User talk:Simoncursitor/Archive

Hi! I Just noticed your comments on the VfD page for pogroms in Istanbul, and I appreciate the points you raised. I agree with you when you say that we don't want wikipedia to become politically censored. I even think that some of Argy's information should be included. However, Argy constantly refuses to talk, creates sock-puppets, and twice vandalized my user page. Had he reasoned with me, I would have withdrawn the nomination. He didn't, and it is very POV (with that title), so I am now firmly on the keep side. I plan to stay out of the Cyrus dispute (which I have no stake in) except to revert Argy's edits, if neccessary. I regret that it has come to this, but he just won't talk. Some on the other side are also unreasonable, but they don't resort to vandalization and hysterical accusations quite as fast. To conclude: I had no political motivation in that VfD nomination, and I'm sorry if you feel I did. My only motivation in this is to help Wikipedia become as factual and NPOV as possible, and I personally have come to believe that we won't get that way by caving in to the demands of people like Argy. If you have any comments, feel free to drop them off at my talk page. Best wishes. Scimitar 13:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• In reply:

I thought I would point out to you that when Kiand picks out sock puppets, there is very little doubt in the matter. USers who just started on Wikipedia immediately finding their way to this article, and casting their votes to keep it? Unlikely, especially as it always seems to happen when Argy is losing an argument. Furthermore, User: SaintJerome, who appeared not 5 minutes after Argy was banned, immediately began reverting articles into Argy's POV. Thus, I think perhaps that the sock-puppetry charges are not inappropriate. Thank you though, for replying, and for being reasonable in your response. Best wishes. --Scimitar 18:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Were pointed out to me by User:ChrisO. I have never watched the programme, but Google is your friend once given a lead

Also, to anyone who's used the Wikipedia for a long period of time, large numbers of users coming on to a VFD to vote and never do anything else are clearly one of two things: Direct or Indirect sockpuppets. Either the user is voting themselves under a number of handles, or they are requesting votes on an external forum (ironically enough, usually a forum in the modern sense). One or the other is happening in this case.

I have no political interest in the VFD - I'm from and live in Ireland, I have never been to Greece, Turkey or Cyprus; and beyond beating Cyprus in the Euro 2008 qualifiers; have no interest in the area. I do, however, have an interest in ensuring VFD's aren't hijacked. --Kiand 18:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you please use {{db}} for tagging speedies. It includes a space to provide a reason, which makes my job as an admin a lot easier when on deletion duty. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• By all means, continue proposing speedy deletions. I'm just asking you to use the template I suggested to make the job easier on the admins. Sorry if I cam across as harsh or something - I didn't find your behavior inappropriate at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a nasty disease doesn't it? Never mind, I'll find some other way of phrasing it for Uranus. --

Francs2000 | Talk

Francs2000 | Talk

This is His Majesty the Home Secretary of the Office of the Most Important Man in the Entire World. I have been authorised, as an official and dignitary/global elder statesman liason, to make an official statement on behalf of HRH 0001, in a June 21 statement addressing the issues you raised with him he stated, and I quote, 'Rule Britannia...da..da..da..da..daa'. I suspect his initial intention was to elaborate further, but while I was dictating he spilt soy sauce all over me and I stormed out of the room in utter disgust. He's sulking now in the smoking room.--0001 13:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In reference to your (IMHO slightly aserbic) comments to

There isn't a clique; even the admins often disagree with one another quite strongly. There are standards of behavior which you can read about at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. There are also patterns of behavior that tend to spell "t-r-o-l-l" very loudly. 0001's activities were okay on the face of it but as he'd no editing history most VfD closers would probably discount his vote because of the possibility of sock puppetry--it isn't uncommon for supposedly new editors to reveal a remarkable knowledge of Wikipedia institutions coupled with little or no interest in editing articles, and it is assumed that those editors are just sock puppets or role accounts created by a regular for the purpose of trolling or disruption. His activities have become more problematic as time has gone on and I'm now firmly of the opinion that his intentions are solely to nitpick and disrupt.

