User talk:Artw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 O'Reily / web 2.0 spat 2 Git 3 A list of confusing pages 4 2000 AD to do 5 2000 AD enjoyable by all ages above infancy 6 2000 AD -> 2000AD? 7 Car Fire 8 Notability for Gabba AFD 9 Giant Raccoon 10 Revised wording of AJAX suggestions 11 Kevin Barrett AfD 12 Netricity 13 The {afd} against Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli and Kako Kandahari 14 AJAX redirect 15 shoebox effect redirect 16 Web 3.0 17 Innova Records 18 Xfanz page 19 How to place the {{rewrite}} template into articles 20 Solaris 21 "covert method to gripe" 21.1 "out of curiosity" 22 I noticed your post 23 Freeman Dyson 24 House of Leaves 25 Rollback on Condom 26 Quick question 27 Ultimate X-Men (story arcs): Peer Review 28 [Spider Strategies]

[edit] O'Reily / web 2.0 spat

Seattle, huh? Gee, I wonder what company you work for.... --Jjzeidner 01:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Git

Hey, just a point for the future: your VFD nomination itself counts as a vote, so there is no need to put in another one. (though I personally don't really like the practice, it's the norm here) :) Gmaxwell 6 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

• • Cheers --Artw 6 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)

[edit] A list of confusing pages

I saw your edit summary question -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Earth_Battalion&curid=2018618&diff=28558612&oldid=27178786 -- crop up. Do you mean "is there a list of pages with the confusing template attached to them?" There is an entire category: Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification, part of Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories. Adding the appropriate template sticks articles into one of these categories automatically, and removing it automatically de-lists (de-categorises?) it for you; so you don't need to find and edit anything yourself. Hope this helps! --Telsa 08:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 AD to do

As I see you have been working around the area of the British comic industry I thought I'd point you to the 2000AD to do list - if you see anything relevant that needs starting or expanding feel free to throw it in, if something on the list takes your fancy tehn go for it and if you can think of anyone else who might be interested then pass it on (Emperor 01:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] 2000 AD enjoyable by all ages above infancy

Browsing through some odd history pages I note that you have reverted a user's removal of the 'children's comic' characterisation. 2000 AD was and is most certainly not exclusively a children's comic.

However it started that way and in context the term is appropriate. Artw 16:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 AD -> 2000AD?

I've explained my thoughts on the talk page but it has been niggling me for a bit and a suggestion for a catgeory renaming has brought it to a head. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it (Emperor 14:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Car Fire

You are a wanker. You will always be a wanker. If you saved the Queen from terrorists, or built 100 bridges, you would still be a wanker. If you haven't guessed, I am not a fan of sarcasm. In fact, I hope you die in a car fire. I am a big fan of irony.--ttogreh 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even own a car! Artw 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability for Gabba AFD

Hello. Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band)

This to inform you that several "evidence of notability" (including All Music Guide and one CD) have been provided after your vote, which you may want to reconsider. Regards, -- 62.147.112.67 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: A large batch of sourced evidence (including screenshots of articles from Mojo and Melody Maker, and photos of BBC sessions) has been added since. -- 62.147.113.247 05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giant Raccoon

You redirected this to Raccoon. Maybe it should just be deleted.

Reasoning: The Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory is a whimsical example used in the book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Some fool (me) put it into a short article, thinking that that was a good place to describe the "theory"/whimsical example. Out of 6.5 billion people on earth, only two or three of them agreed with me, so the GRFT article is no more. The admin who deleted it redirected Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory to 'Godless,' the book in which it appears.

Giant raccoon formerly redirected to Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory. It now redirects to Raccoon, which is fine, but I don't think there is such a thing as a giant raccoon, except in the aforementioned whimsical example. It's your call, but I'm thinking that Giant raccoon should be scrapped. Lou Sander 16:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a pop at it! Cheers, Artw 16:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised wording of AJAX suggestions

Thanks for the feedback. I've put up new wording in the Ajax discussion page for the three cases where you semi-concurred. I'll go ahead and make the other changes to the article. --Chris 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Barrett AfD

Hi I saw your vote on the Kevin Barrett AfD. [1] It appears to me that the nomination is clearly wrong, this guy certainly passes WP:BIO. Perhaps you would like review the evidence some of us have presented in the AfD. Dionyseus 00:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netricity

Artw, I am working on the rewrite of "netricity" and in the process of gathering/soliciting additional subject expertise/editorial help (I'm new at this). Others have suggested the addition of a tutorial section to justify linkage. What would this rewrite need to provide to overcome your vote to delete? Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Jthomp4338 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Simple answer - a clear an concise explanation of what the term means and some examples that indicate it's widespread usage. WP:NEO should be a good place to pick up tips. Artw 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Jthomp4338 if you want an idea of this. Calbaer 01:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The {afd} against Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli and Kako Kandahari

In your delete vote you wrote: Delete for now. Article can easily be recreated once any real information comes to light, for now it's rather pointless.

