User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2008-01-01

Notices
Yes, I am an administrator.
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for.
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes.
For past discussions on this page, see the archive.

hi! Blueaster 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The User:Carlpeterson spammage

Thanks for putting an end to that mess! Could you close the pending AfD on one of them? DMacks 19:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was right in the middle of doing exactly that. Uncle G 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot! DMacks 20:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to User talk:Navou

I do appreciate your comments and hope that you will allow me to explain my reasoning. My recommendation was just that, only a recommendation. My recommendation clearly did not reach consensus, so no harm done, right? I stated what "appeared" to be an applicable principle and asked if this could be included into another project instead. I might change my recommendation to keep after seeing some debate, and seeing that I might be wrong about the guiding policy, or about the article.

The nominator stated "I humbly ask that the nomination just be ended now." so I closed the AFD as nom withdrawn and keep. I was the only dissent, and I withdrew my recommendation.

Also your text on my talk page appears a little presumptuous and cross, as I did put a little thought into 'What can I do to improve this article" I came up with nothing. Forgive me if I am mis-interpreting your comment. I am very familiar with the process and policy.

You are however correct about one thing, I did not look at the articles age. I'm human. Please in the future help me to improve rather than use comments like "You clearly did not..." Instead "Did you look for sources or try to expand..." might have come across better. You and I have a common goal, we both want to see Wikipedia succeed. I hold this project in high esteem, as I am sure you do. Just word your stuff different, if possible. ;P Navou ^talk 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bum Fuck, Egypt

Counting Google hits is not research. One has to actually read the things that the search locates.

• And what indication do you have that I didn't? The last listed item should have been a tiny hint. Or is the above your "Google hits" macro that you click on automatically every time you read the word "Google"? --Calton | Talk 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have the very words that you wrote as an indication: "21 hits in Google Books" "24 in Google Blogs". You're counting hits right there, without a mention of what those hits actually are. Uncle G 11:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Svenska in other languages

In Wikipedia:Notability, if you look at the "in other languages" bar, you'll see about 6 links to the sweedish language page that links you here, it began with your edit, I don't know how it got in there, and I don't see any visible code in the source that links to that page. What shall we do? I already made a comment on it on the notability talk page. Thanks RiseRobotRise 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I solved the problem, you can read about it here. RiseRobotRise 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The correct solution, as implemented by another editor, was to edit the actual template to fix the change that was recently made to it. The page itself was not the problem. Uncle G 12:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • ah yes, I realized that a few hours later. I was going to replace it with the note or ref tags, but didn't have the time. Anyways, I wasn't able to edit the page seeing hour administrators are the only ones who are allowed to edit that page. Well I'm glad that issue is resolved, and we don't have to worry about that anymore. Thanks RiseRobotRise 00:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Meta's template breaking on en:wikipedia's help-page mirrors.

Hi Uncle_G,

Templates such as m:Template:For & m:Template:tt (from Meta) are broken on the pages that are mirrored at w:Help:Template & w:Help:Advanced_templates and probably at other places too. For instance:

• {{for|call=t2|pc1=2=constant|abc|def|ghi}} incorrectly gives:
  For abc, see def and ghi.

• {{tt|t|efg}} incorrectly gives: efg

Both of the above don't work as they should have on Meta (here & here), since the w:Templates were called instead of the m:Templates. This rendered the mirrored tutorial confusing for readers. And since I learned and tried that cross-namespace template referencing, calling m:Templates from w:, is impossible, I propose placing a "soft-redirect" on the w:Help_xxx pages instead of a mirror copy, what do you think? Any other remedy? Godric/^Talk 16:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,

Sorry, I later noticed 2 notices on the mirrored pages warning about:

• some template-demos not working on these mirror copies.
• and notifying user not to edit the pages due to the transwiki-overwriting.

So you knew ahead that these 2 scenarios will likely be happening and they did: (editors contributed stuff that will be overwritten next)

• and it also mass-transwikied the "Help: pages" from meta: to wikipedia:. (here)

Then,

• What is the rationale of keeping 2 copies of the same content?
• And given that template-demos do break in the mirrored pages & editors do lose their contributions upon overwriting, then what rationale actually sustains the "rationale of keeping 2 copies of the same content"?
• Finally, would you mind to instruct your bot to do "softredirect" instead of mirror-copying in order to solve the above problems by keeping only 1 page of content in 1 place?

Thanks for your attention,

Godric/^Talk 17:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The system of having the master pages at Meta that are then copied here was created by other editors. I just do the copying from time to time. As for the templates: Go fix the master help pages if the name conflicts concern you. Meta is a wiki, too. Uncle G 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your info. Godric/^Talk 18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for kicking a troll

Thanks for taking care of User:Pontius Ethics and his whiny trolling under the guise of "legal threats." I could have blocked him, but I didn't want to be seen as abusing admin priveleges. Thanks again for your help. --Modemac 14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember when you admonished me to not delete citations?

Now someone is doing this wholesale. I reported it on WP:ANI#71.231.107.188 (talk • contribs). So you see, I can learn  ;-) — Sebastian 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Useless, short-term Yahoo News links -- I see no benefit to Wikipedia readers by leaving such deadlinks lying around.

I've switched to flagging, FWIW, but two things: I can't explain the discrepancy with the time stamps, but I did stop as soon as I saw the first 'you've got a new message' banner. Also, many, if not most, were bare URLs like "http://news.yahoo.com/photo/061009/481/9310a1bf28d54264b9ed05f6e2f5d359" which contain absolutely no information future editors could possibly use. I see no benefit to Wikipedia readers or editors by leaving such deadlinks lying around. 71.231.107.188 20:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in the answer to the question asked here. 71.231.107.188 20:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nonetheless, in the edits that I pointed out, they were not URLs like that. Uncle G 20:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Guide

Just read through the linked guide - very helpful! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I need clarification on one point though - in the guide it states that "You must not modify or remove the AFD notice". However, as you said the correct tag should be {{cleanup-rewrite}}, am I permitted to modify the notice in this case? Thanks in advance. Superfurrycannibal 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just let the discussion process continue to closure in the normal manner. Uncle G 01:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Simple route

Ya, I saw it. I just don't see that much effort in hitting the delete button to get rid of the history, so that some random guy won't revert into that and bring the problem back in 2 months. - Bobet 12:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're making a rod for all of our backs. Now we have more editors who think that simple reversion to the prior version of the article, which all of them could have done for themselves, has to go through AFD and requires an administrator to be involved in the process. Uncle G 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Boubli

I see you've speedy deleted the above article which is appearing on AfD, is there any chance you can close it for me? Cheers RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

For your great work fixing articles on AfD and your always-rational leadership in AfD discussions, I, CanadianCaesar, award you this barnstar

Deleting the right articles

I agree. That's why I removed one from the AfD batch because it looked plausible. I personally always leave plausible links too even if they were WP:COI violations but not everyone agrees. [1]--BozMo talk 12:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review to change name

Hi, there is a undelete review to change the name of the Anglophone/Analytic article, see:

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_17#Analytic.2FAnglophone_and_Continental_Philosophy

regards, Lucas 17:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox

A few extra eyes ont hat one now, thankfully. I think SB is a decent editor but given to strong opinions. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is very true (nice essay). I came too close to violating 3RR today in trying to maintain the integrity of articles that SqueakBox and another editor are attempting to derail because they choose to characterize the articles as "racist" and therefore they are automatically PoV violations. I refuse to be dragged into bad editing and refuse to continually be characterized as racist or a defender of racism or a fringe lunatic just because the other person refuses to read correctly or accept what they are reading or discuss a compromise or even acknowledge the basics of what's being discussed. Sorry, Uncle G. I may return to see what the state of the article is later, but for now I have given up on stabilizing or improving the article on the term Brown people. Good luck. ju66l3r 00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have run out of patience with this user as they continue to unwarrantedly mischaracterize my efforts (and your's) as "racist", "OR", and "trolling". After a threat of admin action on my talk page and finally another comment on the article talk page that they will crusade against my editing efforts on the article (and your's), I have simply run out of patience. I began a ArbCom enforcement for their "personal attack and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith" parole which is only halfway through. I just felt that you should know since you are somewhat involved. ju66l3r 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And another thing...

		The tireless contributor barnstar
		If there were such a thing as a canonical definition of "tireless contributor", then Uncle G would be that editor. The man who takes "sofixit" and makes it so. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Silly, silly monkey

Thanks for the :-) I'd love to be able to put a "Silly Monkey" Graphic into some of those absolutely nonsensical AfD's (especially the massively lame sock puppeteers! Maybe I'll recruit an artistic-type friend to come up with the "Chewbacca Defense Barnstar" for massively lame & long-winded debaters (would look good on some Discussion pages too!!) SkierRMH 09:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice going on paper cup

Thanks for the work. It might be even better if you did a merger with Dixie cup--Wehwalt 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Of all the people that understand Wikipedia, you are probably my best resource for my question.

Why are individual video games considered to be "encyclopedic"?

I'm having a bit of trouble, wrapping my Wiktionary brain around that concept. AFAIK, no other encyclopedia has entries like that. Certainly not listed as "Featured Articles" or otherwise advertised as hallmark entries. So, what gives? Is it a concerted troll effort to make Wikipedia look astronomically worthless? (If you can answer my question, of course, then I'll ask the same about Pokemon.)

