User talk:Kappa/3: Difference between revisions

• Thank you very much but please don't nominate me, actually I just declined a nomination recently. A lot of wikipedians don't feel I am a suitable admin candidate, and I have no great need to become one. Kappa 03:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Kappa,

I have rewritten the "I Want You" articleso that it refers to both the Marvin Gaye and Madonna versions. I suggest that we move it to I Want You (song) and have I Want You as a disambiguation page for the song and the album. I like keeping the song history together for songs rather than having articles for each versionms.

I would be grateful for your advice.

Capitalistroadster 10:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Brenneman couldn't resist giving away the fact that he'd sneakily removed, from the deletion policy, without discussion, the small paragraph at the end of the opener which says "If in doubt, don't delete." This has been part of Wikipedia deletion policy for eighteen months, since it was added by a non-logged-in editor and then edited and compromised to its current wording by Theresa Knott. I have restored the paragraph. Please keep and eye on the deletion policy. There are some unscrupulous people around who find the current policy inconvenient and would do anything to traduce it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just blank the text, instead of putting a {{db}} tag on the page? Less work for people clearing out CSD. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• But more work for everyone visiting the page. Kappa 04:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kappa,

A while back, I got the idea that you should be awarded a Clarence Darrow Barnstar for the work you do in AfD, which is highly appreciated. I have now decided that designing a new barnstar is over-my-stupid-head technically, so I award you this Barnstar of Diligence in its stead. Thank you for all the content you've saved, and for finding knowledge where others wouldn't. Xoloz 05:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kappa! I don't know if you saw mer at Deletion Review when you made the article, but can you please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Mer? At any rate, I think your article has a lot more merit for staying in Wikipedia than the article on the neologism word. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kappa. Please be aware that I have recently nominated another exceptional contributor for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sfoskett. Hall Monitor 22:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kappa. First let me thank you for your many contributions to school related articles, I notice you have been developing a good number of articles on schools in various countries. I am in the process of establishing a Schoolwatch photographers organization, and was wondering if you would be interested in joining by capturing schools within your area. Do you have access to a digital camera of any sort? Bahn Mi 01:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you don't want to be a admin. Being a illusionest really won't make people to oppose you and u are a very top article writer. I normally don't agree with u in AFD but even I belive you should be a admin. Want me to nominate you for it and become one or no. --JAranda | watz sup 02:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to enlighten myself as to the state of school articles in Wikipedia, I decided to conduct a little survey. I reviewed every single school article for the states of California and Texas (states picked at random), with the intent of surveying roughly a hundred articles. I learned that virtually all school articles in Wikipedia have been written in this year, and better than half of all articles have been written in the past six months. The stubby nature of the preponderance of the articles attests to this. Only 12 articles date to prior to January 1 of this year. Looking specifically at those 12, each have received an average of 21 editing sessions between the time they were created and the date of their last edit. But only two of those articles have undergone significant improvement. Five others have made modest gains, but almost half of them (five) have not progressed very far from their initial state.

From a content perspective, most articles are acceptable, though I still insist that notability needs to be a consideration, and from that perspective, most articles fail. I do not need to go through that set of arguments. I will point out that Clements High School, Memorial High School (Hedwig Village, Texas), and Lubbock High School are all articles which demonstrate what I believe a good school article should aspire to. On the other hand, I have placed Villanova Preparatory School, Naaman Forest High School, R. L. Turner High School, Hightower High School, Foster High School (Richmond, Texas), Lumberton High School, and Seven Lakes High School on my watchlist. All these articles have had sufficient time to improve beyond their present deplorable state. I have not placed school articles on AfD before, but not one of these articles meets even a minimum standard of quality, and if they are not improved soon, I will do so. While you may feel it is a waste of time to nominate school articles to AfD, I believe it is harmful to Wikipedia's reputation to allow articles like this to go unchallenged, and from what I see from the articles which have been on board for over a year, it is as likely as not that an article will not improve much beyond where it was within the first month. Moreover, it is often a visit to AfD which spurs someone to bring an article up to snuff.

