Awards and articles I created.

view edit I have pressed the "Save page" button, over 45,907 times, making me editor number 320 for number of edits. [1] I now have 20+ barnstars, but like a good monkey, I had to press the little button 2,869 times before I got my first prize.  :( The BLP Barnstar I hereby award you this shiny barnstar for your efforts to alert Wikiprojects about how to locate BLPs for their projects and invite their participation in the discussion that would affect potentially all projects with a mass deletion (50,000 by most estimates) of "unsourced" BLPs. Your notice was such a good idea and sharing those links will help push some of those most familiar with the topics to help the articles at risk. Keep up the great work! -- Banjeboi 12:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar To the artist formerly known as Ikip, for coming up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest as a productive means to tackling the backlog of unreferenced BLPs. Let's focus our energy and get this puppy off the ground J04n(talk page) 03:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar For perpetually defending Wikipedia's intended and most valuable purpose: catalogging human knowledge. I hope you had a nice Valentine's Day! Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Defender of the Noble Spirt of Wikipedia For your noble and unbreakable spirit of inclusion, mentorship and fraternity towards your fellow editors and the Wikipedian community. --Grancafé (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Barnstar of the Lamp For The Huddled Masses For your pure intentioned dedication to speaking for those who do not speak, the wretched refuse of the teeming shores of the internet, providing a lamp of illumination. ----Milowent (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar For all your work in these difficult days: notifying Wikiprojects, discussing on the RfC's, exposing rogue editors/admins behaviour and also for this exceptional comment, which definitely proves what is the real problem of Wikipedia these days. We need more brilliant editors like you! Cyclopiatalk 13:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Guidance Barnstar Hi Okip, this barnstar is for your tireless efforts in helping, orienting and encouraging newcomers and novice editors, like me. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Grand Coffee Vizir Barnstar For your generousous hard work, courage and distinguished dedication to the noble cause of coffee, you are conferred this Grand Coffee Vizir award of high distinction and accomplishment. Congratulations! --Grancafé (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Barnstar of European Merit I can not thank you enough for the work you put into Albania-Serbia relations, there is no doubt in my mind that you have earned this barnstar. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC) this WikiAward was given to Ikip by Marcusmax(speak) on 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked Even though I almost always seem to disagree with you, I admire all the hard work you put in to whatever controversy seems to be engulfing Wikipedia this week! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Awarded 20 January 2007 to Travb for his valiant defense of   the Wikipedia mission to produce a neutral encyclopedia. Athaenara The Article Rescue Barnstar For your tireless effort to save notable articles at AfD. Honestly, your commitment to fighting unnecessary deletions is extraordinary! SMSpivey (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] You deserve this Wikidraco scholasticus award for taking on current AfD policy at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Deletion_wars:_I_propose_a_novel_solution - and for having the patience to plough through AfD looking for articles worth saving. --Philcha (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Philippine Barnstar ... for your advice and assistance in the development of a Philippine-related article. -- Sultan-Commander (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar I award you this barnstar for your continued and tireless efforts to keep Wikipedia a welcome place for all editors... from your graciousness and guidence to newcomers who might feel "put off" when their own initial efforts end up at AfD... to your efforts to maintain the integrity of the project and its articles. The job is never-ending, and yet you continue... even when your efforts are sometimes considered as overzealous. Keep up the good fight, but with patience... as Don Quixote is not the only one to find honor in tilting at windmills. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] A Lucky Penny In the spirit of funding that is sweeping the country this penny is offered to Editor:Ikip for his incredible WikiWorld endeavors:----Buster7 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Working Man's Barnstar For all your hard work keeping an eye on Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Final adoption as a guideline and following up with the people who have commented there. Politizer talk/contribs 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia Motivation Award have noticed the announcements at several pages and applaud your courtesy in sharing the news that such a discussion is going on, as thousands of affected editors would otherwise have no idea that the fates of so many articles was being determined or where to even look for such a discussion. Well done. I am surprised that others have not themselves been as proactive in seeking a wider consensus for such an important and far-reaching proposal. This thing could impact nearly three quarters of a million articles. Good job!!! Wow. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Articles I have created Using: http://toolserver.org/~sql/created.php Tool. Tool does not count templates. A_New_Life_(The_Outer_Limits) A_Test_of_the_News Template:AbUS --archive box for American terrorism page. Abdellatif_Laabi After_the_Empire:_The_Breakdown_of_the_American_Order American_civil_religion American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia Army_Foreign_Intelligence_Assistance_Program Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians Axis_of_Evil_(film) Balloon_effect Bell_Trade_Act Benevolent Assimilation Benevolent_Assimilation_(book) The Book of All Flesh as RWV. Calder v. Bull as RWV. Boring law school case. Case-Church_Amendment Charles_Henry_Dietrich CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US Clark_Amendment Commission_on_Industrial_Relations Commonwealth_v._Pullis Control_(2004_film) Costa_Rican_Civil_War DeLima v. Bidwell Democracy_in_Marxism Domestic_analogy Dreamland_(2007_film) Drew_Griffin CNN reporter Duck_Hook Nixon threat, called for the possibly-nuclear bombing of military and economic targets in and around Hanoi, the mining of Haiphong and other ports Edward_Atkinson Enemy_Nations Estate_of_Rodriquez_v._Drummond_Co. Fablehaven children's books. Firefight_at_Yechon:_Courage_and_Racism_in_the_Korean_War G._Robert_Blakey Green_report Guenter_Lewy Heroism Research Group Hitler's_Willing_Executioners Hughes-Ryan_Act Human_rights_in_Colombia Identical_Strangers...twins were given up by their mentally ill mother and separated as infants...met for the first time in 2004 at the age of 35. Intelligence_Oversight_Act International_Journal_of_Political_Economy, socialist perspective acedemic economic journal. Is the Holocaust Unique? Jacob_H._Smith Joseph_Lafayette_Rawlins Julian_Codman Kerry_Committee_report Kill_the_Messenger Kill_the_Messenger_(film) Klaus_Mehnert La_Violencia Leahy_Law Little_Eichmanns Lodge_Committee Looking_for_Love_(film) a 1964 romantic musical-comedy movie Michel_Garder My_Country,_My_Country Onyx_Project Operation_WASHTUB Operation_Whitecoat PCCC Plan_Cobra Power_Play_(1978_film) Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc. 1995 Rhode Island Supreme Court case often cited in tort law text books to explain the legal concept of battery. Predictions_of_Soviet_collapse Problems_of_Communism_(journal) Psychological_Operations_in_Guerrilla_Warfare San_Francisco_Call Senate_Document Simon_Sisters Sixto_Lopez Talk:American terrorism/Past disagreements Template:AmericanEmpire Template:Colombia conflict Template:Soatitles Template:Stay focused as RWV. This talk page is not a web blog. Template:U.S. Congressional opposition to war The_Saint_Patrick's_Day_Four Sturges_v._Crowninshield as RWV, dealt with the constitutionality of New York creating bankruptcy laws and retroactively applying those laws. Theodore_Schroeder They_Came_Back Thomas_MacDonald_Patterson Thousand_Days_War Timeline_of_labor_issues_and_events Timeline_of_Philippine-American_War Tom_Engelhardt the creator of the Nation Institute's tomdispatch.com, a liberal web blog. Total_Denial a 2006 documentary film about fifteen Burmese villagers going up against oil giants UNOCAL and TOTAL as they build the Yadana Pipeline. Trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom TV-6_(Russia) TVS_(Russia) U.S._Army_and_CIA_interrogation_manuals Union of Banana Exporting Countries as RWV. Attempt to create OPEC like cartel for bananas. United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Philippines United_States_v._Stanley the United States Supreme Court found that a serviceman could not file a tort action against the federal government, even though the government secretly administered doses of LSD to the serviceman as part of an experimental program, because his injuries were found by the lower court to be service-related. War_Feels_Like_War War_referendum a type of referendum in which citizens decide whether a nation should go to war. William_Lindsay_Scruggs (1836 - 1912) a scholar of South American foreign policy and U.S. ambassador to Colombia and Venezuela. The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule The Original Barnstar For keeping both your integrity and a cool head in the most trying of circumstances. Ireneshusband 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] On 27 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ludlow Amendment, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. The Guidance Barnstar Ikip, you have helped me in many ways over the past few weeks, thank you once again for your assistance. Marcusmax(speak) 23:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Awarded to Ikip for volunteering to cleanse the Augean stables. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar For your elegant and clear solution to some vexing situations I hereby award you this shiny barnstar you can play catch with or trade for superpowers or even put on a display shelf for all to behold and admire. The Article Rescue Squadron is a band of troupers who work in stressful environments to save content worth keeping and your help is very much appreciated. -- Banjeboi 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar This is an excellent idea for Foreign relations of Argentina by country to deal with the minor bilateral relationships, just 1 suggestion for improvement can we sort by continent/region? LibStar (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Thank you very much for your successful efforts in strengthening the content and character of Wikipedia. Your work is greatly appreciated. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar I hearby award this barnstar to Ikip due to his heroic campaigning for the noble cause of including valuable and interesting articles in the peoples encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Thankyou for being so nice to me! ScythreTalkContribs 15:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar I hereby award this Barnstar to Ikip for his excellent idea to reduce conflict by pre-empting potentially heated AfD debates with a suggestion that articles be userfied, so new users can still work to improve their work, while deletionists are happy as problem articles are removed from mainspace. Everyone's a winner! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Original Barnstar For cutting process, getting crap out of mainspace and helping newbies not to feel bitten all at the same time, a singular achievement. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] This user played a significant role in helping Eddie Kilroy graduate from incubation. This user played a significant role in helping Downtown Emergency Service Center graduate from incubation.