We aren't supposed to reject the views of newcomers, either, but there are limits and jumping into VfD early in one's editing career is not likely to be a pleasant experience.

Inflammatory language is strongly deprecated, and personal attacks are too. If you try to address the argument rather than the person, there should be no problems.

A good way to get a lot of kudos on Wikipedia, which causes other editors to discount the possibility that you're solely using Wikipedia to disrupt, is to contribute good material and interact politely with other editors, particularly those who themselves may be misbehaving themselves. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Rredirect articles to this gentleman (a lawyer who was involved in the recent Jackson trial) are being systematically deleted, reserving only a lead article which without the redirects some people will never find. Could someone please arbitrate on which redirects ought to exist. Simon Cursitor 13:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

• Systematic deletion would be rather disruptive. If you could provide a couple of examples thereof, the person who did that deserves a stern warning. I'd say redirects ought to exist from such pages as
  WP:BOLD and add it. Yours, Radiant_>|<
  14:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

On the head of state issue, the perception is divided and changeable, but the trend has ever been towards the Governor-General. The Prime Minister says that the Governor-General is the head of state, for example, and the official Commonwealth Government Directory flips between describing the Queen as head of state and the Governor-General as head of state. The monarchist view is that the Governor-General is the head of state and the republican view is that the Queen is the head of state, and during the 1999 referendum campaign this became a political question. Pete 15:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trouble is, if they're constantly being deleted, I cannot know what their names are unless you tell me. Having said that, this is the list I got just now when I looked for redirect pages going to this article:

• Tom mesereau (redirect page)
• Thomas a. mesereau (redirect page)
• Thomas a mesereau (redirect page)
• Thomas mesereau jr (redirect page)
• Thomas mesereau jr. (redirect page)
• Tom mesereau jr (redirect page)
• Tom mesereau jr. (redirect page)
• Thomas a mesereau jr. (redirect page)
• Thomas a mesereau jr (redirect page)
• Thomas a. mesereau jr (redirect page)
• Tom a mesereau (redirect page)
• Tom a. mesereau (redirect page)
• Tom a mesereau jr. (redirect page)
• Tom a mesereau jr (redirect page)
• Tom a. mesereau jr (redirect page)
• Thomas a. mesereau jr. (redirect page)
• Thomas arthur mesereau jr (redirect page)
• Thomas arthur mesereau jr. (redirect page)
• Tom arthur mesereau (redirect page)
• Tom arthur mesereau jr (redirect page)
• Tom arthur mesereau jr. (redirect page)
• Mesereau (disambiguation)
• Tommy mesereau (redirect page)
• The Mez (redirect page)

Looks to me as if somebody has been overdoing it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense. Cleanup is often better done with a lag time rather than by confrontation. The redirects in themselves were not disrupting Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: your vote on

• Re your request that I reconsider my vote on
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Templates, this would I take it be the vote I never made, my comment being along the lines of "Is the author busy on finals, and should this really be being deleted so quickly?". --Simon Cursitor
  5 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)

I don't understand why you asked for this to be speedied. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
It is an empty entry --Simon Cursitor 7 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)

There is no cabal here... whistles innocently --

Francs2000 | Talk 16:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

Since this question appears directed at me, I'll reply here -- the RFC you commented on is very old, created during Plautus' first stay here (he was subsequently banned by the arbcom for a year). During his first stay here, I was the person who conflicted with Plautus the most. I basically led the charge to get him banned (and believe me, he could not have picked a more opportune time - it took TREMENDOUS of effort to eject even-the-most-obviously-bad users back them). When the arbitration committee got around to hearing the case (it was only the second case the committee ever took; I had to make an ultimatum on the mailing list to get them to hear it). As a participant in the case (more or less the plaintiff), it was my job to present evidence as to why they should punish him. Nowdays, we expect participants in disputes to offer evidence as a matter of course. →Raul654 16:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Also, as a follow up, you might find it enlightening to read user:Raul654/Plautus (which I have updated to cover his recent behavior) →Raul654 07:46, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

You may remember that I attempted to address your concerns about the original contents of

I know you meant well by putting Sanne Salomonsen up for speedy deletion as non-notable, but you forgot to Google first. 35K hits seem to indicate at least some notability, yes? DS 13:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping you this note, as I'd seen you vote on

Of course, if something looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's not a cabal, it's a duck! --Habap 15:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simoncursitor,

Do you still believe that my article on Lord Oranmore and Browne has to be banned from Wikipedia? Or do you agree that you were to swift ?

