User:Xaa/talk archives/080805

Welcome!

File:Sephiroth.gif Hello, Xaa/talk archives/080805, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my talk page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log.
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language.

Happy editing!

‡ Jarlaxle 01:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Reason

I gave a reason so why would you say that? 64.108.212.56 01:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• No clue what you're talking about. Could be fifty people from your IP, no way of telling who you are, either. Make an account. It's free. Xaa 02:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD votes

"...voting in VFD's & etc is frowned upon for those with less than 6 months to a year of experience. Won't happen again, sorry!"

I'm not at all sure who told you this, but they are...well...mistaken. Few are the people who would discount someone's votes until they had been here 6 months. A few weeks and a 'decent' number of edits is all that is usually needed, except in the most controversial cases. The reason that brand new users are often discounted is because either they have come along specifically to push an agenda on a particular VfD (or whatever), or they haven't really got the hang of reasons to vote in a particular way (we're not completely free in our choices). Your began editing seriously on July 27th, so, in a couple more weeks and maybe less, you should expect your votes to be counted in full (by most people; it varies a bit). Contributing to everything where you have something to say is a great idea, and what this place is all about. Please don't wait another 6 months before doing so — VfD needs all the help it can get! I imagine you were messaged about this to help you not to waste your time at first, when your votes probably would be discounted, rather than out of any "hate the new editors" feeling.

As to my comment on VfU (which I presume is how you found me), that is one of the very few circumstances in which I personally discount votes. If a user is very new, has few edits and, although voting in good-faith has not quite gotten the hang of VfD and their vote could be the deciding vote. Otherwise, I see little reason to discard any good-faith votes (and there is no need to if the vote in question can't change the decision anyway). I hope you don't feel beaten up over your perfectly good VfD work so far, and will come back to it. -Splash 14:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Demimonde

I think that's good work on the article. However, the image needs a copyright tag on it. Since it was taken ages and ages ago, I presume it is public domain by now but that may need checking. See the list of tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, choose the one that applies and add it to the description of the image (via the edit link, as if you were editing an article). -Splash 17:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Done. =) Xaa 17:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

community of ISKCON scholars

A question...

In your comments on the VFD page on Krishnology, you mention the "community of ISKCON scholars." What individuals make up this community, and what is the center of their scholarly community?

I'm just curious because you sound as if you are infomed in this area, or have past/present experience from which you speak. Your comments bring balance to the discussion. Thank you for your contributions.

• Reply: Well, you can pretty much include all of the GBC in that category, as well as the major contributors to the ICJ. The community of ISKCON scholars is far larger than that, however, and includes many ThD's from around the world both inside and outside of the ISKCON faith. Note: I am not a member of the ISKCON, I'm simply a well-educated Lutheran. ;-) Xaa 22:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD comments

Hi, Xaa. I saw your comments on the "black book" VfD page. You make good points, but your comments are quite long. Often, people will vote on VfD's without reading the debate if there are long comments that they'd have to get through. I think it would be a good idea if you replaced your comment with "See my response on the discussion page," and then copied the thread onto the discussion page. Just a suggestion. Cheers, HKT ^talk 18:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Try again in a couple minutes. It's probably nothing. HKT ^talk 18:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In general, that's just the kind of thing that's best placed on the discussion page, especially when it's so long! Just make sure you direct people there. Anyway, I really doubt that Witkacy's not Polish, but the whole argument is tangential to the voting. P.S. Can you edit now? HKT ^talk 19:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Great! HKT ^talk 19:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Baxter_Boulevard

The revisions claiming notablity have been found to be spurious, and false. Please review your vote. Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia! JesseW 22:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi civil war

I think that is certainly much improved, although there are one or two unreferenced assertions. It certainly casts it more in the mould of "why this might be a civil war even though it isn't always called that yet" than "yeah, it's a civil war". It is clear that there is a Wikipedia article to be had about this topic: it's a term that is certainly in use and, given the reasonable NPOVing you've done, I will go and amend my VfD vote. You might want to announce in the VfD that you've given it a bit of a bashing. -Splash 02:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sock?

Who called you a sockpuppet? -Splash 20:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. You might take a look through my contributions list and see how long I've been here. I would be shocked if anyone discounted my vote or didn't take me seriously. You saw the RfC that has produced this (imo) rather heavy-handed way of dealing with VfD on behalf of a single admin: hardly any admins would take nearly such a strict line. You might take the question up with User:Tony Sidaway on his talk page if you think it needs straightening out although he is famously hard to persuade. I think, quite seriously, that Tony is one of the very few VfD closers who will disregard your comments and votes for the first month. Most, if not virtually all, will take a look at your contribs history, see that you make decent edits and have been around at least a short while, and include your votes. My first VfD vote was after I'd been here for about a week; as far as I can tell, I have never had a vote disregarded. You've already contributed to rescuing articles (maybe, anyway...) and few are the people who have the patience to do that. As to the difficulty you've had getting yourself included at the moment, I would suggest that you have basically run across one of the strictest admins in this regard and should not feel discouraged. As for the VfU debate where your vote was questioned, well, I wouldn't worry about it: the article would have been undeleted anyway because of the difficult voting and rewrite along the way.

I saw your message to Wikiquette alerts when you posted it. I let it lie because the editor in question had also posted weird things on Raul654's talk page, and he's a bureaucrat who should be able to help fix these kind of things. Perhaps Raul654 hasn't been around lately (or is tied up arbitrating or something). Given the effect of that editor's postings, I would suggest (strongly) that you leave a message on WP:AN where the Seniors, as you call them, will see it. -Splash 20:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Does he live for this?; I rather think so sometimes. You've probably spotted he's a fraction on the inclusionist side of things, despite the signaure at m:association of mergist wikipedians. Like I said above, being persuaded isn't a pastime I've observed him partake of often. I just looked in detail through the creepy stuff you mentioned. I see it's already on WP:AN, where it was helpfully laughed off. I had a quick chat with an admin about it: regrettably the one I chose was on their way out. So I have moved it to WP:AN/I. I'm not an admin myself, or I'd protect the page. I hope a helpful admin will come along and do something about it. -Splash 22:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You are my new friend!

I so happy to make your aquaintence. We should discuss if any reivews for movies belong on any pages. It is a kinda small, but, I think, important question. Now, I started a Discussion tab, because that is the process. I hope this Discussion thing is not news to you, because that would make me very sad. Let's talk about it. Amorrow 05:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)