"Disagreeable and closed to new ideas - that's the picture that emerges of contributors to...Wikipedia from a survey of their psychological attributes." Aldhous, Peter (January 03, 2009). "Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded". NewScientist. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Source: "Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members" CyberPsychology & Behavior (DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225) This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." -- User:Cool Hand Luke [2] The problem is that our enforcement of civility and NPA has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them. -- User:Jehochman[3] A reliable measure of prejudice is how many mistakes a person gets forgiven. --Durova Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report ...as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances. Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Pickersgill-Cunliffe 149 0 0 100 Open 00:35, 15 June 2024 3 days no report Best welcome template: User:AxG/WikiWelcome1 wikipediareview: History of wikipedia

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your successful efforts in strengthening the content and character of Wikipedia. Your work is greatly appreciated. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we never interacted. And double no, that is not an error -- you showed kindness to a new editor (the fella who wrote up the Paul Thomas Abbott article) by detailing his options in fighting the AfD nomination. You're a class act and you deserve praise. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...as to move your comments in the RfC into the discussion block under your !vote? It would really simplify things to hold conversations/opinions somewhere other than the tally area. Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I trawl through pages of wikipolitics and bureaucracy from the discontents, the corrupt or just the curious, one question repeatedly comes to mind: why bother? I ask this because no one is being paid.--Mongreilf (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I hope I can give you a satisfactory answer sir/ma'am. What surprised everyone about the success of wikipedia--how can so many people do so much work for free? I love working on wikipedia, have over 26,000 edits, and have written almost 100 new articles. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally came to wikipedia to discuss politics, and was using wikipedia as a forum to express and debate my marginalized, minority beliefs. I quickly realized the potential of wikipedia, as not only a way to share my minority (well sourced) views to a wider audience (most articles are in the top 10 on google), but as a revolutionary way to change the way the world gets its information.

In a society so capitalist as America, it is often hard for people to understand why someone does something for free. I think wikipedians are like painters and artists, they love doing what they do not for the money, but for the simple pleasure of it.

I see the wikipedians who push around other wikipedians the same way the New York Times Book Review, and every outside journalist who reports on the deletion/inclusion debate see it:

"There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work...Notability purges' are being executed throughout Wikipedia by empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors...Your words are polite, yeah, but your actions are obscene."

I hope that answers your question, thanks for giving me a chance to reflect.

travb (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me a little, I completely understand the good works that are done for free, it is why the empire builders and bullies etc do it that mystifies me. They could be running countries in West Africa, for instance, or their local school board. Oh hang on, now i get it--Mongreilf (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Inclusionist#A_surprisingly_frank_admission_by_a_former_Wikipedian this user and I argued at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stir_of_Echoes:_The_Dead_Speak. I think the bullies have little power in their lives, and use wikipedia as a way to feel valuable and important. Does this help? Thanks again for your messages. What do you think? travb (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read that already. You have a very interesting user page. I think wikipedia rewards the tenacious (obviously) and tenacity without need or talent is usually an Wiktionary:odious thing, as neurosis or other character disorders are often its engine. I wonder what system you could construct that would reward the reasonable.--Mongreilf (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have often thought that it would be possible to get a group of deletion editors (or wikipedians as a whole for that matter) together and test to see what makes them tick, and what their basic mentality is as a group.

Fascinating observation Mongreilf, I am glad you found my page and posted here.

Any suggestion on how to reward the reasonable? I guess you first must define what "reasonable" is.

There are several more prominent, more effective, more articulate, and more intelligent inclusionist than me: User:Inclusionist#Inclusionists. I just met two today. you may really like his studies: User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey. Tell me what you find. I enjoy talking with you. travb (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not really inclusionist or deletionist btw, though i probably lean towards include and improve because wikipedia is a work in progress. i'm more interested in the why and how of people getting what they want into this place. the naked short selling/gary weiss/wordbomb business for instance.--Mongreilf (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard vaguely about the D & D gary, but not this other gary, what is this all about? Are you Ukrainian? Maya Jena e sin Ukrainkits. I lived in Odessa for 2 years. Facinating case about those boys. I was checking out your edit history.travb (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence travb (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've merged the missing material back into Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Which makes that article too long, which means it will just get split out again per WP:PRESERVE. LOL. Round and round we go! -- Kendrick7^talk 19:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh i love it! That is a wonderful acronym to use in deletion debates! Thank you so much! And it is a POLICY page.

Have anymore good acronyms? travb (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that page (WP:EP) was one of the first policies I read, and I subsequently forgot where I read it (which lead eventually to me writing the WP:NOONUS essay, which, needless to say, the deletionists got "userfied" via an AFD). It's what I love about the project -- that it's an encyclopedia of all human knowledge, all of which should fit into a pigeon hole somewhere, and what I like least about it, that various users insist in WP:GAMEing the system to try and keep our readers ignorant about subjects about which they would prefer a cloak of ignorance to remain. As an intellectual, I don't understand that at all. But, there are rays of hope -- the edits I mentioned about were not immediately reverted and the edit war, for which I forked the sub-article to begin with, did not resume. It's nice to see! -- Kendrick7^talk 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gaming the system and WP:NOONUS is excellent also, thank you!

I put your WP:PRESERVE to the test at Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#Wikipedia:PRESERVE. It worked wonderfully! I have found that you know you have won the debate when editors first start telling you that you are wikilawyering, then start personally insulting you.

I also made WP:PRESERVE the center piece of my page teaching other article creator editors how to defend their work in an Article for Deletion. (suggestions and edits are welcome) I message creators of articles how they can defend against these deletions, with a link to this page.

I would strongly suggest adding the Template:User Article Rescue Squadron and Template:User inc prominently at the top of your user page. Other editors need to know about groups which support the inclusion of their work.

Its funny, working on general deletion is much more civilized and tolerated than working on articles with my marginalized political views. I have been notifying creators of article for deletion articles for weeks, with no repercussions. The entire first week I was expecting a swift and nasty response, similar to my treatment on political articles, but none ever came. travb (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, trav. I wish I had the time to be as active a user as I used to be, but it's nice to see someone else that has come along and picked up the slack. I'll grab those templates when I can come back on a fuller time basis. Thanks again. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I don't believe in back room dealing as such. I'm wholly transparent. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at {{FAQ}}. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your removal of a link to Wikipedia:Coatrack from the Biographies of living persons policy. See the comment on the talk page. I'd like to discuss before removing this longstanding fixture from the policy. --TS 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know. travb (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am honored. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Travb - Some deletionist has nominated the entire article on Riff driven songs for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riff_driven and vote whether to delete or keep the article. Thanks! Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Well done, thank you Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Regarding User:Inclusionist/Del - looks good, I'll read the whole thing later. Wish others would also take heed. :) Geĸrίtzl (talk)

TravB, have you looked at my user page? I mention that I gave up, because of demoralizing deletionists. But you inspire me to try to remain steadfast -- thank you. Let's help one another. Do you know of any other inclusionists, especially those with WP power? Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Thank you, that makes me feel real good. I saw your user page weeks ago, I was sorry too see it after I read your excellent gestapo article.

