Welcome to Judgesurreal777's talk page. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Click here to leave me a message Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

Archives Archive 01 (February 2006-July 2006) Archive 02 (July 2006 - December 2006) Archive 03 (January 2007 - May 2007) Archive 04 {June 2007 - October 2007)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AgeofempireskingsDS.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ρх₥α 00:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — H₂O —  00:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the lead a minor rewrite to expand the content. You may want to look it over as I'm not that familiar with the topic. Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 07:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This Barnstar is for the help you've given in the maintenance and progression of the various articles in the Kingdom Hearts Featured Topic. Thanks for the advice and feedback on the articles over the past half year. I really had little idea what to do with articles when starting on the first KH game article. Now the topic is 9 articles with 4 FA, 1 FL, and one more on the way to FA. Your help is remembered and appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to megre the information to Magic (Harry Potter)#Unforgivable Curses however having never really attempted a major merge before I fear I may have botched it. Any chance you could help clean up my mess? [[Guest9999 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Please stop nominating every Harry Potter acticle that you come across for deletion. Some people like that series, although you apparently do not.--Cartman005 02:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make contentious edits like this without discussing them on the Talk page. The edit you replaced had two major problems: First, it included an unattributed opinion that, although representative of a minority view, was presented as fact. Second, it included a paragraph of information about Kim Philby et al, that had absolutely nothing relevant to McCarthy. Doing a knee-jerk revert of such a problematic edit for no other reason than that it appeared to promote a pro-McCarthy view is not constructive, and gives the appearance of being deliberately disruptive. RedSpruce 16:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left comments on the FAR page. Regards, DrKiernan 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a page i created (beside the point) in which you over tagged. Please tag carefully. It is hard to keep up with backlog, when people are trying to keep it clean. Overtagging does nothing good to an article and is unnecessary. PLease when you tag, also be very descriptive in the talk page as to the purpose of the tag. I am going to redo some work on that article you just tagged (dragon aspect) then untagg them. I spend about 5 hours per day on trying to clean up backlog. Again, please "Tag with care". --businessman332211 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, overtagging is unhelpful sometimes, but at most, I put 3 very specific tags; no references, since they had none, in universe, since they were written in a fan-oriented way, and sometimes notability, which is a very valid tag for many of those articles as they are very obscure and are of questionable notability. Much beyond that I agree with you, too many is unhelpful, but I put the ones I put for a reason. Judgesurreal777 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep the conversation here. I have it watched, and after it's over I will port a copy over to my talk page for reference. However, there are some things I would like to speak about. I created this article (normally the ones I create are) based off of the request list. I look through there and find one's I am interested in and create them. This one seemed interesting so I created it. It does have "references" So I might remove that one later. I have all the available references. Aside from that could you be so kind as to co-work on this article with me to fix "notability" and "in-universe perspective". I am pretty sure since you tagged it that you had in your mind thougths. Can you work "with me" on getting it to the proper status, or perhaps co-edit it with me to get it to where it need's to be. Please respond here and after the entire conversation is over I will let you know specifically that I am unwatching the page, and at that point I will port this entire conversation on my talk page for reference. Or if you wish to carry this conversation on my talk page please port the entire thing (header and all) there and then respond. Thanks --businessman332211 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list the specific articles that your are referring to? I tagged many, so perhaps you could list them here, or provide some examples so we can speak specifically. Judgesurreal777 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specific one I am speaking of is Dragon Aspect It's one I created from the request list. --businessman332211 02:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is a good example; Padme Amidala. This is an example of a featured article relating to something fictional. Or this one Master Chief (Halo), or this one Jack Sparrow. As you will see from examining them, they have whole sections on how this concept originated, how it was designed, what the creation process entailed, and what popular reaction did it have. Dragon Aspect has none of those things, and that's because it's probably not notable, and notability basically means it has all of the things I just listed. The Universe of Warcraft probably has enough to become a featured article, but all the sub articles from the fictional universe probably shouldn't have their own articles because they can't meet these requirements. That is why I tagged it that it needs references to real world analysis of the article in order to show it has notability. I hope that helps. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. That makes sense. The hardest policy is the in-universe policy/guideline. It's the hardest one for me to grasp. I am working on it. I am goign to rewrite part of the article this week. Try to locate some interviewers with the original writer's, or see if I can find some concept ideas on how it was created or whatever else. For reference I am taking this page off my watch list, I am porting this conversation over to my talk page. If you happen to need anything after this then put it on my talk page and I will get back asap. --businessman332211 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for helping clean up all the Warcraft articles. (Trying not to say Warcruft!) Some of your recent AFDs are not complete, though. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Perenolde is missing the template that categorizes it. Did you make them by hand instead of using {{Afd2}}? Pagrashtak 15:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I did, I didn't know about that other one. What are the benefits of using afd2 template? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does some standard formatting, such as using the {{La}} template to present the edit/talk/history/etc. links, and also adds the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template, which will categorize the AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onyxia for an example. After you add the {{Afd1}} template to an article, there will be a link for "preloaded debate" if you haven't made the subpage yet that will put everything in place for you. Pagrashtak 15:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look bad. I'm not sure what I can do with it though. I've got a few ideas to slightly reorganize and copy edit it, but that's it. Unfortunately I haven't yet gotten my feet wet enough with articles other than video game ones, but I'll look it over some and see what I can do. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, I've looked over the article some more and I have some ideas I think will clean up the article, however I'm not sure how well they will be taken. A lot of it will involve removing some headings (mainly to organize everything and reduce the lengthen of the ToC) similar to the "Main games" section of the Kingdom Hearts (series) article. This mainly applies to the "Technology", "Movies", and "Television shows" sections. The video game section can probably stay as they are since most don't have their own article. Along with that I'll go through and do some copy editing to the text, try to trim down any in-universe info. If you think these changes might be too drastic, let me know and I'll hold off on them. As far as referencing everything, I'm not sure how to help with that. I'm not familiar with the reliable sources used for TV and movies. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please use Template:afd2 as described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. I have manually repaired a number of your nominations that appear to have been written directly to a new page rather than using this template. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at what you wrote, and frankly I have no reason to believe the Homestar Runner character articles should've been merged. There is a TON of relevant, encyclopedic, out of universe information that was lost in the merge that can VERY easily be sourced. And at the very least, Strong Bad has pop culture notability. When you merged the articles, you removed this info, and frankly, I'm a little upset by this. :) --Sir Crazyswordsman 02:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. While clearing closed and unsorted debates from the Articles for Deletion Categories, I came across your Monty Python-related deletion nominations. I note that some were sorted as Games and Sports (Code G) and some were sorted as Media and Music (Code M). In an effort to keep the debates sorted correctly, I moved the debates for Trojan Rabbit, Brother Maynard, Patsy, Prince Herbert, and Concorde to the Fiction and the Arts category (Code F). In most cases, characters and elements from Film and Television (and performing arts such as theatre) are added to this category - unless the article is on the format or medium itself (i.e. DVD), in which case it goes to Media. This has the added advantage of keeping all of your noms sorted together, which should help interested editors find related debates. Hope this helps and - as an added note - thank you for helping to clear some of the cruft out of the Monty Python articles. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're having a popups (see [1]). If not, please be sure that the intermediate edits you are reverting truly are vandalism. One editor even posted to the talk page explaining his/her edit, with good reasons. Cheers, 71.182.215.210 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one: [2]. Might want to get those popups issues looked into.  ;-) 71.182.215.210 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a link farm, and how did that apply to Blade Runner? Notable fan sites were included as they do provide a "unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you might want to consider gettings WP:TWINKLE, if only to nominate for deletion. As others have pointed out to you, you have not nominated some articles correctly. For instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patsy (Monty Python). If you look in the history, you will not that the article had already been put up for deletion, and you over wrote the past one, creating a bit of a mess. Twinkle just makes things easier in that respect. Secondly, you might want to archive this page. It's getting exceedingly long. I (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely. There is a button at the top, [xfd], and you just click which, (AfD CfD TfD etc.), categorize it, and add a summary. It automatically lists it, and notifies the original contibuter. I (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirn and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirn (2nd nomination)? Pagrashtak 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it more or less. Pagrashtak 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the edit summary, they should be dealt with in a different fashion rather than just obliterating all of them. While some of these just don't plain need to exist, some do in some other form. I wanted the Elder Scrolls project to take care of this. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, sadly enough. I started a discussion a good while back about these articles and no one did jack crap about it. I hate to say it, but if no one else even wants to look into it, I probably won't do crap either. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that. When I get some time, I'll help out with that as much as I can. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you edited a lot on that article. Anyway, I am curious what your thoughts on the whole matter were? If you would be so kind as to send me an emnail (as it probably isn't relevant enough to the project to discuss online), I am curious in your opinion and thoughts. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where that came from. At one time my account was shared, but this is no more. Go ahead and get rid of it. I wish I had known. Thanks. :: RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 00:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on all those AFDs! It must have been hell filling out the paperwork. All for the better, I suppose. Also, please AFD/Prod Argonian and Black Marsh as well; I wrote them, I know that there's no real-world information supportable by reliable sources. There's only one real third-party source, the Argonian Compendium, and it's from a "fansite" so most reviewers shouldn't like it. Most of the other "real-world" information is OR. I appreciate that you've nominated for GA, but I don't think that either Argonian or Black Marsh deserve full articles ATM. Thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why don't you actually put some effort into saving information rather than destroying it? Copy it into other wikis and then turn the articles into redirects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alertother (talk • contribs) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry if it's off-topic, but just out of curiosity, are you a real judge? (In my own world I am a Great Pumpkin King, but in reality, I am a teacher and historian). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a logical reason to tell me about an Afd twice? I didn't even create the article. It was moved to another location then later someone pasted it over the re-direct. - Quolnok (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of United States of Earth

