Jump to content

User talk:Sterlingda/Archive/2005

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User_talk:Sterlingda > Archive > 2005


ARCHIVE 2006[edit]

Regarding Energy directory[edit]

Slated for Vfd May 5, 2005.

Vandalism[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.. Your removal of a vfd tag from a page, is an act of vandalims, you have also violated the 3rr rule. Consider this a warning of your being reported. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 00:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling's Response[edit]

Did you read my response on the "votes for deletion" page? Did you read my letter to Jimbo Wales? You are vandalizing a legitimate page by defacing it with a "vote to delete" notice. I will be supremely disappointed if this goes through.

Boothy[edit]

  • You seem to have a very limited understanding of what vandalism is and what the vfd process is. I could care less what your vfd responce is on the vfd, nor could i care what you wrote Jimmy Wales. The removal of a vfd tag from page that is under consideration is VANDALISM, this is a very simple concept, one of which you seem to either want to ingnore, you do not uderstand, or which to be completly ingnorant of. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 00:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling's Reply[edit]

What about vandalism to a legitimate page by posting a Vfd notice when the page does not deserve it, but is in actuality a very productive, Wikipedia mission-congruent page -- a major table of contents akin to a home page for an entire area of study: energy, which is a highly pertinent issue in our day. It is an eyesore to see a Vfd notice on a key page, and it should not be allowed. There should be some kind of penalty for people who post such notices and don't look at the larger picture.

I understand what Vfd is for generally, and I concur with the rules pertaining to it generally. But there are exceptions to every rule. If I were to go to a completely legitimate page that has been at Wikipedia for years, and post a Vfd notice at the top, according to your rule, no one could take it down for a week until it had been voted on. But of course, that is ludicrous. The person posting the Vfd was the one out of line, not the page. That is an example of a legitimate exception to your rule.

That is what has happened here. That is why I am requesting you to stand down and let the page be. I am also requesting of an admin to review the case so the one-line notice can be removed as well.

Don't be so hog wild about rules. That is what brought us Nazi Germany -- "Just following orders." I expect better. Sterlingda 00:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Samaritan's response[edit]

The Wikipedia community has arrived at a consensus about how any registered user may nominate a page for deletion, and we're going through that process. This consensus calls for a full, prominent and standard notice on the page itself, and on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, so that Wikipedians using the page can participate in the process. The process is there so that any registered Wikipedians with a prior edit history (ie, not sockpuppets), may cast a vote. An article is only deleted this way if there is a clear consensus to delete. Very often, articles that go through this review by the community are moved to a better title, or expanded, or even kept as is.

If you think having the same rules - to hold a vote, just! - that apply to every single page on Wikipedia apply to the page you created is "what brought us to Nazi Germany," sir, I can only ask you to grow up.

Wikipedia is not a free web host. Everything submitted here is submitted to a community, to be changed as the community decides. Live with it. You already have web space elsewhere under your own personal control. Samaritan 00:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling's reply to Samaritan[edit]

Are you saying that if some yahoo posted a Vfd page on a legitimate, long-held page at Wikipedia that you would leave it there for a week? Sterlingda 00:45, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Samaritan's reply[edit]

Energy directory was created May 4, and edited by two users before a VfD notice was placed on May 5. I don't see what long-held pages have to do with this, except that this isn't one. What if someone posted a VfD notice on a legitimate page? It happens all the time! VfD regulars will tell you that Samaritan is one of the biggest inclusionist busybodies around. Often I research subjects outside Wikipedia and suggest new reasons for retention to my fellow VfD voters. They may vote for or against. But I respect the process, because I respect them. Samaritan 00:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling response to Samaritan[edit]

True, Energy directory was created recently. However, it does have the potential of being a long-standing key page at Wikipedia, bookmarked by millions. I am speaking of its potential, and will say that already in its launch it is worthy of bookmark by millions, though it will take a while for it to be noticed by millions. The problem I have with your absolutism about VfD is that it allows for vandalism of good pages just for the sake of controversy, which takes valuable time away. I put a link to the Vfd, and so I am still in keeping with the spirit of the law. I just resent the "Wikipedia is anti-this page" look of a Vfd notice. It is a turn-off. There ought to be provisions for a speedy removal of the Vfd when it is obviously unwarranted.' Sterlingda 01:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wahoofive weighs in[edit]

