User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2007-01-01

Notices
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for.
Yes, I am an administrator. If you think that I've blocked you wrongly, please use Special:Emailuser/Uncle G. If you have not been blocked, please do not use that. Use a talk page.
For past discussions on this page, see the archive.

A barnstar in honor of the first in the east & first in the west...The Great Philosopher Pickelbarrel

I Have gifted you Administrator UncleG with this barnstar to show what a great instructer you have been in helping the pickelbarrel become as amazing and wonderful as he is pickelbarrel 01:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_NESkimos

Could you look at this page now? I belive that it now meets at least one (if not two) requirement(s) for WP:MUSIC.

Thanks alot! Sanctusorium 20:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

La Salle University (book)

What are you talking about? That summary wasn't taken from Amazon! That summary is from the publisher. I gave the publisher credit, and Amazon didn't! Lasallefan 19:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

...did you check this out yet? 192.160.62.60 12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki Log

Hello Uncle G, sorry to be the first to trod on your freshly wiped talk page. Happy New Year at any rate. I am a relatively new user and I am trying to find some good chores to undertake. I noticed that the transwiki log has a backlog and that you were quite active there, so I have come to you for advice. I can't make heads or tales of exactly what one would do over there. If you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate a quick "how-to help us out over here at transwiki" for us non-admin-and-kind-of-new types. Thank you in advance for any advice you are willling to provide. Movementarian 10:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Transwikification does not require administrator privileges. One doesn't even need an account in order to transwikify articles. The thing about transwikification is not that it requires privileges, but that it is a lengthy procedure. One has to edit four separate pages for each article transwikified, and do a lot of tedious copying and formatting of edit histories. There are several GFDL-mandated details that it is easy to miss. This is why several editors have written various semi-automatic tools that will handle all of the detailed rote work involved.

  And those are just the raw technicalities of copying the articles in a GFDL-compliant way. There are other considerations as well, such as dealing with the article on the target project. There's a tag that should be applied to every article transwikified into the Wikibooks Cookbook, for example.

  But the actual transwikification of articles is not the whole story. There are other, simpler, things that you can help out with:

  • Scan Category:Copy to Wiktionary for any articles where Wiktionary already has an article and eject the article from the transwiki queue. (To discourage re-listing, put a {{wiktionarypar}} tag on the article pointing to the relevant dictionary article and try to fix any use-mention distinction errors in the article as per the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use_of_.27refers_to.27.)
  • Move any word list articles from Category:Copy to Wiktionary to Category:Word lists to be moved to Wiktionary by changing the template.
  • Scan the Wikipedia:Transwiki log and see what can be done with any articles that have already been transwikified, as per the guidelines on that page.
  • Scan Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs for articles that are not actually about vocabulary and usage at all, and encourage the stub sorters to sort them into stub categories that are actually appropriate.
• Uncle G 16:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the guidance. Movementarian 17:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Multiple AFD nominations

Good afternoon, Uncle G. Please don't move AFD nominations around unless you have the time to correct every link. In the case of Once Moore, you orphaned the original nomination and broke the link which had been in the renomination. OwenX and I have cleaned it up but frankly we're curious why you bothered. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo (2nd nomination) format has always seemed to work fine in the past. Why mess with it? Rossami (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I thought that I had corrected every link. And I bothered because the nomination as it stood was broken. I was fixing it. Both the transclusion and the AFD notice pointed to the original, closed, discussion, rather than the new discussion. Uncle G 19:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Old Testament

Some religiously biased users are trying to delete A wife confused for a sister, an article discussing the strikingly similar Abraham&Abimelech (Genesis 20-21), Isaac&Abimelech (Genesis 26), and Pharaoh&Abraham (Genesis 12), incidents where the Abraham/Isaac's wife is confused by Pharaoh/Abimelech for their sister, and a later treaty occurs at Beersheba.

The reason they have given for deletion is "it is entirely based on biblical criticism". I.e. they are trying to have the article deleted because it is based on academic knowledge and not on religiously prejudiced guesswork.

It actually also includes a non-biblical-criticism summary of the passages, and additionally discussion of Midrash views and stances.

The sources are the JewishEncyclopedia article on Beersheba, and Abimelech (section 3), and also minor aspects of the Sarah, Isaac, Abraham, and Rebekah articles; Israel Finkelstein concerning the archaeology of Beersheba; Friedmann, Noth, etc. (e.g. "Who wrote the Bible") for much of the documentary hypothesis portions.

Would you consider voting on the AFD concerning the article? I would like it kept. --User talk:FDuffy 20:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest that the very first thing that you do is add a ==References== section to that article and fill it with the sources that you used, to demonstrate that you are presenting established scholarly viewpoints and not original research. It's no good mentioning the sources on my talk page. Readers won't find them here. They must go into the article. ☺ Uncle G 21:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Alkhemi and Aladin

Hi, back in October05 you participated in the deletion-discussion about a company called Alkhemi ([1]), which was subsequently deleted with your vote. Now the same deletion question is posed for another article about the man behind Alkhemi, a magician who calls himself Aladin. Despite being a truly bad article (extremely biased, outrages claims are made, and the sources used to back up those claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets that are blown up out of proportion to make the subject sound like the second coming of the christ), the vote is so far flooded with "keep" votes, which might be because of dozens of sockpuppets, so I'd like to invite you to add your vote about this matter to tip the balance. The vote is here. Thank you :-) Peter S. 21:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taint

Thought you might be interested in this one, thanks/wangi 13:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Home and Away

Hi, you have made a comment on the afd for various Home&Away character articles. I have had a go at combining all the articles in a single article (which I admit still needs a lot of work). You can find it at Current Home and Away characters. I suggest we keep this article are either delete or re-direct the others. What do you think? Thanks, Evil Eye 13:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Today

I've redirected this page to the main AFC talk page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation. Could you get your bot to stop moving the talk along with the project page, so the redirect stays intact? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've added the requisite flag. The next run will be the test. Uncle G 14:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem to have worked, the link is dead again. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Scratch that. Don't know what I was looking at. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Cyberslacking

I notice that you changed Cyberslacking's stub tag back for a second time from {{Vocab-stub}} to {{stub}}. You may or may not be aware that the {{stub}} tag is deprecated and we at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting are trying to have less articles in the category, not more. If you disagree with a stub's classification, might I respectfully ask that you find a more appropriate stub type and change it, rather than simply reverting back to {{stub}}.

I have taken what I consider the easiest way to resolve the problem and have expanded the article so that it no longer needs a stub tag. Stifle 10:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I find it most ironic that the stub sorters who ask me to find appropriate stub categories are the ones who have come here because they aren't in fact doing that themselves in the first place. Stub sorters who don't understand stub sorting keep explaining the goal is for Category:Stubs to be empty and for {{stub}} to be deprecated. That is not the actual goal of stub sorting. Ironically, the goal is to avoid doing the very thing that you are doing by sorting into {{vocab-stub}} in the way that you are. I'm putting the tag back to {{stub}} in part to encourage you to do your stub sorting properly, instead of regarding {{vocab-stub}} as some sort of miscellany, which it isn't. There is only one miscellany in the stub sorting project. See User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2006-01-01#vocab-stubs, and indeed the talk page of the stub sorting project itself. Uncle G 13:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Freddy

There's no such word in Wikitionary. I can't see the point why you insist on adding it into the article. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's standard practice for name disambiguation articles. And that there's no dictionary article now doesn't mean that there won't be an article in the future. Rather than remove the link, which is a step backwards instead of forwards, simply start the article that you are complaining is missing. See Benedict for what you should be aiming for. Uncle G 16:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

moved page: User:Nesbear

You moved a misplaced talk comment from this page to the talk page using the move page function. When you do this, it automatically creates a redirect at the old name. I have fixed this problem for User:Nesbear, but you may wish to go back and see if you have inadvertently done this elsewhere. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 04:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I know what moving a page does, thanks. I've done it a few times, now. ☺ There wasn't actually a problem to be fixed. I left it entirely up to Nesbear as to what to do with xyr user page. Xe could have edited out the redirect, left it as it stood, or asked for the page to be speedily deleted. I did not make that decision for xem. Uncle G 04:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, when I made the original comment I hadn't really noted who you were, namely a seasoned editor and admin. When I said "for User:Nesbear" I was referring to the page, not the user. I agree that xe should be free to modify xyr own page as xe see fit, however xe is a new user and might have trouble understanding the redirect or why it appears on xyr user page and no one else's. That's why I changed it. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 05:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Taint

I have expanded upon the taint article and think it is now much more than a dictonary def. Please take a look and let me know if you'll reconsider your vote to delete.--Cenestrad 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Do what exactly?

Sorry, must've assumed I knew how to do something I didn't Can you rell me what I shoudl do slightly mroe slowly? Thanks. The Land 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Don't close the existing AFD discussions and then start new ones. Simply re-transclude the existing discussions, leaving them open, onto today's per-day page. Uncle G 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. Got ya. Thanks!! The Land 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonderfool revisited

So what if I'm Wonderfool? I've admitted all my nihilartikels (OK, to be fair, I misused the word nihilartikel - what I meant was "articles that I thought don't warrant an entry in Wikipedia". So all should be cleared to have me reinstated now. And I've apologized alreadt too. In various pages under various names. But I'd like to stay put and NOT be banned please, otherwise I'll only just get another username and edit anyway. Cheers Uncle. --Wonderfool 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm the wrong person to be addressing your request to. The Arbitration Committee and Jimbo make the decisions about who is banned or not. Please talk to them directly. Uncle G 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No worries anyway, the blocks don't last so long. Next time I get a new username (sockpuppet, whatever), I'll just not make it associated with Wonderfool. But that'll be a bitch --Doofordoo 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

MOSDAB

Before you revert Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) yet again, would you mind coming to the talk page and discussing the change? Several editors now question your contention that that page and the guide to writing better articles are in conflict at all. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Then I can only surmise that they haven't read the pages. It is plain that the two pages are in conflict. One says to use "refers to" and the other says not to use "refers to". The conflict couldn't be clearer. Uncle G 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The appropriate talk page seems a much better place than here to explain your argument. I, for one, don't see the applicability of an article writing guide to disambiguation pages as beyond question, though I agree with you about consistency, and the basic semantic principle of using "is" over "refers to". -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Dismabiguation articles are articles, too. And I explained my argument four months ago, on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#.22refers_to.22. Uncle G 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Western Journalism Center

I can't believe you beat me to creating this one! We should have more anons citing like that. Could you please make sure to include the IP of the suggester in your edit summary with your next creation (last time I checked it was a requirement to attribute the suggestion as to comply with the GFDL). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• That was lax of me, yes. Uncle G 09:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource

Hi you tagged four articles for deltion over at WS without making an entry on s:Wikisource:Proposed deletions. They were some tables of astronomical data. The author (I assume) of the articles left message on propsosed deltions about wanting the deletion tag removed, but I'm not even sure why you tagged them. Please enlighten me!--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• The reason is given in the parameter to the template. Uncle G 23:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I found it! Just so you know that template doesn't display parameters. I could only see your reason by going to the edit screen. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

VFD

Is the mention of the previous vfd on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision fetish (second nomination) that you added a subst:'d template? And which one?

• Are you talking about the link to the prior AFD discussion that I added at the top? That's not a template. I type those in longhand. ☺ Uncle G 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. Thank you. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 17:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh (censored)

Heya, I really apologise for this. I was using GodMode Light. I am aware that it makes < into what even it may be in those numbers. If you could tell me how to fix this, I would appreciate it. I was not trying to damage the Wikipedia, I mean one of my aims is to protect it from vandals. Then I go and accidently vandalise it myself. Sorry. ComputerJoe 16:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• No worries. Just fix the tool. Your best bet for fixing it is its author, rather than me. Uncle G 16:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

REVERTER

Why did you revert my edits? 68.77.139.51 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since as far as I can tell I haven't reverted any of your edits, your question is a loaded question that takes a falsehood as its premise, and is thus unanswerable. Mu. Uncle G 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

is there any time wikipedia should be considered a dictionary???

Uncle G you seem to be abit unclear to me in your oppinions, I noticed you took out satanic as per my concerns, but you left in police academy. I am not sure why this is. Do you believe there are certain times when its okay for wikipedia to act as a dictionary or not? You seem abit unclear in this matter, and I am curious as to your reasoning.

• satanic was a dictionary article about the adjective satanic. police academy is an encyclopaedia article about police academies. The second sentence of police academy tells readers about who sometimes runs police academies, for example. It's a short article, but "short article" and "dictionary article" are not synonymous. A dictionary article about the phrase "police academy" would tell readers about the etymology, pronunciation, translations, alternative spellings, inflections, relations, and usages of the phrase, and wouldn't be about police academies themselves. Some editors conflate "stub encyclopaedia article" and "stub dictionary article", because they are very similar (but not quite identical) in appearance. (Some editors conflate stub dictionary articles with full dictionary articles, too.) But an encyclopaedia article and a dictionary article are two different things. See use-mention distinction and encyclopaedic dictionary. (Ignore the part in the latter that conflates stub dictionary articles with full dictionary articles. Full dictionary articles are not short.) Uncle G 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

take a bad "taint"...and make it better

Im curious to know weather you have any plans to improve upon the taint article that seems to have irritated you in its present form. Perhaps you can add some more facts or a few sentences such as"many people find the taint erotic" (Im sure you can improve on this) similar to the police academy article makeing this more acceptable to you and giving us all a much stronger taint in the process. It would seem logical to try and improve that which hasnt been destroyed. 12:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

comment move from user page

I noticed this edit on you user page, which if at all, should have been made to this page. --Alf ^melmac 18:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Katherinejohnson

With very much due respect, and no attack meant; your block of Katherinejohnson was premature. I was trying to work with her and bring her around to understanding the Wiki way, while holding out the possibility that I would block her if her actions kept up. Your block undermined that effort. 24 hours is also a bit long for a first time block in this case. I will not undo your block; I don't engage in wheel wars. But, I would ask you to consider whether you think your block was incorrect or not, and take appropriate action if needed. If you do decide to unblock or reduce the block, an apology to Katherinejohnson might be in order. Thank you for your consideration. --Durin 18:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't undermine your effort to talk to xem. You can still communicate, and indeed are communicating, with xem on xyr talk page during that time. From Wikipedia:Blocking policy: For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, Uncle G 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What does it contribute to the project to block this person when diplomacy is ongoing? In my opinion, it just serves to upset the user. Again, I encourage you to undo the block. --Durin 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It prevents AFD discussions from continually being blanked whilst you talk to the user, which is what was happening up until that point. Uncle G 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Noting Wikipedia:Blocking policy, "However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner." and "Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism." This user was coming around, if slowly. I've been working to do so and I think I'm making progress. To come along and slap a block on her while this is ongoing, especially without a warning on your part, really undermined my efforts. If you had placed a warning, I could have sent you a message letting you know what was happening. The situation was under control; if she kept on doing what she was doing I would have blocked her myself. But, after my last warning, she stopped. --Durin 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I gave the user a very clear warning, some several hours ago. Xe read it and blanked it. Check the history of xyr talk page. I noted that the user had been warned multiple times in the block summary. I also pointed out the two blankings that xe performed after that warning in the explanation for the block that I gave to the user. That, too, was read and blanked. Uncle G 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And the user has made good faith attempts at trying to add content to Wikipedia. And, I was working with the user to bring her around to the wiki-way. Blocking her while this was happening was undermining of my efforts. I would have hoped you would have read what I was doing before blocking her. Read her talk page now. She IS coming around. Blocking her didn't help matters; it made it worse. --Durin 18:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • It is you who didn't read what other editors had been doing beforehand. This user had already been asked to stop blanking pages by several editors, hours before your first edit to xyr talk page. Again, check the history of xyr talk page. Not only have you not checked the history of the user's talk page, you have not even checked the user's contributions history. None of the user's edits following my warning were "good faith attempts at trying to add content to Wikipedia". The user made no such contributions. All of the user's edits to article space and to AFD after being warned not to remove AFD notices and to blank pages, because continuing to do so will result in a block, have been to remove AFD notices and to blank pages. (one example). The user continued. A block resulted, as was warned. Uncle G 19:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Obviously we are going to disagree with this. I did check the user's history, and in fact undid some the vandalism they were doing. I checked into this at the request of Cyde by way of IRC. I was working with the user, trying to turn them around. This effort has been yielding some benefits. You and I apparently disagree with the approach to newbies. You'd rather stomp on them for failure to follow policy, and I would rather work with them until they prove they can't be worked with. I have known good editors who have started wikilife as straight vandals. This user isn't even a straight vandal, but a person trying to make contributions to the project who just doesn't understand how things work around here. Read her talk page now. Do you really, honestly, truthfully think this person is a straight vandal? Do you really think a 24 hour block is having a positive effect on the project and this person? I realize the former is more important than the latter, but let's remember this project works because volunteers contribute, so how we handle people is important as well. Stomping on them when they are trying to contribute isn't productive. You apparently think it is. You're within the bounds of policy to think that and act as you did. I was just hoping for more consideration of what was going on at the moment than a simple block. --Durin 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
            • If you had checked the contributions history, you would not have described it as "good faith attempts at trying to add content to Wikipedia" as you did. And no, this is not "stomping upon newbies" as you describe it, either. This is several editors asking the user several times not to do something, culminating in a warning that continuing to do it will result in a block that will prevent the user from participating in an important discussion, and then blocking when the user even then continues regardless. Your characterizations of both my and other editors' actions and the user's actions are highly erroneous. Uncle G 19:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
              • So, her creating articles on some movies and a director is straight vandalism then? Is that the lesson you'd like to have conveyed from this? Again, please see her talk page now. She IS coming around. Blocking her has done nothing to help. The point of blocks is to prevent further damage to the project. It isn't intended to be punitive against people. I do, however, understand your position. There are plenty of people who have and will do just as you have done in your position. I just find it unfortunate that some would take the action of blocking her when there was ongoing discussion on bringing her around. The project works by fostering people along. You too made your first edit once upon a time. You didn't know everything then either. She's a newbie. She doesn't understand how the wiki works...yet...but she's learning. She had the erroneous idea that articles she writes belong to her. I've been educating her out of that, and I think she understands that now. --Durin 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Your characterizations continue to be erroneous, and now you are creating straw men and teaching your grandmother to suck eggs, too. Preventing further damage to the project whilst you talk to the user is exactly what is happening here. Not only have you not read the user's talk page history and contributions history, you haven't even read what I wrote right at the top of this very discussion. Uncle G 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • Obviously this discussion is over. Sorry I bothered you. --Durin 16:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

copyright problems problems

Please check what your bot is doing to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings note this history where it has done Jan 11 twice. -- RHaworth 08:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I had already spotted that it did January the 11th twice last run. I'm still trying to find out why. I suspect clock drift and a race condition with the NTP client. I thought that I'd caught and manually corrected all of the mistakes. Uncle G 16:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

TAINT no mountain tall enough

I was curious as to weather you were intending to add to what (in my oppinion) has become a fantastic article on the taint. I noticed that wangi had and was hoping that you might take a note from his book and help to make an article that you once opposed into one that is quite informative. I have tried to add things myself, but am not really smart enough to get the idea. A couple ideas I have that you can use (should you wish to put the past behind us and work together) would be adding that it the word is actually a double counjuntion between a pronoun and the already slang word "ain't" (combining am and not). Or for abit of insight as to the duration of the word you could research on the phrase boston irish gamblers would use concerning the belief that scotsmen brought bad luck to a poker table coined "the smell of his scottish taint" or "the smell of the scotsmens taint". My grandmother and great uncle mentioned the term but I havent found any info to support it, and thought that since you have such a wealth of knowledge perhaps you might know, or be able to find, more. thanking you in advance Pickelbarrel 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belizean Kriol language

Uh-oh. I'm sorry about that. I misunderstood from the request that the content AND history had already been merged. I checked the Talk page for any controvery about the move, but I wastn't thinking properly about the history. Looking back on it, I should have realized the history was still there. Thanks for your note, I'll try to be more careful. Johntex\^talk 20:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• No worries. I've undeleted and fixed up the history. Uncle G 21:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Rose Society (website)

My apologies, but I do not know what you are talking about. I never said such a thing. -MegamanZero|Talk 04:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Please register your vote by typing in [...] please limit discussion to the discussion subsection of this voting area". New editors thinking that there is a vote, and a ballot to be stuffed, is exactly what we don't want. Conversely, discussion — rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines — is what we do want. Uncle G 06:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that. Indeed. Regarding that, I'm sure you were aware of the edit warring and constant bickering going on, and that template set the ground rules out nicely. As per the Admin noticeboard, things had gotten out of hand, and making a clear distinction between what goes on an what doesn't go on in a AFD is noted. Also take into consideration, that anon users almost never come in at random and participate in conflicts such as this on a AFD discussion page. Although I did assume good faith and decided to think better, the notice worked out nicely, and the AFD is going smoothly. I see your point of course, but this is a rare situation, and it needed to be done. -MegamanZero|Talk 15:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Help:Starting a new page

Thanks for your quick and succinct answer. I am still very much a newbie. —>normxxx_talk—> email 06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

TAINTED LOVE

UNCLE, Ive noticed that you still havent responded to my last message and while Im sure its not your intent, Im starting to wonder if you arent disregarding me as a newbie thats not worth wasting your time with. I hope this is not the case. If you do not wish to add to the taint article because of time constaints or other business at hand I can truely understand this, or if you are busy looking into ways that you may take ideas and add on to the article I am elated that you have choosen to do so, but as it stands I am not sure weather I should work with you or move on and try to do it myself. I am not nearly as good at fact finding as I assume you are, so I thought this would be a great way to "shake hands" after a great debate and work together. We live in a model of democracyand I feel its important to focus on the positive roles that brings along with it. The very fact that we both can type on computors and have the time to discuss such an article makes us in a better position than much of the worlds population, but its important to keeep democracy strong by working together even when we initally disagreed. It is only by working together that we can make our ourselvews grow. Heres hoping you will "get on board" Pickelbarrel 15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day

After I stopped laughing I instantly knew I had to seek out and personally thank the creator of that brilliant prose. So yeah...thank you for making me laugh so hard. It should be a WP:CSD. -- Krash 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Great Taint Debate

A friend of mine e-mailed me somthing called the great taint debate. I have to say it was pretty funny but I am not sure on one of your point. Is wikipedia a dictonary? I can't really tell from what you have written.--Pamento 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)--Pamento 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Uncle G, I've just got to smile at the attention you're getting! ;)/wangi 22:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

wiktionary vs wiktionarypar

What's the benefit of wiktionarypar over wiktionary? (I just wanna learn.) Ewlyahoocom 01:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The former doesn't require parameter defaulting, since it is always used with a parameter, and doesn't create such a great server load, since it doesn't invoke the search function whenever a reader follows an interwiki link. Uncle G 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation

Why are the submissions from yesterday still on the main page? Isn't it supposed to be cleared with each archiving? I've also made changes to the archived page, so I don't think you can overwrite it with a move now. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, I found the problem. The first line was a stray redirect which hid all the following submissions. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. The final edit of the process, to blank the redirect, didn't take. The 'bot is subject to the same general editing problems (such as server timeouts and server error messages) as everyone else is, and doesn't retry edits if they fail. Uncle G 00:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yellowikis

Article Yellowikis is up for deletion (again). I noticed the article used to state An automated software robot called "Uncle G's bot" transwikis companies -- are you involved in Yellowikis? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 22:04Z

• That text used to link to User talk:Uncle G's 'bot, too. (It shouldn't have, of course, and the linkage was rightly removed.) Uncle G 04:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am really not impressed with the way that you chose to communicate on this AfD. If you'd have been clear and concise from the beginning, you could have saved us both a fair amount of time. I was wrong about the amount of resources that this consumes. I don't know if I touched some kind of nerve, but what was stopping you from just explaining how I was wrong as opposed to playing games? You could have simply said, "as this bot runs on my machine, it only takes the same tiny amount of resources that a normal editor does, and it has made only 2000 edits overall anyway." Then I could have said, "Oh, ok. My mistake. Sorry about that." Instead you chose to be cryptic and smarmy, and draw this out interminably. Anytime you have to use the word "hint" you're probably more concerned about scoring points than actually communicating. - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't playing games, I was being gentle. I hinted because you're an editor of long standing and I thought that you thus knew how 'bots worked, and had simply forgotten and needed only a small nudge to remember. I also thought that you'd read the article being discussed and therefore knew that it was my 'bot, and thus would put 2 and 2 together when it was me doing the asking. Ironically, storming in and saying something like "Brenneman, you're entirely wrong and don't know the first thing about what you're saying. I do the grunt work; it's my 'bot; and I pay for the machines that it runs on and the Internet bandwidth that it uses, thank you very much.", which is the sort of response that you appear to have actually wanted, is not gentle. Uncle G 23:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Oy vey. You won't underestimate my WP:DENSEity again, will you? No tone of voice in text, and a large part of my suprise and dismay was that it seemed so out of character for you. I was actually thinking of edits themselves, disk space etc. I didn't express that well, and once I checked it's a low-use bot, and it was a tiny aside anyway! Thank you for your graceful reply, sorry to have diverted your resources to straightening me out. ;)
        brenneman^(t)(c) 02:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No tone of voice in text — No. And some people's web browsers don't display the smiley faces (Vide: ☺). Uncle G 04:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

ALL WE ARE SAYING ... IS GIVE TAINT A CHANCE

Hey Uncle I found this on the web.

http://www.blowupthemoon.com/samples/showphoto.php?photo=34&password=&sort=1&cat=998&page=1

I was thinking we could possibly add it to the taint article if you think it might be appropriate. It has David Cross on vocals and we could add a link to it at the bottom of the page. I still believe that if we work together we might be able to get a taint we both enjoy. Pickelbarrel 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Taint -n- Roses

Hey Uncle G I want to appologize for this pamento character that comes traipsin in here and actin like AN ENOURMOUS JERK!!!! That is not how People should act. Anyway I added the link to taint mansion as it seems that you were to busy at the moment to respond else you didnt think it important enough(I keep hoping that this is not the case, I try to believe the best in people, but am sometimes dissappointed) anyway I hope you enjoy it. Whoever would have thought that a simple discussion over a seemingly insignifigant article would have me keeping in touch with you for so long. The internet is a weird weird place. I guess that even though we were on opposing sides of the taint article I respected the passion for which you fought for your beliefs. We are kindred spirits you and I, who are only seperated my our love our dislike of the word taint. I am desperately trig to close that gap. Please dont shut me out uncle, we are both strong personalities and I think there is so much we can accomplish togetherPickelbarrel 19:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

M96 motorway AFD

I took a look through the Walton Summit motorway AFD, as you suggested - in fact, I remember being aware of it at the time (but indifferent to its resolution). Both do use Pathetic Motorways as a source. I'm not disputing Pathetic Motorways as a decent source - I like the website actually, and plan to contribute to it at some point - it's just it included these motorways and an objective encyclopedia probably shouldn't.