Having said that, I will add that I am all in favor of achieving some sort of consensus. I hope you can appreciate that it must take the form of some kind of minimum standard which school articles must meet. I know I have lost the battle to keep school articles out of Wikipedia, but I will continue to fight for quality articles if they must be present. Denni☯ 03:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kappa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Watch broadcasters. You are quite right - not only was there no mandate to delete - GFDL demands that the article redirects to the merged target. Well spotted. But could you please take undeletions up with the deleting/closing admin before listing on VfU. It cuts down the paper work, and saves an admin who has made an honest mistake public embarrassment. Thanks. :) --Doc (?) 22:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd think it would be more embarassing to have it on one's talk page, but OK. Kappa 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't think labelling people as "deletionists" and accusing them of having hidden agendas is a personal attack? Pfft. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• "deletionist" isn't a personal attack, and I was only asking. Kappa 20:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added information about the only source you cited in the AfD on the above topic. You might wish to reconsider your vote, or might not. Barno 20:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Reconsidering. Kappa 20:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you could check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musicianforums and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mxtabs? Punkmorten 21:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have to revisit this later, I can't get an Alexa rank (404). Kappa 21:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. But as for the Musicianforums article, you don't need an Alexa rank as it passes WP:WEB as a forum with 10,329 active members :) Punkmorten 16:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! My user name is "Rune Welsh" not Esperanza! (Re this comment [2]) No harm done though. Cheers! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about that. Kappa 21:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, no problem. I actually thought it was funny. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Borden's maid. You're welcome, and thanks for your cordiality. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, are you ever on the IRC channel - I'd like to chat. If not I'd like to send my email address, but not post it on WP (for what I think are obvious reasons)--Nicodemus75 09:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, I noticed a few weeks ago you added several red links to this page and today you added red links to another county. When I created this page, I intentionally did not do that because until there are more active links we would have a full page of red links. We are still at the point that I think it would look bad. I can do a search and replace to add square brackets to all entries in a matter of minutes when the time comes, but until then I would personally prefer no red links rather than a scattershot approach of having a few counties with red links and others without. Do you object to my removing the red links you added? --- DS1953 ^talk 22:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Go ahead. Kappa 22:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep checking back and then do the red links in one fell swoop when there are a higher percentage of active links. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kappa. I have seen you be active in a few AfDs before regarding getting rid of lists in favor of categories. There's an AfD at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of companies] I thought you should know about. While I frankly don't really understand what's going on there, I thought you would want to know about it. --Jacqui ^★ 23:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I'm glad you let me know. Kappa 01:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me about the List of companies vote on delete. "Afd" CaribDigita 03:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: I am blatantly copying the Jimmy Wales quote from your user page ;) Nihiltres 01:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I appreciate your comments and respect your inclusionist philosophy. But please do not bait me by misrepresenting my statements, I think that you understood perfectly well the distinction between casual audiences ("people") and over-infatuated videogame enthusiasts (otaku). Personally, I do not think that wikipedia should cater exclusively to the latter community, as this often comes at the expense of article quality and irrelevant clutter. This stance is more egalitarian than elitist. --anetode¹ ² ³ 05:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I understood (and undertand) you to be insulting users who want to share detailed descriptions of their games. I don't see how you can use the "exclusively", wikipedia has the capacity to cater to everyone and users are not in competition for space, rather the more users there are, the better wikipedia is able to organize and repair itself. This particular article is valuable to anyone who clicked on the link to it, and harmless to anyone else. Kappa 06:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are misinterpreting my statements in bad faith. If you want to twist hyperbole into diatribe, go ahead, but I think that such dismissal says much about your opportunistic tendencies.
  • Wikipedia does have the capacity to cater to everyone; still the responsibility to create a high quality, factual resource should take precedence over absolute completeness. Minor videogame characters barely fit under the strict guidelines of WP:FICT and would be better catalogued at Wikibooks[3]. --anetode¹ ² ³ 06:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may be misinterpreting expressions like "over-infatuated" and "obsessive videogame fanatics" but I genuinely feel they are insulting to me, to other contributors and to users who would wish for access to this kind of information.