Funny you should ask. I have been collecting a list:User:Inclusionist#Inclusionists. Also WP:Article Rescue Squadron is the best place to find groups of inclusionists (although don't call them "inclusionists", they are peculiar that way).

I am not sure which ones in my list are admins.

One suggestion: drop the titles "deletionist". If you want to thrive on wikipedia, you need to be more Passive Aggressive. I write about this on my opinion section of my talk page.

Instead of calling editors deletionists, call them delete editors, or editors who delete. Its assine, but that is the way wikipedia works.

Excuse me, but I just realized some j*** a** deleted a picture off of my user page. travb (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, nevermind, I am in fact that jack ass who removed my picture of my user page. I am kind of sensitive about that, after the user page picture purges of 3 years ago. travb (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt#Quoted_you_in_an_AfD

Thanks for quoting me. I added the trail info to the Spruce Woods Provincial Park article... essentially and for all intents and purposes a "pre-emptive" merge. Someone had slapped a speedy on it and it might not have lasted until the end of the AfD. And point of fact, it really does belong in the larger article...where it has context and where readers might expect to read information about that trail in that park. I opined as much at the trail AfD with one of the most polite "delete" !votes ever made. No wet feet, indeed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful. I love preemptive merges. We should create an essay about them. I learned that it is much harder to delete material editors don't like in a large article then in a smaller, less popular, more vulnerable article, see my comments #Atomic bombings above.travb (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just speedy deleted one of these articles because of copyright violations. But in principle, I agree that articles about trails that are particularly long, particularly used, historic in some way should be kept. However, it's safer to merge all the little stubs into more developed (and more interesting) articles that place these trails in a larger, coherent context. (And from a purely tactical inclusionist-pov, it's also easier to avoid deletion) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about merging articles. Thanks for your comments. travb (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if my comments are particularly welcome here, since I am apparently an evil "delete editor" but here goes anyway:I nommed these articles because they didn't meet WP:N. Now I know the hard-core inclusionist crowd hates that particular guideline, but there it is. I don't have any problem with the way this is turning out, mergers are just fine with me. What I don't like is when folks try to turn a single AfD into a wider debate on "deletionist versus inclusionist". As a matter of fact, I don't consider myself a "deletionist" at all, I'm just another editor who sometimes nominates things for AfD, and I don't think creating a polarized "you're with us or you're against us" situation is a good idea. If you all are actually worried about driving away editors, that kind of confrontational thinking is one way it happens. And, as far as the above remark from Pascal, doing anything from a "purely tactical inclusionist-pov" is a bad idea. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. With very few exceptions, most folks on the "other side" do not think in these terms. They don't care about "tactics" or winning or losing some grand struggle to shrink or expand Wikipedia, they just don't like to see bad articles. In reality, we all have a lot more in common than you may think. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are welcome. :)

Why not regularly propose a merger or userfication instead of delete? Come back in a week or two, and merge the article. I do this all the time. It is much easier, much less controversial, and much less time and emotional drama. If the creator argues about the merger, only then threaten deletion. travb (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, in the case of these trail articles, I wish I had just merged them. In retrospect it seems a rather obvious solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you, there is such a prevalent "delete" mentality and culture on wikipedia now, that whenever anyone sees an article which doesn't fit a narrow mold, their automatic reaction is to delete it. I hope I can be a small part in changing this view. travb (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) By the same token though, when I participate in an AfD, I do so because it caught my eye on the list for some reason, or because I had it watchlisted. I have noted that once one member of the hard-core inclusionist crew speaks up in an AfD, several others are often right behind them. It makes me wonder if there is some off-wiki talk going on at IRC or elsewhere where these users are agreeing to all swarm into one AfD and find any reason they can to vote "keep". Again, bad idea. Working together for a common purpose is great when improving articles but block voting in discussions is another story.Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an inclusionist cabal on wikipedia (And there is evidence of cabals on wikipedia, the durova scandal showed this) I am not trusted enough to join it yet, because no one has asked me to join.

Keep in mind, there are "only" 115 or so articles which are put up for deletion everyday. I keep running into the same editors, with the same or opposing views that I have.

In addition, there is the WP:ARS which is a group of editors who save articles, although they refuse to call themselves inclusionists.

I suspect that you keep running into the same editors because there is only 115 places a person can go everyday.

If there is an offwiki site for inclusionist, great, I support it. Because I know that everyone else has their own offwiki meeting places too. travb (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting point, I personally don't do anything related to Wikipedia that isn't on Wikipedia. There's enough going on here already without spreading it out all over the internet, and I don't like the idea that things are moving here only after some hidden discussion elsewhere, be it inclusionists, deletionists, ArbCom, or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it either, and I have never done it myself. It just is. travb (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of doing a study on how deletions target new users, and how those new users opinion of wikipedia is effected by such merges.

I could take an average day, with the 100-115 deletions. I could then see which editors have their edits deleted, and how many edits they have.

I could then email all of the users who have a email account active, and ask them questions about their opinion of wikipedia.

I would first create an unbiased neutral questionare on wikipedia.

My theory is that we are pushing wikipedians away, and this militant delete on site attitude is causing many new contributors to stop contributing, which is the reason why wikipedia new articles (or was it contributions?) have dropped significantly since 2006.

I am also interested in who the deletion editors are...the same names keep creeping up, but I suspect that there is a wide variety of veteran editors who delete. travb (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(see my remarks above) You are proceeding from a false assumption, that editors are deliberately "targeting" new editors. Also, Many feel that the reason useful new pages (there are still as many vandal/attack/gibberish pages as ever) are on a downturn is because we have already covered anything that would be in a normal encyclopedia, and several million things that would not, and there are only so many encyclopedic topics. You may want to consider those factors in your study. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I wasn't clear enough. No, I do not believe veteran editors are intentionally targeting new editors, I simply think that new editors don't know all of the pretty templates, formats and referencing guidelines to create a new article, so their article is deleted. (and yes, there are many articles which don't belong on wikipedia in the first place)

I have read a lot of the arguments about why the downturn happened. Another reason proposed is because wikipedia blocked new editors and anons from creating new articles. (I have the link on my userpage).

I don't think there is any way to decisively find out why the downturn happened. I actually kind of doubt my theory about this is correct.

The theory that I think can be proven, is that delete editors, whether deliberately or indeliberately are pushing away new editors.

My big concern is that I spend a lot of time doing this, and it will change no ones opinion. I question whether User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey, the best survey I have ever seen on wikipedia, has changed anyone's opinion.

Thanks for your insight and thoughtful remarks Beeblebrox. travb (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's tricky ground, dealing with new editors. Sometimes it can be very difficult to get them to understand exactly what the problem with their article is. We have welcome templates and so forth to help with this, but you can't make them follow the links and read the policies. My usual advice to new user is to read and understand WP:5. Everything else flows from there, if you can wrap your mind around the five pillars, you can negotiate the endless stream of policies, guidelines, essays, and of course drama that makes up Wikipedia. You are probably right that editors who simply bash away at new articles with no thought for who created them and no thought at educating them on how to contribute constructively are driving away inexperienced users. I for one would be very interested to see what you can come up with in this study. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that study would generate the results you want, or hold credibility. It would be like going to people who were fired from their job and asking about their former employer. If I were to do a study along these lines I would:

1. Identify new users who had articles deleted.
2. Check to see if they contacted the deleting admin, or somebody about said deletion.
3. Rate their experience.
4. Check to see if they stuck around or left.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Beeblebrox, When I buy an MP3 for example, I immediately start playing with it, it is only much later that I look at the instructions. I think editors are like that too. It was several weeks before I started reading policy. WP:5 is a good example.

