User talk:Amicon/Archive1

You can request a change of username at WP:CHU. –xeno (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Heidi Horten, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Heidi Horten seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Heidi Horten, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I've responded to your comments at the review. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey – thanks for the review and pass. Would you mind looking at Hurricane Felix and give me some comments on the article (or reviewing it for GAN?) Thanks! « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Will do when I get a moment. Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, sure, that would be great! Thanks! « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I read your comments regarding Valley of peace initiative. thanks for your feedback. I will try to give that some thought. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm just peer reviewing the article now and I think you should take a look here for things to look out for next time you review an article. I really don't mean this as an insult but perhaps you are not ready for reviewing yet: maybe a couple of months more experience and you'll be more aware of the ins and outs of wikipedia. Congrats on diving straight into the reviewing though! Normally people just write a bunch of stuff and hope it's all good but you seem keen to iron out problems. If you need any advice on how things work (like WP:LEAD or other wiki crap) feel free to contact me on my talk and i'll help you out as soon as. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ha! Double posting - hope you see I was trying to help! A good way of learning how to review is to look at other reviews by more experienced editors. Take a look at WP:Good article nominations and look things through. At the moment though, perhaps WP:Peer Review might suit you better, you'll notice what things people suggest there (though GA criteria and the more informal peer review style are unrelated of course). On peer review you can just post a couple of minor comments or improvements you think can be made - without taking the whole pressure that you are the sole reviewer. I'll try to keep an eye on what you're doing though and you can always throw any comments or questions my way. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd greatly appreciate if you'd review it, though maybe I should hold off on GA nomination, and jut work to make it better. I have, at least, gotten rid of the "Cultural impact" section millstone around my neck, and, in a pinch, could make that whole section a simple "See also" =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'll look it over in the mornign and make sure all I think should be in there is. Just don't want to let my frustration at the Cultural impact section cause me to rashly ignore important things. =) But for now, sleep. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your review on the abovementioned. Pse refer to my follow-up edits & reply here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of my new solution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

You nominated this article for GA, which I have put on hold for now. Please read my comments and fix if possible. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for fixing it. I've passed it. The only problem is that I couldn't really find a suitable category to put her in on the main GA page, so I put her under "Historical figures - other." If you have a better place to put it, feel free to move it. bibliomaniac15 17:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

PLease? It is very distracting. Viridae^Talk 12:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

:-( What is distracting about it particularly? how do you turn this on 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The solid black background. Viridae^Talk 22:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

If the background was white, you wouldn't be able to see the text though! What color would be acceptable for you? how do you turn this on 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's possible to... not have a background. —Giggy 09:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course, but the text wouldn't be able to be seen. I'll figure a different color that works. how do you turn this on 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

YOu could of course not have white text? Viridae^Talk 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd rather not change it, I've decided. Is it violating any rule? I'll happily change it if it's causing a big problem, but I don't think it is, and I think discussion of other things elsewhere would be better use of time. how do you turn this on 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello;
I don't think that we've ever interacted, so I hope that this request does not seem too terribly left-field-ish: I too find your current signature to be highly distracting. (Note that this is coming from someone who made sort of a big issue about people being allowed to make fancy signatures if they wanted.) Not only is it black, it's big and black.

Also, I note that you've indicated that you're interested in adminship. Without meaning to offend, right now I'd oppose just do to the comment "Is it violating any rule?" I'm happy to discuss further (if you're at all amenable) why that is a problematic thing to say.

