Hello Wyllium, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for spotting all that vandalism you've been reverting. Just a tip though - it would be really helpful if you could explain in your edit summaries your reasons for reverting rather than just writing rv. Even though it's often obvious, a short description, even just "rv vandalism" saves people checking why you reverted. If you haven't already found it, you might find the tutorial helpful. If you have any questions, you can ask at the help desk or on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. :) Angela. 13:58, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
This is probably not the right place for this request, so feel free to move it.
If you have time, or don't know what to do, I'd appreciate some help with the Chemical Elements category. It seems pretty essential that we have such a category, but adding the tag to every element article takes ages.
Yes, I have started a "Noble gasses" myself. However, and this applies to the antire principle of categories, if you have a parent category of "Elements" and sub categories of "Noble gasses" and "Metallics", should the parent directory contain all the elements of the subcatagories as well? I think they should, otherwise you'd never be able to browse the entire list of elements. Similarly, people in "WWII people" should be part of "People" as well. Wyllium07:04, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Wyllium, I hope you'll be able to help me out with something. I recently discovered the archived VfD page Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Steuard_Jensen, which apparently discussed an article about me that appeared here (inappropriately, I agree!). I'm actually somewhat curious to know who wrote that article (and for that matter, what was in it), and your comments when voting for deletion of the page seem to indicate that you know whom the author was. If you happen to have any record of that, could you let me know? Thanks. (And please forgive me if I could easily find out somehow myself; I'm still fairly new here.)--Steuard 19:00, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I've created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/24.168.92.117 (Keith Wigdor). I saw that you tried talking to this user on his talk page about his edits, and I was wondering if you'd want to certify the dispute. Quadell(talk) 17:30, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused. Here is a link to Encarta's article on Flaconry, which contains a glossary of terms, here is our policy stating that glossaries are ok to include, here is a list of glossaries that we already have. Obviously a glossary is not the same utility as a dictionary. Collections of specialist terms are entirely suitable for Wikipedia. Mark Richards 20:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
User:Halibutt was somewhat upset when Category:Ogg_files_by_Halibutt was deleted without him noticing. I guess part of the problem was that the customary {{cfd}} tag was not added to his category when it was nominated. So, I thought I'd drop a line here. Other people who examined the category before it was deleted should have picked up on that, including me; I guess we just need to be more careful about that in the future.
It just doesn't look very encyclopedic. 66.245.21.126 01:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you're talking about that Susan Pratt debacle, may I refer you to User:B-Movie Bandit? This nonsense has been going on for months. - Lucky 6.9 01:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, again. Actually, a number of these articles have been speedy deleted. I appreciate your not wanting to lose factual information but this guy, gal, bot or whatever it is just keeps coming out with these things. It's been quite a donnybrook on the "user page" developed just for this, well, user. Tell you what: I'll put a substub notice on it. Several of these things have been cleaned up in the past by everyone except the original poster. In fact, this guy has actually decontented existing articles. - Lucky 6.9 01:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for making this a VfD. This guy isn't the problem he once was but anything he does that gets sent packing is OK by me. :^) Best, Lucky 6.9 01:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My pleasure. Maybe a real article will come out of this. - Lucky 6.9 01:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hello. Please note that there is no need to write [[taboo|taboos]], since [[taboo]]s has the same effect (the final "s" is included in the blue link). Similarly [[Russia]]n, [[apocrypha]]l, [[logic]]al, [[hyphen]]ated, etc. Michael Hardy 02:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot about that. Still a rather minor point though. Wyllium 02:24, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
Hi there. I wanted to say that I strongly urge you to pull your nomination for deletion on List of movies, if you take a look you'll see two things. The list system for movies is much more comprehensive than the category system at this moment in time, (Ie containing settings for movies and such). There are also many red linked movies. This list seems to be important, as it has not yet been replaced by categories, at least for the time being. Deleting this would make it harder to browse wikipedia and to keep track of needed articles. —siroχo 00:21, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused. The list explicitly states that it is a list of articles, not of movies whether they have an article or not. That's is the reason I nominated it. Lists that contain items without articles I think are valuable, but I don't think that's the case here. Anyway, "pulling" my nomination is not an issue. I might vote keep myself if I change my mind, but it would be undemocratic if I pulled it when there are a lot of delete votes. Wyllium 07:12, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
Hi. Why did you list textfiles.com for deletion? I don't care about your petty conflict with ANSI artists and your vendetta against their articles, but textfiles.com is by no means VfD material. You may list it again and find out yourself. It has been in Wired, on Slashdot and in multiple other mainstream media. It has a page rank between 40 and 100 000 and has existed for 6 years.
Note that I am not affiliated with Textfiles.com, Jason Scott or any sort of scene, although they all interest me.