TIA. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 09:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For more, see User:Uncle G/On sources and content, User:Uncle G/On notability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

The question assumes a falsehood as its premise. Individual video games are not necessarily encyclopaedic. Some are. Some are not. Facts about video games belong here if they are verifiable from good sources. Whether a game warrants an individual article in its own right, or merely the inclusion of the verifiable facts within a larger context, is determined by whether it is notable. If there is no verifiable information at all about a video game, then it doesn't belong here, in any form. (Wikipedia isn't a free hosting service for video game authors to publish their documentation on, nor is it a publisher of first instance for documenting games that haven't been documented already.) If there's only ever going to be a single verifiable fact about a video game, then it doesn't warrant an entire article all to itself.

To explain Wikipedia in Wiktionarian terms: Think of Wikipedia as being descriptivist. We aren't here to create or to change human knowledge. We are here to document it as it is. Therefore what belongs here is determined by what the world at large has chosen to document. If you look at Bulbasaur#Notes and references you'll see that the world at large has chosen to document Bulbasaur, on web pages and in books. Therefore it is appropriate for Wikipedia.

Human knowledge is uneven, unfair, and incomplete. Things that one may consider "worthy" are often completely undocumented; and things that one may consider to be "worthless" may be documented in extensive detail. Wikipedia isn't here to right that perceived wrong. (The way to right that wrong is, of course, to persuade the world to write more stuff about the "worthy" subjects, or to pull one's finger out and to write books and articles about the "worthy" stuff onesself. But neither of those involve Wikipedia in any way.)

One further thing that perhaps should be included in any "Wikipedia for Wiktionarians" guide is this: One thing that we can do at Wiktionary but not at Wikipedia is Recognize New Stuff. Wiktionarians can, with enough solid and checkable quotations to hand, demonstrate the widespread use of new words, or of old words in new ways, and adduce and document their meanings. The Wikipedia:No original research policy prevents doing such primary research here at Wikipedia.

This has some bearing on your question. One easy answer to the question "Why does Wikipedia include films/video games/television programmes?" is "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It should cover fields that one finds covered in other encyclopaedias. What do you expect to find when you look in an encyclopaedia of films/video games/television programmes?". There is a caveat to that. In some encyclopaedias one will find the results of primary research done by the author of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia can use such research if it has already been done, fact checked, reviewed, and published outside of Wikipedia. But, unlike those books, Wikipedia isn't the place for such primary research to actually be done directly. Uncle G 20:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Perhaps I should rephrase my question then. Do you have any idea why the Wikipedia "Featured Articles" often feature items that one would never find in a traditional encyclopedia? Personally, I've never seen a "Gaming Encyclopedia" nor a "Pokemon Encyclopedia", but I'll take your word on it, that such things do exist. (And yes, your explanation above was quite helpful.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What is a featured article depends in large part from both who is willing to work on it in the first place and what editors decide they wish to feature. Featuring things that paper encyclopaedias would not does have a certain cachet with Wikipedia editors. For details, though, I suggest reading the present and past discussions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and talking to those who are heavily involved in the process. I'm more usually working at the opposite end of the article spectrum, where the articles have far to go before reaching featured article status. Uncle G 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if our paths have crossed before, but I was directed here by the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I just wanted to compliment you on your exceptionally clear reply, Uncle G. Perhaps it should be on a policy page somewhere... -- ALoan (Talk) 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I always find Uncle G's explanations to be of the highest quality. Carcharoth 02:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As a side-note here, encyclopedias can indeed vary greatly in scope, size, format and reliability. Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Encyclopedia Galactica, Wikipedia, etc. Regarding fictional topics being covered by specialist encyclopedias, I suspect the evolutionary process begins with 'Guides', for example The Complete Guide to Middle-earth, and the online 'Encyclopedia of Arda', and the 'Star Trek Encyclopedia', and various 'Companion...' books. The vast majority of these are in-universe stuff that many don't see as truly encyclopedic (and I would tend to agree). But then you have items like the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, which is a collection of scholarly essays and literary criticism. Some bits are truly encyclopedic, and some aren't. But these uses of the term encyclopedia clearly show that you have to define what you mean when you say 'encyclopedic'. Carcharoth 02:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning fi:Wikipedia:Hiekkalaatikko

Could you reset also the Finnish Sandbox by your SANDBOT? Some times vandals remove the header template. {{subst:Hiekka}} resets the sandbox. —Iirolaiho 17:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've created the necessary accounts and added this task to the 'bot. The first run should be in just over 1 hour's time. Uncle G 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Space warfare in fiction

An editor has nominated Space warfare in fiction, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space warfare in fiction (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO

Hey Uncle G, you took out the old "One day's events count as one coverage" back here, and I've been quoting it lately only to see that it's not in the guideline anymore. Is there any reason it shouldn't be? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2007-01-01#Edit to WP:BIO Uncle G 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, I've been quoting it repeatedly in the debate that just started at Wikipedia:Notability (news), and I think things could be helped if that was explicit somewhere. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

• your edit

Don't edit war over a speedy deletion tag when you are misapplying it. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion carefully and understand the cases that they are addressing. The author's request criterion is there for cases where someone accidentally creates something in the wrong place or that xe shouldn't have created, and requires administrator intervention in order to rectify that mistake. It does not apply to articles which have been edited by at least three different accounts and several IP addresses, and which were not created by mistake. Uncle G 09:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, that was 11 hours ago, so I am obviously not going to change it back. Your ex post facto warning is completely worthless. If you had bothered reading the history of this "edit war", you would see that I quote a speedy deletion criterion in an edit summary. You are just repeating what someone else has already said to make your self feel important. John Reaves (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• As I have already explained once, what you wrote in your edit summary did not apply, as you would have seen from looking at the article's edit history. Once again: Please read our criteria for speedy deletion carefully and understand the cases that they are addressing. Uncle G 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just find something better to do than issue needless warnings hours too late. (Also, any replies should go on my talk page since that where you started this.) John Reaves (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There clearly is a need to point you in the direction of our speedy deletion criteria. You tagged an article under a criterion that didn't apply to it. When you have read our criteria for speedy deletion carefully, please then read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Technical and format standards to learn that there are other ways of writing conversations on talk pages that differ from the disjointed one that you yourself favour. Uncle G 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to reread those pages. As you clearly haven't seen, I didn't add it, I reverted it. I see that you haven't "warned" the original tagger. I know that that some people people prefer annoying conversations that involve watchlisting, I don't. Most people have what's known as common courtesy and will abide by other users wishes. Let me direct you to m:Don't be a dick. John Reaves (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • That you added the tag to the article after Shyam Bihari pointed out that the criterion didn't apply is exactly why I pointed you at our criteria for speedy deletion. It was you that erroneously disputed the quite correct removal of the tag, not anyone else. It is you, and not anyone else, that thus needs to be pointed in the direction of the speedy deletion criteria and told what that criterion is actually for. For the third time: Please read our criteria for speedy deletion carefully and understand the cases that they are addressing.

          By the way: Talking about common courtesy whilst at the same time calling other editors "self important" and "dicks" is almost as ironic as talking about abiding by other users' wishes whilst at the same time telling other editors to employ one's own style of conversation, contrary to those other editors' expressed wishes. Uncle G 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose that now that it has been established just how full of yourself you are, I will try to ignore you and your blind faith in policy. John Reaves (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I was jerk. I'm really sorry about this exchange. I have no idea why I was so argumentative. Once again, sorry. John Reaves (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

O, not ability again...

Draft revision, based on your version and lengthy recent discussions at WT:N:

User:Trialsanderrors/On_notability

Would be nice if you can give it a look. ~ trialsanderrors 06:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Chip-india

I saw you weigh in on the redirect revert war occuring in the above captioned article. The block, I think, is a good idea until someone can prove the magazines merged or assimilated. However, the block will only effect one of the users making changes. The other, User:Wikiga, will not be effected. Is my understanding correct? --Silverhand^Talk 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I considered this when choosing semi-protection over full protection. It depends from how new the account is. In any event, I suggest that you make further efforts to engage Wikiga (talk · contribs) in discussion, without using boilerplate messages. I also suggest that you open discussions on the respective articles' talk pages. Uncle G 17:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes sir, I understand. Thank you for your time! --Silverhand^Talk 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No worries. Uncle G 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm, this may become a moot point --Silverhand^Talk 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your incredible work in creating, writing, and sourcing the new Space warfare in fiction page, I, S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 , hereby award you this Original Barnstar. Keep up the good work! --S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It was meant in part to be an example of how to go about writing such articles properly. All of the content that I wrote was based upon secondary source analyses of science fiction that had been already written and published by a science fiction critic, historian, or writer. Take heed. There's a lesson to be learned from how different Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space warfare in fiction is to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space warfare in fiction (2nd nomination). There's also a lesson to be learned from the stark contrast between the sources that you cited and the sources that I cited. Doing our own analyses of science fiction writing (or, indeed, any fiction writing) is, per the Wikipedia:No original research policy, not what Wikipedia is for. We don't write our own analyses and then cite the work of fiction itself as the source. But we can cover topics that critics and historians of such fiction have already analysed, and written about in "history of science fiction" books (and so forth), as long as we stick to their analyses and don't introduce our own. I suggest that you go and hunt up some books about the history of science fiction on television and in the cinema, and modify your content so that it is based solidly upon their analyses of fictional space warefare on television and in the cinema; and remove anything that is your own analysis that you have made and based directly on the contents of a television programme or film. Uncle G 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

PMs on Wiki

I call them PMs for lack of a better term. I know there are no PMs on Wiki, but when I am typing, I put down PMs and people seem to know what I am talking about. I could but "message on my talk page", but "PM" takes up less room:). - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoration

As a fairly new user of Wikipedia, I would like to know why the Spider's Web redirect page was replaced. This is so I can understand why this happened and whether I should leave it alone for once and for all. Totalinarian 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC) PS. I have put it up for deletion again; please use the link in this section to add your opinions or remove it if you wish.

