User talk:Utgard Loki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Count!

1692 - 1700 - 1708 (notice anything going on with the drama?) 1709 (fewer plays yet) 1710 1711 (no plays at all! it finally happened!), 1712, 1713 (three plays: Cato, Pirates of the Carribean, and John Gay; Johnny Depp was in two of them), 1714, 1715 (several plays, oddly), 1716 (and now the Drury Lane triumvirate writes its own plays), 1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1729,1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, a year without novels, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783.

So, don't go backward. Your pal, Utgard Loki 17:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Now over 50 years done. What will be the goal? Stop at 1750? Stop at 1789? Stop at 1798? Stop in 2008, when you die? Let's find out. Utgard Loki 18:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In 1750, I'm starting to differentiate "poetry" and "fiction." I don't think anything as silly as "non-fiction" needs to be asserted, though, because there still aren't enough journals and sermons and the like to classify. However, it is time for the novel to step out (and it sure does). Utgard Loki 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm quitting at 1798. Utgard Loki 15:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of things to AfD, when I figure out the arcanum of that process

Universal Intelligence is about the weirdest effort at any article I've seen in surfing random links. It attempts to be about AI, chiropracty, Taoism, and Lutheranism...all at once!
Rootsworld doesn't seem to have a paper analog or any indication of distribution.

