User talk:Ogb~enwiki

Wholism

Hello. When someone questions the validity of an article, they can take it to Votes for deletion and let the community weigh in on the subject. Others can then investigate and vote accordingly. If a consensus (roughly 2/3) is reached, then that action (keep, delete, redirect, etc.) is the decision that applies to that article. In this case, the community consensus was to redirect the article to Holism. Everything was done by the book, all policies followed. What that means is that the redirect has to remain. 'Sorry. SWAdair | Talk 05:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the final decision... the way I see it, there were four votes for redirect (3-holism, 1-pantheism), two for deletion, and one implied keep. The consensus was overwhelmingly anthing but keep. Of the possibilities left (delete or redirect), I believe redirect to holism was the most appropriate considering the vote. You said you believe one person had created a name only account to vote. Do you mean a sockpuppet? I recognize most of those names, as they've been active in cleanup. The names I don't recognize have contribution lists complete enough to imply they aren't likely socks. I don't know what to tell you, but I don't think the results of the VfD could be interpreted in any way that would allow the Wholism article to remain a separate article. SWAdair | Talk 06:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... as for deleting the article entirely, and replacing it with a redirect, I don't see much harm but it would violate several policies and conventions. All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License, meaning one doesn't own their contributions. For a page to be speedily deleted, the closest criteria that applies would be number 7 for articles "Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author." That doesn't apply here. Also, it might prove useful in the future to have the original article's history available. It won't do any harm to have the text sitting there in the history. SWAdair | Talk 06:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The VfD procedure ended in a consensus to make the article a redirect, which is why that has been done. Anyone who edits the page so as to subvert that decision is likely to be warned and then blocked from editing. I'm not sure, though, what you mean about the history of the VfD process; I certainly opened the VfD, and I can't see any sign of what you call an alias page; the person who made the article into a redirect is SimonP — I don't understand why you refer to him as "only a page name" (nor why you described one of the people voting in the VfD in the same way; what do you mean by this claim?). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what you mean by saying that you got a page name when you clicked on a User; which User are you referring to? Why didnt SWAdair's reply satisfy you on this?
I've found the question you asked (on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Wholism). It appears that I (gasp!) typed five tildes instead of four when I replied to you, so that my comment had a date but no User name [1]. Nothing on that page was deleted by anyone, though you seem to have edited it from both your User account and 203.220.118.46 (talk · contribs).
What is this "strong agenda" of mine that you have discerned?
I have no interest in whether you believe that I teach philosophy at Oxford; it plays no part in my editing, and is merely an attempt to give the curious person some background. (I'm not a professor; we use that term rather differently.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmology

I just read your user page. I see you're interested in cosmology. We have a pretty good selection of articles on that subject. The one for Big Bang Theory is located at Big Bang. Poke around a while and see what you can contribute. I understand the experience with the Wholism article could be a little off-putting, but please do keep coming back. I'm sure you'll get hooked after a while. :-) SWAdair | Talk 07:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD process

You said "The voting process is dishonest and based more on some editors' prejudices than on the weighing of the evidence presented." The rules aren't perfect, but unless you can offer some better workable procedure, that's what we have. I understand that the majority of the votes were cast before you significantly expanded the article. Many (not all) voters keep track of the votes they have cast and check an article again on its last day of VfD listing to see if anything has happened that would change their vote. This is not required, and not all do it, but many do. A vote remains valid whether a person checks again or not. There is no workable solution to invalidate votes because an article was expanded. It is possible that everyone rechecked and remained unconvinved, therefore leaving their votes unchanged. Think of it from a procedural standpoint, and not just for your article but for every article listed on VfD. Requiring voters to continually actively reaffirm their votes is not likely to become part of the process due to the difficulties that would present. The current system assumes a passive reaffirmation and it works much more often than not. If you can suggest a workable solution that would prevent pre-expansion votes from affecting an article, without requiring voters to continually actively re-affirm their votes again and again, feel free to suggest it on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. SWAdair | Talk 14:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ogb. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ogb~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)