User talk:Oliver Pereira/Archive 4

AAAAGH OLIVER!!! :-) I was about to delete Sheffield, but went back on my browser to check something. I came back to find Sheffield gone. I ended spluttering "but I didn't . . ." and trying to see was there a bug that had erased the article even though I had not hit the button. And all the time you had erased it. (I guess you and I were about to delete it at the same time!!!) lol FearÉIREANN 23:57 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Haha, beat you. :) -- Oliver P. 23:59 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I suppose I'll have to let you do then all on our onio. All hundreds and hundreds of pages. That way there is be no possible clashed. I'll head out for a late night pint instead. FearÉIREANN 00:03 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, no. I'm off to bed now. You're quite free to carry on without fear of clashing wth me again tonight. :) -- Oliver P. 00:09 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit at Talk:Catholicism -- see Wikipedia:Annoying users for my comments on that issue. Also read New Imperialism (temp) (please please please) and compare it to New Imperialism -- be sure to read Talk:New Imperialism -- good night -- I too am an Uncle! Pizza Puzzle

Erm, yes, I saw Wikipedia:Annoying users, but I'd rather not get involved in a fight right now, so I'll just urge you and Jtdirl to both practise WikiLove and not fight each other... :) I just put the section that Jtdirl removed on the talk page because that's what he said he was going to do himself. Perhaps he just didn't quite get round to it... :) As for New Imperialism and its associated pages, I gather that people have been arguing over that for pretty much the whole time I've been here, so it'll take me ages to get up to speed with what's going on. And it's not really a subject I know much about... Maybe I'll try, though, as it does look interesting. But another day... I'm thinking of going to bed soon myself... :) -- Oliver P. 05:16 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- THIS IS WHY YOU NEED TO LOOK AT IT Since you don't know anything about it -- read them - I guarantee you that 172s version is not something you are going to want to read through - mine is something you can get through. Pizza Puzzle

Thanks Oliver for putting the text onto the talk page when my system froze (I was listening to Sinatra on iTunes at the time and he froze on a note, then the computer told me "please switch off your computer and reboot" so I lost it all. BTW re Pizza Puzzle's comments. In the last week PP has started down some rather provocative things. Far from attacking him I left three messages on his talk page urging him to continue to act with the high standards he has been reaching up to now. I have not agreed with various people's request that he be banned. I have gone out on a limb to urge him as a colleague not to start reverting to past standards and to keep up the high standards he has practiced as PP. I told him how highly I regarded his ability. Yet (as in the past, *sigh*) he interprets constructive criticism as offensive attacks. After this I am not going to waste any time defending him, urging people clashing with him to ease off. I have had three contacts from people on AIM and ICQ asking me if I would support them if they proposed him for a ban. I said no. Next time I won't come to his rescue. FearÉIREANN 05:56 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Take your threats elsewhere, referring to a users contributions as "incoherent garbage" is not constructive criticism. Pizza Puzzle

From Colin Powell: As Secretary of State in the Bush administration, Powell is perceived as moderate, his pragmatism serving as a balance to more idealogy-driven hawks, such as the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and his colleagues Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

How could I not support the one bit of quasisanity in the Bush administration?

Also from Powell: critics condemned Powell as a company man who is never willing to confront uncomfortable realities or rock the boat.

As do I, notice that Erwin Rommel is on my list as well. I tend to support military officers who, despite the trend of all their peers, continue to resist fascism -- although, certainly, they could do more good, they most certainly could do far more evil. Pizza Puzzle

I saw your comment to 172 and restored King & Spalding. The ampersand did seem to be a problem - I was able to find the deleted version by replacing it in the URL with its hexadecimal equivalent (%26) Evercat 18:33 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah! very cunning. :) Thanks. -- Oliver P. 18:35 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually I think Anthere possibly beat me to it. There's no such thing as an undeletion conflict. :-) Evercat 18:36 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oh, how confusing! In that case, thanks to Anthere as well, if she sees this... :) -- Oliver P. 18:45 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just to say that I didn't do what I did to John Ford out of forgetfulness. As it was obvious that different people had worked on the different John Fords, there didn't seem much point in moving the page history to just one of them -- so I left it where it was.