• Please read Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for? and then the first sentence of spider web. Uncle G 19:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Okay. Thanks for the response. Totalinarian 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiBooks: Catullus

Thank you for pointing that out. I have gone back and learnt the code now, so in future all the vocab lists will be tagged to WikTionary.

Here is a sample:

[2] Catullus 70

I feel however that the vocab lists should remain in the poems, because of the unclear usage of some words - so as to provide a more-rounded understanding of the text, by giving more suggestions. And I have no qualms about writing it out either. It's nice to see that my work is being appreciated. :D Alakazam138 13:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There are times when the vocab and the meaning can interlink - the vocab could mean one thing and the text could mean another. For example the word flamma usually means flame, and that much would be obvious to any reader. Of course in romantic poetry there isnt much talk of physical flame, and so it has come to mean tingle, passion, desire and so on. I will however start finding some model WikTionary articles on Latin entries, and copy their style when inputting the vocab. That way, any further information, solely on the language will be available, with the literary connotations in the appropriate WikiBooks passage. If you have any further suggestions, on how I could improve, feel free to ask - your user page indicates that you have a lot of know-how about many different aspects of the Wiki- label. Alakazam138 14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lurker Jerry lavoie 19:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. --Kevin Murray 04:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Brown people

There is a new discussion on whether this article has an unencyclopedic nature that I would like to hear your opinion on. Thanks. ju66l3r 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Uncle G's 'bot

Hi, I do some editing on wikipedia an also on [The Student Room Wiki. We currently have a large number of revision notes pages over there which we want to change the name of from 'Revision Notes:Graphs' to 'Revision:Graphs' to make better use of searching in name spaces. We probably have between 1000 and 1500 pages which need moving like this. I'm lead to believe the above named bot is capable of moving pages. Would you be able to help us in nay way? I've no idea how bots work, but being able to get something to help us out would be a massive help and make the revision notes much more user friendly for the students. Sorry to bother you if you are unable to help :-) Evil Eye 19:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have a list of those 1500 pages on that wiki, or is it to be simply all pages that begin with "Revision Notes:"? Uncle G 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It is every page whos name begins 'Revision Notes:' All will be in at least one of the subcategories of the Revision Notes category. Evil Eye 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Since I dislike editing archived discussions, I'll respond here. Yes, administrators should coordinate and decide what to do to avoid a wheel war. However (and maybe I was misinterpreting here), it was looking like several admins were supporting the idea that the article should simply be kept deleted. Had this continued and then been implemented, it would have gone beyond admins discussing how they use the tools, and on to them making deletion decisions without consulting the community (if you follow me). In short, I feel admin discussions should have focused on how to handle a wider debate, and not gone into the merits (or otherwise) of the article. Regards. Trebor 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Catullus

Getting on nicely with the Catullus... plodding along you know. A question I have:

Is there anyway to 'advertise' for helpers in a particular project? Whilst I enjoy doing it, I have been working solo for the past 2 weeks. There's a lot that needs to be done to get it to a finished WikiBook standard. Thanks in advance. Alakazam138 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've already posted one notice on the Wiktionary:Beer Parlour calling for any lexicographers who like Latin to swing by and help. You might like to add to it. Perhaps a notice on Talk:Catullus as well would help. Uncle G 18:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Fair play, you may have given it prominence in November 2006, but I added the fact that it existed across most guidelines in September 2006.[3] I just didn't give it a section header or make it prominent. Deliberately. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Along these same lines, I'd love to get your input on the proposed changes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

removal of prods

I see you replaced the prods with original research tags. The reason I put these prod tags on is because the articles are not capable of not being original research-- ie, they are unencyclopedic. Could you discuss at the talk pages why you disagree? Thanks, --Urthogie 04:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"What links here" counter

Hello Uncle G, I was wondering if you were aware of any tool that allows one to get a relatively quick count of the number of "What links here" links a given page has? Thanks in advance for a response. (→Netscott) 05:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've never encountered one. You could ask one of the people with Toolserver accounts to write one. Uncle G 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's a remotely reasonable number, copy the URL of the 500 link of the Whatlinkshere page, change the limit to 5000 (the maximum that MediaWiki will accept), yielding a url similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/User_talk:Uncle_G&limit=5000&from=0. Paste the result into a text editor like emacs that displays line number and trim away the header and footer. (If the number isn't remotely reasonable, you can play around with the from= parameter.)

    Failing that, my bot has a function that fetches a list of all pages in a given page's whatlinkshere list that I suppose I could split out and clean up. I don't recall offhand how independent it is from the rest of the script, but it shouldn't be terribly difficult to turn it into a stand-alone. —Cryptic 11:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Narnia

It's stubby, but you certainly have got a point. Seeing as the reasoning isn't valid any longer, feel free to undo my redirect. If anyone asks, you can point them to this post. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

request for help explaining the difference between a redirect and a deletion

Good evening, Uncle G. I am having a terrible time explaining to a user that turning a page into a redirect is not the same as a deletion, that redirects to not require AFD decisions and that AFD decisions do not preclude the possibility of turning a page into a redirect in the future. Could I impose on you to perhaps see if you can explain the issue better? I can't seem to get the point across clearly. The conversation is at Talk:Bee's knees. Thanks in advance. Rossami (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Xe hasn't replied to you, yet. I'm going to hold off to see what xyr reply, if any, is, first. I have already discussed this article with that very same editor in the AFD discussion, note. Uncle G 14:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

Hi Uncle G. You added the statement "Notable here is used in its adjectival sense of "worthy of being noted" to WP:N.[4] In my view, this is the best characterization of Wikipedia:Notability. However, I think it may help to clarify that statement even further. Some Wikipedia editors may read that statement and think the issue is whether the topic is worthy of being noted in Wikipedia. However, the issues is whether the source material thinks the topic is worthy of being noted in thier publications. Wikipedia editor's involvement is to determine whether the collective source material has demonstrates that the topic has been noted to the point where the collective source material demonstrates that the topic is worthy for their collective publications. If the collective source material demonstrates that the topic is worthy for their collective publications, then Wikipedia consensus should be that the source material the topic is worthy to be in Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- Jreferee 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists of palindromic phrases

Could I bother you to take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 25#Lists of palindromes? My experience with Wiktionary is sparse and out of date, and a better-informed opinion of whether these should be transwikied would be welcome. —Cryptic 12:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL

• Talk:LOL (Internet slang)

Didn't agree with you about this one. sorry.DGG 00:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• There's no need to apologize for disagreeing. I was seeking a legitmate third opinion from an uninvolved editor, not a rubber stamp for my own arguments. ☺ Uncle G 15:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines

There's another one of those discussions about deprecating the term "notability", at Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview. I thought you might want to know. >Radiant< 09:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For bringing exceptional rationality and clarity of thought to often irrational debates, I award Uncle G the Barnstar of Diligence. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 11:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Change at People

I ask that you revert your last change at People since it that is now inconsistent with the current version of WP:N. I think that the subordinate critera should include a template with common restatement of the Primary Criterion if it needs to be restated at all, but that's a topic for another day. I support your right to disagree as long as consitency is maintained among the permutations from WP:N. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• The current version of Wikipedia:Notability is another of your changes, and is just as wrong as your change to WP:BIO was. It has been already explained to you why it is wrong on the talk page. I've held off reverting your change there because the page is protected. Uncle G 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Wikipedia:Availability

I'm creating this as a proposal to clean things up with all the misunderstandings that surround notability as applied in wikipedia, and figured since you wrote one of the great tomes on the topic you might want to weigh in. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Replacing WP:N

Since you were one of the inspirations for the page, I figured I should let you know personally that I'm working on a replacement page that's getting some decent discussion at Wikipedia:Article inclusion. Take a look at that and the discussion here and provide any input you're capable of. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy criteria

Thanks for picking me up on that. Always pleased to improve my policy knowledge - hadn't noticed that before (not that I often spot repost material). I've amended my tag to A7. --Dweller 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with m:Help:Transwiki

Hi, I'm mentioning this to you as you have some experience with this subject. The m:Help:Transwiki page appears to be rather broken. The example given at the bottom of the page, as to how to transwiki from the english to the french wikipedia, no longer would work. This is because the French wikipedia, as well as, from what I can tell, all the other non-english wikipedias, no longer appears to use a transwiki log. If it does, I can't find it, even by using google's translation feature (I don't speak any other languages). Looking for Transwiki in the german, spanish, etc. wikipedias yields nothing. The french wikipedia has Transwiki linking to fr:Special:Log/Import, where of course nothing can be entered. If transwikiing is to be done between wikipedias of different languages, what is to be the procedure now? --Xyzzyplugh 07:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Contributions

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of your massive contributions to numerous Wikimedia projects, and in particular for completely rewriting Newspaper riddle, ... have a barnstar. Many thanks, Black Falcon 08:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Micropolitan areas.