I see we went through this same thing in December of 2003. Instead of feeling paranoid and singled out, why don't you spend some time at VfD and see what kind of things go through there? Plenty of legit articles get nominated for deletion, and what happens is they get voted Keep. Next problem.... —Wahoofive (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling replies to Wahoofive[edit]

I have better things to do with my time than argue for the obvious. I'm a builder, not a babysitter. I prefer to spend my time building productive content, rather than fighting for its survival when its survival should be obvious. Sterlingda 02:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

If it's obvious to you, it should be obvious to others, right? —Wahoofive (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily so. Those who are so involved in the minutia of Wikipedia culture, get used to certain "this is the way we've always done it" ways of thinking. But to an outsider, I promise the obvious is much more obvious. The forest view versus the trees. Not all traditions have their basis in sound thinking. Sometimes we adopt things out of habit and loyalty and don't stop to analyze whether or not they would stand on their own under unbiased scrutiny. Sterlingda 02:36, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Outsider's comment[edit]

Sterling: calm down, let the VfD run its course. At present, it looks like there are more keep votes than deletes, although the vfd page is difficult to follow through the heated debate. There will have to be substantially more delete votes than keep for the article to be deleted. Do reply to individual points made there (and I'd like to know what you think of my proposal to turn it into a Wikiportal), but reply briefly, don't repeat points you've already made, and indent each reply so it doesn't appear to be another vote.

Do not remove or tamper with the VfD notice, as that will annoy wikipedians and may lead to you being banned.-gadfium 03:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another view[edit]

"I have better things to do with my time than argue for the obvious." I would love to be able to skip a lot of the nonsense here at Wikipedia - reverting vandals, protecting the Canada article from ardent monarchists who are determined to turn the article into one long celebration of the monarchy and the Commonwealth, protecting articles about minor political parties and candidates from the deletionists - but I don't expect that my pet projects will be treated any differently from anyone else's. Sure, I am ticked off when one of my articles that is non-vanity, non-speculative and verifiable is nominated for deletion by some deletionist git who spends his/her time trying to destroy content, but what makes my contributions so special that I should get to decide whether they are included or not? Nothing. Same applies to you, I'm afraid.

I am particularly sorry to see you tear a strip off User:Samaritan, who is one of the most calm and well-balanced editors that I encounter here. S/he did not vote to delete the content you created, but argued that it had to be edited into a Wikipedia-like form in order to stay. That is fair comment. Sam has been very patient in explaining to you how things work here. You would do well to try to learn from her/him.

Finally, VfD is not vanadalism unless you can show that there was malicious intent. In general, you should Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have seen no evidence that the VfD was made in bad faith, only that it refelcted the quality of the article at the tiem the nomination was made. Ground Zero 16:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

image[edit]

You will find below the links I saved from the two images I deleted today. I do not think the use of such images are appropriate, as they represent an unauthorized use of our logo. One is in particular problematic as it seems to link Wikipedia logo with an organisation, with which we are not partners. I apology, but it is best you try to make a design without the logo on it. I left a message in both images, but got no comment, hence the deletion. Sorry. Anthere 04:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Energy directory compiles various energy technologies and issues featured at Wikipedia, with emphasis on clean, renewable energy systems.

Image:Tesla Fluorescent2.gif[edit]

Image deletion warning The image Image:Tesla Fluorescent2.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 07:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


Image:ITER reactor 95pxw.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning The image Image:ITER reactor 95pxw.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 07:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Energy Development[edit]

Sterlingda, you may be interested in joining (by signing in and adding the page to your watchlist) the Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development. Tom Haws 14:54, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MinatoWheel_by_EricVogels_95px.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:MinatoWheel_by_EricVogels_95px.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived by Sterlingda 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sterlingda/Archive/2005&oldid=69696667"