User talk:Colonel Warden/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

List of bowtie wearers

Collapsed for courtesy

This is amounts to a legal threat. I've blocked you pending retraction. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at [email protected] and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
  • My comment in the email was meant to be a friendly warning to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry who perhaps did not appreciate the risk of advertising his employer so publically. I intend no such malicious action against him myself and so am happy to retract any such meaning which might have been construed from my comment. The general purpose of my email was to encourage User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry to withdraw his AFD nomination in his own interest since it seemed that he was getting too carried away in a lost cause. As he is a servant in my country's armed services, I wish him well and wished to spare him further embarassment. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, it doesn't. Saying "Be careful, because there are other people who might go a bit overboard and choose to report you" is not a threat, just a friendly warning of what is likely to happen, right or wrong. A threat would be "Keep doing this and I will report you!".

See the difference? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Underhanded spans this gap: "To spare you the embarassment of being reported to MoD, which has the wherewithall to chavel your life, please stop arguing with me. Thanks and all the best, with my everlasting fealty to Her Majesty's armed forces, of which you are a part, I need not remind. Now shut up and sit down, sir." Give me a break. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Kurt, you do not have the nuances to distinguish that the good Col was attempting to chill Cml,ItC through his military background - you don't even seem to appreciate the irony of someone whose signature proclaims themselves a Colonel (and if they are or were in the military, they had better have had that rank if they do not wish to be found that they are impersonating an officer) chastising another editor for publicising that they are a naval officer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I believe the nickname is a reference to Churchill. However, attempting to alter the behaviour of another user by implied threats (or rather explicit in this case) is clearly blockable and for good reason. Verbal chat 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI, my nom de plume is a homage to Winston Churchill, who used this alias himself.
  • I should perhaps add that, so far as I recall, there is no history of any trouble between User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and myself and that the matter of the bowtie article seems a fairly light-hearted matter which would not be the cause of a vendetta. With this context, I had supposed that my email would be accepted as well-intentioned per WP:AGF. Furthermore, extraordinary and underhand measures seem quite implausible in this case since the long discussion which we already had at the AFD indicated that the article would be kept. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
CW is right, there is no history between us. However, we haven't, from what I recall, had a long discussion, and the article doesn't look like it's going either way at the moment. If anything, merge is looking on the cards. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Fancy me not knowing an alias of some old Tory... Nevertheless, Cml,ItC has never either made a secret of his professional following or used it as some sort of spurious authority. He has, though, been an effective administrator. I see no benefit that may have accrued in commenting to Cml,ItC in such a manner when co-incidentally opposing his opinion at an AfD - it is at the very best extremely poor timing, and resulted in Cml,ItC requesting further opinion. It may be to the best if the sentiments expressed in that email were withdrawn thus allowing all parties to participate in the ongoing AfD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Col, you could spare us a lot of wikidrama if you came out and said something to the effect of "It was not my intent to threaten CMLITC, and if it was interpreted that way, I fully retract it. I have no intent to report CMLITC to anyone." which is what I suspect you mean. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Please see above where I say "I intend no such malicious action against him myself and so am happy to retract any such meaning which might have been construed from my comment." which was intended to have a similar meaning to your version. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So retract it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough. I strongly recommend to keep this person blocked, indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Please say more about why. Frankly, I've observed issues with this editor, but would rather see behavior changed to be more in the spirit of cooperation and civility rather than stopped completely. Toddst1 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
See ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, so rather than "come to think of of, it was probably a poor-planned statement, even if meant in jest (which it really wasn't)", it's "oh crap, I'm in trouble, I'd better pretend to retract it"?? -t BMW c- 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we AGF and accept CW's retraction and put this incident behind us. It has no doubt been a learning experience for him. There is no need for piling on or more wikidrama -- Fyslee / talk 17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I have retracted my comments advocating unblocking per Fut's reasoning on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we consolidate this discussion to ANI for all except CW? Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think generally that for Legal Threat blocks to be lifted, the person making the threat has to retract it (at least), admit that this was wrong and not something to be repeated. I'm not sur ewe have all these things yet. As to FutPerf and Todds comments, those should be discussed on AN/I (as they have done). Verbal chat 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how any reasonable person could interpret this as a "threat" of any sort. There's a huge difference between a polite warning about what OTHERS might choose to do, and a threat to do it oneself.

When I was young, my friends used to enjoy TPing the houses of people they didn't like. I would sometimes remind them that if they went too far and got caught then someone might report them to the police. I certainly wouldn't have done it myself, and so it certainly wasn't a threat. I see Colonel Warden's comments in the same light.

Certainly, if we're interested in keeping things from blowing up that would seem to be the reasonable way to look at this. Whether or not Colonel Warden's remarks were ill-advised, I don't know--frankly, people are way too quick to look for excuses to burn someone at the stake on this site, regardless of whether or not there are more likely--and certainly less drama-prone--explanations for what happened. Still, I'm sure CW has learned that, though he has acted in good faith and was most certainly not making any sort of a threat, people are going to look to interpret his words and actions as though they are anything but, and will keep that in mind in the future. So there's no need for a block here.