There are many differences, too. Unlike Walton Summit, the M96 really isn't a motorway in a any sense - not on the defintion that all real motorway articles use. The DfT don't run it, it carries zero traffic, it's not connected to the road network, it's not open to the public, it's only got a number for completeness. Walton Summit is the other way round; it's a real motorway without a number.

The main reason I don't think the article is useful in its present form is that people see it and think it's a real motorway. It's on List of motorways in the United Kingdom and in Category:Motorways in the United Kingdom. It doesn't belong in either of those. Seeing that the Fire Service College article is now up and running, that's where it belongs, IMHO. Erath 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is it okay to use letter written from the trenches as a source when writing a wikipedia article. For example I assume that you could use published letters to verify an oppinion of soldiers during a war, but could you use it as a verifiable source for facts? Like when published civil war letters state that they are employeeing snipers at a certain battle, would said letter be enough to site it as a fact, or do you need further proof. Also If the letters ARE NOT published can you use them to show oppinions of soldiers during war. For example if I have possesion of several letters from the civil war stating that soldiers from the war stated that they dont believe the "fredom of a few nigers" is worth the war, can I thereby state that not all soldiers of the north even agreed with the abolishment of slavery. Any info or direction you can point me to might help.

• If the letters are not published, then the answer is simple: Readers cannot read unpublished letters to verify article content. For the case where the letters are published, you are better off putting this question to a wider audience at the Wikipedia:Village Pump. Uncle G 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • thanks for the helpPickelbarrel 09:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

!

I don't know where you are from but in the U.S.A. when we have a problem with someone we come to that person our selves. We don't send some lap dog cronie to do our dirty work for us. So you and 'Dickelbarrel can both just shut up!--Pamento 01:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you are talking about. Uncle G 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've just read your talk page. Now I have. Uncle G 03:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey pamento maybe you didnt realize, but Uncle G is an administrator so if you want to have fun on wikipedia you should TRY to show just a little bit of respect, and not act as if you were the worlds biggest jerk. It just makes you look foolish, and nobody in here thinks your clever for doing it...esspecially me or Uncle. We try to stay away from people who are jerks. If you want to act like an adult your welcome to respond, otherwise Im sure uncle would appreciate it if you moved to a different page!!!Pickelbarrel 09:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Two things. First: The only thing special about administrators is that we have earned the trust of the community to wield some of the more powerful editing tools on the community's behalf. Otherwise, we are editors just like everyone else. We are more "trusties" than "administrators". Second: Everyone here should be treated in a civil manner. Administrators are not special in that regard, either. ☺ Uncle G 09:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

template:wiktionary

What is the deal? I made a change which allows us to eliminate the need for a couple templates. The wiki syntax now allows parameter defaults. I tested the changes, and they worked. -- Netoholic @ 08:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Template:Wiktionary is the template that should be eliminated. See Template talk:Wiktionary, where this has been discussed before. Uncle G 08:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Wiktionary" is the more natural name, and it's been here longer. It now uses three "modes" that each work very well for their purpose. If the plain {{wiktionary}} call doesn't suit your needs, add a second or third parameter and it works better than the present wiktionarypar. The talk on that page was about the wiktionarypar# templates, not this subject. -- Netoholic @ 08:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The talk on that page was about the wiktionarypar# templates, not this subject. — This subject is {{wiktionarypar}}. You came here because I reverted your redirection of Template:Wiktionarypar. You've just redirected it again. Please do not go back to your old habit of revert warring in the template namespace. Uncle G 08:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • LOL. You reverted, without any explanation. You couldn't have contacted me like I did you? I made contact, and then made a single revert. It's only a revert "war" if you revert more than once, and you're the only on warring here. Any discussion on that talk page is outdated because the functions of Wiktionary are totally different than they were back in what, July of last year. In fact, your talk of eliminating that template was even before I changed it to use the Search function. Wiktionary is the original, has a lot of info on the talk, and a more natural name for the function. It should stay, replacing wiktionarypar. -- Netoholic @ 08:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • It's disingenous to claim no knowledge of the reasons. I've already pointed you to the talk page where this matter was discussed at length (you were there) months ago, right at the top of this discussion. the functions of Wiktionary are totally different — You've put bells and whistles on a useless template, and the discussion of eliminating the template included your addition of the Search function (which made the template worse, not better) as can be clearly seen by reading the discussion. We have a plan. It's slowly being implemented. You are fiddling with a template that simply isn't needed. Which template is the original or the older is irrelevant. Uncle G 09:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Wiktionarypar was split from wiktionary only due to technical limitations that no longer exist. A redirect would have been harmless requiring no additional work on anyone's part. If you are going to force the issue, there is never a reason to have duplication in the template space, and keeping the original over the fork has lots of precedent on TFD. Why you're fighting over such a silly thing is beyond me. -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
            • The redirect was the wrong way around. If you want to redirect things, work with the consensus of other editors and redirect Template:Wiktionary, the template that consensus is to stop using. Its disingenuous to state that this is me fighting over a silly thing, by the way. I've been happily implementing the consensus for six months, without anyone fighting, slowly changing everything over in the way that several editors independently thought was best, and suddenly you redirect the template twice and then nominate it for deletion when you didn't get your way, all within a few hours. Uncle G 09:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Uh-oh, you called out the dreaded c- word (consensus). I don't agree that there was consensus in July, except as to wiktionarypar2/3, and there certainly is none right now, since this change only went into effect today. In my experience, if there ever is consensus, there is never a reason to say there is consensus... it just... is. I'm done with this thread. -- Netoholic @ 09:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
                • I did, because there was (and, as I suspect the TFD discussion will amply demonstrate, still is). You are a sole dissenter. The only change to Template:Wiktionarypar that "went into effect" today was your redirection of it. Uncle G 09:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mass-movery

Hi, yes this would be a one-time mass move, as it reflects a change in convention that a number of active parties in the topic area have agreed to. All we need now is the means to do it, and I don't currently have the time to devote to building a custom bot from the ground up.

In a nutshell, we want to move all "Area code XXX" arts to "Area code 1-XXX", retaining redirects. Can you help? -Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. But you need to agree that that is what you want to do. There seems to be disagreement. Uncle G 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Put your dog on a leash

uncle G you need to put your dog dickelbarrel on a leash. I am new to Wikipedia so I dont know what an administrators powers are but so far I am not impressed. So tell your life partner to stay the hell off my page as I am sick of his behavior. I really don't know much about you so I'll tell you somthing about me; Where I am from (the U.S.A.) we do our own fighting and don't hide behide some smart-ass. So for the last time leave me the hell alone.--Pamento 19:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• well if you weren't so busy acting like you want to becomeTHE BIGGEST JERK EVER maybe you WOULD be impressed with everything that UncleG does. For your information UncleG has never asked me to do his fighting for him, and I only CHOOSE to ask you shut off your comments out of the mutual admiration we have for each other. before you go get carried away, I am honor bound to warn you that I am a student of Joyce Gracie ju jitsu so dont feel like your threatening me. Perhaps you should go out and get a girlfriend, so you wont feel you need to come into someone else talk page and pretend to be Mr. Cool. My girlfriend is a stripper and perhaps she could introduce you to some of her friends if you arent too concerned with becoming THE BIGGEST JERK IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!! Otherwise you can go run along and play somewhere else little boy. UncleG and I have more important things to talk aboutPickelbarrel 20:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all it's Royce Gracie. And it seems to me you need to be a student of the spellcheck JACKASS. As far as your "girlfriend" being a stripper I'm glad Uncle G has a job but I really don't care. And I can tell you right now I am not interested in meeting any of your friends so leave me the hell alone.--Pamento 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this now, the both of you. Uncle G 20:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem Solved

I'm pretty sure we wont have to worry about pamento coming in here and causing a commotion anymore. I had thought about writing an article on panty waste and advising readers to see him, but I realized that you probably wouldnt want me to stoop to his level of the game, so I took the high road instead. I politely let him know that his behavior is not appreciated, and that there are administrators that probably arent going to tolerate it. I let him know that I was willing to put this in the past if he just appologizes and keeps from vandalizing your page in the future. I think that if we just give him a chance redeam himself, he'll probably realize that his behaviour was making him look like The King Of Jerkiness and decide its better to just say hes sorry. If he doesnt, well we will know that at least we tried to give him a chance. Anyways I appreciate your cool head in these matters...I really shouldn't allow people like that to get me so worked up, and was VERY impressed with your ability to keep a cool head. Have you ever studied ju jitsu? I think you have just the right mentality for it. thanks again Adminisrator UncleGPickelbarrel 08:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I am getting mighty sick of this slander. You have not scared me or chased me off. If you think you can send me packing maybe you don't know I am a real AMERICAN not some wishy-washy lieberal and these colors don't run! In case you forgot there was a guy named Sadam who sent his lap dog Ossama to bite the heels of America. I guess you know what happened to them. I have been in contact with a user named Dan and he has informed me that what you are doing is a blockable offence. He also told me he has a close personal friend who is an Administrator and he is going to have him look into this nonsense. So I am going to say it one more time, you and Dickelbarrel LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE! --Pamento 23:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Chav

Nice! chocolateboy 17:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that, while wonderful, those references are very noisy in the wikitext. Wouldn't they be easier to maintain and edit if they adopted the {{ref|foo}} and {{note|foo}} style á la Pikey? Also, I tried to add another reference to the BBC News article "Media student 'expert on chavs'", and was surprised to see that a whole new reference was added. I guess there's a way to avoid that, but the aforementioned reference style does the right thing automatically.

chocolateboy 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• One way to avoid it is to simply use <ref>''ibid''</ref> or some such construction. This is the first time that I've used <ref>. The previous time that I added references to the article I used the style that you mentioned. ☺ Uncle G 18:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That works for the example you've added, but doesn't appear to work for the "social mobility" case, where the reference is not to the same (i.e. previous) source. I'm too lazy to perform any changes now, but would you object if, at some probably-not-gonna-happen time, I tried to remix those references in the abovementioned style? I love the fact that you've made it clear that the article is heavily referenced, but I'm not a huge fan of line noise in the wikitext.

chocolateboy 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've just read the documentation for <ref> on Meta (m:Cite/Cite.php). It turns out that the creators realized that situations such as these would arise and built a solution in to the mechanism. Uncle G 19:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope that style doesn't stick, for the reason I mentioned. I know that there are lots of different ref styles and that it's an issue that is in flux. But for now, let's agree to agree :-)

chocolateboy 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

question about becoming an administrator.

Administrator UncleG I was curious to know how you became an administrator. I have to admit I was pretty pleased with the way we convinced pamento to stop vandalizing your homepage, and I was thinking that I could probably do more good if I were to become an administrator. I would be willing to go through any formal training that might be needed. Not to toot my own horn, but I am an amazingly quick learner, and I think that this wikipedia stuff is coming pretty naturally to me(although I must admit that you have helped steer me in the right direction). Any additional help you can give me to help me earn my "badge" would be greatly appreciatedPickelbarrel 08:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Administrators are simply editors that the community trusts to wield certain powerful tools (such as page protection and page deletion) upon its behalf. Edit articles well for a number of months, to demonstrate that you can be trusted and that you understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You may actually find that you have no interest in the sort of tasks that are entrusted to administrators. Uncle G 13:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Of coarse you are correct Administrator UncleG. I hope I wasnt impling that I was as knowledgable as you, It's just that I seem to have a gift for this sort of thing, and I think these powerful tools might help me police these pages even better. I have already spotted several pages where the article wasn't enough to warrrent a wikipedia entry, and I also helped to fight and keep the taint(slang) article. I completed an article on Smashed Gladys and then finally you and I rid wikipedia of that pest pamento. That is when I started to get a little bit of a taste for the kind of power that can go along with being an administrator, and truthfully ridding these sites of unwanted vandals is mostly what I hope to do as an administrator. May I ask you how long it took you before you recieved the title Administrator UncleG? Pickelbarrel 15:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If G will forgive me for butting in, I believe on Wikipedia as in most other areas of the Internet, being an administrator is more about procedure than power. Whilst Admins have the ability to speedy delete articles and the like, it is very rarely done and the majority of cases still have to flow through afd. I would estimate it is a similar procedure with banning disruptive members of WP; you can do it but ultimately you still should follow the established procedures. Being an Admin on wikipedia is largely from what I've seen, about setting an example and helping people out with template useage, or article presentation, rather than bringing the law to the unlawful. And as I've seen lately, in such cases where a user is being disruptive, the presence of an Admin saying 'don't do that' often does little more than a user saying 'you shouldn't do that,' indeed, in some cases it merely adds oil to the blaze. From what I've seen, the best way to become an Admin is simply to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive fashion, and eventually someone will take note and say, "have you ever considered running for adminship?" It's perhaps not a fair reflection on you, but those that push for a position of power are sometimes seen as self-serving - I wouldn't consider Adminship until you've been around the block a few more times. - Hayter 17:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Suffixes

Hi UncleG. I notice you've been doing some removal of redlinks on the suffix page by linking them to Wiktionary articles, which seems sensible; however in parallel you are also changing some bluelinks to Wikipedia articles to point to their Wiktionary equivalent. If the Wikipedia article isn't too hot or is a deletion candidate, this seems sensible, but some of the Wikipedia articles are miles better than the Wiktionary ones, so this link-changing seems somewhat peculiar. Were you just having a confused moment, or is there some logical reasoning here? Thanks SP-KP 17:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• If the Wiktionary articles are poor, improve them. In most cases the reverse is in fact the case. Compare Wikipedia's -ist (which is just a bare list of words) with Wiktionary's -ist, for example. (Improving the Wikipedia article is a waste of effort and needless duplication. There is no reason to write dictionary ariticles in Wikipedia.) Furthermore, most of the content in the Wikipedia articles belongs in a dictionary. See numerical prefix (to which all of the numerical prefixes redirect, notice) for what we should be aiming for, and how to use the encyclopaedia and the dictionary in tandem. Uncle G 17:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian

Please install that template. It will prevent longer blocks, we have one other user who uses that provider. Fred Bauder 18:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You may fire when ready, G. ➥the Epopt 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Trouble in Paradise

Perhaps we got ahead of ourselves in celebrating the Great American Jerko's departure. Looks like our buddy pamento has decided to come back, with his Hate Speech as seen on your webpage here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_G#Problem_Solved . I went to his buddy Dans home page and found out that Dan was only fifteen years old. I think that pamento may just be a sock-puppet of dans(his attitude seems to be that of a fifteen year old). Anyway I warned him that you and I had the situation under control, and not to get involved in matters that are not of his concern. I also informed him of YOUR administrative powers so that he knows we arent frightened by his claims of "knowing an administrator". Now the problem seems to be what to do about Pamento. I have given him another warning and told him that I kept statement he made on my homepage calling me "DICKelbarrel", and telling me to "eat shit" as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pickelbarrel#No_sources.2F_pamento_behaving_rudely so if you think its appropriate Im sure we could have him suspended from wiki forever for using that kind of language and uncivility (Personally I think this may be our best option as he seems to show NO remorse for his actions), but another friend of mine(Wangi) suggested that we try to just ignore him and see if he doesnt leave on his own. I am willing to go along with either of those, or if you have a better idea I am willing to go along with you on whatever it is. Just let me know what you think is bestPickelbarrel 02:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't really help matters to be calling other editors names like that. Please don't. As I said before, everybody here should be treated in a civil manner. Uncle G 05:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

great news

I recieved a message from cenestrad, and he advised that I go after dan head on, so I went to his site and as per your advice refrained from using any namecalling but told him that you and I were more or less on to his "sock puppetry" so Ill bet that we wont be hearing anymore "threats" about him getting another Administrator. I think that we have finally rid ourselves of this bother Administrator UncleG, and while I cant say that things went exactly acording to plan...I CAN chalk it up as a good learning experience that should help me in my quest to become an administrator like yourself (If I havent lost intrest after this ordeal, I think it's safe to assume that Im not gonna) Any way thanks again for your help Administrator [[Uncleg}} Im sorry about the sloppy spelling, but its awful late here, but I wanted to wait up to let you keep you informedPickelbarrel 09:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Suffixes again

Thanks for the reply above. I understand your reasoning, and where the Wikipedia page is of lower quality than the Wiktionary one, agree with you. However, I feel this is not the case for all of your changes. Have you looked at every Wikipedia article which you are replacing with a Wiktionary one? If not, I think it would be a good idea to do so, and hopefully you'll see why I'm bringing this to your attention. I see that there is a little bit of hostility from other editors over what you're doing, and I think you'd avoid this if you made this change with a little more care. All the best SP-KP 11:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

You might be interested to hear that I've informed another admin, Sam Korn of the behaviour of Pickelbarrel. In my opinion his behaviour has been wholly unnacceptable, and I am disgusted that he appears to think that you support him in his actions. Could you not set him straight? He has been acting in a manner wholly unbefitting this encyclopaedia, harassing people like Pamento in an attempt to get his own way (whatever that is? he never quite explains), and also rather using your name in vain, stating that you will back him the whole way and naming (and linking you incorrectly) in every sentence. Dan 21:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. Although I have just noticed that User: Pamento has rather risen to his bait in making attacks on your talk page... I think he could claim extenuating circumstances though. Dan 21:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have already asked both of them to stop this, earlier on this very page. Uncle G 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • furthermore if you look at the history you will motice that I had COMPLETELY stopped the entire ordeal, as per Administrator UncleG's request...that is until you contacted pamento and convinced him to continue harrassing usPickelbarrel 17:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

what to do?

While I have heeded your advice(completely abstaining from anything remotely resembling namecalling), he/they doesnt/don't seem to show any signs of quitting. I keep telling them to quit and yet they continue. We could add their usenames to Wp.AIV. if yo think that would be appropriate Administrator UncleG , or there is still the "just ignore him/them tactic' that Wangi suggested, or if you want you could offer up my name to become an administrator and I could block these vandals myself. I realize that I havent really been around long enough to become an administrator by traditional standards, but perhaps I could be an adminstative policeman of sorts, where I only use my tools to rid wikipedia of vandals. Also my freind centestrad had said that he was appointed the emporer of wikipedia, and suggested that could have whatever powers I needed to handle vandals, but he recomended just ignoring them. Im really not sure exactly what this is referring to, as I cant find any direct refernce to it in Wikipedia. If you think its still too early for me to become an administrator(and I admit that I am still not familiar with alot of the terms, and havent really done enough editting as of yet), could you explain what it is he is referring to, as his definition seems somewhat convoluted anyway thanks for all the advice so far, I have become a much better editor because of you. Pickelbarrel 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC) PS here is the link to my panty waste deletion page(where they called it 'nonscence') http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=&page=:Panty_waste

thanks againPickelbarrel 12:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Read the article that Cenestrad linked to. Xe wasn't being serious. The word that you are looking for is pantywaist, by the way. Note that it is in the dictionary, not in the encyclopaedia. Please add your dictionary articles to the dictionary. Uncle G 13:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • thanks again (I went to google the term, and found info on the term as panty waste) I feel that I was able to write an article that is more than a definition, by including references to pop culture. I mentioned that the term was used in the movie MVP most vauable primate, and then labled the entry as a stub. My article was almost identical in length and information to the Zagnut article(although mine contained a link to smegma). I am asking the editor who deleted it (siting nonsence although everything I wrote was factual) to reconsider. My thought are that he probably had never heard of the term, and so choose to delete that which he had no reference to. Perhaps you can chime in with your oppinion. Thanks againPickelbarrel 14:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That an article is "more than a definition" doesn't make it an encyclopaedia article. Non-stub dictionary articles are "more than a definition", too. Non-stub dictionary articles contain pronunciations, etymologies (with references), synonyms, antonyms, homophones, alternative spellings, translations, derived and related terms, and (yes!) illustrative quotations where the word has been used in well-known works. My opinion is that a dictionary article, mis-placed here in the encyclopaedia, that has been deleted should stay deleted. Uncle G 11:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well my article contained a a bit about panty waste being used in the film MVP Most Valuable Primate, and follows the format of Zagnut almost identically(giving the definition of the term, and then showing a refernce to the term in film) however, if you still feel it should be deleted I think it only fair to allow you to chime in at its article for deletion page, where it currently is placed(its deletion was reversed by the first editor, and then redeleted by another, at which point I asked him to put it up for debate so I wouldn,t have to continue making my argument with every other editor. I hope you consider keeping this though, as Dan and Pamento are supposed to help me with it, and that might help to end this feud that has been going on. In any case it appears that we have another "taint-like" discussion on our hands.Pickelbarrel 15:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Zagnut is a (stub) encyclopaedia article about a type of candy bar, not a dictionary article about a term. It does not "show a reference to the term in a film". It shows where a zagnut bar can be seen in a film. Uncle G 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
          • so Are you saying that I should instead add the film reference to the wiktinary article? I didnt really think that it belonged there, but you are the administrator, so I will do as you say. I would like to point out though, that you incorrectly stated that I argued that the term was valid becuase it was referenced in a movie, and I would ask that you henseforth refrain from stating arguments that I did not make. What I stated was that I used the Zagnut formula almost identically, where the zagnut showed where a zagnut was used in film I did the same, the difference, of course, is that I didnt show actual panty waste, as I thought that would be inappropriate, but trather the term being used. If You think I would be better served to tell where panty waste stains can be seen in film, Im sure I could comply, but I cant imagine anyone wants that17:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
            • You made that argument above, twice. ("I feel that I was able to write an article that is more than a definition, by including references to pop culture." "my article contained a a bit about 'panty waste' being used in the film") Uncle G 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
              • I think you misunderstood what I was saying in the previous comment. It hhad notheing to do with the validity of my original argument(In fact I had stated that if you thought the film peice should stay in the wiktionary I would comply) but rather with you stating that I made arguments that I never made, I respectfully ask that you quit doing this. Again if you feel I should either link the film reference to the wikitionary article, or link a film refernce SHOWING actual panty waste to the wikipedia article I will comply with your wishes as you are an administrator. I just hope you respect my wishes of not being "made to look a fool" by you incorrectly stating arguments that I never made IE that panty waste should staybecuase it is referenced in a film...I was only demonstrating that I used the same formula that was used in the Zagnut article...there is a differencePickelbarrel 19:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
                • If you want formulae to use, look at Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. Uncle G 11:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

sysop

I'm going to try for wp:rfa, maybe. Do you reckon this is too early for me? --Dangherous 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Virgo Stellar Stream

Apologies for the confusion on the talk page: I keep getting silent edit conflicts. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• No worries. The same editor added the same link to the talk page of the Wikinews article, which wasn't derived from the AFC submission at all. Uncle G 13:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sie and Hir

Why are you removing the singular they example when the table also has singular male, female and neutral? If the table is only for the recommended use of sie and hir then there shouldn't be any of the others. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• I very clearly gave the reason in the edit summary, and in the summary before that, too. The table shows how sie and hir integrate with the sexed pronouns. It is inappropriate to add other sex-neutral pronouns, from other articles, to that table. They have their own articles, with their own tables. And Talk:Sie and hir is the appropriate place for this discussion. Uncle G 12:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but your reasons were not clear to me. If I added my disagreement to the article talk page then I don't necessarily get your attention since you reverted my edit rather than adding your thoughts to the talk page. Singular they does not include a usage table while Spivak includes singular they for comparison but not neutral so it would appear there is no consensus in three related articles and I am inclined to take an inclusionist approach. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have now also added my thoughts to the article talk page to get input from others. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's why the article's own talk page is best for these things. Who's going to see a discussion hidden away on my talk page? If I added my disagreement to the article talk page then I don't necessarily get your attention — If an article is on one's watchlist, its talk page is, too. Adding to the talk page does (or at least should) get the attention of people who have the article on their watchlists. Uncle G 12:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

did you miss me

Well it looks like you were right about the panty waste article...I never should of even triied to write that stupid article. But then I realized something, after emperor cenestrad instructed Dan, Pamento, and I to write an article together...they stopped harrasing YOU!!! Our argument had been going on for so long I had even forgot why it was I had started writing you. Now I should say that I was abit upset with you for awhile, but but then I remebered why it was I started writing you to begin with. Do you plan on adding to the taint (slang) article? I have some pretty good ideas that could help you get started. See I was told a long time ago to try and involve people who didnt get their wish with your side ot the argument, so they can grow to appreciate your side as much as you do, and to keep there from being any residule hostility from your original argument. I think that by adding to the article it would show a sign of appreciation for what the article has become. wangi has added to it, and I think he feels better about it because of this. Anyway I hope you will help out thanks Pickelbarrel 22:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is far from the first time that people have disagreed with me at AFD. Nor is it the first time that the final decision has not been what I had been arguing for during the discussion. I don't have any hostility toward people as a result. ☺ Uncle G 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • does that mean you WILL help wrk on the taint (slang) article? :) Pickelbarrel 17:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Deathphoenix's Law

Hey Uncle G, for some reason, I decided to actually put finger to keyboard and create Deathphoenix's Law for fun, pretty much as you wrote it. :-) --Deathphoenix 04:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Chuckle. Uncle G 16:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it okay for some to dedicate his home page to the fact that YOU ARE AN ASS-HOLE?