Agreed - Speedy Deleted --Pmedema (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Construction foreman says that it's the foreman of a construction crew, believe it or not. More dictionary definition than speedy deletion, though.
Humanity's Team is wholly starry eyed and seems to be about a fairly small religious/philosophical movement.
List of songs by Tears for Fears is this actually necessary? Is this a redlink farm?
Sullivan nod It seems to exist (not a CSD), but it's trivial, useless, and absolutely non-encyclopedic.
Adam Hieronim Sieniawski (1623-1650) The truth is that it could be a speedy delete for A1, but there are all these templates and tags and parts of this & that on it. It has to be better than this to be an encyclopedia article.
Georgi Dimitrov Dimitrov Another that actually could be an A7 speedy delete, since there is no claim of note in the article itself. The dude probably is notable, but the article doesn't make the claim.
List of Kylie Minogue awards and accolades Man alive! Are we all in love with her? Is this useful? Is this an article?
Micah Johnson College football player. There are thousands. We do not get to write a "biography," of all things, of every college student who participates in a sport, no matter how high profile the sport is.
Clan Cloud Cobra Nice of us to host GameFAQs material, isn't it?
John Allen Borgman We have an infobox for every postmaster of Jonesboro, Arkansas? We have an article on each one? Can my gas station attendants get a box, too?
Tad Schmaltz If that's real, then it's undistinguished. He has a job. I'm sure that's good, but what has he done, esp. given the strength of the Duke program (not very strong).
Very weak claims to fame for Michael Dormer, and this is aggravated by the fact that the most famous Michael Dormer is the CEO of Johnson & Johnson.
DoppioSenso Unico Looks bogus, and the writing sets off every bogosity alarm ever made.
Goa Mix Oh, my! Essay anyone? Personal review, anyone? Gushing dance-cruft anyone?
Graeme Harper (writer) It's hard to tell what this is. It looks like an academic, but all the books are on itsy bitsy presses.
Chou Mahou Tairiku WOZZ A "superfanicom" fan game.
Laminated list This is the best example of what's wrong with "memes" I've come across. How hot is this term now? Right.
Performance report Dictionary definition.
Omakase Yet another definition, and this time solely for sushi bars!
To the question, "What is fancruft?" Dalton Chapman is the answer. It's fairly unbelievable that it would be written, and it's astonishing that it has not been flagged before.
Kunal Ganjawala It at least needs to be at clean up. Read it, anyone! "Whose voice mesmerized you in...." No. I have not been mesmerized before (that I can remember).
DeWitt Clinton Blair He funded buildings, and?
Mendy I can't believe this would need to go through AfD, but it would.
Hartwig Altenmüller Really, it's a speedy delete, but I know no one will actually do the deleting, because it has tags on it and that makes it good!
JumpJet Yet another "there is nothing here" report. This is an article about a company that does not exist, and it is supposedly valuable because it says it doesn't exist.
Marina Gershenovich Fails WP:V inter alia.
Imminent Indeed Current theater only; no indication that this is a particularly famous or notable play.
Cancelier Very obvious and clear dictionary definition, even written with such acknowledged.
A Conservative Version: Is this popular, used, etc.? Is it a total translation? How is a psych prof qualified in Hebrew from three kingdoms and koine Greek?
Robert S. McElvaine Random J. Professor
Fiona Hall (artist) Pure link farm, page rank boosting. Dunno the artist, but I do know money making schemes when I see them.
The Land (fiction) Largely empty, completely crufty.
Michael Kölling He, uh, wrote some software, and there it is: his "biography." Oh, he has a tattoo. (AfD 2/28)
QDesign It appears to be some software that isn't used anymore and isn't a landmark.
Rob Wells Needs verification, seriously, as it claims to be a "hit record writer" but the verification is a stupid MySpace page.
Advertising and disability Ok, this one is so bad that I think it's time to learn how to AfD something. I can't believe someone tagged it with "cleanup" instead of prod or AfD. (AfD 2/28)
Wily & Right no RockBoard: That's Paradise Another "famicom" nonthing. (AfD 3/1)
Brick (basketball) Folk etymology and dict def -- a bad, bad, bad one of a self-evident term.
Hugo Selenski News report.
Film title design essay
Hoplophobia Protologism approved of by "Sam."
Wilhelm Hertz (writer) Being translated for 6 mo., and still nothing about the man's significance in the world?
Noble Street Good thing there's only one in the world and we know where that scrapyard is!
The Scorpion's Dark Dance Blatant advertising, but not quite speedy delete
Charlie Baker (comedian) Advertising a career.
Barbara Harmer A lady who is a pilot; that's all it seems to be, and it's in present tense and not encyclopedic style.
Børre Knudsen A footnote person leading a church of 7 people. The talk page doesn't help, either.
Gospel Lighthouse Prison Evangelism It's a good idea, but it doesn't stand out from all the other prison outreach services by all the other churches all over the world.
Sandyawan Sumardi He sounds great, but not great.
List of organizations & people involved in money-laundering Inherently POV list.
Patriots Video News Another "you've got to be kidding" article. They're not.
Leslie Shemilt Oh, so now we're Who's Who in Canada?
Suzanne Engo Sounds nice. Well below the bar.
NewsGator Technologies Fails WPCorp so far as I can tell.
Buffalo Man You have got to be joking!
Gordon Duncan Looks like a copyvio, certainly a fan crush; incredibly inappropriate tone.

[edit] You've GOT to be kidding (edit these)

Lacrymatory

[edit] Peachoid

Is geogre the owner of Peachoid that standard clean-up, such as removing dead image links, does not apply to the page? --David Shankbone 14:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone else? Why not? If the guy says he's going to look for a proper picture to make the point that was needed, and if he wrote the blasted thing from start to finish, I'd say "more than a template" he is. More than a -bot. More than an automated process. More than people who don't communicate on the talk page about 1) the presence of a problem, 2) the potential work arounds, 3) just grabbing any damned photo from the gallery to put in its place, yes. Still no talk on the talk:Peachoid? Why not? Why fly in the face of Wikipedia convention to honor the bots? Utgard Loki 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a question of honoring the bots, it was a question of leaving a dead link to an image on an article, regardless of whether a replacement was being sought. --David Shankbone 21:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, go ask the question. From what I can tell, he wanted it as a visual reminder while an edit was ongoing, and you could have asked him yourself and found that out. Utgard Loki 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] facts vs judgments in old sources

Hi Utgard, in connection with your entry at talk:Polonization could you please look at the bottom thread at talk:Kiev Expedition (1018). This is a very much related issue. TIA, --Irpen 21:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beowulf (hero)

