yours, Radiant_* 19:03, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nitpick: it wasn't Voltaire. It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in her book Friends of Voltaire. DS 21:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a pretty silly-looking RfC. If I had more time, I'd go through your point-by-point answer, check it all, and probably add my name to its list of backers. But I don't, so I won't. As I've suggested elsewhere on that page, your votes in VfD sometimes irritate me slightly, but I don't suppose they irritate me any more than mine irritate you. I've got no complaints. So let the gentlemanly VfD sparring continue! -- Hoary 11:35, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) (BTW this week I'm a hardcore, industrial strength deletionist. Yes, I must have deleted tens of kilobytes of my own flabby prose in the WP-unrelated project I'm busy with right now.) "

Sure thing, I'll go easier on InShaneee. It was more the fact that a fine user like RickK could endorse such a RfC which upset me. Sjakkalle 12:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• My apologies if I jumped the gun, I suppose I have been a bit wikistressed lately. It was nothing personal, and I really didn't want to see sanctions or anything like that come out of that. I'm well aware you're an honest, hardworking wikipedian. I just didn't quite agree with your use of 'cruft', and I since you didn't seem to respond to my comments about it on VfD, I wasn't quite sure how to proceed. No hard feelings I hope. InShaneee 16:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I shall write my edit summaries as I see fit. There are many things here that someone might "not appreciate seeing", and my edit summaries are among the least of them. Chris 18:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the VfD for Tulsa streets.

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/W._21st_St.

The deletionists are trying to get rid of some very nice articles on some streets in West Tulsa.This is part of User:AboutWestTulsa's project to add infomation about West Tulsa to wikipedia. I myself added yahoo maps to these articles.

Klonimus 00:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List of referential songs

Could you check my comments about Answer songs in this VfD? Your comment indicated you thought it should be retitled because the meaning was like what this "referential songs" definition intended. But in old blues, there was a specific phenomenon "answer songs" which were written as direct responses to then-popular songs. Different. Barno 15:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• After seeing your response on my talk page, I've edited List of answer songs to fix the overly-broad definition there. I believe the concept "answer song" was significant and (if defined as it was actually used) is more verifiable and more encyclopedic than "referential song". Fixing that definition (and purging inappropriately listed songs) seems a more valid solution than retitling the article, dropping the actual meaning, just because the list contained a poor def and some merely referential songs. Barno 19:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Please see the "roadster"/"sports car" analogy I added, in attempt at explanation, at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_answer_songs#.22Referential_songs.22_not_equal_to_.22answer_songs.22 . Barno 15:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liberty Belle VFD

Given that the article is now about the pre-existing DC Comics character who was referenced in an episode of Powerpuff Girls, rather than only that reference, can I convince you to change your vote? DS 21:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schoolwatch

To avoid being associated with a user that has now been banned from any kind of activity in the area, as well as POV-pushing, I would advise that you unwatch and unlink User:GRider/Schoolwatch, and instead consider making use of the somewhat less provocative and more open alternative, Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch, which looks to be coming on nicely as a community project where views on neither side are suppressed. Wikipedia:Watch is turning into a useful, NPOV, resource, usable by the whole community, not just one or two users with an agenda to push. Chris 21:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hardworking families

Please reconsider your vote for the article hardworking families; I have expanded it a bit more. Cheers. – Kaihsu 14:15, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)