User talk:RasputinAXP/Archive02#Altavista inbound link counter

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the above was tagged as a nonsense speedy. It's actually a Japanese group with a record being sold through Amazon. You could have checked that immediately via google. You also perhaps could have given the editor more than 3 minutes to work on the article. -- JJay 11:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:OK, so I mistagged something a few minutes after entry. I err on the side of dropping an SD tag on most of the questionable Newpage stuff I find. If anything, this appears to be my third mistagged speedy delete out of 471 speedies (inclusive of those three), so overall it's not so bad. Heck, that's better than the US Army right now. It sounded like a stack of nonsense to begin with, and I admit I should've googled it, but I went to Allmusic first and there was no entry for them. That said, I don't think that the album itself needs an entry. Overall, the group doesn't meet WP:MUSIC either, so I'm going to keep an eyeball on it for a little while.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 14:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. SD tagging is fine, but the general rule is to allow 30 minutes for an article before tagging. Mistakes can drive editors away from the site which is not good and the tag shuts down editing of the article. Regarding Teriyaki Boyz, I agree the album could be merged with the band page at this point. However, I would be interested to know how they fail WP:Music. From what I can tell, they have a major label release, produced by international stars, with widespread press coverage and international distribution. The album charted in Japan and the group is now on a National tour. Of course, if that is not sufficient, AfD is certainly an option. -- JJay 00:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Merry christmas to you, and maybe you could check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cele Kula (band) :)

Punkmorten 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reversion on my talk page. Actually, though, I felt the comments were a bit of a compliment and kind of funny, particularly compared to what I usually get called, so I'll probably save it on my user page. Best wishes for the holidays and the New Year. -- JJay 16:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You tagged this article to be speedily deleted after you merged it into University of Minnesota. FYI, in order to maintain author attribution as required by the GFDL, the proper thing to do after a merge is to redirect to the article where the content was merged, so I've taken the liberty of doing that for you here. Please keep that in mind for future reference. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 07:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Much appreciated. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't delete tagged an article in months and I guess things have changed. Thanks for the info though, I'll remember those. Have a happy New Year. Amerika 04:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A merged article is not usually a reason for speedy deletion, see WP:CSD. I turned this into a redirect instead. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Beat me to it. I had left it in an open tab, but got caught up in other things. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my sandbox to the proper spot. I'll try and only mess up my sandbox before I take my training wheels off. MBCF chat

You're quite welcome, I think that guy was just a stranger playing around with Wikipedia. --Winter 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know there is life on Wikipedia. Cheers! --Salvor Hardin 19:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, RasputinAXP. This was originally posted on your user page:

:What's hateful about it? What's for sure you DO delelete legit stuff. - Asker 5:17PST, January 11, 2006

Regards, Sango123 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Rasputin. I noticed you tagged an article on a web site as a speedy candidate for A3, because it "attempted to correspond with the person or group named by its title." I believe that's a misinterpretation of A3. Corresponding with the person or group named by the title is good. The A3 "corresponding clause" covers articles that are deceptively named, say, "History of foreign wars" and then the article talks about how the Ding Dong Goofy band is one of the best known in eastern Montana, and they might even put an album out next year. :) On the other hand, what I think you meant, the fact that the article talks in an unencyclopedic tone from the perspective of the thing being covered, isn't a speedy deletion criteria. It's a criteria for cleanup. Hope this helps. —Cleared as filed. 13:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You say the AFEF link is Spam; I’ve only put it in one place, I don’t see how that is spam? Also it relates to the topic that it is linked under? I understand that you think AFEF is just a pointless forum, but it has helped many people and countless more to come. I just thought for people doing research, and would like to go for more in-depth information on the topic of the US Air Force, and ask questions that link would help a lot.

Philip

:It's spam mostly because you are part of the site, but on top of that it's a non-notable site. I don't know what to tell you. The major problem is that you continue to add it. You (in so many words) called it vanity on the site, and you added it above every other link on the article including af.mil; it's extremely useful to drive traffic to your site. It certainly didn't help any that you referred to me (or wiki editors, I'm not sure) as "being really gay" and "stalking" you. If you're only going to put the link on USAF then I'll leave it alone, but put it at the bottom of the external links list. Also, for future reference, please don't delete things from my talk page, I notice you edited it six or so times. I saw your comment here and have been editing other articles before responding. I'm going to roll your edits on my talk page back. Thanks. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 01:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you added a tag for this article, indicating it needed cleanup from spam or other external links. There is one or a couple of anonymous users who sometimes add the same site, but at the moment there is no external link that I can find in the article because there are a few of us who keep reverting the changes. Is there any other external link you are referring to? - Dozenist talk 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:Nope, just those links that we keep reverting; I just want other people to keep an eye out as well. I suppose the next step is banning those IP addresses soon. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