It just seems to me like someone jumping to convenient conclusions because she's way too eager to flex her muscle. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

See the AN/I thread for the reasons why this is a legal threat. "There's a huge difference between a polite warning about what OTHERS might choose to do, and a threat to do it oneself." - it's clearly a threat here. I don't think your analogy works though, as you weren't trying to coerce your friends into supporting your actions that they disagreed with. Your possible breach of WP:NPA/WP:AGF against Gwen should also be reconsidered. Verbal chat 18:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I've read through it already. I didn't find any actual argument that it was a legal threat but merely a series of broken-record assertions. If I've missed something, please highlight it for me. As for AGF, check your e-mail. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, reporting me to the MoD for this could lead to me appearing in a summary trial under Naval Law under the aforementioned "conduct unbecoming a member of the forces". The crux of the issue is, I think whether CW knew this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's the issue at all. I think everybody knows that--if not the specifics, at least the general gist that this is, in the military, a legal matter. The issue, as I see it, is simply whether he was actually threatening to report you himself, or merely trying to do you a favor by giving you a friendly reminder of what others might do if they were so inclined. Everything I've seen indicates it's the latter. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that's just semantics, though. If you opened your front door to a stranger who said "Nice house ... be a shame if someone burnt it down one day, wouldn't it?", I think you'd assume that was a threat, even though he didn't say he'd be holding the matches. The real question is whether CW actually meant it to read as a threat. Black Kite 20:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
To pick up on that analogy from Black Kite, imagine it was your neighbour on your door step, who the day before had moaned about the height of your Leyland Cypress. That's the situation here. If I mentioned to someone I'd had no interaction with that personal details on their user page could cause a problem that would be one thing. When I'm in disagreement with them over something it's clearly got another dimension. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you possibly re-phrase that comment? I can't quite understand it. Fell free to strike this when you do :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Basically, if you want to hand out advice to editors by email that they could run into "trouble" if they were reported in Real Life for their on-wiki activities it's probably best you are not in dispute with them at the time. Common sense is far more important than AGF in these types of situations. Pedro :  Chat  20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Just because he's been involved in a dispute doesn't automatically mean that his warning was in bad faith. The fact is, we can't know. I'm inclined to believe he was acting honestly and beneficiently. He's acknowledged that it may not have been the best move but that his intentions were pure, which is the best anyone can hope for short of actually being able to read his mind. I'm sure he's figured out that, though his intentions were noble, it wasn't the best move under these conditions, so I doubt he's going to do it again. There is absolutely no reason for him to continue to be blocked. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Which is why, Kurt, I have recommend an unblock at ANI. His intentions are unfathomable as you rightly point out, so we go with AGF. His action in sending that email was ill thought out at best, perhaps foolish at worse, but I see no value in CW being permanently blocked at this time - indeed a permanent block seems to be more harm than good for WP. Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I see a consensus at ANI that you've retracted your threat, so I've unblocked you. Please be aware, if you ever let a threat or warning like this slip through to another editor again, by any means, mistakenly or not, you'll likely be banned from editing for a long time. As an aside, if you're in a dispute with someone, never, ever make a post or send them an email which hints they may have worries in real life owing to their edits on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I trust you will read the ANI thread and the above discussion in detail. I do admire your work and efforts here, but you must understand that in this particular risk/reward situation if the reward from your quality edits is outwayed by the risk of damaging the morale, work and effort of others you will be blocked permanently. I'm pleased to have supported your unblock but make no mistake in thinking that I condone your e-mail, however much it may have been in good faith.Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you were the victim of people shooting first and asking questions later, Colonel. Gwen is out of line here, and over reacted big time. Instead of apologizing she threatens you even more. blah. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lying Bastard

Thanks for the BS. It is encouraging to receive positive feedback once in a while. As you may have noticed, that particular AFD remained open after its logpage was 2 days past-due from being closed-out. It was one of those discussions that people like to avoid closing, because there were well-known wikipedians in good standing on both sides of the issue. I am very pleased that at least one such wikipedian on the opposite side of the closing decision, understands and appreciates the difficulty that such decisions sometimes are. Thanks, again. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Mary Rose School

Thanks for making me smile. [1]. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And thanks from me for the Barnstar! - Dravecky (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

NOR

I misunderstood you - and obviously didn't read the banners carefully. My apologies and thanks for explaining it, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot

I welcome you to comment in this ANI thread Masem started on me, seeing as you have also removed PLOT from NOT in the past. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ahead of you - just had to get past an edit conflict. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pure thought

Do think the following stub has the potential to be a decent, non-WP:dicdef article? Pure thought. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  • My pure thoughts or an impure kind? :) I'm not familiar with the topic but it seems to be reasonable from the dicdef aspect. The main issue would seem to be whether it is not already well-covered by our article upon Kant and his philosophy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pyroluria