    • Wikipedia has no responsibility to improve its average quality over its total usefulness, because the average quality is only of relevance to random article users, who should hardly be the priority. This article is a description, not a how-to, and so has value for people wanting to understand the game (encyclopedic) as well as those wanting to know how to play it. Kappa 07:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry that you choose to take offense to these characterizations. It seems that we have completely opposing perceptions of wikipedia and its standards. --anetode¹ ² ³ 08:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we know for sure this school has been closed for years, and no realiable info exists, I hope you'll consider changing to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Altar Christian School. A clear useful de-facto precident has been established of keeping verifiable real schools, while deleting the unverified (or non-existant). Surely, such as "dividing line" is ideal. We need a predictable line, for people making articles, so they know whether their contributions will be kept or not. Creating articles likely to be deleted or nominating articles likely to kept, are both things that should be discouraged. Only if people are realistic, on both sides, can conflicts over AFD be avoided. --rob 08:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for directing me to look at the list again. :) We may be fighting a losing battle, but I think perhaps a no consensus may still be in reach, at least. Jacqui ^★ 15:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a pity to lost this, especially since there are also a lot of books and films set there. Kappa 16:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the tide has turned since I was last there -- a couple or a few more keeps have been added, nothing else added. May still be in reach yet. Keep your chin up! :) Jacqui ^★ 22:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have built a script to speed up voting on AFDs and am looking for feedback. Please have a go! jnothman ^talk 11:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that we do not see eye-to-eye on this article's deletion. I just wanted to let you know that this is nothing personal, and I respect your oppinion greatly. I'm not sure about a compromise on this AfD, but I hope we can work something out. Thank you, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{04:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Well, after reading that thing, I think it ought to be deleted... It is up for a second debate at Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A phrase's Google hit count is not criteria for notability alone. If you look at the results, most of them are links to stores that sell the product, or are entirely unrelated. This product was not the first of its kind, and I don't think there is anything special about it compared to other brands. In my opinion, this makes it unfit for a stub, much less an article. Unless someone can provide us with some sort of information that goes beyond a description of the item, like cultural significance or historical perspective, this article is useless; and I don't believe anyone can do that. Let me know what you think on my talk page. --mdd4696 16:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chore Boy article aside, I am getting the impression that you think using the number of Google hits alone is a valid way to justify an article's notability. It is not, and I hope that I am just mistaken. What I was saying was that just because a phrase turns up a certain number of hits on Google, it doesn't mean that all of those hits are relevant to your search. I looked through the Google results for "chore boy" and I did not see any pages other than those selling the item and pages that used the words "chore boy" in a context unrelated to the product mentioned in the article on Wikipedia. Therefore, the number of Google hits does not support your claim that it shows enough people know about the product to expect it on Wikipedia. --mdd4696 02:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now those are some valid Google hits... Thanks for pointing that out for me, I had no idea something like that was out there. --mdd4696 02:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support on the afd page for Songs in triple meter. I created that page and added all but about 3 of the songs and you may know now that it has now been deleted even though the vote was something like 11 to 8 with half or more of the 11 knowing little or nothing about time signatures. I didn't know it was a raw numbers kind of affair. Live and learn I guess. I asked for the page to be undeleted and any suggestions you have or support you could show in this regard would be welcome. Thanks. Hraefen 02:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You probably do not remember me, but a few months ago you voted "keep" on the Article for Deletion vote for Three Dozer Build. The archive of that vote is here. The article has been put up on AfD again, by a somewhat crazed poster (read the correspondence here, who again wishes the page to be deleted. Can I ask that you please vote "keep" again at the current nomination. A simple "keep for reasons on previous nomination" should suffice, and would ensure the survival of a page you felt deserved to survive last time. Thanks in advance. Batmanand 16:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why were you so opposed to merging this? The info would be retained but put into context with the game it came from. Does "think of the users" mean you believe they are too dumb to try another search term? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• "Think of the users" means "don't bloat main articles with excessive detail". Kappa 12:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will take the time to visit Wikipedia talk:Schools and participate in the dialog there. Because I have seen you not only vote to delete articles, but even nominate articles for deletion, I feel you are weighing each article on its individual merits. This is an enormously important factor in ending the current dispute on school articles. I believe your input is important and would value your opinion. Denni☯ 04:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is not systematic bias. I am an Indian. I've nominated US lists for deletion as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005). Could you please do a rethink on your vote. utcursch | talk 05:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea whether you collect these or not. But I'm awarding this to you for a woderful sense of humour. --Doc ^ask? 10:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm glad you like my sense of humor but that was not an example of it. I take this very seriously: "The Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with a vision to bring a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet. This includes people who currently do not have electricity, computers, internet, or even clean drinking water." [4] Kappa 13:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, they say people who currently do not have electricity, computers, internet, or even clean drinking water - I'd sort of assume they envisage that these people might need to get electricity, PC's amd water before they get Wikipedia - otherwise I think there are some practicality problems, neverminds some rather screwed-up priorities. I guess getting water might be a higher priority than knowing what's on Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005) ! --Doc ^ask? 14:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC) (wondering if the world has finally gone insane - or if it is just WP!)[reply]
• See WP:1.0. For people without electricity, they are thinking of a printed version. I wouldn't say the Newsweek lists are a priority for that, but something like 100 Best High Schools in Africa probably would be. Kappa 14:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Crazy, but well, heck, you can keep the barnstar anyway.

