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

Thanks for your show of support!  :) Gavin.collins (I'm sure you've encountered him before, with as many AFDs as you've voted on) is another "problem" deletionist. I really don't think he's got any sockpuppet issues or anything like that, but civility is a big issue for him; I and two other editors just warned him today on his talkpage for that. In fact, his talkpage archives are an exercise in people warning him about civility. *shrug* It doesn't seem like there's much we can do about that, because he ignores such warnings and no one has taken up any serious action against him about it. BOZ (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that has done little or nothing about the civility issue. That RFC is too spread out and unfocused, and never led to any decisions. BOZ (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is big enough problem, there's always ANI or Arbitration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. We'll see how it goes trying to work with him in a less severe manner. Sorry about the drama, just felt like venting.  :) BOZ (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment on my talk page. Thanks for the pointers. However, I wish to solicit your assistance as I believe that I am now being singled out by some editors who seek to ignore the more stringent WP:BLP guidelines which guide the editing of that page. See here where I am now accused of being a sockpuppet and further threatened with banning. Ho Lee Cow (talk)

You could request a checkuser of yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser (someone who is not a sockpuppet would be unlikely to request a checkuser of his or herself). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude into the discussion, but if you read the list of "Unacceptable requests" at the top of WP:RFCU, you will see that "Checkuser on yourself to 'prove your innocence'" is one of them. Deor (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now. Thanks for pointing it out! Perhaps another idea would be to enable an email and email those accusing him? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the Centurion (Scarrow Novel) page. It shouldn't be deleted :) Rigsy05 (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well now its been deleted but you continue to support it, thank you again for starting the deletion review! Mucho appreciado amigo. Rigsy05 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. While I could understand closing it as "no consensus," considering that editors were actively improving the article when it closed, a "delete" did not seem correct. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope everything is well with your hound. All the best Rigsy05 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's making do. Thanks for the kind word! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 as your input would be most welcome and would encourage other editors to contribute to the debate, which will remain open until the end of the month. Sincerely, --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll check it out. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Congratulations and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you made the above nomination. Please note that per the GFDL, we do not delete articles from which content was merged. Therefore, if what you are porposing is that all those articles be replaced by a list, then we would redirect the smaller articles to the list without deleting them. In other words, the discussion on the Singstar talk page is sufficient for such a move and the AfD is thus not necessary. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the list article (List of SingStar titles) was not merged from the other articles. It was created from scratch at User:Tntnnbltn/olddraft2 using only external sources, with the introduction based on material from SingStar. None of the content in List of SingStar titles originated from any of the articles being nominated for deletion, hence they do not need to be kept under GFDL. However I have already noted my mistake in listing the articles at AFD when what I was really proposing was a redirect. I am rarely involved with AFD and whatnot, so put it down to a novice mistake. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then if you are proposing a redirect, which you do not need AfD for, I recommend withdrawing and closing the AfD and just either being Bold or continuing the discussion on a normal talk page. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help!  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Los Minosos, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rwking2 (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice! Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- Since you've involved yourself in the above article, perhaps you'd like to address my underlying disagreement with many of RAN's edits. I think my best articulation of this disagreement is here: User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Discussion. Perhaps you'd care to respond to what I say there. If you have a response, it might be best placed on Talk:G. David Schine, but here or on my Talk page is fine with me too. As you can see, RAN's response is notable by its absence. RedSpruce (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You two may want to seek formal mediation. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may, but since you've expressed an opinion on the above issue by reverting me, I thought you might also be willing to put that opinion into words. I'm asking you to justify your edit; is that too much to ask? RedSpruce (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a diff? I don't recall reverting you; I'm not saying I didn't, I just don't recall doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn; my mistake. It was User:Hiberniantears who RV'd me, and when I asked him about that he said that although he hadn't investigated the issue, he was "supporting another admin", apparently meaning you. I apologize. RedSpruce (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got to thinking last night, have you ever considered an attempt at adminship? From a personal standpoint, seeing your name attached to an AfD almost always puts me on edge. Your "no crappy article gets left behind" stance frankly makes me insane. However, you are also incredibly knowledgable, you know that system and how it works better than a whole lot of current admins and you have worked on dozens of articles to prove their notability when they otherwise probably would have been deleted. All in all, I think it would be a tough fight and one that probably would not be won, but all the same I would be willing to nominate or co-nominate you if you wanted to make that leap. A lot of people would oppose outright, but I think a lot of others would