Balloonman, Maybe I will axe the survey idea. How would I rate their experience? Do you think this study is worth the time?

Beeblebrox, Can I ask you for the usernames for creators of some of these articles which are deleted? If you don't want to, thats fine, I know several admins who would.

I was just throwing out the idea. But now Beeblebrox, you have made me more committed to doing the study.

Beeblebrox, first, lets pick a date. You pick any date last year in the last 60 days of last year, and I will research that date. I am trusting that the date you pick, you will have no knowledge of the material on that date when you pick it. Go ahead. :) travb (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, ok how about November 15 2008. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go: User:Inclusionist/Study Lets see what happens, shall we :) travb (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question. First, you would need to be able to see the article before making such a study, which means if you aren't an admin, doing a viable job would be impractical. You would need to be able to see if the article was a valid article or clearly deletable. I mean, an article that is clear vandalism/nonsense/hoax would need to be reviewed differently than somebody who wrote a poor article, vanity piece, or copyvio. There is also a difference in if the article was improperly deleted---was a valid article? After making those determinations, there would need to be a means to evaluate the response? Was it recreated so that they could work on it? Were they given an adequate response? Were they offended? Did they leave in a huff? Did they simply leave without any comment?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, excellent points. I could request the articles from admins. I have done that several times already. I will see. travb (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what template do you use for this message? "An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you." I think it is helpful, because I have seen some AfDs and prods were the creator of the article was not warn. Thanks, --J.Mundo (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the insular cases including DeLima v. Bidwell were my first edits in the this Wikipedia, I was translating the articles for the Spanish Wikipedia 1 as part of my interest in the Puerto Rican independence movement. Anyway, thanks for your answer. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know how I can help further, good luck with the insular cases! travb (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Travb, I have submitted an autobiography as an article in response to several requests for my resume from various sectors of society here in the Philippines. While done in good faith, my lack of familiarity of the rules caused the nomination of the article Benito T. de Leon for deletion on issues of WP:Notability and WP:COI. Your advice for me to respond may be inappropriate considering that it is an article of myself--unless there are rules to this effect. Perhaps, it would just be best for other editors to debate on it and await their judgement. Thanks very much for your assistance.-Sultan-Commander (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saved; thanks for your support and advice. I was out during the later part of the day and was delighted to discover this morning that Speedy keep had been applied without my having to do anything more than say "Help!". I cannot understand why people are so keen to remove reasonable material; the capacity of Wikipedia seems to be infinite. Having said that there are a lot of items relating to pop songs and episodes from soap operas which I do not think are notable and should be removed from an encyclopedia - but that is my personal POV and I do not intend to do anything about it. Keep up the good work! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "I cannot understand why people are so keen to remove reasonable material"

Look at the New York Review of Books:_The Charms_of_Wikipedia.travb (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. Too much else to do at present, but I'll bear it in mind if/when time becomes available. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point made. Have modified AfD opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up early? Hell... I haven't yet gone to sleep. Had a couple Red Bulls and spent the last 6 hours removing that obnoxious "Antivirus 2009" scam-ware from a friend's computer. As for the girl, add "Disney" to your search parameter. She's one of their new yongster pre-teen stars, and making them rich. Now she wants to make a film about the behind-the-scenes of her TV work... and add some music and flare to make it appeal to other pre-teens. Yuck. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Schmidt, I hadn't gone to sleep either when I wrote you, I am now up "early" after sleeping 5 hours. thanks for the info on Disney girl. See you in the AfD circuit!travb (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting the tag. Too many pages on "watch". Good catch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Inclusionist. One of the biggest challenges at AFD is finding Reliable sources. I saw the list you left Peter, that included resources I did not know about. Are there more handy sourcing tools that would help in the search that I might know about? Dlohcierekim 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response on talk page, see #Cool tools travb (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Created by {{Template:Sp-contributions-footer|Gekritzl}}

See also: MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer which is at the bottom of all user contribution pages.

Of 2,830 edits, you have had 165 edits deleted, 5.8% of your edits. Don't feel bad though, of 28,798 edits, I have had 3,517 edits deleted, 12.2% of my edits deleted. travb (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Travb - thanks for the Cool tools, I was wondering where you got those statistics earlier. I had no idea those tools existed! BTW I see you have an interest in the Catonsville Nine - do you live near Baltimore? Geĸrίtzl (talk)

See also: User:Inclusionist#Tools, which allowed me to find editors Articles for deletion count, etc.

Also: {{Template:Findsources3}}

Which creates:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I vaguely remember who the Catonsville Nine, as you may have noticed, some bully tried to delete the page.travb (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xangati I noticed you cleaned up the article in October. In case it is not on your watch list, it is now up for deletion. travb (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your heads up. I forgot all about that article -- it was fun to see it again. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Travb - despite the fact that I think someone will flag for speedy deletion (as they did on Moongarden, Future Clouds and Radar, Cherry Twister and others), I created an article on the Spongetones today. :) Geĸrίtzl (talk) --- simply un-wikified some of them, of no consequence

Nice job, glad to see you are back contributing to wikipedia. :) If you need help let me know! travb (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Travb, thanks for the new inclusionist info! Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Hey, thanks for getting my back with the whole Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum Baillie thing. I was kind of half-expecting that article to get treated the way it did anyway, I just set myself a challenge on my blog to see if I could make one that would stick - I just underestimated what a pack of hounds Wikipedia editors can be. Well, thanks again. Ego-defence-mechanic (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the New York Times Review article, it uses much more harsh words than "hounds". Have you ever read the seminal article On the Justice of Roosting Chickens it discusses how everyday normal people, just following rules of a bureaucracy, can cause irreparable harm and damage. I know that most of these editors have the best intentions in mind, I just don't think they realize the harm they cause.

the bottom line is your article should be in your user page, and should have never been on the main article page. An innocent, common mistake of new users.

I will now see what the backlash of my comments are. sigh. travb (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I making the wrong argument? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Rojas (2nd nomination) Should I try a different tack? Certainly it would be nice to have lots of coveragr for this guy... but the guideline at WP:MUSICBIO give a long list of things... even one of which applies and notability is accepted... and he meets several of them. Advice? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum Baillie

Note I started writing this on your talk page before the afd was closed and before Ego Defence Mechanic made the above points but I had to go and see to something so pasted it into my notepad. I'm sorry that you were expecting a 'backlash', you certainly won't get one from me. I'll mark the point I started writing again.

Hi travb, I'm just posting this here as I think its better to keep it out of the afd page and not confuse matters there. I don't know what your 'thanks a million' is supposed to mean. I'm sorry if my language can be a bit formal and therefore perhaps have sounded harsh or authoritarian, but I only meant that whilst I agreed with you about userfying the page (which, incidentally, is a process I know nothing about as I tend to stick in the mainspace - now I remember why) the user himself might have an opinion on that. I'm not sure why he hasn't commented a the afd on the actual worth of the article or what he thinks could be done with it, he's visited the page enough times.

A part of your inclusionist outreach programme should include not making assumptions about other editor's intentions or 'wiki beliefs' (sorry, I hate that sort of phrase) - 2 or 3 afd's in 2 years does not a deletionist make - and instead make your inclusionist case to them directly in a less negative way (unless that would get you accused of some sort canvassing, I don't know) as they may actually be sympathetic. I don't tend to get involved in deletion matters, I'm not interested in judging what should be included, but this seemed a pretty straightforward case that I became aware of when a link to it popped up one a page I was watching. That it could be moved to his user page was a good idea that I have not come across before in deletion debates (as I say, I'm fairly inexperienced in matters outside of mainspace). It's not helpful to your cause to assume everyone in a deletion debate is some rampant deletion beaurorobot. Just because I brought the afd, doesn't mean I couldn't agree with you.

As for biting the newcomers, that particular newcomer hasn't been especially civil towards me and I certainly haven't bitten him regarding that at all, nor would I have ever considered doing so. Ok, picking up again I appreciate that my initial handling of the afd was impersonal and I will seriously reconsider that in any future template usage on a user page.