Thanks for the tip. I checked for incoming redirects, and Pottsville, PA μSA did not have an incoming from Table of United States Micropolitan Statistical Areas -- turns out the table links directly to Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. But thanks again. NawlinWiki 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Flynn

Thanks for catching my over-zelous db-attack tag.  :) In the back of my mind I was thinking of the character from Tron. Just not in the front of my mind. Cheers! --EarthPerson 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• No worries. ☺ Uncle G 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Biting newbies

Hmm, clearly we disagree over what constitutes a good faith attempt to improve an article - the article as it stood struck me (and still strikes me) as empty of useful content and the change designed purely to avoid an appropriate speedy delete. It could possibly have been speedied for that very reason - I reverted it instead simply because it was quicker and neater and there was no sign that the article was going to grow to anything beyond an essentially empty entry (as it has, in fact, turned out). In any case, it hardly counts as biting the newbies, I'd have said, and I was under the impression that that non-removal of a speedy by the author is, in fact, a firm policy (although, of course, so is ignore_all_rules:). However, thanks for providing your POV on the issue which I'll genuinely bear in mind. All the best StuartDouglas 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• "the change designed purely to avoid an appropriate speedy delete" — You're not assuming good faith as well as biting the newbies. As for your statement that "there was no sign that the article was going to grow to anything beyond an essentially empty entry (as it has, in fact, turned out)": You can hardly use that as justification, since it it is probable that it was the biting itself that has caused the entry to develop no further. Think of things from Hrishikes's point of view. Xyr first attempt to start the article is hit with a deletion tag in under a minute. Hrishikes is clearly an editor who hasn't yet learned the use of "Show Preview", and can have gaps of tens of minutes between edits. Given that, it's possible that this was to be the first edit of a long series of edits. When xe improves the article a few minutes later, adding some actual content, xyr edit is reverted a minute later with an edit summary that, essentially, chastises xem not to do that and all of xyr content is removed from the article. A little later, the article is deleted entirely. It's not that surprising that xyr contributions have ceased, and the hypothesis that the biting put xem off improving the article is just as likely as your hypothesis that xe didn't intend to improve the article. Uncle G 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fair points, all - and you're certainly right that I did forget to assume good faith. As I said, I will genuinely bear what you said in mind and will try not to be so overly-zealous in reverting and speedying RCs from newbies (I'm essentially a newbie myself after all). Regards StuartDouglas 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected titles/March 2007/List

Hello! If you add a title to WP:PT before performing the deletion, the page with cascading protection enabled (in this case, Wikipedia:Protected titles/March 2007) must have its cache purged before the protection will take effect. —David Levy 20:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't you know it? That was the one page where I hadn't tried "action=purge". ☺ Uncle G 20:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

March 17, 2007 Informal Request For Wikipedia Administrative Resolution: Request For A Stand-Alone 'Scientific communities of practice' Wikipedia Site.

Since the owner of the 'Communities of Practice' site has summarily removed the 'scientific communities of practice' contribution today (without comment or negotiation), a separate stand-alone 'Scientific communities of practice' (shown below) entry is offered to avoid site warring, while still giving voice to a large and growing body of scientific research: Notable citations in the field of 'scientific communities of practice' include the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, to academic institutions around the world. (Notability simply cannot be cited as a concern with this scientific field).

As the scientific readership of Wikipedia grows, the need to address their scientific interests must grow also. Moreover, there are a growing number of consumers who would like to understand 'the science' of many of the central issues of our time: 'Scientific communities of practice' is one of those issues.

We are asking for an expedited approval of the 'Scientific communities of practice' entry in exchange for removing this topic from all other Wikipedia sites. We would appreciate your expedited approval of this request, and we would welcome any editorial contributions that would strengthen the encyclopedic knowledge that this entry affords to Wikipedia readers.

Sincerely, Stevenson-Perez 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)stevenson-perezStevenson-Perez 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific communities of practice As revealed in the 2003 Snyder & Souza-Briggs “Communities of Practice” research publication (1), all communities of practice (CoPs) represent the informal levels of human interaction that steward the knowledge-assets of organizations and societies.

Scientific CoPs are no exception in this regard.

The detailed scientific analysis of the unique applications of knowledge assets that take place within scientific communities of practice has become an area of intense research in recent years; particularly as many western nations begin to transition into Science and Technology Information Age economies. As Coakes and Clark make clear in their latest 2006 communities of practice research (“Communities of Practice In Information & Knowledge Management” 2), the proper application of knowledge assets by pertinent communities of practice has suddenly become a central business concern of many modern societies.

Said another way, the specific approaches utilized by scientific CoPs in the development and the application of their scientific knowledge assets is rapidly becoming the new economic engine of many former industry-based nations, as they transition into Science-Based Societies.

Obviously, ‘what really works’ in the operation of scientific CoPs, and ‘what doesn’t work’ -- as scientific organizations and scientific societies attempt to create and manage new scientific knowledge -- is a topic that demands rigorous scientific investigation.

The most immediately distinguishing factor about scientific communities of practice, is that all scientific CoPs are unified, and readily distinguishable from all other CoPs, by their strict adherence to the use of the scientific method in the day-to-day operations that create and manage scientific knowledge:

1. By definition, all scientific CoPs develop and steward scientific knowledge-assets; after all, the Latin root for ‘science’ means ‘having knowledge’. All scientific organizations within the scientific community are knowledge management organizations.

2. Almost without exception, scientific CoPs also steward the learning-assets of their organizations: Again, by definition, all succesful scientific research organizations must possess a vibrant CoP learning-asset dimension. All scientific research organizations engage in a disciplined refinement of scientific data to new scientific information to new scientific knowledge, as they engage in scientific organizational learning.

3. In addition, scientific CoPs almost universally steward suffering-abatement-assets that are used daily by the organization. As an example, consider the stated mission of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to ensure the safety & efficacy of all American drug products & medical devices: All legally authorized medical organizations in the U.S. (and in most western nations) have a counter-part scientific CoP dimension to respond to this federal mandate. Other examples of where this 'greater-good responsibility' CoP principle is applied include in the operation of all nuclear energy research facilities, aircraft manufacturers, and nanomolecule design organizations, that have similar responsiblities to promote the safety and quality of life of citizens worldwide.

Several academic groups worldwide have begun to address the challenge of improving those scientific CoPs that have global dimensions, or that require significant digital and computer network support ( 3 ).

Kienle & Wessner offered their Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning model to measure the actual performance of scientific CoPs in Germany. ( 4 ).

Scientific CoPs in most Western nations, such as the United States, also demonstrate three additional characteristics in their operation that are remarkable:

1. Ever since the release of the Snyder and Souza-Briggs Community-of-Practice research (and their articulation of the landmark CoP definition, as cited above) scientists now understand that their scientific CoPs are always operating (24/7). All grant-funded science in the U.S., especially government-supported clinical medicine organizations, always operates in a scientific CoP setting.

2. Scientific CoPs operate principally at the informal organizational level, not at the formal, legal, or the administrative levels of organizational structure. The human interactions that steward the knowledge-assets, the learning-assets and the suffering-abatement assets of scientific CoPs can usually not be located in the organizational “org-chart” of formal roles and responsibilities, but rather at the informal level of professional interactions for ‘how things really get done’ in the scientific organization.

3. The quality of the knowledge-assets, learning-assets, and suffering-abatement assets of any given scientific CoP can be measured scientifically. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has acknowledged the importance of precisely measuring the quality of all performance elements of scientific learning organizations -- especially at the informal operational level -- in such initiatives as its NIST Baldrige National Quality Program Health Care Criteria (5).

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also recently acknowledged the validity of the scientific communities of practice approach to measuring the 'value' of NIH-sponsored scientific research, with the launching of the new NIH Office of Behavioral & Social Science Research (please refer to the NIH "Healthier Lives Through Behavioral & Social Sciences Research" Report {[6]}). The specific intent of this new NIH program is to require a scientific analysis of the quality of biomedical research, beyond the levels of the purity and functionality of the material discoveries, to include the intended impact of these biomedical inventions upon the affected communities of practice (even at a global level).

Many credible elements of the American academic community are now insisting upon an early educational exposure of students to basic scientific communities of practice principles. Examples of ongoing research in this promising area of early childhood education in scientific CoP principles include Northwestern University’s “Bootstrapping a Community of Practice: Learning Science by Doing Projects in a High School Classroom Program” [7].

The U.S. National Academy of Science has recently become even more strident in this regard, insisting that the scientific community must actively pursue the creation of more-useful & more-comprehensive communities of practice in science & technology -- on a global scale [8]. The National Academy of Science has anchored the success of its 'scientific sustainability' program to the quality of the scientific communities of practice that it sponsors [9].