What was this about? You knew full well there was a discussion at the noticeboard, as you commented there. It might have been productive to have linked to the discussion from the talkpage, something I probably should have done myself. But removing the tag was just silly when there was active discussion going on. Moreschi (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I beg to differ. The merge proposal was not properly formed and so I removed the tag. Another editor started it again more properly in response to my notification. Reverting additions with discussion so that they may be reconsidered, accords with our normal editing process such as WP:BRD and so should not be the occasion for complaint nor accusation of silliness. The action was similar in spirit to your speedy close of the related AFD, which was a sensible action. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion and Science

I've seen what I believe is philosophy POV pushing in the Religion and Science article and perhaps in some of the other articles in the Category:Religion and science category. Now of course, I could be POV pushing too, but I am usually quite careful to always put down references so that these can be used in discussions if and when a need arises. For example, I wrote this [2], which is simply a summary of a point from John Habgood's Science and Religion (1964), but it was replaced by this [3], which gives no reference source (it is not at all a summary of Habgood's work). So what I'm thinking is that this is a trend in the wikipedia culture being a kind of barbarism, sort of what famed literary critic Terry Eagleton has recently pointed out about society at large. According Eagleton, analytical philosophy is embarrassed by the very nature of theological questions

"and one of those places, surprisingly in many ways, is theology, I mean it is in some sectors of theology, that nowadays one can find the most informed and animated discussions of Delores [spelling is probably incorrect]] and bandeau [sipi] orFoucault and feminism, Marx, Hedgier, and so on. Not entirely surprising perhaps, because theology is one of the most startling ambitious theoretical arenas left to us in an increasingly specialist and fragmented world. One whose subject is nothing less than the nature and destiny of humanity itself in relation to what it takes to be its transcendent source. I mean you try raising that kind of question in analytical philosophy or political science, even in some theology departments, some theological departments might find themselves quite embarrassed by that. So we find ourselves in a very curious and incongruous situation. In a world in which theology is indubitably a massive part of the problem and has become so in new and unpredictable ways. As Ditchkins so rightly points out." Culture and Barbarism (timestamp ~ 50 minutes, April 10th, 2008)

Do you see these concerns of mine as reasonably valid and objective? If so, what sort of place on wikipedia should I raise these issues? (policy/guideline talk pages, etc.). --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I have no clear opinion upon the content of this article which is too wooly for my taste. Dispute resolution might be attempted by reference to the 3rd Opinion or Reliable Sources noticeboards, I suppose. Sorry not to be more helpful but if more ideas occur to me, I'll let you know. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Too wooly an article...I've been trying to clean it up. Darn. At any rate, that's alright, I've never pursued a reliable source board b4. Good idea. Thanks. If any other ideas do pop up, I would love to hear them. Thank you again. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouting match

Thanks for rewriting my article. Did you see the motivation section in an old revision? Was that suitable for the article? Was some of the information in that section suitable, or was it just information that didn't belong in place? -- IRP ☎ 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • No doubt some teenagers or mentally-ill folk have shouting matches but you really need a source to back up comments of this sort. My approach was to search through the sources and write sections based upon the interesting items I found there. If you look at the links on the talk page, you could start with those and then add other keywords to perhaps find sources on these other points. But while the article is at AFD it's best not to have such a section without a source as this invites criticism that the article is original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you think you can find any resource(s) to verify my statements? -- IRP ☎ 21:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, please check the Shouting match AfD, somebody has an idea. -- IRP ☎ 21:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure which the idea is. Anyway, the AFD still hangs in the balance so I'll keep working on the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • User: Yobmod posted: Delete. The problem isn't that it is now a dictdef, it's that editors don't see how it could ever be expanded to be anything else. Add a "shouting matches in pop culture" section? "Historical development of shouting matches"? "Socioeconomic impact"? The title describes what it is, and there is then nothing more to say, hence no sources to write an encylopedia entry on. Unless sources appear, showing that psychologists or socialogists have written about this, the arguments for keep seem moot; There is simply nothing that can be written beyond "Shouting matches are matches in which people shout. they occur in many contexts, a random list is given below (disquised as an article). -- Comment copied to this page by IRP ☎ at 20:15 (UTC) on 6 October 2008
  • The article now contains sources of this kind and so Yobmod's comments are redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Another suggestion: Bongomatic's suggestion (highlighted in green) -- IRP ☎ 02:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you disagree with Bongomatic's idea, you should tell him/her on his/her talk page as well. -- IRP ☎ 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, whatever, now, it doesn't matter anymore, because the AfD is now closed. -- IRP ☎ 15:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Stereotypes

Hello again Colonel Warden, it is good to run into you again.

Be careful not to dedicate too much of your energy and time to this endeavor--your hard work and efforts may earn you a knife in the back.