Im triing to be able to take a joke, but an entire page? It seems a bit much.Pickelbarrel 16:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Whose user page are you talking about? Uncle G 16:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • pamento's...by the way have you given any thought to my previous message?16:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I see only two sentences on User:Pamento, neither of which mention you at all. Is that the page that you are talking about? Uncle G 16:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • it's on his disscussion pagePickelbarrel 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah. User talk:Pamento. Yes, I see. That's certainly stretching the bounds of civility. Uncle G 16:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
          • The behaivor of this charcter is really quite ruthless. I told Pamento, Dan & Pickelbarrel to work on an article together so they could overcome any lingering feelings of hostlity and was completly ignored by both Pamento and Dan (unless you count Pamento vandalizng the Panty Waste article. At this point Pamento should be blocked and I think you are the man to do it. This I order for the common good. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry maam, Did I kick your dog?

I should have known that I couldn't say anything about Pickelbarrel without you butting in. Well I'll leave your lapdog be so that should make you happy. I have also changed my talk page so that should make you friggin' estatitc. Have a good life you "wonderful" person. --Pamento 23:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note (re: Weirdo magnet)

Thanks for the reminder on my talk page, I will exercise more care on the AfD pages. Per your advice I have changed my recommendation. --Hansnesse 19:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

question?????

I've noticed that pamento keeps changing his user page regardless of how many administrators give him warnings agains it. His newest article is dedicated to people who are NOT assholes(we both made the list), and I think he may have a legitimit case to say that technically he isn't saying anything uncivil about a fellow editor. This is also true about his home page referring to me as homosexual, as I do not find the fact that someone IS a homosexual to be offensive, regarless of the fact that he meant it in this way. This got me thinking...are there any rules in place to prevent an editor from writing things about another intended editor WITH REPEATED INTENTIONAL MALICE??? If not perhaps you could recomend creating such a rule, so we rid wikipedia of people whoose only intenion is to create chaos. Thank you Administrator UncleG for your time, I realize that you have had to work extra hard with me, and I appreciate itPickelbarrel 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Neurocam

Hi Uncle G. Regarding your message about policing the Neurocam article: I'm more than happy to keep a watch over it, but I'm spending less time on Wikipedia lately, due to an increased real-world workload. I'll do my best. Cnwb 22:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address

I made the same mistake -- twice -- but I began both articles today. Any additions to George W. Bush's Fifth State of the Union Address are very appreciated. Thanks. KI 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• So did the Wikinews editor whose hyperlink I followed to the wrong article in the first place. ☺ Uncle G 09:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would we not analyze the speech? Since when have we waited for newspapers to this before we do? That's like saying we shouldnt have an article on the speech until the news talks about it. KI 17:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • See our Wikipedia:No original research policy. We aren't here to create new analyses that other people haven't yet come up with outside of Wikipedia. And your simile is quite accurate. We are writing an encyclopaedia. We shouldn't cover current events until reports of them have been published. Our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy dictates that. I strongly encourage any editor who feels the urge to write about a current event that they have witnessed to go to Wikinews to write about it. That's the place for journalism and primary source material. See Wikipedia:How the Current events page works#Wikipedia_is_not_a_news_service for a detailed discussion of this. Uncle G 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • But I'm not reporting anything new. The facts are the speech itself. My analysis, very little of which can be seen as fitting into the "historical narrative" definition on WP:NOR, was primarily on the semantics of the speech. At least pointing out anaphora cant fall into original research...? Also, if you get the chance, you seem quite adept at using wikiformat for references, please fix the references on Chad-Sudan conflict with the diffs at User:KI/Temp. Thanks. KI 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I've done the first 8, to start you off. You should be able to follow the pattern from those, and deal with duplication of the prior references. Uncle G 16:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I hope I am now addressing the issue in a proper place and manner. Thank you for your link,and previous comments. As far as I can tell by your link "wikipedia is not a dicussion forum/What wikipedia is not", the link text states "please do not take discussion into articles". I thought this simply meant not to discuss in the article itself, while the area called "discussion" was an appropriate place for discussions related to the article. Since I still interpret this link that way, may I ask you to clarify what I have missed here? DanielDemaret 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not expresses our general mission to create an encyclopaedia, by describing some of the things that by general agreement an encyclopaedia is not. Everything outside of the main article namespace (and the portal namespace) is, simply put, infrastructure that is intended to support the writing of an encyclopaedia. As Wikipedia:Talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines explain, article talk pages are for discussing the writing of the related encyclopaedia article. They aren't intended to be general-purpose discussion fora for the subject itself. After all, there is no shortage of such fora outside of Wikipedia, from Usenet all of the way down to web logs. Uncle G 15:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

AFC

Actually my addition in the lead of AFC ([2]) wasn't misplaced. I created those articles yesterday (Jan 31) but forgot to add them to the list. BTW, thanks for those kind words on my talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• That wasn't what I was referring to. Look closely at what you added back. ☺ Uncle G 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Were you talking about that Susanna Siegel entry? I only added that back because I didn't notice I did. If you cut the section instead of fully reverting my addition as well, I'm sure we can avoid such a mix up in the future. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I only reverted your edit by accident. You didn't notice the Susanna Siegel text. I didn't notice the "recently created" text (when I did a diff spanning the edits made by the anonymous users). And at least I didn't use the the vandalism reversion tool to do so. That would have been worse. ☺ Uncle G 12:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Comment

I noticed you left a note on my talk page about my use of the Speedy delete note on AfDs. I would like to thank you for your information and I can assure you I will be more careful in the future. Also, if you could possibly include a link to your talk page in your signature it would probably be useful to users who wish to respond to you. Thanks again! --Nick Catalano (Talk) 09:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not gonna believe this shit

I actually got a warning for telling user:Pamento to take my name off his "people that arent an ass-hole" list. Apparently they didnt notice when pamento linked me to the panty waste site, or when he called me a homosexual(not insulting, but Im sure he meant for it to be), or when he suggested that You and I are gay lovers, or when he called me a cocksucker, but the moment I tell him to take my name of his list I'm the vandal. Weird huh. I told them that you had everything under control, so dont worry 'bout it, I just thought it ironicpickelbarrel 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it is Rhobite who has things under control. I strongly recommend following the advice that Rhobite gave. Uncle G 13:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • you are correct as usual Administrator UncleG. When I said you had things under control, I meant that you were aware of the problem with Pamento and ha choosen to keep reminding him that he should remain civil. I agree with your idea about ignoring pamento and had made the same suggestion earlier after wangi had recomended it to me. I wasnt exactly clear on your thoughts on this until now, but I will make every effort to ignore by any means nessisary from this moment forward. Thanks for all your guidamce pickelbarrel 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing Gun (name) in "Gun"

You removed "Gun (name)" in gun with this comment:

13:56, 2 February 2006 Uncle G (Wikipedia is not a dictionary of names. That's Wiktionary's job.)

So now I wonder why there is a page Sven that is exactly the same: A general first name. 81.216.230.8 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's a disambiguation article, not a page on a name. Uncle G 20:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Your bot

There is a proposed deletion of help articles added by your bot on Wikisource. s:Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Mirrored MetaWiki help pages Can you please comment there on why you set this up and whether you plan on fixing the articles as they have redlinks and non-existing templates since your bot imported them. Thank you.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Where were you?

I was expecting you to help me fight the abusive administrator who unfairly blocked with no regard to standard wikipedia guidlines. I couldnt beleive you didnt show up, but then I realized something. Why was I being blocked in the first place...for rewriting a garbage article, when the said article in No way resembled ANY other article I have written(with the exception of somewhat identical spelling), and more noteably because the administrator thought that I "Was a jerk" It certainly seems that somebody was looking for a reason to block me, and for an entire month!!!!!! But why would anyone choose to attack me? Then it occured to me...I'll bet that DS was jealous of all the attention you have given me. If you would have come to my aid it probably would have added fuel to the fire. I suppose you were confident in my ability to find a way to overturn the abusive block, but I have to tell you I felt a little abandoned out there. pickelbarrel 19:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard the news

Karmafist has been shut down. Bad news there, Im doing my best to get him reinstated, but havent had much luck so far. I may have to study under Jimbo exclusively in order to get the block lifted, and in case I do, I just wanted to thank you for all the time you have spent helping me out. I have learned alot from your wisdom. Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary and such. Ill take these lessons with me through out my life, and Im sure our path will cross again Administrator UncleG . Perhaps, with a bit of luck, at that time you will be referiing to me as Administrator Pickelbarrel. Until then fare well whereever you may fare pickelbarrel 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Belizean Kriol language

Hi, I see that on 12/jan you moved Talk:Belizean Kriol language to Talk:Belizean Kriol language/Temp. The article Belizean Kriol language is still there, though. Was that move intentional? All the best, Jorge Stolfi 21:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. Moving the article and its talk page to a temporary location was part of restoring the page history. The talk page didn't get moved back when I moved Belizean Kriol language/Temp to Belizean Kriol language. I've just done that now. Uncle G 00:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Jorge Stolfi 01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFC

AFC wasn't archived this morning. Please take that into account when labelling the archive tomorrow in the list. (I don't think you should do it later in the day). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• According to the 'bot's log, the servers failed to acknowledge the 'bot's login request. The archive is named automatically with the current date. I don't see any reason not to do the same as usual on the next run. The archive will simply have two days' worth of submissions. Uncle G 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

great morn to you Administrator UncleG

Just thought I would drop in and give shout out to my old Master. I have been learning soooo much from Jimbo, but I still remember back when you were instructing me on what to do, and no matter how important I become, I will never forget that. I have a question that you may be able to answer...Its a difficult one, and so far no one has been able to give an answer(including Jimbo). What is infinity minus infinity? I can tell you this it is not ZERO. I have another guess (one) and will explain why I think that, but I wanted to hear your answer first. anyway good luck on all your adventures...your humble ex pupil pickelbarrel 21:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Infinity#Undefined_operations Uncle G 00:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki?

Looking at Template:Move to Wiktionary I am wondering what ever happened to transwiki. Do those still go? --Connel MacKenzie 04:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Uncle G's Bot on Wikisource

Hello. Please note that the mirrored MetaWiki help pages have been nominated for deletion and probably will be deleted. If they are, please make sure that your bot does not recreate them.

Further, note that your bot regularly reverts Wikisource's sandbox to a version with a broken link. As the sandbox is naturally where new users experiment, it'd be much preferable to have a working link that points to Wikisource's help pages instead of Wikipedia's. When possible, please instruct the bot to revert to edit 96635 instead. If you wish to respond, feel free to do so here or on my talk pages. Thanks for your bot's services to Wikisource, and for any time this may require on your part. // s:Pathoschild and Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

AFC bot appears to not be updating

Hi Uncle G. I noticed that, as of this writing, the WP:AFC/T page hasn't been archived in 32 hours. I just wanted to let you know in case your bot wasn't running and you weren't aware of it. Thanks! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 08:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps You didnt realise

That I am now accepting barnstars as well...I gave you a very pretty one at the top of your page, and I was hoping that somebody might give me one as well. I think the odd ball barnstar would be great in honor of the Panty Waste article that I have redone...or an anti vandal award would look nice as well considering how hard I worked to keep that pest Pamento off your discussion page. What do you think? Just curious 205.188.116.130 15:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Government of Chad

I'm having trouble with the formatting on this... I tried to copy and pase the cabinet wikicode from George W. Bush, but it didn't work. Thanks again for providing an example on how to do references for Chadian-Sudanese conflict. KI 18:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Simon P and the Biblical verses

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV

Hello,

You may remember some while ago that you took part in a few AFDs about Bible verse articles. You were one of the main figures in some of those debates, particularly due to your suggestions for merges. A very closely related arbitration case has just been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV and you may have some evidence to contribute at the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Evidence. You might not as well, but there are a large number of articles involved here, and so bits of evidence are more than welcome since it is difficult to check the edit history of so many pages.

---Ril-00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource

I remember you mentioned you have an account on wikisource. If you get a chance, please add the "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" from here. Thanks. KI 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Man you should have seen it

I was out today giveing people warnings for blatantly using terms of endearment. Some people complained about it not bing a policy, but I already knew that wikipedia doesnt have any actual rules, only guidlines. Had I been an administrator I would have probably blocked some of these yahoos into next week. Anyway another administrator told me to basically not worry about it, so I quit, but I was thinking that even though I havent been here for three months, or made three thousand edits, I think that Im just about ready for some kind job here at wikipedia...like a policeman of sorts if there are any positions like that. Any ideas? pickelbarrel 04:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Blumpkin

The article "Blumpkin" has been listed on Articles for Deletion on the grounds that is a neologism already found in Wiktionary. You are being notified as a contributor to "Blumpkin." BrianGCrawfordMA 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:CP

Hi, I think I screwed up WP:CP in some fashion so that your bot isn't doing what it's supposed to do. I added 2/18 manually. What did I do wrong, though? Thanks. Chick Bowen 21:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userfication

I'm pitching a set of guidelines for userfication - since you've advocated that route in AfD a few times, I'd value your input. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators

Hello Uncle G, I wonder if you could help me reverse a mistake I made. While attempting to edit the Senators 'current roster', I accidently wiped it out (leaving only Ray Emery), would you restore it for me? I don't know how. Thank you GoodDay 16:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical data

Hello Uncle G! Regarding your comment at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Wikisource wants to delete all source and data and the change on the policy page about not copying astronomical data to Wikisource: does this mean that these tables should stay in Wikipedia? or moved someplace else? does it mean just ephemerides? If you have a few spare minutes please take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Astronomical catalogue to see if or how this might apply. Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 05:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please help merge articles

In relation to the following arbitration case, which is nearing completion:

• SimonP and the King James Version

And in relation to the following completed centralised discussions:

• 200 verses of Matthew
• Verses of John 20
• Whole bible chapter text

Some assistance is requested, once the arbitration case is closed, in merging together the following articles

• Matthew 1, Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25
• Matthew 2, Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23,
• Matthew 3, Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17
• Matthew 4, Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25
• Matthew 5, Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23-4, Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:35, Matthew 5:36, Matthew 5:37, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48
• Matthew 6, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:7, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:14-5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, Matthew 6:19-20, Matthew 6:21, Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:27, Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29, Matthew 6:30, Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:32, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 6:34
• Matthew 7, Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:2, Matthew 7:3, Matthew 7:4, Matthew 7:5, Matthew 7:6, Matthew 7:7, Matthew 7:8, Matthew 7:9, Matthew 7:10, Matthew 7:11, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 7:13, Matthew 7:14, Matthew 7:15
• John 20, John 20:1, John 20:2, John 20:3, John 20:4, John 20:5, John 20:6, John 20:7, John 20:8, John 20:9, John 20:10, John 20:11, John 20:12, John 20:13, John 20:14, John 20:15, John 20:16, John 20:17, John 20:18

And any other such articles that may currently exist

I have already prepared example merges of some of these articles

• Merge Example 1 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 1:1 to Matthew 1:17 -> should be merged to Genealogy of Jesus
• Merge Example 2 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 3:1 to Matthew 3:17 -> should be merged to Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (or similar title)

For titles check out List of New Testament stories (many are currently redlinks)

--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Move Bot

Can you give me source code of your move bot? I plan to move about 500 pages en another wiki, it could be very useful. Maksim-e 17:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurly-Burly and the B-bbbbbbarrell Kick

• Don't know that I've ever said 'Hi!', so Hi! <G> I've certainly enjoyed your wisdom from afar now and again in the hurly-burly.
• I kicked over the barrell boldly here in defence of guidelines, and will spam notify a few others in that debate as well.
• I wonder if you will consider dropping me an email detailing some tips on what methods you use to keep up and track all this hurly-burly, as I am daunted by discovering just how many policy proposals are on the listing category, and frankly, 'Frank' doesn't quite know how anyone gets enough WikiTime to both spend time tracking and commenting on such as well as creating things added to wikipedia, much less keeps up with all that! Shudder!

and Wow! Best regards,FrankB 17:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also What Do you Advise on this?

What would you think about the wisdom of posting a discrete link to this notice at the very page top Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals, and how do you like the concept? Something in a box saying See this New Notice (Flashing lights and sirens wouldn't be enough as far as I can see!)

• What other actions might be in order- RFC, VP, Adds at head ends of CAT:CAT and key children cats 'top down'...? The utility and desirability seems self-evident. Can't figure out why it wasn't part of the system from day one.

Sigh! Back to content edits! Best! FrankB 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• You can forget this request. I was missing info, which I've annoted there under 'Egg on Face'. <G> But please give no priority. Best regards, FrankB 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Above again, More Egg

Oops: I apparently didn't save the edit to the Category page... Here's the current note just(belatedly-system access problems) posted:

I apparently never saved out on the edit I was recommending. It should have looked like This example or when polished for presentation and organization, the current: Category:History of Canada . Apparently too many open browser windows, or the like. Thanks and Apologies FrankB 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not ill! but trusting providence, I'll say a prayer anyway as you seem clearly inactive. Perhaps I should wipe the above too? Or drop my business anyway... (Thinking positively here!)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You are missed

I notice that you have not edited on any Wikimedia project for more than 2 months. This is sad. Your work, bots, and general pleasent and helpful temprement were of great value at the projects. If you have left due to personal issues, I hope they are successfully resolved; if you left out of frustration with Wikipedia, I hope it eventually dies down enough for you to return. In any case, I wish you the best of luck in your current efforts, whatever they may be, and hope to see you back at the 'pedia some fine day. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're one of the community's most outstanding leaders, Uncle G. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Help talk:Special page formatting

I see you added a bot-updated section to Help talk:Special page, including a level-one (=) section header called "From Meta:Help talk:Special page". Was that a mistake to have it a level-one header? Because it kind of messes up the formatting of the page. It's not supposed to be an attribution for the "Meta:Help:Special page authors and history" section above it, is it? Does your bot depend on it being there as a level-one header? Because I'd like to either make it a level-two (==) header, make it a non-header, or just remove it completely, depending on its intended role on the page. - dcljr (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Disc vs. Disk

I just read (and edited) an entry by you (Volume_Boot_Record). I changed all the instances of "disc" to "disk". The "discs" kept jumping at me while reading, because the common convention is using Disc for round, bare, media like CDs, and Disk for things like hard drives and other storage devices w/ no physical discs at all (e.g., USB disks).

While reading around the topic (MBR, boot sectors, etc.) I found other "discs" by you. Are you changing it all to "disc" intentionally? If yes, why go against the norm? If no, can you use "disk" in future edits? :)

Ehudshapira 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• What you regard as "the norm" is in fact not the norm. Please learn that there is more than one variety of English in the world. A good start in doing so is reading our several articles in Category:Forms of English. Uncle G 11:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How is that about dialect? Both forms are used with the same convention in the US, UK, etc. What variety of English are you referring to? And if in my region we use "deesc", would it be a good idea to use that? It's not about different spellings but about a technological naming convention.

    BTW, the very same Wikipedia page you referred to when reverting the changes (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)) says exactly what I'm saying.

    Some Google comparisons: Searching everywhere; hard disc/hard disk = 3.8%. floppy disc/floppy disk = 7.3%. USB disc/USB disk = 2.5%. And on the other hand, compact disk/compact disc = 7.3%.

    Searching in technology-oriented sites, where presumably correct terms would be more common, you'd find that "hard disk" is much more common: theregister.co.uk (UK): hard disc/hard disk=0.4%. anandtech.com (US) hard disc/hard disk=0.5%. tomshardware.com (Germany) hard disc/hard disk=0.3%. And finally, Wikipedia itself, in all languages: hard disc/hard disk=0.5%.

    As you can see, this usage is well established. ehudshapira 00:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    • You have mis-read the MoS. Please read it again, carefully. Please also read the pages that it links to right at the top. And the convention that you claim exists is not as solid as you believe it to be. Uncle G 14:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • From the MoS page linked above: "disc – disk: In Commonwealth English, the usual spelling is disc (meaning: thin flat circular object), but in computing disk is usually used, as in Hard disk, when referring to magnetic disks. In case of optical discs, such as "compact disc", the other spelling is used".

        If there are specific parts of the MoS you're referring to, please point me to them in more detail.

        If it's not as solid as I believe, would you be so kind to provide evidence to the contrary or refute the above stats (including Wikipedia-specific ones)?

        (Note: If my initial comment seemed a bit blunt, this was not the intention.) ehudshapira 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

        • The burden is upon you to prove that there is such a convention as you claim, not on anyone else. Google search statstics don't make it so. See Wikipedia:Google test. Moreover, I say once again: Please also read the pages that the aforementioned MoS page links to right at the top. Uncle G 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

It's nice to see your name scroll through recent changes again. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing. We've seen a few good people leave recently, and so it was a pleasant surprise to see your name on my watchlist again. I hope you continue here for a while yet. :-) Dmcdevit·t 00:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• zOMG! Glad to see you back again! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

An old AfD

You commented in the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopping encylopedia. I have started an AfD of a related article at wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopperpedia. Your comments there would be appreciated. Graham talk 10:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your baby has grown up

You're back! I noticed your name on Recent changes and thought you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Basically, it's your User:Uncle G/Describe this universe, expanded, extensively reviewed by numerous editors, and now an official Wikipedia guideline! — BrianSmithson 14:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• My goodness! Well, that saves me the task of finishing the original. ☺ Uncle G 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My AFD error

Thank you for pointing out the mistake I made with the nomination (I have also replied on the articles AFD page). I revied the WP:WEB again and relised that I misunderstood the part about "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria'. Having said that I'm sorry for the cofusion it cause which was not my intent. I will be more carefull in the future when considering AFD's and review the policy in which I'm trying to use so I don't make the mistake again. Thanks again Aeon 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your formatting edits

I would appreciate if you don't change the formatting I have chosen for my entries in a discussion. When I chose not to have my entry indented, that was a deliberate decision. __meco 16:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Deliberate or not, it was entirely unnecessary. The rest of us would appreciate it if you used the conventional formatting for AFD discussions. Uncle G 16:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I will consider what you write. Also, I have updated myself on the link which you provided regarding formatting of AfD debates. __meco 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinky

See [3]. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion. Uncle G 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Holy shit! You may - but don't replace it with a completely different article!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not a completely different article. I suggest that you take a less cursory look at the article's history, as I did (and as I have alread noted doing in the AFD discussion). Uncle G 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:MISS

Checking why your entry on Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians (edit talk links history) was missing... any plans to restart your help page copy bot? Doing it manually is boring. -- Omniplex 23:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foodpunt

I wanted to compliment you on your steadfastness and civility on this page, when other users have not been as well-behaved. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty May Ellis‎;

Hi, You might like to look at this. Seems utterly unverifiable to me (leaving aside any questions of notability)) but it's heading for a keep. Dlyons493 Talk 06:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's exchange info

As a PhD chemist (1981) and a contributing ISO member on chemical analysis terminology, I ask that you re-read my original contribution and re-consider the mods you've made. Please contact me at bvcrist@xpsdata.com to pursue direct discussions. Best regards.

