User talk:IRP

CHU

Please see your CHU request and pick a new name. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest a name with a the same meaning that does not violate Wikipedia policy? I do try to provide resources on the Internet (that's what that name is for, besides, if it was for a company, it would be Internet Resource Providers, inc, and if it was for a group, it would be Internet Resource Providing Group (IRPG)). Internet Resource Provider should be obvious that it is for one person.

How about User:IRP? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The full spelling implies that you are a company. I don't object to IRP though, as that could mean all sorts of things. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine, change it to IRP, please. (By the way, I cannot post messages on your talk page) -- IRP ☎ 22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done You couldn't post to my talk because it was protected against IP vandalism (which also affects accounts less than 4 days old. I've unprotected it. BTW, you'll need to reunify your account under SUL. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for changing my username. -- IRP ☎ 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The IRP account is free globally so you should unify it, and rename the Internet Resource Providor you create on commons. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How do I unify it? -- IRP ☎ 23:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Click on your "my preferences" tab, then "manage your global account" (or words to that effect). — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions, the process is complete. -- IRP ☎ 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (singed late)

training

I undid the redirect you put into the Training (meteorology) article. Training can occur with precipitation that is not considered a storm, such as just snow or rain showers. WxGopher (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, please do not redirect my article to Training (meteorology) or merge it because of the difference. -- IRP ☎ 22:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FrntMsgBox.png

Thanks for uploading Image:FrntMsgBox.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not possible to induce TC dissipation

See here for a detailed explanation why all those methods don't work. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I know I heard that they could be steered in any direction. I've even asked a question on Yahoo! Answers: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080827162740AApHf9A -- IRP ☎ 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT SKIM THE PAGES! PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY! -- IRP ☎ 18:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've looked it up and found this: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread144381/pg1 (find on page: Dyn-O-Gel). -- IRP ☎ 18:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• You can look it up. -- IRP ☎ 18:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• That thing doesn't do anything, at least not when feasible quantities are used. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you looked at this. -- IRP ☎ 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I did, and there's no indication that the author realizes the scale of the work that would need to be done to pump so much air downwards (which is a process hurricanes already do by themselves). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any information about HAARP being able to steer them? -- IRP ☎ 23:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but not even hydrogen bombs have enough energy to change their movement, and even if they did, we wouldn't be able to tell if they actually did, akin to what happened during Project Stormfury. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Moving shouting match

Well, this is fine, but I can't see it evolving into an encyclopedic article because "shouting match" is a general term like "talking on the phone" or "crossing the street" - or "verbal fight", for that matter. But if you can work it out somehow by all means go ahead. GregorB (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the psychiatric reasons that people do it? Do you know any good references? -- IRP ☎ 23:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't, but even if I did know, this would probably venture into territory covered by other articles (such as those on mental health), and result in duplication. GregorB (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas? I think it's worth expanding into an article. -- IRP ☎ 22:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to help but I must admit I don't know. Usually it is a good idea to make an outline of the article beforehand (i.e. sections with their respective titles), and then go about filling it. That's how I'd do it, but other than that I'm afraid I can't think of anything more specific. GregorB (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the transwiki tag be removed, because the article is supposed to be expanded? -- IRP ☎ 00:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed. GregorB (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look for information for the article. -- IRP ☎ 00:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added information to the article, still more to add, but does it qualify for an article? -- IRP ☎ 00:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, it still leaves a lot to be desired... But as I said: go ahead and see where it takes you... GregorB (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of VORTEX2

A tag has been placed on VORTEX2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Pip (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Got your message.

Hello, I received your message on my talk page. Please discuss the contesting of the speed deletion of the article VORTEX2 on it's talk page. Thank you, Pip (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I will discuss it there. -- IRP ☎ 21:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Village pump

I undid the changes you did to this. It's really not appropriate to have a DAB page that links to an article and a non main space article. That's why we have templates like {{selfref}}. -Nard 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- IRP ☎ 20:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

John Breckinridge

Hello. I was unsure of your reason for moving this page - disambiguation pages are usually sited at just the name, e.g. John Smith, unless one is far more notable than the others, e.g. Henry VIII of England has the page Henry VIII, and then there is 'Henry VIII (disambiguation)'. Please see WP:MOSDAB. Thanks, and if you feel I've misinterpreted this or you are still unclear, please send me a message. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A disambiguation is a page that says "(whatever) may refer to:..." -- IRP ☎ 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

