User talk:Phlegm Rooster

Naming conventions

What do you think of the allopathic discussion, in light of this WP:policy? [1] I think it's applicable, and fits well with the compromise we've hammered out, and I'd be interested to see if you have any further thoughts. Thanks, Antelan^talk 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean. I'm going to wait a bit before messing with the article, as there seems to be some work being done on it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor

I note that you have tagged the above article as a possible copyright violation. Can you please explan what you base that on? The articles you contend were copies are lists of the admittees to the Hall of Honor. There is no copyright protection for the identity of the winners and the years they were inducted. But far more importantly, the text in this article goes FAR beyond what is on the two sites you reference. I spent two months refining this to include additional information about each Hall of Fame member. How/where do I contest this?? Cbl62 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The introductory description was taken from the M Club's web site. I have now reworded some of that. However, the Club's criteria for admission should probably be listed precisely. Accordingly, I have put that single sentence in quotations with a direct cite to the M Club site. The M Club site was already listed as a general source.Cbl62 (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, the sentences I replaced with the copyvio tag were the ones copied from the M Club page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that the issue has been resolved, could you remove the tag? Cbl62 (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It gets reported somewheres, it will be dealt with by the appropriate parties. Wikipedia takes copyvio very seriously. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, saying it "gets reported somewheres (sic)" and is dealt with by "appropriate parties" is not helpful or responsive; nor does it reflect the sort of transparent process one would expect; nor is there any legitimate basis now, even if there was previously, for the tag. Can you please either remove the tag, clarify what objection remains, and/or expound on the "somewheres" and "appropriate parties" so that I may address it there and with them? Cbl62 (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The tag has all kinds of giant warnings all over it which you ignored. Leave it to the admins, like the tag says. They get to it in a day or so. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which "giant warning" did I ignore? Perhaps you could actually answer my questions this time????

The one in red saying do not edit the page, and directing you to a subpage to work on. Please read the tag. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited the page to address the concerns that you raised. But thanks for answering at least one of my questions. Cbl62 (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't make the rules. But Wikipedia takes copyvio/plagiarism very seriously. I'm sure that by this time tomorrow the tag will be gone. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I also added a < / div> marker. The tag says to use the < / div> maker when only a portion of the article is suspected as a copyvio. Since your concern here was only with the opening two sentences, such a divider appears appropriate. You may want to consider using that device in the future rather than blanking an entire page with a copyvio tag. Just a suggestion.Cbl62 (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it will all get sorted out later. To me (and many others) plagiarized text is uglier than any tag. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How in the world can the use of two sentences, with citation to the sources, constitute plagiarism? While any putative issue has now been resolved in any event, you may want to reconsider your comments and tone. Aside from your highly sarcastic tone and non-responsive, ungrammatical statements (e.g., "it gets reported somewheres"), your user page is troubling. It boasts of dozens of articles you have "managed" to delete (without reference to any articles you have created). The phrasing suggests that you view your participation in the project as a "game" to see how many articles you "manage" to delete. You may want to reconsider that as well.Cbl62 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in seeing Wikipedia contaminated with stolen text, whether it be two sentences, two paragraphs or whole articles, (including the vast majority on my userpage). This is not a game, this is very serious. I should hope that none of your other contributions hold any copyvio. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation that I have "contaminated" wikipedia with "stolen text" is an outrage that would result in serious ramifications if you were not making it under a pseudonym on the internet. While I will terminate the dialogue on that note, you are, of course, free to review any of my 300+ articles and make any positive contributions you care to offer. Cbl62 (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Rooting out copyvio is a positive contribution. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If that is your true objective, that's great. But if your objective is to "manage" to get as many articles deleted as you can, as some might interpret your user page to suggest, then please reconsider your approach.Cbl62 (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Like most interpretations, my userpage is open to interpretation. I find it a useful gauge. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod from Academy of Science and Design

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Academy of Science and Design, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

About the piedmont club

Why would you go after this? I am very confused because it says on the page that the building has signifigance because it provides a community center mainly for italians but also for others in the town of Darien CT. And also, why go after this page now and not when it was made in october. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonapello22 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Accessible Boating Association and similar

I have just read the long "conversation" you had with User Cb162, and I'm not impressed. Your user page certainly gives the impression that deleting pages is a particular hobby of yours. Is that so?

