Loading AI tools
(This is the Archive for Agent 86’s Talk Page for the period from 23 December 2006 to 22 March 2006)
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Agent 86. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Merging Notability pages Organizations and Companies
I have written some proposed text for a merged and simplified page, please see the continued discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations). This is also posted at the Companies & Corporation page. Kevin Murray 21:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to note that the stuff you took out was cribbed from memory when I wrote the article; it may be quotable from the writings of Bruce Hutchison or who else I'm not sure; "infallibly barbed pencil" I now remember was from whatever I read, for instance, and should have been quote/cited (if I knew where); Norris really was widely-imitated and "set standards" in political cartoonsmanship, and not just for Canada; this could be cited but again I'm not sure where I read it. None of this was meant to be "salesmanship" but rather an effort to describe his style, since AFAIK his cartoons are all copyright; some may be public domain, I'll check with VPL and the Sun.Skookum1 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see the Erik Bornmann AFD] for my recent posts on it. It was extended as I had had an unfair block during most of its duration. Please read my posts in full and follow the links/cites provided for more background on the context/situation behind this AFD and reconsider your decision. Skookum1 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi; saw your recent notice on the AFD re going to the Talk:AFD; I shouldn't have bothered responding to Omar Jack; I'm sure these guys are just trying to bait me to get me banned again; so I'm "disengaging" although will perhaps be taking the abuse I'm receiving here to WP:ANI as it's extremely inappropriate on an AFD, especially the suggestion that I'm one of those charged in the case. No doubt there will be more attacks on me during this AFD; I've got to learn to ignore them by not responding them, but figure out where to "take them to". Not that blocking a sockpuppet or SPA has any point at all, as it doesn't hurt them one little bit and another one will pop up for whichever gets shut down. Enough intelligent people have seen this page by now to know who's what and the ridiculousness of the Skookum-bashing coming from Rich_H and Omar Jack and, soon enough, yet someone else who thinks being a sockpuppet is a way o "win friends and influence people" (if you reocgnize the phrase; it's from Norman Vincent Peale's famous book by almost-that-title; a book I doubt Bornmann has read). Mind you, neither have I (Dad had it on the shelf for years, and lived by it).Skookum1 02:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Made a stab at a userbox; check 'er out: Template:User WikiProject British Columbia (use {{User WikiProject British Columbia}} ). Fudged around with the colours and borders for a while, tried to use colours taken from the dogwood but wound up blue-adjusting the background, not quite happy with the bkgnd colour but it's better than the grey-transparent on the Vancouver userbox. Trying to think which stubs are needed; I think one for mountain and moutain range stubs (there'll be hundreds of these...), though the dogwood won't do for that; could use it for parks stubs, though, no? There's already a protected area stub that has a thing from the US Southwest on it; might as well replace it with the dogwood (d'ya like the dogwood? It's from Wikimedia Commons...I thumbed it down though). Trying to remember which other stubs are needed....bio-stub I guess for biographies, I'm thinking one for communities/settlements, have to think what else. Suggestions?Skookum1 02:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks great, a refreshing change from some variation of the provincial flag. Agent 86 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at the templates section of the WikiProject; prob. will make some more before bed (mountains, rivers will be so numerous that it seems necessary; not sure about islands, which could keep the geo-stub ).Skookum1 09:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey
I jus noticed that you added a weak support to my RFA but stated that the comments in the oppose gave you 'plenty of food for thought'. Besides the clear low wikispace edits which to some equate to lack of policy understanding, what else, if you don't mind me asking, were you referring to? Cheers! Budgiekiller 18:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think the oppose comments speak for themselves, and you've identified exactly what the oppose commentators have been saying. I also have to agree with the commentator who noted your habit of responding to every oppose !vote on the RfA page. Taking it to the talk page (as you did here) is the better way to go. Agent 86 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So you agree that despite making 10000 edits before vandal hunting that I haven't contributed enough content? Also, note that one oppose stated that he found it confrontational that I hadn't responded to him. Cheers for the discussion though. Budgiekiller 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please noted that I supported you (albeit hesitantly). I simply said that the oppose voters had a valid point and did not want to be dismissive of their opinion, which they're entitled to. However, you are coming across as a bit confrontational, which makes me wonder if my support was misplaced (and what you may have said if I had