Archive1

Speedy deletions don't have to go through afd: you can just add the {{delete}} tag to the article and it will be deleted by an available admin. However you need to make sure it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. --Francs2000 00:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Xaosflux 01:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up your user page. While you ponder things (my own user page has a buttload of categories and infoboxes you might want to borrow), please consider Wikipedia:Multi-licensing your contributions. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for your work with stub sorting - it's really appreciated. I wonder if you could add an extra set of square brackets to your edit summaries related to stub sorting? That way, they show up as interwikilinks on the recent changes page. :-) --HappyCamper 01:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

ooops! fixed by copy-paste key! Xaosflux 01:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Awesome. Keep up the great work! --HappyCamper 01:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you reverted the redirect. All the content on Do They Know Its Christmas? is duplicated in Band Aid, and I merged what wasn't. It is, after all, "just a single." What do you think? --CDN99 15:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It looked like a dulicate at first to me too, there certainly is some duplication, and some non encylopaedic information on the song article (e.g. the complete lyrics are non-notable IMHO), but the song article does have infomration that is not in the band article, perhaps the duplicated information could be edited out?

I read the entirety of both articles ... twice :P . If we take out the duplication, there will be no article left. The part I merged with Band Aid I also had doubts about (encyclopedic?...--CDN99 16:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Guess there wouldn't be much left..The sections Public release and Charity records immediately inspired dont' appear to be duplicated, and deserve merit, IF their claim to fame is that it was an inspriration for other charity albums, and not POV praise, if those were secs were merged there would be no reason to keep the other articles as it would be all dupe Xaosflux 16:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Public release and Charity records immediately inspired are duplicated (see the sections Related Projects and Original Band Aid in Band Aid) --CDN99 16:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I must be going blind! I reverted it back to your #REDIR, thanks for talking about it civily! Xaosflux 16:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for helping with the stub sorting of these pages: Kutsinhira, Kushaura, moving Hosho, and other stuff (that I may be yet to notice ;)). Alex Weeks 04:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

NP! Recently came on to the Stub sorting Project, and came by them. --Xaosflux 04:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I'll have to look at that. --Alex Weeks 16:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting User:172's blanking of the page. He behavior is becoming very difficult. He claims the right to blank the page on the basis that to describe someone as a dictator violates WP:NOR. He has refused to engage in substantive debate.

Basically, he wants to delete the article, but cannot do so because he had his sysop powers removed and he knows he could never get it through a AfD - so he blanks it adds a totally inappropriate redirect to delete it by the back door. He seems to use this technique a lot. I appreciate your support.jucifer 13:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

(from Articles Talk) 172, regarding my edit description: (rv edit by 172 to prior version by Juicifer | #redir causes sig data loss) and your question "Talk:List of dictators. btw, i am not what the point about sig data loss in the last edit means"

This article is a List, to make fingind other articles easy. I am NOT here to debate the merits of the list; but your changing this to a #REDIR caused a signifigant loss of data in that the article you were redirecting this one to did not contain the information that you were effectively deleting, prior to removing large ammounts of information, a consensus would be helpful. Xaosflux 13:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't add {{vocab-stub}} to articles. Especially, please don't add it to articles that are not about vocabulary. It is not a catch-all stub category. Uncle G 19:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm assuming this is regarding Excellence. Few replies: Don't add {{stub}} to articles either, it is a deprecated category. That article (prior to expansion) appeared to be about the definition of a word. You ARE marking the article as a stub, to attract mroe editos, to better attract them please use one of the Stub Types that you feel is more approriate. Xaosflux 19:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's marked as a generic stub because there is no specific stub category for this type of article. The stub types are far from exhaustive. Uncle G 19:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I certainly don't want to get in to an edit war about stub categories! As the article has grown, but there is obviously a desire for more input I moved it from stub to {{expand}} This way the next person working on stub sorting won't hit it the same way. Xaosflux 19:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • {{expand}} is the wrong tag. The article has not been listed on requests for expansion. {{stub}} is the correct tag, given that there is no appropriate stub category. You are only doing half the job of stub sorting. Uncle G 19:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The article was never about the definition of a word, by the way. Please familiarize yourself with the differences between dictionary articles and encyclopaedia articles. You can start by comparing the Wikipedia article with the Wiktionary article. Uncle G 19:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I am aware of the dif's, and in this articles infancy it was little more then a defnition, as others in the AfD comments agree, it still appears confusing as to if this is about what the definition of excellence is, if it is about an ideology, or about a philosopy, hopefully categorization, or continued expansion of the article will make this clear. Xaosflux 20:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You have clearly not read the history of the article. Your description of the article's infancy is utter rubbish. At no point in the article's history was it ever "little more than a definition". In its infancy, it was something quite different to a definition. And from the fact that you are espousing the opinion that an article talking about excellence and its pursuit was appropriate for a dictionary, you are plainly not aware of the differences between dictionary articles and encyclopaedia articles. I recommend reading use-mention distinction and encyclopedic dictionary, which will provide you with at least some foundation in the differences between encyclopaedia articles and dictionary articles. Uncle G 20:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I had not read every page of the history, but have now. When I originally edited the article it had one short paragrap that was a definition, and some paragraphs that seemed to be off-topic, refreing to The Pursiut of Excellence. I had also already modified my vote of AfD from MOVE to KEEP contigent on continued expansion. The article seems to be turning more and more in to an article about the pursuit for excellence, but I'm not really concerning myself with it anymore, my primary editorial goal of dealing with the article was stub-sorting it; as you mentioned previously there are not stub categories for EVERYTHING yet, although we are working on expanding the heirarch of stub cats to make things easier to classify in stub world; the entire point of stub sorting is to attract more constructed editors to articles that other editors feel need much expansion. To that end I was rash in moving it to vocab stub, as it seems to be now more of an ideological category. The edit history does show that i was not the first editor to think vocab-stub was approriate, and the AfD vote contributors are currently got a 5/2/1 delete/keep/(my edge) going, so if nothing else, confusion is the community voice, not just mine.

Don't you think the Playboy Enterprises article should add more info about the company's products, such as the magazine? The article would be improved if it contained throughly information about Playboy Magazine, Playboy TV, and other brand products. --Alberto msr 01:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really. The Playboy Magazine article is rather large already, nad has been in existance for many years. A merger would also lead about 100 internal links only needing to be edited to not have to go through the rediretor, not to mention external links. Most major magazine articles are standalones already, and not sections of their parent holding companies. I also notice that noone is proposing merges on all of the other listed divions for which their are wiki articles. I do think that the enterprises article has room for expansion, perhaps expansing on its charity and community functions. I am but one voice though, and certainly not a consensus! Xaosflux 02:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right. Merging Playboy Magazine with Playboy Enterprises would yeld in an enormous and giant article. What I think I'm gonna do instead, is to create a disambiguation page. When you search for "Playboy", you are redirected to Playboy Magazine article, and the first time I searched for it, I was looking for corporate info, not magazine info. It took me some days to discover that there was an article called "Playboy Enterprises" in addition to "Playboy Magazine". So I think the best option would be to create a disambiguation page for the term "Playboy".--Alberto msr 02:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds Great! That would allow a search for Playboy to find any of their articles, as well sa any about palyboys in general! Currently Playboy is a #REDIR, and a disambig sounds better, some might complain, in wich case you could make a playboy disabig page and put the 'this article is about the magazine, for other uses see....' flag on the magazine, web site, enterprise, etc articles. Xaosflux 02:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

--Nlu 06:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

---

KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I must give you an orginal barnstar, you already had a Anti-Vandalism one. lol sorry for the confusion!

Thanks!!