I think Ego Defence Mechanic was pretty lucky to have such generous support from you, especially as by his own admission he was just 'setting himself a challenge.' That's his business, but I honestly hope in future he'll use his obvious editing talents on some articles other than one about himself. I think that some of the points you make (the Justice of Roosting Chickens for instance) are massively overstating the case and a little unfair, but you weren't making those points to me (I've just read them here) so it isn't fair of me to bring them up and tbh I'm not sure I want to get into that discussion. Suffice to say, you and EDM have succeeded in reminding me why I don't normally touch this sort of thing with a barge pole so you can probably chalk it up as a success ;-)

Much peace and good will, I hope none of this has come across in any other spirit sassf (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but this seemed a pretty straightforward case that I became aware of when a link to it popped up one a page I was watching. It was. I agree. RE: It's not helpful to your cause to assume everyone in a deletion debate is some rampant deletion beaurorobot. Just because I brought the afd, doesn't mean I couldn't agree with you. I agree. I counsel other editors to do the same thing. RE: As for biting the newcomers, that particular newcomer hasn't been especially civil towards me I am sorry, I was not aware of this.

Ego Defence Mechanic page didn't belong on userspace, and the account appears to be a sock. New editors just don't know what that editor does. I only realized this when I started to look at his edits yesterday, I would have been as helpful if I would have seen this before. Granted, there is nothing wrong with being a sock in certain circumstances, and I have had socks myself. (User:RWV). But this does bring up the question of whether Ego knew he shouldn't have created that page in main space.

RE: I think that some of the points you make (the Justice of Roosting Chickens for instance) are massively overstating the case and a little unfair, but you weren't making those points to me (I've just read them here) so it isn't fair of me to bring them up and tbh I'm not sure I want to get into that discussion.

The Justice of Roosting Chickens discusses how good decent people make bad and terrible decisions in a bureaucracy. I need to study the concept more so I could use examples that don't involve 9/11, Nazis, and Ward Churchill. These three words have such a negative stigma that it tends to overshadow the point I am trying to make.

Deletion debates are necessary on Wikipedia, and they are often carried out by Wikipedians who truly have the best interest of Wikipedia in mind. That said, I don't think many editors look at the bigger macro effect, what is 7000 pages up for deletion everyday doing to Wikipedia? That was my point.

Again, thanks a million for considering userfication. As I said to other editors in a deletion debate, it wasn't your fault that you didn't know there were alternatives to deletion. In cases of editors like yourself, who I see are sincerely trying to make Wikipedia better, I blame the system, not the editors. Wikipedia has become so focused on deletion as the answer, when policy specifically says that it should be used only as a last resort.

RE: Sorry, this is a bit long and maybe incoherent! Your views were very coherent and clear, thanks for taking the time to message me. Nice catch on Ego Defence Mechanic's main space page. Keep up the good work.travb (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought a lot about this and want to thank you for bringing this issue to my attention (albeit in a round about way). The points made on the ARS project page about time and hard work put in by editors and about preservation of information hold great sway with me. I have every intention of acting upon that in future as and when the need arises. So, cheers and I will leave you in peace now.  :-) sassf (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, you guys are still caught up in the great Callum Baillie debate? Didn't it end a couple of days ago? Please excuse my incivility sassf - if that 'poo-head' incident offended you at all, please accept my apologies. Here, dry those tears. Also, just to clarify: yes, I know that article didn't belong on the main space (of course I know Callum's vain and insignificant, why else would I just make shit up and link it to completely irrelevant sources); no you guys don't need to pat each other on the back whenever you don't do something stupid (eg. "Your views were very coherent and clear, thanks for taking the time to message me. Nice catch on Ego Defence Mechanic's main space page. Keep up the good work."); and yes, this account is a sock, that actually was a good call that time *pats travb on the back*. Oh yeah, I'm not Callum Baillie, he's just some guy I googled. Well, thanks for your time guys. I do appreciate the effort you put into maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, as I myself do (under a different name of course) when I'm not messing around. Keep up the good work. Ego-defence-mechanic (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you admited you were a sock. No one ever does that. I am just glad we were able to userfy your page. Please create content in the correct place in the future. travb (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said you hadn't been especially civil, not that I was offended. Thanks for the tissues anyway, I'll hang on to them for any future episodes of over-sensitivity. sassf (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like my response better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, yours is better, although I suggest you cut it down a bit. The only problem is many of those sources don't actually mention his name. That is why I moved many of the sources to talk. you may want to refactor your comments to reflect this.

We only have so much time to devote to each AfD, especially when there are about 110 each day.

I wish I could devote more time to each AfD, but there is only so much time in the day. Great job on the AfD.

I was simply addressing the repeated claims that it was sourced to blogs. How very, very WP:UGH. When a nom writes that in his deletion proposal, it immediately gives a negative impression. Too much time is being spent whining about the subject instead of discussing the notability of being a multiple author. And of course, I was teasing. Your own response was polite and well-reasoned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However.... I did trim it. Let folks themselves spout the articles don't mention his name. That's not what i was refuting. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the blog argument is bullshit. In one of my versions I bring that up, only 2 links of several dozen where blogs.

I love saying "NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN" it always gets the admins attention.

Also if you can show you changed and improved the article, it makes all of the other editors comments before moot.

I will admit, I didn't read your full response. I will do that now.

Good job, as always dear knight. travb (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.... that's me. Always tilting at windmills. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to advise on my work-in-progress at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Christopher Rojas? Fighting to fix an article at AfD. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every minute counts, go ahead and cut and paste this over the present article. Every minute you don't have this live is another editor who will vote delete.travb (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the editor who nominated the infamous Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Noah for deletion? You seem to have made a 100% about face since then. My Machevelian side wonders whether you are Timothy Noah, and you created the deletion so you could write an article about it, and in your heart you have always been an inclusionist. Interesting. travb (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was me. That was a bit of a social experiment on my part; Noah actually wrote an article on Slate[4] about whether he was notable enough for his wikipedia article to exist (it had been templated for notability issues at around that time[5]), and I figured I would see what would happen if I sent it to AfD, after which Noah wrote a follow up article on Slate.[6] Since Slate and wikipedia, at the time, were where I spent all my online life, it was too tempting an intersection of the two not to engage in a little, well, not "gonzo journalism" but I guess you could say "gonzo editing". I am not Timothy Noah, and have never met the man, although I still avidly read Slate. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your lucky you were not booted for WP:POINT. travb (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't entirely WP:POINTy; my idea was, in part, that insomuchas a notability dispute had entered the mainstream press it wasn't a terrible idea to throw it over the wall to WP:AfD to decide, as it were, "once and for all" for the general good of the project -- as I said in the AfD it was "procedural" more than anything. But to quote Shannon Wheeler, it was "damned if you do, bored if you don't" as well. I was in a few different mindsets about it, it's just that they all intersected. I wasn't trying to get mentioned on NPR, per se; I'm really not the cam whore type. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are 100% clear: In many cases, I really don't give a fuck about WP:Point. I wasn't being condesending or judgemental. I don't sense you feel that way, but I want to make sure.

Wikipedians use WP:POINT the same way the US has historically used protest permits and anti-free speech laws are used to crush decent. Remember the infamous "Shouting fire in a crowded theater"?

