User:Manhattan Samurai/archive

i'm sure bill knew the misattributed source. i'm glad you've referenced the source, misattributed or otherwise!

interestingly, i added bill yesterday to the wikipedia page for gloucester, ma, under notable residents, but the reference was deleted. he lived and worked there as far back as 1978, perhaps earlier, and has many ties to the city, including friends, ex-girlfriends, jobs, and family. his book lighthouse borrows extensively from experiences in gloucester.

Re: Alan Cabal

how we going to rescue the Alan Cabal page?? We're holding them off for nrow but we need a lot more sources than the ones we've got. User:Huan has a good point re: the mirror site; that was the main crucible of the article and without it we need a lot more sources. Smith Jones (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I found references to the article -- [1] here, which confirms that it was in the Counterpunch article. I dont know much about the article, so maybe i can track it out offline and maybe find the issue of that magazine that containned Cabal's writing. Smith Jones (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

i hope the CounterPunch folks put a rush on the Cabal article. Its the linchpin of my argument to keep the article since its one of hte main notable things that Cabal has done. If we cna get that, we could probably win the AFD case and find even stronger sources to strengthen the article. Smith Jones (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Try this: -"Alan Cabal" Arts & Letters- in google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.1.164 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Or this: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.getreligion.org/archives/JPII.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.getreligion.org/%3Fs%3Dsatanist&h=217&w=217&sz=52&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=BrgwPl3YqCbCeM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=107&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Alan%2BCabal%2522%2B%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.1.164 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the compliment! User:DanDs has done a lot (well, ~~most~~ almost all.=)....at least 80-90% of the references!) of the work as well. It's in a Good Article nomination at this moment. Hopefully we can get it to featured article status!!!!

Thanks again!! the_ed 17 01:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Shannara

Hi! I've seen you editing Shannara related articles here on Wikipedia, and so I would like to invite you to join the Shannara task force, an effort by Wikipedians to improve the series' coverage on this encyclopedia. Please consider signing up here and helping us out. Thank you in advance! the_ed 17 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought. the_ed 17 01:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. I had to try, at least. Thanks for replying! the_ed 17 01:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your personal attacks are reaching a stage of complete incivility. You are requested to cease this form of editing immediately. --VS ^talk 03:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"This guy wrote an article about Ernst Zundel and failed to describe him as some kind of drooling werewolf. Ignore him or die." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.1.164 (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound too youthful, but aren't werewolves cool? In the last episode of Supernatural there was a werewolf that... maybe I won't go there. Anyways, Zundel is a dumb fuck, who is hardly interesting but we protect dumb fucks like that and their freedom of speech because you can't discriminate too harshly on speech or it will fuck things up for people actually saying something. There seems to be a lot of fundamentalist rejects in this world.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done

On 27 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dining Late with Claude La Badarian , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

Hi Manhattan Samurai. The idea of a Claude La Badarian map is interesting, and I think it could be done. Unfortunately, I'm buried in other projects, and I can't take this one on. If it helps, I think you can find a suitable blank base map at the U.S. Census site here by clicking on the "Maps" option in the left-hand column and then choosing "Reference Maps (boundaries)". If you fill in "Connecticut" as the center of the map you're looking for, you'll get something that will be about right at the 185-mile setting. It helps to read the tutorial at the Census map site because the map-maker has a lot of options. I mention this site because all of the maps there are in the public domain and cause no problems with licensing. Once you work through this, you'll have a blank base map. The La Badarian details you want would have to be added using a drawing program like Photoshop (commercial) or Paint.NET (free and downloadable). Adding details can be quite exacting and time-consuming since it's hard to get things in the right places, label them correctly, and make everything fit and look nice. It might be worth learning if you'll need maps for future projects as well as this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Alan Cabal

we're definitely winning. I counted the votes ans we have 7 Keep 6 Delete votse, and one of the keeps was someone we converted from deltionism. I think Cabal is going to be here to sta.y Smith Jones (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This edit summary is unacceptable.--Michig (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't get yourself blocked man! Keep your head about you...different people have different opinions. the_ed 17 20:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alan Cabal

