User talk:DropDeadGorgias

Deletion Log

DropDeadGorgias 23:02, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC) - Deleted old discussions. For old discussions, please visit the page history.

VFD Policy Discussion

Why did you vote to delete spurious relationship? It's a very nicely written article on a topic that is important in scientific inference, even if it is a stub. Michael Hardy 01:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. - DropDeadGorgias 17:35, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

When I voted to delete the article, it was a mess- it had a confusing example, poor grammar, and seemed like a pseudo-scientific notion.

Going through the history of that page, I looked at the very earliest version. It has two misspellings, but it seems very clearly written, and the example is nice and makes the idea crystal-clear. I'm surprised anyone would call it confusing. Michael Hardy 20:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(I'm just going to leave the conversation here to avoid the duplication, I hope you don't mind) This is the version I read. There are several misspellings, the entire article ends with an incomplete sentence, and there is just no clear information in the article. Perhaps my vote for deletion should have been a vote for blank and stub. Incidentally, the google test reveals that this concept is more commonly identified as a spurious correlation, but the area is grey enough that it can be left as it is. - DropDeadGorgias 20:16, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

You're right about the misspellings and solecisms and the grossly incomplete final sentence, but nonetheless the example was very clear and nicely explained. The solecisms were easily correctable. Michael Hardy 02:38, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi DDG. It's simple. Litotes had been listed on VFD for longer than the required 5 days, and I was going through the past-due listings, deleting those that had a clear consensus in favour of deletion, and removing the deletion notices from those that did not. A pretty boring task, but VFD was ridiculously long and it was about my turn to do some of the donkey work. I didn't try to read any of the articles in any depth, simply follow the already-established consensus. At this point, my vote didn't matter: these were, if you like, cases where the jury had already returned a verdict, and all I had to do was take the relevant article outside and either "shoot it" or "let it go free", according to the verdict. Glancing over the text of Litotes, I thought it was something that clearly ought to be deleted as a pure dictionary defn, but that's not the way people had voted, so I followed the 'pedia deletion rules and let it go. My comment simply indicated that if I'd seen it earlier (when the vote was still "live"), I'd have voted to kill it. Or, putting the same thing another way, I was saying "please don't think that I am in favor of keeping this poor article, I just work here." Clear as mud? Best Tannin

Tannin- I don't know if my original post on your talk page came as critical or hostile, but I did not mean the remark in either of those lights. I was actually more curious as to why more people don't vote on these vfd issues, when, upon glancing at them, they are clearly deletable. I am hoping that the vfd changes under discussion will make it easier to vote, and kill these extraneous articles. I feel that a lot of people, like you, would have voted for the deletion of Litotes if it had been brought to their attention, and if vfd wasn't such a nightmare. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:40, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly! But what proposed system is actually any better? I think we are stuck with VFD more-or-less in its current form (but I'd be delighted to see a better alternative if anyone can think of one). VFD is so long, and my time so limited, that I (like many others) just don't get to look at everything. But, although it works badly, it does work, and seems better than any alternative. Sort of like the public transport system in the large city of your choice, I guess. ;)

PS: VFD changes under discussion again? Another thing I've missed. (sigh) Tannin

PPS: nope, I took your question to be one of simple curiosity. It was a strange edit summary, after all. Tannin

BTW, it's not too late to vote for the deletion of Dystmesis on vfd, or at least for it's transwikification. - DropDeadGorgias (talk)

Shnorrer

This has already been listed on vfd once before, your entry made it a double listing which is why I removed it. Have a look under 16 March, the original listing is there. -- Graham :) | Talk 15:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that listing was for Schnorrer. During that discussion I was told to list this word separately. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:27, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Oh whoops, I missed that one. Sorry - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:45, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Gorgias

Hey, sorry to clutter up your talk page like this, but I can't resist: Your username is so brilliant... you're my idol. Jorend 12:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When I close my eyes, I see this thing, a sign, I see this name in bright blue neon lights with a purple outline. And this name is so bright and so sharp that the sign -- it just blows up because the name is so powerful... It says, "DropDeadGorgias."

Uhh, I think that's how I came up with it, yeah... Thanks for the dap, homes. I use the same handle on other boards, and one time someone suggested I use a spellchecker. - DropDeadGorgias 18:46, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Wik's user page

Oh do get off your high horse. Wik is calling people morons. 'nuff said.

BTW I too love you username. theresa knott 16:38, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to come off as being holier-than-thou about the whole affair, but I think it's very telling to see how different people deal with Wik's personal attacks. Some people are on Wik's page "defusing" the issue by humorously offering up other criticisms of themselves. User:Angela has been particularly admirable in reverting vandalism attacks of Wik's personal page. User:AntonioMartin has decided to become a serial vandal... Differences of opinion and personal attacks are always going to happen on Wikipedia. Admins are supposed to be exemplary citizens of wikipedia who maintain general order so that the Wiki can function. Whose method of dealing with these problems do you want to encourage/advocate, Angela's or Antonio's? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:47, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the Golf answer on reference desk.

Of course Angela's way is better. But consider this - Antonio was really bugged by being listed. (with some reason - read my talk page) Angela probably isn't.

I was trying to boost him up, make him feel better. He needed a friend. By doing this he is far more likely to heed any advice I give him later on. Look what happened when I told him to stop it. He did. Wikipedia will survive a couple of page reverts, and wik certainly will, he lives by revert wars. Let's not sweat the small stuff. theresa knott 17:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All true stuff, but I'd like to think that the thing that distinguishes Admins is that they are mature/level-headed enough to not to stoop to outright vandalism when they get "bugged". As with Antonio's reasoning on your talk page, my assessment of Antonio's maturity goes beyond this isolated event, I've seen him become very childish in edit wars and generally be quite unreasonable (although I thought he had been better since becoming an Admin). I still question Antonio's capacity as an Admin, and this event only furthers my doubts and lends credence to Wik's accusations. However, I do apologize for calling you a troll, as you clearly are capable of reasonable discussions and valuable contributions on the wiki. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:12, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for apologising, but it didn't bother me. I've been called far worse. Have a nice evening. theresa knott 00:09, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "We may not be as vicious and tenacious as the vandals or the cabal" I am rather offended by your insult. See cabal and There is no Cabal. --mav 14:08, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on the cabal was meant to be slightly ironic. I'm assuming that the same is true about yours. I was originally supportive of Wik's efforts to stop vandalism at Wikipedia, and do believe that he was treated slightly unfairly by the administrative community. However, his recent streak of vandalism has made me far less sympathetic. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:52, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Websites

No problem. There is no other way, at least not that I know of.

No ideas yet about what subcategories to add. Fredrik (talk) 18:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yup, I'm a robot, in the sense that I do little besides eating, sleeping and browsing/editing Wikipedia. At least currently. Thanks :) - Fredrik (talk) 18:51, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)