• We don't take people's say-so around here. Both your and my qualifications are irrelevant. Please also read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use_of_.27refers_to.27 to see why your original article was poor. Uncle G 11:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • An interesting quite blunt response, but such a response is not so conducive to getting experienced people to contribute their knowledge gratis. Could that be the reason why the quality of the info on many physics pages is poor? Even so, I do appreciate your efforts to help me tidy up this new page. User:bvcrist 10:30, 10 July 2006.
    • The argument that "experienced people" will "contribute their knowledge" only if everyone else takes them at their word and waives the requirements for verifiability, is a flawed one. Experienced people usually work in environments where much the same rigour about sources and not taking people solely at their word applies as it does here in Wikipedia, and respect Wikipedia's aspirations in this regard. Also see Wikipedia:Expert editors. Uncle G 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative name

has been recreated after you moved it; can you speedy it and perhaps protect its recreation. Perhaps a warning to the author is in order as well, but I'm not an admin, so I only suggest. Carlossuarez46 22:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article is still a redlink, and Special:Log/delete indicates that the article has only been deleted the once. Perhaps you were confused by the fact that I also adjusted all of the links on the various talk pages so that they now point to Wikipedia:Alternative name, and thus remain blue? ☺ Uncle G 22:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Microkernel

I've asked others to comment on your edits to Microkernel. I'd like to get some other opinions on whether your edits were justified. Thanks. --John Nagle 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Wikipedia is not a source. That you consider the requesting of cited sources, on an article that cited no sources, to be "vandalism" indicates that you do not understand the requirements of verifiability and cited sources here in Wikipedia. Uncle G 16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginsu

I can see where Roselli Knives is going then. Interesting. And depressing. KarenAnn 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• P.S. I'm never nominating anything for deletion again. You should look at how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School is going! KarenAnn 17:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • School articles are always contentious, for the reason that Dpbsmith gives in that discussion: There is no consensus. Uncle G 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Pelado

I have provided the requested references. Ramos and Monsiváis are both well-known and well-respected both within Mexico and out, so I trust they can be considered reliable sources.--Rockero 04:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability being established by other encyclopedias

In relation to the comments you made here, I'm curious as to why the fact that the topic was covered in an encyclopedia with a narrower focus is as relevant as it appears to be from the way you've phrased it. My response is at the same location, but suffice it to say that I'd imagine that a Mormonism-specific encyclopedia would be able to cover all sorts of things that we wouldn't (or couldn't or shouldn't in some cases) cover. Of course, if there's a policy I'm missing somewhere, I'm all ears. BigHaz 09:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hole in the doughnut effect

Hey, just dropped by to let you know that sources / referances have been added to the article, however i dont know what to do next. I added the name of the revision guide that revises this topic. (Neostinker 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

WikiTree

Are you going to be updating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiTree to state that you have recently references, etc. to WikiTree? --Amit 02:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Because I am a WikiTree administrator, I'm being careful about that discussion. If you think that the references should be mentioned, please mention them yourself. Uncle G 10:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wal-Mart codes

I closed it early due to the legal concerns which were mentioned. DS 12:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Given that the article sourced information directly from where Wal-Mart was publishing it on its own web site, did you not think that the legal concerns about trade secrets were perhaps unfounded and in need of proper consideration and discussion? Uncle G 12:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Cunningham syndrome

Hi... based on your opinion on the Fonzie syndrome AfD, would you care to take a look at this one? These made-up TV-fan "syndromes" are getting out of hand. Thanks... wikipediatrix 20:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm ahead of you. Uncle G 20:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This link is golden, thank you for providing it. While I personally scorn the "appeal to authority," I shall file this away in my box of sharp things none the less. - brenneman ^{L} 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't need an appeal to authority, myself. I adopted a strong sourcing policy based upon my experience of Wikinews, which had a culture of strong sourcing right from the start. I've been encouraging it for a long time, long before Jimbo wrote that. Uncle G 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Hi. Well the Chuck Cunningham AfD succeeded. Unfortunately, the made-up TV "Syndromes" continue. Check out Talk:Cousin Oliver#Adult characters (along with the following talk section). Asa01 07:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Space Goat

The Space_Goat article has been marked as unreferenced. I'm just wondering what the requirement is for a reference, seeing the end of the article gives a URL as a source for the information.

• The notice links to Wikipedia:Citing sources. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The external hyperlink links to a page where people can listen to a radio show, and isn't a source for anything. Uncle G 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, cool(ish). The links you provided say that sources are added to prevent information being disputed. The JJJ page linked to lists mp3s including the mp3s of the Space Goat independent of the rest of the radio show. So the link is a source for the entire serial, seeing it contains the entire serial.
    • The notice also links to Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which explain at length why that is not the case. Uncle G 02:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, last one from me then I'll leave it alone. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability a self-pupblished source can be used as long as it is not contentious or self-serving. Considering the radio show in question is on a non-commercial radio network the claim that it is self serving might be considered shaky. Also, The_Goons uses transcripts of the show as its references, albeit not hosted on the goons own site. If a transcript is valid, surely the original recording should count, especially when the content of the recording is guaranteed to be accurate since it's coming from the site of the authors of the material. I don't have a strong opinion on this, I just want to understand it properly. DaveAU 02:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The Goon Show is poorly sourced, too, and is not a yardstick to measure by. Requiring that readers listen to an entire radio show and then form conclusions in order to verify the contents of an article means that an article violates the Wikipedia:No original research policy. An article free of original research must cite sources where those conclusions, syntheses, and analyses have already been formed/performed — i.e. where the work has already been done. Uncle G 02:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
          • OK. Should I delete this thread when everything's resolved, since it's probably not of interest to anyone else? And - this might be asking a bit much - could you give me an example of a radio show that is adequately referenced? I'm unclear on what would be adequate referencing for the content of a radio show besides it's content. Are you going to mark The Goon Show as unreferenced? Sorry about all of this fuss. DaveAU 02:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Leave the thread. Read Wikipedia:Featured articles. Uncle G 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd give you a heads up about the mini mammoth - don't know why I didn't think of it before. There were about 20 different names proposed for the mini mammoth in less than an hour on this mornings radio show, so tomorrow, if the JJJ listening crowds are in a trouble causing mood and/or Jay and the Doctor tell them to, there may be a lot of new articles with names like Mimmith, etc... No original research for any of them, so they've all got to go - might be a lot of redirects, a lot of hassle. If it does look likes it's going that way I'll try to get you and/or other admins a list of the likely names if it'll help lighten the load. DaveAU 11:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• It will be better to add the list to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Hoax_material or (better still) to the AFD discussion rather than to my talk page. Uncle G 12:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cites

Thanks for your comment on my talkpage regarding cites; I strongly commend your practice of encouraging this. Thanks again, and happy editing! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerr Avon

I just noticed your response to my comment on this AfD. Do you really not understand why saying "this nomination is misguided" might cause unnecessary offence? You are also wrong to state that somebody can't nominate an article for deletion and suggest a merge as an alternative - but your understanding of the possibiity of causing offence interests me more. TigerShark 21:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Calling a nomination misguided is not offensive in the slightest, unnecessarily or otherwise. And if you think that nominating an article for deletion and wanting it merged are mutually compatible, then you don't understand deletion. The GFDL requirements that make merger and deletion mutually incompatible have been discussed often, and in many places. Please read the Guide to deletion and the other articles that discuss this. Uncle G 23:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Greatings & Salutations Great Administrator UncleG

I hate to bother you, but I was desturbed from my wikimeditation by a delusional character who told me to stop vandalizing these wikipedia pages, even though I have been silent for almost six months(I was triing to do a year of reflecting and then hopefully I would be ready to become an administrator). Anyway I could tell by his incoherant rambling and delusional talk about what he saw on some pornographic site, that he was probably high on the marijuana. I told him he needed to take a few days to sober up and get the drugs out of his body. It seems as it was my calling to help this poor soul through his marijuana dependecy battle, so I even statred giving him awards to congradulate him on staying away from the dope. Everything was going well until these vandals came (I assume they were probably some marijuana dealers) asnd taking away thes awards I was giving him. Now I realize you usually like for me to work out these problems onmy own, but considering we are dealing with someone who desperately wants to break the marijuana addiction, I was hoping you might give me some advice. Your loyal pupil pickelbarrel

honeybee dance language AFD

Good evening. There have been some new facts and evidence presented in the discussion since your last edit. When you have a minute, would you mind taking the time to revisit the discussion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social searching

Not the sort of thing I'd want to clean :). I think I understand what the topic of the article is about, but not 100% certain even of that. I came across it while google searching WP articles with multiple links to blogspot-dot-com. This one has a lot of them, and the moniker ("Plasticspam") makes me think there are likely some nefarious intentions behind it. SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on notability and wp:not

Regarding the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Love Moesha, it seems to me that Wikipedia is on an inevitable course of ever lowering standards for notability, and that most of what Wikipedia is Not, it one day will be.

The reason for this: If there is one non-notable article of a certain type, we delete it. If there are ten, we delete them. If there are 100, some of them get nominated for deletion, many don't, and whoever is passionate enough about the subject to have created 100 articles tries to fight to save them. If there are 1000, everyone throws their hands up and says, "Oh dear, these all probably violate WP:NOT, but there are so many, what to do, what to do?". If there are 10,000, it is declared that this clearly must be a notable category of articles and eventually WP:NOT has to be changed. Once the number of any type of articles reaches a certain critical mass, we lose the will to remove them, and they become part of what Wikipedia is. High schools, shopping malls, area codes, various types of lists, for example.

As all one has to do to make a subject encylopedic and part of what Wikipedia Is is to outcreate those who try to delete it, eventually WP:NOT will be nearly empty. --Xyzzyplugh 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see ever lowering standards, myself. And I think that there's an argument against such a pessimistic outlook: Given the sheer number of outright unencyclopaedic articles that are continually added, the argument that "If A has an article then so should B." can be seen to be utterly flawed by any editor with reasonable experience of New Pages Patrol. Uncle G 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I beleive that, at some point in the not-to-near future, sensibility will reign and we'll simply establish policy with regards to the areas that are mentioned above. The music guideline has done an excellent job with band vanity, the web guideline has all-but stopped the influx of webcomics and advertorials for obscure webpages. A broad-based approach to (for example) schools would almost certainly end in "merge them all" but for the religious fervour that some approach it with. Fifty lists of shopping malls were recently deleted, and I'm not familiar with any non-notable malls escaping deletion. In the end, reason will win out. - brenneman ^{L} 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Business logic

Would you care to weigh in on the deletion question? I really don't want to see this get deleted based on the "anything I haven't heard before is nonsense" argument. Gazpacho 19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've heard of it before, I don't think it's nonsense, but I don't think the term is defined enough to pass WP:NEO. Still, I too would invite you to contribute to the AfD because while I am leaning delete, I have not definitively made up my mind. I'd appreciate hearing your view on the topic as the major contributor to the current version.--Isotope23 16:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Evil => Copy & Paste Moves

Hmm...I thought I made it correctly, but I may understand that you were offended. But it annoyed me that someone spelled it with a minuscule letter. By the way, the section "This article is about subspecies....", I removed it cause it was redunadant, the only pages linking there were from either the Warcraft or the Earthdawn page, it's NOT needed there. Shandris^{the azylean} 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• You copied and pasted the text into a new article. If you want to rename an article, just hit that "move" button. That's what it is there for. As for the text, it was simply exactly what was there prior to the redirect (apart from the tags). Uncle G 08:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Dalbury

If you have the time, I would appreciate any observations you may wish to provide at Wikipedia:Editor review/Dalbury. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting cleanup

Uncle G, if you're going to revert my cleanup, can you at least make sure you ONLY revert my cleanup. You revert[4] removed my comment.[5] Besides, my cleanup improved the readability of the AfD page. --HResearcher 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• My error. One too many radio buttons down on the article history. Uncle G 14:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring template on Hakaisha-nin

They took it off in the middle of my nomination. Didn't know if I was hallucinating when the template disappeared (which has happened to me before) but then reappeared again so fast! Mattisse(talk) 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

West Loch Lomond Cycle Path

In view of your interest in OR, you may wish to consider an AfD for West Loch Lomond Cycle Path. The key content has obviously been researched whilst the author cycled along the path. BlueValour 21:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wood-Bright Professor of Women's Studies

Thank you for your assistance in speedy-deleting the above page, which I agree was a hoax. Unfortunately though, since I am not an admin (yet), this means that I can no longer access the page history to collect the diffs for the research I am doing on the extent of the hoax. Would it be possible for you to undelete the page and blank it, so that I can re-access the history, and collect the necessary diffs? I believe that other pages/edits were created by the same group of individuals, and I'm trying to collate all of the information at Talk:University of Adelaide#Possible hoax. Thanks. :) --Elonka 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've restored the page history temporarily. Uncle G 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it's been a big help. :) What I've found, is a series of IPs that have been systematically introducing false information to Wikipedia articles for about a year. Do you have any advice on what action should be taken against them? I don't often deal with vandals on Wikipedia, so I'm unclear on exactly which template should be placed on their talk page, or what kind of block (if any) should be instituted). If it were up to me, I'd block the following users/IPs at least, since pretty much every single one of their edits has been fraudulent:
    • 220.238.23.46 (talk · contribs)
    • 203.35.19.139 (talk · contribs) (based on timing, this is probably Baaaibsnrjp, too)
    • Baaaibsnrjp (talk · contribs)
    • 60.226.253.68 (talk · contribs)
  • Any assistance appreciated, --Elonka 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Start with Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing_with_vandalism. Given that the vandalism was nearly two months ago and lasted less than 1 day, and that there have been no edits since, what has already been done is probably sufficient. Per our Wikipedia:Blocking policy, blocks are for preventing further vandalism. Since it appears to have stopped of its own accord long since (apart from the 1 copycat edit by 60.226.253.68 (talk · contribs)), a block seems unnecessary. Uncle G 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help. I think the investigation is concluded at this point, so you can re-delete the page if you'd like. It might still be worth keeping it around for page history purposes because of the large number of IPs involved (in case there are further problems), but I'll leave that determination up to you. :) All of the information that I uncovered can be found at Talk:University of Adelaide#Possible hoax. --Elonka 22:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

GSFE/Global Sports Financial Exchange

Dear Uncle G,

Thank you for your help on the templates. I will work to learn how to apply them correctly. I am not a very technical person so it may take me through the weekend, but I will get it done.

I am writing in reference to the above link. We do not want to abuse Wikipedia and feel we have been targeted by former traders who were found to be commiting fraud. It has been stated that we are a scam or a gambling site.

But this very untrue. There have been two live TV News pieces done on our exchange one from Denver and one from NY,NY I will gladly provide you with a link to these. There are also several radio and newspaper stories covering our exchange. Here are two links to newspaper articles:

http://www.al.com/business/mobileregister/kturner.ssf?/base/business/114276370150830.xml&coll=3

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Lankhof/2006/03/08/1478175-sun.html

We are not a sports book or variant of a gambling website. I believe the above mentioned falls under the WP:CORP requirements. We do not want to use Wikipedia as a form of advertising, our sports derivatives contracts exchange is a super innovative concept. It is one that represents the forward thinking and independent growth of our generation. Please give us a chance, take a moment to write me and get to know us and if I am mistaken on the requirements please help me, you can reach me at carlosd@allsportsmarket.com Thank you.

Verifiable Sources

Thanks for your comments on my discussion page. Maybe I should explain, as the last thing I wanted to do was get the etiquette wrong and confuse people. I use the phrase "verifiable sources" as shorthand, and I am sorry if I sowed confusion by doing so. I appreciate your worry that I am confusing the concepts of Verifiability and Reliability. Here's my reasoning (and lemme know if I'm missing anything -- I'm still learning!):

Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not an official policy, so I haven't felt right in saying to author(s), "my concern when it comes to your sources is whether they are reliable." Other adminstrators have told me not to cite guidelines when there are official policies to cite.

Now Wikipedia:Verifiability is an official policy (unlike reliability). And verifiability does specifically address sources (WP:V#Sources). That's why I've referred to "verifiable sources" -- in an attempt to direct authors and editors to the page (and topic) of verifiability, which does discuss sources (including a section specifically on reliability).

I admit: you are technically right in correcting me that, "It is articles that are (or are not) verifiable." And I feel bad if my language has been imprecise and I've confused anyone. I'll try to be more specific with my choice of words in the future. Would it be acceptable, in the future, to specifically cite WP:V#Sources_of_dubious_reliability -- as this is the official policy regarding source reliability (even though it is technically listed under verifiability).

On a side note: might I suggest that Administrators consider either 1) Making Wikipedia:Reliable sources an official policy and/or 2) Removing discussion of sources from the verifiability page, if administrators feel sources are not capable of being verified.

Thanks much for your time. And I am sorry for getting things wrong. I'm still learning and do so appreciate all the help I can get! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you think I'm still wrong (or if there are any other things I've gotten wrong!) Thank you. Scorpiondollprincess 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• No worries. Administrators don't dictate policy, though. Administrators are simply ordinary users that the community trusts to wield certain more powerful editing tools. You might want to take up the issue of that section on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Uncle G 09:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CORP and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies

I replied to you as regards whether WP:CORP must be understood to control; in brief, I imagine that we think quite similarly vis-à-vis notability, viz., that WP:NN, et seq., simply codify WP:NOT in the context of XfD and ought to be treated as policy, but simply meant to convey that it is not unreasonable for certain editors to discount WP:CORP at AfD and that MyWikiBiz might be better served to address individual arguments advanced by editors than simply to suggest that those arguments are inconsistent with WP:CORP. I'm never a fan of one's arguing that notability is only a guideline, and I wasn't suggesting that I would discount WP:CORP here; it is true, though, that many editors, rightly or wrongly, don't embrace WP:CORP, and a good AfD discussion ought not simply to overlook those editors if they make valid points (again, I don't know that they do, but I don't think an a priori judgment to be appropriate). Joe 22:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No Rodeo

Hi. I am unsure exactly what in this article is unreferenced. If it's the number of votes, look in the external links which I placed as references for you. Timeshift 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Readers should have references that allow them to confirm even the basics, such as that this political party actually exists at all and is a properly registered political party. The web site of a purported organization is not a source. Organizations can claim anything that they want to about themselves on their own web sites. See Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)#References, Liberal Party (Utah)#References, and Liberal Party (UK)#References for some examples of references. See also Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard_appendices. Uncle G 09:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hawaiian English

I owe you a fuller explanation of why I removed three of the references you added to Hawaiian English (which I have since added to Hawaiian Pidgin). I located these resources at my university library, and noticed that although they used the term "Hawaiian English," they were in fact talking about what Wikipedia calls "Hawaiian Pidgin," rather than about what Wikipedia calls "Hawaiian English." Thus I deemed them more appropriate for the Pidgin article. I was not able to locate the other books and articles you noted, so I cannot review those. Thanks for finding these resources. Andrew Levine 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware that they had been moved to another article. Fair enough. Uncle G 09:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Portrayals of Mormons in popular media, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer

You haven't actually expressed an opinion yet at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. My own feeling is that it is a legitimate topic because the phrase and its variants are proverbial and are frequently alluded to in discussions of economic inequality. I've added some stuff to the article, making a start on bringing out that aspect. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz discussion

Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jabulon (2nd nomination)

Thank-you so much for pointing it out to me, very kind. Ifnord 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

EditGrid AfD

Would like to let you know that I have added a few more references to EditGrid after your reply on its AfD, which was recently re-listed. You may be interested to take a look there and see if the references have change your mind about the EditGrid article. --Pkchan 10:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for quickly closing that AfD and fixing the links (I guess that was beyond the call of duty, nice to see!) Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts on WikiProject LGBT studies

When you've got a few minutes, I was wondering if you'd take a look at my ideas regarding increasing participation in WikiProject LGBT studies? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

I concur on the value of descriptive edit summaries when editing articles and will do so in the future. However, I mostly hang out on AfD and my 'quirky' summaries are more or less my calling card so that, for those who care, may distinguish me from the despots. Though in truth, I don't really hold much stock in whether or not anyone would care. I just like to chim in for the benefit of talking...or...uh, typing. 205.157.110.11 02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Converium Holding AfD

Please assume good faith in future. Catchpole 09:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Requesting that editors cite sources to support their arguments, as I requested that you do twice, is not assuming bad faith. If you think that it is, then Wikipedia is not for you. Citing sources, and asking for sources to be cited, is one of the primary tasks around here. You're going to be asked to cite sources a lot. Uncle G 09:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for real places

You know... your right. I didn't really think my comment though all the way... I was really only thinking about town and cities. ---J.S (t|c) 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Delfi.lt

Thanks for Your time and efforts on Delfi.lt. It was a great pleasure. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see

But aren't other supermodels "copy righted" word for word? Adriana Lima, Tyra Banks, Naomi Campbell I could go on and on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cococanelle (talk • contribs) 2006-08-22 14:19:11

• The Wikipedia articles on those supermodels are copyrighted, but are licenced under the GFDL. The copyrighted article at AskMen that you copied is not. As I said, please read our Wikipedia:Copyright policy. Uncle G 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:Cococanelle

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• It was signed. Uncle G 15:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the {{welcome}} was not signed. Also... When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. (In this case, {{subst:welcome}} instead of {{welcome}}.) Just a little friendly editing advice. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's because there was no reason to sign twice. Uncle G 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

incivility and POV-pushing on David L. Cook

Since you're well known for combating sourceless POV/OR, can you take a look at David L. Cook, and at my talk page? User:Iamascorp has continually been inserting unsourced POV/vanity claims (the editor has admitted to being part of the management team for Cook, and continually refers to the article as "our article"). User:Iamascorp has already violated WP:NPA a dozen times in his posts to my talk page and to the article's: I make a brief explanation of why a source is needed for an unsourced claim, and he comes back with a long barrage of character assassination. I'd rather not take this to an RfC, so perhaps you can provide another opinion here? He seems convinced that I am totally out to "get" he and David L. Cook in every way, when all I am stating is that their edits contain unsourced claims. wikipediatrix 22:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Bear in mind that you appear to be dealing with multiple people using a single account. So conversations with that account may seem a little incoherent. Uncle G 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes indeed... I'm a bit confused by the IAMAS Corporation article, which, though created and edited mostly by User:Iamascorp and 69.134.2.43, seems to be deliberately and falsely portraying the IAMAS (International Academy of Music Media Arts and Sciences) as being one and the same as this "Iamas Corporation" which is based out of a P.O. Box in Monroe, NC as this link shows. The official IAMAS academy site given on the article never uses the term "Corporation", makes no reference to North Carolina, and does not seem to be in the business of managing Caroline Keller. Of course, I could be wrong. wikipediatrix 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • See User:Vilerage/Iamas. Uncle G 01:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

David L Cook Article/Wikipediatrix

Hi sorry I hadn't fully looked at the info, as I did say originally. I think you have misinterpreted what I said (although from reading it again it isn't very clear). What I said is that you should discuss the tags on the talk page before you remove them (you should discuss, not simply remove tags as you seem to be suggesting I advised). --Wisden17 00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough. But better still of course is to actually supply the sources. ☺ I suspect that the root of the problem here is that the people at the company making these edits are writing about their own company, and their own company's clients, from firsthand knowledge, and that there aren't any sources to cite. Uncle G 01:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

List of songs about sex

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about sex (2nd nomination), you mentioned the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Come on, "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord"? Sounds like sex to me. =) Powers ^T 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• And what about the line from Magnificat: "Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name." - What "things" were done to Mary that were not on the topic of this section? ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • <chuckle> Perhaps not the things that you think. You do remember that according to Christian belief she is a virgin at that point, don't you? Uncle G 10:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Two words in re: virgin: Oral sex. (You can send me to hell now.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I remember being told many years ago (by a rather fey fellow that I knew) that the Russian Orthodox belief was that the Holy Spirit entered Mary through her ear, aka 'taking it in the ear'. -- Donald Albury 12:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL (Internet slang)

I'm curious. Your edit summary said you were 'restoring' the sourced analysis. I don't remember seeing such a section in the article, and I've had it on my watch list for many months now. The article had become bloated with unsourced trivia and nonsense, and desperately needed to be cleaned up. In any case, could you point me to where the sourced analysis was removed? BTW, I've no complaints with the section, I just don't remember seeing it before. -- Donald Albury 12:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• The version of the article that I pulled it out of was this one. Uncle G 12:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm! That does appear to be just before I added the article to my watchlist. I am a bit surprised at the way the section disappeared. Oh well, that was months ago, so that's something to just file away to niggle at the back of my mind. -- Donald Albury 01:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh...

