RJD ANSWER

So then even though you use this User name, you are not the sheriff? RickK 19:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I am the Chief of Police for this municipality. I took on the additional tasking of webmaster in '95, when I desired our agency to have a presence on the web. I enjoyed it, so I continued as the webmaster ever since. Hope this helps.Rdoscherca 04:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I guess I should put my own userpage on my watchlist, just figured "Why should i?". Well, now I know, thanks for the catch [1], I had no idea it happened. Thanks

<>Who 07:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• one of the advantages of being an admin

Good to know for the possible future, however I need to learn more about all of the innerworkings of wiki and create better articles before I request adminship. ;) Who?¿? 00:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your userpage link to "We've got a longstanding disease of putting up with more nonsense than we should" doesn't work - this is the correct link. (I just went looking for it :-) - David Gerard 21:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've been thinking about making something to semi-automate closing VfD pages. Something like: You visit a VfD page to close, you press "Keep" or "Delete" (or others) and it clicks through things for you. To get an idea of what these scripts can do, visit User:Humanbot and also check out "wp mark" on my own user page. Would you find it useful? Would others? What parts cannot be automatic? r3m0t ^talk 22:23, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) PS Reply here; I'll watch. :)

Thanks for the word, and for your effort on this task, which probably (despite my prediction) *did* need all the meticulousness that you must have given it. I'm glad not to have felt i had to.

Also, *: Sigh! :* -- in ten hours i will be really seriously incommunicado for two nights and three days, so there won't be a lot of timely help i can give; i'd rather look into the history of the removals and have an exchange w/ the reg'd user, i.e. the chief. I propose as at least a stopgap that i put the VfD notice back once, and leave a note for him urging *him* to explicitly support the process, lest some supporter of his think tag deletion helps him. And i'd be glad to do more probably as early as Mon nite. Does this seem on target? (Of course, i won't have a chance to check for your response before then!

But i'll check for any prompt response, however long-shot that may be, after executing those steps.

--Jerzy·t 03:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see you've deleted The Melvin House before. --ScottDavis 12:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That article had been deleted once as The Melvin House and 4 times as Melvin House. The topmost deleted revision on both was identical to the current revision, so I speedied it. I haven't blocked anyone; I notice RickK said he would block someone if it was created again, but that's up to him. --cesarb 13:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will no longer participate in this discussion, since you obviously are attempting to turn the page into a "let's make sure we keep every school that has ever existed" page. RickK 21:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just reacting to the mood of Wikipedia. Nobody has been more surprised than I at Wikipedia's unwillingness to delete school articles, even apparently rather trivial ones. This being the case we should do our best to ensure that they're well organised. I've done considerable work on this, for instance the school districts hierarchy for California. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am just very frustrated at the way the supposed discussion of Schools went, and how it's being rammed down people's throats without consensus. I went several weeks without voting on schools because this "discussion" was supposedly taking place, and now I find that it seems to have just been a front to put something in place while overriding the views of those of us who don't think that every school that has ever existed should have an article about it. It was originally, "All high schools are notable, but we don't think junior highs and elementary schools are." And now, it's "all junior high schools, elementary schools, primary schools and montessori schools should have articles." The discussion on the VfD home page that the schools discussion is closed is another attempt to push it down our throats, and I have dealt with that. But since you clearly said on the SCH Talk page that you think its purpose is to make sure that every school article looks good, I no longer see any point in discussing it. RickK 22:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thing is, over the months it's become quite clear that even elementary schools can survive VfD (and frequently do). I don't think you can read WP:SCH as saying that all schools should have articles. What it does is say that rather than put them on VfD which will seldom result in deletion it's much easier to merge to an appropriate article.

I don't regard the schools discussion as closed--what happened was that someone (Radiant!, I think) summarised a long and very details discussion and we found ourselves (with some serious reservations) in broad agreement. Like any guideline this is still evolving. I myself have added some substantial bits over the past 36 hours or so. I'm concentrating on describing what actually happens to school information. Encyclopedias are about how best to organize information, and in the case of Wikipedia that appears to include information about schools.