I don't understand why you deleted Alan Cabal's article? The debate leaned towards keep by 7 to 6 and the arguments were strongly for. I know it is a discussion and not a vote but this is actually a pretty important writer. This isn't a journalist who doesn't become a part of his work and simply writes articles. Cabal is well known and his work is filled to the brim with his personality. I'm baffled. I get most people just don't know who he is and reject him, but that's the point of an encyclopedia. To learn about notable people. I would like to list this at deletion review, if you don't mind? Additionally, we put a lot of hard work into looking up references and vetting the article's facts. And I will finally finish off with: there is so much junk in this encyclopedia of non-notables, that I frankly can't fathom that a useful article about a flamboyant writer could be deleted. It's scandalous.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I explained it in my closing statement — the references just proved that he exists, worked for a newspaper, and was fired. No notability is established. As you say yourself, AFD is a discussion and a vote count is not relevant.

If you want to list a deletion review, feel free (and there's no need to nofiy me further, I'll drop by in due course). And equally, if you want to get rid of the "junk in [the] encyclopedia", please do nominate it for deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology it really is appreciated. I have written some thoughts at the top of my user page. I wonder if they strike a chord with you? Malla nox 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

unbelievable. We're goign to need a stronger argrument if we have a deletion review. If I could hve links to some of the other junky articles of non-notable people, we could use that as leverage maybe to bring Cabal back as well as find exampels of notability that might help with the Deletion Review. Smith Jones (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Wikipedia:Deletion Review#Alan Cabal. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. "Have you been slamming your head against the wall one too many times?" is not a productive comment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It just seems like the whole deletionist bent over there is symptomatic of one having slammed his head against a wall or some other sort of contusion to the brain.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't helping garner any sympathy to your position. Please stop making allusions that people who disagree with you have brain damage. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Userficitation

We should let that one person userfy the article for us. the way the article si now it would probalby be set for AFD after AFD and wed owuld spend more time fighting AFDs and Deletion Reviews rathe than actually working on the article. Smith Jones (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just that I want the article to be restored so that we get that out of the way and then have some breathing room to improve it. I'm not that interested in greatly improving it. It's just an article that should always be there as a brief bio. I mean, all this maddening notability stuff aside, if you come across the name 'Alan Cabal' it would be nice to look it up and see how notable he really is. Decide for yourself, but have the article available. We've certainly spent a lot of energy trying to achieve this. Kinda crazy.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

hey man, im with you here but you know and i know that we will lsoe this deletion review. At least whith the userficiation we will have the article to work on and we can reintrodouche it whenever we want. Smith Jones (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what that means. Fix it up in user space and then subject it to another discussion? And then maybe it still doesn't meet requirements so this whole thing starts up again? I mean how much weirder could this whole incident get?-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)=

Because the deletionists can't read user talk pages. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. (this edit summary)--Michig (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Michig, aspirant administrator: If ever you do apply to become an administrator one day you really must invite me to your hearing. I would be glad to put in a good word or two for you. I know it was naughty of me to explain in my edit summary at the CounterPunch article that there is a possibility that "you are an unnotable douche..." but after you joyously explained over there that you had just "rm Alan Cabal, certainly not legendary, apparently not notable," I, lacking diplomacy, felt a need to grab you by the throat and waterboard drinks slowly over your head to find out Why you would possibly start a new feud about Alan Cabal in an entirely different article? I am totally willing to take this to a more appropriate court where we can discuss at length what each might really be thinking, rather than resort to the interrogative methods I am so eager to employ on you, though only because I want to get to know you and don't believe you are honestly able to inform others about your deeper feelings. So let us find a forum around here where we can hash out what these edit summaries really entail and avoid any further confusion about motives here. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not interested in feuds - parhaps you should just accept that other editors disagree with your views and stop attacking them. 'Legendary' wasn't justified, and the recent AFD discussion concluded that he isn't sufficiently notable - generally these 'lists of notable' people get trimmed to those people who have satisfied Wikipedia's notability criteria via articles about them. If you find sources showing Cabal is notable, we can recreate the article and live happily ever after - I would have no problem with the article if such sources could be found. I think looking for sources that others would consider sufficient for notability would be your best course of action. --Michig (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: CounterPunch. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)