User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive01

This page is an archive of discussion from User talk:TenOfAllTrades. It includes all conversations from 2004, as well as the first quarter (January to March) of 2005.

If you wish to communicate with TenOfAllTrades, please use his current talk page.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TenOfAllTrades/archive01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 00:39, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Aereosynchronous orbits

Note that areosynchronous != areostationary the last time I checked (and it was well before Dec 2004). Nothing is as simple as it seams. Please be careful with such quick fixes.

Cheers, ---0.39 22:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Coopetition

Thank you for your kind words on coopetition—I'll see if I can find a source for the earlier writer's comment about Taylor and incorporate Noorda. Stombs 08:56, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on WP:VFD/Operating system advocacy

Iasson has an RfC running against him. While I and apparently many others are as frustrated with him as you seem to be, it's not at clear that he's acting in bad faith. Of particular note is that English is not his first language. If, as it seems, he's acting in good faith, then a deep breath and some comments at the RfC are the way to go. On the other hand, if he's just trolling, then responses like yours are exactly what he's after. —Korath (Talk) 21:58, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Science

Hi. Could you take a look at the recent edits I made to consensus science and consider changing your merge/deletion vote? I believe the new version more accurately describes the clear divide between the two concepts, and adheres more closely toward NPOV. Thanks. — Cortonin | Talk 09:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Niles Eldredge

'Directly'? 'Lifted'? My good man, what are you saying? However, thank you for the URL to Eldredge's own web site. I could find no reference anywhere to his DoB, but you supplied a suitable source of information! :)

I've shined it up a bit, explained some stuff in simpler terms, and removed the reference to Eldredge's eternal battle with the Creationists, as it's not very interesting. Toodle-ooh. sugarfish 23:59, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Chechnya issue

Thanks for a piece of advice.

Although, I think the dispute this way only widened to the new space of Wiki. I don't quite think the opponents are about to agree even on the determination of the nature of this so called dispute. BBC viewpoints

Just compare:Wikipedia:Requests for comment

My explanatory text: The other Wiki's Chechnya articles are related to this one. The Article 'Second Chechen War' and the impartial Analyses and Reports resume deserves professional writing due to the sensitive political situation and Genocide topically on the spot.

Pnikolov's invert: NPOV and inclusion dispute.

Topically, who's to tell how to write NPOVwise about such as evidently imminent state terrorism and genocide among one minor defenceless people?--BIR 07:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Hello! Regarding my tagging, I probably had just then tagged several obvious GFDL's and automatically tagged it as one. On the router bits, I could have easily doen a replacement in Microsoft Word, and the description made it look homemade. Thanks, Bart133 (t) 01:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VFD questions

Hi, TenOfAllTrades-- You asked a few questions on the VFD page for my Wikipedia entry. I'm responding here rather than there because it doesn't really seem appropriate for me to participate directly in the debate any more than I already have. Feel free to repost any of the following or to ignore it completely, as you deem fit.

" How many episodes of Dennis Miller Live did he write? Was he a significant contributor?"
- I was a staff writer on the show from Jan 2000-August 2003. I was part of a team of 8-10 staff writers (depending on the season), which collectively wrote every one of the 75 episodes during those three years.
"Is he a Joss Whedon, or anything close?"
- If by "a Joss Whedon," you mean "a guy with the initials JW who has written for TV," then the answer is unquestionable "Yes." For pretty much any other interpretation of "a Joss Whedon," the answer is "Dear God, no." Whedon is a one of the greatest TV writers in the history of the medium, and I have a feeling he is ultimately going to be remembered as a major writer/director. I, on the other hand, am basically just some guy who writes for a living. Whedon is unquestionably notable enough for inclusion; whether I am depends on your definition of "notable," and I'm probably a borderline case either way.

I am an idiot

I just realized I wrote "August 2003". I meant "August 2002." My apologies. --Jacobw 18:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

category:VFD votes

Thanks for your comments. I have heeded them. I posted a reply on my talk page, and would appreciate your additional feedback.

By the way, your sig's talk link does not work properly. Did you customize it? -Rholton 16:22, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Policy consensus

Hi there! Regarding your comment on the 'little boxes' item on VfD-talk... of course you can start a policy consensus article! As can anyone else, if they think they have a VfD-related matter that bears discussion. Radiant! 19:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I found it and voted on it. Compliant with the vote on Tally Boxes, I've added a category about dealing with violators of policy. Radiant! 21:24, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the Iceberg!

Hi! Thank you very much for your Iceberg of Cool Reason! I'm glad you liked my little rant on the VfD page. And the award itself is a brilliant idea on your part; I hope that it will be an inspiration to many future receipients. I for one will carry on the tradition of the Iceberg with ~~fiery~~ icy zeal! Cheers. --Plek 19:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalized VfD

Good catch on that VfD. I'll change the result to DELETE right away. That'll teach me to assume that the votes I see are the votes that were cast. ;) I'll make a strong effort to investigate the votes more in the future. Thanks! Carrp | Talk 02:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GRider

Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant _* 10:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, this is just to thank you for supporting my adminship nomination. I really appreciate it. Best, SlimVirgin 00:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion vote aimed at me

Sorry to hear that you think that my biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Broughton is unworthy of publication. I think that I've had a worthwhile and interesting life. I may be biased in this regard, but I know that there are other people who feel the same way.

Of greater importance is the "equal time" issue. If you're going to list one candidate in a political race, you're obligated to list them all. Otherwise, you risk being branded as one of those people who believe that only incumbents are entitled to win elections. And, there are plenty of people on this planet who believe that I'm more significant than Joyce Murray. If you don't believe this, I can ask a few of them to post comments in this space.

Hello Robert.

I'm pleased to see a wired and intelligent political candidate who is willing to contribute to Wikipedia. Regarding your comments on my talk page about the potential deletion of the article Robert Broughton, I have a few thoughts.

First and foremost, it's nothing personal. The deletion vote isn't aimed at you, per se, it is about the article. It may seem a fine distinction, but it is an important one here. Many--perhaps even most--people have had worthwhile and interesting lives, and I hope you don't see the deletion discussion as passing judgement in that regard. (I think that my life has been interesting and worthwhile, too.)
Under almost all circumstances, one should refrain from creating an autobiographical page. It is very difficult to write such an article from a neutral point of view, and such articles are often perceived as vanity pages. Pages written by candidates for political office are a particularly touchy subject, since such pages can be perceived as self-promotion.
We are building an encyclopedia, not a general knowledge base. Candidates for office—perhaps regrettably—often aren't notable in an encyclopedic sense until they win an election.

I would urge you to establish a username on Wikipedia (it's quick and painless, and the button is right at the top of the page) to make communication easier. Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ella Peterson

Thanks for the kind happy positive response to my curmudgeonly VfD vote on Ella Peterson. I'll refrain from offering guidance on where to direct the emoticons referenced therein. If everyone deleted roughly from behind, nobody would want to submit articles, no doubt. Barno 15:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Modifications to your arbitration evidence

Hi, TenOfAllTrades:

FYI, I believe GRider has modified your evidence in the Request for Arbitration involving him. See this history.

Best, Jacobw 17:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Charlie Beresford

It should be remembered that there is no two-thirds rule and VfD is not a straight vote but a search for consensus. Personally the standard I generally use is that if two or three respected users advance a reasonable case for a page to be kept then I usually do not deleted it (there are of course some exceptions). In the vast majority of cases this gets the same result as the two-thirds rule, but in some cases such as Charlie Beresford the outcome is different. - SimonP 16:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)