United States of Earth, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that United States of Earth satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States of Earth and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of United States of Earth during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've seen you nominate video game article in the past, I thought I would suggest an area to go through: Category:Video game stubs. I slowly go through what I can, but I simply don't have enough time. There is some good content in it, but there is a lot of things that could just be redirected, merged and/or deleted as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Judgesurreal777, I really couldn't care less what happens to all The Elder Scrolls articles anymore, since I left the project and the pages in care of other people. So would you please kindly stop posting AfD messages on my talk page? I'm getting tired of deleting them. --Koveras ^☭ 06:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know we disagree about some of the articles, but there is no question that much of what you are sending Afd should get deleted or merged. But the workload there is getting excessive--I try to keep up and make comments on a few, but it's faster to nominate than to defend. (At least if one is going to defend intelligently, not just paste a response to everything. As you know, i try never to do that.) If you want to encourage sensible work there, perhaps you could try smaller batches. If you do have consensus, it wont hurt if they go a little more slowly and it would show more regard for those who make think differently, rather than give the appearance of trying to overwhelm them.

I also wonder if you couldnt avoid some of this by simply merging. DGG (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If articles have no notability, there is no reason to merge. And besides, there are people like you who disagree with merging since content is lost, so that route is often blocked. Judgesurreal777 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to debate them here, we have AfD for that, but to work something out with you, as I assume neither you nor I (nor anyone else) want to spend all our time with AfD on these. We won't agree on everything, but maybe there are some things we can agree about. In this case, I suggest it is better to merge articles on individual minor characters and places into larger articles comprehending all the minor characters (or places) in a game (etc.) , rather than short or long articles on each of them. surely we agree on that much? I think others would also, & that would get the short individual articles out of afd altogether.

Well, I think a project we can work on would be the merging of the 60+ Mortal Kombat characters, as I dont really want to fight a horde of MK fans over their individual notability over 60 AFDs! :) That would be very worth while, since the MK wikiproject created a lot of these articles and we can bring the topic down to a rationale number. Judgesurreal777 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next question is whether to merge everything into a single article on the game, etc. (But if people interpret merge as delete, we won't get anywhere. If people interpret merge as keep everything, we won't either.) For minor games & the like , I think its a good idea. For those important enough to have books written about them, I think there will usually be too much material for that. some will reasonably go one way, some the other. If some of us dont try to combine them all regardless or size or merit, and others don't try to separate them all, regardless of size or merit, maybe we will need only a few friendly discussions about where the line is in the middle. Its the dogmatic insistence on keeping everything or deleting everything, which is the problem. If people try to make & keep as many articles on [whatever] as possible, it's reasonable for others in a reaction to try to delete the whole batch, seeing most of it will be indefensible. If people try to delete everything as unencyclopedic, then tits only to be expected that others will in reaction defend them all, to prevent losing everything.
On other conflicts also, I see insisting on the rightness of one's own position and being unwilling to compromise that causes problems. As i see it, even when right, it pays to compromise to avoid wasting energy in conflict. How about you? DGG (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew one of the AFD's after the author proved the notability of the article in discussion. I feel that merger is so easily undone, And many times I have merged things and people who don't understand simply revert it and its back again. The beauty of this process is that bad articles stay gone, and it sticks much better than redirecting. I agree, where people are reasonable and understand policy, redirecting is a good idea, building consensus for merging and such. But I am increasingly finding that the process is obstructed by people who don't understand policy, and AFD is much less prone to that. Judgesurreal777 05:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG has removed the prod. If you want to kill it, you'll have to go through a formal AfD. Sorry. (Heck, I spend hours playing the game some nights, and I think this and similar articles are fancruft and should be deleted.) --Orange Mike | Talk 05:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to also--until I found a much better,which is WP--which came just in time as I had optimized my favorite scenarios as far as they were going to get. My idea of the level of content is that necessary to understand the games-- the details are learned from the manual. The basic types of wonders and civilizations define the overall structure--they are not excessive or unencyclopedic detail. This is a good sort of combination article. DGG (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I support your work, but something tells me it's all for nothing. I tried to argue against the wave of keep votes in List of planets in Futurama, but as usual they end up snarky and bitter. I was thinking about an article such as Fictional universe of Futurama that would incorporate elements of all the Futurama plot articles, but it would be far too much work. Oh well. --Teggles 08:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. It involves effort. It's much easier to flag extensive articles for deletions in droves and get a pat on the back from other vets and admins than it is to actually improve upon or merge the articles. RobJ1981 even suggested to him where to look to get free brownie points in a few topics back.