Robert Prummel—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Prummel (talk • contribs)

I sand by my comment that the article, at the time I proposed it for speedy deletion, made no assertion as to notability for its subject. If you have since added such material, then it will be for other Wiki-users to assess it. -- Simon Cursitor 09:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you nominated it seven minutes after it was created, not that the author couldn't have held off until he had more than two sentences. Lhlhlh 07:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Having read your comments on this Deletion review, may I politely ask how many edits it is necessary to have undertaken.

Assuming -- at least for the sake of argument -- that that was a serious question, let me refer you to a section of the same page, a section which you have perhaps overlooked:

If you look at the accounts Mackensen blocked through his log, you will see that VaughanWatch's socks tend to have 50-100 edits (mostly minor copyedits) all on the same day, then they go dormant until they start posting on Simon Strelchik AfDs or other Vaughan issues. Munchkin looks very much the same. Thatcher131 11:16, 21 April 2006 Hmm, that behavior pattern looks familiar.

VaughanWatch has used 60+ -- mostly confirmed -- sockpuppets, none with the least bit of subtlety. Perhaps you enjoy having your intelligence insulted, but I don't. --Calton | Talk 12:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon please help - they banned me and are banning a bunch of people making any new edits. I wish they would just stop doing that! Deletion review Gsinclair 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments on Captain Scarlet...

Firstly - the MEV in the original series is not "blown to smithereens" as you put it. I cannot comment on the new series pilot, not having seen that particular episode, but that is of no consequence anyway. In the original series - about which article we are discussing - the only indication we have of Black's transformation is a zoom in, in which he is shown to have change to the hard-faced agent we see in the remainder of the series. No death; no green circles. We never see the vehicle again. We are not shown the return to earth. All we know with certainty - from Colonel White's dialogue - is that Black disappeared immediately after its return.

Dialogue in the car, immediately before the accident resulting in Brown's and Scarlet's deaths and transformations makes it perfectly clear that Brown is the senior officer. This is the only point on which perhaps there is leeway for interpretation. Nevertheless, once again there is no absolute citable reference clearly stating that Scarlet is a "senior agent" as the article stated.

In the context of the destruction of the Mysteron city - at the time it was simply a facility of unknown origin. What may or may not be revealed or referred to later in the series constitutes a spoiler (however small) and doesn't belong in a brief synopsis of the events beginning the story.

In both instances I edited for accuracy. Wikipedia is not a forum for being "almost sure", "making cases" or philosophical argument. Certitude is the watchword. I have been a fan of the programme since its first time around. (i.e. 1960s when I was a very young child.) I have the entire series on DVD, and other reference material to hand. I am not going on memory or speculation, but on reference. Cain Mosni 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Know you asked me not to respond - but how else does one offer an apology? I am sorry that you took my comments as venomous, although re-reading them I genuinely cannot see what you found abusive. Direct yes, but not abusive. At worst I was pointing out the lack of certainty in your foundation, and detailing the facts. Nevertheless, no insult was intended, and the apology for any perceived slight is utterly genuine. I am quite aware that the lack of intent does not reduce the insult you may feel. I certainly don't question your motives. I'm not out to make enemies, and I hope you accept the apology. I'd much sooner understand a mistake, and make a friend. Like you I have no interest in exchanging abuse - life's too short. Cain Mosni 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. you prodded

The prod was removed, I have now put it on Afd, here. I'd appreciate input.--ZayZayEM 05:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Tuatafa Hori reference? Bohemienne815 19:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite you to visit the site and sample the strip at various points in its history. I don't expect to make you abandon your "master-plan" to cleanse Wiki~'s comics covergae, but I do hope to persuade you that this is not a fly-by-night job, adn that the lack of references is probably becausde this is art for art's sake, not art to get the critics babbling about it. Respecfully, Simon Cursitor

