Welcome to my talk page! Please be sure to make all posts civil and constructive, as I'll revert anything I deem to be vandalism. Also, let us try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! My Talk Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I'm having trouble uploading images on to my user page and other articles. I was really hoping to add one of those "This user likes this and this" captions with a picture. Sorry if I am being a burden, as this is my second time asking for help. Thanks, Prepsear (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean new images or already established userboxes? To upload images, please see Wikipedia:Upload. For userboxes, please see Wikipedia:Userboxes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know there is someone else with good common sense! ChessCreator (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thank you for the compliment! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Foundation of Bali -- User:Bilby really did a great job expanding it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks nice. I just noticed your post on your talk page. Have you heard back from the ArbCom yet? Are they restricting you to one account or sanctioning you? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are underway, I expect; I've offered my views and will offer more, as asked. I am sorry about the deception, please accept my apology for any time of yours it cost. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern would be if you used multiple accounts simultaneously in the same AfD or anything, i.e. if anything we closed as consensus but got there illegitimately. I was once blocked indefinitely for having an alternate account, but I never actually used it in a sockpuppet-like fashion to fix any votes or anything as confirmed here (notice no participation in the same AfD or anything like that; plus considering that I have edited several thousand unique pages with this account, the fact that I only overlapped on 28 with my alternate is statistically remarkable) and was ultimately unblocked on the proviso of being restricted to just this account. What helped my cause is that no one had any civility or other concerns with me and even admins pointed out that I made many constructive edits with the alternate account as well. Moreover, the checkuser did not find as many alternates for me as you indicated you had. Anyway, I am only really familiar with your Jack Merridew account. So, if you did use any multiple accounts to sway an AfD one way or the other, I urge you to indicate as much so that a new and more fair discussion could occur. I do not know the whole circumstances involving the other accounts you claimed were yours. So, I'm not sure if you'll also have to contend with civility or other issues to address as it looks from a glance on the AN thread that White Cat and others identified more than just sock accounts being their concerns. I think being honest and apologetic is a step in the right direction. If nothing else, I am happy that we were able to work together constructively and pleasantly on the Smile Foundation article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never used multiple account that way; they were serial, not simultaneous. And I have always been civil. See the two contribs as User:Note to Cool Cat Special:Contributions/Note to Cool Cat and Special:Contributions/Davenbelle. See also; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence#Evidence presented by Davenbelle (talk · contribs). I did not know any of your past history, so thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block log for the Moby Dick account is a bit disconcerting. As White Cat proposed blocking you in the television and episode case, I suppose this revelation could have relevance there. Have you started a thread on ANI or are you just discussing with the arbitrators? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's after midnight here, so I'm just about done. And note that someone may block me for my confession at anytime. No, that block log does not look good, but the characterization of 'No useful contributions' is unwarranted. Really, look and you'll find things that were useful and good. I did tweak the WP:AN statement to strike the word 'not' and word of this is well-known through the mailing lists. I posted my acknowledgment because I felt it appropriate to get it out there before it got posted by someone else. If I am not blocked, I will politely participate in whatever public discussions occur, and, of course, will answer reasonable emails. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are blocked, your best bet of ever returning would be to avoid coming back as a new account, i.e. show the community that you can go without editing Wikipedia for some time. Part of the reason I was unblocked and have remained unblocked was because I did not just create a new account after Durova blocked me, but rather sat on the sidelines and email her once someone told me how to do that and I've been back under one account with success for months now. If instead you just create a new sock, it will probably evetually be discovered and it will just make it that much harder for you to come back with the community's respect and support. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jack Merridew/Allison Sudradjat