It should be pointed out, that scientific CoP research is still in its infancy. Much more precision & clarity about 'what scientific CoPs are' and 'how scientific CoPs operate best' can be anticipated in the years to come.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_Community_of_Practice"

those improper speedy delete tags

Thanks for catching the improper speedy delete tags I left on a couple of pages. I remain confused about the usefulness of a talk page that is not paired with an article page, though. Did the article get moved and the talk get redirected? (That seems non-standard ... Maybe the "orphan" talk could be a subpage to the destination's talk instead?) The following each give a "red" article" and a "blue" discussion. Please clarify what is happening here. Thanks! --Keesiewonder ^talk 10:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_scientists_who_dispute_the_anthropogenic_global_warming_theory&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientists_questioning_the_UN_IPCC_assessment_of_global_warming&redirect=no

• Article talk pages that aren't paired with article pages are kept if they contain archived deletion discussions. (This is because prior to 2005, deletion discussions were regularly archived on talk pages.) Otherwise speedy deletion criterion #G8 applies. However, the article talk pages that you tagged did have corresponding articles.

  Notice that when one renames an article, one has the option to rename the talk page along with it. That is the most common way that talk pages become redirects. That the article and the talk page are redirects doesn't make the talk page speedily deletable, however. After all, the talk page is there for editorial discussion of whether the article should actually be a redirect and what it should redirect to, for starters. Criterion #G8 only applies to non-existent articles. Redirection is not deletion.

  The two talk pages that you list above are redirects left behind after both an article and a talk page were moved together, and the resultant redirect in the article namespace was later deleted but the talk page was not. Uncle G 10:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Okay; no worries! Thanks for your reply. I'm just trying to understand. It seems as though edits have been made since I brought this up such that the specific pages I mentioned are now working as I originally expected. i.e. I can no longer get to a talk page w/o an article with the exact (not a redirected) name. --Keesiewonder ^talk 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Emily

I clarified the reason why I tagged it with {{dicdef}}. Just wondering if I could get your comment at Talk:Emily. Thanks, Pan Dan 13:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox bot on en-Wikisource

Hello Uncle G. Your bot recently started resetting the en-Wikisource sandbox, but the format has changed since it stopped a few months ago. Please update it to use revision 325247:

{{/Please do not edit this line}}

{{sandbox}}

Thank you. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:41:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. It should take effect with the next run. Uncle G 11:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Straphanger

Hello Uncle G. I'm of the view that Straphanger is a dicdef and belongs on Wiktionary. Am I mistaken? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wiktionary could certainly do with wikt:straphanger, and the quotations are useful for a dictionary article (They demonstrate the word being used in the 19th century.) and irrelevant to an encyclopaedia article (They don't actually tell us anything at all about straphangers, not even what they are.), so some of this content would certainly be useful. The main question is whether there is scope for having an encyclopaedia article about straphangers. For that, I strongly suggest looking for sources, to see whether anyone has discussed either subway or military straphangers in published works. If sources do not exist, then all that would exist here is overlapping redirects to the actual articles for which this is a colloquial name, and hence what we actually have is a disambiguation article (between parachutist, subway passenger, and others) that has too much dictionary article content mixed in.

  Have a look for sources. Uncle G 12:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Hi, I noticed that you run a sandbot in Finnish Wikipedia. There is no need to reset this talk page, just sandbox. :) Regards --Uusitunnus 14:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• On most projects, both the sandbox and its talk page are reset. Uncle G 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know, but there is actual talk about sandbox. Well, it does't really matter. Just saying because seems like someone reverted it every time. --Uusitunnus 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if the bot doesn't reset talk page. Can you do this for now on? --Uusitunnus 11:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Done. It should take effect with the next 'bot run. Uncle G 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks. --Uusitunnus 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiberium

With all due respect, I would like to tell you that your examples on editing the article are nonsense. You didn't find any sources about Tiberium. You found obvious facts to cite like "without Tiberium you lose". In contrast, the information purged from the article was cited to sources that anyone can confirm. I guess Tycho was right about Wikipedia. See you when the page gets unprotected, and people who have expertise on the subject of Tiberium fix it, and AMiB purges it again. You realize he's been blocked for 3RR over this behavior previously, right? Scumbag 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• It can be easily seen that the sources do discuss Tiberium, by reading what they say. As explained to you several times over the past fortnight by several editors, the information that was removed was a novel analysis and conclusion based upon playing the game, and cited playing the game itself as its source ("Source: C&C1", for example). That, from what you write here, you clearly want to continue to edit war over original research, rather than follow the example of making some effort to find sources and writing proper encyclopaedia article content based upon sources, increases my previously expressed disappointment. Please learn how to be a good encyclopaedist, that follows our Wikipedia:Attribution content policy. Uncle G 15:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, did I basically fuck everyhting up when responding to this, or do you not want to discuss it? Scumbag 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The former. Uncle G 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that. Anyways, there are articles which discuss Tiberium. However, none of them discuss where it came from, how it spreads, what it does to the local area, and what beings are evolved from, etc. You know, all the important things about Tiberium that inspired people to write about it for 4 years or so. Secondly, I take offense to the notion that I wanted to have the edit war continue - I was the one who brought it to the attention of the admins in the first place! All I want is an article that does justice to the subject in question, and AMiB's purging prohibited that. Protecting the article doesn't do it either. What does give the article justice, however, is to allow editors to use sources that are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Scumbag 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • ... which you aren't doing, haven't been doing, and don't intend to do. Yes, you clearly are simply waiting to start up the edit war and reinsert original research again: "See you when the page gets unprotected, and people who have expertise on the subject of Tiberium fix it", "When will the page in question be unprotected? The minute it is, it will be restored to proper status." You are not using sources, but on the contrary are saying that "popping in the CD" and playing the game is the way for readers to check the article. Scottie theNerd, for one, has explained to you twice, at length, why this is original research. Readers are not expected to have to perform the primary research of playing a game and forming their own conclusions from raw data in order to verify articles. If no-one has sat down and documented the things that you want to document about this material, it is incorrect to create that documentation firsthand in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is not for documenting the undocumented. The correct way to write an article, that conforms to our content policies, is to use sources.

          As I said before, you only have your own lack of proper action, and your insistence upon edit warring instead of doing what you as an encyclopaedist are supposed to be doing, to blame for the article as it stands, and not anyone else. What you write above is yet another case in point. Even though I've showed you by example how to grow the encyclopaedia article properly, you are here yet again trying to defend original research, instead of finding, citing, and using sources which is what you should be doing. I know that you aren't looking for sources because you write above that "none of them discuss where it came from, how it spreads, what it does to the local area, and what beings are evolved from". I found three sources providing analysis of the game that discussed Tiberium's back-story (and EA's reimagining of the idea), here, here, and here with about 20 minutes' effort. The so-called "people who have expertise on the subject of Tiberium" shouldn't need to put in even as much time as I in order to find sources. That you haven't found such sources in the past two weeks, or even within the past day, leads to the conclusion that you aren't making any effort in that direction at all. You aren't using sources; you aren't avoiding original research; you aren't even looking for sources; and you are stating your willingness to simply take up the edit war to reinsert original research exactly where you left off, once protection is lifted.

          Once again, please start doing what encyclopaedists are supposed to do: find, cite, and use sources, and follow our Wikipedia:Attribution content policy. Uncle G 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

          • I don't much see any assumptions of good faith in those paragraphs. I don't feel the need to re-add the information to the article, it's going to happen without any involvement from my end. Unless C&C3 gets binned right now, and the developers make it clear there will never ever be another game in the Tiberian series, there's going to be plenty of people to do it. That's the benefit of being right, there's always plenty of people willing to do the same thing.

            Secondly, you seem to be mistaken that I'm writing an encyclopaedia article. I'm writing a Wikipedia article. It's a very different thing altogether. You know, the ones that describe the Battle of Yavin, the primary-sourced Bulbasaur, and any other number of Wikipedia articles that would never exist in an actual encyclopedia. I know full well there's no way we'll agree on this topic, or even tolerate the other's existence, so I'll leave it at that. Scumbag 02:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

            • There are no assumptions, of good faith or otherwise. They aren't needed. Those are, after all, the very words that you wrote, clearly stating your intention to resume edit warring when the opportunity arises. As for Bulbasaur and Battle of Yavin: The former is not sourced on the basis of "popping in the CD" and playing a game, as you will see if you actually read its references section (once again, you aren't actually looking); and the latter is not sourced at all, as the prominent notice at the top of the article that you have apparently missed points out, and could well have the same problem with original research as the article whose original research content you were edit warring over. Yes, you are writing encyclopaedia articles. That you don't think that you are doing so, and think that dumping anything at all into Wikipedia is all right because it isn't an encyclopaedia, is perhaps part of the problem. That other people also want to dump original research into articles, because they too don't adhere to our Wikipedia:Attribution policy, does not make that right. It simply makes them, like you, people who have not yet learned to be good encyclopaedists (who find, cite, and use sources) and who don't understand that we are here to write an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source free from unverifiable material and original research. I repeat: Please learn to be a good encyclopaedist. Uncle G 11:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
              • I suppose this is the fundamental difference between us. You see people like me, putting it all onto Wikipedia is wrong, because you think it's an encyclopedia. Me, I see it as a natural extension of what Wikipedia really is. It is the people that edit Wikipedia articles that make it what it is, and what it ain't. We really don't need to argue about who is right and who isn't, because right and wrong don't factor into it. What does matter is how many people do it one way, and how many people do it another way. As for your pointing out about the "There's a warning about not sourced on the top of Battle of Yavin... that's on a lot of Wikipedia articles. Doesn't seem to bug most people that read it, and rightfully so. Nobody seems to be having a problem with black eye being uncited, or Sacrebleu, or Naked Lunch, or any of the thousands/millions like it. Wonder why? Scumbag 18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Your question is based upon an assumed premise that in fact people don't have a problem with articles that have no references. That premise is false. As for your idea that it isn't wrong for you to think that Wikipedia isn't an encyclopaedia: The tenet that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia is one of our Five Pillars. To think otherwise most definitely is wrong, without equivocation. If you disagree with that tenet, you don't understand the project at all. If you disagree with it and moreover actively work against it, by ignoring our content policies, then you'll find that eventually you won't be welcome here. I repeat: Please learn to be a good encyclopaedist. Uncle G 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • I guess that since you are citing policy instead of showing me practical examples to confirm your statements, there's nothing to debate. Scumbag 02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • That's a flimsy argument, given that we have a whole collection of featured articles that you can look at if you want to see the sort of articles that we aspire to create here. Go and read them, and the copius help pages that explain, with examples, article development and our goals here. Uncle G 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