1. May I suggest you have been misled by a nomination that contained serious misconceptions?
   • In particular the nominator asserted that these two articles were essentially identical, and referenced "the same two links". This is incorrect.
   • I have given a fuller explanation in the {afd} page -- the short version is that although I created a large number of articles that appear essentially identical if you only take a cursory look at them, they are in fact unique. The links that the nominator describes as "the same two links" are, in fact, unique references that allow the reader to go quickly to the transcripts of the detainee's Combatant Status Review Tribunal, the detainee's Adminstrative Review Board hearing and/or the detainee's factors memo, that summarized the factors for and against their continued detention. You see when the DoD was finally forced to comply with a court order to release information about the detainees they chose to do so in the least useful manner possible. They released 6,000 pages of documents in .pdf format. And those 6,000 pages of documents don't give the detainee's names, just their ID numbers. Prior to my creation of these stub articles that Crzrussian has such an objection to, it was possible to find a particular detainee's transcript -- if you were prepared to spend several hours visually scanning through all 6,000 pages.
   • The facility to go directly to detainee's transcripts that the wikipedia has made available to the world, through considerable effort on my part, is unique in the public part of the internet. There is no other place someone can go that will spare them that tedious several hours of visual grep.
2. Crzrussian didn't see fit to reveal that his nomination to delete Guantanamo articles is the twelth attempt so far. See User:Geo Swan/working/Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion for the details. All the previous attempt, but one, failed. And, when I had more information about that detainee, I recreated his article.
3. Crzrussian didn't see fit to let those considering his nomination know that I have quietly been working away at expanding all the stubs I created. Well I have been, and, FWIW, I am about half way through.
   • Why not delete the articles that haven't been expanded, and add them back in, when someone is ready to expand them? Well that means that anyone who needed to access those transcripts would be out of luck.

I don't know if you have taken a look at either Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli or Kako Kandahari. I expanded both of them since Crzrussian filed his nomination. Frankly, I am mystified as to why he hasn't addressed those changes.

Maybe, even after this expansion, you will consider the article's pointless. If so I would sure appreciate hearing why.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 09:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AJAX redirect

Hi Just wondering what your problem with AJAX pointing to the programming article. None of the other articles on the disambiguation page are acronymns. My expectation is that typing AJAX should take you to the programming article. Cheers. Journeyman 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ajax is not an acronym. Artw 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wha? the opening line of the article defines Ajax as short for "Asynchronous JavaScript And XML" that sounds like an Acronym in my book (a la Radar, Laser, Scuba, etc.) (cf. "Not an Acronym" and "PageMove"). RADAR redirects to Radar, so why shouldn't AJAX redirect to Ajax (programming)? Journeyman 02:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Google it. Artw 04:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so it's a retronym. You should fix the article to remove the confusion. Journeyman 06:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] shoebox effect redirect

Hello! I noticed you redirected the shoebox effect stub to the rebate (marketing) article. I disagree with that since the "shoebox effect" occurs in other areas besides marketing rebate submissions. It also occurs whenever a reimbursement is neglected, such as a prescription receipt to a prescription insurance plan or a parking receipt for a job is lost or forgotten about. (Note that neither of those is involved in marketing or considered a rebate.) Also, if you are going to redirect what you believe to be a sub-topic, please take the time to boldface the sub-topic (shoebox effect, in this case) in its first appearance in the article, per the redirect guidelines. That should make it easier to understand why shoebox effect is redirected to that article. (Although, in this case it makes it seem as if the shoebox effect is only applicable to marketing rebates). Thanks! - Ektar 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web 3.0

What do you mean by "deleting and protecting, not recreating as a placeholder" the Web 3.0 article? Can you please expand on this on the article's deletion page[2]? --Peter Campbell 02:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Innova Records

Hello, Artw -- I found the Innova Records page listed under "pages needing to be wikified", as I am part of WikiProject Wikify. Although not an expert on the subject of this article, I did some research and have wikified, clarified, and referenced this article. I believe it was you who tagged the article in the first place, and if you would be so kind as to look over it and give me feedback as to the edits I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks, Emmegan 14:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message on my talk page. I'll be sure to do some work on that. Emmegan 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xfanz page

Hello ARTW. Please indicate why you think the xfanz site is spam. The site is a news source that is owned by the current leader in adult news (xbiz.com) we do have a full community aspect. This site should not be considered spam as it makes NO money what so ever from the end users. Xfanz.com is exactly what is stated in the article, a news site with a community aspect (and will soon have its own YouTube type video service.) if you feel that the format of the article needs to be changed then please indicate what and we will see to it. But to say it is spam is unfair and untrue. Did you take the time to look at the site at all? Please take the time to check your facts before you take a credible site and shame it by saying it is spam. I look forward to your response and hope that this will be fixed. Thank you.