An example would be Henry Bates (disambiguation). -- IRP ☎ 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Homosexual scene - 420 BCE, Dinos painter - Capua - GR 1772.3-20.154 F65 - British Museum.jpg

It had the same name on Commons. It was deleted on Commons also. -Nv8200p talk 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was it deleted, was it inappropriate? -- IRP ☎ 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The IFD is here. -Nv8200p talk 00:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Florida Tax Watch

It's okay for anybody to remove it but the editor who created it. Corvus cornix_talk 00:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not ban the user, but the user was banned. -- IRP ☎ 01:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

For their name. I see the article has been deleted, too. Corvus cornix_talk 01:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article had the db-ad tag removed from it. All it had was this article has multiple issues, and it could have been improved to meet Wikipedia's requirements. -- IRP ☎ 01:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even see the article when it was moved, I wasn't involved. Take it up with the deleting admin. I am not an admin, btw. Corvus cornix_talk 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And who was the admin? -- IRP ☎ 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this, it was User:Pegasus. Corvus cornix_talk 01:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you know who banned the user? -- IRP ☎ 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this, it was User:Orangemike. Corvus cornix_talk 01:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The combination of spammy article and spammy username, to me, called for a spamusername ban on that account. If this person wants to contribute to the project, and is willing to refrain from spamming the Wikipedia, I think they would be better off creating a whole new account without the bad history. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your message

Hello! I just replied to your message on my talk page. Thanks! Pip (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

um

et cetera is two words, its latin, dats not a minor edit as it becomes a meaningless latin word. its like saying 'andsoon' instead of 'and so on' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientus (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You sure? -- IRP ☎ 17:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

New Message

Hello, IRP. You have new messages at User talk:Pip2andahalf.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

Got the message -- IRP ☎ 19:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

VORTICES

It seems to me that these are all VORTEX projects, and that it just makes more sense for the lay reader to have a unified article, with separate sections for each project. The article as you wrote it began with, "This is a VORTEX project" or words to that effect. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say - if the projects are not in any way related to each other, why do they have the same acronym? Pip (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How about one article: VORTEX project, and both articles can be merged into it? -- IRP ☎ 19:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I already tagged the articles with respective merge tags. IRP: Do you think it would be suitable to merge VORTEX2 into VORTEX? I think that would work. Pip (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because it would be merging the new version into an old version. It would be just like merging an article about Microsoft Windows Vista into an article about Microsoft Windows 95, therefore, in this example, you would have one article about Microsoft's operating systems. Does that make sense? I would merge both of them into VORTEX project or VORTEX projects. -- IRP ☎ 22:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, but I disagree. Isn't VORTEX2 an update or new version of the same project? It may be a very different project, but it shares a title that makes it seem like it's the same basic project with new twists or something. I think the simile of Vista : Win95 isn't very relevant, since they're clearly completely different. You know? Pip (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to merge it into VORTEX, then please move VORTEX to VORTEX project. They are different attempts, but it is the same basic project. VORTEX is attempt #1 and VORTEX2 is attempt #2. So I suggest one article that lists both attempts: VORTEX project. -- IRP ☎ 20:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you put VORTEX2 into VORTEX, you know, VORTEX is one attempt, and VORTEX2 is the second one, so by putting VORTEX2 into VORTEX, it makes it look like it was all one attempt. OrangeMike or Pip, does one of you understand my point? -- IRP ☎ 21:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I also want to address that Microsoft Windows Vista is an update or newer version of Microsoft Windows 98, but they are both Microsoft Windows projects, however, they were different attempts to create an operating system, or there were improvements in Microsoft Windows Vista. -- IRP ☎ 21:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(exdent) Yeah, i understand what you're saying now, with the different attempts thing. I see what you mean with your idea of different OS projects. They way you compared Vista vs 98 originally didn't work for your point, but now that I'm actually on the same page as you, I understand the comparison lol. Sorry I was so slow to understand what you were trying to say. I'm glad you persisted. Pip (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, great, but now, I have another problem. ↓↓ -- IRP ☎ 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shouting match

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Shouting match, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bongomatic (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Shouting match article has been around for one month, so your statement that it should be given time doesn't seem applicable. In my view, the article is primarily a dictionary definition of an obvious adjective-noun combination--think "yellow paint"--although in this case it's an adjectival form of a verb. The Physical fighting section does not seem pertinent to the topic of the article and appears to be an attempt to dilute the dictionary-like nature of the article. But that's just my opinion.