dont be inconsiderate of blind people

the trekker is a revolution for blind people and their independence. bump into one and ask. if you dont like the copy, update it. i dont work for trekker. do you want me to send you a 'ing list of "products" on wikipedia???!!! e.g., Red Hat Enterprise Linux Holon67 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard, and attempting to portray anyone who removes advertisements as someone who is "inconsiderate of blind people" is a propaganda technique that the Institute for Propaganda Analysis identified in the 1930s as Name Calling. Uncle G 11:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Hi, I have some serious concerns with this policy. Essentially as written it appears to forbid all articles on words, rather than on topics, whereas we currently have thousands of articles on words, at least some of which I'm sure we wouldn't wish to delete. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Major_problem_concerning_this_policy. --Xyzzyplugh 02:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your concerns are not actually with the policy at all, which is fine, but are with a collection of bad articles that have long been a perennial problem, being original research magnets and causes for cargo cult encyclopaedia writing of further bad articles. Uncle G 11:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response on the article's talk page, but please come to it again and respond further, if you will. --Xyzzyplugh 14:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit more on this topic, and perhaps this will explain my concerns. The english version of wikipedia currently has perhaps 850,000 articles about subjects, 850,000 lists, and maybe only two or three thousand articles about words. WP:WINAD is essentially our primary policy page regarding articles which are about words(whether or not it was meant to be). WP:WINAD states, as the primary difference between encyclopedia and dictionary articles, that Wikipedia "articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote", while Wiktionary "articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title".

This implies that articles about words do not belong on Wikipedia.

When you combine this with that fact that many people assume "dicdef = short article, encylopedia article = long article", you end up with all short articles about words being transwikied to wiktionary and then deleted, while most long articles about words get kept. The policy doesn't say to do this, but people simply aren't sure what to do with long articles about words, and the policy gives them no help on this. "Well, it looks much longer than a dictionary definition, and this word gets 400,000 google hits, and it's an english word everyone has heard of so it must be notable, I guess this is a keepable article".

What I'm looking for here is a paragraph somewhere in the policy page which explains that while wikipedia is not a dictionary, we do have some articles on words, and that in order to have an article on a word, it needs to meet such and such a set of standards (the primary notability criterion or whatever).

What do you think of this? --Xyzzyplugh 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric Francis

Do you think this Eric Francis is the author of The Dartmouth Murders mention in the Zantop article? My hunch is yes, but I haven't been able to prove it yet ... --Keesiewonder ^talk 11:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The potted autobiography in the book does not provide enough overlapping information to be sure, and the Eric Francis article does not provide any sources against which it can be checked for accuracy, and so may well be wrong enough to cause a false negative. They both describe their subjects as photojournalists. Uncle G 12:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yup; thanks for checking. We'll figure it out soon enough. Keesiewonder ^talk 13:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm more convinced that they are different gentlemen. Please see this. Keesiewonder ^talk 11:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

Viewing the history on this Archimedes Plutonium article now shows that it was most recently edited on February 17, 2007. Yet, we both know it was edited more recently than that. Do you know what is happening behind the scenese here? --Keesiewonder ^talk 18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• It was last edited roughly 1 minute ago, by me. ☺ When I look at the edit history, it appears quite normal. You probably have some local caching problem. Uncle G 18:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weird; It looks fine now for me too, w/o clearing my cache. Thanks, though. Keesiewonder ^talk 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox bot on Meta

Hello Uncle G,

I noticed your bot is adding two templates in the Meta sandbox and its talk page: [5] [6]. Could you please update it to use the code below (r379109)?

{{/Please do not edit this line}}
== Please edit below ==

Thanks, Korg (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. It should take effect with the next run. Uncle G 01:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Korg (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you agree

FYI, in case you agree and have more time today for this than me. Keesiewonder ^talk 11:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Plutonium again

Thanks for your note. I replied on my talk page.--CSTAR 14:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of The

It is very likely you will want to comment on Wikipedia:Deletion_review#The. --Xyzzyplugh 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your merge proposal

Hi Uncle G. You may not remember me, but I had good encounters with you in the past, and was thus surprised at your merge proposal on "Chink" and "Chinaman". It's not going to pass; the two words are just too different and we already have an edit war on our hands in the latter article, so this distraction isn't very helpful. Please reconsider your idea and perhaps put it off for a while? Thanks a lot. Xiner (talk, email) 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• It wasn't my proposal. The edit summary said where the suggestion came from. Uncle G 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, my mistake there. I also see other merge proposals from the AFD, though, and the closing admin didn't make any of them a condition of the Keep decision. Xiner (talk, email) 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Xe isn't required to, and indeed some closing administrators make a point of noting that merger is an ordinary editorial decision that is separate from their decision whether to hit the delete button or not. And there is also the view that closing administrators are not edit-on-demand services, and that any editor who opines in an AFD discussion that an article should be merged should at least be prepared to shoulder the burden of that work xyrself. Some closing administrators have stated in the past that if the mergers called for are complex or lengthy, they will leave them up to the people who called for them to do, in the normal course of editing. Uncle G 21:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Essay on Notability

I have found your essay on notability useful. User:Kevin Murray has twice deleted the link to it from WP:Notability. Do you feel that it is "obsolete and misleading" as he stated in his edit summary? Thanks. Edison 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		You deserve this for keeping speculation, crystalballery and other types of rubbish out of the Britney Spears' fifth studio album, given the sheer ineptitude of most of the edits to that article. Extraordinary Machine 18:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

English language names for Chinese people

I made a nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English language names for Chinese people, but now I am thinking I made it in a haste, because I am quite annopyed with watchng a number of stupid pages (no excuse, harm already done; just explanation). Please defend your text. In particular, the elements of suspected original research, such as classification of terms, must be directly referenced (noit the terms themselves), but the classification itself. Also, it would be good if you find the title that may be fould in google, meaning that you are noit the first to systematize the topic. `'mikka 02:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the deletion discussion went out of reason, please consider adding a section in Chinese people, with some additional info of chinese immigration. `'mikka 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

You may be interested in {{cleanup-fiction}} and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Uncle G 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm a minimalist when it comes to placing templates in articles, but I do suppose this could become useful where the line between fact and fiction is blurred, such as the kayfabe texts we host. What do you think? Burntsauce 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that one should remember that there are several tools in the toolbox. You mentioned using {{unreferenced}} before. But it is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese people

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Uncle G, if I could award you Raul's common sense brick I would. People seem very determined to miss the obvious: there is only one topic, but several articles. Wikisolution: collect all content, weigh it, NPOV it, then debate the title. As usual you are the one doing patient spade work while all around behave like headless chickens, yet you never seem to lose your cool. For this, and citing in passing WP:N, I award you this Tireless Contributor barnstar, which you deserve more than any other tireless contributor I know. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran War

I could use some help here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War--Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the tagging of Pollution control

I placed a {{db-reason}} tag on the subject article yesterday. With all due respect, I would very much appreciate an explanation as to why you replaced that tag with a series of {{cleanup}} tags and major deletions of most of the content.