There are at least two people on the AfD who have changed their view 180 degrees (and vote in the AFD) because of the caustic behaviortravb (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what you mean but the article seems to have been given enough of a boost for now. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Storm train

One of the other articles I created, Storm train, has also been nominated for deletion. Can you help with this one, just as you did for Shouting match? -- IRP ☎ 15:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It doesn't look too promising because the term doesn't seem to have much currency and I don't know enough about metereology to find the right one easily. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Although User:Bongomatic tagged the storm train article for deletion, at least nobody voted "Delete" for the article in the AfD as of 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC). His/her deletion requests are vague, and I agree, I think it would make sense that he/she is just trying to attack the articles, by finding every possible excuse to have an article he/she sees, deleted. It is a very great thing that user is not an administrator. If Bongomatic was, a large fraction of Wikipedia's database would have been wiped out and devastated, and he/she would lose admin privileges in a heartbeat, and would probably be banned. -- IRP ☎ 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note 2: Although his/her goal might have been to expunge the article from Wikipedia, it actually brought some helpful editors to the article, and it improved dramatically. You were the most helpful editor! But please see Shouting match↓↓, because there is an update there. -- IRP ☎ 21:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Teletubbies articles

Please continue to add on to these character, single, and tv show articles. I think if we can get the main article big enough we can spilt the characters off, or if neccery, merge them into the article Teletubbies characters. The one for the show itself needs massive work as well, and if you look at the version here, it could give you some insperation. Also, the last Charlotte's Web song from Charlotte's Web (1973 film), along with the others (they were deleted) could be merged too as this article needs massive work. 65.0.191.174 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and interest. I have improved the articles on Tinky Winky and their hit single. I'll perhaps do more on the Teletubbies but have little interest in Charlotte's Web. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that you appear to be editing under the prompting of banned User:Bambifan101, or their sockpuppets, on articles including Teletubbies. Per WP:BAN#Editing on behalf of banned users, edits by or on behalf of banned users are not permitted except where there is a consensus among remaining editors to do so. I urgently suggest that you cease editing on behalf of ip's - if they wish to make an edit, they can do so themselves and let it be examined - and reverting other editors who express a concern that those edits reflect that of a banned user unless you can achieve consensus through discussion. I would also strongly suggest that your edit summaries more properly reflect the effect of your edits. This is not a formal warning, but it is as strong an informal request to review the conduct of your editing as I am prepared to make. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • My attention was drawn to the Teletubbies by Collectonian's posting on ANI and their general status as a major phenomenon in the UK and elsewhere. I don't know much about this banned user and their ideas as they are somewhat incoherent and their communications are being suppressed for some reason. My edits to the articles are based upon what I find in the relevant sources and so seem quite proper. I'm not sure sure what you mean about the edit summaries but I often make multiple changes in a single update and so might make some general statement indicating this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The communications are being suppressed because they are banned, which is where it is different to a block. They appear incoherent since the vandal hides the vandalism (you may not be aware how petty much of it is, a change of a few places in a chart placing for instance) within a screen of seeming innocuous edits. As for edit summaries, "consolidation" does not usually include removal of unduplicated warnings/comments. With regard to your comments, I would now request you not to include edits at the behest of any other party and not to include detail that you are unable to provide a source for upon request. I would also request you do not perform any merges on articles where there has been a previous unsuccesfull application by Bambifan101 or any "Disney Vandal" sockpuppet without first getting a new consensus from existing editors, and not to revert again any revision made under that argument. Please regard this as an official warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles are not owned by particular editors, per WP:OWN. I happened across an article about someone's famous pig at AFD earlier today. The whimsical title caught my eye and so I took an interest. It turns out that this is the same general area over which Collectonian seems to have been warring with the Bambi person - Charlotte's Web. Likewise, I involved myself in the Thumper article due to its appearance at AFD and, IIRC, this was overwhelmingly kept despite Collectonian's desire to delete. I am as generally familiar with the Disney canon as anyone and have my own personal favourites. If I should see such an article of interest at AFD or a similar noticeboard, I will take an interest as usual. I do not see how I can know whether this Bambi person has been there too and so your warning seems impractical. Since I edit from sources to improve articles, my work should be judged on its merits. Please see our policy which explains that improvement of the encyclopedia is a higher goal than observance of petty rules. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Colonel Warden. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Your recent edits which seem to be supportive of and acting as a proxy for a well known vandal and sockpuppet. See the Bambifan101 related protection requests thread. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have responded over there. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've extended you considerable good faith over the time you've been editing here. You've used it up.—Kww(talk) 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

TBH I think kww owes you a bit of an apology here. Anyhow, good work on the eh-oh article! Artw (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom of Teletubbies say Eh-oh!