Here's another way for FREE brownie points! Images now require a redundant fair use rationale. Well, since the rule is newer, a lot of images that were completely within the rules in 2004 and 2005 are free game to be deleted! A lot of the image uploaders won't even be around to contest it, because the hostile isolationist vets scared them off at one point! ShakespeareFan00 torched tens of thousands of useful images this way, and is now well on his way to being an admin! Isn't that GREAT!?!?!?! Why delete lesser-known articles when you can cripple a ton of important ones with little resistance!? Go, gobble gobble those points! Keep wikipedia 'clean'! 75.65.91.142 15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teggles, even if you did this--it would probably be nominated for deletion anyway. that may be why you really hold back, and I don't blame you. . DGG (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of deleting fictional articles such as Myst V:End of Ages may I ask? Is it to gain brownie points, whilst avoiding any work? Sure looks that way to me. ToriaURU 05:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie, do you really believe that two sentence articles on towns next to Duckberg are notable and reflect well on wikipedia? Judgesurreal777 05:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you contribute something USEFUL to wikipedia? Do some research yourself and merge some articles instead of DELETING stuff others have spent time on and sweated on? THEN tell me that articles are useless. ToriaURU 05:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, look at the page of accomplishments, where I keep track of either articles or images I have contributed to; it may not be overwhelming, but I do what I can. And besides, deleting bad articles is crucial to keep wikipedia from being filled with bad articles. Would you prefer I keep all of peoples "hard work", and let wikipedia suck? Judgesurreal777 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a pissing match to see who has the 'bigger contributions'. From your last 500 edits, you are clearly putting forth minimal effort and focusing all your energy to ruin articles while failing to properly justify why exactly the article should go. WP:JNN and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC in the nom isn't good enough. You just throw it out there and hope someone else will put in a decent amount of effort in their delete vote to try and translate your weak nomination into a proper deletion reason. 75.65.91.142 23:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be civil, or expect to be at Wikipedia a very short time. Insulting me will get you no where, and I am not afraid to stand behind my contributions. And by the way, either use policy to argue, or don't contribute, as you simply disrupt discussion. Judgesurreal777 03:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why not do as I--remove the very worst stratum, and try to improve the others. its not good vs evil as a dichotomy. DGG (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very good model there, but I think I do the same thing, only there is a lot of junk. Another model user is User:Guyinblack25, who combined all the Kingdom Hearts characters into one article, which will probably soon be a Featured article. The nice thing about his situation is that he didn't have a horde of fanboys shouting at him every time he merged and trimmed content, and reverting his redirects. That's why I think we need to start a proposal to create an "Article for Redirection/Merger" so that we can have definitive decisions on whether something is to be merged or not. Judgesurreal777 06:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who finally got most of the Pokemon articles merged. I succeeded using calm, rational discussion, I compromised with users... and I had more fanboys down my throat than anyone has had. Sadly, I did the opposite in the Futurama planets deletion. I should have learned. --Teggles 06:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support you in trying to get a better way of discussing mergers as alternatives to deletion. Having it as one of the results from an AfD tends to work erratically in either direction--often losing content, sometimes keeping too much. A merger can be either a keep or delete in effect, depending on how it is carried out. It's really not a branch of keep , which is the present official status. But let's first see what we can do with WP:MERGE, which does have a procedure, which works well for uncomplicated cases. I am reluctant to propose another XfD like process. DGG (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely rude. 75.65.91.142 05:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look through your edits and I am not impressed, you have nominated thousands of articles for deletion and you are causing extreme damage to the project. Well let me put it like this, you are giving wikipedia a bad name. Because its an encyclopedia on anything, its not called the "Game of deletion encyclopedia" is it? I am abandoning looking up information from this site because of your actions and I am going to make several online and press reports about how bad this website actually is. Mark my words wikipedia is going down for what you've done. Just you wait. Derekbishop 15:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this editor has a record of one (1) article created, and deleted. (No other edits, aprt from the one above). The article was tagged for speedy deletion as {{nn-bio}}. I added a {{hangon}} and invited the author to cite references that the subject of the article was notable (and indeed existed) on 30th November. No further input was forthcoming so I deleted the article this morning. I'm not sure where you come in for his incivility, as as far as I can see you've been completely uninvolved with that article. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. "wikipedia is going down" could be interpreted as a legal threat, I suppose, or just as a threat of inchoate evil. Either way, I'm keeping an eye out. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think by "going down" he justs means losing quality and usefulness (in his opinion). I don't believe it was intended as a threat. No need to overact to him—this is just another case of a new editor who is not familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Pagrashtak 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe not... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Concern_for_my_adoptee. Seems like a retaliation only account. EconomicsGuy 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing that I think it means is that users that focus on an nominating AFD-first, rather than trimming and merging, or talk with a wikiproject that is affiliated with that page is shown as rudeness that would alienate users and degrade Wikipedia. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dealing with vandals for a long time. I'm thinking that you've come across your fair share. Nihiltres has been helping me out but I'm afraid he's a bit caught up, possibly on a wikibreak. I'd like to bring the following to your attention:

• Suspected Sockpuppets of Omnifish

• Suspected Sockpuppets of Hargon10

• the most recent vandalism stab at my Talk Page

Please help me block these users once and for all. They're all mean spirited. They obviously don't WP:AGF, and don't know how to become a positive contributor to the 'Pedia we have running here. If you could help me I'd be much obliged.

Thanks much, and happy editing. :: RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Thank you for your help. You can just copy all this to him. :: RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it, though I'm already confused by all the names involved. Marskell 16:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The accounts at issue have been blocked, and I'll block other accounts, where obvious. Judges, I posted to RatedRestricted that he (or she—assuming) could use some mentoring. I encourage that, in this case. RatedR could be a much better user, with mentoring. Marskell (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...regarding the Winnemac (fictional U.S. state) AFD. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not a dump for all the articles in the category, its supposed to be a codified depository to the subject. So in order to effectively treat the characters as a notable real-world topic as opposed to the old horrible in-universe character articles with the old horrible in-universe template structure, all characters should be linked from the Characters of StarCraft rather than from individual links on the template, especially as there are only four articles and three of those attest a major amount of notability to the content in Characters of StarCraft. The locations link can stay until its fully notability-assured rewrite is complete, the same will be true of the species and psionic technology articles. As for Revelations, its not a novel and its not that notable either and should probably be merged somewhere rather than have a whole article. -- Sabre 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles utterly fail comprehensiveness and verifiability as stands. No one has commented at all on the Chocobo Racing page after I delisted it, almost two days ago. And as it doesn't meet the GA standard, I removed it from the Featured Topic. Standards have not been raised; it simply shouldn't have been promoted to begin with. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how anyone could argue that this article does not contribute greatly to Wikipedia. There's no other reference source that covers this kind of material (75.42.168.159 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I would have mentioned this to you off-line if your email were enabled, but I want an apology for the comment that "it is exceedingly clear you have no understanding of WP:FICTION, and it is critical if you are going to continue participating in these discussions for you to understand it." You can say what you like about my arguments, but please keep the discussion limited to them. DGG (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think AfD is getting backlogged a bit. Have you noticed that I have been tagging loads of articles for reliable sources? That got the attention of a few editors (see my talk page), and may result in a natural selection process in which the most popular characters get worked on while the forgotten pages get timestamped. The timestamps will then make it harder for people to argue that a deletion nomination "came out of nowhere". I've found that if editors are educated about notability, they are less resistant to the idea of combining characters into lists, deleting a few minor characters, and generally cleaning up. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm signing off now to get dinner. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your follow up to Marksell's post.