It seems to me that what you have done simply reduced the article to a shell with various sections containing no content other than lists of internal Wiki links ... and, in essence, invited people to create a completely new version of the article. I still believe that the article is just not needed at all for the reasons I cited in my {{db-reason}} tag. I will watch for your response here on your talk page. Regards, - mbeychok 19:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• The explanation is simple: "We don't need another article such as this one ... which is by far one of the most poorly written, formatted and organized articles that I've seen in Wikipedia." is not a speedy deletion criterion. It is a statement that the article is an article that is in need of cleanup, for which the appropriate tags are the ones now on the article. Deletion is not cleanup. Uncle G 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope that I am not outliving my welcome by asking another question. Since you are quite clear about that article not meeting the criteria for "speedy" deletion, may I instead tag it as a candidate for "ordinary" deletion rather than "speedy"? If so, what template would I use for that purpose? Regards and thanks again, - mbeychok 21:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You may, but I strongly suggest that you take sources like ISBN 0721915906, ISBN 0117539279, ISBN 8185880395, OSTI 6150807, and OSTI 5120225 in hand and write an encyclopaedia article on the subject of pollution control, instead. Even editors without accounts possess all of the tools necessary for fixing the article. You don't need an administrator to use any administrator tools, or a deletion discussion. So be bold and fix the article. One begins by researching the subject to find what sources exist for it. Uncle G 12:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I realize that further discussion will probably not sway you. However, please do me the courtesy of visiting my user page. I am a retired chemical engineer who has been a Wikipedian for about 15 months. As listed on my user page, in that time I have written or extensively expanded or essentially rewritten over 110 highly technical engineering and scientific articles, the large majority of which were about various pollution aspects or about the pollution control systems used in refineries, chemical and petrochemical plants, natural gas processesing plants, and power plants. Since I spent my first 2-3 months learning how to write a Wipedia article, those 110 articles amount to almost 9-10 articles a month. I haven't got the time nor the inclination to take a bunch of links (as you suggested) and create an unneeded article from them. That is not the way to produce a worthwhile technical article. Good technical articles can only be created by people with many years of experience in the technology they write about. Reading books and links is no substitute for real world experience. Regards, - mbeychok 03:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
        • False; and regularly proven to be false many times over, moreover. Furthermore: That you personally do not want to clean up and improve an article on pollution control is not a reason for deleting such an article. And that you personally think that it is an unnecessary subject is disproven by the people who have written entire books on it. Uncle G 11:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I never said it was an uncesessary "subject". I said it was "unneeded" because we already had many, many articles on that subject and I listed some of them in my original {{db-reason}} tag as well as the many, many categories on that subject. As for "people have written entire books on it", I am one of those people. I have written a book on industrial wastewater and another one on air pollution dispersion modelling, both of which are held in over 200 university and other libraries worldwide ... and used as a textbook in a number of universities. I repeat once more (and this will be my final word), that the proposed article which I tagged is completely unneeded in Wikipedia, and links to books and websites is absolutely no substitute for real world experience. Regards, - mbeychok 15:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Repeating your error doesn't make it any less wrong. This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. The skill set required here, in order to be an encyclopaedist, comprises the abilities to condense and summarise secondary sources, to find sources, to evaluate sources, to read, and to write. That is completely different to subject matter expertise, and one can very well be a subject matter expert without the ability to be an encyclopaedist.

              Incidentally, your claims of having "real world experience" and to have written books won't wash here, and won't win you any arguments. We don't accept "Trust me. I'm a doctor." here. To the world, you, like everyone else, are merely someone with a pseudonym on a wiki about whom nothing is known. What matters here are sources, the very "books and web sites" that you are decrying. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the reasons that underpin it.

              The "web site links" were in fact pointers to papers in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, incidentally. This exemplifies my point about skill sets. Distinguishing journal articles from web sites is not necessarily part of the required skill set of a chemical engineer with "real world experience", but is one part of the required skill set of an encyclopaedist, part of whose task comprises the evaluation of sources. Uncle G 23:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that if we leave it this way, everybody without the SLIGHTEST knowledge about ANYTHING could and would be encouraged to create articles saying nothing and whose topics are covered by other articles and then leave it there. The article simply features nothing worth editing it's just a collection of links which are also added without even studying the subject.

We have enough coverage about pollution control, my first article was very well structured and documented but was deleted because I was new to Wikipedia. But if we encourage people to write such articles and don't penalize them, we wouldn't have any encyclopedic content in Wikipedia. The invitation to modify it and re-create it is not justified because you should have something to modify. This way, we could all create articles just by writing their title and adding some links. The Vindictive 14:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• You are making three errors. First, you are thinking solely in terms of penalizing people. The goal is to write an encyclopaedia, not to punish people. Second, you are ignoring the idea of collaborative editing. This is a collaborative project. It is acceptable for an editor to write a stub that you then build upon. Third, you are mischaracterizing the article as being an article with zero content and just a collection of links, with "nothing to modify". If it had been such, it would have been eligible for speedy deletion. (That is one of our criteria.) But it has at least 1 paragraph of context upon which other editors can expand.

  Once again: If you don't want to leave the article "this way", take the sources in hand and expand it. That's what we do with stubs. The route to "not having any encyclopaedic content in Wikipedia" is for editors to be unwilling to write. As I said before, I suggest that you write an article on the subject of pollution control. Uncle G 15:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be right but there are lots of material about pollution control within all the major articles about pollution: air, water, noise, soil. That's why I think this article is not necessary. When we talk about the same thing, we would have lots of similar articles. Or should we delete the sections in the existing articles and place them here instead? The Vindictive 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Uncle G's 'bot bug

Hi Uncle G, just a quick heads up since I have to run: unless I'm mistaken (which I very well might be), Uncle G's bot appears to be adding MoveToMediaWiki templates to mainspace articles (I just noticed this onHelp:Inputbox). I always thought that was a meta-specific template that didn't work on en.wiki. Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know. Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 02:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• You're mistaken. ☺ First you're mistaken about the namespace. "Help:" is not the main article namespace. Second, you're mistaken about who added the template. The 'bot just copied the wikitext verbatim. The editor who actually added that template to the master copy added it here. Uncle G 11:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Template_talk:Not_verified#Redirect__to_Template:Unreferenced

RE: your comment "The events of last year should have taught editors the error of the notion that we should not make it clearly visible to readers when content is suspect or unsourced" on Template_talk:Not_verified#Redirect__to_Template:Unreferenced - To what do you refer? Jeepday 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not going to re-hash this in detail here, because it has been subject to months of discussion in many fora already. See Wikipedia#Criticism and controversy and Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts for two of the many entry points to the whole discussion. Uncle G 15:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the links, not all editors had an opportunity to learn directly from the events you mentioned. Jeepday 15:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?

I raised this at a WP:ANI thread [7]: Even if it has little chance of affecting consensus, I think this AFD speedy-keeping is disruptive for its sheer irritation value (maybe some kind of WP:POINT), and the facetious nature of some of the reasons makes it hard to AGF. But they're taking a rather laid-back approach to it. Tearlach 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm taking a laid-back approach to it, too. Uncle G 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, from my standpoint, agressive deltionism is irritating and I just wanted to support those who take time creating articles. I tried to come up with a reason for why each of those articles are good. I don't claim to be the smartest guy on earth, so others might be more eloquent than I, but I really did think something could be said in each of those articles' defense, so why not say it? My hopes were to help people out who might not even be aware that their article was targetted and to give the articles another chance to be improved upon. Well, anyway, my back pain is getting unbearable, so have a nice night! Sincerely, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD Comments

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

DXRAW 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's a bogus warning for what is in fact a perfectly normal and long-standing procedure at AFD. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G 08:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • They are legitimate warnings. It's NOT perfectly normal to assume bad faith & make personal attacks. DXRAW 08:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, they are bogus, based upon your assumption of bad faith and no-one else's. It is not a personal attack to note a pattern of disruption for the benefits of closing administrators. Once again: Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G 09:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another prime example of WP:AGF DXRAW 10:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• So putting foward your option in a AFD is disruption. Thanks for that advice. DXRAW 10:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you still want to force the AGF side when it's obvious that Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? was acting in bad faith. AGF doesn't apply in the face of evidence to the contrary. He specifically noted that he wasn't using deletion criteria to vote (yes, he was voting, not discussing) and he wasn't reading the articles he voted on. Leebo ^T/C 10:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No-one has actually given that advice to you. And in making edits such as this one you are doing the very thing that the page that you link to in your edit says to avoid doing. Uncle G 13:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It does not say that anywhere. You Are incorrect. DXRAW 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You clearly don't understand what WP:POINT is saying. Please read it again, and repeat until you understand that your edit is exactly the sort of thing that it is saying to avoid doing. Uncle G 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I do understand what it is saying & in my option. It is the worst guideline on wikipedia. DXRAW 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The mcdermotts

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

Electro-gravitic propulsion

You did an attempt to make Electro-gravitic propulsion. Unfortunately it now looks completely differte, Keeping the article would seem to imply daily reverting to a sane version a starting the third ArbCom case against User:Reddi. What's your opinion? --Pjacobi 16:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reverting the referenced material? Why? I would like to have Uncle G add to the article. J. D. Redding 16:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• You, Christopher Thomas, and ScienceApologist were discussing how to improve the article in the AFD discussion. I suggest that you all engage in continuing that discussion at Talk:Electrogravitics, and actually work on the article. You clearly have a neutrality dispute (with the article overrepresenting the views of a single person, LaViolette — something that I tried not to do in the stub that I gave to you) and a dispute about original research (such as the editorial commentary on what Preiss wrote that Reddi added here with no source to back it up). Those should be addressed on the talk page. Uncle G 23:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• A science fiction novel's glossary is clearly not a peer-reviewed, fact-checked, reliable source, by the way. Fiction is not fact. Uncle G 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Theistic atheism