Hello! Your submission of Teletubbies say Eh-oh! at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

That was Terrakyte. There are now comments from me. Art LaPella (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have done as you suggest. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 5 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Teletubbies say Eh-oh!, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiddlywinks

Thanks for the message. I have fessed up. BasilSorbie (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA Review of Teletubbies say Eh-oh

Regarding another GA nomination, you would start over, per the instructions at WP:GAN. Regarding whether the original reviewer could review it again, I didn't see anything in the instructions either way, but in this particular case I would leave it to someone else to bring their own perspective to it (and they can always see my comments from the first review). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

My first! Positive feedback is always welcome. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


unsolicited advice

"Your words are polite...but your actions are obscene. Every word in every valid article you've destroyed should be converted to profanity and screamed in your face." --The Charms of Wikipedia March 20, 2008 Nicholson Baker New York Review of Books.

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Independent_sources You wrote:

"I'm not sure that there are all that many deletionists. It's just that they are obviously concentrated at hotspots like AFD and this policy discussion...Talk of consensus when such masses of editors have little to no representation here is absurd. The more puzzling thing is why the inclusionists are not better organised. I suppose that the best of them are too busy at places like DYK and GA/FA review, on top of the hard work of actually writing articles. And I suspect that most inclusionists have a sunny disposition which makes them disinclined to be embroiled in endless conflict. So, what we're dealing with here is the power of the dark side, you see..."
I agree 110% with your comments, but I notice that some editors criticized you. Remember what inclusionist editor User:DGG said: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience."
Passive aggressiveness is the key to winning concessions here on wikipedia. i.e. if you step in shit, don't call it shit. Don't call editors "deletionists" call them "editors who delete". It is verbal silliness but it is sadly necessary.
I have written a lot on passive aggressiveness, see for example: A Machiavelli view on Wikipedia and Being passive aggressive is the key to winning edit wars. Also see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Statement_by_InkSplotch for the absolute best passive aggressive example. Here is an editor calling arbitration on someone else, and his words are so flowery, repentant, humble, and uniting. Reading this soothing *&^% you soon forget that this editor is aggressively calling for another editors head.
I suggest refactoring out the "dark side" comment. Apologize profusely. They are only words, you don't even have to mean them.
I am heartened by your valiant fight on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). You are 100% correct the deletion editors gravitate towards these policy pages. That is why I am letting you and others argue this page, but I will immediately start an Request for Comment when the page is changed from a proposed policy to a policy.
I have started to document how most policy is made: User:Inclusionist/Sasauge, which you are welcome to quote and expand. Some policy is made by one editor only. If no one catches the edit, it become policy, imposed on all of wikipedian editors. travb (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fitness fanatic

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fitness fanatic, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitness fanatic. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to the AFD nomination's claim that there is "no realistic hope of expansion", Fitness fanatic now has another section on well-known fitness fanatics. Does this help the article in your view? --Firefly322 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hollie Steel

Instead of deleting old discussions on talk pages, as you did here, please consider archiving them. Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I am not familiar with the process. If it is easy, then please demonstrate by archiving the off-topic content which I and other editors find disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • What you consider "disruptive" is what other editors considered a good-faith attempt to start a discussion about the article. There is no need to remove it from the page; you can always choose to ignore it, or to leave a message explaining why you disagree with them.
    • And I'm not talking only about messages you find disruptive; I mean messages in general. If something has been sitting on the talk page for 6 months without a response, it's still better to archive it to a subpage rather than outright deleting it. The link I gave you above has extensive instructions on how to archive talkpages; you can look at the edit history of my own user talkpage if you want to see example diffs of archiving. There are also bots, such as this one, that will archive talkpages automatically for you if you set tag the talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Secure digital camera

Since you de-prodded this article and added a ref, can you tell me what the ref says? Does it use the term "secure digital camera"? Does it refer to the work of Mohanty et al.? My impression is that this is just a vanity article on a topic that never got any attention, since I can't find it via book search. So what did you find? Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Secure digital camera, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Handbook of research on mobile multimedia‎, p. 35 does not support the statement that "A secure digital camera or trusted digital camera is a digital camera that has built-in security features to provide immediate digital rights management and image authentication." The 'Reasons for Use' was blatant WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The source discusses the "trustworthy digital camera" in the context of DRM which is relevant. Your objection seems unclear and the article's text is subject to change as we put flesh on its bones. Please see WP:INSPECTOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wrong and wrong. (i) The sources does not discuss "trustworthy digital camera". The only mention it makes of the phrase is to cite it as part of the title of Friedman's paper. (ii) It does not directly connect DRM (discussed in connection with pre-recorded material) and cameras (mentioned as a potential feature of PDAs). My "point" is that the source in no way supports the material cited to it. Your comment indicates either (i) you haven't read the source page, or (ii) that you are wilfully misrepresenting it. Neither is consistent with 'Good Faith'. Please see Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders & WP:V. If you 'build' an article without sources that actually support the material cited to them, you should expect that it won't last. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Performance report

Please do not engage in frivolous, invalid de-prodding. Your rationale was "Remove proposed deletion tag as "straight definition" is not a valid reason to delete". I refer you to WP:DP, which actually says that it is a valid reason to delete. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The above "warning" is of course invalid and can be ignored. However, the IP insisted that I set up an AfD for the page (after trying 3 times to get it invalidly speedy deleted). As such please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance report. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:DP does not use the words straight or definition. Our articles are all supposed to start with a definition of their topic and so a stub may be expected to start in this way. I shall comment further at the AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Whole Foods Market Boycott

