User talk:DropDeadGorgias

Hi, DDG. Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm a sysop and developer here, so if you need any help let me know. And thanks for your contributions to music trivia. What else do you know about? --Uncle Ed

Thanks for the welcome. I've always been really interested in the wiki movement, and I actually think that the lyrics page is an interesting development/experiment. First of all, all of the 30 writers of the page are only now coming up with a format to follow. Additionally, this does address the topic of what information is considered 'useful'. I am a big fan of absurd and surreal literature, and I recently contributed an article on The Library of Babel. I'm very interested in the development of the wikipedia, and I hope to contribute more in the future. --DropDeadGorgias

--

Greetings from me as well, Gorgias. I'm a writer and editor here, so let me say "good to have you". Do you have any suggestions as to how we can make our List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics more complete? It seems hard to find a definitive and complete list of these anywhere. --128.193.88.243

Graft, is that you? Your anonymity and sarcasm make your identity slightly suspect. --DropDeadGorgias

Dear Gorgias: Thank you for your correction on Saved by the Bell. I wrote that so long ago I didnt even notice my incorrection. I was new, and based that on persistent rumors. As a matter of a fact, that seems to have been the dominant idea among teens of the 1990s, that Saved by the Bell was inspired by Beverly Hills 90210s success. Short memory we all had, I guess! LOL!

Now I write based on research more than rumors. That is my rule, research first, write about it later, that way, while Im not copying any articles from other sites, I do not comment anything that is not true and I stay between the boundaries of what really happened. If something in someone's life or in a compnay history , etc, is just a rumor, I make sure to point out it is. But you are right, that was an obvious, albeit honest, mistake by me.

Usually I wouldnt do this but in this case your correction was in benefit of the article so thanks for correcting it, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Party All Night!!!! Martin

Yep, it's not a problem. I definitely think that you're doing a great job of putting up articles on topics that haven't been covered yet. -DropDeadGorgias 22:35 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I completely support you POV changes, and I've tried to help you out in the cases I have seen a contributor reverting (of sorts) to a POV version. If you ever need any help with such things, or have any questions or just want to consult someone else, feel free to post to my talk page. MB 18:33 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! It can be kind of frustrating on my own. -DropDeadGorgias 18:47 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Rachel True. I have added some comments, and have created a The Craft (movie)/temp to be used to making a new section to The Craft (movie) which will discuss the cultural impact. MB 14:10 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Evening DropDeadGorgias, I've just read your user page. I used to have the same opinion as you about people listing their contributions (well maybe not as obnoxious, but maybe some combination of silly, vain and show-offy), then after a long while of thiking this, someone pointed out on a talk page that they use their list as something of a watchlist, the 'Related Changes' link showing them whether any of those pages have been edited recently. This struck me as quite a good idea, and I guess useful to the rest of us as that's another person watching over that set of articles. As such I'm now pretty neutral towards link filled user pages, they could be serving a purpose (some definitely are), they could be pure vanity (again, some almost definitely are!). If you've never used the Recent Changes button I suggest you have a play with it, it can be pretty useful (I didn't notice it for months, but then I'm pretty unobservant). Anyway, here ends another long, boring story. Have fun editing, and good night. -- Ams80 23:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually was totally unaware of the "Related Changes" tab (is it new?). It actually is pretty useful, so I'll have to revise my opinion on the homepage links. Thanks a lot! DropDeadGorgias 19:52, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't notice 'Related Changes' myself for ages. Another way I've seen people using it is that a couple of people regularly use it to see which maths articles have been edited (there are pages dedicated to lists of maths articles) and thus catch a lot of the vandalism of them. -- Ams80 20:35, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Apologies for my talk page, it is indeed a bit of a mess, it's sort of extending in both directions at the moment, I should probably tidy it up...)

copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Anyone can vote here, although anonymous users or users with near-zero contribution history (less than 10 edits, say) might well have votes removed as they would be presumed by many to be either sock puppets or trolls. I'll post this on your talk page too. Anyone have an idea for how to word this to be placed on the meta page itself? Jwrosenzweig 18:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

THANKS for your comment on "fairly unique" on VFD. Good laugh for me this morning. Elf 15:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

(moved from User:DropDeadGorgias by Dysprosia) DDG - I just noticed my 'songs that dont have the title... etc' bug. Thanks for pointing it out! I have to go and find that list of songs again now :P --Chuq 04:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The racism remark you quote from Anthony DiPierro is remarkably like the one on VfD aimed at me by Numerao. Are they associated? - Texture 19:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'm pretty new to the debate on Anthony, so I couldn't tell you. I do think that spurious accusations of racism are definte signs of trolling, and many trolls maintain sock puppet accounts, so I wouldn't rule that possibility out. - DropDeadGorgias 19:03, Mar 2, 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)