Yes, I did read WP:GOOGLE, but I guessed I missed that part. I usually say the number of hits it generates on Google, but this time I just said "pass". Sorry about that.

--  Nishkid64  ^Talk  22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your patience in educating a newby.

Appreciate your patience in educating a Wikipolicy newby. Served on a planning commission for 20 years. Toward the end I'd heard the same specious arguments so many times that I was having a hard time suffering fools. Finally quit on the day that I could not restrain myself and advised an applicant that he was either duplicitous or a fool, and then asked him which it was. So I understand that you’ve probably grown tired of those new to Wikipedia policy challenging things that are obvious to you as a seasoned admin. Bear with us; we’ll figure it out too. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• No worries. Yes, the repetition can become exhausting at times. But yes, in amongst the people who have come to Wikipedia for all of the wrong reasons there are those who do figure it out and who become good editors that in their turn help others. The arguments that you are making are not the sorts of arguments that those who have come to Wikipedia for all of the wrong reasons make. You'll soon learn what those arguments are. ☺ In part, I'm actually trying to help you to learn how to make strong cases for keeping things, partly from my own experience. If it seems that I'm harping upon "sources! sources! sources!" all of the time, it's because experience has taught me that an article that cites copious good sources is by far the strongest and most compelling argument. Editors are nearly always convinced by a clear stub that has context and that demonstrates with citations of multiple independent non-trivial published works that are specifically about the subject (even if they are in a "further reading" section and not (yet) used as sources) that the PNC is satisfied. See Gävle goat (AfD discussion) and Fly Asian Xpress (AfD discussion), for a couple of very recent examples. Articles that cite sources are rarely even nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. Uncle G 09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good tutorial! Expecially useful for one who has inclusionist leanings, but have now seen enough &%@#$& articles that I’ve realized inclusionism must not be indiscriminate if Wikipedia is to have any value. Thoughts:

• The Primary Notability Criterion is an excellent, insightful read. I’ve watch-marked & bookmarked it…
• Your examples of the Gävle goat (AfD discussion) and Fly Asian Xpress (AfD discussion) were also of particular interest since I’d looked at both. In both caes I remained undecided on how to evaluate merit—and elected not to comment.

Very much appreciate your taking the trouble to share these. Tusen takk (thank you very much) - Williamborg (Bill) 01:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re : Cough

Oh! =P Solved. =) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Musilanguage

Well done that man. Just zis Guy you know? 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, very nice job -- Samir धर्म 06:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick CSD question...

....that is, if you're not too busy :) After that major error I made on AfD (which I am still embarressed about) I seriously re-read the CSD. However, I saw a fictional character up for AfD, here, and someone had voted Speedy Delete under A7. It says, on A7 though, that the criteria is for real people.

So am I right in thinking that this fictional character can not be deleted under A7, or am I really confused about CSD? Thank you for any help you can give.

Yours, Thε Halo ^Θ 22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• The main aim of A7 is to combat the flood of new articles that continually arrive from people writing pages about themselves, their friends, or their private gangs/clubs — People who come to Wikipedia not to write encyclopaedia articles but to give themselves a name check. Given that fictional characters cannot submit vanity articles about themselves to Wikikpedia, A7 isn't really aimed at them. ☺ For the long discussion, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 and its talk page. Uncle G 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Uncle G, that's what I thought, but after making such a glaringly obvious mistake last time, I thought I'd make doubley sure. Thank you very, very much. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

Your comments on the 500 home run topic came across as quite rude. I would also suggest that you re-read my comments. I said anyone who hits a home run COULD be included in the list. Whether you need to hit 2 home runs or 200 is irrelevant to my point. Further, I said the information was verifiable. That does not mean it is encyclopedic. Asking me to re-read the title is pretty offensive. Thanks and good luck in the future.Wolverinegod 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Politely asking you to read the title of the article (because it directly contradicts your assertion) is asking you to read the title of the article. It is neither rude nor offensive in the slightest. And you first stated that the information was verifiable and then later stated that you thought that it was not verifiable. That is, as I pointed out, a contradiction. Uncle G 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You did not "politely" ask me to read the title of the article. You either did not read my comments or did not understand them. I did not say that the article was not verifiable, I said it was not encyclopedic. The title does not "contradict" my statment, you just don't understand how to use and understand proper english. The CRITERIA for being on the list is NOT the "list itself".Wolverinegod 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes I did. My exact words were "Please read the article title.". And yes you did. Your very words were "verifiable and "encyclopedic" (which i don't think this article is)". Please don't make personal arguments about other editors, and please don't remove from AFD discussion pages the comments from other editors who opine to keep an article that you have nominated for deletion as you did here. (I've restored that comment.) Finally: The criteria for the list are clear from both the article's title and the article's content. Uncle G 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Orgle and your essay

I didn't "remove the references," I just didn't remember to move them over. You fixed it, so no big deal.

As for your essay: I like it, except that it really doesn't reflect reality on Wikipedia. If you changed the word "notability" everywhere to "includability," it would be indisputable. However, here's what "notability" means, from dictionary.com:

1. the state or quality of being notable; distinction; prominence. 2. a notable or prominent person.

You see? This is the problem. Most users don't get it: notability should not be an excuse for everyone to have their own opinion on the importance of something, but it sure sounds that way from the term. So I don't like your essay in that it embraces that false dichotomy. Mangojuice^talk 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• What false dichotomy? I suggest, now that you have looked up "notability" and seen it defined in terms of "notable", that you look up, in turn, the entry for "notable". Uncle G 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah Beng - {{original research}} ?

Hi

I notice that you have added the {{original research}} tag the article, Ah Beng. I've left a note at the article's talk page. Perhaps you can read it and respond there. --Rifleman 82 16:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

your comments on WP

They User:Uncle G/On notability have been nominated for Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion. If i am wrong, others will defend your vanity work (dictionary about vanity: 11. produced as a showcase for one's own talents, esp. as a writer, actor, singer, or composer: a vanity production.) - I have noticed your admin status, wondering if you are new user or using a new account. Probably you wish to remove the vanity work yourself. User:Yy-bo 23:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Administrators are rarely new users. Based both on this and your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Academy Private School, it appears that you have an exceedingly strange, if not downright wrong, idea of what constitutes vanity work here. Uncle G 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well i would like to get it deleted. However, i have read most deletion nominations for WP:SCH articles don't get through; only around 15%. If it helps i can write this school is not noteable WP:NOTABILITY, looks substanceless in terms of WP:SCH. The fact being a private exclusive school does not make it important automatically. Probably i leave the schools alone because they have so poor deletion rate. User:Yy-bo 02:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You use We all the time. How can people know what you mean? If you get enough backup to keep the page, it is nonetheless no official policy.
If i take it serious how can i know if i am violating real policies?
You superimpose it is a new policy/these are new policies.
The guidelines about notability need more explanation anyway, especially music records.
User:Yy-bo 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Only you have actually said that it was an official policy. If you follow the advice given, you won't violate policies, and you won't become widely criticised for making bad AFD nominations. That's why I pointed you to the advice in the first place. When someone points you to a page giving good advice based upon experience, immediately nominating it for deletion is somewhat foolish. Uncle G 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have nominated it for that reason: You use a self-righteous spelling. It is not obvious if you are backed by a group of others, if it is your personal opinion etc. You use We in your essay On Notability. WP does not use We all the time. I have read parts of your essay by the way. And you can't criticize me for an Afd i have withdrawn easily. I have also produced good afd nominations; stuff people where happy when it was gone. As written above, school articles are difficult to get rid of, i am staying away from them for now.
    Good amins can take critics, i am sorry if it takes off your time. However i believe you should not use it (the essay on notability) as a piece of advice; not without respelling it. User:Yy-bo 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • We Wikipedians use 'we' whenever we feel we are speaking for the consensus of opinion among Wikipedians. It is part of the collegial nature of Wikipedia to speak as 'we'. -- Donald Albury 02:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • He (User Uncle_G) does not say if it is personal work, a collective effort, or if he has already gained community consensus. User:Yy-bo 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
        • It's his user page; he can say just about anything he wants as long as it doesn't violate Wikipedia:User page. Essays do not require consensus, but some essays have achieved iconic status because they embody the thoughts of so many Wikipedians. As for Uncle G himself, he's been around for a while and made a number of edits along the way. He is quite well experienced in Wikipedia. He has also taught me a thing or two along the way (whether or not he knows it), and I think he is eminently qualified to use 'we' in his musings. -- Donald Albury 14:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I didn't know it. Uncle G 15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well before you request for comments i can offer to withdraw the Mfd because you are argueable. However i would like to see the page edited, if you link to it from talk pages. User:Yy-bo 01:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Linking to essays from discussion pages is a longstanding practice here at Wikipedia, and perfectly fine. Uncle G 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You have linked to your essay like linking to a policy (you include the name trail NOTABILITY). There is nothing wrong asking me to read your essay. However, there was some underage graffitti on afd into various articles on afd. I wanted all of the articles to go. No probe. You linked to your essay calling my votes poorly choosen (meaning of sense). By the way i do not plan to disrupt anything, however your work (the essay user page on notability) is a) incomplete b) claims to be a policy guide. Don't expect nothings happens...There is no evidence (from contribution history) that user UncleG is a longtime member. User:Yy-bo 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • underage graffitti — That an editor is young does not automatically make them a vandal. Please assume good faith.

      calling my votes "poorly choosen" — I said nothing about choice. What I actually said was that the rationales were poor, and explained why. Rather than learning from the explanation, you nominated it for deletion.

      There is no evidence (from contribution history) that user UncleG is a longtime member. — How do you like your canned tuna? Oil, brine, or water? Uncle G 10:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

      • canned tuna BBQ-ed. The elaborations of pickelbarrel look like the other white meat. Certainly in this case i would rather eat something else in raw state. It is not tuna. I have nominated your essay for deletion because of the ghey pickelbarrel stuff. Probably i misunderstand something, this user not being a guest of your tuna BBQ. You let me know. Also see contributions of that author (underage graffitti). I do not know if intercourse with animals is too common for graffitti. Recently i have seen a painting, an individual together with a horse. It is not bad, but i can not photocopy and keep it. Because it is called hentai, and i do not use to have any. As a matter of principe. User:Yy-bo

AFD

You wrote:

No, it isn't. AFD doesn't need editors nominating articles just to "probe consensus".
Bear in mind the lesson of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider, where an editor was
widely censured for making nominations that were similar such probes. Only nominate
articles for deletion that you actually want to be deleted. Uncle G 01:03, 4 September
2006 (UTC) 

I am not nominating just to probe. Everything i nominate is stuff i really want to get deleted.
There are a few cases where i do not know exactly.
However, if i believe the articles can not be (because of WP reason), i can try to put them on afd?
This applies to various lists for instance; how can i know about them? Sometimes it is called listcruft, sometimes voted keep.
I do not probe articles by putting them to afd just to try what happens.
Except your essay page. You scared me, i believed you are trying to introduce new policies.

I do not say my AFD behaviour is perfect. But, most of my past suggestions have been accepted, say more than 90 percent. User:Yy-bo 01:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• In this edit you stated that nominating to probe consensus is exactly what you are doing. Uncle G 02:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I use the word sometimes. If an editor always probes, without considering consensus and WP, it is not allright. I do not mean to probe without any anchor that the article might be a candidate for deletion. I refer to List_of_webcomics, two times subject of afd, have the nominating editors been banned? No. User:Yy-bo 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have researched the GRider case Excerpt:

It would appear that the so-called "Google test" is a complete fallacy. How is any of this
material useful or relevant to current practice? Why should this document be kept and how
does it benefit the participants of VfD?

This is disordered; not refering to any of WP.
Interesting but i do no not see a relation to my Afd nomination's.
You are right only to nominate if it is backed by failure to meet relevant WP, and if there is a real interest to see the article deleted, merged, edited immediately.
If it gets edited immediately, it is a criteria of notability at least for the editor.User:Yy-bo 05:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Uncle G/On_notability

If you agree i would like to withdraw the deletion vote as not being effective. See also User:Yy-bo/Dict_defs - only created in result of your essay. Please add user template, and probably a disclaimer saying it is your personal opinion; or the opinion of a group of people you use to know. User:Yy-bo 03:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Withdrawn Categorization Essay not considered when nominating for deletion. Concept of essay was previously unknown to me. User:Yy-bo 05:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Waveley Borough Council AfD

Uncle G, the reason that I nomiated this article is that it has 1 entrier sentence which is already on the Waveley,Surrey so please that me how else we should merge the article :-) Aussie King Pin 11:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• "how else" implies that AFD is a way to merge articles. It isn't. AFD is Articles for deletion, the complete removal of an article and its entire edit history. It is not the place to go unless deletion is what one wants. Article merger does not involve deletion at any point. That step #2 of an article merger may be a short one doesn't change the fundamentals of the process. Uncle G 12:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Uncle G, the point I was trying to make was that you can merge an article when it has no infomation and another page exists as a dulipcate and theirfore will get all the remaining info. on the council.Aussie King Pin 09:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • you can merge an article when it has no infomation and another page exists as a dulipcate — That is very point that I originally made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waverley Borough Council, alongside the point that AFD is not Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Why did you come to my talk page to repeat it? Uncle G 09:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion on something

I'm proposing that the Move to Wikibooks, Move to Wikibooks Cookbook, and Move to Wikisource templates, as well as the Categories for each one, be renamed from Move to x to Copy to x. There are two main reasons for this. First of all, this is more accurate. The templates do not cause an article to be moved, they (assuming someone decides to transwiki the article) cause a copy of the article to be made elsewhere and notations to be made in a few logs. While the article might well end up being deleted from wikipedia later, this deletion is a separate process and not part of the transwikiing.

Second, and on a practical level, the problem with the Move to x templates is that they frequently end up getting removed. Because of the perennial backlogs in all the Move to x categories, an article will likely be sitting there for many months with the template in place, and this provides a lot of opportunity for someone to come along, think "No don't delete this lovely fudge brownie recipe!" and remove the template. Calling it "Copy to x" will hopefully make it less likely this will happen. As long as the recipe or other unencylopedic content is in the article, there is really no reason for anyone to be removing the transwiki template, unless they actually believe the content doesn't belong on wikibooks cookbook or wherever, which is almost never the case.

I suggested this on the talk pages of the templates mentioned above, as well as in one of the village pump pages, and got pretty much no responses. I don't want to make this change without getting at least one other person's feedback on this idea. As you're one of the few people around who knows much about transwikiing, I thought you would be a good person to ask about this. --Xyzzyplugh 14:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• See Template talk:Move to Wiktionary#Move_vs._copy. Uncle G 17:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link to that conversation. I've gone ahead and moved Move to Wikibooks, Wikibooks Cookbook, and Wikisource to "Copy to x", and created new "Copy to" categories. I'll still need to clean up various links and mentions on help pages and such around wikipedia, and change a few of the other Move to's to Copy to, but I'm going to wait a bit first to make sure there's no major objection to what I've done. --Xyzzyplugh 13:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced at Digital Blasphemy

Hi Uncle G. Would you mind posting specifically what you feel is unreferenced in the Digital Blasphemy article on its talk page? I believe everything in the article is self-evident when you visit the site, linked to at the bottom. Thanks. ~MDD4696 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• The entire article is unreferenced. It cites zero sources. The web site itself is not a source. It is raw data. Readers and editors should not have to perform primary research, i.e. going to the web site and looking at all of the pictures there in order to determine what the "typical artistic styles include", in order to verify the article. See our Wikipedia:No original research policy. A source would be an existing published description of the web site, an existing analysis of the site and its contents, created by someone other than the web site. Uncle G 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On AFD processes

I don't want to expand the MacDade Mall AFD further, so I'm coming here:

The processes you refer to are not policies but suggestions - who (other than themselves) is to say that the nominators haven't considered what the guidelines suggest? While I get frustrated at knee-jerk AFDs being submitted when there are other ways of addressing the problems (I often suspect that users are nominating to get their name "in lights" rather than because any real thought has gone into the process), I don't think it is constructive to berate individuals for their approach to the guidelines. There are people who will attempt to improve potential AFD articles off their own bat before nominating, but equally there are people who will pass on if that approach is forced upon them, and since quality control is also an important aspect of building an encyclopedia, I'd rather see an somewhat lacking nomination than a grossly lacking article. I'm all in favour of a gentle nudge towards the other options and towards well-argued nominations, but I don't think confrontation over application of the guidelines is particularly useful. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Whether they are policies or suggestions is irrelevant. (The speedy deletion policy that I linked to is, in fact, a policy, however.) The point at issue is not editors who merely don't make any effort to look for sources, but editors who in fact assert that they shouldn't look for sources at all. The former simply make bad nominations. The latter, in contrast, think that bad nominations are actually the right thing to do. If never told that that is entirely wrong, such editors will not only never change, they will encourage by example other editors to follow suit.

  It's not clear what you mean by "pass on" when you say that "there are people who will pass on if that approach is forced upon them". Are you saying that they will die? Or are you saying that they will forego nominating articles? In either event, your argument appears to be based upon the erroneous premise of people being forced to clean up articles before nominating them. That bears no relationship to the discussion at hand, which is rather that people should look for potential sources before nominating an article on the grounds of non-notability. (The speedy deletion policy says "consider whether an article could be". Similarly, the Guide to deletion says "investigate the possibility". Such consideration and investigation involves looking for source material.) This is, of course, an entirely sensible thing to do, given that our notability criteria are strongly founded in what the existence, provenance, and depth of the sources on a subject are. One cannot logically argue that something is non-notable per most of our notability criteria without showing that there are no sources of sufficient depth, and of appropriate provenance, to be found. To argue that, one has to look. There is no escaping that necessity. Any argument that it is not necessary to look for sources before nominating something for being non-notable is completely fallacious.

  An argument, as is being made in this case, that goes beyond that to outright reject the idea of looking for sources, is completely counter to what we do here. Uncle G 12:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • There has been some confusion, perhaps, with WP:V#Burden of evidence? Not the same thing at all, but I can see where someone who is not familiar enough with policies, guidelines and practices might be confused. -- Donald Albury 14:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My argument wasn't so much based around the premise of forcing the clean up of articles before nomination, but rather the forceful arguments around the semantics of the guidelines and policies. As I said, I don't think it is constructive to berate individual nominators on their procedural deficiencies (as it is just as likely to drive them away as to get them to improve their nominations), when a gentle push in the right direction could achieve the desired effect. I think your ability to aggressively argue a case (while impressive) is more likely to prevent people returning with future nominations than to improve their standards. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now.

    I love this by the way: "Are you saying they will die?". AFD policy - it's a killer. Yomangani^talk 14:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    • No-one is berating nominators on procedural deficiences. As I said above, this isn't simply not looking for sources. Simply not looking is a procedural deficiency, and people who don't look do get gentle pushes in the right direction, often by someone further along the discussion saying "Well, my Google search turned up this, this, and this.". This, however, is actually explicitly rejecting the idea that one should look for sources. That's not being procedurally deficient. It's outright rejection of a major part of what we do here. Uncle G 15:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging

Hey thanks for linking to that explanation of incompatable voting and merging in the AfD, I've added it to my bookmarks! DrunkenSmurf 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice page

I rather like your new subpage. Could you please weigh in at WP:N and give us your opinion? It might even be a suggestion to move your wording there, since it seems better than mine. Thanks. >Radiant< 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sodastream

What do you think to redirecting home carbonation system? I saw you moved it, but it is just duplicate info for sodastream (although strictly on a wider topic, there isn't essentially any more to say). I'd like to stop crashing into your edits in the main article so I'll come back later. Yomangani^talk 11:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm only intermittently editing it. Please continue improving the article. I was going to look at home carbonation system later. On the one hand, as you say, SodaStream might be the major topic to cover. On the other hand, an eventual merger to there at least yields an article title that is neutral with respect to brand names. Uncle G 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Space Science

I agree with the spirit of you edit but you also removed all the references (which are mostly good) the page itself is a mess but needs to be more than a list you left it as ...^Jaster 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please learn how to edit, rather than simply how to revert. If you wanted the references, those alone are what you should have re-added, not the entire morass of science fiction that was in the rest of the article. Uncle G 16:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry Now I've had time to actually read the morass of text on this page I can see it's just (very badly) reinterating what is on the barely/badly linked pages and is not adding anything new, or where it is it is new reasearch or opinion, I've mostly put back what you had, The references were perfectly good but refered to stuff which should have been on other pages so are now removed (in fact the two you left were as far as I can see redundant as well), Just a case of seeing a bold edit and not understanding why it had been done ^Jaster 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• I've just had a look at the user page of the main editor ... User:Mlhooten he seems to have the entire page as his userpage ? ^Jaster 17:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That editor created a whole load of articles in this vein. (It appears that 166.82.166.38 (talk · contribs) is the same person not logged on.) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrobotany. I asked about space science at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space a few days ago. Uncle G 17:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article exploding trousers, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

David L. Cook

Can you take a look at the David L. Cook talk page and give an opinion on the section titled "International Country Music charts"? User:Junebug52 (formerly known as User:Iamascorp) is placing yet another hard-to-verify grand claim on the article, this time that Mr.Cook has the #1 record on the "International Country Music charts". However, a Google search seems to show that there is no such thing as an official "International country music charts" and his source link does not appear to be an official music industry chart compiler. wikipediatrix 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncle G, as I have explained to Wikipediatrix, these are legitimate industry charts. They are not derived by the Gospel Music Connection's owners as she claims, they are just the collectors of the data and displayers of what Christian Country Radio has reported to them. She is not an expert on these charts and cannot make claims such as "This source does not appear to be an official music industry chart compiler?" That is her personal opinion not fact based on the industry that utilizes this information. Christian music does not have a chart such as "Billboard" and each individual genre derives their own charts. After being in the music industry for over 27 years myself I can assure you as a historian and expert in the field that these charts are reviewed by radio and adhered to as the Bible of their genre. Unless Wikipediatrix can prove that these charts are not viable and used by the industry, I do not see where her argument is going to hold water on this issue. On the David L Cook talk page she based her argument in part because "Their web page looked amaturish?" That is not a factual argument but instead a personal opinion and should not be used for the bases of an edit or discounting of credibility. I can give a long list of industry web pages that look like they were done by children, however their information is like the manna from Heaven. A google search is not sufficient evidence for industry charts and the lack of hits does not and should not discount their reliability or authenticity. At Wikipedia, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. In The Globe and mail on february 20th 2006 at page A14 in the Section of Social Studies, sub-section A daily miscellany of Information, micheal Kesteron cited Harold Geneen in his Though du jour and stated:

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles at wikipedia are full of POV's. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy.Thank you Junebug52 8:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for refactoring AfD

Didn't realize I was stepping on your toes. I have done that to several long and cluttered AfDs at the suggestion of an admin who was helping with a particularly cumbersome one. I was told that extensive discussion should be on the discussion page, and the "personal recommendations" (since I don't care for the word "vote") should stay on the project page. In fact, my efforts have been generally appreciated and I've been specifically thanked for trying to keep things organized. As you're an admin, I take you're concern seriously. I checked the AfD instructions, and all it says is to not reorganize by date. Doesn't say anything about not putting discussion on the discussion page. At other Wikipedia project pages, discussion goes there and outcome goes on the main page. Can I get you to reconsider your opinion? Thanks! Akradecki 15:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is your opinion that requires reconsideration. That AFD is not about the votes is an opinion of many editors, and has been the subject of extensive discussion, by many editors, for a long time. You can read some of that discussion in the (archived) talk pages of the Guide to deletion and of the AFD page itself. If someone has encouraged you to remove everything except the votes from AFD discussions, then xe has misled you quite significantly. The instructions that you should have checked are at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. Please do not remove all discussion leaving just votes, as you have been doing. Discussion of rationales is an integral part of the process. Uncle G 01:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I fully agree that it's not about votes, but on the other and, the link you sent me two to, in the first line, reads "Discussion occurs on a dedicated discussion page..." That's just what I did, put the discussion on the discussion page, put the "conclusions" on the project page. I'm offering that as an explanation, not an argument. I fully intend to comply with your request. Akradecki 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I see the cause of your confusion. The dedicated discussion page is the sub-page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This is in contrast to an article's usual discussion page, which is its talk page (i.e. where operations like renaming and merger are discussed, if they require discussion). It isn't that sub-page's talk page. The talk pages of AFD discussion pages are very rarely used. Uncle G 09:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NUM

Since you originally wrote Wikipedia Is Not Infinite, please take a look at the present debate. The wording is under dispute by an editor who, if I understand correctly, believes that all numbers are notable, but that most are not verifiable - which is the exact opposite of your original argument. >Radiant< 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Speedy deletion

With respect, I know there's no speedy deletion criterion for hoaxes, and I expected a message from you about that result reason on the AfD. We are not straightjacketed by our policies, and blatant hoaxes like this one should should be treated with common sense. -- Steel 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• We most definitely are constrained when it comes to speedy deletion. Our speedy deletion criteria are deliberately narrow, with a strong consensus that this is a good idea and should not change. Continue abusing them, and you'll find yourself the recipient of numerous complaints from many editors. A proper application of common sense would be not to abuse the speedy deletion criteria if you know beforehand that people will complain when you do. Uncle G 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We both agree the article should have been deleted. I think we both agree that it was never going to survive AfD. Read it again, if necessary. "The country is a small bedroom in a house in Kirriemuir, Scotland and is approximatley 10 x 8 Meters in size", "...with the only inhabitant becoming the leader", "The State of Cupboardia is ran by Governor/Viceroy Matthew Kiely and includes the land of 2 cupboards". If there ever was a reason to bend the CSD, which can be done from time to time, this is it. -- Steel 23:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    And please archive this page.
    • If you are going to cite IAR, then I suggest first understanding what it is and isn't about, such as by reading Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 1, especially what BlankVerse says about "common sense" and knowing the rules before one breaks them. And no, there wasn't a reason to bend the criteria for speedy deletion. The article wasn't deliberate vandalism. Nor are we suffering under such an onslaught of micronation articles that we need to process them rapidly. Uncle G 00:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I said a second ago, I'm aware this didn't fit a specific speedy criterion. And yes, this was deliberate vandalism. You don't "accidentally" make a joke article. And no, we aren't under an onslaught of micronation articles, but that doesn't mean we have to send joke pages through AfD when there's absolutely no doubt that it's going to get deleted. -- Steel 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
        • What you actually said was that there was reason to bend the criteria. There was not. No, the article was not vandalism, nor a deliberate joke. There is no indication that the author intended the article to be a joke, and every intention from the article's talk page that xe intended it to be a proper encyclopaedia article on a micronation that xe had invented. Xe pretty much says outright that it is not intended to be a joke. Please read what the author wrote on the talk page. That you thought that it was a ridiculous article doesn't mean that that was actually the author's intention, or that the article was actually a joke. Uncle G 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Ok, we've reached the source of this problem. I only scan read the talk page last time, and after reading it again I can see where you're coming from. I accept your point that this may not have been a deliberate joke, but fundamentally disagree that something should be sent through the AfD process when there's absolutely no doubt that it's going to be deleted. For the record, that is what I interpret as WP:SNOW and WP:IAR, not "This article looks silly, let's just delete it under IAR" which is what you may have been implying (apoligies if you didn't, but that's the way I took it). -- Steel 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlock Reality

Sorry if I inadvertently opened a can of worms by AfD'ing this. It was one of those "what on earth is this all about?" sort of articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's one of the lengthier discussions currently at AFD. But that's not inherently a bad thing, and it's not really a can of worms. Cans of worms look like Template:GNAA-AfD. ☺ Anyway, you have nothing to apologize to me for as far as I can see. Uncle G 11:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Like stated on the can

Re: How do you like your tuna - Now i recognize it is only a gift, anyone can perform this. It was a misunderstanding, believed someone being an admin of admin. This caused Mfd of the essay. Maybe they have been asked to include some print on the cans. This is no statement of a preference for canned tuna. Definetively not. User:Yy-bo 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

re: your question on User:David Gerard/Process essay

The only reference to history that I can find in David's essay is the single line about breaking up the AFD page. Is that the comment you were referring to?

