User talk:Sharkface217

Tags to remember

{{USN-stub}} is for US Navy stubs

{{mil-ship-stub}} is for individual military ship stubs.

My Talk Page Archives:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

705th SMW page

Thanks for the heads up, but I'm not sure its a conflict of interest - I made the 705th SMW page at http://www.zianet.com/jpage/airforce years ago; someone tried busting me on a Copyright Violation for similar information that I collected and posted on the Internet then transferred to Wikipedia. The link to my page from the wiki and the comments provide within are just to show that I am the author of the original text material and have posted it to Wikipedia (not someone else just cutting and pasting). If I'm completely off base here, please let me know. TDRSS

I am up but business is brisk

I am having problems keeping up with just my watchlist of WP:CAL articles that are getting hit. Plus I want to ask for semi-protection on Nicolaus Copernicus because of all the unreliable edits but don't have time because I have to leave for a meeting in 30 minutes. Ronbo76 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for my first barnstar! LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 00:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

705th SMW Page Part II

I'm trying to preserve the historical content of the unit, not self-advertise. I've noticed that most searches under the popular engines come up with *nothing* or mirrors of wiki-information or webpages that were *directly* lifted from mine. Since I'm phasing out my website, I'm transferring the information to wikipedia for longevity's sake. I'm not trying to step on toes here, but I don't know how to put quality info on Wikipedia without referencing my source (i.e. my website). Most of the pages I've seen with *no* references are trashed, stubs, or completely garbage.TDRSS

Being bold

Actually, you should probably ask an admin which, you know, I'm not because, ahem, opposed that nomination on the grounds that they did not trust me in closing XfDs! (That's meant as a joke, I really have no hard feelings) In any case, it would be best for you to just let the AfD run out its due course. As the sole editor of the article (all others are minor fixes) you always have the option of requesting speedy deletion but of course that would likely cause confusion more than anything. Pascal.Tesson 02:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Space warfare in fiction

As someone else has pointed out, the sources need have to explicitly discuss the topic of space warfare in fiction, and the article has to be more or less be about what those sources have to say. The sources cannot be sprinkled in there to support what the Wikipedia article author has to say. That's the essential problem with OR in this article. From WP:OR "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C." Do you see what is meant here by Original Research here? An encyclopedic article has to document some notable bit of knowledge, and that knowledge has to exist prior to the article being written, otherwise it's just a collection of facts, and that's not what an encyclopedia is for. Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Salt?! No, that really doesn't seem called for... Pete.Hurd 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything like a "merge" consensus building in the AfD. Cross the bridge of what to do if this material gets pasted back into the pre-fork article when we get there. Pete.Hurd 05:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem of the material being OR applies wherever it is. If it's unencylopedic OR, then it must not stay. Pete.Hurd 05:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Being bold won't swing so far as closing an AfD early and ignoring the apparent consensus. The AfD will be closed by an Admin, and I expect that Admin will also be the go-to person if the material is recreated in the same form. Yeah, if it's recreated as non OR, then that's obviously for the best. But as explained above, this needs more than a couple of citations, it will need a rewrite from scratch once such a source has been found, read, digested etc. Pete.Hurd 06:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I suggest you propose the idea at the AfD. Wait and see if people will change their mind, and accept your offer to cleanup and merge back into Science Fiction, or if you can re-write the article to meet WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Nishkid64 15:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some energy..

You're such a diligent editor and a very helpful user in this community. Here, have this cookie for some energy to keep doing what you do! ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My signature

Is this any better? I've tried to reduce it, but I'm not sure if it's far enough, please let me know, or alter it yourslef if you wish Thanks, Asics^Talk 14:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've sorted it now!Asics^Talk 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. 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 18:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –mysid☎ 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion and deletionists and some thoughts

Hello Sharkface. I think you first have to assume that everybody involved around AfD and other Wikiplaces believes that they are working for the good of the project. Of course there's enough vagueness in the whole concept of Wikipedia that it's just normal to find that people are sometimes pulling in different directions. Sometimes (actually oftentimes) you get the feeling that the community's decision is mistaken but overall anyone has to admit that the whole thing is fairly successful.

A while back, I spent quite a bit of energy arguing for the deletion of Category:Terrorists. As it turns out, the category was kept and I still believe this to be a mistake (look at the debate if you want to know why, but that's not really relevant here) and it left me with the sad feeling that too many editors were not taking enough time to think things through. But I accept the consensus not because I believe that it always ends up being the best choice for the encyclopedia but because it allows the project as a whole to run smoothly. The only thing I can do when I find I'm in disagreement with the majority is to make my point as clearly as I can and hope that this will sway opinion. If it doesn't happen, well so be it, I move on and continue to do my bit to help

A similar situation arose around the time I was up for RfA: I argued for keeping List of hookers with hearts of gold and as you may remember this had people screaming bloody murder and frankly people that argued that I was bringing up ILIKEIT arguments were either acting in bad faith or had not read that debate. This is how Wikipedia works: you make your point, you respect others' opinions and when all is said and done you go with the flow, even when you feel the decision is ill-advised.

Deletionists, like me, tend to view deletion as something less than catastrophic and are worried that articles on extremely fringe topics, almanach-like trivia, vanity or fan-boyish biographies, etc, end up costing Wikipedia a considerable amount of editing time and are skewing its reputation. Consequently, they end up voting for deletion in a lot of AfD debates. Save for the occasional wacko, they don't do so out of lazyness: they believe that some articles are not worth saving. I take it you disagree with that position and that's fine with me. Just remember that people on the other side of the fence also believe they're defending Wikipedia's best interests. When you feel that deletion of a specific article is particularly problematic, take the time to argue your point, take the time to expand the article and demonstrate its worth, take the time, if need be, to ask deletion supporters to expand their arguments. If that does not work, then just accept that you disagree with the majority and work on something else. Surely, you won't lose much sleep if Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party is deleted but even in cases that you feel more strongly about, don't be bitter when you see the decision not going your way.

Well, ok that was a bit of a longish reply, sorry... Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, sorry you got blasted by Elaragirl on that virtual classroom page. While I agree with some of her points, I'm not exactly sure why she got so ticked with your comments. (Maybe it reads differently when not viewed as a conversation between editors) In any case, I'm glad if you found some value to my advice. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it's on-topic with the current lesson, I've reposted the above discussion thread to User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Elaragirl, about deletion and deletionism#Bone to pick with deletionists, where others may notice it and contribute. Please feel free to continue the discussion there if you'd like. --The Transhumanist 06:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion / Censorship discussion

I have seen you around here on Wikipedia and have noted that you are among the more intelligent of Wikipedians (your work with virtual classroooms is outstanding). I've had this issue bugging me for a while but I wasn't sure who I could talk to about it. After reading your profile, I think you might know how to deal with this issue.

Recently, it seems that many high-quality articles are up for deletion quite often. Yes, there are the dozens upon dozens that are blatant advertising or spam, but now a large number a day seem to be up for deletion. I'm not sure what I (or anyone) can do about this.

Lost and confused, S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've answered your query at User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Elaragirl, about deletion and deletionism#Discussion.   The Transhumanist   05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for taking the time to review my contributions and contribute to my RfA. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your feedback and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 

		To a great morale booster...
		For awarding barnstars wherever they are due, Sharkface is hereby awarded this Barnstar of Community Support, for improving the morale of the Wikipedia community. Keep motivatin' 'em, man!   The Transhumanist