By the way, it is not "your article". Bongomatic (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it is encyclopedic content, and it is a fact about shouting matches. And the Motivation section is another fact about it. All I would appreciate is some help turning this into an article, or get someone to help me do it, have it qualify, and eventually tag-free. -- IRP ☎ 00:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. There is nothing in the article that makes me think it can be turned into a useful encyclopedia entry. Usually, my hope by adding notability / reference tags is to prod (pun intended) editors into improving articles. But honestly I would like to see this one disappear. Bongomatic (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So the "notability" tags won't get the article deleted, or will they? I would like them to be improved, not deleted, including the other article that you tagged, Heavy rain (meteorology). If you can improve (NOT REQUEST DELETION OF) any of the articles that you tagged, you are welcome to. Just make sure they meet the minimum stub requirements. I was planning for these to become good entries. -- IRP ☎ 00:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would rather that the articles I create (rather than my articles) to be revised, rather than someone coming along and saying "PLEASE DELETE THIS!!!". If you don't want to revise it, please get an experienced editor to at least fix them to the minimum stub requirements. -- IRP ☎ 00:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about your preferences--it's about what's suitable content for an encyclopedia. As mentioned before, no article is "yours" (see this page). If you "prefer" to have unencyclopedic information in WP (such as the conventional adjective-modifying-noun meaning of a phrase), you are likely to be disappointed. If you want articles to become more encyclopedic, find the information to support the claim of notability. (While I should note that a number of other articles you have worked on seem to have similar issues, I would encourage you to continue to make edits that improve articles.)Happy editing. Bongomatic (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Storm train

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Storm train, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bongomatic (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Frustrating experience

Well, I chose to ask you about this because I figured you were the right person to ask. OK, I am having severe difficulty with a dispute with User:Bongomatic. I am concerned about him/her tagging up ALL the articles I create with proposed deletion tags, etc. This is an overwhelming experience, and I am afraid to ever create an article. I am beginning to get frustrated, I do not feel like retiring yet, but I almost feel like I will never create a new article again, I do not feel welcome to create new articles, and I feel like I'm doing something wrong. I asked him/her to get an experienced editor to help me with these articles, and ALL HE/SHE DOES IS TAG THE ARTICLES UP, AND MAKES ME FEEL LIKE I'M NOT WELCOME TO CREATE ARTICLES! Do you have any ideas of what I can do? You can access my contributions here, and to make sure you know, look for the edits with "N" next to them. -- IRP ☎ 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please notify me on my talk page when you reply to this message by adding to my talk page: "{{Newmessages|User_talk:Jc37#Frustrating_experience}}" -- IRP ☎ 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

He/she may be on a tag mania, and may need to be blocked. Not only were "my" articles tagged, but look at this, an article in the same category was tagged as well:

Articles tagged

• "My" article: Storm train

• Other article: Training (meteorology)

*Please remember that Storm train isn't my only article, please see my contributions for more articles I have created.

-- IRP ☎ 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at his/her contributions, you will see that a surprising percentage of his/her edits are TAGGING UP ARTICLES -- IRP ☎ 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I am sorry to hear that you're feeling "frustrated" and "not welcome".

Second, let's set aside your concerns about the other editor in question, and presume good faith for the moment.

I have a question: Do you understand the Wikipedia:Deletion process? It's ok if you don't. It's not something that every one knows or understands.

The pages in question don't appear to be tagged for speedy deletion, nor do they seem to be currently tagged as Articles for deletion.

They instead appear to be "proposed for deletion". (WP:PROD.) Which means that if you contest the pages' deletion (as you appear to) all you need to do is remove the PROD template which proposes the deletion.