Both Mr. Mackey's statement about the current health care insurance proposals and the response and call for a boycott are news, and have been made quite public. I don't believe this falls under Wikipedia's Soapbox clause in any way. Please allow this edit to stand. (Posted on article discussion). Darter (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not the news nor a soapbox. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Underground comic

The majority of the sources use the spelling comix rather than "comics", as do many underground cartoonists. The spelling is to differentiate between mainstream and underground publications, and to emphasize the adult content of the books. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

  • You are mistaken. The comics spelling predominates in a ratio of about 3:2. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need no education

Hey Colonel, thanks for all your good work. I'm not clear on why you think we should start including primary schools? The ones nominated for deletion don't seem to be special or to have received substantial coverage that would distunguish them from other primary schools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Please see WP:SCHOOL. I have not followed the history of this but note that the guideline has failed to establish consensus. This indicates that such cases should be judged on their merits. UK schools recognised by the education authorities will all tend to be notable by virtue of their inclusion in the national testing and league tables published by independent examiners and testers. More general English language sources should be easy to find, as these examples show, and so we're good. In any case, there are good alternatives to deletion such as merger into an article about the town/village which will invariably exist. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong number

Thanks for your intervention. A decent source for the wrong number technique appears to be [4]. I wondered if you had JSTOR access? [5] apparently covers differences between Greek and British telephone etiquette with regards to wrong number calls. TheGrappler (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • You're welcome - it's good to find another editor who is prepared to roll their sleeves up and actually do some work. I found the first source independently and have just cited it in the article. I don't have JSTOR myself so I suggest you mention the other source in the AFD as evidence that the topic has good potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You were right

  • I changed my !vote from delete to keep (on methods of falling asleep) after considering what you'd pointed out. You're right-- how it was presented isn't relevant to how it can be presented, and it has nothing at all to do with whether this is a valid topic. Mandsford (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well said. Another Colonel Warden is said to have said "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."... Colonel Warden (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

History of agriculture in the United States

Good call on the move of the page; I think we are more likely to end up with a good article with the larger scope. Please do not erase the discussion history that prefaced the move though; it is important that that information is preserved. I'll pull it back into a discussion box. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your accusations

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Detection of Imaginary Roots in a Parabola you have accused me of forum shopping, disruption, and now of biting a new editor. All of your accusations are completed unfounded, as I think you know very well. I can understand your enthusiasm for keeping the article, and I believe it has caused you to temporarily lose sight of the bounds of acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Throwing out such absurd accusations in an AfD discussion does not help your case for keeping the article - quite the opposite, in fact. However, please note that if you make any further accusations against me, then I will report your behaviour to WP:WQA. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So your only excuse for ignoring WP:CIVIL is that other editors have been ignoring it as well. Have you no standards of behaviour of your own ? How pathetic. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I love it!

RE: [6]

That was a great posting. I laughed when I read that article you use to describe those who delete. Unforunatly it describes my dad to a "T" :( Ikip (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I took the dramatic move and curtailed your comments, for a couple of reasons:
  1. one, I don't want to have an argument on the squad page,
  2. two, I have found in my experience that sometimes editors innocent inquires and questions are not so innocent. Always ask yourself: what is this editor intending to accomplish by asking these seemingly innocent questions?
If you would like to continue the argument here, I can't object, but I suggest strongly against it, for the same reason that I suggest A Nobody not converse with hostile editors on his talk page. Ikip (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation research

Thanks for your input. I agree that the article is not neutral. Maybe you could trim the intro a bit to clear out some of the skeptical tone? It would be a great help to have a someone else's ideas there. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Globitermes sulphureus

Hi, thought you might like to know that I've nominated this article that you started for T:DYK, here. Smartse (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good show. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

De Hems

Thanks for saving this. :) I'd forgotten I'd created it, but I do think the place is definitely worthy of note, as is Belgo Centraal on Shelton Street. :) --Veratien (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. I'd walked past the place many times but had never noticed it. Belgo is better for food though, especially if you're wanting seafood. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've raised a query re your hook. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On October 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article De Hems, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats(?)) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Koofer

Good catch. The thought that this might be covered somewhere, crossed my mind, but i didn't see the related, completely unreferenced article, maybe because i was focused on someone seeming to promote their website at Koofer and Koofers so maybe you can keep it watchlisted as well. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

