User talk:Anturiaethwr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: If you leave a comment on my talk page, I'll respond here, so watch this page; if I leave a comment on yours, please respond there, as I'll be watching it. That way, we can keep our conversation in one place, rather than two.

Contents 1 Accident or ? 2 Why! 3 Thanks for the revert 4 AfD of Jody Kraus 5 Your recent edits 6 Re: SineBot 7 Deletion debate content 8 The opposite of epicaricacy 9 Delete, merge, etc. 10 Epicaricacy was not a content fork 11 H. G. Wells

[edit] Accident or ?

Please be more careful when reverting edits. You restored vandalism and I can only assume it was an accident. Jacksinterweb (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I saw your history and figured it was just a mistake. Jacksinterweb (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why!

Why'd you remove my expansion of Playing With Matches (CSI: NY episode)? It was clean and correct --Guthrie (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on the Food chemistry article. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Chris (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD of Jody Kraus

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Kraus? I think the references demonstrate that he is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: SineBot

It's because your current signature doesn't have an internal link back to your user/user talk page (e.g., for me, an internal link back to my talk page would be this. Check out the signatures guideline for more info. --slakr^\ talk / 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need a link to the user talk page, just either of them (i.e., either the user or user talk page). I simply have both for easier use; however, your current signature has neither linked (e.g., try clicking your user name on pages on which you leave your signature). --slakr^\ talk / 01:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion debate content

This is usually caused by malformatted content in the following deletion debate. Indeed, the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Clues was followed by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Newport 5‎ in the archive, and the latter page was edited by the article's creator who removed the debate heading, causing the text to appear under the previous one. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I see; thanks! AnturiaethwrTalk 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The opposite of epicaricacy

The debate on the article has been rather heated, and has been a waste of resources and time. I disagree with your interpretation, but hope we all walk away from this with no hard feelings. Cordially, --evrik ^(talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your olive branch; I certainly agree that we're wasting our time, and I appreciate that you're not taking things personally. I, for one, haven't eaten all day and am mere hours away from an essay exam on the Critique of Pure Reason, and that's probably contributed to the intensity of the debate. For that, I humbly apologize. (I also apologize for my "nonsense" comment; I've been regretting expressing myself so strongly.) I intend to let this AfD end however it will; I've expressed my views, and that should be enough for me.

In short, I apologize for my heated tone, I bear you no ill will, and I hope that all of our future interactions will be cordial. I intend to cross-post this to your talk page as well, since it's important to me that you know how deeply I regret my tone. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete, merge, etc.

I'm really not very experienced in Wikpedia policy stuff. I have mostly edited articles. I don't really understand the difference between merge, delete, and redirect, so if you think I should withdraw the AfD because there is now good material in epicaricacy that I would like to see kept in schadenfreude, what method should I use? Just a URL of a page that explains it would be great. Thanks, and thanks for your good will in what has been a sometimes uncivil discussion. betsythedevine (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Another editor did mention that having a "Delete" would make it harder to re-create the epicaricacy article. betsythedevine (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm something of a neophyte myself, but let's see if the knowledge I've gleaned from AfDs helps answer your questions. (I'd rather summarize it here than point you to a bunch of pages you'd have to slog through, but off the top of my head I'm guessing that the most relevant would be WP:REDIRECT, WP:MERGE, WP:DELETE, and WP:AFD.) First of all, the difference between merging, redirection and deletion is that deletion removes a page entirely--its history, its talk page, everything. Redirection, on the other hand, involves replacing the content of a page with the redirection template; it's just a specific kind of edit. That's why C S could redirect Epicaricacy to Schadenfreude without bringing it to AfD or anything similar, and that's why Evrik could revert that redirect just as easily. (Note that the page began life as a redirect.) Merging is more complicated (I've looked at WP:MERGE just to be sure I'm not misinforming you), but is essentially the same as redirection except that it involves moving useful content into the target article, as well as making the source article redirect there. Both merging and redirection preserve the pages related to the original page, which, I believe, is required in many situations under GFDL restrictions.

Now, as to AfD: it is devoted entirely and exclusively to deletion. If you want a merge (as you want now) or a redirect (as you originally wanted; you've changed what the nomination says, but I commented before that, and I remember), then AfD is not the place to go. It's also not a forum for seeking broader discussion; I'd recommend a WikiProject for that (in this case, WikiProject Psychology seems like a good start). It seems as though the fact that you brought an article to AfD asking for redirection, rather than deletion, is what caused so many people to attack you (certainly with unnecessary harshness, and I think somewhat unfairly) for "abusing process" and the like.

Deletion would indeed make it slightly more difficult to recreate Epicaricacy (if it were deleted, which is highly unlikely at this point), since, if it were a wholesale copy of the deleted version, it could be speedily deleted as a recreation of deleted material with no significant improvement. However, that would make it harder for someone searching for "epicaricacy" to find information on Schadenfreude, since, rather than being redirected to the relevant page, they would find no pages whatsoever. Whether "epicaricacy" is a plausible search term is a judgment call; I personally think it is, and I imagine you think so too, since you now want a merge.

Finally, I've seen your report at WP:ANI, and I'll watch it in case the discussion begins to revolve around conduct within the AfD itself; anything else I'll leave alone.

Thank you for your asking, and also for your civility; I agree that this AfD has gotten far, far out of hand (though I've been involved in worse), and I appreciate that people seem willing to work it out amicably. AnturiaethwrTalk 00:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I just wish I had known all this stuff days ago. I now understand Evrik's upset at having not only "his" page but also the history of the work he put into it wiped off the wiki. I also understand (what baffled me at the time because it seemed so offtopic) why the "keep" people kept saying that the article had good material in it. I also understand why Evrik thought my copying some of his work to the other article was a ploy aimed at getting his stuff deleted and stealing credit for his research. It was not meant that way at all.

Evrik changed my initial nomination line to head it with the word "Redirect" and (in annoyance that he was changing my stuff without consulting me) I then changed it so the first word was "Delete". I really didn't give much thought to my change. In fact, looking back on this whole mess there are a lot of times that I wish I had thought less about how much Team Evrik was doing stuff that upset me and more about what I usually try to stick to, "What would make Wikipedia better?" betsythedevine (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epicaricacy was not a content fork

Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork.

—Wikipedia:CFORK#Related articles

Idiot. Stop spreading your lies.151.197.116.67 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] H. G. Wells

What was the point of this? Surely you must have read my edit summary, which clearly stated I was avoiding a double redirect? Plrk (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Stupid bloody pop-up notes! I'm getting rid of them right now! Thanks for reverting me. AnturiaethwrTalk 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I recommend Wikipedia:Twinkle :) Plrk (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)