Concerning your edits at theistic atheism. At 200 AD the first christians in Rome were called "atheists" (cause they didn't worshipped the Roman Gods . Have you already edit the wiki article of "atheism". However. We call atheism "not believing in a God" because that is the meaning of """a""" theism and not because of a silly reference of your Mr. .... or 200 AD Romans. Limboot 19:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I see by your talk page that this is not the first time that you have added your own unsupported theories to Wikipedia and had them removed. I see by the block log of nl:Gebruiker:Limbo that this is not the first Wikipedia that you have encountered people telling you that this is not what we want. Once again, as per the edit summary: Encyclopaedia content must be verifiable and not original research. The cited source contains a definition of theistic atheism. You have presented no sources for your different definition. Sources are what count here at Wikipedia. If you do not adhere to our content policies, you will find, just as with the Dutch Wikipedia, you will encounter greater and greater difficulty, leading eventually to your editing privileges being revoked. Please learn from the difficulties that you are experiencing, rather than persisting in the same behaviour across multiple projects. Uncle G 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you also tell me that on the Dutch wiki "revelation religions (openbarings godsdiensten) is accepted and not in this wiki ? Limboot 20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fobomania (reaction on "islamophobia")

If wikipedia accepts controversial neologism like "Islamophobia" it has as it claims to be independant also accept Fobomania. That is my opinion. And it is also respectful to the persons you are insulting with it. 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• You are confused. I've insulted no-one with either. Moreover: "If article X then article Y." is an utterly fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Uncle G 07:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion of image

Why did you decline to speedy delete Image:Dmitry Pozharsky marker, Suzdal, Russia -- 10 January 2006.jpg? My understanding was that images that had been copied to Commons were thusly rendered redundant and could/should be speedy deleted. --Gwern (contribs) 03:03 17 April 2007 (GMT)

• Your understanding is correct. However, what is on Commons does not render what is here redundant. Read the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion carefully, noting the various specific things that have to be true for an upload to Commons to make an upload to the English Wikipedia redundant. If you want to make the image redundant, you must do all of the work properly. Uncle G 07:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've looked at it and the linked discussion. It's a public domain image so license issue don't come into play; I've used CommonsHelper to copy over history/information so even if it were GFDL, Commons seems to endorse it; and it's at the same name, so I don't need to orphan the one page here which uses it. I'm really not sure what more needs to be done. --Gwern (contribs) 17:53 18 April 2007 (GMT)
    • As the criterion says, you need to ensure that "all image revisions that meet the first condition have been transferred to Commons as revisions of the Commons copy and properly marked as such". So you need to copy all of the free-content revisions of the image. Uncle G 18:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Stalking and Iraninan Assholery

Sir, I am very sorry to bother you but as you were kind enough to post on my talk page, I thought I would take a stab in the dark and ask for help. Two editors have been stalking and harassing me since I first started editing a few days ago. They seem to have me confused with someone else and have been very rude in their accusations (in addition to pushing a POV in the Iranian Military Industry article.) Would you be so kind as to check out the the contributions of User:Ali Soltani and User:Padishah5000, in particular the paranoid ravings on their respective talk pages: User_talk:Padishah5000, and User_talk:Ali_Soltani#Iranian_Military_Industry. Thank you for your time. K1ng l0v3 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not Iranian, and using such terms as "assholery" is hardly civil behavior. Padishah5000 16:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncle G, Fair Admin

Well, what can I say, you have made the reality of the situation very clear to both parties involved, as well as the errors we made in the process. I thank you for the fairness of your administrative skills. I mean this in all seriousness, keep up the good work! Padishah5000 17:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent judgments

I would like to thank you for your care in this matter but would like to respond to some of the points you made. You are correct to say my remarks were not civil, and some of my remarks were actually personal attacks. Since they were not even on the user's talk page though I thought they didnt violate any policy. Now that I have read the Wiki policy on no personal attacks anywhere I think I did go too far, thanks for pointing that out. Regarding my conclusion of his beleif in confederacy, please refer to Lobots user page, where he announces it there himself. He has deleted now so I cant find it here. And also there was no "another" editer, the other editor was lobot again. Also please explain why you regard this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_military_industry&diff=84230854&oldid=84230455 as a personal attack so I dont make the same mistake again.thank you for your remarks, you have helped alot. I will try to keep the things you said in mind. Ali Soltani 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever L0b0t may have written on xyr user page should be regarded as irrelevant when it comes to content disputes. As far as content disputes are concerned, your arguments are Sources! Sources! Sources!. With good sources to back up your content, you can convince most editors. As for that edit: It is addressing the editor's personal background, rather than the content. Uncle G 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Chrishan's Back

Chris Dotson Inc., Special:Contributions/3mgworld, in case you're interested. - Richfife 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for stepping in! - Richfife 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Greeting from Wikibooks

I have been looking for the users that had in the past some activity on VfD at Wikibooks to call attention to the recent policy proposal to define What is Wikibooks, as a Wikibookian I would like you to express your opinion http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Policies_and_guidelines/Vote/What_is_Wikibooks . Txs. (en.Wikibooks b:User:Panic2k4 85.139.120.189 04:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC) )

Michael Sneed

Thanks for stepping in - the argument between the single-purpose accounts and those of us who are looking at this more pragmatically was completely getting out of hand. I have the distinct impression that the SPA folks in this case are folks who feel some sort of umbrage at Sneed's article and the early reporting of the would-be Chinese national as the alleged shooter. But as a journalist myself, I am acutely aware of how fluid information and sources are and can be in a breaking news situation. In any event, as I mentioned on the AfD page, I still endorse deletion of the article, but I digress. Again, thank you for providing a cooler head in a heated discussion. --Mhking 14:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sneed

I don't quite agree with your redirection to the Chicago sun Times article. I agree that the Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre is POV biased (and is under AfD), but it is, in my opinion, a bit like redirecting Essjay to Wikipedia. Well, just my 2 cents :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I refer you to my edit summary. Uncle G 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good show, UG. Looks better. Revisited and changed my !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncle G, could you please explain how WP:BLP warrants this revert? Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I refer you to the referral immediately above, as well as to the explanation on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Uncle G 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I take it you mean this comment: zero sources that call this a "Michael Sneed Incident". Please note that, by the time I changed that redirect, there certainly were sources describing the incident and naming Sneed, especially in China. Some are cited in the sources of the article to which I redirected, e.g. here. AvB ÷ talk 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You are conflating two things. The source names Sneed. It also names Jiang Wei'en and Cho Seung-hui. It doesn't call the events a "Michael Sneed Incident", however. As I said, we have zero sources that call this a "Michael Sneed Incident". No-one else has named this after Michael Sneed. (Indeed, most of the sources don't even concentrate solely upon Sneed.) Wikipedia should not do so, either.

      And I didn't mean only that. Please read the rest of what I wrote in both places, as well. Uncle G 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your reading of WP:BLP. AvB ÷ talk 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't agree that Wikipedia should not document a living person in a way that no sources do, then you are mis-reading the policy. Uncle G 16:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that WP:BLP hinges on exact text. It hinges on information (as long as we do not have to interpret the source to arrive at the Wikipedia title/description). I'm going off-line now, probably won't be back on-line before Monday. AvB ÷ talk 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If you think that taking sources that do not name these events after Michael Sneed in any way, shape, or form and coming up with a name such as "Michael Sneed Incident" out of thin air is not doing exactly that sort of original interpretation, then you have a completely wrong idea of what you yourself have just stated should not be done. Uncle G 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Your suggestions about my thoughts are incorrect, unproductive and unnecessarily antagonistic. I do not understand why you keep mentioning "Michael Sneed Incident". I have not come up with that name, I am not advocating anything anywhere in the encyclopedia to be called by that name, and in fact I am not even aware of anything in the encyclopedia called "Michael Sneed Incident". Anyway, I feel this is unproductive and will disengage. If you feel you should respond, please do so on my talk page as I'm taking you off my watchlist. AvB ÷ talk 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I mention it because you brought it up above and then continued to disagree about it. And I am not being antagonistic, here. Antagonism surely describes behaviour where one brings up a point, disagrees about it repeatedly, and then accuses other people of being "unproductive" when they reply. Uncle G 10:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Stopper Knots

Hi. Thank you... I almost forgot to leave you message for that welcome note you gave me and for removing the speedy deletion notice in one of the articles I recently created. Also for the show preview button advice... THANKS, Cheers, and More power! Bu b0y2007 05:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD Comments Again

Again i point you to the WP:AGF policy which says.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

Please make sure to follow this policy as it is part of Wikipedias Five pillars that define Wikipedia's character. DXRAW 10:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is yet another bogus warning from you. I pointed you to our Wikipedia:Deletion policy in the AFD discussion, and I point you to it here. You didn't look for sources, as policy requires. That's an error on your part. If you have actually read Wikipedia:Assume good faith you will already know that it doesn't exclude pointing out where editors are making mistakes and contravening policy, as you are doing. Indeed, pointing out poor nominations that are not based in policy is a perfectly normal and long-standing procedure at AFD, and something that is encouraged. I repeat my earlier request, from the last time that you handed out bogus warnings, that you read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

  I notice that you omitted Wiktionary from your nomination. That makes me wonder whether you saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiktionary. A nomination such as yours was criticised there for being a disruptive nomination that was attempting to make a point. You have disagreed several times with Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and your actions here and on other occasions are exactly the ones that it says not to take. I strongly recommend that you adhere to that guideline, stop crying "assume good faith!" when people tell you that what you are doing is wrong, and actually follow our policies and stop being disruptive to make a point. Uncle G 11:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with fi:Uncle G's bot

The Uncle G's bot should not reset the Keskustelu Wikipediasta:Hiekkalaatikko. It isn't a sandbox, but a talk page. Could you fix the bot, please. —Iirolaiho 13:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)