User talk:Dpbsmith/Archive05

Original name of Spam

You asked for it, so I went and found it out for you. Evidently the original name for SPAM was "Hormel Spiced Ham". -- — I. Neschek | talk 02:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please move you straw poll "Proposal and straw poll regarding place names with diacritical marks" from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions to the more appropriate: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions (use_English) where there is lots of discussion on this subject. Philip Baird Shearer 17:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

issues over school articles

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge and delete

Invalid is probably to strong a term, but but "vote strongly discouraged as it is considered by some to be invalid and causes a great deal of work for admins in any case" is too long to type out on a regular basis. - SimonP 02:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings project is not

This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
It will be used only by users who want to use it.
Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Waking the Tiger

Thank you for restoring contents.--Jondel 00:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP: DICK

You might want to vote at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#April 13. Zocky 20:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More Sam Clinton

Thanks so very much for the kind words. At the risk of sounding insensitive, the guy comes off as autistic. I feel like I'm dealing with a special-ed student across a two thousand-mile rift both literally and figuratively. Sigh...I just don't know what to do. I was hoping to bring him around but I think the guy's on his last legs before this either goes to arbitration or an admin bans him outright for a bit. - Lucky 6.9 02:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All my messages

First, I was hard hit by messages about bad contributions. Now, I am being hit hard about messages about good contributions. Obviously, my bad contrast of bogusness/appropriateness from the past caused all this. It's kinda bizarre that I still have recurring messages after a big changeover of opinion from the other audience. --SuperDude 15:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My BEEFSTEW edit

Its not the result of a dispute, but it is the result of frustration about an article (Perins Community School) that is really not notable but full of facts that on the surface appear to be significant but when you know a bit about them are common to hundreds of UK schools. There is also a detailed history of the schools enrolment figures, which to my mind are no less trivial than the current enrollment figure, but not mentioned in the BEEFSTEW. Thryduulf 10:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Names of large numbers

Thanks for that explanation, it makes perfect sense now. If you feel it necessary, I could look up the words in the Chambers Dictionary I have at home this evening and add them to the list. Thryduulf 13:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vfd Blunders

Thank you for being a voice of reason and moderation. You seem very concerned with holding everything in Wikipedia up to the highest standard. I admire that, though I personally feel things should generally have a little more flexibility. The topic of blunders is clearly a magnet for controversy so your concerns make sense. I agree with you: the high standards will keep junk off the page and stop silly arguments about what should be listed. I want to be an optimist and believe "people will see this page and just want to improve it", but more and more my experiences on Wikipedia indicate that there is an inevitable childish minority who think "edit this page" is a license to try to distort it any way they see fit.

Though I consider myself an inclusionist I probably would have voted against List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder--though I would have to read through the vfd arguments to be sure. The list just seems excessively trivial and mean spirited. It is the perfect precedent, though: an excellent example of an extreme POV topic being handled in an objective, encyclopedic way. - Pioneer-12 20:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Online misunderstandings

Wow, thanks for the advice. Yes, there is an illusion similar to being among friends. Or maybe just the illusion of being among intelligent, open minded people.... There actually are a surprising number of intelligent, open minded people on Wikipedia, but the jerks and morons tend to stand out. I like the idea of saying "That's a joke". Yeah, you do have to spell everything out. Maybe pretend you are talking to alien children. I can see myself typing "This is a joke, you morons!" and then, like you, I contemplate if it's worth saying at all....

Often, it isn't. But, sometimes the joke is too good to pass up. :-) A little humor can be invaluable in relieving stress and in turning an atmosphere of tension into an atmosphere of fun. I don't mind being misunderstood by clueless people. Some people will misunderstand anything. As long as the intelligent people know what I'm talking about, that's fine with me. The rest.... well, deal with them if necessary, but better to just ignore them--let them bumble around in their clueless irritation--and deal with the intelligent people whenever possible.

Wikipedia talk history sucks. Every careless keystroke preserved in eternity. Wiki's just weren't designed for forum use, so why are we trying to use them like one? It's a round peg in a square hole.

Now, I have not yet checked out to the reaction to my satirical tour-de-force on the Vfd page, but I'll bet some people are whining about it. Too bad. That was too good NOT to say.

- Pioneer-12 21:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

p.s. That was truly a fine little essay you posted on my talk page--too important to be stranded on an obscure user-talk page. I think it deserves to be on a general tips page, like Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia.

A little help?

Hi, a user has raised an NPOV objection at chemtrail and I would very much appreciate your comment before I do anything to "fix" it. (For some reason, I tend to end up irritating people when I get involved in this sort of dispute.) -- FP ?? 14:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Gadget Maker

This is belated (I've just recently returned to Wikipedia in full), but I must thank you for expanding The Gadget Maker. Wonderful book with now a fitting page. ✈ James C. 06:01, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Doctor Wangs company

Hi Dpbsmith. I'm currently working on an translation of the article Wang Laboratories into the german Wikipedia. I came across a phrase I can't figure out what it exactly means: Wang calculators cost in the mid-four-figures. Could you give an explanation; I am reachable in germans Wikipedia under User-Name Jetter --> Jetter comments. Thanks a lot! --81.221.209.157 15:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Yeah, in German you would probably say "Der Preis bewegte sich im mittleren vierstelligen Bereich", which literally means "The price moved around in the mid four-digit area". So actually I could have guessed that (four-figure --> four-digit) ... --81.221.107.138 06:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klonimus and Jesus VfD

What can I say? I admit I got a little chuckle (perhaps a slightly inappropriate one) out of Klonimus' vote. While it probably wasn't a wise thing to do, he probably realized that the article was as close to a speedy keep as we can get and let off a bit of steam. (Or maybe he does believe that the West Nowhere Middle School is more deserving of a Wikipedia article than Jesus...who are we to judge?)

I'd be inclined to let it slide--if he's trolling, then we've just been successfully baited. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--

Reason (for wanting Kennedy Fried Chicken gone)? To make a long story short, I contributed this page and "Ray's Pizza" yesterday, only to have my contributions belittled and deleted by User:Geogre (sic), who then proceeded to insult me and insinuate that I'm a liar (why? I don't know, he probably has problems of his own). Evidently the people running Wikipedia have also granted him the ability to ban people from the site. So I just don't feel good about Wikipedia, and I'd rather not help them if they're going to pretend to welcome editors on the one hand, only to tell them to essentially "fuck off" once they try.

I didn't go into my reasons on the Voting for Deletion page because I'm trying not to be petty. Sorry if it's not working.

66.65.88.245 16:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dpbsmith. You know me -- desperate hot head and belittler of the innocent. Anyway, please follow our IP friend's contributions. Also be sure to check out the original state of both articles. Mean old me speedy deleted an article with no content but a statement of a negative. Terrible. There ought to be a law. Anyway, also be sure to check out the highly articulate messages he has been sending on user talk pages. (It is amusing, in a depressing way, to see current VfD voters lecturing me as if I'm a troll who knows not the ways of VfD.) Geogre 00:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy sigh

It's not worth pursuing, but see the IP's talk page, if you care to know. 1. Single sentence article on a coincidence in NYC. 2. I speedied (criterion #1). 3. Screaming insults from IP. 4. I see that the IP's only posts are now to a VfD on one of the articles (so now it's a conspiracy, since after he recreated it out of process, someone else nominated it for VfD). 5. I mention on there that the IP's reactions are bannable, but let's vote on the article, not the subject. 6. Lectures, Netoholic-like, proceed, with me, an obvious newbie to VfD, being told how sad it is that some innocent newbie is getting bitten, etc. 7. Meanwhile, IP is shouting all over the vote, removing headers, etc. 8. He decides to take his valuable sentence away, and I'm now considered a horrible abusive admin.

Yeah, that's me. I'm such a cabalist.

For whatever it's worth, the articles no longer contain the author's sentence. Therefore, they can't be SD for author blanking. (In fact, the same was true of the Kennedy's Fried Chicken, which he got SD'd improperly.) So it goes, though.

The way I look at it, new users who write inappropriate articles either learn from the experience or start threatening and calling names. The former should be encouraged. The latter should be shown the door. It seems, though, that VfD is back to the way it was in the old days, with a group of shocked --just shocked!-- people who think it their duty to go to every debate and shout "shame shame shame" at anyone who wants a thing deleted. Sic transit gloria mundi. Geogre 03:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just passing by and I saw this... (yeah, I'm nosy)

If you made the poster mad by deleting something that they posted, then you are doing something wrong. Slapping people in the face when they do something inappropriate because they don't know any better isn't going to make Wikipedia many friends.

New posters need to be treated with explanations, not condemnation.

- Pioneer-12 01:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BEEFSTEW

Whilst I was tidying Category:Wikipedia Policy thinktank I came across your BEEFSTEW subpage. I would be bold and delete the {{Proposal}} template but it is in your user space. Could you take down the polict flag yourself, please? --Theo (Talk) 18:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help at psychic surgery

Hello Dpbsmith. I would like to ask you to review a small dispute I am having with an anon (17.203.20.170) at Psychic surgery (history]). Your comments would be appreciated. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 06:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Software engineering

Good afternoon, Dbpsmith! I have just nominated Software engineering for an Article improvement drive instead of Collaboration of the week. I appreciate your support. :-) Yours, --Hans-AC ✉ 16:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFD

Just letting you know about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities) 2. If you have an opinion, please vote. I am notifying people who have been active on both sides of the debate. —Lowellian (talk) 23:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, R adiant _>|< 08:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Creamed Chipped Typewriters

Hi! Saw your comments in a style 'Talk' about double spaces after periods et al; I can relate. I also gather you worked at WANG LABS at one point from your TalkPage. If so, we have that in common, though I only stayed about ten months out of disgust with my managers managers manager trying to build an empire. If you know "Lar ry No brega" (Hope that keeps it private enough!), we have a mutual friend. Enjoyed very much your expansion of 'Creamed Chip Beef'. One niggle - I would have used 'gravy' instead of sauce, but that's purely on thermodynamic grounds! Good work, regardless!!! Fabartus 13:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar School

Dpb, could you please have a look at this article and provide some feedback at the peer review page? Judging by your school BEEFSTEW page, I'm guessing you have some interest in school articles, and this one is better than most. Thanks. Harro5 (talk · contribs)04:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thank you for adding back my link at Glasses. Just out of curiosity, do you think the following discussion group is an inappropriate externallink for the page Donna Moss. It is a major discussion group for that topic and it was there for a long time before it was reverted in connection with the adding of other unrelated links to another forum. While I am willing to respect the other deletions, I believe that this one link deserves to be restored. --newsjunkie 21:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

American Idiot

Who cares wether the image is better or not (the one I keep re-adding)? Why should I stop reverting it? Next time I (or Mike Garcia) re-adds it you're not removing it again! And who cares what the rest of this talk page says? Huh? -- 205.188.117.66

Well, how are you gonna stop me from reverting the image of the page? Huh?! Nobody cares about the stupid image you kept restoring. You have been reported about this right here and also about you threatening to ban me like Michael (who is now Mike Garcia) did, but I know you didn't do it to him. -- 205.188.117.66

Old English cartoon

Hi, Dpb, haven't chatted with you much since the great O'Hara days although I've see your name in the Harvard shield hoohah. How do you manage to keep so composed and even-tempered? The aggravation (as above, for example) can be terrible. Which explains why you're a sysop and I'm not. Thank goodness! I have a minor question that perhaps you'd be gracious enough to spend 30 seconds on. I posted the following in the apropos Copyright discussion area about 10 days ago but no one has answered. Just off the top of your head, given your experience here, do you think I could use the cartoon or not? Hope that you're gonna have a pleasant summer and thanks for your help.... Hayford Peirce 20:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Status of a cartoon from a 1925 London Newspaper

Hi, I've written a number of tennis articles plus other stuff for Wikipedia. I want to write another one about an old-time American tennis player named Ray Casey who was a Wimbledon doubles finalist in 1925. I have in my possession a photograph (made by me around 1982) of a pen-and-ink cartoon about Casey that appeared in the (London) Daily Mail in June of 1925. I'd like to include this cartoon in the article if possible. I've read as much as I can try to understand about English copyright law, which isn't much. It seems very confusing. But it *does* seem to me as if the basic rights for something such as this expire after only *50* years. Therefore this cartoon *could* be used here. Can anyone give me a definitive, or at least a near-definitive, answer on this? I realize that this whole copyright business is an enormous can of worms, with answers in many cases that are far from definitive.... But thanks in any case for your help. Hayford Peirce 18:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips -- I'll look into all of them. I did do a little research in Wiki copyright articles and in dealing with the United Kingdom, and/or Crown, stuff, there were a ton of references to stuff that was only 50 years old on which the copyright had lapsed. It said, at least for some things, and it gave an example, that something from 1955 was now free from copyright.... That's why I'm so confused about the whole matter. I suppose that I'll have to root around and find a couple of those "50-year" citations to bolster my contention. Eventually I'll write the little article, stick in the cartoon, and see what happens. But I'll definitely do as much as possible so that I don't appear underhanded in what I'm doing. Best, Hayford.

Darryl Ponicsan

Heh. No problem. I only spotted it because I was working through one of Topbanana's reports, and to be honest I didn't have the faintest idea which version was correct until I started searching... --rbrwr ^± 23:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks for your support for my adminship. I appreciate it and hope to help out with more of the maintenance around here. Cheers, -Willmcw June 28, 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Don Saklad

Interesting in helping work on Don Saklad to save it from a VfD for non-notability? The page is admittedly a mess, partly because of Don's own edits... -- Kaszeta 14:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Dome photo

Can you provide some more information on the image page about how the Great Dome photo was taken? 121a0012 00:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Trees falling over

I wanted to let you know that I thought your comment over at this VfD was one of the funniest VfD comments I've read. This logic should be deployed much more widely as a reason for deletion. If I knew which barnstar was appropriate, I'd give you one. -Splash 22:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsella

Hey, thanks for the star! That's nice of you. Stephan Kinsella 13:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? He's been quite obnoxious, he's been conducting a campaign of self-promotion here and on his blog, and worse he's been conducting a campaign to delete an article about someone whom I guess he dislikes. Such behavior shouldn't be encouraged. Gamaliel 15:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished. This guy has made a number personal attacks on me, incluidng his relentless naming of me as the person who once nominated his article for VfD. He has tried repeatedly to create an article titled Wikinerds to disparage those he doesn't like. -Willmcw 16:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Here's one he just posted on the VfD:

As far as I can tell, your post was never deleted. But at som point Galadriel (sp?) moved it to the bottom of the page--clearly you are a newbie, probably signed on recently on behalf of Tom Palmer just to attack Rockwell and Mises sites. Just a guess. A troll, IOW. Stephan Kinsella 05:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Good faith? I don't think so. -Willmcw 17:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Swallowing my astonishment in this matter I agree that Barnstars should not be hoarded. Sharing the wikilove, I've given the Resilient Barnstar to User:ROMATH, who should also be thanked for not being as bad as Shawn Mikkula. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 10:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the wikilove will help nudge me in the right direction. If I don't defect completely to Wikinfo, that is. Stephan Kinsella 18:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following material has been removed from Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella 2 and copied here:

Comment However this all turns out, I have awarded user Nskinsella a barnstar for his courtesy, dignity, and general grace under pressure. His conduct is a model of Wikipedian civility, good faith, and avoidance of Wikipedia:Avoid personal attacks. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, courtesy, dignity, and general grace under pressure are not the terms I would use to describe him. See here. Jstrummer 18:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars mean very little and are awarded by one user unilaterally to another. They are not voted upon, or even usually discussed. Since the award of the barnstar has no bearing on either the article or the process of this VfD, can I suggest that any discussion of it be confined to the relevant User Talk pages? It will free up this page to focus on its real purpose. -Splash 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several Wikipedians whom I respect have suggested that the barnstar was inappropriate. My last words on this are: a) Perhaps. b) If the worst thing I do in this life is to award an undeserved barnstar I won't have done so badly... Dpbsmith (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you give a barnstar to the wrong person, the terrorists have already won. Gamaliel 16:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the conclusion of an implication is true, then the implication itself is true irrespective of the truth of the premise. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know a cult where I can get love bombed? I like it. It seems that the real ones where you can get loved bombed have died out here in the Netherlands. I agree that love bombing in Wikipedia is lousy in spite of its declaration as an official policy. Shall we form a love bombing committee for new Wikipedians? Andries 21:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Boosterism Tag

This tag is a great idea. I've added it to some much worse violators than MIT -- including Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Stanford, and Dartmouth. Hopefully this will get these articles in shape. Trying to find more now. Thanks for the contribution! (--66.220.248.222)

Not to worry, I've undone this little bit of hit-and-run vandalism. - Nunh-huh 23:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newbury Street

Thank you for your kind words on my photo. It's really a wonderful street, isn't it? Cheers, Daderot

tags as a way of enforcing one's point of view.

In general, I don't think tags have ever solved much of anything. I don't think "tagging" an article will ever substitute for discussion and vigilance, and that problems should and must be addressed on an article-by-article basis. The only benefit I see to your proposed procedure is that it makes it slightly harder to place disfiguring additions on articles-but is otherwise problematic. The idea of setting up committees to enforce content has met with a rather chilly response in the past, and I'm not sure how much enthusiasm this one would generate. - Nunh-huh 23:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been thinking. See how much of this you agree with:

Wikipedia, by its very nature, will always include material that annoys some people. Because people write about what they are enthused by, it will always be more detailed and more sympathetic to their points of view than it would be if written by someone totally dispassionately.
We can never completely eliminate this, but we try.
The worst-the blatantly slanted-is edited away by others interested in both the article and the NPOV policy.
Another approach for unwanted material is to shunt it elsewhere: to another article, or another wiki
Perhaps now is the occasion for WikiCollegeBrochures.
Another approach, which has proven less helpful, is to apply a disparaging label to the contribution (Fancruft, AcademicBoosterism). This leads to hurt feelings, obstinacy, and a shutdown of dialog, and to edit wars, bullying, and blocking.

What I'd advise: tolerate a little enthusiasm. Add to a style guide something along the lines of, "Detailed comparisons of educational institutions are not helpful in Wikipedia articles. Rankings change, and opinions differ, and the material dates poorly. A brief one-sentence overview is the most that is needed. Detailed comparisons will generally be removed. " +/- "Remember, the fact that Susquawatchahela University is the fifth largest Baptist college to offer a forestry degree in the 18th century may seem like a distinction to you, but is more likely to be considered a lack of other things to brag about to the reader" - Nunh-huh 00:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with most of what you say. So maybe you're right about tags, too. I think Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism is a pretty well written (not by me) guide, but perhaps could be improved to be more specific. Are you personally in general agreement with it? Maybe what is needed is to publicize the existence of this voluntary guideline on the relevant Talk pages.

I do find that I am experiencing a problem of what might be called consensus fatigue—you reach consensus and you feel good about it and six months later a bunch of people show up who are not part of the old consensus and need to be tediously won over again... and again... and again... I try to deal with it by letting go and letting someone else deal with it the next time. Not always successfully. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly understand you on consensus fatigue. Nothing here can be "finished", even when it should be. You just have to let it go and recognize it goes with the territory. What ticks me off more is the way people who have no clue on things express their opinion or vote, but again, I'm trying to let go of the fact that there is simply no way for Wikipedia to make consistently good decisions.

I agree with Avoid academic boosterism in its broad goal, but I'd be more tolerant of one (and probably exactly one) "prestige", "reputation", or "exclusivity". I don't think that that would crap up an article half so much as the jockeying for "good" quotes or favorable figures/listings/assessments does. The thing that most bothers me is the spread of forestfires from disputes that should be limited to one school. If there's a problem with an article, it should stay there. No "but school X says Y". Not pertinent. People need to keep their problems about any given article limited to that article. - Nunh-huh 01:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

I am really taken aback (in awe) that someone on Wikipedia has actually been open enough to change their mind, and to openly so state. I'm very much impressed—and I'd like to think I'd be so even if we hadn't wound up in agreement. In your honor, I hereby resolve to change my mind more often! - Nunh-huh 00:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]