BTW, the church roof has been repaired. Deb 19:53 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I just wanted to inform you that there is an actual vote going on at VfD regarding Daniel C. Boyer. MB 19:48, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Well, the vote and much new talk has moved to Talk:Daniel C. Boyer. MB 21:10, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

AKFD[edit]

I wish to throw 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan to the wolves - see Talk:AKFD/redirect. You voted against that, so I'm contacting you (and the other two who voted the same way). User:MyRedDice

Okay, thanks for the note. I'll go there now. -- Oliver P. 21:02, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, the article titles do look a bit small now, but perhaps it's like the Radio Times - you know, every time they change the typeface you think you'll never get used to it, but you soon do.

That's a good idea, about the disambiguation methodology. Having said that, I'm not sure how many people would be that desperate to follow back the history, especially of the talk page. Deb 22:13, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, it was entirely my fault - I take back the above comment. Engage brain! There, that ought to help. Deb 17:51, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When you list a page on Votes for deletion you must say "Listed on Votes for deletion" on the page you are listing. Otherwise the page will not get deleted. --mav 23:34, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Sorry. I didn't realise that was a definite rule now. There I was yesterday complaining to someone else about not following the deletion policy, and I wasn't even following it myself... -- Oliver P. 09:57, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oliver, wrt Luke Pebody, my concern on this is simple. Mr Pebody has published a couple of journal papers. We don't even have articles for most of the Nobel Prize winners. Even in computer science, where the Wikipedia is strong, we cover half the Turing award winners. So why are we writing about such relative nonentities as this guy?

If somebody turns does a search for combinatorics and turns up the biography of Mr Pebody, they will gain a misleading impression of his importance to this field - considering that to my knowledge we don't have articles on ANYBODY else in the field.

Not to mention that doing a biography on people of that kind of prominence without doing original research is going to be impossible anyway...--Robert Merkel

Thanks for your message. To answer your first point: all this says is that the Wikipedia is hopelessly incomplete. Well, we all know that... It's been true ever since the project started, and will be true for a long time to come. There are huge gaps all over the place, even amongst really famous people. So yes, I agree that coverage is really patchy at the moment. But the project is only two and a half years old, and it's expanding at an ever-increasing rate. If this pace continues, the gaps will eventually be filled. It's inevitable.

As for misleading impressions, even for those people who have articles, their articles are often very incomplete, and give a skewed impression of their lives. Anyone reading the Wikipedia will get a misleading impression about a lot of things. But this situation can always be improved by anyone with knowledge in the relevant area. If you come across an article which talks about a person who is fairly obscure but which doesn't make that fact clear, all you have to do is add a sentence saying that the person is fairly obscure. :) Although perhaps it could be phrased in a more NPOV way than that.

Anyway, it might be relevant that I'd heard of this chap before his article appeared, so he's not completely unheard of even outside the world of the professional mathematician... :)

As for your point about the research that would be needed to fill in all the biographical details, well, it's true that a lot of basic details will not be public knowledge. You have a point there. But a very incomplete article is still more informative than no article at all (half a loaf is better than no bread!), and it is at least arguable that that outweighs the negative effect of the unprofessional look of incomplete articles. I agree that they would look bad, though. I'll give the issue some more thought, anyway. -- Oliver P. 17:23, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

I strongly disagree. The content was He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.

This is clearly covered by the deletion policy as patent nonsense. If someone wanted to create a sensible article about him, they could do so. The ridiculous content which I deleted would not help to create that article.

Angela

He did create Factory and the Hacienda. And by doing a Google search on those terms, I found quite a few pages that would help to create an article on him. QED. -- Oliver P. 19:24, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The orignal article was still nonsense though. Sticking a fact in the middle of nonsense doesn't mean it should be kept. The original contributer was obviously not serious about adding to the article so I don't think keeping it is necessary. If you keep accusing people of over-hasty deletions, VfD is going to get very full. User:jimfbleak is now listing things which should have been deleted on sight, presumably as a result of what you said to him yesterday. Angela

Sticking a fact in the middle of nonsense makes it not entirely nonsense any more. I'm not arguing for the policy here; I'm just telling you what it says. (Actually, there do seem to be some internal contradictions in the policy page itself. Perhaps I should sort them out.) I said to both of you that you could argue for the policy to be changed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Oh, go on, arguing about policies is such fun... -- Oliver P. 19:44, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I noticed you moved East Ruston, Norfolk to East Ruston. Is there a policy about place names of English villages? Since articles about North American municipalities all incorporate the state or province I added the county for East Ruston, but I had no idea whether that was the right thing to do. Trontonian

Thanks for the information. I'll go move Hoveton back now. Trontonian

Or I would have if you hadn't beaten me to it. User:Trontonian

Heh. :) -- Oliver P. 04:30, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that! Poor Yorick 16:00, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ooh, get you! Personally, I felt that Dr Michael Walker fell into both categories 3 and 4, as little of the content appeared to me to be meaningful. More to the point, I doubted the veracity of what was there. You must admit it did read like a child's attempt to get back at his headmaster for existing. These things are bound to be subjective -- which is, of course, why I didn't go ahead and delete it, I merely asked whether we really needed to wait. And you disagreed with me, which is your prerogative. Deb 16:59, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oliver, the heading on the bottom of Vfd is to make it easier to get to the bottom of the page via the table of contents. If you just click on the last date, you must still scroll through all of that day's additions to get to the newest one. I understand that the END key does the same thing, basically, but it can't really hurt to have another way of doing it. Besides, not everyone knows how to use the HOME and END keys, but the ToC is self explanatory. ;) --Dante Alighieri 03:13, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Well, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. -- Oliver P. 05:33, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hiya, chuck. Actually, Dr Walker sounds quite an interesting bloke - now that I know he exists! Deb 10:35, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cool. :) Sorry for overreacting about that, though. I become very protective towards some articles, for some reason... -- Oliver P. 05:33, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No idea, but you're quite welcome. *grin* - Hephaestos 05:16, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I strongly believe so but can't proove it. Some people seem to think anyone should be made sysop though which is what made me think things are getting stupid here. I don't know if it's a good reason to quit though. Perhaps I should just accept it. Angela

I sent you an e-mail. Angela

Sorry for the Kukes redirect thing, but I had no choice since the other page existed as well and I couldn't just move it. Also, initially I was confused as to whether I should use the english alphabet or the local spelling which is where the whole Kukes or Kukës naming conflict came from. Dori 21:50, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm going to stop being so paranoid and hope that you are right. I suppose it's not the end of the world even if it does turn out to be Lir. I still think everyone is mad though :)

Angela

How is the content of Eddie The Animal Lopez not patent nonsense? RickK 20:51, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Easy! Because it was written in almost perfect English. Please read the "Not to be confused with..." section. -- Oliver P. 21:04, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Im onto you Lir. Pizza Puzzle

Oh no, damn, I've been found out. ;) -- Oliver P. 21:04, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The link's right there. It's at Houston, Texas. RickK 03:51, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But is there any reason to force people to go via the Houston, Texas page, rather than allowing them to go straight there? -- Oliver P. 03:54, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I coded a decryp algorithim which hacked into Jimbo's account, unbanned me, and then retrieved my password. I am running "amuck" (as Jtdirl would say) until I am "rumbled", at which point, BrionVibber will have to restart the database, delete the wiki, and everyone will start over from scratch without me. (yah, go see mailing list)LirQ

So it has to wait seven days from now rather than seven days from the 25th? That doesn't really make sense if people wanted it deleted for reasons other than copyvio anyway. I'm not too bothered, I just wondered why you moved it. Angela 02:20, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point. Maybe it should be deleted seven days from its being listed on Vfd, if there is a consensus to do so. But I don't think there's any point in putting the effort into finding a consensus if the page has to be deleted on copyright grounds anyway. So in a sense I'm saying that the listing for possible copyright infringement "outranks" the listing for any other reason, and therefore we should list as a possible copyright infringement. And since that possible copyright infringement was only discovered today (as far as I can tell), I think it makes sense to list it under today. Generally, I think it's good to give people as much of a chance as possible to defend things, because gaining information is better than losing it. :) -- Oliver P. 02:34, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That would be because you are an m:inclusionist. I would move it to the 25th because I want everything deleted as soon as possible! :) -Angela

Ah, thanks for the link. But that essay is just far too non-NPOV. I might have to attack it later. :) By the way, we inclusionists will win. ;) -- Oliver P. 04:12, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Rotten boroughs -> Talk:Rotten borough

The term "unencyclopedic"[edit]

Discussion at wikipedia:encyclopedic

Yes, sir. At History of the Soviet Union you will find, in the first paragraph, that the Tsar was the leader of a regime. Examining the talk page you will find an argument by Jtdirl in which he argues that the Tsar had a regime because he was too stupid to create a "real government" (or so I interpreted his statements -- Im sure he will declare my view as a "gross misrepresentation" of his position -- stated as so: "[he] was not particularly intelligent"). LirQ

That is unfair. 1. The word regime is often used to describe pre-democratic governmental systems, eg, the Ancien Regime in France, Russia under the Old Regime by Pipes, etc. 2. I do not believe that Adam is "not particularly intelligent". I believe the exact opposite, that Adam is one of the most intelligent people on wiki. I only wish Adam would stop picking fights with people and start being constructive. I have made constant efforts to mend bridges, defending Pizza Puzzle from calls for his banning, being the first one to say Adam should be allowed back as Adam, etc. What more do I have to do? FearÉIREANN 18:42, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Its not me you called stupid, its poor Nicholas whom you slandered. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Oliver, thanks for your comment on Frank Forde. I have now learned how to use the page moving thing. Incidentally the text at Frank Forde is all mine because I completely rewrote the article. Adam 06:25, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll keep it in mind. Evil saltine 06:55, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A little confusion on my part about Varia - seemed odd to leave the VfD note in place even after the contents had been fixed up. Stan 23:55, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In your war against the "Cut out everything that's 'unencyclopedic'!" meme, be sure to go to VfD and vote against the attempts to delete Bush's nickname list from Wikipedia. Yes, they put it on there AGAIN.

Hey Oliv: whats up? Good job on Frank Bruno! Basically all I know is about their careers, but you did an excellent job about his life. In view that he, Arnold Sawazzrhardlastname and so many others have been getting into politics Ive been thinking that maybe we should make a list of entertainers who have gone into politics, what do you think? Although this isnt new, cause of Ronald Regan, John Glenn, Shirley Temple, etc , in view that its catching on, maybe we should...

i JUST WANTED TO SAY YOU MIGHT NOTICE THAT these days my contributions have been minimized: not to worry, what happens is that Thursday night I was with Antonio Margarito, friday with Tim Conway and today Im going partying! We are staying until tomorrow at a 4 star hotel drinking and dancing. I met Margarito and Conway to get their autographs, was successful with both..LOL As soon as my schedule goes back to normal I will be doing my two normal pages per day.

Thanks for everythimg, bro, and God bless ya!

Take care, Your friend

Antonio Coco Loco Martin

Bear[edit]

Hahaha, I didn't really request the Prime Number Shitting Bear article, I think I just observed that we have Pi Day and Pi Approximation Day, but not that one (to go with the math jokes theme). I suppose a gap of some sort has now been filled :) Adam Bishop 18:50, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Hello. It seems that you accidentally deleted Oscar Jofre when it hadn't been on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for a week. But never fear, I have corrected the situation. (You might want to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy again, by the way...) -- Oliver P. 23:51, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, Oliver, it was a standard delete of a delete on sight article. CVs are generally deleted on sight as they are seen as advertising. That one I had checked out by someone who speaks the language and yes it is simply a promotional CV that is impossible to wikify into an article even if translated. It is just bumpf of the sort that sysops automatically delete to avoid jamming up the VfD page, which is already almost unmanageable in size, with stuff that is unsalvageable, in the wrong language, unwikifiable, without any support and certain to be deleted in any case. There is no point making the VfD page unusable to people by clogging it up with stuff that has 0% support and 0% chance of being wikified and is bog standard delete on sight stuff, so taking up space that could be usefully filled by real articles. All you are doing in keeping it is clogging up the page with someone's CV in Spanish and the chances are the next sysop that spots it will ask 'what the hell is that doing there' and delete it automatically. (I've already got an AIM message from another sysop saying that I just deleted it ahead of him.) FearÉIREANN 00:17, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... Did you take up my suggestion to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy? See the section headed "Candidates for speedy deletion". There is nothing there that says that CVs can be deleted on sight. And for good reason - they may contain good information, and it is easier to turn a CV (even a Spanish one, if you speak Spanish) into prose than it is to write the prose from scratch. If you want to get the deletion policy changed, please take it up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Until it is changed, please follow the policy as set out on the policy page. Thanks. -- Oliver P. 00:30, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I followed wiki policy perfectly and will continue to do so. The article is, according to policy, if listed anywhere supposed to be listed on a different page dealing with VfD pages needing translation. It is not supposed to be on the VfD page. It has 0% support, 0% encyclopædic content, it is a form of page that is regularly deleted by many sysops and will continue to be. Please, if you are so concerned about rules, try following them by listing pages where they are supposed to be listed and that page is not supposed to be listed on the english VfD, as the rules make clear. So please delete it from the VfD and follow the deletion policy rather than ignoring policy and then accusing everyone else of breaking rules you yourself don't follow. FearÉIREANN 00:39, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hello again. You say that you "followed wiki policy perfectly" in deleting a CV on sight. If you think there is a policy that says it's okay to delete CVs on sight, please could you point me to the policy page where this is stated? Because I haven't seen it. It is true that since the page in question was in Spanish, it should have been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/foreign language rather than Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, and so I apologise for putting the entry on the wrong page. (I simply forgot that there was a separate place for foreign language pages.) However, it is wrong of you to criticise me for not listing it there, because you didn't either. Camembert did so, after I had undeleted the page following your premature deletion of it. It is also wrong of you to say that I am accusing everyone else of breaking rules I myself don't follow. I have never deleted a page with non-trivial content without following the agreed deletion policy. -- Oliver P. 00:58, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dumping an entire conversation that took place at a number of locations onto one user's page, when you and not the person whose page you dumped the stuff on started the discussion, is such a gross abuse of wikipedia rules. Stuff is normally put on one location if the owner of the location is banned or if they have been asked if they mind having a chunk of their page filled with stuff moved from other people's pages. I couldn't care less where you dump the stuff but don't ever try to dump large chunks of text of a conversation you initiated onto my page like that again or it will be deleted on sight and a complaint made about your behaviour. That sort of antics is grossly unprofessional and against the spirit of wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 23:22, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Trying to keep a conversation in one place is a gross abuse of Wikipedia rules? That's a good one. ;) Most conservations here take place on a single page. Splitting a single conservation over two pages just makes it hard to follow, which is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia - you know, openness and all that. Admittedly, when people write to me on my talk page, I'm not very consistent about whether I reply here or on their talk page. Usually it doesn't much matter, because it's usually trivial stuff. Well, this was trivial stuff too, but since it was dragging on, I was starting to lose track, so I thought it best to consolidate it in one place. Since the conversation started on your talk page, and since it was in any case about something you did, it made perfect sense to keep it on your talk page. I don't mind it being here instead, but I should point out that your removal of it from your talk page without moving it here, and indeed without any comment at all, was very bad form. Since the discussion was about an alleged violation of deletion policy by yourself, blanking it without comment looks pretty sneaky. Do you have something to hide? -- Oliver P. 23:56, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Get off your pulpit and stop being so paranoid. Dumping a large chunk of text on someone else's page is completely unwiki. And it is a bit rich being lectured on procedures by someone who ignored everyone else's opinion and tried to delete the new design from the new page, simply because you didn't like it. The words pot, kettle and black come to mind. I will delete stuff from my page that someone else chooses to dump on it without telling me when I want and it is none of your business whether I put a comment on or not. FearÉIREANN 00:44, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You may want to add your voice to: Wikipedia talk:Don't include copies of primary sources --mav 07:21, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cockney Rejects[edit]