see that you would be a net-positive. Give it some thought. Trusilver 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Trusilver, thank you for the note. While I do not wish to say "never" to such an idea, please see User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Account history. As you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SingStar (PlayStation 2), my use of two alternate accounts that I never actually used in the same discussions as indicated on my user page and have since abandoned altogether are still incorrectly perceived by some as something more nefarious. At the time that I was blocked, editors incorrectly claimed various accounts were me (such as this editor), only to finally have a checkuser not turn up all these alleged accounts and accordingly after friendly email correspondences the only admin to have ever blocked me unblocked me. Anyway though, as you can also see from that SingStar discussion, I have managed to help identify maybe a half dozen or so sock farms with well over twenty total accounts involved in these groupings and not surprisingly I have been targetted by the sockpuppeteers and their socks in various discussions. I suspect that these editors (such as this one) and whatever reincarnations they might take would greatly disrupt any RfA I'd have. Moreover, becasue I approach AfDs as a discussion and not a vote as mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Discussion versus vote, certain accounts that have been blocked for civility issues tend to take offense at being engaged in discussion and sometimes cause the AfD to devolve into something less productive, even though, I consciously leave out insults and always sign my edits with "best," "sincerely," etc. I will give it some thought, but please also consider what I have written here as to why I might have reservations. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You keep pointing to the Al Gore III AfD whenever the issue of inherited notability comes up. However, as I guess you are aware, the article still ended in a delete. So, out of interest, do you just like JamesMLane's opinion (although I see nothing special about it), or are you protesting against the deletion, or what is it? I am really puzzled, so I hope you can enlighten me. (Honest question.) – sgeureka ^t•c 18:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above!  :) I like his opinion and I think the deletion was incorrect. In the instance of spinoff or sub-articles for which sources are available, I believe notability is indeed inherited; nor do I think it a slippery slope, because we're generally talking about episodes or characters that we know not to be hoaxes and which there is consensus among a sizable segment of our community that they are notable at least in the sense of spinoff articles. I don't think anyone reasonably takes the argument to the exaggerated level that those who claim it is not inherited do, i.e. I would not argue an article on say Adama's desk on Battlestar Galactica should be kept, but I would argua that Bill Adama should be. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that helped. FWIW, I was neutral on the Gore article (and hence didn't vote) because my views on notability and quality cancelled each other out there. I am only concerned about quality when it comes to wikipedia; I don't really mind quality articles on nonnotable stuff since I am creating such articles myself. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly really agree about the various fiction articles needing additional sourcing and more non-plot out of universe sections. I just think that we spend way too much time in AfDs that could be spent finding these sources and expanding the articles. Please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Yanehiro. Notice how the nominated article looked versus after I edited it. The nominator's concerns with the article were correct based on the article's appearance, which was followed up by an ultimately incorrect claim that she's "just some random business person who happened to write part of an unsuccessful book." I did some quick digging on the woman and discovered that she's actually considered a "broadcast pioneer," won major awards and recognitions (Emmys and others from the United Nations even), in fact authored multiple books, is the president of a company, on the boards of others, has acted, hosted, and produced films and television shows, etc. This article on a woman with clear real-world notability had been sitting around as a stub for nearly two years before in one hour I improved it to the point that the nominator wrote, "Given the additions to the article and the references cited, I concede that the article should remain as it is currently." Now imagine what I would be able to accomplish if I did not also have to go back and fourth with editors in AfDs or if some of the editors I go back and forth with helped me to improve the articles under question. Other examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and the Pumpkin Queen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Resident Evil 4 (an article that was rated A-Class and is being assessed as a potential good article), or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean, as well as many others. Notice that these articles range from being about a real-world journalist to children's books to aspects of a video game. I would greatly prefer to just focus on improving these articles, but please notice that in these examples, while several editors did revisit their stances, several others just "voted" in the AfDs and never commented on the improvements one way or another. Consider for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy). By the end of the discussion, the article had undergone a significant sourcing revision that caused you to write, "Keep in its rewritten form It's not much but it is enough to avoid deletion." And yet it closed as delete! Several of those who argued delete had not commented on these improvements and two of the delete accounts turned out to be socks (User:Jack Merridew and User:AnteaterZot). Think of all that discussion wasted with sock accounts that could have been spent improving the article as was done by the end only too late for anyone to actually revisit their stance. Anyway, as you can also see at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, I have a little bit more variety of arguments than I think people realize in AfDs and I guess I just wish those advocating to delete (who also advocate to keep far less frequently than I argue to delete) and who approach AfDs as a vote without ever taking into account how discussion progresses or improvements made to the article during the discussion would just help out more in fixing some of these articles, because if I can improve them, I'm sure others can too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2]