If so, I would agree with both of you. David was a vocal proponent of the position that the large page was a bad thing. Among the arguments he used at the time was the server-load argument. I personally never found that to be a compelling argument. Even at it's longest, it was still an all-text page and loaded faster than many of our featured articles. He attributes that argument to a developer. I don't remember who (if anyone) actually reviewed the server logs to determine real burden.

The bulk of the arguments against the single long-page had more to do with usability by new users. Many on dial-up complained about the load time and many new users didn't (and still don't) know the trick of editing in separate tabs or windows so you don't have to keep reloading the entire page each time you save. In that regard, I think the AFD page format is an example of the kind of scenario he's trying to describe.

Unfortunately, the counter-arguments also had a lot to do with usability by new users. I remember arguing that new users should be encouraged to revisit AFD discussions during the discussion period to see if new evidence had been presented which would cause them to change their minds. I believe that was much easier and occurred more frequently when all the discussions were on one page. Others argued that chopping the page up made the discussions slightly harder to find and were a disincentive to participation by non-regulars. We never really reached agreement because we never really agreed on what made the new-user experience easiest and/or most effective.

Scanning his essay, he has some good points. Process must be subordinate to the needs of the encyclopedia. On the other hand, nine times out of ten, the process was built (or evolved) for a reason. Bypassing process can be every bit as damaging as blindly following the process. Rossami (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The server load wasn't an argument I mentioned until it was brought up by a dev. In the archives of AFD talk, you'll find a link to a dev saying so bluntly. My argument was that a two-megabyte page was blatantly exclusionary of outsiders, thus meaning AFD couldn't possibly claim to represent a consensus of all Wikipedians - David Gerard 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/CopyToWiktionaryBot

Hi, please comment, if you will and if you have anything to say, on the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/CopyToWiktionaryBot. (I'm asking as you're highly familiar with the transwiki process, and few others are). --Xyzzyplugh 10:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Space Science

request informal mediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal (Space Science listed at bottom of page) Mlhooten

• You've not attempted to join in the discussion at Talk:Space science. Uncle G 09:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC(GN)

I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 22:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary question

I noticed you've been removing some of the Move to Wiktionary tags. While some are obvious, in some cases I'm unclear why you're doing this. For example, Anililagnia. This is just one sentence which seems to be defining the term, and wiktionary doesn't have this, so why remove the transwiki tag? It's not a well written definition, and it's a highly obscure one, but it still seems to be a definition. Nasolingus is much the same. --Xyzzyplugh 13:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Given that we've had trouble in the past with invented sexual acts, it's best that references exist before wasting Wikipedians' and Wiktionarians' time with the transwikification of these articles. Notice that in the cases of these two words in particular, there's scant evidence that either word has been used much, if at all, in running text. There are lots of reprints of a few glossaries, but almost no actual use. So attestation is a significant concern. Uncle G 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering about your removal of a "move to wiktionary" tag - the one on Armscye. Unlike the word you talk about above, armscye seems to be in actual use, in the world of sewing. Also, if you believe the word shouldn't be moved to the Wiktionary, why not just prod it? Brianyoumans 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I removed it because it appeared (and you have just confirmed with what you wrote) that it was placed there as a means of deleting the article. The transwikification system copies things to Wiktionary. It does not move them. It is not a back-door route to deletion. What happens at the source project is independent of transwikification. You ask why I didn't prod it. Your question is founded on a false premise and therefore unanswerable. It is not I that wants the article deleted. It is you. So here is your question reflected back at you: If you think that this article should be deleted from Wikipedia, why didn't you nominate it for deletion? Personally, given both the fact that it is a valid concept in sewing and Special:Whatlinkshere/Armscye, I don't think that deletion is the answer. I haven't researched to see whether there's enough source material for a full article to grow. But if there isn't, then merger into a broader article on such sewing concepts seems to be the best idea. Uncle G 08:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As a relatively new editor, I guess I didn't grasp the effect of a "move to Wiktionary" tag - thanks for the info! I'm afraid I do think the article should go - it seems like a classic "define the word and you're done" sort of entry. What sort of expansions are possible - "The Great Armscye Shortage of 1564?" If there isn't one, I suppose we could have a page that simply defined lots of obscure sewing terms, with diagrams, but even that seems rather dictionary-like to me. Brianyoumans 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No worries. It's one of the most widely mis-applied tags, in my experience. As I said, I hadn't looked to see what expansion is possible. But even if there isn't, there's no reason that it couldn't be merged into a broader article, with diagrams, on armscyes, necklines, and other sewing pattern bits and pieces. However, it does appear, at first glance, that there's stuff to write about the shapes and sizes of armscyes, beyond simply stating what they are. Uncle G 13:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your essays

You've written a lot of essays, IIRC WP:NFT even become semi-policy. Is there a page with a list of all of your essays? - Mgm|^(talk) 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• No. (One can always list all of the pages in the User: namespace beginning from my user page, of course.) But if it helps here are two more: User:Uncle G/Describe this universe went on to become the original basis for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) whilst I was away (see earlier on this page). User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not infinite went on to become Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Uncle G 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

St Chad's RC Primary School

Hello Uncle G. I have began the sourcing process for the St Chad's article, please feel free to take a look and provide feedback if you would like. Take care, Silensor 08:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Len Tower again

The process wonkism to overturn the AfD decision of Len H. Tower Jr. has been successful, and the new discussion, along with my criticism of the process now being followed, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard H. Tower Jr. (second nomination). Please note that previous votes/comments are not being taken into account. See you there. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Czech edition

I was actually referring to this [AfD for Czech Wikipedia]. FrozenPurpleCube 14:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's not deletion of the Czech Wikipedia. Conflating an encyclopaedia article with its subject is the mistake that is made by people from non-notable web discussion fora who come to Wikipedia to defend articles on those fora. "Don't delete my discussion forum! I want to keep using it!", they cry, making the mistake of thinking that deleting the encyclopaedia article on their discussion forum is the same thing as closing the discussion forum itself.

  Another novice mistake that one often sees such people making is the use of external links in discussions to link to Wikipedia pages, for which internal links are in fact appropriate. Uncle G 17:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

re: galleria imagi

Better? Tomer^talk 23:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. That's the recommended solution. I don't see how that will cause any problems. Uncle G 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lapal Primary School

Hello again. I've added references to the Lapal Primary School article. Please feel free to plug in any other relevant references if you come across any. Silensor 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Indus World School

Hi,

I just wanted to clarify whether I have understood you correctly.

First, is your main point that "no assertion of notability" is a criterion for CSD only for certain articles but NOT a valid criterion for AFD in general? Sounds nutso to me but the CSD policy certainly could be read that way. If there is a simple explanation for this apparent inconsistency, I sure would appreciate hearing it.

Secondly, if I had said "not notable" instead of "no assertion of notability" in my nomination reason, would you have accepted "not notable" as a legitimate criterion for AFD deletion?

Third, assuming you are not going to close this AFD, do you have an opinion about whether this should be kept or not? That is, leaving out the "no assertion of notability" issue, is the rest of my argument about WP:NOT on the mark or are the other "Keep" votes right?

--Richard 01:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't close discussions that I participate in. That's bad form. Please treat my participation in the discussion as the participation of an ordinary editor, albeit one with some experience, because that's what it is intended to be. Administrators are just ordinary editors who have a few extra tools that their disposals.

  Yes. The criterion of no assertion of notability is for speedy deletions only. Bear in mind that it is a shortcut, a means for a single person to make a decision that, previously had to go through the full normal deletion process and involve multiple people. It is aimed squarely at the deluge of vanity articles, people writing about themselves, their garage bands, and their clubs, despite the advice not to in many places, that rains upon Wikipedia every day. Other shortcut criteria were proposed. I proposed one myself: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2. The intents of all of these were to find means whereby a single person could make a decision that would reliably come to the same conclusion that a full AFD discussion would come to, for these particular classes of articles.

  When it comes to subjects that this shortcut was not intended to apply to, whether an article asserts notability is immaterial. (Indeed, much of the discussion of this criterion involved ensuring that appropriate cases, even in the classes of articles that it does apply to, would be handled by the full AFD process. See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles.) A full AFD discussion is intended to determine whether a subject actually is notable. It involves actually doing research on the subject at hand, looking for sources and information, and applying the relevant policies and notability criteria.

  As such, a proper nomination should involve a link to the notability criteria that one is applying and a detailed explanation of why they don't apply and what research one has done to determine this. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving_rationales_at_AFD Uncle G 09:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events) (second nomination)

I just wanted to let you know that I am withdrawing my assertion to keep this article. I don't however appreciate the tone of your comments, particularly cross referencing "Lemony Snicket" with "Queer". I guess you looked at my userpage and thought it would be amusing. Mallanox 11:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great escape remake

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The guideline is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (moved from user page)

Comment below moved from user page. -- Donald Albury 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Uncle G, thanks for adding some languages to my article "list of letters that don't start with themselves phonetically" I dont know why i didnt think of adding the french, even though i speak it kind of good. thanks again. -REDMON89

Lords Refrom

Hi, I think you were the one that added a few tags to Lords reform. Thanks. As a relative newcomer, I'm struggling to find anyone who is willing to discuss rather than simply squash the article. I've thought about what many of the comments have said, and I'm more convinced that the article is needed. I know it needs a lot of work, but unless there is something there to work on I'm going to struggle to encourage others who are more expert than me to contribute. My main struggle at the moment is to try report what camed out of the debate on Lords reform in a neutral but inclusive way, so that someone looking at the article will get a real idea of just how interesting the debate has been. (Indeed, I'm really hoping to attract a few of the more interesting proposals to enter details, because I've forgotten what the details were!) Mike 09:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• The nomination of Lords Reform has been withdrawn, notice. It's the proselytizing breakout articles that are the focus of the AFD discussion and that everyone else thinks don't belong. Uncle G 09:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (comedy)

Thanks for working on Wikipedia:Notability (comedy). I'm not really sure how to move forward with it. Have you any experience with this sort of thing? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lords Reform

• Uncle G You were kind enough to help out a little on the Lords reform article. Unfortunately, I've just realised that there literally isn't time to get the Lords reform article into shape before the vultures circling kill it off. I thought, if I spent today on it, I'd be at a state where they'd be positive comments. Unfortunately, its all taken much longer than I thought. I'm very tired, and I'm not prepared to put in another 30 hours just so some people can put another notch on their belt. I've decided I've had enough ... Mike 19:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Places, names and notability

So if a place has a population, a history and so on then it's notable? Just trying to make certain I take the right lesson from the AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Capitalistroadster's expression "real place with a community of interest" encapsulates part of the idea. If the world at large has written history books about a place, or published studies of its geology, or published reports of census data taken from surveying its population, or published articles on its economy, or published treatises on its politics, or done various other similar things, then there's material for an article and a demonstration that the world at large has considered the place notable. Most towns and villages in the world will have these. Towns and villages are usually documented in these ways.

  In contrast, the oft-mentioned plot of grassland to the side of my house has none of those things, even though it is verifiable from sources that are not only reliable, but even authoritative. ☺ An area of the planet's surface has to have more going for it than solely a name. Unless, say, ecologists come along and publish in-depth studies of the particular ecology of the plot of grassland to the side of my house, it doesn't warrant an article. Even if people start to live there, and the place gains a population, it only warrants an article when that population is surveyed by a census and (specifically) reported upon. The existence of populations makes places significant to demographics researchers. For encyclopaedists, however, what is important with regards to places is the fact that the demographics researchers have then published studies on those places. Uncle G 11:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm with you now. Thanks for the explanation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's probably one of the most eloquent and clear explanations of the concept of notability that we use. So many newbies don't really understand it...maybe you should add that to the guidelines! Akradecki 12:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

David L. Cook again

User:Junebug52 (formerly User:Iamascorp) is at it again. After squabbling over my removal of an unsourced discography/TV appearances list, this exact same information has suddenly magically appeared on David L. Cook's personal page on CDBaby. This info was not on the page just two days ago and does not appear in Google's current cache of it. [6] Clearly, User:Junebug52 added it himself so that there would suddenly be a source. Since User:Junebug52 has already admitted to be working for Cook, games are definitely being played here. Furthermore: Junebug52 originally claimed the edit by 24.225.33.42 [7] to be his own and edit-warred over it, then apparently realized he forgot to sign in, and now claims that David L. Cook himself made that edit. It's becoming increasingly likely that Junebug52/Iamascorp is David L. Cook himself. wikipediatrix 13:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• These allegations are just untrue! She claimed that I blanked a page when I didn't, she claims that even in a cache search she could find no information that David's discography and filmography when it is right here [8] She claimed that we made edits under an IP address and that I forgot to sign it? Where does she have the right to jump to conclusions that she has no proof of? I think she is mad becasue she did not find the information herself. If CD BAby or any other company updated their records to include or delete information, how does that make it my fault or my doings? The last thing is she claims I made reference to working with Cook? I did not! I work for a company that handles many artists. I do not work for Cook. I am the only one who edits under my account. I am also not David L Cook! Where does she get this stuff? She has no proof at all of what she is alledging? Should she be able to get away with that? What other people do is their business. I get so tired of this! I am about ready to leave Wikipedia. All I am trying to do is to add good articles. I am new and should not be beat up like this by this woman. Junebug52 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Junebug52 is 24.225.33.42

1. 24.225.33.42 adds "Home" info to David L. Cook (and also blanks out pages related to his old username, User:Iamascorp). See here.

2. User:Junebug52 edit-wars and reinserts the exact same "Home" info. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Cook&action=history here].

3. User:Junebug52 suddenly claims: "The information that was added came straight from David L cook himself... He is actually the one who added the information last night." Junebug52 specifically denies being 24.225.33.42 and says that was Cook himself. See here.

4. User:Junebug52 makes a post but forgets to sign in, and it's shown that Junebug52 is indeed 24.225.33.42. See here.

Because of this game-playing, combined with massive incivility, vanity/POV-pushing edits, page-blanking vandalism, and contradictory claims of being Cook's manager, a pastor who runs Cook's fan club, and "just a friend" of Cook's (all of which I can also provide diffs for), I request you to consider blocking User:Junebug52. wikipediatrix 16:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Uncle G, this woman is on some form of witch hunt. Wikipedia is aware that AOL can and does use the same or similar IP addresses on many occassions. For her to say that someone is the same is just down right absurd. Where is her proof besides what she feels is an IP address? I am sorry but if this is what I will have to contend with on a regular basis, I do not want to be a part. NO where does it say I was Mr. Cook's manager, nor does it say that I have worked for Mr. Cook. I work for a company that deals with several artists yet my editing is on my own time and is not reflective of the comapnies opinion or facts. These are my personal contributions. I am withdrawing from Wikipedia. I hope that as an administrator you will deal with her and her aggressive behavior towards new editors and contributors or as Wikipedia calls they (Newbies). All I did was try to help and got bit in the ass. I really have gotten my feelings hurt here. What a nice group. Junebug52 12:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Beam me up scotty

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beam me up scotty: No objection to the redirect, but what is "Geogre's Law?" (or is this a typo for George's Law? If so, what's that?). I had looked for an article Beam me up Scotty, but it hadn't occured to me to try it with the comma. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  20:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Glossary#G Uncle G 20:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting candidates

I don't believe there is a consensus on which candidates to keep and which to delete - that's why the policy on candidates and elections is not finished/official. My personal criteria on candidates is USEFULNESS of having an article - if a House race is close, I think it's absurd to delete an article on a challenger who is a major party nominee, for example. Or in an open seat, the person likely to win, as was the case with Bilirakis(!). As someone else pointed out, a while ago: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. John Broughton | Talk 22:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Your belief is incorrect, and waving the "not a paper encyclopaedia" mantra around does not magically cause our "not a soapbox" and "not a telephone book" official policies to disappear. (In part, that's because it's not relevant. I suggest reading the text in the section that you've linked to, not just the title. It's addressing a completely different issue to what you clearly think it to be addressing.) The consensus criteria for biographical articles, which is what these are, have been Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies for a long time.

  The personal criteria that you've stated above are ill-conceived, moreover. The consensus WP:BIO criteria are based upon non-trivial coverage from sources independent of the subject, as explained here. Keeping articles on nominees simply because they are nominees is, in contrast, effectively based upon the notion of Wikipedia being a soapbox for candidates to publish election statements on — the "usefulness" being that of presenting election platforms to prospective voters. And indeed it effectively results in exactly that in the case of candidates, however major the party, who do not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, since the only sources for articles on such candidates are the candidates' own self-publicity. Once again: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 23:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, would 187,000 google results change your mind for, say, the case of Jerry McNerney? John Broughton | Talk 01:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Counting Google hits isn't research. My name garners thousands of hits, too, and unlike McNerney I don't share it with commercial analysts and the like. Research involves actually reading the web pages that Google turns up, and locating sources that demonstrate that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied: news articles that specifically cover the person, independent biographies, and so forth. Uncle G 09:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, I was counting google hits to measure notability. Reading User:Uncle G/On notability, I came across this: Wikipedia editors determine ... whether a subject is notable by looking for the existence of non-trivial, independently sourced, published works on the subject. The news release you cite is quite atypical of the first 100 google results I looked at - there are a handful of news articles, less than a dozen links to McNerney-produced campaign pages, and virtually all the rest are blogs - some well-known (dailykos, mydd), most not, the majority (I think) done by people living near or in the contested district. So - do blogs count?? Your article doesn't seem to address that. (We're not, of course, taking about using a blog to "verify" text.) If a thousand people think that a subject is important enough to put into their blog, does that matter? Does it matter if they put a brief comment and a link, as opposed to lengthier commentary? What if they are commenting on something they personally observed (such as attending a campaign rally)? In short, I think your article could be improved by talking about the extent, if any, to which blogs can contribute to notability. John Broughton | Talk 12:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Considering what encyclopaedia content can be built from the sources is important. A million web diarists writing "I saw Jefferson Smith today. He's cool." in their diaries is not useful for constructing an encyclopaedia article, whereas 1 journalist sitting down, writing, and publishing a 7-page detailed analysis of Jefferson Smith's politics and history in a newspaper feature article is. Uncle G 14:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks UncleG for all the help. I hope you we will be in good terms in further too. Nice to see you around and drop a message to me. SO kind of you.rencin24

Rencin

I have got one link here. Well did find it and here it is.Pastor Don And I tell you please if you do not like the page going on just delete it.rencin24 rencin24 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in

Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities to share your opinion. Hydromasta231 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

British American Football League system

I was wondering why you redirected the page listed abouve instead of having it deleted. John R G 07:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British American Football League system Uncle G 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD comment about trivia sections

Hi there. I was reading this AfD debate, and I noticed you said (in response to a suggestion to put the material in trivia sections about the people involved): Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. However, that guideline says: "This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections." I agree that the information shouldn't be put in the articles to start a permanent trivia section, but it could be left "in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with". Or left on the talk page, as per another suggestion at that guideline. Anyway, what I really wanted to ask, was what were the people listed at that article? I am curious about this now! Carcharoth 11:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to edit the biographies of the individual people, then I recommend using the original sources, rather than simply taking deleted content at its word, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. They were this and this. Uncle G 11:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You are right. Thanks for the links. Carcharoth 12:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tim Tam deletion

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Tam (2nd nomination). When I was going through doing the proecdural nominations I misread the dates in the first AfD as 2005 for some reason, hence I set up the 2nd nomination page. Thryduulf 16:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• No worries. Uncle G 16:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Simcloti

LOL. I just hit "hjgww", which came up with 102 (26 unique) G-hits. And that didn't even have vowels! -- Kicking222 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Biscuits

I take your point.

What I was trying to express (obviously not clearly enough) was a worry that there is a real possibility of every single biscuit in the world getting its own article, whether its own peculiarities warranted it or not. I don't have the time or the inclination to research sources on all of the biscuits currently under discussion (and surely that is the task of the original writer and subsequent editors). What I wanted to do was simply raise the question "Do all of these deserve a page?" as a contribution to the debate. The debates are, of course, should these individual articles be deleted. I don't know, hence, I have abstained. I agree that there will be biscuits that absolutely deserve their place and no doubt their supporters can provide sources to back this up, but in the articles I have seen so far, this has not happened. So, by any criteria, their continued presence must be up for discussion. Emeraude 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• That possibility only exists if every biscuit in the world has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works independent of its manufacturer. Moreover: Doing the research is the task of every contributor to an AFD discussion. Having multiple editors look for sources and double check one another, and multiple editors read the sources that are found to see what they say and who wrote and published them, is how we ensure that we make the right decision. Uncle G 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Optimum Nutrition

I never say a warning till the 3rd upload, there never was one and if there had been one I would have know what to do as it was deleted before I could even bring it up the first time, I though the internet had gone done so I uploaded it again this time I saw a speedy delete for corporate spam. Nothing to do with copyright. The Last time I asked for an admin to review and was deleted again this time there was a resaon, At no time was there ever a resaon given till the last time if there had been I would have know what to do.