actually opposed you). Agent 86 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well thanks for letting me know what you think. Sorry if I appear to be confrontational, no intent meant. The RFA doesn't look promising, I just can't see why so many people are suggesting I haven't made any real article edits, so I'll keep quiet for the time being, no more replying on the RFA page and see how it pans out. Cheers! Budgiekiller 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want to tell you what to do, but I wouldn't worry so much about how your RfA is going. The fact is that, at present, you've got about 81% support (ignoring for the moment that it is not a simple tallying of !votes), which is certainly promising. I see you've left comments in various places with self-deprecating statements about your RfA. That kind of attitude might hurt your chances. I don't think people would object to you responding or commenting when necessary and at the appropriate place, but I can see people not liking the defeatist attitude. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Agent 86 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see a note on this to Bobanny on her talk page. Note especially the bit about not taking part in deletion discussions....I'm abstaining from further comment on the AFD, although it's clear that rascalpatrol and Tompettyfan are in violation of WP:COI (have a look at TPF's user contributions...).Skookum1 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I had looked at TPF's contributions and did see that his or her main contributions have been pretty much limited to the List of ex-officio delegates to the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006. (In fact, having discovered that list, I nominated it for deletion because I didn't find it all that encyclopedic.) Despite that, I didn't think it necessary to draw any attention to that fact or make any further comment in the AfD. The record pretty much speaks for itself and the applicable policies are cited. I figure the {{Not a ballot}} template will cause the closing admin to consider those issues that might not otherwise be apparent. I trust the closing admin will make a reasonable decision on how to close the debate. Whatever the result, I'm not going to get too worked up. Que sera sera. Agent 86 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea; also should be placed for Titus Pollo and rascalpatrol; Randy3's been at the main page again, but between Mkdw and Langara College on the lookout as well as Bobanny and msyelf and yourself and KenWalker, I'd say it's a round-up now, ropin' in the heifer that almost got away, as it were. Ya gotta wonder what any admin who has a read through the whole affair must be wondering, and wondering alo what to do about it, or how; hot potato material but it looks like the chorus of BC Wikipedians is having the right effect. Thanks.....Skookum1 08:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- The AfD has been closed. It's now pretty much a one line stub, as all unsourced statements have been removed (do note that despite the many citations in the talk page and AfD, none were in the article itself). As it currently stands, it doesn't look like the article asserts the notability of the subject. Agent 86 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide a diff to where I said that? I can't recall saying that I waited for the three questions to be asked. I think what I said was I typically applied them to RfAs where only the three standard questions were answered. What I meant and what I probably should have clarified is that I don't apply the questions to RfAs where the nominee has been asked several optional questions. I don't want to contribute to the nominee being bombarded with optional questions. I also have been attempting to rotate the questions I'm asking (see User:Malber/rqv2 and User:Malber/rqv3). I don't feel my questions should be considered de facto questions and my development of additional questions is an attempt to avoid this. However, I notice that User:Badlydrawnjeff has seen fit to adopt my WP:IAR question which makes it difficult for me to apply User:Malber/rqv1. Another user also asked about IAR in a slightly different context. I think there may be some community support to add this as a standard question, but I think it would be too controversial to gain widespread consensus. FYI, I also generally avoid applying this question if the nomination is already WP:SNOW in either direction. I've also tried to up my participation in voting. I hope this addresses your concerns. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- The diff is here. The other concern I had was that you added your not-standard standard questions to an unaccepted RfA. Doing so was contrary to the impression I believe you were trying to convey that you don't post your questions blindly on each and every RfA.
- Please let me re-iterate that I do not object to asking optional questions. One of my concerns is that the habit by some editors of asking the same "optional" questions on (seemingly) every RfA effectively creates a new set of "standard" questions. Agent 86 02:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well I was pretty excited about my new questions and couldn't wait for a new RfA nom to try them out. I wanted to get them in before someone else posed a question, but I suppose I jumped the gun as the nominee hadn't yet accepted and eventually declined. Also please know that when I have seen an otherwise acceptable candidate give an extremely poor answer to one of my questions I have tried to coach them in the right policy direction.