I was booted for WP:POINT for creating an article under 300 words, which I felt was permitted under the fair use doctorine of copyright law. Or was it for attepting to put Wikipedia:Copyright up for deletion? I can't remember--it was years ago. travb (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O know what you are saying. That essay is bandied around too often. A bit of kabuki theater is good for any society, because that's how lessons are passed on to newcomers and new generations. I've come to feel the same way about the term "disruption" in general. As I once said to Kirill, "I too often see editors labeled as 'disruptive' in much the same was Caesar was labeled as 'ambitious.' When you scratch the surface, as Shakespeare's Marc Antony eloquently did, it's as often as not merely a pretext to break out the knives." I've fought a few windmills here and there, but ah I'm babbling, it's late.... -- Kendrick7^talk 05:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, thanks for sharing. See you on the AfD circuit soon I hope. travb (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the smiles. Glad my suggestion was useful. – ukexpat (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider closing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nordine_Zouareg? Thanks. travb (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin here, so I'm not sure I can do that. The debate has gone on a while, I'll grant, but I'm not bothered by it. Jlg4104 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your maybe right:

• Wikipedia:Speedy_keep: reason for speedy keep: "No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion"

But

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. "

Thanks! travb (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking (or trying to pressure) me to withdraw the nomination by citing policy, I respectfully decline. I believe there are plenty of administrators available and capable of closing the discussion. Jlg4104 (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your call, no pressure, to pressure someone you have to have some leverage against the person you are pressuring, I have none. You said that it was not possible to close the AfD, so I searched and found a possibility, thats all. It was simply a humble request of a fellow editor :) Best wishes. travb (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get this negative reaction a lot, I think I may redesign my user page and change my name back to travb. In my humble opinion, it is a shame that such a new user is already putting articles up for deletion :( Recently I helped an editor who had put an article up for deletion to reconsider, he changed his mind after he read WP:Article Rescue Squadron travb (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I had figured in light of (a) your inclusionist profile, and (b) my newbie status, that you might be exercising a bit of psychological leverage (which I believe is always part of the dynamic here, no matter what). In any event, I'd also rather not withdraw the nom b/c I want to see how others play it out, since I am indeed new. A learning experience. Jlg4104 (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"it's a shame" -- Hang on there: I think inclusionism has its merits. I certainly do not hang out in AfD so I can tear things down. To me, AfD represents the spirit of discussion and negotiation that goes into the creation of a high-quality articles. Plus, I enjoy doing the research that can result in a "keep" whenever possible. Moreover, I have done my best-- even though I am new-- to RTFM and continue to do so. So I hope you understand that my M.O. is to help make this wonderful thing called Wikipedia even better. This whole bodybuilder case strikes me as a really important kind of "test case" for the development of WP's whole raison d'etre in light of its users. That's partly why I was primed to respond negatively to any call to close it-- the discussion itself helps to clarify not only the case at hand, but also related concepts such as verifiability and notability. Jlg4104 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I think I was talked out about the inclusionist/deletionist issue, with the above editor I mentioned before.

I just got off the phone with Mr. Universe, by the way. Check the AfD.

This whole bodybuilder case strikes me as a really important kind of "test case" for the development of WP's whole raison d'etre in light of its users.

Interesting, you should talk to User_talk:Inclusionist#Re:_You.3F he was using an AfD to make a point too, he got a lot of press coverage for it too.

What was your intention in creating this AfD, what do you expect to get out of it now? travb (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe me, do you? My intention was as I said: to propose an article for deletion that seemed to lack features, as well as the possibility of gaining those features, that would demonstrate notability AND verifiability. I'm assuming good faith on your part, but you're testing my ability. It seems more like you want to pick a fight. Jlg4104 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I believe you did not comprehend my statements. You are seeing this whole thing through your own blinders. There's a difference between saying, "I enjoy the spirit of debate because I think it helps improve the project," and "I like to arbitrarily toss cases around to make a point." I meant the former; you're seeing the latter. Moreover, I think your comment in the case you mentioned, i.e., "You're lucky you weren't booted," is condescending and immature. So nyah nyah on you, Mr. travb. Jlg4104 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, hey, so far the comments are two to one, with you "winning" (Jlg4104: "trying to pressure" "You don't believe me") (Travb: "Its a shame").

I am simply interested in why you call this a "test case". You can tell me after the AfD, if you choose, or not tell me at all, your call. I am interested in your perspective.

I am 100% sure that you believe the article doesn't belong on wikipedia. The reason you have for deleting the article doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. You can you have two or more reasons to delete the article, sure, just like I have two or more reasons to save it. Just because I question why you feel this article is a "test case" does not mean that I think you are lying about the article being non-notable. I BELIEVE that you sincerely feel the article is non-notable, and that it is a test case. I am just intrigued by what you mean by "test case".

If you are getting flustered in this conversation, we don't have to talk anymore.

(Edit conflict) alrighty then. Kendrick7 seems to be a little less sensitive to what I say, and take my words in the spirit that they are said.

Still winning: (Jlg4104 (3): "trying to pressure" "You don't believe me" "condescending and immature") (Travb (2): "Its a shame", "he was using an AfD to make a point too"). My apologies, we were tied before, 2-2, but now you are in the lead, congratulations.

Talk:Nordine_Zouareg#Conversation_with_Nordine_Zouareg. travb (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Test case" - some articles occupy a grey area. They get nominated for deletion but invoke a great deal of discussion. When that happens, the operating notions of inclusion/deletion themselves are tested. That is, there are no "objective" or "obvious" answers in these cases, so people's subjective interpretations of policy really come to the fore. I don't SET OUT to propose such articles myself. This just happened to be one among several I've seen that I happened to nominate. This is all interesting to me, but I'm not using AfD as a spectacle or circus for my amusement (see above comments). It's just interesting, because it helps me understand WP and its humans. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really respect that you attempted to find sources and improve the article before deletion, a very, very small minority of editors do this before putting an article up for deletion. travb (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nordine Zouareg, if he is reachable, should know that my AfD nomination was never meant as any disrespect to him. First, I don't want to be in the business of libel or slander. Second, he is clearly an accomplished man, period. The question, if you look at the very beginning, was that I was "unsure" whether the page was justified being in Wikipedia. Look, I flat-out do NOT believe that I myself am notable; at least somebody thought Mr. Zouareg was, and I was questioning that in terms I felt were WP's not because I have any reason to disrespect him. In fact, I came across the article accidentally-- I edit random pages (that's one of the reasons I'm here). Let's just say in summary I'll be a bit more careful next time... Jlg4104 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome to email him, first link on the external links. You could also request the AfD be hidden. I am glad you didn't shoot the messenger. :) travb (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the AfD announcement. I've been irritated that when the two articles I've had put up at AfD were posted, the nominators never notified me. It's nice to see that someone cares to give authors the time of day. A big word-up to ya! SMSpivey (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Travb, My article is deleted as a result of something which is not clear to me. I wondered if you could help me to revew it. Thank you. Nankali —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I know my work and understand what do I write in my field. I helped Phd students and other for their disertations. However, my proved article was deleted and I am very upset about that. I am very pleased to help others, I need some help to revew my article as well. I wondered if you could help me. Thank you--Ali nankali (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Travb, Thank you for your comment. I am interested in review the article. I don't know is it possible or not. The article was deleted by editors who are not familiar with this topic. I appreciate them to do this type of job yet I have got a packet of evidence for that article from two different Medical Universities, a Board of stomatology Scientist of Ukraine and Ministry of Health. I really wondered if there is a chance to establish it. Thank you in advance for your help. On the top of that I am happy to help others if my knowledge in medicine can cover the topic. Thank you in advance for your help. --Ali nankali (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. Please let me what do I have to do if required. Regards, --Ali nankali (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, in reply to your question the article "SVIT – Official publication of Supreme Attestation Commission of the Ukraine, No. 3 Verezen, 2004 –P20" has written totally by different organization, of course my name is in the article but in the text not as a writer. Secondly, in the "• The New Post System, Young Scientists and Students – Scientific Medical Seminar review in 1999, Ministry of Health of Ukraine and National Medical University / thesis, 20-23 Kvitnia, Kiev, Ukraine – 1999, P61" is written by M. B. Makhnitski. My name is added as a creator. It seems to me I wrote them not properly as here required. Thanks a lot.--Ali nankali (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks for your kind cooperation, I wanted to say that I rearranged the way of writing the references. Is it the thing which I had to do?--Ali nankali (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Travb, I really wonder if you could advise me what to do for the next stage. Thank you--Ali nankali (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response on your talk page. Ikip (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, I will try.--Ali nankali (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia/FAQ, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia/FAQ and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia/FAQ during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia/FAQ

Just in case, quivers for my bow which may not need to be used:

As someone who has made a career out of deleting other editors contributions User:Plrk/Deleted stuff that should remain deleted and 51 AfDs, I can see why you would not like this FAQ tag to remain.

Your personal attacks were particuarly in violation of WP:NPA.