You didn't "amend" a tag on Human suit, you added a rescue tag. Please don't use misleading edit summaries. No summary at all is preferable to one that misrepresents the edit. Fences&Windows 02:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • In that edit, a notability tag was amended to become a rescue tag - I replaced one word with the other. They both exhort editors to add sources to the article and so are much the same but the rescue version is more appropriate during an AFD. I considered and still consider this to be an amendment which, in my normal usage, means "words proposed to be substituted for others" (OED}. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that what you actually did was change the tag... amending the tag would have been to substitute words in the tag for others. Anyway, don't quibble about the definition, respond to the reasonable request that FencesAndWindows made. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 07:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, misleading edit summaries seem to be a continuing issue here. Also, please justify on the talk page why the Jesus mention isn't OR and is connected to the concept. Verbal chat 07:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • User Hrafn has explained the matter of Jesus' human suit to you. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have created a glossary to assist editors who have difficulty understanding me. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." Fences&Windows 18:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This was handled all wrong. First Fence accuses Colonel of being "misleading", which set the tone. Colonel, I would delete or archive this discussion. Any amount of "amends" will simply not satisfy certain editors. Ikip (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

List of education articles by counyry

now that it has been unfortunately deleted, if you want to carry out the merge you suggested, I could move it to your user space? Let me know on my talk p., please DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

DRV--good option; there was clearly no consensus, and the close is out of line with all similar articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I actually do not know how to reopen. I tend to avoid anything that cannot be done by twinkle. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I shall try asking the font of all knowledge... Uncle G. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

David Nutt

I've nominated this for DYK here, feel free to reword the hook if you can think of an alternative or add more to the article. Cheers Smartse (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I was thinking of doing that myself - thanks for saving me a job. I was thinking of adding his quote about equasy as the hook. I'll take a look... Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The ALT hook looks good - great minds think alike. And the article is coming along nicely - I especially like the graph. Thanks again for your good work. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agilo for Scrum - References and links added

User:Colonel Warden/Agilo for Scrum Hi Colonel Warden, some month ago the Agilo Page was removed, because of missing links and references. In the meanwhile things have changed and I have added now some links, articles and videos. It would be great if we could put the page "online" again. Please let me know what I have to do for that, or if, whats missing to reactivate the page ;-) Thanks a lot Teck Teckmx5 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It could use some reformatting to turn some of the links into inline citations which support the text. I'll do this later today and then move it back into mainspace. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The sources still need work as self-published sources are inadequate. I'll have a look round. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there :-) Some of the article e.g. are published officially in German Magazines. I made the translations in english, because Agilo has many international Users. Do you think its a good idea to create a wikipedia page for the company agile42 too? Looking forward to your feedback Teck Teckmx5 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again :-) there are 3 Links now regarding independend references added. Please tell me if thats fine now to put the Page online again ;-) Thank you Teck Teckmx5 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Paragon (diamond)

Why did you undo the merge? I'd merged it to Graff Diamonds as it doesn't have sufficient notability as judged by the level of coverage to warrant a separate article. The information is still included without being vulnerable to deletion if it is merged, whereas left alone it's a hostage to fortune. Fences&Windows 23:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Now that I am taking an interest in this topic, the chances of deletion are much reduced. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
While that may be true, your undoing of the merge with the summary of "Expand" is inaccurate at least. Please try and give edit summaries which actually summarise your edits.   pablohablo. 00:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Fences and windows interrupted my editing of these articles, causing edit conflicts and I may have left the edit summary as it was before the interruption. Or I may have considered that expanding the article from a redirect to a larger size was adequately described by that summary - in the hurly-burly, it is hard to recall. I shall perhaps add an entry to my glossary.... Colonel Warden (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I had an entry already so have now expanded it to be clear about this situation. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
But it is not being clear in the sense of being as transparent to as many editors as is possible. I'm all in favour of using the fewest words possible to convey meaning, but if that means that editors have to refer to a "glossary" to work out what another editor actually means, confusion will ensue. Shortly followed, I suspect, by resentment. You share a language with the users of this Wikipedia, and I think you could put that language to better use than pointy terseness.   pablohablo. 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
There does not seem to have been any confusion in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Adventure

Thanks for your assistance in seeking to keep and develop this article. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk 14:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Human Disguise

Some good works on the edits there. Artw (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks for your own good work. The Turing test seems an especially nice addition which should help the article progress. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:User wikipedia/PROD Patrol

Not that I feel too strongly about the subject, but I was just wondering why you changed the image on this template. To me, the old image was more indicative of proposed deletion patrol. Jujutacular T · C 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see! That actually does make sense. Makes it feel pretty cool in fact Jujutacular T · C 08:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the barnstar! I'm honored; it's my first! (One question of procedure; am I meant to leave it on my discussion page, or may I transplant it to my user page?) --Vivisel (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

follow-up requested

Hi Col. Warden. Your input is requested here: [7] Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

  • I have commented on the See also matter but have nothing to add on the GA matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Phantom rings

Hi, Colonel. I read the article. There's no mistaking the power of the press, is there? Did you find any evidence that these terms existed before the publication of the print articles cited? I'm familiar with the phenomenon; in other garb it is one of Freud's psychopathologies of everyday life (and now I find there's more work to do), but I don't know either of these terms.