I took a look at the site when I nominated earlier today. I'll take another look, but I'm pretty sure the AFD process will give the article a fair case. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 15:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I've no doubt it will. However, the AfD process replies, as far as I can see, on nominations, and then the ascription of many contrary views to sockpuppets, ballot-stuffing (and of course AfD ins't a vote) and the like. I was merely hoping that, on reflection, you would either withdraw the nomination, or at least temper your criticism with an acknowledgement that some people may hear of it and come to Wiki~ for more information. Yes, if Wiki~ had a dedicated comix-sub, I'd vote for the article at this length to go there, and a summary remain here. But it doesn't and can't. Sorry to use up your talk-space, but this is one I feel highly about. -- Simon Cursitor

Yeah, I can understand and respect the position that people come to Wikipedia for information, but I have concerns about the notability of many articles that currently exist here. To draw a hyperbole, I'm sure some people have heard of my friend's self-published CD of music, but I wouldn't suggest that it have a page here on Wikipedia. It's all about Notability.

As for the comics, it just so happens that I'm focusing my attention on them first; it's not a specific agenda against that topic. I guess one of the best places to take your concerns about stubs would be

WP:COMIC's talk page. I went there a week ago on the subject of Keenspot and Comic Genesis and the discussion was rather fruitful. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your nice comments at second AFD of Third-holiest-site. --- ابراهيم 14:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your point and it is a very valid point. We cannot do any thing for avoiding such thing to happen :( . --- ابراهيم 14:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae give your opinion as Keep or Delete there. Your above point is good enough. --- ابراهيم 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry -- I'm not the man to vote on this: I know far too little. -- Simon Cursitor 15:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Surprisingly,this already went to a 2nd AfD. Just thought you'd like to know since you were part of the discussion on the 1st AfD. If you choose to vote, as always vote however you like. --Oakshade 05:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the originator of the AfD for this article and would like to withdraw my nomination in favor of the {{notability}} tag I have placed on the article and the information I have provided on its Talk page.

If you agree with the withdrawal of the nomination (I realize you might not), could you please strike through your recommendation on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club International page and note your agreement with the alternative?

Thanks.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Gladys Holiday Greeting
		For your hard work, insighful opinions and overall contribution to Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow, I hereby award you this Thank You, along with my sincere hope that you have a wonderful holiday season. james.lebinski 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply ]

quasi-racialist; entire subject represents a thinly-veiled attack page

Seriously? I'm Jewish, not of the self-hating variety, and not adherent, but nevertheless, ethnically and socially a Jew. I don't find anything about the article to be a) racist/racialist, or b) a "thinly veiled attack page". I'm curious as to how you came to those conclusions. Thanks. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It represented an attempt to differentiate the members of one racial group from another, and in a manner and on a topic used in the past for an attack on that racial group,namely that all members of it are engaged in a meta-national conspiracy. But you are entitled to your own conclusions. I was merely expressing the view (as I believe I am entitled) that the article did not ought to be within W~paedia. -- Simon Cursitor

Please read my comment on [1], and feel free to respond in the discussion or on my talk page. YechielMan 08:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the AfD as a Speedy Keep because it appears your intent wasn't actually to have this deleted, but to start a discussion about the article. This close was done without predjudice against another AfD if for some reason I misunderstood your intent.--Isotope23 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did a

WP:CSD#G4).--Isotope23 13:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no WikiCabal. Simon Cursitor

I've responded on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the review, I am afraid I decline to get involved in a debate on the taxidermy and preservation of cruft -- Simon Cursitor —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Thank you so much for your kind words here ^[1] I have only tried to help with that article, since to me it appeared in total disarray. I faced so much resistence because one editor wanted things his/her way only and any attempt to improve the article lead to huge debates. Anyway, it's not often someone goes out of their way to speak with a NPOV and I just wanted to say it was much appreciated. Buzybeez 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]