Like to help fix-up another article? This was deleted as non-notable and userfied; there are some useful link on the talk page. The idea would be to clean it up and then move it to article space. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jack, as much as I would like to help out on improving this article, now that you have just been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet account, I am not sure we're supposed to edit any pages in your userspace. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled it out. We'll see what happens. I can retrieve the Knights templar stuff if the DRV is unsuccessful Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Knights Templar one succeeded and is being revised per the discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..and I retrieved Allison Sudrajat but it has been deleted. May be a while before it can be recreated..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen you mentioning before about how articles voted to delete should have the edit histories preserved. Two of my articles were deleted recently (Gaknulak and Squerrik); without a courtesy warning from BlackKite I was unaware of this until just a few minutes ago when I observed that they are now redlinks. I would have voted to merge/redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities if I had been aware of the AFDs. Do you know if it's possible to get them restored as redirects? A very small number of votes on each AFD suggests that they were not relisted for consensus either. BOZ (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask Black Kite directly of just take it to deletion review. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I asked him. A few more deities (Psilofyr, Norebo, Phyton, Zuoken, and Mouqol) were also hard-deleted, although I made new redirects for them. Is it possible to restore the edit histories of the original articles, or would it be a waste of time to pursue that? BOZ (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin is willing to restore them and make regular redirects, then it's possible. You should request that of the deleting admin or start deletion reviews. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll look into that. No doubt Jack Merridew voted on some of them, so do you think bringing that up would help my case? :) BOZ (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. As I indicate here, we cannot allow AfD closures in which banned accounts influenced or resulted in articles being deleted to stand. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool, if I can't get them the easy way, I'll ask there. I'm not even looking for a keep, just retaining the edit history. BOZ (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the loss of edit histories is part of the problem with the whole deletion thing, in addition to a week long discussion in which sometimes maybe a half dozen editors participate somehow reflecting consensus over an article that may have been worked on for years by scores of accounts. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're "preaching to the choir", as they say.  :) I'm well aware of these problems, unfortunately. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also gets old all the times I see editors who know nothing about a given topic say "I don't like in popular culture articles" or "sources cannot be found" and then when someone does find sources with relative ease are still talked down to and dismissed. We have a diverse community of editors with many interests. We gain new editors practically every minute (the world's population is only getting bigger). We also rely on donations. There is no non-elitist or non-arrogant reason for us to not be as comprehensive as possible. So long as an article is factually accurate, we should keep the article. If Wikipedia only contained articles that appear in Britannica what would be the point? What makes Wikipedia great and useful is its potential to cover just about everything. Why not be the guide to everything when we have the disk space and number of editors to do so? If there's anything I learned from studying history, it is that closed-mindedness and efforts to suppress knowledge or discriminate against certain types of knowledge is part of a dangerous and frightening process that is ultimately detrimental to human interest. If someone hates "in popular culture" or fictional deities articles, then they can just ignore them and edit something else. I don't find tattoos attractive on women, but I sure in heck respect their ability to have them if they want and what's it to me if they do? Why any accounts would devote so much to ruining things for others is beyond me. What doesn't help is that so many of the anti-"popular culture" accounts have wound up belonging to some sockpuppeteer that has really misrepresented the actual community's opinion on such articles and greatly compromised both policy pages and AfD discussions. Any notability policies written by these banned accounts in any part really need to be called into question now, because we should not be beholden to what sock editor's believe. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←(De-indent) I hope you don't mind me commenting here; I've had your talk page watchlisted to get a better idea of the views of someone who is staunchly inclusionist. One thing stands out above "so long as an article is factually accurate". How can we judge whether or not an article is factually accurate if there are no sources to verify what the article says? Also, Jack had very little impact on the notability guidelines; the changes were a result of the community as a whole...I find it a little insulting to ignore the opinions of the other many editors who discussed the changes. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 22:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SW, it's the interpretation of the guidelines that is the problem, as well as the lack of good faith by editors applying the blowtorch to pop culture articles. People so keen on deleting material that they will ignore new evidence to prove a point. Also, the self-righteousness and use of non-definable terms like unencyclopedic gets boring after a while. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a problem in the way guidelines are interpreted then it should be brought up on the relevant talk page and the wording tightened. People here will always differ in their opinions; some hold the view that pop culture articles diminish the credibility of wikipedia. Unfortunately, there's not much we can do to change people's minds. That's their opinion and they're entitled to have it. You just have to hope that there more users who will be neutral. People have to be able to ignore their own prejudice, whether they be inclusionist or deletionist. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 23:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not mind. I am always happy to discuss with others. Anyway, I whole-heartedly agree that articles should have sources, but I don't like seeing some (not saying you) assert authoritatively in AfDs that sources cannot be found without the asserter making an effort to find sources (libraries have sources that are not found on google searches) or when someone else finds published or online sources, dismissing those sources. Yes, I am an inclusionist, but I am willing to argue for deletion as I did here and as I have done probably more than a dozen times in other disucssions. The article I link to was a hoax and so no sources could exist, but many articles concerning popular culture likely do have sources somewhere. There are so many magazines on films, television, video games, etc. that there is bound to be more articles on any given topic then even we'll find on a Google search, i.e. that have not been put available online but exist in published sources. My immediate concern today deals with this new revelation of additional anti-fiction related article sockpuppetry. Prior to the Episodes and Characters ArbCom were two user specific cases during which it turned out JB196 and Eyrian were operating all sorts of sock accounts in policy discussions and AfDs. Even if you agree with the outcome of those discussions or what they had to say, it was achieved through almost unprecedented sockpuppetry on this project as well as incivility and personal attacks against their critics. Today, we get another revelation. As more information comes out of the extent of the sock accounts that participated in guideline and AfD discussions, the better sense we'll have as to how much of them really reflect the community's opinion. So far at least all of the following have either admitted to or been confirmed by checkusers as being socks or puppeteers: AndalusianNaugahyde, AshbyJnr, Blueanode, Brandon97, Burntsauce, Casperonline, Dannycali, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Eyrian, Gazpacho, Golfcam, IPSOS, Jack Merridew, JohnEMcClure, LAZY 1L, Moby Dick, Mrs random, Note to Cool Cat, 75.5.225.151, SolidPlaid, Varlak, and Yeshivish. Some of these accounts were blocked as socks of JB196 and Molag Bal, i.e. too of the project's most prolific sockpuppeeters who have combined hundreds of socks. If THAT is what we faced in fiction related AfDs and policy discussions, who knows how many edits these and those accounts I haven't listed that are associated with these banned users made to policy and guideline pages or influenced other good faith editors. Collectively, they made THOUSANDS of edits many of which were overwhelming AfDs with delete votes and harassing their critics (notice some of these accounts for blocked for stalking and incivility even prior to the checkusers confirmed sockpuppetry). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does raise an interesting point and also how this could be dealt with. Do we move forward and accept what has happened? Or do we revisit every fiction-related afd to check whether these people had an influence? Perhaps this is an issue that would be worth raising on WP:AN. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 23:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can use this tool to determine how many AfDs any combination of the above banned accounts participated in. I tried a few combinations and it is appalling. Part of the problems with AfDs is that once a pupeteer starts an AfD and some of his socks immediately jump in with authoritative delete "votes," others might come to the AfD and assume that must be the Wikipedia consensus. Sockpuppetry was to a large extent responsible for over two hundred deletions. And these illegitimate deletions were used as "precedent" for subsequent debates. I brought one in which three banned accounts participated to deletion review, as I came across some new sources that could be added to a restored article. Plus, again, the article was deleted after a discussion in which at least THREE editors who were at the time actively engaging in sock puppetry and harassment of their critics participated. So far ten editors (not counting myself) say to restore the article and relist the AfD, two editors argue to rewrite the article, and ten editors endorse deletion on such "I don't like it" grounds as "the IPC plague is a way of enshrining trivia and ascribing it encyclopedic status", "I am very much against popular culture sections in articles, much less spin-off articles about popular culture," "This IPC stuff is more often than not glorified trivia and should be expunged," and "the way to deal with bloated trivia sections is to prune them, not split them out into whole articles comprised of nothing but cruft", but the ends do not justify the means and if we just let these things stand, because a minority of editors (again there is no consensus on the DrV) simply do not like those kinds of articles, then we're sending a dangerous message to sock puppeteers, i.e. that their controversial methods can indeed result in success. If we allow such deletions to just remain, it may encourage the sock puppeteers to return and pick up where they left off with new socks. I think we should do everything we can to prevent that from occuring. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, it takes a lot longer to create than to delete articles, which I feel is a valid argument. I get tired of hearing 'it'll ruin our credibility' as one has to look for the articles to find them, I also find that consensus is tricky when the more deletion-minded naturally spend more time at AfD than others of us, thus there is a bias. I ponder those who are serious about WPs credibility when there is much unsourced in political, historical, health and environmental articles - surely improving them would be more important than spending hours and hours tagging RPG and TV article (??).