• The article (by XFANZ TEAM) is IMHO clearly spam. I have no idea what the actual site is like and do not care. TBH you're probably better off raising this on the article page than bothering me directly. You could, for instance, remove the prod, which would mean your article would no longer be up for deletion. That would probably mean it going to afd and getting discussed there. You can read about that sort of thing here Artw 05:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to place the {{rewrite}} template into articles

Place at the top of the page something in this format:

{{Rewrite|User:Artw/Drafts/Wanker}}

CyberAnth 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solaris

Thanks for that - I was just following up the mention on the 2000 AD boards the other day so I'll look into it now. (Emperor 17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] "covert method to gripe"

Hava a look at Special:Contributions/Janusvulcan. — coelacan talk — 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Artw 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "out of curiosity"

Shush! Quiet, you! Or I'll "lose" you somewhere in the damp depths of the washing machine! — coelacan talk — 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I lol'd. You fairly well outdid my kitty-cat and veiled cotton-and-polyester-blend threats. — coelacan talk — 22:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I noticed your post

Both on my talk page and on ANI and the village pump. Though it may have looked like I ignored your post on my talk page, I did actually act on it, just not on the page you were talking about. It took me on an interesting journey that lead to me working in concert with several admins, filing official complaints, exchanging emails with Jimbo, and ultimately deciding to stop editing wikipedia. Jimbo is willing to overlook Cyberanth's extreme edits (even he characterized some of them as wrong) and refusal to work with others because he agrees with the core of what he did, but the extreme edits and the refusal to work with others were the point of why most of us were screaming. If he confined himself to only removing controversial uncited information no one would have cared. Instead he was trying to force a WP:POINT. This particular episode is just a symptom of what is wrong here...not the problem itself. Even if I had won that battle, the underlying problem would have remained, including the manner I would have used to win it. Winning it, would have been at best, only a temporary political victory, good until the next idiot came along who decided to misapply policy and start ripping apart the work of others. I didnt sign up on Wikipedia to be a security guard. Best of luck. just wanted you to know I didn't ignore your post. It was what actually lead me to realize the scope of what he was doing and the extreme nature of the deletions and it lead to me deciding to reallocate my time into far more productive purposes. So thanks. It worked out good, for me anyway. Caper13 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am so very, very tempted to take your example. Artw 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, fuck it, I'm quitting, at least for the duration of WP:BLP as a trolls charter and the apparent endorsement of various slimy nutjobs as great wikipedians. This whole situation fucking stinks. Fuck the deletionists, fuck the admins that back them and fuck Jimbo Wales. Fuck him in the eye. Artw 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's good to vent. he situation seems a little better now, though I doubt I'll have much enthusiasm for editing for a while. Artw 18:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freeman Dyson

Yes, I should have checked the discussion first. I still think he merits inclusion in the Category but I respect the informed consensus view. Shawn in Montreal 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

it's worth pushing it on Talk again, since it's a borderline case. However I do think it's a little fair lumping him in with a bunch of guys who are getting kickbacks from exxonArtw

I agree. But I'll leave to someone more knowledgable. Incidentally, I think a "welcome back" is in order? See, the lure of Wikipedia is irresistable, even if it drives us all crazy from time to time.... Shawn in Montreal 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House of Leaves

I noticed your recent changes to the page for House of Leaves. The title of the book is in fact House of Leaves, the color is not just a gimmick. If you disagree with my revert, could address the issue on either my Talk page of the Talk page for House of Leaves. --Scorpios 09:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback on Condom

You removed some text on Condom, probably by accident, so I've returned it. The thing just cut off in the middle of a sentence after your edit; if I was mistaken, let me know, and I'll endeavour to keep from repeating my mistake in the future. Thanks. --Sopoforic 06:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

Just wondering the basis on which you assert Jeff VanderMeer is a "recognized authority," and so the link to his blog should remain in the aticle Solaris Books? Thanks. UnitedStatesian 08:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• He;s a well known SF/F writer ans his blog has a high volume of traffic (I've seen it listed in the top 10 of SF writer blogs) - seems pretty legit as a source to me. Artw 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate X-Men (story arcs): Peer Review

Greetings! In December of 2006, you participated in the discussion for the 2nd deletion nomination of Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). After two months of rewriting, reorganizing, and referencing, the article is now undergoing a WikiProject Comics peer review. Your editorial opinion would be most welcome to help us improve the article to A-class status. Thanks for your time! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 06:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [Spider Strategies]

Are you sure this article meets the CSD?

I was thinking the same thing until I did a search and noticed quite a few notable press references.

Redefining CMS and SMS seems sacrilegious.. but it doesn't really change their position in the press.

It seems more like a matter for "Clean Up" or at very worst an AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.97.109.162 (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC).