User talk:SmokeyJoe

Wikipedia:Numbers

Sorry for the late reply. Feel free to reuse that title for Wikipedia: Notability (numbers), or a redirect to it. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2007-10-08 20:49 Z

go ahead and delete these two

Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at Hag2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD nomination of Rapido Realismo Kali and Isagani Abon

Hi! Please post your thoughts regarding these two non-notable articles related to Henry Espera. Cheers! User234 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination)

Hi, SmokeyJoe. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 7, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Color symbolism and psychology

Your ongoing participating in the article in question, as well as the attendant RfD, is gratefully acknowledged and solicited once more. I have made radical overhauls to the content, but still have editors claiming it "not good enough". At this point, I feel it rather obvious that their policy obstructions are just edit warring by another means, but I do not have the standing individually to stand up to it alone. Thanks! Ender78 (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

I write to invite you to join others in becoming a co-mentor for me. This message is "poking" you, as suggested on your userpage. My earlier approaches were perhaps too discreet -- see "pings" here in December and here in January.

As you know, your name is listed at WP:WikiProject User Rehab. The nascent status of a mentorship committee is clarified in the currently active thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Tang Dynasty. Hopefully, this mentorship experiment will prove to be more effective and less burdensome than previous wiki-mentoring schemes.

This is a time for hortatory concepts. Do you know this one?

"I am only one, but I am one. I can not do everything, but I can do something.

I must not fail to do the something that I can do."

If Wikiquote:Helen Keller#Misattributed is to believed, then I am not alone in linking these words with Helen Keller. The salient question becomes this: Does precise attribution matter in the context of a teachable moment? No – not always, but often.

What can I say or do to convince you to agree tentatively?

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. In this search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context. May I offer an on-topic writing sample? As you think about agreeing to join a mentorship committee, please review Patrick Lennox Tierney#Showa apology rebuffed.

Are you willing to look into this a bit further?

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Two rakan evoke a teachable moment, searching together for a focal point?

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. A summary explaining why I created a mentorship group is posted at WP:A/R/C#Response to Steve Smith.

I appreciate the thrust of your analysis; but there are no simple answers to searching questions.

In part, Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling was honored for conceptualizing game theory "focal point[s] for each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do." In essence, this the sort of thing you're asking; and I don't have easy answers.

Please consider contacting me by e-mail. I will address your questions as best I can.

I can promise to be frank, but not succinct. --Tenmei (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your note

"See the talk page" refers to the lack of consensus, and lack of participation. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So yes, you were being too subtle for me. You mean see talk page for the absence of support. I went carefully though the talk page looking for something specific. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Edits to WPNOR.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Edits to WPNOR.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:The Death of Ivan Ilyich

If you believe the image has a case under the non-free content criteria, make the case. Do not force bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake... J Milburn (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at Ncmvocalist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Revert at Harmonious Editing

Hi SmokeyJoe,

I just noticed you reverted my removal of SkagitRiverQueen from the Harmonious Editing page. Even after adding her name, she was banned repeatedly for edit warring and personal attacks, was placed under an interaction ban with one editor, and was in the process of being placed under an interaction ban with a second user, when she was given a year-long community ban for her behavior. See her user page, and the included community link, for details.

Certainly feel free to leave her there if you like, but even after adding herself, her behavior didn't match HEC guidelines. This is why I removed her from the list. -FeralDruid (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Secret pages

SmokeyJoe, I agree with your suggestions at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Hidden/Secret Pages. Because I am unfamiliar with policy/guideline discussions and generally am wary of participating in such discussions which could take months, would you start the WT:UT subpage? Cunard (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. If the proposal correctly anticipates consensus, the process won't take months. If there is genuinely no consensus, then all is hopeless. I am surprised at the level of opposition your MfDs have already received.

I think we should wait for the current MfDs to wind up. Possibly, you could try withdrawing them in favour of a centralised discussion. The merit for this is that each of the MfDs is so similarly, with templated comments across them, and the fact that they look like heading to no consensus to me.

One question for you that needs answering: What secret/hidden pages do you think should be deleted. All of User:MiszaBot/PSP? I personally would disagree. If not, then what list? Have you made the list, or do you have a method for vetting the false positives? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be withdrawing the MfDs, since some of them have a delete consensus. I'll let the other ones play out to see if there are further opinions about them. The level of opposition was initially surprising to me, but it really isn't that surprising. I nominated 13 MfDs for deletion, and the creators of the pages, as well as others who had recently found the secret pages, voted keep.

The secret pages that should be included in the MfD are those that users hide so others can search for them and then receive barnstars. Compiled from User:MiszaBot/PSP, my list of secret pages that should be deleted is here. Best, Cunard (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the Mfds should not be withdrawn. I have copied you sandbox page to Wikipedia:User pages/Secret pages to be deleted. You've put a lot of effort in. Assuming we agree to delete these secret pages, for this to work into the future, the bot need to not regenerate pages vetted as OK. I think we should collate these realted conversations to Wikipedia talk:User pages/Secret pages to be deleted --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. How do we advertise the discussion? Cunard (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:VC Beharry.jpg

I don't follow you, I'm afraid: the image is still available at File:VC Beharry.jpg. Any feedback would be welcome, but I do not see how this image differs from any other privately-copyrighted image of a living public individual. --Kwekubo (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate

Please note that attempt is being made to redirect / delete Tannhauser Gate without reopening the AfD which closed with a consensus to keep...... --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

My thanks for implementing this request. This wasn't a big thing, but it was the best kind of stunt, being crazed and valid at the same time. --Kizor 19:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, SmokeyJoe. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Typo?

In the view you posted at the POTD RFC, did you mean unremarkable? --Avenue (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes I try composing in Microsoft Word to avoid typos. This time "remakable" got corrected to "remarkable". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

draft

I wanted to thank you for your kind rationale. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WT:NOR#Terminology

As you might have been able to tell last night, it was very late and I was quickly tiring. I hope my response to your comment made clear I fully agreed with what you said--IMO wikilawyering and disagreements about how to apply policy to practice will not stop as a consequence of, as you said, "sanding down" policy language. (Though I'm not at all opposed to sanding down rough edges.) And yes, dispute resolution is a separate process altogether. Disputes about policy arise because simply people have differing views and are looking for arguments in favor of their respective views. By and large they don't appear to me to be a result of poor policy language. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)