Your comments at WP:ANI are well-made. Would you like to copy them into the merge discussion? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I normally don't have a ton of time, but I certainly know the poem. While there are folks about who know a great deal about the sagas (some really top notch Norwegian and Swedish contributors, but, oddly, few Icelanders that I know of), I definitely know the poem and literature, so I suppose, if I'm going to enter the lists anywhere, this is a good spot. Thanks. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] villages, communes, etc

By 100% consistent afd decisions, they are every last one of them notable, however small, however short & inadequate the article. I know it sounds odd, but otherwise we'd be fighting them all back and forth at AfD, and it just isnt worth it. DGG (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said that they weren't notable, and that would be a silly fight anyway. No. I was saying there was no article there. I.e. they were placeholders. They were, "an article should be here." Well, "should" is nice, but that's not an article itself. I would say that those particular ones were A1 speedy deletion candidates, not A7. Those places deserve better than "Lake Biggun is a Lake in Spain." Utgard Loki (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please reconsider your aspersions

Regarding this, it's very disappointing to see such bad faith assumptions. Durova^Charge! 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the comments again, and I really don't see any aspersions. I see analysis of the rhetorical event, but no actual comment on character. That's not merely a semantic difference, either: I look at how and what the effects of such comments were. I grant that there is a section that seems to be a surmise on the person, and I will change those to make my point clear. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You may wish to review my participation at the proposed decision page as well. If you have criticism of my actions, please direct it to me so that I can either explain myself better or learn from you. Durova^Charge! 06:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pulicalvaria

After seeing your reasoning, the {{expand}} template may have been better than the PROD tag in that case. jj137 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I felt that these were too far over the line. I want them to be expanded, but when they're that short, it's not really an anything. Seriously: let's expand tiny articles, but something that's "Jiminy Cricket is a cricket" is just too much for me. I've written some doggone short articles, but some of these geographical articles beggar imagination. When we see these tiny towns in the US with 2 residents having long articles, can't we manage something better for august and historical settlements in Europe? It's kind of an insult to the European nation to leave them like that.

However, the next time I see one of those, I'll try to go do some research and fill it in. Still, it would be super if we didn't allow those things to pass in the first place. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MfD

I've just added headings to hopefully separate some of the issues on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) page - would you like to comment again? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would. Thank you. I'm unclear about "community ownership." I really didn't know there was any alternative. Seriously. I've never heard of anything that wasn't a community-determined page, even the central ones that no one would dare to mess with. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DHHC Speedy deletion?

Why the speedy deletion for Darwin Holistic Health Centre? Θ Sean gorter Θtalk 03:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I put it at prod, I think. Anyway, it was because 1) the article was empty (category A3 of speedy delete). It was a simple sentence, and a sentence is too far below the necessary level for an "article" that it seems, at least to me, that it's on the level of a telephone book entry. I.e. if there's nothing more to say than, "This is a hospital, and here it is," then replacing that content takes no effort. 2) The article didn't assert the significance of the place (category A7 of speedy delete). This doesn't mean that the place isn't significant, but without "only trauma center in central Australia" or "serves a population base of 800,000 residents" or "hosts two of the leading heart surgeons in Australia (note to source)," there is nothing to set this hospital apart from all the thousands and thousands of hospitals in the world. "Notability" means "of note" (in the field). Why, in the realm of hospitals, is this one special? Without more content and an assertion of significance, it fit two criteria for speedy delete, and so I used prod to allow authors or concerned individuals to add some substance and importance to the article. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tabitha Lee

You've nominated one of her novels at PROD, Drinking Sapphire Wine; there are multiple similar articles--is this meant to be a test case? If you want to use it that way, AfD would be more suitable. She's quite famous, so there are probably reviews--did you look for them? As the articles are certainly too sparse to stand by themselves at this point, Wouldnt it make more sense to do it as a merge into the various series;--have you discussed it with whoever is writing them? My interest in this is to try to get this handled in an efficient & consistent fashion. I'll look here to see what you have in mind. DGG (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, heavens no! I know that she's quite famous, indeed, but the "article" doesn't deserve the title. Honestly, there is nothing there. Imagine the article on Tamitha Lee saying, "Her novels in this series include X, Y, and Drinking Sapphire Wine": that would say as much as this. Furthermore, because that little sentence would be in the context of an article on the author, it would say much, much more. In other words, I prodded it because it was a single sentence. It reserved an article space without giving the reader an article.

