User talk:Robin Johnson

Discounting in AfDs

Hi there. It is the done thing to discount (numerically, at least) comments from shiny new users who have, miraculously, stumbled upon an AfD debate in which they all happen to share the same interest. Generally, this is because someone has said on a forum somewhere "all you have to do is vote keep in droves and Wikipedia will have to do as we say". Needless to say, we're not held hostage that way by people pushing an agenda on a single article, and so admins discount very new users, or those with very few edits. That's not what you are, though, of course.

I sometimes have concerns about numerically including editors who have very rarely edited in Wikipedia: space. This is because they are, sometimes, persuaded to visit the AfD on similar grounds to the kind of users I mentioned above, and are similarly pushing an agenda, but happen never to come across AfD before. There is also the question of wanting AfD editors to be reasonably versed in deletion policy and norms before they join in (not unreasonable, I think). Because I had discounted a large number of keep 'votes' I wanted to be sure I was being (and was being seen to be) fair in also excluding deleters is necessary, and so I mentioned you two. Note that I didn't actually offer a definitive count of the votes, instead giving 3 similar interpretations and then writing a lengthy reasoning. Also, of course, AfDs are debates more than votes, and so long as I'm satisfied that someone is debating in good-faith I'm pretty lenient on including their vote or not. -Splash^talk 13:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - just wasn't sure if I was in breach of some policy I hadn't heard of. Robin Johnson 14:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to learn about Greek Organizations before you try to delete them. You obviously didnt know what you were talking about, but nice try. Please sign edits to talk pages. This comment was made by User:208.60.221.80. Robin.

Scientology

Many thanks for your message regarding the Scientology page. I did not vandalise it- I updated it to reflect the fact that Tom Cruise recently announced that he would eat the placenta after his baby is born- there is more information about this on the Tom Cruise page itself. Unsigned comment by 212.104.129.149

replied to on your talk page. Robin Johnson 12:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gadsby

Sorry about the confusion with the Gadsby article. I think it's intresting (and pretty cool) that you wanted the article to be lipogramatical as a tribute to the book but, I really don't think this serves the purposes of a wikipedia article. --The_stuart 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

Hi, Robin. I suppose I don't mind you wiping out my edits, but I will admit that they were intended to be slightly inflammatory. I see it as slinging mud at Neo-Nazi's. Neo-Nazi's are racists and believe in their own illogical superiority over others. Scientologists, without necessarily being racist, behave in the same way. So why not say they are a cult? I guess this is really my complaint with a universal editing system like Wikipedia, so don't take my rant personally. I just wonder if Wikipedia will is some semblance of Newspeak (from George Orwell's 1984), about 20 years too late??? User:cavemanf16 17:10, 28 April 2006 (EST)

LOL

Delete as per Wikipedia:No lists of cat names. Robin Johnson 10:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egg sandwich

You say:

Very week keep in light of the changes to the article since I nominated it. (In fact, if it survives, I support redirecting Fried egg sandwich here.) If I found the article as it is, I wouldn't have prodded or AfD'd it. But I'm still not really convinced. Robin Johnson 14:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to tell the truth, I'm not sure what precise strength I would put on my own "keep" vote. I think I was reacting to the comment that "This is not a notable type of sandwich, as Club sandwich, merely a description of a possible filling for a sandwich."

I believe that if you were looking at pre-packaged, Saran-wrapped sandwiches in a refrigerator case at a U.S. airport, you would be as likely to find an egg salad sandwich as anything else. Slightly more likely than to find a club sandwich.

Whether there is really a cultural concept of "egg sandwich," I'm not so sure... I think most people think of "egg salad sandwich" and "fried-egg sandwich" as being two completely different kinds of thing. And sliced-hardboiled-egg sandwiches are not terribly familiar.

I did suggest the merge and somebody else merged other articles, in response to my suggestion I don't know. I feel a little guilty about supporting what does feel like an artificial topic.

But not very guilty. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. I've always thought that most substubs are not real contributions of information, they are merely improperly executed article requests. And even when I first started to edit Wikipedia, very few substubs were pointing out important omissions. I've argued (never successfully) that the routine treatment of substubs should be to delete them and enter the topic on the Request Article list. And I've supported "article that contains no information that is not contained in its title" as a CSD criterion. All unsuccessfully. So.... I'm inconsistent. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Severina Vuckovic

thank you for your contribution to severina vuckovic. by the way, IMO, the last paragraph is POV and written in rather bad english. i ve tried to correct it (doing some mistakes myself as you have noticed!) but an anon would revert. if you like, have a look at the text and make any corrections you deem necessary. best--Greece666 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Regards to Fios Deletion Comment

I would appreciate it if you did a little bit of research before blatantly lying and looking ignorant in trying to say that I was "lying" in an entry. If you went to the website of that entry company and looked around for more than ten seconds you would see that yes, those people specified are employed there.

Instead of taking stabs in the dark and accusing someone of lying, please do a bit of research before you start labeling someone as being a liar. I would appreciate it.

Frankenstein

Hi, Robin. Nice to meet you. Umm, yeah, I wasn't sure if my link would be okay, so it is perferctly all right with me that you deleted it. I do have to say, though, that having a B.A. in English, I was taught a different definition of the term "personal essay." At the University of Hartford, "personal essay" means a nonfiction piece, written creatively, with biographical elements. "Critical essay" means a nonfiction, analytical piece, mainly concerning works not done by the essay's author, for instance, on literature. Anyway, I don't know exactly what Wikipedia terms a personal essay, but I'll try to look it up and be more careful next time. Thanks for correcting me, though. I do love Wikipedia.

LUST

I didn't remove it but i agree with whoever did as i feel you long running grudge against LUST makes you bias and thus not right for to vote on the issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Capone Of Lesta (talk • contribs)

Replied on your talk page. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory gin

Done. Thanks, Yomangani ^talk 12:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed "Runcible Spoon" in Asimov's "The Currents of Space" & 1984 comic...

Robin, thanks for your welcome, and well found to you! :) About the presumed Runcible in Asimov, I see your point about original research, but someone must well be the first to see an analogy! :D The text in Asimov book is verbatim this "Slowly he (Rik) sat down. Again he clutched his feeder, a spoonlike affair, with sharp edges and little tines projecting from the front curve of the bowl, which could therefore with equal clumsiness cut, scoop and impale." IMHO this is the exact description of a Runcible. I don't know why Asimov choosed not to use the word Runcible (I can only assume that he was well aware of Edward Lear work), and cannot find any other reference on this. What I could do to justify my affirmation is to add to the Runcible page the full quote from Asimov book, if this is acceptable by WP editing policies.

About the link to the 1984 comic I added to the novel page, I don't understand your objection. In what the link to the comic is qualitatively different from a link to a radio drama adaptation? Ercus 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wagner. Since you had some involvement with the Wagner redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Robin Johnson. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wagner" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Wagner and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § Wagner until a consensus is reached. Mirrortemplar (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]