Interesting, no? BOZ (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jack Merridew. BOZ (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. I'm willing to give editors second chances, but given the AfD and ArbCom disruption and dishonesty, I have severe reservations here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and expressed my own feelings there. He lied up until he thought he couldn't get away with it anymore, and only then came clean. And you'll notice from the link above, that he tried to sign in to that sock before telling anyone about it, and only revealed it when he realized it would not work. BOZ (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you indicated, if he focuses on improving certain articles, then okay, but the contributions to arbcom and afd discussions were pretty universally unconstructive. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I added that account to my matrix prior to seeing if I could log into it and that CUs will note that I did so before attempting to access that ancient account. You do realize that your only knowledge that I even tried to access the account is my assertion to that effect? Feel free to ask a friendly neighborhood cross-wiki CheckUser. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, I noticed you revert vandalism, occasionally, but correctly. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to help make vandalism-reverting easier for you? Acalamari 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted. :) Just remember it's only for reverting vandalism, and not for reverting good-faith edits or use in revert-wars. For practice and additional information, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Merci!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Acalamari 01:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.

Unfortunately, wp is not so simple as "edit this page." Bcdea (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! If I can ever help, just let me know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend, I am not new to the Wikipedia. Yet I am not familiar with everything here. I learned it the hard way about using the same computer by two different users. I was banned from editing. --NoMagicHarry (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern, I just received word that my ten year old basset hound (the one pictured on my userpage) had one of the tumors being removed during surgery literally burst. So, as I am likely to be a) busy with that and b) possibly out of it if she doesn't pull through this weekend, could someone please place an appropriate busy/away tag on my user and talk pages indicating as much. I do not have time for obvious reasons to search myself and as I have been discussing with editors recently on various project pages, I do not want anyone to think I am deliberately ignoring them by not replying further. Thank you for your time and help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is OK Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your bassett. I hope everything works out for the best, Le Grande. As the proud companion of a perfect beagle myself, I can only imagine the stress you are going through. I wish you all the best, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thoughtfulness! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand, my thoughts are with you. My dog went through surgery a while ago and I sincerely empathize with you. I too wish you all the best and I do look forward to your return. --Pixelface (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Your kind words are greatly appreciated. I have maybe an hour or so of a break with which I'll edit today, but she's still being mediocre, so it's probably best I leave the tag up for now. When I get a chance, I'll upload an image of her most prominent surgical scar from the latest surgery. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about your Basset, LGRdC. Best wishes for her continued recovery. I don't have any animals in my life right now, but I've had both dogs and cats as companions. Their love is totally unconditional and that makes them so wonderful. — Becksguy (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. My best wishes to your basset. I hope she is getting well. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both of you for the kind words. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had and loved several dogs - including 2 hounds. I wish you and your buddy all the best.72.92.4.157 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My prayers are with your dog, who I hope is doing OK. I happen to love dogs, too, so I care a great deal about them. Best wishes, Prepsear (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. They are greatly appreciated. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not required for people to just drop what they are doing (or working on) or whatever, just to improve an article in deletion. You don't need to criticize others just because they don't want to improve the same articles you want to. I don't think it's rude to not reply to every comment in AFDs. Not everyone has the time to go back to where they posted, and reply each and every time. Assume some good faith, instead of thinking people are bad because of minor things. (Note: all of that is a repost of what I put there a few days ago, which you never replied to). RobJ1981 (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionpedia Patrol has been launched; I invite you to become a part of this groundbreaking effort. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll check it out. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the Patrol's intent and purpose was misrepresented here and that it has suffered speedy deletion. 129.174.90.124 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I have commented there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would do best to simply recreate something similar, just as a matter of convenience and avoiding open conflict -- and association with a banned sockpuppet. DGG (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It was carefully written, typical of Sarsaparilla's WP writing. The deletion as a sock creation was convenient and considered to have resolved the issue, though I'd already signed on, and I think it shouldn't have been deleted for that reason. I signed on because the creator asked me on my Talk page to look at it. Who he turned out to be was irrelevant. I looked at the page, it was good, I checked out Deletionpedia, and that was that. There is no reason to toss good writing, no matter whom it came from, and I was under no obligation to investigate who this user was. If it is disruptive, well, it will be just as disruptive rewritten, if not more. Some are really opposed to the idea that any user could look at deleted content. It was *very* carefully written. In a post to my User page, where Fredrick day, our old friend, was edit warring with, apparently, Sarsaparilla, the latter suggested, indeed, that the page be rewritten. But I'd greatly prefer to look at the original content, and it's irritating that I did the work to read it and review it the first time and it is speedied without so much as a by-your-leave. Though it's possible the edits crossed.... --Abd (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is back at User:Basketball110/Deletion Patrol. The admin restoring it removed your signup. If you still want to be part of this, you may wish to sign up again. And we should discuss moving it back to Wikipedia space. (I signed up again.)--Abd (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also signed up again. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the welcome!