Though I don't deserve it. Jlg4104 (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

of course you do! You were kind enough to close the AfD, "bringing Peace to the land". travb (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, ok. Fair enough. Thanks. Jlg4104 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda confused about this edit you made. The AfD you mention was withdrawn over a month ago. Grsz¹¹ 22:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is still listed here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_14#Michael_Z._Williamson. I wonder why? travb (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and the interesting article. It's funny, I've read several such articles on off-wiki sources against the Deletionist plague... but not one in favor of it... I think I've finally put my finger on what irritates me so much about the "Notability"-based deletion process: It's the definition of "notability". The Wiki-community creates its own, original-research, POV-based definition of notability-- with no regard to what reliable, secondary sources might say on the subject-- and then deletes articles on subjects which don't conform to that. We are "editors", not authorities, when it comes to contributing to an article, yet we are authorities when it comes to deciding what stays and what goes from the "sum of human knowledge". This explains why "notability" criteria change so often-- they are based on nothing factual. I've seen the deletionist fervor lead to changes in "notability" definition just because too many articles are passing... It seems a clear flaw in the system. And yet, I still try to contribute here... though much less than I used to... :-) Dekkappai (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey would just like to thank you for helping keep Tiles of the Hold. I see no reason on why it should have been deleted??? And thank you for helping keep it alive. The reason for lack of notability is obvious- no one took the time to type it up. Although I see that there is less of a purpose for real-world use, in that if I had to keep ten Wiki articles and live off them- it wouldn't be one of my choices, but it is still helpful when their is a question or confusion with the text. Thanks again. Krmarshall (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What type of references would I need? I stated what book it comes from and I thought giving page numbers was frowned on/hated. Any other suggestions? Krmarshall (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of assistance. Below are the articles you asked about, plus the users who created them.

• Newtown Howard - User:Cads.media
• The Illegal Waste - User:Waxaposse
• SCORES Broadcast - User:Limp73
• FilePile.com - User:Tranquileye
• Nonpseudoscience - User:0XQ

I wasn't sure from your other requests, but do you want copies of the pages added to your user space? If so which version, the one immediately before deletion? Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I saw your comment on User talk:Fredericobeja and think it's an excellent idea. Was this comment a subst template from somewhere? I think it could come in handy for new users who make earnest attempts at articles. Further, I found the linked User:Inclusionist/Del article to be extremely beneficial and informative. Even as a regular participator in AfD discussions, and a major policy nerd, I still found some interesting information that was unfamiliar to me (i.e. the Jimmy Wales quotes). Is there intention to push this up to the Wikipedia namespace? Thanks for doing your part to help the newer users. -Verdatum (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the third person to ask me for "a template", but the first person I feel who genuinely felt like what I was doing was beneficial, and was not simply probing to stop my messages. There is no template.

Is there intention to push this up to the Wikipedia namespace?

Sure, you can move it. I appreciate your comments. The biggest help would be expanding the article though.

interesting information that was unfamiliar to me (i.e. the Jimmy Wales quotes).

There are about 4 more from 2006 when I got indefinetly banned for copyright violations, but I need to find them. travb (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are administrators who are vandalized the most, delete the most? travb (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your tireless effort to save notable articles at AfD. Honestly, your commitment to fighting unnecessary deletions is extraordinary! SMSpivey (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you're very welcome! And I didn't give it to you just for helping me, either. I gave it to you because you swooped into just about every AfD that actually showed notability and did your part (for the past few weeks...yes I lurk at AfD); without arguing for something that was non-notable. You argued for things that should be saved (and never should have been nominated). I'll pop into that discussion when I'm less tired, I feel like I'll probably have something to say. Anywho, enjoy! SMSpivey (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Knight"??? Wash your mind out with brimstone :-) Philcha (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the notice you left at User talk:BMGNYC directs the author of Rogue Gallart to WP:Articles for deletion/Rogue Gallart; the actual discussion is at WP:Articles for deletion/Rogue Gallart (2nd nomination). If you are leaving these notices with a bot or tool, you might want to fix something. Your friendly deletionist, Brianyoumans (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I turned this (which you created) into a redirect to the existing article at Popular Photography Magazine, as that already mentioned the current title and was a much longer article than your stub. If you really feel there should be an article for the new title, then both articles need to mention the other one. PamD (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trav - I'll take a look at that page you emailed me. I had a busy day at work but had a collegue (MithrasPriest) look at it too, and put in his two cents worth. Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Philippine Barnstar
		... for your advice and assistance in the development of a Philippine-related article. -- Sultan-Commander (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Break_3:_Proposals_for_RfC_on_Deletion

Dear Philcha, you didn't finish your comment:

"The English newspaper [[The Guardian] also printed the"

I think the current RfC you propose maybe too long. travb (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the current version is too long. The last "issue" RfC I saw had options 1.1, 1.2, ... 3.3 - Philcha (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think a name change alone will get much attention - to be honest I saw a message about only aname change at the top of my watchlist I'd probably ignore it. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help you. :)

I am no good at Herding cats, I get to frustrated at the fluid multiple opinions and tired of stroking fledgling egos.

Maybe its just better if I step back and let other editors argue away.

I fear by saying your current RfC is too long, and attempting to change the name only, then you may not support a name change alone.

I want to be a road to progress, not a wall. I am always worried I am being a wall. travb (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re " I am always worried I am being a wall", I think you have no grounds for concern. The real obstructions in Wikipedia are some persistent BITEers. --Philcha (talk)

Unfortunately, we have to accommodate those "BITEers" they have more power, more administrators, more concentration, more resources here then we do. I read some of the comments on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion and cringe. I am not cringing at the comments of those who thrive in the status quo, because I expect such bullying and pushiness, I cringe at those who share my views. If we could only take the high road, myself included, we could drive right around those "walls" which are preventing real change, see User_talk:Colonel_Warden/Archive_2#unsolicited_advice travb (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

(W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming)

In less literary style, Illegitimis non carborundum. --Philcha (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Regarding your response at WT:AFD, you are right that I should have worded my comments a little more politely; to be honest, after your first two Keep !votes at the AFDs, I kind of got it into my head that you were a troll or something, so when I went and responded to you elsewhere I was seeing things through some prejudice; I guess we both came in with our teeth bared at first. (and full disclosure: I've been through some nasty wikidrama in the past couple weeks, so lately I've been grumpy and quick to get defensive at people.) After some more discussion I'm glad we've been able to settle things down without causing any drama, and I've had the time to see that you're actually doing a lot for the project and that your activity at WT:AFD is in earnest. I don't think I'll ever agree with all of your stance on deletion, but now I can at least see that you're just a person like me doing his/her best to help the project :). Sorry we got off to a bad start originally, and again, thanks for your message. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see myself as a really good editor who has contributed a lot of well referenced content to wikipedia. But of my 28,798 edits, I have had 3,517 edits deleted, 12.2% of my edits deleted. I have been indefinetly banned. I have a marginalized view which is persecuted a lot on wikipedia by the majority. I would guess that your views and edits are in the majority, so you have not felt the persecution that I have. Thus your faith in the system and opinion of how wikipedia works is quite different. I respect that. On WT:AFD, I truly don't aim to change your opinion, because I can never change your past experiences. I simply am attempting, quite badly, I might add, to convert the audience, who has maybe had a well sourced article delete before, and can truly appreciate how nasty and bullying editors are on wikipedia.

The problem is that the majority of wikipedia is edited by 2000 editors, many who are tenacious and usually win their arguments simply because they edit so much on wikipedia.

In addition, I am posting the proposal on WT:AFD, which is frequented by editors with your views, who like to patrol articles and often put them up for deletion.

For example, Uncle G, who seems to never pass up an opportunity to explain how much experience he has on wikipedia, is one of the authors of WP:Notability the number one reason articles are deleted now. It is hard to go up against such odds.

Sorry you have had such a bad two weeks. I hate how my virtual life here sometimes seeps into my real life.