I'm sorry that you don't see any point in discussing it--but be honest, you didn't participate in WP:SCH before. I've looked at the history of Wikipedia:Schools/Archive and it's clear that you made no effort to participate. So where is the change if you refuse to participate now? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for calling you a stuffed shirt. I sense that our interactions have become more heated than necessary. Please let me know if anything else I've done is bothering you and I'll do my best to make amends. I greatly admire you and would hate to fall out. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't doubting you in any way. I just didn't have the time to check the entire edit history and as such asked you to provide the diffs you were talking about. Hope that clears a few things up. See ya! Mgm|^(talk) 23:06, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you know about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities) 2. If you have an opinion, please vote. I am notifying people who have been active on either side of the debate. —Lowellian (talk) 23:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Tell me what you think of this article. It's my new pet project today and I'm rather fond of it. --Mike H 22:22, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've replied to your message over at User Talk:Marudubshinki. I hope this clears things up and allays your fear of copyvio. --maru 02:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take a look at it and see if there's anything I can add. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thats shree, and its not me! hes cool, and representative fo the toga party. THE KING 06:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I was agreeing with Xcali, i left a note on his user page. I disagree that shree's non-notable, but if you insist i will stop reverting it. can i put a better one there, maybe of the whole crowd? THE KING 06:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi RickK

I moved Prospero Alpini, because as long as i did not move him, i could neither create a disambiguation page for Alpini nor could i start up a new article about the Italian Army Alpini corps, because prospero blocked the link Alpini. Maybe you know how we can resolve that problem, so that both articles link from their respective fields.

noclador

Who are GRUNK, FUNK and CPNLAF? GRUNK was a government led by Sihanouk. FUNK was a coalition of political parties, which included Sihanouk, as well as the so-called Khmer Rouge. The CPNLAF were GRUNK's army. Sihanouk was the head of Cambodia until 1970. In 1970, Lon Nol staged a coup against Sihanouk. So from 1970 until 1975, Lon Nol's Khmer National Armed Forces fought Sihanouk's Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces. In 1975, the Khmer National Armed Forces lost to the Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces. GRUNK became the government of all of Cambodia, and was headed by Sihanouk, whom Lon Nol had tried to overthrow in 1970. Instead of having overthrown Sihanouk, Lon Nol found himself in a civil war against the guy (and his allies) that Lon Nol had tried to overthrow, and Lon Nol lost. The FUNK coalition were the parties in the government, and the CPNLAF was the army. This was not made up in my head, many books talk about this, here's a Google Print search for "Royal Government of National Union of Kampuchea"[2]. You get more results as well if you search for things such as "Royal Government of National Union of Cambodia", GRUNK (abbreviation of the French) and other ways to translate it.

As far as what belongs in the Khmer Rouge article or not, let us consider one sentence I changed - "With American financial support, Lon Nol attempted to fight the Vietnamese Communists and the Khmer Rouge." I changed Khmer Rouge to CPNLAF, CPNLAF being the army which fought against Lon Nol's forces. The sentence as it is is completely ridiculous, it would be like saying "With some foreign support, Iraqi insurgents are attempting to fight the British army and the US Democratic Party". What would say Adam Carr's reason for saying they are fighting the US's Democratic party? Well, some of the soldiers fighting vote Democratic, some Democratic congressmen voted for the invasion, so thus, the Iraqi insurgency must be against the Democratic Party. It's completely ridiculous.

Now, if Adam Carr put the sentence about the Democratic Party fighting in Iraq, and I changed it to say the US armed forces, and then you came along and said, what do the US armed forces have to do with this Democratic Party article, I have no opinion on that. If you want, you can erase the new sentence, I don't care. But I'm not going to allow someone to say the equivalent of "Iraqi insurgents are fighting the US's Democratic Party" because it is completely ridiculous and only serves to mislead those who know little about the situation. Ruy Lopez 06:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)