What would a fan think, if she typed in Drinking Sapphire Wine and wanted to learn about the novel and got, "It's a novel?" The best that reader would say is, "Duh!" We might hope that the person would edit, but let's be honest. I prodded it because there's nothing there. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

They'd know it was a stub, and would perhaps be inspired to add information. But since it is part of a series that also needs an expanded article, I'm just reinserting it as a redirect to that one, which should probably be properly dealt with first.. DGG (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps be inspired, yes, but I rather think the result would be otherwise in 9:10 cases, and that's why I despise these "Lake Crater is a lake formed around a crater" articles. I think they allow people to hijack an article writing credit without doing any of the work (like knowing about the thing), and so it seems unjust to leave them and bad for Wikipedia for readers to meet up with them. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old 7/11s

Once we start that, we get to "oldest 7/11 in Northfield Minnesota."

LMAO, thanks for the laugh! Travellingcari (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) No reason AfD has to be dour. It shouldn't be mocking, but we can at least keep ourselves amused, and articles of the "tallest dwarf" variety get a bit thick to read. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I think Kornfan's comment at this AFD is another great one, "I'd say either delete or go out to Libya and find some UFOs. The delete sounds a bit quicker though." Some people take it all far too seriously :) Travellingcari (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bish's page

Is she not allowed to edit her own user page? Or did you fail to see through her cunning disguise? Yomangani ^talk 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not see through the cunning disguise, I admit. I saw a new account covering up what looked like a carefully devised user page and didn't suspect otherwise than it appeared. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you won't be getting an invite to the sleuthing mailing list. Yomangani ^talk 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one of you would like to put the image back as a token of respect? 91.65.0.99 (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

All is well: I have been reverted and preverted. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha, may I proffer my unexcelled expertise in failing to see through cunning disguises. A big hello, glad to seeya! .. dave souza, talk 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Ponniah

I just wanted you to see the new article with an entry at WP:AFD, and wondered if you think notability is now established? (Mind meal (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Norman Beaker

Hello. Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Beaker. If you have an extra few minutes, I wonder if you could revisit this debate, as I believe notability has been established. Thanks for your time. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinning (modelling)

Hi there. I've made a few changes to the Pinning (modelling) article since your !vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinning (modelling) and I just wondered whether you still felt the article needed to be deleted. Cheers. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ShamanDhia

Thank you for your input on my page - CoffeePusher sent me some info that helped me fix it up, and it has been listed here: Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —the Hitochi Princess (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia Please re-consider your delete vote. 161.38.223.246 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

[edit] WP:PAPER

You have earlier indicated that you have a regular habit of upgrading your compressed articles to B status. You might be interested in reading the policy linked to above. Basically, it says, although I acknowledge indirectly, that we don't have the spatial limitations that print works do. One of the applications of that policy can and generally is seen as indicating that if there is more information in an encyclopedic source, that the article is not even close to presenting all the relevant information. I assume that is the reason most of your B-class assessments for your admittedly abridged works are given Start-class by others. In all honesty, if you're going to use the encyclopedic sources you use, you might as well include all the relevant information that the editors of that encyclopedic work decided was significant enough to print into our article, given that that source, which has spatial limitations we don't, included all that information anyway. Alternately, you might consider "downgrading" your own perhaps unusually high opinion of your work to that more consistent with the others who review your work. I can try to find statements in wikipedia where I have read editors who have worked at print encyclopedias say that they were limited in what they could include, both in number and length of articles, by outside space considerations that we don't have. To arbitrarily say that we, who don't have to include all the information printed encyclopedic sources who have spatial limitations do, do not have any reason to include the information they, with their existing limitations do present, is something I do think you can reasonably agree is perhaps a bit more POV than is standard here. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous interpretation. "Paper" is primarily about why we don't delete junk. However, "including everything" in another source is called reiteration. Why on earth would I do that? Do I want to put the Oxford Companion to Literature out of business by including "everything" from them in my 1725 in literature? Do I want to put the Grove Dictionary of Art out of business by including "everything" from a subscription source? Furthermore, what advantage is there to a reader in using Wikipedia instead of one of those sources, if all we do is vomit them back up in legally-protected ways? The duty of an encyclopedist is to maintain a thesis, to have a selection criterion, and to provide what is most useful to an audience. If some other encyclopedist thinks that another matter is most important, then, at Wikipedia, that person can take such a slant. However, a good article has coherence and intelligence behind it and is not a parasite on anyone else. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