This example didn't persuade me with respect to neologisms, but really I think the central issue in the asset voting AfD discussion is independent support for the topic itself. We can talk further about names, of course, but what I objected to was not that Black or Carroll had not used this term, but that we have only one source to say that the ideas of Carroll and Smith are consonant, in my opinion a flawed source. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Another example of a neologism which I renamed is Snuggie and its title seems to have stuck. I tried a Snug Rug for the first time myself, yesterday, but was not impressed. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

TLDR

Citing WP:TLDR like you did in this deletion discussion might come across as somewhat dismissive. If someone's writing style needs improvement, you may want to consider letting them know on their talk page instead of in a centralized discussion. Other readers who think it's too long will just ignore it anyways. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  • It seemed to need some sort of acknowledgement - hence my comment, to indicate that I wasn't going to address all those points in detail. The editor who posted it is fairly new to Wikipedia. I supported him in the AFD with which he started and so we may hope that he accepts my impartiality. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Not responding to all points in detail is fine, but I'm concerned that by saying you won't even read them you've bitten a newcomer. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries, Colonel. To be honest, I took it for a field maneuver, but I did adjust the format to make it easier on the eyes, just in case. (To be honest, I sometimes find Wiki markup to be a poor substitute for a word processor.) Say what you like, as you like. If I'm ever injured, I'll be sure to find a way to squirt WP:Tears. Please boys, don't fight over this. Santa's coming! Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Colonel, did you find that Economist article on their web site, or in the magazine? Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dust suppression

Hi. I reverted your edit to this article, as it had just been merged following an AFD. The content is now found at Dust#Dust control, so you can add your material there. Given the different location and context, I have not copied your edit over to the new article - but you should feel free to do so, if you wish. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for socks

As you're a regular at pop culture AfDs, could you keep an eye out for sockpuppets of Dalejenkins? I just filed the latest report against WossOccurring, see Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations/Dalejenkins. His style of deletion sprees and poorly thought out nominations is characteristic and disruptive. p.s. Happy New Year! Fences&Windows 23:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

tagging

I recognize the problems in trying to keep up with the flood of that editor's nominations, but I;ve been going back over some of your speedy and prod removals and adding necessary clean up tags. Even when good enough to avoid deletion, poor articles shouldn't escape attention. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't do speedy removals - I leave those to the admin. As for tags, I will usually place a stub tag on the article and a source notice on the article's talk page, creating the talk page if it does not exist. These seem adequate guidance markers for interested projects and casual passers-by. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Valhalla Vineyards

Removing a notability template (which was in place since several months) in the middle of an ongoing AfD which cites these notability concerns, as you did for Valhalla Vineyards with this edit, looks very strange to me. You are of course completely free to place the "rescue" template on the article to bring in the views of other editors devoted to improving Wikipedia, but I don't see that it is helpful to have behaviour which potentially could lead to edit-warring over templates in parallel to an on-going AfD! Regards, Tomas e (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This Valhalla DRV is crazy. I am trying to think of any non-BLP article I've seen deleted with this much sourcing.--Milowent (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you confuse the number of sources with notability. You may wish to read WP:N. All the best, Tomas e (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:N does not support your position. Presumably that is why your project is trying to create its own separate guideline. As for templates, these should be removed when an article is improved and/or does not exhibit the fault. Such removal is, by their nature, to be expected. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect of song by Petr Eben

Hello Colonel. Thank you for your assistance at the article Snih. I'm not sure with this redirect, Czech word for snow (sníh) now refers to a classical composer's article, which is a bit irrelevant in my opinion. I think the best solution would be to delete this redirect, or moving it to Sníh (song). --Vejvančický (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have moved as you suggest. Deletion of the Snih link is up to you. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lee's Diner

User:Jerem43 has added two stub templates to Lee's Diner. While this may draw more attention to this article, I have rated it class=start on the talk page, since it has 5 inline citations, which I consider to be sufficient to have it not a stub. I am consulting you about whether you or I should remove the two stub templates on the article itself. What do you think? --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I like stub templates - they have cute icons and do not seem intrusive. The article is not long and so they seem fine in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a book reference, and then ran AWB on all of [:category:York County, Pennsylvania] which means a tidying up of Lee's Diner references, but it also added an orphan template. I have added two links, but perhaps you can figure out ways to add more. I am working on more diner and diner manufacturer articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Make a mountain out of a molehill

Thank you for the warm hand. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good work there. There seem to be 5 such cases currently and I'll be looking out for more. A stitch in time, saves nine. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: Nuclear Optimism

For what it is worth I appreciate the words of support on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear optimism.

Basically I hadn't figured out a way to rewrite the article in a way that would make the other editors happy (in particular to remove the Synthesis tag). I got into a huge ugly battle on another article a few months ago where I was essentially having to fight for it alone, and I don't want to go through that again on this one. I had waited a while to see if anybody else volunteered to co-author but nobody has stepped up.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colonel_Warden/Archive_2&oldid=1150992389"