I also question the courtesy of limiting contributions solely to tagging and deleting rather than searching for content oneself, as I have seen some editors do. Thankfully, some are changing their ways recently, but it is like being the one who tells others what to do all the time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not of the mind that pop-culture articles ruin the credibility; that's just an argument that I see commonly. I'm definitely in agreement with what you said above, however, some people just aren't good content writers. People tend to think that I'm more deletionist, but I'm not. I'm more policy-ist; I mostly agree with the policies we have. One good thing that has come out of the two arbs though, is an increase in the encylopedic quality of fiction articles and an awareness of how to improve them. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 23:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, the content has improved. Although not all are good writers, it doesn't take wirting skill to find and add references. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention Pilotbob and his workbuddies, though we'll assume good faith there....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to make of that whole matter. They definitely cooperated in AfDs, in addition to other strange things like having a section on "pages to masturbate to" on a userpage or thinking that someone has a "mission." Not to mention both accounts' contributions are almost all delete votes or noms, as seen here and here and to fictional related articles at that. Another account that also did the whole rapid delete vote thing was blocked as a sock of Pilotbob. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice! 6 of the 7 have been restored fully - on Phyton, the deleting admin appears to be somewhat inactive now, so I may need to take that one to review later if he doesn't respond. BOZ (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took Phyton to DRV - the admin didn't restore the history, and as far as I know didn't respond to me.  :\ Back me up if you like! BOZ (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll see. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also decided I had to see what I could do about Leira, since that one is an odd mystery to me. BOZ (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, take care! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mission accomplished!  :) No argument needed this time, either. I have quite a few more that I'll want to do that with, but I'll take it easy for now because I don't want to start up any controversy. So far, most admins have been fairly cordial about it, and no one has outright refused, though a few were guarded (and rightly so - restoring the text on a deleted article can lead to all sorts of abuses) but since I have no intention of misbehaving in that regard, I hope to prove myself trustworthy.  :) BOZ (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the DRV, I've initially userfied the article to User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Knights Templar and popular culture. You may improve and move it then to mainspace, upon which it should be subject to another AFD, but not speedy deletion. I'll leave a note on its talk page, so be sure to move it together with the talk.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Le Grand Roi,

Regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove, I think User:IHate2BeAnonymous was created as a dig at User:ILike2BeAnonymous based on the fact that the latter had butted heads with Boomgaylove during the initial sock hunt. You might also want to see User talk:Jonny-mt/Archive 3#Am I in trouble? for a discussion I had with one of the more recent socks. --jonny-mt 04:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks for the note! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw in the RfA I made your list of nice Wikipedians and was touched. I appreciate the kind comments and hope I can continue to live up to the expectations that entails.

I do think we got off on the wrong foot with the Weapons of Resident Evil 4 AfD (that's the first time I remember interacting with you). I may have disagreed with you on that AfD but I don't in any way think you're a bad editor. In fact, your willingness to attempt to save an article that you felt strongly about says a lot about you as an editor. In the end I'm not always right but I hope you'll continue correcting me when you feel I'm not right. :)

P.S. If you ever decided to initiate a RfA, I'd support it without hesitation just based on some of the work I've seen you do. Redfarmer (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pleasant note. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a question under your support a few minutes ago. Realized I should let you know personally so ypu have a full chance to reply.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll check it out momentarily. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't mean offense, but my gut reaction to the support and the diff was very negative. Look forward to a response and hope you can correct my view.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said there, Redfarmer said more in the above post than just expressing a willingess to support me as an admin, something I actually do not want at this time as I have declined two offers at nomination already. Anyway, the totality of his post, the humility of admitting being wrong, the kind compliments to me, etc. are all of such a generous nature that I felt it reasonable enough to give him the benefit of the doubt in the RfA and switch from neutral to weak support. Whenever an editor goes about in an RfA proactively attempting to persuade his opposition, rather than how some have done quite the opposite, it shows a good sign of character. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted in the RFA I accept your explanation (Although I don't accept the other post, not yours, that accuses me of breaking AGF.)--Cube lurker (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay have a nice night (new episode of Saturday Night Live on in just under an hour and a half). --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for sending me the welcome message. Snood199 (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome message the other day. I'm wondering if you could advise me on the proper title and procedures for creating an article to condense all this Controversy about the 2008 Democratic Primary Superdelegates. Personally, I'm not sure why there needs to be a controversy but, in lieu of watching articles for inclusions of "So and So said they're going to cast their vote as a superdelegate for Clinton even though their constituents voted for Obama." As the two are not related, I don't see the point in including these statements in individual biographies of Members of Congress, Governors, etc. The title I came up for was "Democratic Primary (United States) 2008 presidential primary Superdelegate Controversies" but that seems a bit long. And, I think this is too controversial of an issue for me to attempt as my first article alone. Plus, I've already been threatened by someone who thinks I'm a "Clinton campaign operative" (I'm not) who says he/she will track my IP address and release to the news media that there's some kind of conspiracy going on against Obama on Wikipedia. Anywhoo...I'd appreciate any advice you have to offer. Thanks again! Smart Ways (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to get community consensus for such a move and I encourage you to discuss it on the relevant talk pags of any of those pages that you wish to condense. As for a title, I suppose something like 2008 American Democratic Presidential Supderdelegate Controversies or something to that effect could work. It may be worthwhile just brainstorming a bunch of variations and suggesting it to others on the relevant talk pages and see if any take off. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's me, User:Dorftrottel. 78.34.133.114 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, welcome again anyway! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's just so much faster without all the monobook extensions (which I don't want to delete because they often do come in handy). 78.34.133.114 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help thinking this question ([1]) is a bit confusing and unfair to the candidate, and have mentioned as thus at WT:RFA.