I was doing this article for Optimum Nutrition Inc. and this was the text they asked to be posted. I can see the problem this will cause and will adjust the text to reflect this change. I just wanted ou to know I don't make it a habit of redoing the same article over and over just there was nothing to tell me why the article was just gone.--Cleanupman 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• The warning was there on every edit screen. If a company asks you to post its blurb on Wikipedia, refuse. Wikipedia is not a press release publication service for publishing company press releases, not a free wiki hosting service for companies to host copies of their own web sites on, not an advertising billboard, and not a resource for conducting business. It is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 09:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Providing sources

Thought you might be interested in this discussion. Carcharoth 14:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nigerian Yellow Pages

Hello. I'm glad someone understood what I wrote in the Afd nomination! I find the amusing pile-on by anons and newbies rather confirms my feelings about the article! Assuming good faith, of course: I don't have a suspicious mind! :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 16:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Overtaking

...You'll have to be more specific. ^^;;; --Masamage 18:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD stuff in general

• Heyas, Uncle G. Just wanted to say that you're one of the most consistent participants on AFD in terms of demands for sources and verifiability, whether it be for arbitrary video game mod or a delicious chip-filled article that got caught up in the recent cookie wars of '06 (a thousand casualties delicious!). Anyways, much respect for that and your well-thought out user subpages you tend to link to from AFD (I'm aware you don't want to have a user page, but is there any way you would link to them from your user page? ). I'd present you with a barnstar or something, but my guess is that you aren't in to that stuff. ;-) Anyways just wanted to say that I admired your work. Cheers! Wickethewok 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Space Science

User:mlhooten is still banging on about this at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-16 Space Science but at least he is not altering the page anymore ... do you want to comment ... ^Jaster 10:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I saw nothing at Talk:Space science. It's a bit bizarre to leap straight to mediation without any attempt to use the article's talk page first. Uncle G 10:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes .... and I think he is attempting argue himself into cutting and pasting a whole bunch of wordy stuff into the page ... so keep an eye on it please ^Jaster 12:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the AfDs

Hey, I got your note on my talk page about my comments regarding biographical articles and notability. I hope I read it correctly, and I thank you for your compliment. It takes so little time to check sources on an article. Two or three clicks beyond the google search should turn up something. It really takes me about 120 seconds or so to do enough research to make a thoughtful contribution to an AfD discussion. As an aside, I am an addicted WikiPedian, and one of my major causes is seeing that wikipedia is up to the highest standards of quality and inclusiveness. Some articles have noteworthy subjects and are merely poorly written or in need of expansion. These are NOT in need of an AfD. It takes several people often many sessions to create a good article. Some articles need to be given a chance. Others have no chance, and SHOULD be deleted. It takes about 2 minutes to tell the difference. Many people commenting on AfDs eem tobase their comments merely on their opinion of the subject matter, or even more annoyingly to make a point (see the AfD recently on the LSU football team articles). I merely hope to add some substance to the discussion. I think it does the administrators no good to simply read a series of comments that just say delete per nom. Having a bunch of people concurring without adding anything to the discussion does not help admins make any decision. Its my goal in my AfD comments to add something to the table that will help the admins make a decision one way or the other. BTW, does it make me sick that I like spending hours on housekeeping activities here at Wikipedia like reading AfDs and helping to clear the uncatagorized backlogs? I do have a few projects I am involved with in writing new info, but I also like doing the general research needed to make WikiPedia better as a whole. Thanks again for the comment on my talk page. If you see anyway I can do better as an editor, please let me know. Oh, and it might be time to archive your talkpage. --Jayron32 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Its my goal in my AfD comments to add something to the table that will help the admins make a decision one way or the other. — You've pretty much summed up one of my goals, there. Uncle G 17:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Miami Mafia AfD

Thank you for the clarification. I have no objections if you wish to close this now. -- No Guru 21:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that and thanks for cleaning up after me. -- No Guru

Takashimaya

Commented out OR, added Forbes Global 2000 mention. Good enough now? – Chacor 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's better than having no references, but more than just that one reference would be far better still. Remember that articles that cite sources are rarely even nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. The idea here is to be proactive, to prevent deletion nominations from happening by citing enough sources so that one can demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied simply by pointing at the references and further reading sections of the article. Aim to equal BETDAQ#References, for example.

  Citing sources is a good idea for any pet subjects that one has. Wikipedia gets a better article (which is both easily verifiable and simple for other editors to expand since the sources are already located for them), and the people who create the articles on their pet subjects find their pet articles far less often facing deletion nominations. Uncle G 16:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Butterley Tunnel

Dear Uncle G

Thank you for your help with the Butterley Company article. I have used the Further Reading section you provided as a basis for the references required by another contributor. I hope this is acceptable to you. I was especially pleased to see the underground wharf report as this was new to me. Naturally I am biased with respect to this subject otherwise I would not be writing an article at all. I only started writing for Wikipedia yesterday and was not quite prepared for a deletion debate feeding frenzy. I did not realise that each time I started a line with "Let it Grow" that I was actually placing a vote. I thought that this was just a discussion and that an independent adjudicator would judge the result on its merits. I apologise for this error, thank you for the correction.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon

• Don't worry about it. The very first article that I ever created here, back when I didn't have an account, was nominated for deletion. You are more fortunate than I was back then. I had to face incomprehensible rationales such as "nn" in the deletion discussion. I also didn't have anyone encouraging me in the right direction of citing sources, which is the best way to make an argument, and also the best way to begin an article. The consensus appears to be heading towards an article merger into the article on the canal as a whole. A merger is a form of keep, since merger doesn't involve deletion at any stage. So it is not that the content is being thrown away. If, as I said in the discussion, you can cite sources to show that this article is capable of (in a verifiable manner) growing to significant length, long enough to warrant a breakout article, then perhaps you can persuade other editors that even a merger is unnecessary. (You'll have to ask them individually to revisit the AFD discussion.) Of course, the best argument in that regard is a lengthy, detailed, copiously and unreproachably sourced, article. ☺ Uncle G 10:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Uncle G

I have expanded the article and would like to add more references. I cannot see how you reduced the reference to a number. Please Help.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon

• See Wikipedia:Footnotes. Uncle G 08:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Uncle G

I have added references to the Standedge Canal Tunnel page. I would like to remove the request for references. Do you agree?

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Uncle G

The Butterley Tunnel deletion debate has now lasted more than five days. The concensus has swung strongly in favour of keeping the article. Would it be possible to now close the debate and leave the article as it is?

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• You shouldn't close the discussion, because it isn't a clear consensus keep. I shouldn't close the dicussion because it is bad form to close AFD discussions that one actually takes an active part in. There's always some degree of slack in closure. The 5 day mark has only just been passed. A closing administrator will no doubt get around to closing the discussion within the next day or so. Be patient. Uncle G 15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your impact on AFD

I see your name come up everywhere on AFD and I admire the way you're always able to find half a dozen sources almost instantly. It's greatly appreciated. Maybe you could offer researching tips to other users, bill them by the hour, I don't know... — CharlotteWebb 04:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Rolling forward AFD nominations

I considered removing the AfD tag but decided against it. The tag states "this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed". If I had removed it, I might have been pegged as a vandal. I felt it was better to be safe than sorry. ... discospinster _talk 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Andy Stephenson

I looked for better sources for the claioms made on this AfD'd article. You used the citeweb template to note missing fields in dead websites. I retrieved one with the Wayback machine at www.archive.org/ , but I'm not sure how to fill in the fields in the template. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at present ref 5 in the article, "Stephenson ends bid for Washington Secretary of State." Thanks for your diligence. Edison 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Found some references to his work in NY Times, Washington Post, etc. which help to argue for notability. Edison 07:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Glossary categories

I thought I was making an obvious proposal, and only going to CfD as a procedural move, but instead, I think I'm not making myself clear. I wonder if I could ask for your input? I think it seems clear that articles about reference works that are glossaries and articles that are glossaries on Wikipedia ("Glossary of X") are different concepts and make the category useless to have thekm together. So, we should make a new category and differentiate the two concepts. Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_15#Category:Glossaries? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 03:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing AfD header

Thanks for fixing that...I was pulling my hair out trying to figure out what I did wrong to cause that...still don't know...can you shed some light? Akradecki 18:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Were you using {{afd2}}? Uncle G 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I started with afd1, then used the preloaded debate link, which usually automatically imbeds everything. Akradecki 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There weren't any changes to Template:afd that day. I suspect a problem outside of Wikipedia. A HTTP proxy burp is one possibility. Uncle G 15:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Space Science

Mlhooten asks Uncle G to review Space Sciences at User:Mlhooten where all fictional references have been removed. Mlhooten will post this entire version to Space Science under the stipulation that Uncle G will not revert it. Mlhooten asks Uncle G to agree that the overall structure will remain and that Uncle G will only remove offending entries after an explanation for the removal of each entry. With notice by Uncle G to Mlhooten of offending entries, Mlhooten will find scientific citations for any entries not cited excepting entries which merely link to another Wikipedia article. Mlhooten will continue to clean up this version: spelling, grammar, style and proper use of citations. Mlhooten Oct 19, 2006.

• Seems to me like we are inventing an umbrella term simply for the sake of it. Guy 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please join in the discussion at Talk:Space science. I haven't had the time to do so myself, yet. Uncle G 14:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Web operating system

Dear Uncle G, I'm writing with a problem resolving the bizarre AfD on Web operating system. I've asked the administrator to review it, to actually read the article, and he's not responding. That AfD discussion (to which you contributed with some counterargument to the crowd) read like opinions on the subject, not the article.

I'm lost to comprehend the wikipedia editing process. It needs some control. There needs to be a process. My suggestion is a voluntary self election to editor status, required for editor operations like inserting templates and creating deletion processes, and then for editors a system of ratings under which the old greek ostracism may be imposed -- blocking a user from participating in a process that calls for rational and fair judgement.

Thanks JohnPritchard 13:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Mailer diablo may well be asleep. It has only been 16 hours since you edited xyr talk page. Not everyone here is in the same timezone. ☺ There is plenty of discussion on the subject of elections, starting from m:Voting is evil — too much for me to list here. AFD is a discussion; anyone can participate; and we encourage participation from anyone who can make a sound argument based firmly upon our policies and guidelines. The difficulty with Web operating system (AfD discussion) is that when it comes to certain topics there's a lot of fashionable chatter and not much substance, and there are an awful lot of editors who come to Wikipedia to write up new ideas and abuse it as a publisher of first instance. A poor article on a genuine concept can often be indistinguishable from novelty and hyperbole. They best way to approach a subject like that is with a reasonably large set of good sources — solid scholarly articles on a subject, books, and so forth — already to hand. I suspect that if the discussion were run through AFD again, the result would be largely the same, in part because there isn't enough cited source material to convince editors that, however wrong and ill-conceived they may think it to be, there really is a central concept that has gained traction in the world at large, distinct from other concepts. Probably the best course of action, which is up to you and Mailer diablo to discuss, is for the article to be undeleted to your user space (e.g. to User:JohnPritchard/Web operating system draft) and for you to work on adding and using sources and ensuring that the article contains no original research before bringing it back to the main article namespace. Uncle G 14:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Uncle G, we appear to have reached a concensus on Web operating system as a merge of three articles, WebOS, Webtop and Web operating system... many thanks for your help. - JohnPritchard 13:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, thanks again for help in the Web operating system neighborhood. - JohnPritchard 16:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ForbiddenWord

Hi Uncle G...since you, like I, are involved in the discussion with this user about the school AfD issues, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ForbiddenWord. Akradecki 14:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Re : Web operating system

Yeah, I was about to simply just point him to deletion review given I was emailed about the same thing again. I have no problems with userfication if he asks for it. For a second AfD I may be a bit hesitant about this (I don't rule out this option, though), but I am willing to post the deletion review myself if the author was more tactful in asking. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Uncle G, I noticed John has recreated the article (which by right [[WP:CSD|would be speedy deleted), but since you may have differing thoughts on what to do and me currently being really busy in dealing with real life matters I'll have to leave this for you to decide on the next course of action, and I'm really sorry for that. I'm fine with any option of recourse that you would take (including nothing), just make sure it doesn't potentially upset any other editors on this. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree completely with the content of WM:PIE and WP:CSD, both of which I find in my support on this subject, having read them. Both of them deal with reading an article, and considering its faults and merits, as a first point. JohnPritchard 09:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Balmoral middle school, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balmoral middle school

This AfD is closed now, but I wanted to let you know that I found some evidence that a school that some people referred to as Balmoral Middle School once existed in Brampton, Ontario by searching Google at http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Balmoral+Middle+School%22+site:ca (that is, with "Balmoral Middle School" in quotes and +site:ca , saying to search only for domains in the .ca top level domain for Canada)

http://www.cahperd.ca/eng/rap/documents/RAP_School_List_0304.pdf and http://www.acsepld.ca/eng/rap/documents/2002-03.pdf list the school as recipient of an award from the QDPE School Recognition Award Program of the Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Perhaps this was only an unofficial name used in physical education circles or perhaps someone at the school gave an incorrect version of the school's name to CAHPERD. Or, perhaps more likely, the Peel District School Board decided to abandon use of the term "middle school" and renamed the school to Balmoral Drive Senior Public School, the name in current use and the one shown at http://balmoraldrivesr.peelschools.org Using the school's current name, I found a prize-winning poem by a student, a reference to street-crossing safety in the minutes of the city council of Brampton, a newspaper story about an alumnus of the school at http://www.northpeel.com/br/entertainment/story/2187455p-2535325c.html

This might be enough to write an article about the school under its current name, but I doubt it would survive AfD. Still, I thought you would want to know what I found out. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well done for doing research. You might want to add the fruits of your research to Talk:Peel District School Board so that they aren't lost. Uncle G 10:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting

I am going by a long standing discussion with User:TomTheHand. Please see recently [9] and [10] This administrator has been very clear and consistent over time. Other than TomTheHand, I can not find a reliable source of guidance on this isuue. If you can point me in the direction of one, I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 15:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I have been drawn into a sockpuppet, etc. mess I want no part of surrounding User:Timmy12. Said user, who has an apparent history of tagging articles for various reasons with little or no reason, and has aggravated various people with said actions while refusing to read anything associated with the article in terms of references, rather simply posting annoying tags, etc. The article in question is Joseph Byrd, which Timmy12 has repeatedly tagged despite the fact the article has numerous inline citations and references listed at the bottom of the article from a variety of sources. After disputing Timmy12's tagging, they have labelled me as part of some cabal of people they've had an ongoing set of issues with I have nothing to do with. Timmy12 has now crossed any sense of good faith by reverting a significant number of inline citations I made to the page earlier today, just to attempt address an issue they raised I felt never existed in the first place, merely to repost their own citation tag that was inappropriate to begin with. I and others, from reviewing the history of Timmy12, have repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate with this person, who may or may not be a sockpuppet. The last revert by Timmy12 can be seen as nothing but vandalism, and this person should be suspended from continuing this kind of behavior. I found your commentary about citations from a link Timmy12 left on my talk page, but they don't follow what they insisted I read. Any and all assistance/advice you can provide would be helpful, this kind of behavior is absurd. I'd add, in this particular case, the material on the page has been verified not only via the numerous sources cited, but by Joseph Byrd himself, who has commented directly to me and others on the material provided, is a person I have known for some years and have published material about. I should also add I write for a major newspaper group and am a professional writer and researcher by trade. Thank you. Tvccs 04:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Space Science

Since mlhooten is actually nearly doing things properly now! could you take a look at Talk:Space science and comment ^Jaster 11:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's been on my to-do list for several days, now. Currently, I'm working on something that has been on my to-do list for somewhat longer. ☺ Uncle G 11:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Great Architect of the Universe

Great work! If you are ready, I'll translate your work in German. Quite interesting that those who delete parts of the article vote to delete it. I think it's quite essential that the removal of the GAotU was the main reason of the schism of Freemasonry and I am not very happy about the fact that it was removed [11] because this could be found "elsewhere". (Where is "elsewhere"?) --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Grand Orient de France, Freemasonry#History, History of Freemasonry#The_great_schism_of_1877, and Regular Masonic jurisdictions#Belief_in_a_Supreme_Being. Uncle G 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Being

Since I know regular Freemasons and formerly "regular" Freemasons, I know that there is even no need to directly declare a belief in a Supreme Being in regular Freemasonry in Germany at all since Freemasonry is not a religion.

But sadly: http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/freemasonry-and-religion.htm - This is inconsistent and against the freedom of conscience:

They claim:

• It demands of its members a belief in a Supreme Being but provides no system of faith of its own.
• Freemasonry is open to men of all religious faiths.
• Freemasons meet in common respect for the Supreme Being, but He remains Supreme in their individual religions, and it is no part of Freemasonry to attempt to join religions together. There is therefore no composite Masonic God.

According to this definition and since there is no Supreme Architect in Buddhism - it is obviously not open to buddhists: God in Buddhism. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Basing articles upon what you personally know, instead of upon what can be found in sources, is where you are going wrong. You are also going wrong in thinking that it is Wikipedia's place to take a stance in the debate amongst different branches of Freemasonry. It is not. Wikipedia is neutral in that, and any other, debate. Uncle G 16:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Monstermob

Thanks for the information about Monstermob. I did the requested complete rewrite of the article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent. I was steeling myself for doing that myself, later. Now I don't have to. ☺ Uncle G 16:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

AfDM

Hi Uncle G!

I noticed you changed the template AfDM - from which I take it you understand how it works!

I'd be interested to know what you think of it - my intention is simply to reduce the amount of "clutter" that a new user might be faced with if they have an AfD placed on their new article (it might also reduce the heat a little as well!)

--Mike 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• One thing is worth bearing in mind: I cannot remember where it is, but I do recall a discussion a couple of years ago about whether the AFD notice should be transcluded or substituted. Uncle G 00:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Although I'm not entirely sure how AfD behaves particularly with the various name spaces, it seems to work as I've structured it. I can't understate how bad the present AfD notice is. I remember when I first got an AfD notice, trying several times to make sure I was editing the right document! Then I started searching for the start of my article. There were probably several other notices as well, and the combined effect was the metaphoical equivalent of a baby just learning to walk being tackled by a rugby scrum - it just seemed completely unfair and a slap round the face! Moreover, as I struggled to improve it, each time I opened the document it was as if someone had dumped a load of crap on the article and then telling me it was "untidy". Most people I know faced with that situation would just not bother go and use their talents where they were really appreciated (as I did)! --Mike 12:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There shouldn't be any need for worrying about other namespaces. Those are covered by MFD, not by AFD, remember. Uncle G 12:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have the time, please check out a recent essay I have written

I have noticed that you get respected (somewhat) as a defender of the notability guideline here. I have some random musings located at : User:Jayron32/Musings on notability I would respect and appreciate your opinion on my ideas there greatly. If you have the time to read it, please make comments on that pages talk page. Thank you in advance... --Jayron32 07:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on the talk page. It was very helpful. Still, reviewing the WP:CORP and WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, I notice a few things. 1) Each is just a rehash of the primary notability criteria. A corporation is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself". A product or service is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." A school is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself" Why have the seperate guideline if it adds nothing to the discussion? These guidelines do not substancially add to our ability to discern notability. 2) The extra criteria there only serves to obfuscate the arguements. The "50 year" requirement for schools is arbitrary and pointless (does a 51 year old school with NO PRESS COVERAGE get kept while a 49 year old school with SIGNIFICANT coverage get deleted?); other crtieria are only as good insofar as they meet the primary criteria. Schools competing in notable athletic endeavors recieve siginificant nontrivial coverage for those endeavors, and thus meet the PNC. Schools with truly unique programs (insofar as the catagorization as "unique" is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH) will already meet PNC, as others will have commented on that uniqueness. The issue is not that you or I know the difference, the issue is that well meaning editors fill AfD discussions with irrelevant information that steers the arguement away from that which is useful to the closing admins. To bring the argeument back into usefulness, we need a smaller number of easier to follow parameters, not a sea of new random guidelines that are either redundant or arbitrary. I look forward to your response on my talk page --Jayron32 03:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Abernathy

After reading comments on TWC's talk page Talk:The Weather Channel/Archive 1, I just redirected Kristina Abernathy to The Weather Channel per discussion. Go ahead and closed the discussion. Thank you. --Moreau36 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good man

That's all, really. Keep up the good work :-) Guy 14:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Order of the Briefs AfD

Hi. Llloydfrancer (likely a single purpose account as it was created today and only used for vandalizing a discussion) asked me to appeal your speedy deletion decision. After looking over the previous discussions, it certainly seems as if it qualifies under G4, but I just wanted to let you know the user is claiming you are abusing your power. Have fun dealing with him! -bobby 21:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I had already seen. In my view it also qualifies under G3 at this point. It's not a legitimate subject. It's recurrent hoax vandalism that was inspired by Stephen Colbert. Uncle G 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• He's now challenging it on the AFD talkpage. --SunStar Net 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest a look at Special:Contributions/Llloydfrancer. Uncle G 23:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye, article

Hello Uncle G. As you're an Aministrator. Please, would you wipeout the article List of family relations in Major League Baseball. It's an article I've started, however there's already a similar article in Wikipedia. Please again & Thank You. GoodDay 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I get the feeling you're not a big fan of receiving barnstars, but you have no formal "no barnstar" message anywhere that I can see, so perhaps just one occasionally won't be frowned upon too much... you certainly deserve a few, and Paraphysics is a clear example of that. So here's this - do with it as you will. If you just want to delete it, that's fair enough; consider it a simple acknowledgement of your work on WP

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For constant sound work and rational discussion on and around the AFD pages. Grutness...wha? 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I second this for your good work and follow-up regarding the Winter holiday season AfD. — Sebastian (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Everybodyfields

Hey Uncle G, just posted a response about the Everybodyfields. --AW 18:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving_rationales_at_AFD

Hi G

Rather than polluting the AfD debate further (and making this a tad more formal, sadly)...

You appear to have accidentally used a link to a pet project of yours in userspace in a context where it can easily be suggested that it is policy.

Please don't do this. If you want to use your personal essay on working pages, please make it clear that they are not official (or tag the page clearly to say so). For new or inexperienced users, you may be accidentally suggesting that your personal ideas are ones they should follow. They are not.

Thanks for your time! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• There's apparently a belief that the only things that one can link to in discussions are policies. That belief is utter rubbish, and wholly unsupported by longstanding actual practice, where people over the years have linked to mainspace articles, external web pages, essays, style guidelines, talk pages, mailing list posts, and all sorts of stuff in discussions. In this particular case, giving pointers on how one should give such rationales was exactly what I intended to say, and indeed exactly what I actually said. (I even emphasised the word "should".) The only person who mentioned anything at all to do with policies was in fact you. It's rather sad to see that the "One must only link to policies." mindset is so endemic that simply and straightforwardly showing novices and those inexperienced with AFD how they should write rationales and what they haven't explained (as opposed to the tack taken by some editors in such situations of attacking the nominator and questioning xyr good faith) is actually criticised. It appears to be excluding the actual worthwhile goal, which is of course to help the novices write better rationales than "question notability", for the sake of a rule that doesn't actually exist in the first place and whose foundation is shaky at best. That's quite counterproductive.

  Wikipedia culture is passed on from experienced editors to new editors. When an experienced editor says "Here is what you should do." to a new editor, that is not inherently a bad thing. Here's something for you to think about: How many times have you yourself helped a new editor, telling xem what they should do when xe has gone about doing something poorly? And how many times have you linked to mainspace articles, mailing list posts, discussion pages, essays, diffs, style guides, votes, examples, and many other things that are not policies when doing so? Uncle G 21:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain some things?

I've cited your essay User:Uncle G/On sources and content in a current AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pop culture references in Warcraft, but some poeple seem to be missing the point. Could you help? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

nsfw afd

I think you have a point. I am going to try to rewrite the article to focus on differing workplace rules on what content can be viewed by employees, and perhaps on what kind of content gets the rating. I think there should be enough sources for these topics. Your rhetorical questions were effective! Oh, if you can suggest anything else to include please donadav 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible new CSD

I'm floating around this proposal I've written for a new CSD regarding unsourced articles: User:Dmcdevit/CSD addition. There's quite a bit of explanatory fluff there that I think explains my thinking on the matter. Right now, I'm soliciting input from people before deciding how to go about implementing it. Any thoughts on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Size queen

Thanks for fixing that AfD, I got sidetracked by a problem on my spam server that required urgent attention. Bloody real life! I did check Talk, but the previous discussion was not linked there. Guy 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Help. About to commit wikimurder...