After that, the other editor (and/or others) has (have) several options. They may then nominate the page for one of the other deletion processes (speedy, or AfD), in which case, after that you will need to comment in that discussion. (And removing the templates would not be appropriate in those cases, and instead would be considered disruptive.) Or they may choose to not bother, in which case the article is automatically "kept".

All that aside, I sincerely hope you take a moment and read the several pages I linked to. I think that they may help you in your current situation, and in the future. - jc37 09:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any template that I can use so they will know that it's contested, because it may be put back. Also, do you know any experienced editor who can help me revise these articles? -- IRP ☎ 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Hangon.

The best suggestion I can think of regarding finding other editors is to find one or more WikiProjects that may interest you. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory for a list of the top-level WikiProjects. (Clicking a link will either take you to a WikiProject, or a list of related WikiProjects.) - jc37 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that for speedy deletion rather than proposed deletion? -- IRP ☎ 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But you were asking about a template to place. That's the only one for article-space that I can think of.

That said, read Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Contesting_a_proposed_deletion. Point #5 suggests placing a template on the talk page of the article. - jc37 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I came up with an idea to prevent articles I am still working on from being tagged. -- IRP ☎ 21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on your intent, but you may wish to see the similarly named Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. - jc37 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not for a registered user submitting an article. User:IRP/ArticlesForCreation...there is where I place my articles before putting them on the main site, to be reviewed by an experienced editor. -- IRP ☎ 23:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah! On Wikipedia that's called "peer review". Besides that page (which is considered a step towards the WP:FA process), most WikiProjects have (or have the potential to have) a "peer review" page as well. - jc37 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you think you would like to help me revise the articles I created to where they will follow the guidelines? Do you have any suggestions on what I should start with? -- IRP ☎ 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I may not be the best person to help.

(While I do have somewhat of an interest in meteorology (among a great many other things), I would presume that there are those with more specific expertise.)

Again, I think I'd point you to a Wikiproject.

Not only would they be able to help you with the "peer review" process, but you'll likely meet other editors of similar interest. And I think that that would benefit everyone : )

I'm looking over Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Meteorology, and I'm not sure which one(s) would be the most appropriate. Should you decide on one (or more), simply add your name to their membership list (they are open to anyone with sincere interest), and then drop a note on their talk page requesting the "peer review" (a link to the page(s) to be reviewed is obviously important).

I hope this helps. - jc37 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, good news, Runningonbrains has intervened, and said that the proposed deletion tags were not appropriate for these articles. -- IRP ☎ 00:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,

Thanks for writing to me. Looks like the AfD is going to fail. It has reinforced my faith in there being atleast a few sensible souls on Wikipedia who will prevent a pull-down of an academic article to which people object just because it offends their sensibilities. ­ Kris (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least the article is kept now. -- IRP ☎ 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Instability

If you think there is any information missing from the target of the redirect, add it there (I do not think there is anything that needs to be copied, but if you think the article can be improved, go ahead). There is no need for a merger process as the article purports to refer to the same phenomenon. For your convenience, I have added the text from the redirected article to the target's talk page.

AfD nomination of Shouting match

I have nominated Shouting match, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouting match. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bongomatic (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Bongomatic (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Can you please help me at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shouting_match. I would like to know if you think it should be deleted. -- IRP ☎ 04:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it does appear to be something more appropriate for Wiktionary. And I'm noting that wikt:shouting match, does not seem to currently exist. - jc37 04:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that it was appropriate to flag it for deletion though? In fact, one user said that it should be kept and rewrote it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouting match -- IRP ☎ 14:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC), modified 14:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Storm train

I have nominated Storm train, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm train. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bongomatic (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Bongomatic (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Storm train, Shouting match, and similar articles

Hi IRP, have you read through WP:N and WP:V? These are key policy statements / guidelines that determine what is and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. It may also be useful for you to read WP:NOT, in particular the sections on dictionary entries and indiscriminate information.

I and I'm sure many others appreciate the information you have added to Wikipedia. However, it might be worth stepping back and thinking about issues such as these before you add new pages:

• Would it be more informative to include the information on VORTEX2 on the VORTEX page, and if you seriously think people would get lost by not having an entry on VORTEX2 create a redirect page?
• Would it be more informative to add a section on dry thunderstorms on the Thunderstorm or Virga page than to create a new page (and similar question for Rotating thunderstorm)?
• Why is it useful to have an entry on Shouting match? Can you imagine anyone needing the information on that page? If so, why not have ones on Yelling match and Screaming match?