Similar to what I said to him, I don't exactly know what I'm doing here, I just know that I want to keep Wikipedia clean, Vandals out, and articles out of 'stub'ornness.

I completely agree... I could use help. If you have any ideas on what I can do to expand wikipedia, and become a better editor, please offer them up. I'm in no place to say I'm any good... If I got an RfA, I'd get No's across the board. I certainly haven't done enough to even qualify as a positive influence on the Wiki. However, In my spare time I make sure that I support articles, create them where I see fit, and save people from the terrors of vandalism.

Thanks again for your help. :: RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Christian violence in India. This article is nominated for deletion by user Ghanadar galpa due to malicious intent. Nomination of this article for deletion is part of the serial attacks on my articles by user Ghanadar galpa. Please be aware of user Ghanadar galpa. He had added POV texts in Human rights in India page. Custodial death is very high in India, torture in widespread in police custody. But user Ghanadar galpa tried to make it seems like that the police is innocent and the custodial deaths are exaggerated. In the Custodial death section of that article, he added texts like "The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power. Technological advances witnessed during the last few decades have provided the media with new abilities hitherto denied them", which I later deleted. He is accusing me that I am not neutral. But the truth is that, it seems user Ghanadar galpa cannot tolerate any article or text which depict human rights violation in India, which depict violence against non-Indian religions in India. As I am trying to bring the truth in light, he is accusing me that I am not neutral. In India, violence against Christians by Hindu-nationalists is a issue. Conversion to Christianity may result in death in India. I have added information about these in the article. I will add more. Thanks and regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be construed as vote-canvassing? I am compiling diffs of this otolemur guy running around wp frantically defending articles he created with malice that are being AfD'ed one-by-one (and not all by me mind you, see this and this for instance, both articles created by Mr otolemus Crassicaudatus).Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vote-canvassing. This is to inform a user who is interested in the subject. Good editors alaways give votes according to their own judgments. They are not influenced by others. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me aware you of user Ghanadar galpa. User Ghanadar galpa seems to be an irrational Indophilic propagandist. As I have told you earlier this user Ghanadar galpa seems cannot tolerate any article, any text that depict human rights violation in India, violence against non-Indian religions in India. See the Talk:Human rights in India. There he have falsely accused me that I have violated WP:CIVIL by boldifying words and refering him in third person in a article talk page? He have added POV texts there as I have told you earlier. His motivation is very clear. He is using wikipedia as a tool to spread a dirty Indophilic propaganda. See this[3]. He have just whitewashed the mention of anti-Indian sentiment in Sri Lanka. Why? Seems very clear. He could not tolerate the texts "The atrocities committed by the Indian Peacekeeping Force and support for LTTE in southern India".

• User Ghanadar galpa is presently busy in a dirty propaganda campaign against me and articles I have created. He is more likely to disrupt the articles and texts he claim "anti-Indian".
• He used several wikipedia policies abusively. He nominated the article Anarchism in India for speedy deletion claiming it attack page. See this[4]. Anarchism an attack page? Please note anarchism has nothing to do with attck. In wikipedia, there are articles depicting anarchist movements in various countries. Thus this article depict anarchist movement in India. See Talk:Anarchism in India. Also see List of anarchist movements by region. Currenty he has nominated Anarchism in India for deletion to spread anti-Anarchist propaganda.
• He also used anonymous IP address besides his username to edit wikipedia. The IP address 70.112.72.233 is used by this user for editing same texts. See this[5] and this[6]. This IP address has good contributions to the article on Bharatiya Janata Party, a political party in India known for there Hindutva ideology. See this IP address's contribution to the Hinduism in Malaysia[7] - added information on anti-Hindu incidents.
• See his edit in Deepa Mehta, a film-director faced opposition by Hindu fundamentalists. He added criticism section. His intentions are clear. He is trying to disparge subjects critical to Hindu fundamentalism.
• I have created an article Anti-Christian violence in India. I know fanatic Hindu fundamentalists will not be able to tolerate this article. User Ghanadar galpa has nominated this article for deletion.
• I have created an article Crime against foreigners in India. Do you know rape incidents on foreigners are increasing in India? Scam are prevalent in India with scam artists preying for foreign tourists? I have added all these information in that article. But some user have nominated it for deletion claiming it non-notable. Now user Ghanadar galpa is abusingly trying to distract the debate there. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime against foreigners in India and see [8] and [9]. He is now busy to distract votes from favour of articles I have created which this guy see "anti-Indian". I want to acknowledge good editors these facts. Thanks and regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]