I'd call it a sub stub but then I also think that articles consisting of nothing but a discography are not really encyclopedia material. Ymmv. Angela

Speedy deletion[edit]

re speedy deletion. The CV article was an unedited, unformatted CV of an unknown, which looks like junk to me, even if not copyright. If it had shown some indication of any attempt to make it a proper article I would have listed it on VfD. In any case, with the new system, it's much easier to reverse deletions than it used to be, so if you or anyone else want to write an article about this guy it would have been easy to reverse. This has happened more than once when I've deleted unarguable junk, and someone has picked up on the topic. jimfbleak 15:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Redundant" information?[edit]

There was a post made to the mailing list, which I strongly agree with, which argues that we should not include redundant information. Anybody who cares about Von Koch, will read his page and learn about him -- it is not relevant to the Koch curve whther Koch was swedish, or even that he was a "certified mathematician". Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hmm, please can you provide the URL of this post? :) I gave up trying to follow the mailing lists a few months ago, as it took so much time... I think that any article should give enough information to make it fairly self-contained, and shouldn't force readers to read other articles to understand the context. Nationality and profession are fairly basic things that people generally want to know about other people. Helge von Koch's being a mathematician is certainly useful to know when reading about his mathematics, and even his being Swedish might be of interest. Maybe the shape was influenced by the Swedish weather. ;) -- Oliver P. 01:02, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would just like to thank you for restoring all those "year in Canada" articles. I'm sure many others would have balked at how many there were. - SimonP 21:33, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

No problem. :) -- Oliver P. 01:07, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I feel that my actions were perfectly in line with the policy of deleting bogus articles. RickK 01:39, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for adding the VfD note to Fluff! I just realized that I forgot to do it. Anthropos 03:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No problem. :) -- Oliver P. 03:34, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dear Ol; Whats up my ol' reliable? Thanks from letting me know aboout Melwyn Cedeno. All I know about him is that when I was young in Puerto Rico he used to participate a lot at stand-up comedy on the midday television shows there, and that he was the infamous Chevy, el Ponzonu. Problem is, I left my island before he became famous. However, I will see what kind of information I can find on him and add my limited (ex. his marriage with model Phaedra Michalwesky) knowledge of what he's done for the last 13 years.

Once again, thanks and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, your amigo forever, Antonio Ponzonu! Martin

Bonnie et al.[edit]