- I can see where my statement, "…where only the three standard questions have been answered," might have been misleading. But if you read the next sentence where I say, "If I see one where other users have asked their own questions, or the questions would be redundant, I don't apply the questions." it should be more clear as to what my personal standard for asking questions is. I hope my explanation above clears this up. —Malber (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see Ongoing vandalism by sockpuppet at Erik Bornmann page at Proto's talkpage.Skookum1 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I note that Andrew Melville Hall has survived an AfD. I note that in your edit that you also removed the merger tag. Has a concensus been reached on the merger, so I can alter the other articles accordingly? M0RHI | Talk to me 11:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, thank you for drawing this to my attention. I completely did not see the merger tag when I removed the AfD template. The AfD template is quite long when you look at it in the edit screen and it must have all blurred together on me. My apologies - I've replaced it on the article. Agent 86 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, seems that they all fell foul of an AfD anyway. I can't say I agree with the outcomes of one of the AfDs, so I may be bold and create a good referenced article, relating to all halls (as opposed to one for each), pointing out the notability of these halls (as I believe there is some, however it was blurred by irrelevances) and then get a concensus on merging later. What are your thoughts on that? M0RHI | Talk to me 23:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really have an opinion on any of these, and didn't really notice the AfDs on those other places. I just closed the Andrew Melville Hall AfD as it was clearly a "keep". Agent 86 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, seems that they all fell foul of an AfD anyway. I can't say I agree with the outcomes of one of the AfDs, so I may be bold and create a good referenced article, relating to all halls (as opposed to one for each), pointing out the notability of these halls (as I believe there is some, however it was blurred by irrelevances) and then get a concensus on merging later. What are your thoughts on that? M0RHI | Talk to me 23:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the pat on the back. Glad I was able to help out on Wee Pals.Konczewski 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)
 |
On January 12, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terrace Mutiny, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Thanks for cleaning up after me. Maybe I should stop looking over AfD's over a dial-up connection so the process isn't so slow. Eluchil404 04:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. I was doing it so often that, ironically, I felt my strikethroughs were becoming disruptive. I'll stop doing that though. Or I could wait until a few days pass, true. I'll try improving on that.--Wizardman 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I took off the bot TOC at WP:RfA until I figure out why a couple of nominations went missing, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Subheadings and TOC for the complete comment.
You also mentioned some kind of "weird spaces and gaps" in the TOC. I wonder if you could be more specific as to what you are referring to. The TOC looks OK on my own screen. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever it was, it's gone now. Earlier today there was odd spacing between the lines that weren't present on the TOC for other articles. Agent 86 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't quite follow what you say. What articles you are referring to? By the way, could you check if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TOC looks good now? I checked all the versions for today, and nowhere I saw empty spaces. There are none in the wikicode either. I would be really interested in knowing what is going on. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- No specific article - I just compared the TOC on RfA with the TOC on other wikispace and mainspace articles, just to make sure it wasn't my display. As for whatever it was, it's gone now, looks normal. Hopefully you'll have all the kinks out in no time, if you haven't already. Agent 86 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't quite follow what you say. What articles you are referring to? By the way, could you check if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TOC looks good now? I checked all the versions for today, and nowhere I saw empty spaces. There are none in the wikicode either. I would be really interested in knowing what is going on. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. I'm replying with a note here as I don't think it would be proper to reply to that point on the RFA. You noted that you thought that the WNP added an unneccesary level of bureaucracy to Wikipedia. May I ask you to expand your thoughts on that a little? I am always open to thoughts on the project, and criticism is often the most helpful thing to the project, as it helps us improve. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- The primary concerns are that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that special "elite" groups do more to divide than bring together. When I began participating, I thought things like CVU, Esperanza, and all these other wiki-clubs were "official" parts of wikipedia and that the editors there had some sort of privileges or extra authority. However, after I started getting into wikispace and other areas, it dawned on me that these were just groups of editors who set themselves up with an extra air of authority. I am now never surprised when these pages are nominated for deletion, and the divisiveness they cause often comes to be apparent at those times.