Sometimes it seems as though your enthusiasm for new articles--and attachment to them--occasionally trumps your concern for the utility of the encyclopedia. I am not suggesting that additional information on topics that are covered in Wikipedia is not useful--to the contrary, people adding more detail over time is why there are so many rich articles here. But having that information scattered around in short (often redundant) pieces that lack key highly-related information is not the goal. Bongomatic (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Storm train

Hi IRP, I saw your vote under the AfD discussion for Storm train. While I prefer to assume good faith, it is sometimes difficult to do so when an editor makes statements of opinion in what are intended to be rational discussions without any reasoning, and without addressing the (possibly flawed) points made by other parties. If my perspective on Storm train or any other article is illogical, I would welcome an articulate explanation of how. Bongomatic (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi IRP, I saw your response under the AfD discussion for Storm train. I note that you still haven't addressed the merits of the discussion and have simply made a statement about your preferred outcome. Wikipedia disagreements (in my opinion) are not about alliances of editors with and against one another (as you suggest with your request that I see what another editor said on a different topic), but about determinations of what is best for an encyclopedia. In the case of Storm train, this is not about whether the content belongs or not, but about whether or not essentially identical content should be contained in two almost entirely overlapping articles, which is not at all the question in respect of Shouting match. I have yet to see you or anyone address the matter at hand in this article. As always, I am prepared to stand corrected. Bongomatic (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do agree that you should see the editing policy, because many of the articles you tag for deletion simply need improvement. You said that the article on storm trains almost completely overlaps training. But how about this example: a supercell is a type of thunderstorm, as storm training is a type of training. If you look at the article about thunderstorms, you will see a section about the supercell, and a link to the main article. I would say that there should be a similar edit here, because it is a similar situation. -- IRP ☎ 17:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You may find it very interesting about how the thunderstorm article started. It didn't have much information, but how did it get to the stage it is at now? CONTRIBUTORS IMPROVED IT!!! If you saw the article starting in 2002, knowing you, you probably would have flagged it, but now, after years of article development, you now have no excuse to flag it. -- IRP ☎ 17:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In the article storm train, User:Runningonbrains said that the deletion tag was not appropriate for the article, so why did you choose to re-add it knowing that it didn't belong there? -- IRP ☎ 17:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo of edit on Tornado

Simply put, I did it because there are so many different synonyms for the word "tornado" that listing them all in the lead would be exceedingly awkward, while listing only one of them could fall afoul of WP:UNDUE. Moreover, listing other terms for them would be more appropriate to Wiktionary than Wikipedia; redirects are already in place for the most common synonyms, so someone searching for them would automatically be sent to Tornado instead. Thanks for asking, though--I admit I wasn't that clear with my edit summary. Rdfox 76 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. -- IRP ☎ 17:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, could you help me with my AfD case? -- IRP ☎ 17:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

um...

What do you want me to do?--Spittlespat! ǀ T ♦ C ♦ S 23:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just like your signature has a help cursor associated with it, I would like to know the code to get this cursor associated with my signature. -- IRP ☎ 23:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals

You said: "Yes, but they are killed humanely, not in a way where they experience unnecessary suffering" - this is the same - people can live without killing herbivores. YukonWorld (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So? It's not cruel for people to kill them in a way where they aren't tortured. In fact, it may help prevent overpopulation of those animals. Now, if a species is endangered, then, it would be considered threatening the species. -- IRP ☎ 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest that should also control human population by killing redundant popu;ation, that would be fair! YukonWorld (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm ending the aimless conversation to stop the time-wasting. -- IRP ☎ 04:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but I would like to waste more than just freetime of yours! YukonWorld (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoring libel

Hi, don't restore libel such as you did here. You must always pay attention when reverting blankings. Cenarium ^Talk 02:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already noticed it, I was about to self-revert when I noticed I made a mistake, however somebody else reverted it. But thanks for letting me know anyway. -- IRP ☎ 02:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandal

I don't think he'll stop anytime soon, but you never know. It would probably be a better idea to give him a level three because more than a few vandals stop after reading WP:BLOCK. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember, when you're ready, you can report the IP to WP:AIV. -- IRP ☎ 03:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

VP

VP has long been disabled - see the reply right above your message on the project talk page and you'll see...--Cahk (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reverting

I'd like to think I'm that fast by hand, but I'm not. I am using a program called Huggle. It's pretty insane: in my experience it is neck-and-neck with Cluebot. Unfortunately, it is kind of unstable now due to changes to MediaWiki, so I wouldn't recommend trying it now. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. What I'm using is iMacros for Firefox, and a macro I created, "Restore page.iim". -- IRP ☎ 23:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Many ways to help

Hi IRP, you write (oddly, on someone else's talk page):

Bongomatic, I'm not the only victim of your deletion-proposing mania. You have probably proposed a million* articles for deletion by now, as 90% of your edits to Wikipedia are proposing deletion. A couple of your deletion proposals of articles have been disagreed with, such as storm train, as User: Runningonbrains, has said that the tag was not appropriate for that article, and it was a merging concern, not a deletion concern, and that proves my point that you focus solely on the deletion policy, because you find every possible excuse to delete articles, and thank goodness you're not an administrator, as you would have wiped out a large fraction of the database. And the one to shouting match, User:Colonel Warden said that the nomination was vague, and does not establish the reason why it can't be improved in accordance to the editing policy, which proves my point that you find every possible excuse to delete articles. I know you may not want to admit to your mistakes, but you should really consider the other policies before requesting deletion of articles. *Very likely not a million, but that's just a figure of speech. -- IRP ☎ 00:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You will inevitably find people who agree with you and people who disagree with you. Rather than citing other editors' opinions, I prefer to discuss the issues directly.

You make changes that you think are helpful to the project. These changes include creating numerous redirects that appear meritless to me, as well as creating articles redundant to existing ones (such as Storm train and Instability (meteorology). I do not impugn your motives--I'm sure you have a theory of why those are useful contributions even if I happen to disagree.

With respect to my own contributions, I tend to spend a lot of time patrolling new pages, an activity that administrators believe to be a useful one (Special:NewPages recommends "Please consider patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled backlog]]). This is a good activity for me because (a) this provides an opportunity to review new articles in light of three policies that I think are at the heart of the project: WP:N , WP:V, and WP:COI; and (b) it's something that I can do while on conference calls, etc. Unfortunately, consensus is not automatically reached on new articles, as most articles aren't explicitly reviewed unless they are patrolled. The good thing about the speedy, {{prod}}, and AfD processes (that you criticize me for using) is that they work only by consensus.

Some of my speedy, {{prod}}, and AfD nominations are disagreed with for a variety of reasons--too vague, not adequately supported, or simply wrong--and some are not. That's fine, and I am happy both to be corrected when wrong, and to be overridden when my views are not supported by the consensus.

I would like to defend my record on my contributions other than tagging and flagging. I have added new articles covering content that is not addressed elsewhere in the project, such as Edward Klima, Crummey trust, Van Phillips (inventor), and made meaningful (in my opinion) contributions to other articles, by clarifying and expanding. I do roughly as much of that work as I have time to, so looking at %age of changes is not a very meaningful metric.

Bongomatic (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the decipherment. And you tag the articles for deletion mainly because you want to motivate users to improve them? Not because you hate the articles? -- IRP ☎ 01:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said, nor what I meant. There are tons of articles that appear to be beyond redemption, whose topics I believe have no rightful place in an encyclopedia. I would like to see these articles deleted. I also would like to see deleted (with the possibility of being recreated later) certain articles on some topics that may be notable, but that have been created by editors with such significant conflicts of interest that they should be scrapped and started anew. However, when the consensus doesn't support my view, that is nonetheless a positive outcome.

There are also many articles on notable topics that are very bad that I would like to see improved. Sometimes I use {{Notability}}, {{Refimprove}}, {{Unreferenced}}, and {{COI}} tags instead of speedy, {{prod}}, or AfD when it seems likely that the article is not beyond redemption or in need of a fresh start.

You may find it surprising that occasionally I argue for the retention of truly terrible articles. See WP:Articles for deletion/Cat RepellersBongomatic (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)