dropping by, I look forward to the day when we will have articles on everyone includes in the Oxford Companions, and anyone with any degree of significant coverage in Grove. There is no reason why an article cannot be written as a rewritten non-copyvio summary of that in a tertiary authoritative source, though of course its good if we use available resources, especially web ones, to do more than that. How much detail should we have--everything relevant to a general educated reader. That would probably contain a less exhaustive list of references than in Grove, and certainly a different style of writing--but it might have in some cases even more detail, especially of a less technical sort regarding relationships and influences. Perhaps a closer example of a marvelous (and free) encyclopedia that has a different goal than ours is Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. We might be as extensive, but we would be very different than one like that, aimed for academic specialists and assuming a considerable amount of prior knowledge. The job of those of us who care about these topics is to recruit co-workers to write them. DGG (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree that Wikipedia is a porting in of anyone or anything else. In such a case, we're a clipping service. If you look at the Stanford Encyclopedia, each of those articles is expert written and shaped very, very carefully. The authors have a perspective on each topic. Of course they seek to put in everything that is "relevant," as that's assumed as a person's role in writing, but what is "relevant" depends upon the question, "to what?" Not only is there a question of audience (the Stanford Encycl. does not include basic definitions and does include elliptical references, because they have a philosopher audience, just as the Princeton Encycl. Poetry and Poetics has thick rhetorical terminology and allusions to obscure poets), but also of "point." This is not "original research," either, but simply organization. All presentations of information have, consciously or unconsciously, a principle of inclusion and exclusion as well as a hierarchy of presentation in order and emphasis. To borrow someone else's thesis, or, worst of all, to try to borrow everyone's thesis, results in the kinds of Frankenstein's monsters that some of the pop-culture articles become: they end up contradicting themselves, going off in all directions, and saying nothing.

Make a distinction between including an article for article of each item in these sources, which is fine, and including the articles from the sources, or piggy backing on them. With that I totally disagree. I don't want to be part of Project Guttenberg, and I especially don't want to be part of Project Copyrightviolatedbyparaphrasing. I would rather we allow our readers to find value in the method of presentation in the Companions and references, that they find them for the particular hierarchies and presentation methods of their series, and we offer our own experts and informed amateurs in their own readings to present material in an unique and useful manner. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

right about SEP--thats why I mentioned how different it was from WP. It's a work that relies upon evaluation by recognized authorities. Ditto with PEP--its unreadable unless you know the jargon . Both of the Groves, on the other hand, are in large part meant to be accessible to undergraduates. the art of summarizing and making accessible information from a complicated reliable source is different from paraphrase. An example we both might agree with is the material from the old Catholic E.-- tho its public domain, all those articles needs reorganisation and rewriting and updating--as a minimum. But Wikipedia isnt out to prove a thesis--secondary work--academic articles and the like--are what proves theses. This is a tertiary source (I sometimes us the term quaternary, but I dont think its quite standard), and we summarize the results of the secondary work that others have done, basing it if possible on other people authoritative summaries when we can find them. DGG (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Emily Sullivan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Emily Sullivan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sullivan. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Magioladitis (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.