I feel sympathy for the Ba'ath party creator, maybe we can both help him together? travb (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked and its history shows that a "speedy delete" tag was applied within 20 minutes of its creation but with the wrong grounds (CSD A7), the editor added a "hang-on" tag a few minutes later, and an admin removed both tags almost 19 hours later. I don't know whether it's possible to find out whether it was simply un-speedied or whether it was deleted and restored. Until this can be resolved, there's a doubt about the PC World report. --Philcha (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to page history and then click the logs link at the top left you can see the deletion history. In this case we can see:

• 20:13, 25 April 2008 Gonzo fan2007 (Talk | contribs | block) restored "The Political Quarterly" ‎ (8 revisions restored: misunderstood the article, doesnt meet A7)
• 05:17, 25 April 2008 Gonzo fan2007 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "The Political Quarterly" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance) (restore)

I hope this helps. A quick look at Gonzo Fan2007's talk page will tell you if there was any discussion of the deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inclusionist. I can see that you do feel very strongly about the deletion process but I wonder whether you may be doing more damage to your cause then good with the starkness of your language. A good example of this are your comments about UncleG. I think most editors recognise his value and attacking him because you don't like his opinions or his policy work alienates people from your arguments. I also see lots of very strident arguments that do not carry much evidence to justify the strong conclusions you have drawn. You simply won't win anyone over that way and, if you are serious about making progress rather then just blowing steam, you need to seriously think about how to do that. Personally, I would respond well to positions argued against overall statistics and facts rather then isolated case studies that do not necessarily reflect the reality if the average new users experience. I think you should start by going through a days discussions at AFD and identifying any closes that were wrong. That will be instructive because other editors can see whether the problem from your point of view is the deletion process or, as I suspect, the general notability guidelines we use to determine inclusion standards. If its the latter then your contributions would be better at WT:N then WT:AFD. I hope you will take this as a well meaning attempt to help you make progress with your arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, on reflection, I realize that I maybe doing more harm than good. My response to the other editor using terms "half assed guesses" was actually culled from his statements to me. But I should be above this, I have learned you don't convince others of the validity of your argument by stooping down to other people's level.

Uncle G has been condensing to me in the past. In my studies of how policy is made, I have also have seen that he is the architect of most of the policies which have caused so much deletion of what I see as potentially good articles.

RE: I think you should start by going through a days discussions at AFD and identifying any closes that were wrong.

I have already started: User:Inclusionist/AfD_on_average_day travb (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to commend your efforts at derailing the Deletion Locomotive. Any assistance I can offer?--Buster7 (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How you can help:

Hans Briker approach

1. Join the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron and then help save new editors articles.
2. Add Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current discussions to your watchlist and start commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, using the policies listed in User:Ikip/Del to help you, and to raise awareness of these inclusionist policies. Watch prominent inclusionists arguments carefully in AfDs, keep a list of good debates, and learn from them.
3. Become familiar with the policies and procedures which support inclusionism: User:Ikip/Del

Communication, retention, and expansion

1. Add the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron template to your talk page.
2. Mention Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron when talking to any editor for the first time.
3. Consider creating a monthly WP:newsletter, which would go to all Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members#All_Members and inclusionist members Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians. (Maybe it is best to have two separate newsletters, as many ARS members do not see themselves as inclusionists)
4. Familiarize yourself with current Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron templates, then develop more templates to reward wikipedians for their article saving and debate efforts, and raise awareness of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron

Direct approach

1. Join the current debate at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion
2. Join the debates at WP:Notability articles, particularly Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) which is not a policy, but only a proposed policy. Notify me if this article has the {{policy}} tag added (I don't maintain a watchlist).
3. Watchlist all of the notability fork pages, and debate for these articles to become essays or historic. (Notability articles are the number one reason that articles are deleted).
4. Become familiar with the most prominent inclusionist editors contributions, listed here User:Ikip#Inclusionists, particularly User:DGG, the most prominent and most respected inclusionist editor. Introduce yourself to these editors, and ask how you can help.
5. Become familiar with the policies and procedures which support inclusionism: User:Ikip/Del

Research

1. Help me develop User:Ikip#Sausage, a page which undercuts many of the notability policies, by showing there was little or no consensus in the creation of these policies.
2. Help me develop User:Ikip/AfD on average day, a page which I am creating in an attempt to show that most articles put up for deletion were created by new users, that the majority of those articles deleted could have been salvaged and were notable, and were improperly closed.
3. Help me find and add more policy information and quotes from Jim Wales to User:Ikip/Del
4. Help me find more scholarly research and media articles which are critical of deletionists and notability guidelines.
5. Help me find good AfD debates, where an article was saved, adding these debates too User:Ikip/Del. See User:davidwr's excellent idea here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Excellent_Article_for_deletion_debates.

(more later) travb (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that you have not really changed your user name, just registered a new one and redirected the old user page here, right? Plrk (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on keeping article July Systems at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikiven&redirect=no

Are you saying it won't be removed now? What do I need to do next, to ensure the article does not get in trouble. I'm keen to maintain a non promotional tone. It does have several references though.

Wikiven (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is going to be retained (thank you!), will the three notes at the top about suitability be removed? Please let me know. Btw, I just typed help on my talk page, in the format you advised me to. Wikiven

Glad to have been of help, Ikip. I've got anti-Deletionist rants spread all over Wikipedia-- feel free to use any material that may be of use :-) I really feel we editors-- Admins or not-- have no business defining Notability. If a person/subject is real and verifiable, and someone wants to volunteer the time and effort to write an article on that subject, it is a real crime against this project to tell them they can't, or to delete their work.

Thanks also for the invitation to the Rescue Squadron. Actually, I toyed with the idea of joining them-- I was doing very similar work myself for a while, before I threw up my arms in frustration and retired. At the squadron, I think I picked one article, sourced it and helped save it. This is good, of course, but I still felt like I was being led around by the nose by the people who put these things up for deletion without making any obvious effort to work on them, or have others work on them first. This seems even more absurd when these nominators have shown no previous interest, knowledge or editing experience in the subject area of the targeted article... I was finding award-winning Japanese, Korean and Indian films, TV series, which had been shown internationally (but not in English-speaking communities), which were put up for deletion just because, basically, "I never heard of it."

I took another look at the Rescue Squadron and just felt that old feeling of helpless frustration coming back. I saw dozens of articles on Japanese film characters up for deletion. I have seen Japanese books and magazines which go into very great detail on those very characters-- Godzilla opponents, etc.-- and I know damned well they could be sourced and good articles written on every one of them. But I don't have the time, interest or energy to work on them, so I just have to shut my eyes and ignore the info-cide taking place here... I hope that by limiting my view to a very specific, small editing area, I'll avoid the frustration that comes from witnessing the mass book-burning going on here every day. I just don't have the stomach to fight this kind of thing, but I am glad some people do, and I wish you the best of luck in your efforts. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice message, I had a glum response in return which I deleted, but I think it is better if I am positive, and least outwardly. I have racked up 4 barnstars in the past month by being positive to those who share my values, so I must be doing something right. I feel your pain.Ikip (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool tool. Dlohcierekim 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's the crux of the matter. Sometimes new users are totatly bewildered and don't know how to source an article. All they understand is WP:BEBOLD. And then we give 'em an AFD notice. Might add that or something like it to my repertoire of templates. Dlohcierekim 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is why we should treat editors with kid gloves, not acronyms, and userfy their new pages in most cases, not delete them. Ikip (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well userfication is something else again. Dlohcierekim 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. You're Inclusionist. I see. Dlohcierekim 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I changed my user name, Inclusionist >> Ikip, so my ideas would be considered based on their merits alone, instead of being quickly dismissed with a reflexive label. Thanks for your comments.Ikip (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the change is probably a good idea. As you say. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Martin Luther King Day, hope you had it off like I did. :) Have a wonderful week. Hope to see you again soon. Ikip (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to you as well. And yes, the most glorious Florida winter day you could ask for, and I got to stay home and enjoy it. Dlohcierekim 04:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So jealous, I just moved from the southern US, this is my first real winter in four years. I hate it. Ikip (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ikip. Thanks for the [7]! However, on the "a bit late" score, I've been a Wikipedian since 2001 and was an admin back when you had to ask Jimbo directly to become one. :) I like your "embattled users" welcome; it's good to provide encouragement to new users who may understand what's going on with their contributions. Keep it up! -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, it seems like I am either getting super praise or super condemnation, with no in between. I have only been here since 2005 myself. I bet you have seen things change a lot here? Ikip (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Television episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]