Hi. I really need help with Rrfayette (talk · contribs). I'm a peaceful guy (or so I think) but this guy is definitely making me lose my cool. Not sure why I'm asking you (actually, I do: you were the first admin I found in the list of contributors to WP:WEB). I've been running into him for a few days now, first concerning his management of his talk page where he has deleted critical comments or moved them to his "Tainted Cell of Silence & Disorder" and now concerning his sweeping changes to WP:WEB in which he made over 100 changes (counting the talk page) disregarding other editors' opinions, claiming that his changes are reverted by evil people out to get him, and completely disregarding civility. Of course, I have been a dick myself and honestly, if there was a "destroy this user and ban him for eternity" button, I would be frantically clicking it right now. And so, before I commit wikimurder, I'd love to have some help or advice. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• He's difficult, all right. I'm already regretting not going with my first impulse and protecting the page. —Cryptic 03:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• You always have the option not to run in to me. Don't be gender-bias. I never stated my gender.
• Secondly, you were not at all "peaceful", you first annoyed me about me tagging articles that did not have sources. I was performing a chore-- nothing wrong.
• You have been much, much of a d-i-c-k and dif-fi-cult, hassling me for the past few days. It was always you the one that comes at me.
• Worse of all, you tricked Cryptic into being against me from the start. I can't even get a neutral and fair response now.
• Ummm.. I have moved nothing to my "Tainted Cell of Silence & Disorder". To be fair, I also have a "Pure Basket of Surprise, Joy & Glee".
• WOW, I NEVER called anyone "evil".
• You lie so much and distorted everything. Goodness!
• "destroy this user and ban him for eternity" You see that. You're so unreasonable and emotional. You are definitely not a logical person.
• Please stay away from me from now on. When I edit something, don't go coming reverting everytime you see me edit. When I write something to someone else, don't jump in, accusing and attacking me. Just Stay Away!

—SolelyFacts 03:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is.—SolelyFacts

First: Both Radiant! and Cryptic are administrators, and editors of experience and long standing, and both are already involved. Second: My advice is that if you are in that frame of mind, go and do something else for a while. Third: Don't fret too much about talk pages. Early on, when I first created an account, I tried to employ an unusual talk page format. See this. I found it impossible to maintain against the tide of editors who just clicked on the "+" button. Rrfayette will no doubt tread the same path that I did. ☺ Uncle G 09:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Will you be standing for election to ArbCom? Given your role as a tireless and open-minded saviour of crap articles on good subjects I'd be voting for you :-) Guy (Help!) 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Is it Privy Council time again so soon? As you yourself pointed out in the answers to your candidate questions, what arbitrators do is not the same as what administrators, or featured article writers, or even tireless saviours of crap articles on good subjects, do. So that should not be the primary reason that one thinks that someone should be an arbitrator. Uncle G 13:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, but fairness, commitment to building the encyclopaedia and an open mind are the stuff of good arbs, and that is what makes you the tireless saviour of crap articles :-)

Notability

Having just come across your notability essay, I must admit I will probably look at that first before the real WP:N. I'm not saying I will agree with everything you say on AfD, but you have certainly thrown a spanner in them there works! ;) Bubba hotep 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Trust Me I'm A Doctor

Hi. In a recent AfD discussion (I'm afraid I can't remember which), you rolled out the memorable phrase "We don't accept 'trust me I'm a doctor' here". I was curious to know if maybe it was a reference to an essay of yours or some tucked away section of a policy or guideline I'd missed. It's certainly a succinct way getting across WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR etc. to purveyors of "but I know for a fact...". Anyway, sorry for shouting at you a couple of months ago, I am now a religious defender of correct deletion tag usage. Keep up the good work. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• The phrase is in User:Uncle G/On sources and content. The policies are indeed the ones that you mention. And I don't remember, offhand, the details of two months ago, to be honest. Wikipedia:Wikiquette says "forgive and forget", and I've certainly forgotten. ☺ Uncle G 12:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kafenio

I am working on sources as fast as I can. You will find some under sources. Rough 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please discuss it on the AFD discussion page. Other editors and the closing administrator won't see any discussion that you have here. Uncle G 17:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Have a question for the future, is a source not available on the internet, such as the legal deposits of magazines at national libraries, a recognized resource -- and if yes, how does an editor prove that he actually consulted this archive. In my profession, for example, we have to provide copies. How is this handled on Wikipedia?

This question came up because of a tip user:alf_photoman gave me today (somehow by looking at an IP I left on some discussion board he knew that I was stayimg in the same hotel as he was... don't really understand it... see my discussion board), that Kafenio, having a ISSN, had to deposit copies in the archive of the national library of Greece. I knew that this was the case for normal print media but not for ezines.

Rough 23:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• You don't need to provide actual copies of the magazine articles themselves. Indeed, that would be a violation of copyright. You merely need to provide citations, so that readers and other editors can find the relevant magazine issues for themselves in their libraries. The principle underlying our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is that Readers must be able to check all content against sources outside of Wikipedia. So readers require citations telling them where such sources are to be found. Telling readers where to find the sources is far better than handing them copies, moreover. Readers have no reason to trust that copies of things made by pseudonymous Wikipedia editors are accurate. Remember: Readers don't trust you. For best results, cite magazines that have a credible and widespread reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G 23:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Absent_referent

Hi, I have vastly improved the article Absent referent to address the concerns of you and others. The ghits should now include the expression "absent|missing referent|antecedent". I will include redirects for these variations if needed upon closure of AfD. Please consider changing your vote to KEEP. Thanks for your comments! I feel the article is much stronger now, and I have learned much in this process both about the concept and WP in general. --Bhuston 13:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Layout breakage on Articles for Creation

Hello, I can see you've done quite a lot of work on the Articles for Creation page. In the process, you have forgoten to end your reviews with {{subst:afc b}} – thus breaking the layout of the page. Please keep in mind to use it next time, and please fix your previous submissions when you find enough time. :) -- intgr 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Knollwood Mall

I deleted Knollwood Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as one of a large number of articles on malls operated by a single company, all created by a single-purpose account who has failed to respond to a single Talk comment about any of them - in other words, a spamming campaign. When deleting large numbers of similar articles, some subjects with merit can be caught up; you may wish to rebuild this one based on the source you identified. Or not, it's not terribly interesting. Just letting you know. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hanseen Abdelnaby

Thanks for giving me a clue regarding the sources, and for cleaning up the article. :-) Kimchi.sg 00:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review

UncleG, Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? I note that you are recognized by many as an authority and your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 16:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I just discuss a lot, and write the occasional articles and pages here and there. ☺ Uncle G 16:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your thorough opinion. I think part of the issue is that people in the conversation who were new to Wikipedia, while they had valid opinions, did not understand the rules. When you're new to Wikipedia it's hard to know the difference between a guideline and a policy and an essay. The distinction is rarely made when these things are cited. After some investigation I see that some guidelines are still hotly debated. At any rate I appreciate your thoughtful review. Thank you. Dgray xplane 18:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the following stupid question: What is the PNC?Dgray xplane 18:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The Primary Notability Criterion. It's described in Wikipedia:Notability. You can also read about it in User:Uncle G/On notability. Uncle G 18:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

UncleG, This is just a note to say thank you for your help in revising the XPLANE article. You are restoring my faith in Wikipedia and instilling a desire for me to learn so I can help others too. Much appreciated. Dgray xplane 18:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD note

Thanks for this tip (copied below)! I'll implement it, probably later today. Or maybe I'll wait until the article is deemed either a keep or delete. Of course, not all journal citations and/or abstracts are available for free online. I have access to more than usual due to some personal subscriptions and being enrolled in an online master's degree program. Thanks again for steering me in the right direction though! :-) This article, BTW, was not my creation, but one I happened to notice and did some quick research on to try to save it. Keesiewonder 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you add the citations for the sources that you have found to a "Further reading" section of the article, using {{cite journal}} for best results, future editors will know where there are sources to be had that can be used to clean up the article. Uncle G 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Doing the research at AFD is a good thing. Keep it up! Uncle G 13:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD Bot

Whenever I nominate an article for deletion a little Bot comes along a bit later and shows that I haven't done it right. I thought I'd fixed the problem but the bot came back - what am I doing wrong?--Edchilvers 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yyou aren't performing step #3 of the 3-step process explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Uncle G 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability of companies

I noticed you added a notability warning on the Dimensional Insight article. When I created this article, I specifically patterned it on the articles about a number of similar companies, which sell similar products. Now, I don't see any such notability warning on those other similar companies (examples: Applix, Business Objects, Cognos, Hyperion Solutions, MicroStrategy, QlikTech, etc.). Can you explain to me why you are targeting this particular company for your suspicion? There is a link to the company's web site (http://www.dimins.com) that provides all the information you need (same as for those other companies). What other information do you need in order to establish this company's "notability", its income tax returns? This all seems quite preposterous to me. I have been a Wikipedia editor for two and a half years, I have made several thousand contributions, started numerous articles, and have never come across this kind of targeted scrutiny. Pasquale 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• As an editor of such long standing, you should know better than to make the foolish assertions that there is some form of targetting going on (when as an editor of long standing you will know that all that has happened is that an article has been nominated for deletion — a process, one of several such Wikipedia processes, designed to involve multiple editors) and foolish "Why not those articles over there?" arguments (when as an editor of long standing you will know that "If article X then article Y." is a wholly fallacious argument and you will be very familiar with the fact that articles are reviewed as and when volunteer editors decide to review them). As for the information required, the two notices on the article tell you that already, as did what I wrote right at the start of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensional Insight and what another editor also wrote subsequently. Uncle G 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, Uncle G, but I don't buy it. Put it this way: If you had started a serious article about a serious subject (as I trust you have) and somebody called it "blatent spam" (sic) clearly without knowledge of fact, would you not think that was outrageous and unjustified? You try to make it sound like this is just a normal "process", you say "all that has happened is that an article has been nominated for deletion". I guarantee you, if it truly had been just that, I would not have been so shocked. You may be an admin (I assume you are), but that does not give you the right to upbraid me with a patronizing tone and repeatedly call my arguments foolish and fallacious. Please get off your high horse and reconsider. Pasquale 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The arguments are foolish and fallacious and, as already explained, as an editor of such long standing you should know that they are. Furthermore this is a normal process, and that is all that has happened. Your repeated assertions are baseless. Being openly and immediately hostile to all other editors in the discussion, accusing them variously of being arrogant and ignorant, is not doing you any favours, by the way. I suggest that you learn from the far better example that TruthbringerToronto has set. Witness the results that xe has achieved by doing what I said to do right at the start. Uncle G 01:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, you've made your points and I've made mine. Thankfully, the Wikipedia is a public place, so let others be the judge, since clearly this conversation is not about convincing each other. As for me, I am more determined than ever that I shall never seek to become a Wikipedia admin. I've never wanted to be a cop and I certainly wouldn't want all that raw power to go to my head. Pasquale 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD rationale

Ouch. "Much better?" This was something new to me, sorry. I will definitely look at the references you posted on notability; the articles on your personal page obviously didn't come up when I first looked up the deletion process. Now that I have them, I hope to do a better job. Scoutersig 21:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Varminter

You tagged this article as needing references some time back. I've done what I can, would you like to take another look and see if you think it's adequate? scot 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

nonsense

UncleG, thanks for the comment. My only response is that I am glad the deletion process has been altered (and that they wrote the suggestions at Wikilegal) and it is, in general, less of an ordeal to get ridiculous articles deleted.--Dmz5 16:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing has been altered. Being a short article with no context has been a speedy deletion criterion for a long time. Uncle G 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnson Page Merger

Based on your prior comments at Talk:Johnson you may like to voice your opinion on a merger proposal. TonyTheTiger 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Problems on the Gävle goat article

There is a user named Danny (see the History) that reverted me on the Gävle goat article. I have no idea why, even though I tried to ask him. Maybe because I found a YouTube link to a video about the Gävle goat, but he also reverted all my edits (which was adding info and references..) I reverted back to the version before he reverted it. Then he reverted THAT version as well!! crazy isen't it.. Please take a look at the mess and se what you think?? Thanks FreddyFred 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so fast to my concerns. Yes, it was weird reverts. It diden't feel like a "normal" admin response at all (no explanation, the hostile attitude etc). I took a look in his discussion blogs and it seems that this have happen numeroues times before, maybe something to keep an eye on?? Anyway, now I know that YouTube is a hot discussion topic and I will not link the video as for now. Thank you again for responding! FreddyFred 06:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Superpower Classic

An article that you have been involved in editing, Superpower Classic, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superpower Classic. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit to WP:BIO

Hi, Uncle G. Regarding this edit to WP:BIO, you removed the parenthetical section referring that "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage." Was this intentional and/or the result of some consensus on the talk page? I suspect it was accidental, but wanted to check before adding it back in. Thanks.--Kchase T 09:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's really implicit in the idea of "multiple", and none of the other criteria have needed to explain it. No matter how many news publishers reprint the same single Associated Press article, it's still the one published work, for example. Conversely, multiple separate in-depth articles, from multiple reporters, each doing their own legwork, count as multiple published works, no matter that it is the same single event being covered. So in that way, the prior text was misleading. Uncle G 10:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Put that way, I agree with your (intentional) revision. Thanks.--Kchase T 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Jugged, jugging, juggeder

Sorry, I must say that you are an encyclopaedia within an encyclopaedia. A human database, if you will. ;) Bubba hotep 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A redirect to Darth Vader and archiving your older posts

In Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 December 13, I just replaced {{rfd}} with {{CSD:G2}} because it's more of a test page. But rather than removing its whole content, we can close its debate with {{rfd top}} and {{rfd bottom}} with its whole content inbetween.

Also, wow! You need to archive all but your talk page because there are more than 200 sections, and I mean seriously. Go to Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for guidance. --Gh87 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that redirect is deleted, so I closed this debate with both templates I mentioned you. --Gh87 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now your talk page is reaching nearly 300 sections! --Gh87 22:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Makes no sense"? Haven't you seen Star Wars: Episode III? JIP | Talk 16:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Math notation

PLEASE don't indiscriminately change inline non-TeX mathematical notation to TeX. "Displayed" TeX looks very good on Wikipedia. "Inline" TeX often looks terrible. It gets misaligned or, on many browsers, looks comically gigantic. At least on the browser I'm using, e^3 + x looks good, but $e^{3+x}$ looks terrible.

This has been discussed at great length among editors of Wikipedia math articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and the various pages it links to). If you don't agree, go to the talk page there and bring it up. Michael Hardy 20:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

...also, in non-TeX notation, notice that you should write x + 3 = 5 rather than x+3=5. Michael Hardy 20:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• On the browser that I'm using, it's exactly the reverse. Your hand-rolled formula markup looks terrible, whereas the formula markup that is documented at Help:Displaying a formula looks good. It is not I but you, and those other editors, that should go to the talk page — the correct talk page, which is not the provincial discussion area of a project page on one single project, but the talk page of the formula help page at Meta, where you can find this very thing discussed: m:Help talk:Displaying a formula#Maynard_Handley.27s_suggestions. Uncle G 20:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You have it backwards, as to which is provincial. Those other editors are very experience with TeX on Wikipedia. I am FAR more experienced with using TeX on Wikipedia than you are. It's not "one single project"; it's everything about math on Wikipedia. Math is covered more extensively on Wikipedia than is any other subject. And DISPLAYING a formula is not what my comments were about. They were about INLINE math notation, NOT DISPLAYED math notation. Michael Hardy 21:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Wrong. I have it correct. It is you that has it backwards. Uncle G 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• ...OK, I've looked at that page. It is provinvial. The cosmopolitan place to go to talk about this is the page I pointed you to. Michael Hardy 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wrong. The English Wikipedia is just one single project, out of all of the Wikimedia Foundation projects that use MediaWiki. And Meta is far from provincial.

    Indeed, it is quite the opposite. It is the correct, central, place to talk about a MediaWiki mechanism that affects all projects in all languages. A discussion page on one single project in a single language is provincial, and you'd be saying so yourself if someone were, say, saying to discuss MediaWiki's mathematical formula mechanisms on a discussion page on the German Wikipedia, rather than the discussion page that you just happen to be personally familiar with on your own favourite project. Meta is the correct place for these things. As its main page states, it is the "website devoted to the coordination of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects [...] and the MediaWiki software on which it runs".

    By the way, your assertion "I am FAR more experienced with using TeX on Wikipedia than you are." is quite arrogant, and not something that I'd expect a mathematician to say. After all, a mathematician would be wary of assumptions and would first determine exactly how experienced with TeX on Wikipedia I actually am before making such an assertion, which you have not done. Your chosen mode of presentation does your argument no favours, and makes editors both less inclined to believe that you actually are experienced (after all, you don't seem to be at all familiar with the róle of Meta, or with the fact that the English Wikipedia is just one project amongst many) and less inclined to give your arguments any weight at all, since you are presenting them solely founded upon arrogant statements and clearly overinflated ideas of the importance of the discussion pages that you just happen to have used. Uncle G 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• ......Maybe I should explain why I say that. Simply put, it's ONLY about math typesetting, rather than about math generally. Michael Hardy 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is math typesetting that you are discussing. Uncle G 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Try it more simply:

• When I write e^x, it looks good.

• When I write $e^{x}$, it looks terrible.

The second one is badly misaligned. Michael Hardy 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wrong. As I stated once already, on the browser that I'm using, it's exactly the reverse. Your hand-rolled formula markup looks terrible and is difficult to read, whereas the MediaWiki formula markup that is documented at Help:Displaying a formula looks good and is easily legible. I've pointed you to the Meta page once. I point you to it again, in particular where people have discussed (for example) the differences between Safari and Firefox. The discussion pages that you are familiar with are not the whole of the world; the English Wikipedia is not the only project run by the Wikimedia Foundation; and your web browser is not the only web browser in existence. Uncle G 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But the page you point me to is nonetheless far more narrowly focused than the one I mentioned. And I have far more experience editing Wikipedia math articles that you do. Did you receive the email I sent you? Michael Hardy 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The narrowness of the focus is irrelevant, given that it's focussed on the very thing that you are discussing: MediaWiki's mechanisms for mathematical formulae. I point out that an argument from arrogance doesn't make your case well, and yet you are continuing with that argument. Let me re-emphasise my point: The fact that you don't even seem to be aware that different web browsers display these things differently (something that is addressed on the discussion page that I pointed you to) rather undermines any "I've had more experience than you." argument that you may attempt. Clearly, this is the first time that you've experienced someone saying that what they see in their web browser is not the same as what you are seeing in yours, for example. Uncle G 22:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It is NOT focused on the thing we're discussing. We're discussing A vs. B, and it's focussed on A, not on A vs. B. What makes you think I'm not aware of the differences between browsers? And do I need to point out that you are the one who objected to that other page because of its narrowness of focus, so I responded that you were mistaken about that; you had it backwards. Michael Hardy 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Rubbish. Of course it is. We are discussing mathematical notation in MediaWiki, and that's exactly what it focusses on. And I wrote nothing about narrowness of focus, as can be clearly seen above. I wrote that it was a provincial discussion area of a project page on one single project (i.e. a project namespace page on the English Wikipedia). The only person to mention narrowness of focus was you.

          It's the fact that you twice insisted that one thing looks good and another thing looks bad, even after I'd told you that in my web browser the opposite was true, that gave away that you weren't aware of the differences between web browsers, by the way. Uncle G 23:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask: did you receive the email I sent you? I sent it precisely because I am aware of the differences between browsers. Michael Hardy 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since you haven't answered the above, should I take it that you are opposed to my emailing you a pdf version of the appearance of the web pages in question? Michael Hardy 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The sole purpose for which I enable electronic mail for this account, to allow people that I have blocked to contact me (albeit that there are now other mechanisms in place to appeal a block, which didn't exist when I first became an adminstrator), is outlined at the very top of this page. Uncle G 11:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Gladys

		The Original Gladys Holiday Greeting
		For your hard work, insighful opinions and overall contribution to Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow, I hereby award you this Thank You, along with my sincere hope that you have a wonderful holiday season. james.lebinski 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Geo-political web-based simulator nominated for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Geo-political web-based simulator, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geo-political web-based simulator. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing reference styles

You changed the references I added to empty product (see this diff [12]). I wish you had asked first which citation style was being used before making the change. I don't care about the empty product article so much; I am point this out in case you are planning to change other articles without asking. The references I added were harvard style references with true footnotes; the <ref> and <references/> system is commonly used for creating footnotes as well as for creating references, despite the name (see here). Many articles include the real references in a references section and the footnotes in a notes section. CMummert 15:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• And many articles are the poorer for such conflation, ending up with a mish-mash of notes and references in a "notes and references" section. No matter how badly the tags are abused by some editors, references are not notes, as I wrote in the edit summary. (Several editors have asked for a separate tag for footnotes.) And what you used was not Harvard style referencing. In Harvard referencing, footnotes are not used, and the parenthetical cross-links are in-line in the text. What you used was another mish-mash — a confusion of Harvard referencing and <ref>. It is entirely unnecessary to mix the two as you did. If one uses <ref>, then the superscripted numbered links are themselves the cross-links to the citations. There is no need for a second, further, level of cross-links before reaching the actual citations themselves, as you had created.

  As for asking first, if you truly believe in that why didn't you ask me when you changed the referencing style from the one that that article had originally? Uncle G 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't mean to replace your citation method. The one reference that was there didn't belong in that article, and when I moved it to the other article where it belonged, that left the empty product article with no references at all [13]. Later, I added references to the empty references section, and then I added a footnote to the first sentence pointing out that these are general references for the topic at hand. Maybe I should have annotated the footnote more to make it clear that that was its purpose. I agree that a "Notes and references" section is no good, but until a footnotes tag is added the <references/> tag is the standard way to make footnotes. CMummert 18:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Some editors think that, but that doesn't make it true. The use of the <references> tag is implicit in its very name, and many articles use other mechanisms, such as the {{fn}} and {{fnb}} templates, for footnotes. Uncle G 18:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Have you looked at WP:FOOTNOTE recently? It uses {{ref}}. Both {{fn}} and {{fnb}} are deprecated. CMummert 18:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
        • That does not contradict what I actually wrote above. Uncle G 18:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rationale

Hi, you may have noticed that the AfD for "Rationale" resulted in delete. Not a problem in essence, but it left Rationale (vestment) hanging around "out there". So I moved it to Rationale and am now setting about changing all the pages that linked to the old dicdef "rationale". Just thought I'd let you know. Bubba hotep 08:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I had hoped that there would have been some further discussion of the article after the rewrite. Uncle G 00:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD on "santorum (sexual slang)"

Hi; we haven't talked before. I'm a fan of your article on notability, and wondered if you wouldn't mind dispensing some insights on a current AfD. The AfD in question is santorum (sexual slang). I nominated its first AfD, and have voted Merge in this one. I'm not asking you to participate in the AfD, just asking if you have time to give me your opinion. I guess there are three things I'd be glad to hear from you -- what your opinion is of my own argument as outlined in that AfD; what you feel are the mistakes and good points made by others, and how a closing admin would deal with the arguments; and finally, if you have the time, I'd be curious to know your own opinion on what should be done.

Partly I am curious because it does seem a complicated case, and I'd like the insights of someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about these issues. I'm also interested in your opinion because this particular AfD seems to me to be unusually full of people (on both sides of the issue) saying "Keep" or "Delete" without much basis for their opinion.

Thanks for any insights. Mike Christie (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is not even the second time that this article has been up for deletion. You can find several deletion discussions from 2003 archived at Talk:Santorum (disambiguation). Moreover, Santorum (neologism) was deleted, Santorum (word) redirects to Savage Love, and Santorum (slang) (now) redirects to Santorum (sexual slang). There's also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum. Uncle G 00:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• I should also mention that this protologism failed to satisfy Wiktionary's attestation criteria, because the word hasn't actually caught on. A lot of quotations were given at wikt:Talk:santorum, but it was found that they were either not uses in running text, or not by independent people. Uncle G 01:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ginsters Christmas Special.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ginsters Christmas Special.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Astrologer article

Hi there. I noticed you felt the astrologer article would be better suited merged with astrology. I've started a discussion on the talk page if you have any thoughts you'd like to add. Sam 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A request?

I tend to find your positions well-stated in debates, and I've really liked your essays on notability and sourcing, so I figure you're someone who understands wikipedia well enough to know what makes for a good administrator. I'd like to put in a request for the buttons to help clean up some backlogs, and I was hoping to get the opinions of a few editors that I respected first. Would you mind giving my contributions and anything else you'd look in an RfA a once-over, and giving me some pointers if possible? If so, thanks, id not, thanks for saving me the trouble of thoroughly explaining why we need to cite that the sky is blue. :) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Your thanks for that belong to Dpbsmith, not me. ☺ It might not be for a few days, but I'll have a look. Uncle G 05:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lenore Swystun AfD

Hi there. Apologies for treading on your toes over the AfD closure; some admins _do_ occasionally forget to close AfD's when speedying an article, and I confess to having thought that was what had happened here. Tevildo 05:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• No worries. That's what I thought that you had thought. I spent a few minutes collecting the sources and copying and pasting the citations in. (Dial-up is so slow!) Uncle G 05:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive your talk page

I strongly recommend you archive your talk page into a subpage. Werdnabot can help you. Sr13 (T|C) 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)