I'm a member of WikiProject UK Waterways which tries to achieve full coverage of that topic. English and Scottish waterways are my field of expertise. At the moment I'm trying to achieve complete coverage of all voluntary and, eventually, statutory bodies on English and Scottish inland waterways. Like most people who have a job, I have limited time. I'm planning to expand all existing articles and all new ones on that topic.

Perhaps you could try to be slightly less "trigger-happy" with your deletion targets? Many thanks, Renata (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Full coverage" means that non-notable topics end up getting covered. The Accessible Boating Association lacks notability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are 100% correct

Hello! In regard to the article on ACUMA -- you are 100% correct. I had the wrong name in the article's title. I have fixed that. While you might have inquired of me prior to putting the PROD in place, I am glad that you called this to my attention. I hope this did not create any stress or ill will, and I hope that you can accept the following as a token of my appreciation of your work on this and other articles:

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In tribute to your dedication to preserving the quality of Wikipedia's editorial contents. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I will also make amends in the editorial summary of the article. Be well, and thank you again. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the apology. I put the prod tag on there before I saw that its creator was an editor whose name I've seen around. When I examine an article, I am agnostic to the way an article looks; I just take the name and check on Google. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are doing a fine job. Keep up the excellent work! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"correct" attitude? U must be joking!

You have tagged the page Marlo Morgan: discrepancies for deletion, with a POV tag. I have removed it (of course), b/c:

1- I understand that POV means Point Of View. I have duly referenced just about everything I have put in these two articles, with references from highly respected 'scientists', newspapers, and in general various relevant sources. If you don't like it, do some researches to “neutrally present the other side” - you'll find that that will be the other side of truth, in this case, b/c it's here and elsewhere demonstrated fact that that Morgan is a profiteering liar.

2- Now, Phlegm Rooster, your turn to PROPERLY explain your intervention, b/c I deem it as inappropriate as your attitude. “the deletion notice should explain why this article does not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion”. And “POV essay unsuitable for Wikipedia”, in this case of respected references being given all along, does not lead to anything that I can deem to be other than your own POV. If you do not like the title, get your brain synapses working for positive work: suggest another one, it'll demonstrate a positive change in said attitude of yours.

3- While you are at it, also explain why all you seem to do is to delete to delete other people's work. That attitude is NOT about “editing” – it is about “censuring”. The length of the list of your successes in that regard, would be hilarious if it was not pathetically sad. You show no respect towards people's work, as you clearly can't even bother suggesting where the work(s) should be presented, even though many victims of yours are I am sure valid enough in itself/themselves. For example, why on earth did you even think of trying to have All energy from renewable sources deleted? Other example, you had "Balochistan university" deleted; why don't you *** go for Cambridge university, while you're at it? Is it b/c you deem Balochistan not notable enough, i.e. too retarded and irrelevant to the narrow world that you want to see? If not, explain, or one may think you're a fascist plant. Many other such examples of YOUR “Point Of View” abound in the victims' list of your page – except that it looks more like you're going at it on the blind side, so much for any “view”.

In conclusion, yours is altogether a negative attitude and not conducive to any advance. Anyone possessing a modicum of respect towards other people, would:

• firstly address the people themselves BEFORE anything else (“you might have inquired of me prior to putting the PROD in place” and others);
• secondly, explain in detail why each article listed was deemed worthy of deletion. (You've got some work there, should keep you busy at something useful)

“you are, of course, free to (...) make any POSITIVE contributions you care to offer”, but don't try and feed me BS about that your “work” is so far a positive thing: it is not so, it's just a shooting gallery with no care for others whatsoever. If you do not care to justify your interventions any better than you do, nor to do any actual research on anything but active censure, I suggest that SM clubs and / or political circles and / or other such, seem a much more appropriate place to exert your sardonic attitude. Don't try and tag me with any political label either: I only deal with truth, the rest of it I deem entirely irrelevant as mere consequences. If you want to further intervene on my work, I very much recommend that you update your definition of the word “positive” so as to start including people in your considerations - as per the two points I signal in the here conclusion. Else any tag you'll put on any work I do, will be deleted without further ado. And if you want to add things, use references – I insist. Good day to you. Basicdesign (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)