Which deletions are you referring to? I didn't delete Bonnie et al - that was daniel quinlan. Secretlondon 20:43, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. - Oliver P. 22:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why are you restoring those pages? It's a repeat vandal, maybe Michael, but I'm no expert in who is who with the vandalism thing. See documentation at Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress. Daniel Quinlan 20:45, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Since you seem concerned, I thought I'd drop you a note: my summary deletions of the Bryleigh's Theorem, Jayne Bryleigh, and slope field (subsequently undeleted by you and redeleted by Daniel Quinlan) were explained on VfD; the post were later moved to Talk:Bonnie (second from bottom). I deleted them as simple vandalism (#3 on list of candidates for speedy deletion) of the "sneaky" variety (see Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism for definition). Cheers, Cyan 21:43, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. You have convinced me that the list of candidates for speedy deletion can be interpreted in a way that allows the speedy deletion of those sorts of articles. But I'm not convinced that the list was meant to be interpreted in that way. Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism says, "Here's how it works: First you detect that someone has vandalised a page, for example replacing the entire page with a reference to homosexuality. So you revert the page. Congratulations, you have just successfully dealt with vandalism!" and so on. So it's talking about bad edits to pages, not the creation of new pages. Perceived vandalism of existing articles can be dealt with boldly, because anyone can undo the edits if they disagree with them, without having to follow any laborious procedure beforehand. Perceived vandalism in the creation of articles should not be dealt with so boldly, because it is more difficult to reverse deletions. In the cases under discussion, the articles were certainly not simple vandalism. Some of them, at least, required some knowledge of the history of mathematics to detect their silliness. Articles which appear to make sense on the surface should definitely be up for discussion for the usual amount of time, in my opinion. I think the deletion policy needs clarifying... -- Oliver P. 22:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

lol, i wish, where are you from? i'm from australia, he is well known down here.. gock

Catherine Oxenberg[edit]

Since you want the illegible, ungrammatical version of this article, why don't you fix it? RickK 04:29, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Precisely what I'm in the process of doing. In future, please don't remove information just because you don't want to copy-edit it yourself. -- Oliver P. 04:32, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I see you've put a VfD notice on Daniel M. Lewin but not listed it on the votes for deletion page, was this an accident, as I can't see any reason for the page to be deleted. --Imran 16:18, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about the Anna Leonowens programme. Unfortunately, I was in work at the time - but I could have recorded it if I'd read my Radio Times properly. Was it any good? Deb 20:31, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

M.R.M. Parrott[edit]

"It actually seems to me that there is no consensus to delete the page. (your comment from Talk:M.R.M. Parrott)

Do you think there is not enough of a rough consensus to delete the article? My view on reading the discussion without actually counting up the votes was that there was, combined with the fact it violates policies of verifiablility etc, I would have regarded it a candidate for deletion were it not for your comment above. Please could you clarify what you think should be done with it. Angela . 16:34, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Oliver. :) Martin

I've moved the discussion on Initial-stress-derived noun to Talk:Initial-stress-derived noun/Delete and delisted it from VfD due to the large number of votes to keep. You may still want to do the history merging you mentioned on VfD. Angela . 06:24, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't add VfD notices to pages in the MediaWiki namespace. As explained at Mediawiki talk:Legal, this makes the message appear on any article that uses the message, which would be very confusing for people who then try to find that article on VfD. Angela . 21:12, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

re: "I suppose the idea is now too firmly entrenched..."

I'm not sure that is the case. You could certainly argue that people should use {{subst..}} rather than {{msg...}}. There has already been some dispute over this, so I expect you could push for the use of subst more than msg if you want. That way they do not appear as "meaningless-looking codes" after the article is saved. Angela . 07:41, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice you've not been contributing recently. A shame for several reasons - your ability to grind out an article on pretty much any topic - your voice on things like VfD was extremely valuable. So whatever the reason for your current missing status, I hope its not permanent. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Metropolitan State Hospital[edit]

I've justed turned Metropolitan State Hospital into a disambig page. Fyi it still had the {{subst:vfd}} tag on it, even though you took it off vfd over a month ago. Just thought I'd let you know. -- Graham :) 13:34, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No problem, glad to see you back. PS like the fish Graham :) 00:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not so, Oliver. It was 5 to 2. That's a consensus. Tannin

Vfd multiple articles in one listing[edit]

You wrote:

"Discussing several articles simultaneously has been tried on here before, and it always ends up a total mess."

A counter-example to this statement is the recent listing of Sterlingda's user subpages, which was quite straightforward. So, not "always", but "often". ;-) -- Cyan 03:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, all right. It was a bit of an exaggeration... -- Oliver P. 04:12, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)