- If certain editors want to focus on some sort of task that needs to be taken care of, like categorizing articles, taking care of dead-end pages, copyediting, verifying content, or taking care of the many things one can find on Dragons flight's category tracker then that's all well and good (and needed). What we don't need are special clubs that have an air of authority to do what any editor is entitled to do. This particular project just adds bureaucracy to Wikipedia:POV Cleanup. The {{POV}} template is more than sufficient for flagging POV issues.
- Suffice to say, if this came up for Miscellany for deletion, I probably wouldn't hesitate to say "delete". Agent 86 19:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- The point of the WNP isnt to be some club, and if it started turning intop one, I would probably nominate it myself, personally. The point of the WNP was to be a beachhead against the incessant POV pushing and damage that this causes to the encyclopedia. Everything else is just window dressing, and is very malleable. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
..it's been a while since I submitted one...--Isotope23 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. We all make those mistakes now and again. Normally I'd drop a note, but since you're a "regular" I figured it would be apparent and was unnecessary. Cheers. Agent 86 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, Agent86, like a bad penny, you always turn up. :) Thanks for the cats on CSV application support, I had my Category cleaning broom out and couldn't think of where it should go. That's the beauty of WP, there is always another brain nearby. Hey, maybe we could use it for Hymie. L8r. — MrDolomite | Talk 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- A bad penny, or US$0.0086. Funny how the exchange rate works out that way. Glad I could help. Agent 86 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- ROTFL. Thanks, I needed that. Have a good weekend. — MrDolomite | Talk 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 |
As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey |
I expanded the article. Perhaps it is worth keeping now. --Eastmain 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note, but I'm still not sure this article quite meets the content guidelines. Agent 86 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Agent86: Thanks for the note. Whichever template you think is more appropriate, please go ahead and apply it. The "POV" tag is there only because it's what was on the page last night; I didn't do anything more than a straight revert. I'm hoping (hoping hoping hoping) that with a lot of patience, I can get some sort of compromise to work, both at "Runaway" and at "Hollywood North". Both are (IMHO) valid topics, and both article could also use some fleshing out. HN needs to be more than just a definition - it could benefit from a bit of history and industry reaction so that it doesn't get tagged as a "yay us" piece. "Runaway" could use some input from the "other side" - what other nations think about incentives, and why they use them. It could also use some exploration of the other reasons for productions leaving Hollywood - it's not all about cost, as there are issues such as location burnout that factor into it as well. Anyway, sorry to talk your ear off - but you're an interested party who'se not caught up in the maelstrom yet... Thanks again. --Ckatzchatspy 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think both articles are encyclopedic, it's only a matter of getting both sides to agree on content that is balanced. It seems that that will happen soon enough. I don't know if I am able to contribute constructively in terms of content. I am always keen to copyedit, which can include rephrasing words and terms so that they are more neutral, so I might take a stab at it if I'm so moved. Agent 86 01:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I failed to follow process, I did look through the guidelines and felt the flagged articles were not congruent with the notability guidelines. Basically, the hacking categories is made up of a lot of interesting information and history, but I keep coming across the odd one that is poorly written and obviously a shameless self-published vanity article by the group or friends. Most of the ones I have flagged already had discussion on them sharing the opinion and/or had several other tags.Euphonic 02:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I think valid criticisms were raised in areas that I need to work on, so I've withdrawn my name. I intend to work on addressing the concerns that were raised, and think I need to work contributing without allowing myself to become as stressed as I have been at times, which did result in some inappropriate behavior. Perhaps I may re-explore adminship at some point in the future, but it's a little early to consider that. Again, thank you. Fan-1967 21:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Victoriagirl 03:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- On a related note, thank you both for your participation at Runaway production and Hollywood North. Perhaps more than anything, this situation could really benefit from "new blood" sifting through the conflicting contributions and sorting out what is appropriate. I'd also appreciate any advice you can provide me on how best to approach this matter as an editor - constructive criticism is always welcome. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 05:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This AfD is currently on deletion review. You commented in a prior review on the same article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I've been following the current discussion, but thus far I haven't been moved to comment again. Agent 86 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Proposed merger - Organizations & Companies
In December I revived the discussion about merging the notability guidelines for Companies & Corporations into Organizations, with simplified text reducing the confusion of all of the special circumstances, which now reads like the US Tax Code. In mid-January I proposed that we make a decision by the end of January, and move to developing the text. The vote is now open at Talk Companies and Corporations.