Meanwhile, this will probably amuse you - I closed a Episodes and Characters AfD as Keep today ... and immediately got flamed for it[2] - you can't win.... Black Kite 17:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every AfD in which I have encounted that candidate, he voted to delete (in ones in which I argued both to keep and delete, but there I thus argued BOTH keep and delete in some instances); thus, I want to get some sense of whether or not the candidate would ever close an AfD as keep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd do better giving examples of AfDs instead, because a question that long and complicated is likely to not get answered. Black Kite 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to reply sooner, but I'm just back from the auto place (my Focus's brakes aren't working properly). Anyway, because Redfarmer answered the question so well that I even changed my stance, I thought I'd give this candidate an opportunity to convince me otherwise as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr grand king of the pumpkins = ). I was wondering if you could tell me how I, as a non-admin, could be helpful at ANI? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foremost, I would advise reading through the page careful, includings its instructions and all of the various current discussions. Take note of what "works" on the page. Then, after you feel confident that you understand it, gradually offer advice as input in as unbiased a way as possible. Always keep an open-mind and try to avoid overly heated discussions initially. Be sure though to not only focus on ANI, but also on article development and referencing as well. And a great way to build good will is to welcome new users. The more experience you have with article development and the more friendly experience from welcoming new users, the greater credibility your opinions will have elsewhere, such as at ANI. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your talkpage note. I completely agree with you in general - many people don't spend enough time looking for sources on articles, and that's why many get deleted. Indeed, one you mentioned there Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1349 Woking Squadron was started by myself because it had been PRODded but looked at least semi-salvageable.

But - and I am trying to be helpful here, I assure you - what you've got to be careful of it your habit of throwing in these types of contribution on AfD. There are two main problems - you produce this sort of !vote a lot of the time, and it's not helpful - to me, it just says "this is a rather wordy default keep because I can't find any other reason to help this article out".

Also, this one is not only unhelpful but actually misleading - it looks as though you're saying that plenty of sources are available for this fictional weapon, but if you take the time to look at the link, you've actually only done a search for "Starship Troopers", which is the parent article. I say "be careful" because you don't want to get a reputation as "that editor who just !votes Keep all the time" because then your well-made comments and improvements may start to get ignored, which would be a shame because many of them are very useful. Black Kite 09:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Black Kite, thank you for the feedback. I still think my arguments, even in To Boldly Go an Morita are far more substantive than the copy and paste deletes I see used so frequently. There are many accounts like this one that literally do nothing more than just going through AfDs voting with practically copy and paste deletes and with such rapidity that it's incredibly difficult to accept that they actually read all these articles and discussions. With To Boldly Go, I don't think you can just take the first post there as the totality of my arguments as I continued to discuss with others there. Plus, what do you do with the nomination: "for the love of god"? Is it really necessary to be that worked up about an article? For Morita, my argument is that the topic is sufficiently verfiable by collecting information in all of those published sources on Starship troopers and as sub-article of the main article is consistent per the First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on Starship Troopers. As some editors argued spiritedly to keep in that instance, i.e. enough to demonstrate that it's a legitimate search term. Why not redirect without deleting to the Starship Trooper article instead, thereby at least keeping editors' contributions still public to non-admins? Plus, consider the deletes, one just repeats what another already said thereby adding nothing new to the discussion, while both are arguments to avoid anyway. Even the nom has problems: a wishy-washy "appears to fail" a policy (not just fails) and a suggestion to merge (which you don't need an AfD for, you can Be Bold and just merge and redirect without an AfD and if that's the case why not have a talk page discussion first?). Other delete votes lacked academic seriousness and were of the arguments to avoid nature, which is also just repeated by another in the discussion, thereby adding nothing of additional substance to the discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean they're provocative and induce arguments, yes those arguments of yours are doing that. But I can't say they help in the real work at Afd, which is decide on the articles in some consistent and responsible way. DGG (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They help in most instances. Just to clarify to those with whom I have discussed AfDs today (sorry for copy and pasting, but my one hand is still injured), going with my AfD participation for today, in the instances in which I argued to delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran), I provided evidence that I conducted a search for sources on multiple venues and made efforts to still do whatever I could to improve the article just in the off-chance that during the AfDs sources are indeed found and the article now has a start on being improved. In other words, I did not just throw down another repetitive “vote.” In cases where others already provided appropriate policy shortcuts like WP:HOAX, I did not merely repeat what they wrote. Once somebody has already provided a policy or guideline reason for deletion or keeping, there is no need to restate it as anyone reading the discussion should see it. After all, in a discussion, not a vote, the participants should advance new arguments and ideas as the discussion progresses. Now in the three instances (you read right, so far I argued to delete three articles today versus only three keeps) in which I argued to keep, consider them successively. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean was nominated as a non-notable book with four rapid delete votes claiming “no coverage” in secondary sources. Despite such assertions, KittyRainbow and I found SEVERAL sources including ones in which the article was given high reviews (Five Stars, Gold Award). I in turn used these sources to drastically revise the article by adding new sections and multiple references to an article only created four days ago anyway. And that is just with two of us conducting source searches in one day! So, here is an instance where you have a nom plus four delete votes with false claims and no evidence that searches for sources were even done to substantiate those claims only to have myself and another find a slew of sources with which I was able to significantly improve a four day old article. It frustrates me to no end to see so much of that in AfDs, i.e. editors just posting repetitive and false claims that could outnumber those keep arguments from editors who actually went out and found sources and spent time revising the article under question. Now, anyone approaching AfDs as a discussion would revisit his or her initial post taking into account the article’s development, but a minority of participants in AfDs ever do that. Fortunately in this case two editors were responsible enough to indeed change their stance and for that my sincerist compliments to them. But my larger concern is still, why wouldn’t the nominators or initial delete voters just do what KittyRainbow and I did, i.e. look for sources and improve the article accordingly? Think how much would be accomplished, because then instead of KittyRainbow and I doing it here, we could be doing it to another article(s) without having to also post keep rationales in the AfD. The other AfD I argued to keep (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1349 Woking Squadron) was based on the First pillar and I offered some suggestions after checking the web to see if sources suggest legitimacy of the topic. Anyway, I hope that helps illustrate where I am coming from. And with the said, I will reflect on your and Black Kite's comments prior to participating in another AfD. As a final note, as my hand is hurting and I have a class to teach, I'm giving Wikipedia a rest for probably several hours or so (maybe more, we'll see, how I'm feeling and how much job/school related work I have). So, as is probably the case, have a pleasant week to all! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those pix of your dog on your page and as a dog lover I wondered how it was doing without it's eyesight. How old is your dog? I look foward to reading your response.

--122.106.31.217 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is almost ten and gets by quite well (bassets have large ears and an excellent nose, so they can make do without eyes). The other basset we have with eyes somewhat helps her out too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're certainly not afraid to state your mind. I like that. Seriously though, I still don't see much in the way of notability for To Boldly Go, so my !vote stays for now. As for the Melting of Maggie Bean -- good work there. I actually did try to find sources for that but wasn't turning up anything; I guess it helps to have more than one person doing the searching, eh? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TenPoundHammer, thank you for the reply, kind word, and reconsideration regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean. Have a pleasant day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to agree with 10PH on this one, unless someone is expert enough to find something. If you really think that everything shouldbe included, you should spend some time at Special:New Pages. DGG (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think everything should be included: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran are just some examples. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered him in AFD debates before, but I haven't seen Lord Uniscorn or Noble Sponge voting along with him. I have seen those two PRODding articles before, however - for what it's worth. BOZ (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...But, it looks like you're better at that than I am! Good catch on Anteater and Uniscorn at the Hairbag deletion debate - naughty naughty! "They" were the only ones besides the nom voting for delete. BOZ (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice any accounts with similar edits, please let me know. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - will do. Last thing we need around here is another Pilotbob case. BOZ (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove? There seems to be several different deletionist sockpuppeteers operating multiple accounts. The AnteasterZot/Lord Uniscorn farm was getting pretty nasty with me, so, I guess it is some relief (although still disappointment in a larger sense) that my suspicions about "him" were correct. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure inclusionists do it too, and for the same reasons (though I can't say I've witnessed it), but what's with all these deletionists trying to vote stack and/or create new accounts just to come around and keep deleting things? It certainly doesn't help keep people from seeing the lot of them as "bad guys", although I'm trying to assume good faith on the rest despite the bad apples. BOZ (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has really gotten out of hand and I've been dealing with these sock accounts for months now. Last year I had to content with Dannycali, Blueanode, and Eyrian and their related socks, which made any AfDs I partcipated in with those accounts intensely frustrating as you can see from how AnteasterZot/Lord Uniscorn tag teamed me: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. You may also be interested in such AfDs as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyluth and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy) in which sock accounts AnteaterZot and Jack Merridew participated or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beltar. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly remember Eryan, as he was the first deletionist to give us any real trouble on the D&D pages since I started editing them. I'm not sure how much we can do with the Osyluth and Beltar AFDs, since even if removing the votes which should be discounted, there were still some perfectly legit delete votes, and we were lucky to get redirects in both cases.  :) BOZ (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I could be misjugding, but I think here's what happened with the SolidPlaid thing. Looking at Zot's userpage history, it looks like he changed his name [12] and then the old user name page was deleted. I would guess that Grawp, as is his wont to harass deletionists, picked up on that fact and re-registered an account as SolidPlaid to continue his harrassment. I could be off base, but that's what that looks like. As far as anything else Zot has done with other sock accounts is another story, though. BOZ (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With now sock account AnteaterZot and the earlier exposed Jack Merridew having particpated in the Episode and Character Case, I wonder to what extent their participation influenced the outcome? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - I didn't follow that case very closely so I don't know how much Zot was involved. I noticed that Jack was pretty involved with discussing it, so that's something. I'd push for one thing at a time - get someone to make an official ruling on the Anteater, and then worry about cleaning up his mess. I don't know what to do about cleaning up after Jack, as he had his hands in a lot of stuff. BOZ (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what happens with the checkuser casse. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Especially brand new users just stumbling into an AfD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully something constructive will come of the SSP case I submitted. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby dub thee a knight of Wikipedia, with all the privileges and responsibilities given therein. ----69.86.173.19 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind offer and nice message; however, I must decline at this time as my efforts on Wikipedia are probably best used in article improvement. Happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 02:18, April 10, 2008

It's definitely a kind and generous offer, but I, aside from being able to see deleted contribs (which would be a self-serving reason) and while I suppose it'd be easier to be able to block obvious vandals rather than have to report them, just do not at present have a compelling reason/desire to be an admin. I could not see myself closing AfDs and I really prefer welcoming users and other pleasant things rather than blocking editors. Plus, as I continue to work on my dissertation, my participation on wiki could with reasonable likelihood drastically diminish as I have to focus on my career. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Dorfy, don't leave us in suspense...you sound like you've got an opinion on it, does that mean you'd support Le Roi? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interested at the time, and I am unlikely to be persuaded either way so could we please not discuss the possibility further at present? Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, consider it dropped. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this discussion might interest you. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invite. I am, however, focusing my Wikipedia time today on a complex deletionist sockpuppetry case. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why the redirect you want will not happen. Dorftrottel (canvass) 02:17, April 10, 2008

Okay, replied there. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Frankly, I don't usually pay a lot of attention to who else is participating in the AfDs in which I choose to offer an opinion. Although I don't like to see noms that are obviously without merit, I try to just do my research, offer my take on the disposition of the article, and fade off into the night. Of course, I occasionally feel compelled to point out obvious !vote stacking, to respond to queries or comments by other users, to highlight what seem to me to be deficiencies in understanding of policies and guidelines … Deor (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... for your help with improving Timeline of the future in forecasts. It's a quirky little timeline, but I am growing quite fond of it ! Let's hope it survives the AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]