By all means, list the article for deletion again. I'd be very curious as to how you'd phrase it. — David Remahl 07:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean with vendetta against ANSI artists. I listed Textfiles.com for one reason only, and that is that I have doubts about it's notability. If it is important enough there will be enough keep votes and you'll have nothing to worry about. Wyllium 07:56, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
Sorry, I confused you with someone else, I think. — David Remahl 08:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comment by User:Jscott deleted as it wasn't addressed at me, but the above poster. Wyllium 08:40, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
I have to disagree, the comment left by Jscott was, indirectly atleast, very much addressed to you. My worry isn't whether or not the article will survive, as I'm confident that it will. My real concern is over your better judgement (or lack thereof) before going ahead and VfD'ing an article as it's beginning to take shape. Give articles a chance to get off the ground and establish notability before rushing to fire them off to Votes for Deletion. Secondly, it is well established that this subject is noteworthy and had you taken the same amount of time it takes to fully process a VfD nomination and used it to verify the fact that it is noteworthy you would have given fellow Wikipedians a few precious moments of their life back that they could've spent on more important issues. --[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For the third time, if it is important enough, it will receive enough keep votes and there's nothing to worry about. With repect to Jscott, he's totally welcome to discuss anything with me, as long as he actually discusses it with me. Communication between you two should go on your or his talk page. Wyllium 08:54, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
Wyllium, you're not really addressing what I'm driving at here, so I'll spell it out for you, in plain English. It's very clear after minimal (or extensive, take your pick) research that TEXTFILES.COM indeed passes even some of the strictest notability bars I've seen during my experience with Wikipedia and VfD. That said, I would like for you to do exactly that, go forth and spend some time understanding what it is you nominated, and state your case on the VfD page with a vote. Surely you held an opinion before nominating or else you wouldn't have done so in the first place. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wyllium: No problem, I mirrored the uncensored discussion on my talk. — David Remahl 08:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Once again, as long as you address me, you're free to discuss anything with me. Wyllium 08:54, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
Hence the "Wyllium: " and the "No problem.". — David Remahl 08:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excellent. You, Wyllium, are why I run my own site. You, Wyllium, are why nearly any major attempt to organize people ends with someone holding the floor for untold times talking about "procedure". You, Wyllium, are what keeps people like myself and RaD Man in business, making us work to save and collect history because some mouth-breather decided it wasn't "important". You, Wyllium, are what I will spend the last breath I have on earth fighting. It all has to start somewhere, and it will start with you. I hate you. --Jscott 08:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wyllium, if you don't want a page deleted, why are you listing it? The presumption is to keep pages not to test the deletion waters. Okay, look, you must feel you are under attack. It's not like that. Perhaps it would be in your best interests not to monitor the vote page for a while and let it simmer down a bit. If you check back in a while, you can see how the vote is going. Engaging in further debate with people on the page isn't going to be constructive IMO. Please, do your bit to take the heat out of it. It's not war.Dr Zen 09:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I listed it because I wasn't sure about the notability. It could either be emportant enough for an article or just a form of "website-vanity", my websearch didn't give me a definitive answer. I expected the people on vfd knowing more than me and either vote it in or out. Either would have been fine with me. I must say I'm more concerned with the agression I'm encountering than with whether the article stays or not. Anyway, I succeeded in remaining civil to them and I'm now taking my hands off. Wyllium 09:40, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
Wyllium, it seems we've both unknowingly stepped into pretty hot water. There have been a number of VfD nominations in the same field (that Radman and Jscott are interested in) lately. Some have resulted in deletes, others in keeps. I'm not sure whether you're aware of those. They have led to an inflated atmosphere of hostility which doesn't really serve anyone...I took more offence than I probably should have by the listing, but I'm an eventualist and think that listing an article for deletion so shortly after its creation goes against every wiki principle there is. I hope I didn't step over the line in my responses...As for the other participants in the "discussion", you have to understand where they come from too. The branch of culture that they care for the most and have dedicated thousands of hours to is not considered worthy of Wikipedia by a seemingly large fraction of the community. From my research I know that Jason Scott used to be enthusiastic and hold high hopes for Wikipedia, which have now been shattered completely. I'm trying to see your side of the argument, I hope you can see mine. — David Remahl 09:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can tell you all that is news to me. I didn't know anything about previous vfd entries having to do with ansi art. I've never nomitated any such site before either. Then again, what happened on vfd in the past and someone's personal feelings about a subject is still no reason for JScott et. al. to react in this extremely aggressive, frightening and threatening way. The fact that someone's cares passionately about something has never before been a reason to keep an article either. If there had simply been five keep votes (as there are now, between the flames) I would have shut up and adjusted my "notability-threshhold". Of course I try to see other people's side of the argument, but I didn't even know the side of the argument you just brought up, I just got attacked instantly. Anyway, It's over now. Thanks for your comment, and being so civil. Wyllium 10:18, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
Wyllium, I'm sure you were acting in good faith but VfD is for articles you want to see deleted. It's quite clear. If you wanted a more general discussion on the article's notability, there is RfC. It stirs up trouble to list new articles on VfD, especially when they have been written by bonafides editors. Please, next time you're not sure an article should be in or out, go for RfC and save yourself the aggro.Dr Zen 09:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You say you've been a wikipedian since May 2003, but your first contribution under this username was in May 2004. You should probably correct this. :-) JesseW 10:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nope, I have been a Wikipedian since May 2003, but I've only been Wyllium since May 2004. I had a previous name, but I didn't like it so I made another account. Wyllium 10:18, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
What was the previous name, if you don't mind me asking? (Or, more precisely, what is the edit history URL.) Thanks for your prompt response. JesseW 10:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think you stumped him. --Jscott 22:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, he did respond on JesseW's talk. (oops, I apologise in advance for not addressing Wyllium ;-)). — David Remahl 22:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hello Wyllium. You've misunderstood the purpose and process of Votes for Deletion and apparently have taken a bit of heat for it -- I wanted to make sure you have read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. Nominating a page to VfD is, quote, "A request (...) on Wikipedia for [an] article to be deleted" and not a request for comments. In the future you may want to utilize the talk page or other outlets, perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Best of luck to you in the future. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 00:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