--Kevin Murray 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comment on the vote. I was unclear in my goal for the ballot. I've made changes based on your comments. Please let me know if I'm making more sense there. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Please post your proposed merger at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. - Freechild 09:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I read through your prior comments on both talk pages; other than procedural concerns about the merger etc., there is a common thread of including some very specific criteria for what is notable, based on some measurable objective criteria:
- number of people involved,
- age of organization,
- financial size: budget, assets, transactions
- formation: corp, trust, foundation etc.
- scope of operations: local, regional, national, worldwide,
- notability of activities and events,
- notability of achievements
- notability of sponsors, participants, spokesmen
This is laudable, but the logistics of avoiding the "one size fits all" concern could be insurmountable. Take the analogy of a shoe store -- it has a tiny showroom and cavernous stock rooms in order to address every anticipated length, width, color and style that they dare to carry, and of course they need to ignore very special cases as being impractical to stock, and handle them on a case-by-case basis through special orders. Another example in the extreme is the US Tax Code, which has taken on a life of its own, thus generating an entire industry of tax specialists, tax shelters, and tax bureaucrats.
I’m not opposed to being specific or putting in some hard work, in fact I generally encourage it, but the scope of the project you propose could be overwhelming and never ending. How can we provide objective guidelines without getting bogged into the minutia? I’d be willing to work with you on the project. Could we start it somewhere such as an essay where we could collectively brainstorm a bit?
I see four major challenges: (1) the more rules that we generate, the more debate that we will ignite about the details and this process will never end, (2) this creates another issue of maintaining the comprehensive text and protecting it from vandals, special interests, etc., (3) confusion from contradictions as the permutations begin to cross each other's purposes, and (4) creating arbitrary and rigid numeric borders for example a charity with 1,000 members might be notable but 999 is not. I've done this type of thing before with volunteer organizations, policy manuals, etc., so I'm game if you are.
Perhaps a simple solution is to include the folowing:
An organization is notable if any of the following aspects of it are notable:
- number of people involved,
- longevity of the organization,
- financial size: budget, assets, transactions
- scope of operations: local, regional, national, worldwide,
- notability of activities and events,
- notability of achievements
- notability of sponsors, participants
Clearly I see flaws in this too and can imagine the oposition. But it's an idea.
Sincerely,
Kevin --Kevin Murray 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think its as complicated as you make it sound. The current merged format (assuming it's unchanged - I haven't looked at it since yesterday) is capable of setting forth an objective set of criteria. I don't think anyone's looking for an entire checklist of every permutation or a tax code. However, the guideline must consider that there are different criteria for different types of organization. That's probably why there were separate guidelines to begin with. In any event, I'm willing to work on it, but it's not my pressing priority at the moment, so I won't be able to sit down today and draft out anything major. It has waited this long, a few more days won't hurt. Agent 86 19:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly, please let me know how I can help. --Kevin Murray 00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Agent 86,
Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Nearly everything you've restored he/she had deleted before; it's persistence from that end, and I'm still intent on my notion that the systematic replacement of "film production centre" with "location" or "production location" is a designed rebranding effort from someone serving a client who wants to undermine the Canadian film industry and, granted, its own image machine (sp. in TO's case). But the effective rewrite this guy/gal is accomplishing by persistent and repeated edits and deletes is truly aggravating, ain't it? The original opening is now the last paraphraph in the Canada and Runaway Productions section (which he/she created) and it's interesting, isn't it, that any mention of Canada, either TO or Vancouver, is omitted in the opening paragraph? People are putting up with this s**t but it's time to call someone's bluff, or rather call in the cavalry. That an American film industry advocate is attacking Vancouver's/TO's earned/adopted usages of Hollywood North (respectively) and is intent on downplaying Vancouver's/TO's role as film centres, downplaying them to only "locations", is clearly p.r./lobbyist firm activity. And the trail of crumbs leads in only one direction; point is that Wikipedia articles, and battles for them, have a certain newsworthiness; especially when it's an attack on the Canadian film industry per se in cyberspace, certainly from a rabid and even paranoiac L.A. booster if not actually a paid p.r. shill. These aren't accusations, they're observations, spun off the reality that Yellowsnow is getting his/her way through sheer doggedness, to the point where the original content/context, and which is the primary context, has become submerged in a sea of irrelevancies about Stockton and SF and the bizarre omission of any mention of Canada in the opening (now reduced to "up north"). I don't think Katherine Monk would dirty her hands by wading in her, nor anyone else who works in the industry (whom Yellowsnow would condemn for being territorial/self-promotional no doubt), such as half-a-dozen "Hollywood North veterans" I know who would certainly have an opinion, but in true biz fashion wouldn't want to be quoted on it. What's got me going on spin doctor thing here, by the way, is the resemblance of the rhetoric and word-games and outright hostility going on is reiminiscent to me of spin doctors I saw re the SHARE BC thing as well as in the course of the softwood lumber dispute and related stuff. It's a particular mix of invective/confrontation and the rejigging of particular words and phrases that stinks of the pros; rabid fans would either be fanatically detailed with good references, or rely only on the confrontation and paranoia....Skookum1 08:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't really care about the topics of these articles in and of themselved. I just came across them through the AfD and spotted what I thought was an unbalanced article with some serious POV and OR problems (OR in that the articles were more an argument based on a synthesis of sources). I did what I could and thought that would be the end of it, but of course, one sometimes gets sucked into things they weren't expecting. I think there's a place for both articles, but they certainly need to meet the various content and policy guidelines. Agent 86 19:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Agent 86, would you mind casting your eye over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie II for me? It has generated several delete votes finishing with my own 'keep', since I'd found two sources, however nobody has responded since and I'm a little worried about that. An anon has also posted an admittedly minor award into the article. I'd be happy to work on this article in due course. Thanks. QuagmireDog 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, it's dead and gone. QuagmireDog 16:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't online earlier. I really had nothing to do with this AfD other than relisting it to get further discussion. If you think the AfD needs further consideration, you could always raise the issue at Deletion Review. Agent 86 19:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anyway :) I'm not going to cause more work for other editors over an article which was added with a stack of others which were all deleted (seems like promotion), just that I could see the hammer falling without further discussion. QuagmireDog 09:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your editing help, Agent 86. I'm not certain just what I did wrong (actually, I know exactly what I did; I tried to edit at 4 in the morning). I will be more careful next time about finding the right instructions first though! Noclevername 01:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just saved a more complete explanation of the error and how to avoid it on your talk page. Agent 86 01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I also am new to this process. I don't know why there is a problem with this article. There doesn't seem to be any substance to the criticisms, at least not under the rules. So I don't know how to respond to them. What about the article is makes in inappropriate under WP:NOT#SOAP? No one has said. All the page does is have criticism and response.
I also don't know where to discuss this. You deleted a lot of content, and didn't put it back on the discussion page. What to do?Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can contribute to the discussion on the entry for the article on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion log (click on "Current discussions" for the latest AfD discussions. Regarding the specific article you're concerned about, Criticism and response in parapsychology, take a look at the current version of it. You'll see a box at the top of the article with instructions. Click on the phrase, "this article's entry and it will take you to the AfD debate. Once there, you can simply click on "edit" and add your comments to the bottom of the discussion. Agent 86 03:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also, to be clear, I did not delete any content from the talk page. I only removed the talk page discussion from the AfD discussion page; it was not appropriate to simply cut-and-paste an entire talk page onto an AfD discussion. I provided a link to the talk page discussion, which should be visible and apparent from my edits to the AfD discussion. Agent 86 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Reminder that even old hat Wiki elitists need reminding of this - Donteatyellowsnow
- I don't know why you felt so compelled to try to have me BLOCKED (along with Ckatz) just so you could have your own way. I'm going to ask that you stop DELETING wiki content that this editor has provided. Please stop reverting my edits. I have cited the references and you keep removing the content which damages Wikipedia. You are removing content simply because you don't agree with it and NOT because it doesn't have references. If you don't have the logic or the argument or the sources to provide your OWN counter-argument, then please do not delete mine. Being against one editor rather than judging the material on its own merit goes against Wiki rules. - Donteatyellowsnow
- As unwarranted as your "warning" may be, I will leave it put as a record of the baselessness of your claim. Your unwarranted accusations of vandalism and warnings without a basis in fact can, in and of themselves, constitute personal attacks and vandalism. Please kindly show me the diffs where I made the personal attack you allege. As for the block after your violation of the 3RR, your actions were amply set forth in the report by Ckatz and applied after consideration by an admin. The record clearly speaks for itself. Cheers, Agent 86 08:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I do appreciate the irony of your altering the warning template against personal attacks to include a personal attack. It made me smile. Agent 86 08:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey man,
I'd just like to bring it to your attention that you cast two !votes in Shadow1's RFA. You might want to go back and review them. =) – Lantoka (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. I went and did a rough combining of your votes, but I probably shouldn't try and fix it. Just pick the one that you're voting (they're both different supports too...)--Wizardman 17:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thump on the head happily accepted. I thought the RfA looked familiar, did a CTRL-F to search for my nick, and clearly didn't do it right or pay close enough attention. That'll keep me humble. Thanks, guys! Agent 86 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 |
Agent 86/archive4 for your Support! |
- ...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.
We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. --Kevin Murray 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Agent 86, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honored by the level of trust the community has placed in me. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 07:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:TRIV doesn't say we can or should remove "Trivia" sections; it says we should find ways to integrate them better into the article. Bearcat 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but there was really nothing worth integrating into the main article. I would have if there was something of encyclopedic value. Agent 86 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086Talk 12:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion going at Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview, looking at the big picture of the notability issue. Please join in there; your ideas are very welcome. --Kevin Murray 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!
School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Deryck C. 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Donteatyellow is back at it. Lets hope any NPOV conflicts can be settled with out major incident. Happy editing. Mkdwtalk 05:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Get a life. - Donteatyellowsnow
Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I (and others) have been working on getting the characters their own entries. Many notable novels have entries on their characters, and there is no reason Les Miserables should be an exception that I can see. It is true that the entry on Javert once redirected to the novel's entry, but that was before an entry was created. Comparing it to the Valjean redirect doesn't make sense to me as that only means an entry for Valjean should be created. (And I plan to, if no one else does first.)
If there is some reason that the characters from the novel, Les Miserables, don't justify their own entries, I would like this explained. Especially when it comes to the primary antagonist.
Thank you. I also modified the redirect you created on Monsieur Madeline, as I agree that the pseudonym alone doesn't justify an entry, but it should redirect to the future entry on Jean Valjean, and the information should be included in that entry.
Gavroche42 22:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I really have no problem with your stated intention. However, until there is an article on Jean Valjean, Monsieur Madeline has to redirect to the novel; otherwise, you've got a double-redirect. Agent 86 00:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
...that you changed the BritishColumbia-politician-stub image to my pic of the Leg and Undersea Gardens – what's more, you made the edit on my birthday... Good one! ;) -- KirinX 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's right, yeah, I knew it was your birthday...and now for my next trick... (Happy belated birthday!). Agent 86 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was impressed when I went to "What links here" for that image and had just about every somewhat-notable politician in BC pop up.. LOL! -- KirinX 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to support this guy? Look at his source/quote for making the Red Baron jewish. read the discussion page on it. See the opposers views on his request page. It scares me. JohnHistory 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manfred_von_Richthofen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Clawson
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