I would like some feedback on my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Public_School_Employers%27_Association) to determine whether or not it still violates any of wiki's policies. It's been tagged for neutrality, conflict of interest, and POV issues since December and i've made several revisions to try to abide by these rules. Other than messaging the editor who originally tagged the article, how else could I eliminate them?

Thanks for all your help!

Kcbroadway (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could request help from a wiki project such as Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you have nominated Weapons of Resident Evil 4 at WP:GAN. It is my opinion, however, that it is more of a list than an article (a list of weapons and few paragraphs of actually writing.) It seems to resemble current Featured Lists, such as Royal Rumble, Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), Lost (season 1), etc., all of which have similar ratios of list to prose. Therefore, since lists cannot be GAs, I think it would be better nominated at WP:FLC. I've asked for a second opinion on the GAN page under the nomination, but I thought I'd drop you a note telling you I had. Nikki311 22:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice! We'll see how the GA attempt goes and if others agree, we can next try the featured list page. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - those two ranges that I reverted are well known as being User:Fredrick day (the 87 range) and User:Sarsaparilla together with his range of socks (the 129 range). No point in doing a CU as the ranges are too large to block. Black Kite 06:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw your edit at RFCU/Sarsaparilla. Many Fredrick day edits are blatantly obvious from the seriously contemptuous content. Not all of them are from the 87 range, he frequently taunts admins with "I can edit from anywhere," but it's obvious that 87 (.112-.115) is the most convenient for him. He has claimed that he has other socks that he keeps carefully segregated, and I consider it likely that he uses multiple access simultaneously, so he can make it look like the other accounts are distinct (i.e., he can ping-pong two accounts so that someone looking at both contributions can say, "these editors were active at the same time, they couldn't be the same." He makes mistakes, though, so I don't wonder that he has generally avoided RFCU because he promptly says, "That's me!" Checkuser might turn something up. But admins are busy tracking down Sarsaparilla, who does nothing but try to help. It's tragic, actually. Fredrick day was a major instigator of the blocking or banning of Sarsaparilla, tossing every remotely plausible charge at him, anonymously, and some of it stuck. I.e., it's a common opinion that Sarsaparilla was blocked for socking. No. He was blocked, and then used "socks" to edit. (This usage of the word "sock" is actually a Wikipedia neologism, the original sock puppets were for multiple voting and for the creation of an appearance of multiple user support by putting on a "puppet show.") He didn't use true sock puppets; rather, for off-wiki reasons, initially, he spiked one account and started another. And for a mixture of reasons, still connected with the off-wiki reasons, he changed accounts again. He never harassed anyone, his actual offenses are ones that normally would result in little more than a raised eyebrow. But, because he was proposing changes that riled some people, he was considered disruptive. Look at his block history, (unfortunately, it's been made a bit difficult to track, with user Talk pages being redirected, etc. and even deleted), and then look at the offenses behind the blocks:

(1) He proposed WP:PRX, then, when he was frustrated by the hostile response (which surprised me, too, I've never seen that kind of hostility to delegable proxy before, which is pretty much a fail-safe idea as it was proposed, the biggest obstacle normally is apathy), and having dropped Sarsaparilla and started up Absidy, he committed wiki-suicide, by dropping a suggestion on the Talk page of every member of ArbComm, that they name a proxy, and, when he was warned by Jehochman for "canvassing," though I don't see that it was canvassing by the definitions of the guideline, he wrote Jehochman, "Too late, I'm done," and put up an image of an upraised finger. Uncivil. Actually the most uncivil thing I've seen in his whole history. He was indef blocked by Jehochman. For less than that, Tango is now before ArbComm and Physchim62 was before.

(2) Anyway, Jehochman eventually agreed to lift the block, and Sarsaparilla came back as Obuibo Mbstpo, who did a huge amount of work on the parliamentary procedure articles. And, I suspect, after a long edit session, created the article Obuibo Mbstpo, a hoax article, laced with clues, plus a joke in Proposal of marriage, basically harmless stuff (since who would be looking up Obuibo Mbstpo? -- and the joke was actually true, though unsourced). These were immediately detected, since by this time he was being closely watched, and he was blocked again. Indef. He's never received a short block, not with the Sarsaparilla accounts or before, back, at least, to 2005. In fact, I couldn't even find any warnings, except that, for example, Jehochman warned him for canvassing, then blocked him for trolling. (Arguably, he was trolling. He wanted to be blocked, he was really burned out with Wikipedia.)

(3) By this time, he had some support, from Newyorkbrad, because of the parlipro work. Anyway, he was unblocked, but not long after, he created an article -- again a tiny, tiny portion of his editing -- on the Easter Bunny Hotline. Now, the hotline really exists, but the article violated notability guidelines. Charges were made, stirred up and exaggerated by Fredrick day, that the hotline was obscene, but, while it's in bad taste -- it's an adult joke, after all -- it was nothing as bad as what I hear on Air America Radio every day, i.e., legally not obscene. Indef blocked again. For creating a verifiable article, albeit worded in an unencyclopedic fashion, on a non-notable subject. The parent hotline is Rejection Hotline, which has periodically had an article here, has never faced AfD, but is speedied out, even though there is now reliable source for it. In other words, his offense, on the face of it, was that he created an article that really should have been merged. The real offense? He proposed the only representational method that has a chance of allowing Wikipedia to meet the challenges of scale without losing its character, the process of massively distributed decision-making. The claims that delegable proxy would be vulnerable to socking are preposterous. Socks don't identify themselves so blatantly. Sarsaparilla named me as his proxy using the file system that had been worked out, and he and I were immediately sent to checkuser. After all, these two guys are proposing this weird system we never heard of before, they must be the same person.

Actually, of course, I've been proposing delegable proxy, initially very quietly, on my user page, since before the Sarsaparilla account was created (and I've been working on the idea for thirty years). He was simply the first experienced Wikipedian to actually read about it, do some external research, becoming fairly knowledgeable about it -- he found sources that I'd never seen, particularly a published academic paper on "delegated democracy,' which is, indeed, delegable proxy -- and so he proposed it with WP:PRX. Tactically, however, he made a mistake, he showed how DP could be used in voting, which is actually a detail, a possible application, and that was seized on and amplified by the mob that formed as being the core of the proposal and therefore Bad. No matter how often I pointed out -- Absidy was indef blocked by this time -- that the proposal wasn't about voting at all, but about creating a method of identifying trusted users that requires no elections, only free, unconstrained choices by editors -- the response was always "we don't vote," and "Wikipedia is not a democracy," etc.

And, yes, it's a weird system. First proposed, as far as we have found, by Lewis Carroll, in 1886, I think, for use in creating very good proportional representation without oppositional elections. Yes. The author of Alice in Wonderland. Delegable proxy creates a fractal as an organizational structure, and is scalable without practical limit. Carroll proposed the basic concept, the free choice of representatives, plus a Droop quota, for electing a parliament, but the idea has legs, once one starts to look carefully at it. Most people, as we have seen, don't.

--Abd (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can ask her, not that I believe she would, nor do I believe I'm obligated to. It's certainly not civil and perhaps could have been delivered in a less blunt manner, but she is under no obligation to remove or change her comment. If she posted a similar thing on your talk page, then you would have every right to remove it, but she can do as she wishes on her talk page. Honestly, it's hardly a severe personal attack, and why you're being picky about this is a bit beyond me. Let it be. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is a severe personal attack, but it is a dishonest/inaccurate view of my arguments when even today I have argued to delete multiple articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Cordisco and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fax Machine Monster of Basildon). It only matters in that it is a comment she made to a good faith editor with whom I am discussing a complex merge for a large series of articles. I do not want that editor with whom I am having a civil and constructive discussion to have a false impression of things from some other editor who obviously just does not like me. Plus, please note that in my comment that she reverted, I even offered to work with her on an article as a means of easing any tensions and as a peace gesture. I suppose it would be nice if the same courtesy were extended. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your point of view, it is inaccurate. It does not belie the fact that your "keep" rationales on most articles demonstrate an extreme inclusionist stance that most Wikipedians do not possess. I'm not criticizing it, but pointing out the simple reality. You can dismiss it all you please, but that is how you've presented yourself to the community and per chaser, frankly, it's how you're going to be considered. Anyhow, the core issue here is that you attempted to remove a message she put on her own talk page because you claimed it was a "personal attack," which both chaser and I view as hardly that, and you aren't permitted to remove it in any case. Deal with it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then at the same time those whose "delete" rationales on most articles demonstrate an extreme deletionist stance that most Wikipedians do not possess, but is how they've presented themselves to the community and is how they are going to be considered should also "deal with it." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is irrelevant to this discussion, a red herring, and your acceptance of my statement. Point addressed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that I have greatly increased my likelihood to argue to delete articles and that usually any who criticize me as overly inclusionist argue to keep less articles than I argue to delete. Anyway, I agree with the general idea you and Chaser are coveying, i.e. "sticks and stones" and if I see incivil comments in the future to just ignore them per Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More sticks and stones than trolling. The precipitating comment, at least, wasn't that.--chaser - t 09:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly Roi, extremists of all stripes tend to get a lot of flak around Wiki for their views. Inclusionists more than most, perhaps. I agree with Sephiroth. You've got to have thick skin around here.--chaser - t 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser, as always, I appreciate your thougtful feedback, but again, I really have been arguing to delete far more frequently and so I do not think that it is fair to call me an "extreme" inclusionist any more. In the past, perhaps, but please consider User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Anyway, my concern is not about myself taking any personal offense, it is about User:Tntnnbltn being given an incorrect assessment of me. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking part of my comment because I haven't had time recently to read many of Roi's contributions to AFDs and I'd rather not be quoted describing Roi as an extremist if it's not accurate.--chaser - t 09:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun even nominating articles for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Ramos Jr and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markael James as well as this related case. If you have any advice on nominating AfDs based on these examples or filing checkusers as indicated here, please let me know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind welcome note you put on my talk page. I have in fact been a registered user for more than a year - my name is MAC475 - but my editing is, to say the least, sporadic, and I have a bad habit of not logging in when I first arrive, as normally I come to Wikipedia simply to read articles, and then find myself correcting mistakes that I see. But anyway, thank you for the words of welcome - I'm glad to receive them at last, and I promise to try and remember to log in in future.125.239.165.140 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and happy editing! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a List of songs in the Karaoke Revolution series, but if we implemented this for SingStar it would have to be in a format which is much easier to navigate, given the requirements for multiple country track lists. Also it would be ideal to find a system which avoided duplication of track titles while still avoiding a separate table with "Added" and "Removed". I'll work on it and see if I can find a system which will work. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, as an American owner of all of the PlayStation 2 releases, I found our articles with the tracklists much easier to navigate than the official website and considering how important the tracklists are to the games, I believe we provide a real service to the video gaming community by featuring all of them. Plus, there is something encyclopedic and informative about indicating how track lists change from country to country and specifically what songs. Anyway, I appreciate your effort to work on it and see if you can find a system which will work. If you need or would like my help at all, please let me know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Tntnnbltn/draft3. Your thoughts? --Tntnnbltn (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that. It provides the information in a clear and non-cumbersome way. Well done!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and best wishes next time! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

You're welcome and congratulations!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I should have said this earlier, but thanks for the welcome. Ashton1983 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]