• Thanks Doc. Kappa 14:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't assume wikipedia users have internet access" - How else would someone access wikipedia?? Am I missing something here? 84.65.193.133 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • See the conversation above. Kappa 19:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kappa,

This is just a petition for you to reconsider your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of results of the England national rugby league team.

While it would be a good thing if all the analysis that you discuss were done, frankly, I can't see that it ever will be.

Leaving this list in place is an open invitation for lots of other analysis free lists of every sporting result known to mankind.

Do we really need to record

• England A def. Russia 98-4 (24 October 2004)

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My question is do we really need to take that information away from users? Readers would also be interested in knowing what the England and Russia rugby teams were doing in October 2004, and we should not refuse to tell them.

This list would be more valuable with more information, such as why the two teams were playing each other. If you don't want it to look like an open invitation, maybe you could find or develop a cleanup tag which says something like "The individual items on this lists are insufficiently explained, you can help wikipedia by fixing it". Kappa 01:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't England, it was England A. The seconds. I agree that tagging the page is the best available option now. Not sure what tag I'd recommend. I guess I could point out that many of the keep votes were on the hope that the page might be made somehow useful, but I'd be stunned if anyone ever really expected that to happen. Ah well. Worse things happen at sea. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of knowledge, when it is done on Wikipedia, IS vandalism. What's wrong with calling it such? Kurt Weber 00:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that vandalism is done with the intention of harming people, while deletionists have good intentions behind their actions, although the result is still harmful. Kappa 00:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I go up to your house and spray-paint my initials on your wall because I genuinely thought it would make it look prettier, I am still a vandal. Intent is irrelevant. Kurt Weber 00:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the deletionists do NOT have benevolent intentions. As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, it is impossible to destroy or seek to destroy the good with benevolent intent. Such acts necessarily come from malicious intent. Kurt Weber 00:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what Ayn Rand said, but IMO it's possible to do harm while still having good intentions if one doesn't fully understand the situation. Deletionists want to help the world by creating their vision of an encyclopedia. Unfortunately they are willing to destroy a comprehensive encylopedia to get their refined, selective one, but that's the only way they understand. Kappa 00:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're featured on User:Karmafist/users to watch; recently described by another editor as a "hate page". Andy Mabbett 11:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]