URL for that please? Didn't see it here. http://www.altavista.com/ ... please answer here. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:You can plug link: into Altavista to get a link count...but it's not so accurate sometimes. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:: I tried this http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=link%3Apghbridges.com&kgs=0&kls=0 Seems to give gibberish. Please let me know what the actual URL or page should look like, if you would, thanks. As a participant in WP:WEB discussion recently, I've voiced my distrust of these sorts of metrics before anyway. I think you're looking at this site the wrong way though, because as I discussed at the AfD page, it's not notable because of traffic, it's notable because it's an important source for information on bridges. Clearly some of the other commenters are looking at it the wrong way too (citing my own Alexa number suggests they didn't actually think very hard, IMHO) ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I distrust most metrics too, but when all of them come up near blank, it's a strong suggestion that it's not enough for its own page on Wikipedia. Add it as reference links, put it on a list in WP:BRIDGES...I don't know. I'm sorry. It's an important source for information on bridges, yes. I hate falling back on this, but would we find it in Britannica? I have no idea at this point. The URL I get when using link: in the search bar is http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=link%3Apghbridges.com&kgs=1&kls=0 if you want to use it. I don't get gibberish with it, but I get some funky results. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Well funky results suggest it's not a good test, then, don't they? Since we last talked here I found 4 scholarly sites that reference it as one of the most important sources in its field, an award from a bridge construction society, mention that PENNDOT used to link to it, and a lot of mention on usenet groups. On the other hand, you haven't added anything much to the discussion, (instead you hid it away) and you haven't really addresssed why the WP:WEB GUIDELINE (not policy, mind you) applies to reference sites like this one. Reiterating that it fails criteria that don't apply to it doesn't sway me, I acknowledged that in the article... and now the deletionistas are citing the stat that **I** found as an argument, as if they'd actually put any thought into their comments. But then I don't have a "deletionist barnstar" and never will. I only vote 80% or so deletion, after all... Were you planning on deleting everything that we would not find in Britannica? That's a horrid metric, we're building something better than Britannica here. If you review my record you'll see I pretty consistently vote to delete websites that are brought here merely because they're websites. This isn't here because of that. Reference works should be judged with different metrics. (for the record I've never met the author, and I don't live in Pittsburgh) ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::I commented on the talk page for the AfD. WP:NPA please. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 05:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This does not qualify for an A3 speedy delete, as noted on its talk page. I have removed the speedy tag. DES ^(talk) 00:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging my unsigned vote. I've replace the unsigned tag with my own signature + time stamp. --Hurricane111 05:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is blanking my talk page with vandalism warnings a Bad Thing?

And could I blank it except for the warnings?

Is that all right?

AAARGH! I've been a Wikian for a long time...oh, demented poo-poo-saturated llamas¹.

Flameviper12 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

¹: See Euphemism.

:See Talk pages. It's considered uncivil. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 00:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Have a look and see what you think. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholars_for_9/11_Truth Scholars for 9/11 Truth] SkeenaR 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, don't get offended that easy. I do not want you to stop writing about hockey. I will be glad to read more hockey articles. I don't even make you to use diacritics. Just do not make any broad recommendations -- there is no clear support for any variant at the moment. We just need to wait another year or two. So I am looking to see Gretzky on the main page. Although he lost his superstar status in my eyes after his insults to the Czech republic after Canada lost to us in semifinals in Nagano. Star like that should learn to loose.

Anyway Rangers are my NHL favorite this year -- it is almost complete Czech repre team. Just shame of Prucha's injury. I just hope that after Olympics Czech will prove its hockey superpower status that you will have to write American players with Czech spelling. Your captain will have to change his name to Krys Čelijos from Chris Chelios :). --Jan Smolik 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I put that in quotes precisely because I knew it didn't exist and I just hoped people would understand it intuitively (apparently not, which is my bad).

So, for example, X is:

• "Still considered great." This (IMHO) is "unaqualified present"--we shouldn't use "still", "recently," "as of now" in sentences like this because there is no temporal qualification for the adverbial.
• "A poll in 2005 showed that he is still considered one of the greatest living Canadians." "Still" is still not ;) perfect here but it's qualified by "2005." Thus, I think, this is "qualified present" and is acceptable.

Now, you could argue, "why you use the present simple at all (i.e., 'he is great')? Why not 'a poll showed he was popular in 1985 but now we don't know.' Everything is going to be somewhat unqualified, right?..." There is no grammatical answer to this, but I think there is almost always a commonsensical answer. Insofar as 'he is great' is present simple: well, OK, he was, is, and will be, considered great. But consider: "(the shot)...is still ruefully and vividly remembered by many Canadian fans". I'm thinking: maybe it was previously, really don't know about now, and I predict it won't be in future. Present tense is being deployed to describe something that may largely be past.

In this particular context this is a minor concern, but for bios in general it's language that should be guarded against. This is probably an entirely too long-winded answer, but I hope this explains where I'm coming from. Marskell 21:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on the article, but double-check what you're reverting next time, please. "Skills" was a section I was adding by request for Featured Article status. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 12:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

:Did you mean to delete the entire "Honours and Accolades" section? Rory096 15:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

::Yes. I merged them into the body of the article. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)