brenneman 07:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is this more suitable? how do you turn this on 14:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Lol. I felt the original was ok. But I like the gray, better. 2 cents. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I went back to a more default looking sig sometime ago. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I will say it directly: I strongly suggest you withdraw your current RfA. There is basically a 100% chance that this RfA will be closed under WP:NOTNOW because with only one month experience people will not be able to judge your performance correctly. We appreciate your contributions and encourage you to continue to do so but I am afraid your request for adminship will not be successful and you should consider withdrawal. Have a nice day SoWhy 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but I closed your RfA. You just registered a month ago, and I'm afraid that a user that new has no chance of passing a RfA. If you have any questions, let me know. Enigma ^message 16:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Just saw what happened here — don't be discouraged by this. The wikipedia administrator tools aren't actually all that important to most contributors and whilst I'm sure you'd use them well I'm also sure you can continue to do good work on articles without them. Good luck and happy editing! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just saw this as well--congratulations on getting an article to good article status so quickly. Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia, and if you decide adminship is for you in the future I'm sure it will go much better—the longer you wait, the better your chances. Darkspots (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice job with this article. I've been wanting to work on it for a while, but never did. I'm currently quite busy, but, in the future, do you want to collaborate for an FA? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'd love to! :-) Have you written one before? I'm still feeling my way round here it seems, and FA seems incredibly difficult. What kind of stuff are you interested in? how do you turn this on 22:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I basically wrote all of Lazare Ponticelli, a featured article. I also have 1964 Gabon coup d'etat and 2002 Bou'in Zahra earthquake at FAC. I tend to cover places that are poorly covered (such as Gabon) and earthquakes (mostly in places poorly covered). FA is incredibly difficult to attain, trust me. The FAC frequenters look at every little issue with an article, from prose to citations to comprehensiveness. You have to ensure all of these before you bring an article to FAC. Personally, I don't think Calment is comprehensive enough yet, and the prose may need a bit of tweaking. We first have to dig up everything we can find on her, then I think a peer review may be in order. Then-yay!-FAC. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I am not watchlisting your talk page, though I can if you want me to. Oh, and either Biography or Life is acceptable--I personally like Biography more, but that's just my opinion. I still think that more than 9 sources can be found on the World's Oldest Woman. I'm currently working on politics-related articles like Felix Houphouet Boigny, Leon M'ba, and Jean-Hilaire Aubame (sounds like Obama). I'll give you a review tommorrow--off to bed for me!--but in the meantime, could you review me? No, I really am not that much more experianced than you--I registered in January. Regards --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Christopher Dorling, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. chrylis (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I noticed you left some comments at 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake's FAC, and i was wondering if you could make a !vote please? Thanks, —Sunday ^Scribe 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wonder is the user may have once been on the game and hated it, so maybe bias? Doubtful, but can we collaborate on a thourough GA review for the article? Thanks! Jon How's the weather? - talk about me behind my back 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happy to. I'll go through it this afternoon. how do you turn this on 17:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Done - I've given it a review, but I think you should check it, see if you agree, since I've created the article. I shouldn't pass it...... the event horizon (t • c) 19:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, I saw you were a bit confused about the difference of these on AN, and the discussion sort of took a turn away from you before you got a clear answer. Just in case you still were confused, I thought I'd drop by.

• A block is a technical means of stopping a single account, IP address, or IP range, from editing any page except their own user talk page. Blocks can be applied by anyone with the "sysop" flag, that is, anyone who is an administrator. Blocks are preventative, and intended to stop problems before they get worse. They are not intended to punish users for their actions, and so blocking someone in a heated dispute to "cool them down," for example, is not acceptable; however, they may be blocked for incivility and personal attacks in an effort to protect other editors in the discussion and allow the discussion to continue without further disruption. If a user is found to be evading a previously placed block such as with a sockpuppet, then that account is blocked and the original block may be extended as well. The reason for this is to make sure the block does its job - they are intended to prevent disruption, which it can't do if the user blocked keeps hopping IP addresses to keep it up.
• A ban is a similar but different matter. Bans are a means of enforcing Wikipedia policy and expected behavior by the community at large. Bans can be placed by several sources: a consensus of the Wikipedia community, usually formed on WP:ANI; User:Jimbo Wales may ban any user; the Arbitration Committee may ban users as a remedy for a request for arbitration; and the Wikimedia Foundation may ban users, however this is only rarely done. The main difference between a ban and a block is that banned users are still able to edit, and in some cases may still be permitted to edit. It may sound like I'm repeating myself there, but bans are usually applied to users in such a way that they are forbidden to edit the whole project, however more limited "topic bans" can also be placed, restricting editors from editing a certain article or genre of articles, but allowing them to continue to edit other pages freely. Other forms of bans include revert limitations, where instead of the usual three-per-article-per-day guideline, an editor is limited to one revert per day, etc.; mentorship or probation, where an editor is placed under the watch of an appointed editor to ensure that they do not continue the same disruption that led to the ban; and any editor who is blocked, and whom no administrator is willing to unblock, is also considered to be under project-wide ban. Any edits made in violation of a ban are reverted on sight. Pages created in violation of a ban may be deleted without discussion under CSD G5. If a user is found to be in violation of a ban, they may be blocked to enforce the ban, however a block might not be placed at the onset of the ban, giving the banned user a chance to show that he intends to remain within the limitations placed on him and thus return to good standing after the ban is lifted. In this manner, bans tend to be more punitive than blocks are, a form of modern ostracism directed specifically at a person and their actions in an attempt to bring them within the community's standard of expected conduct.

I realize that was a bit long, but I hope I've explained things fairly well. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. It'd be a nice break from the sort of questions I usually get on my talk page. Anyway, I hope this helped, and happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've reconsidered and implemented your suggestion at MediaWiki:Tooltip-ca-edit; you can read my reasoning at MediaWiki talk:Tooltip-ca-edit. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! how do you turn this on 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Until you can provide a solid source that states W had X nominations, Y had Z nomination etc, the section remains off. Dalejenkins | 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

What's not solid about the source provided? how do you turn this on 22:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

"getting the tools to assist with your own articles, as it seems to me, isn't really appropriate." Why not? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Surely the point of being an admin (or janitor) is to assist others, and not yourself? how do you turn this on 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

From a meta standpoint, assisting yourself in bettering the encyclopedia helps everyone. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Good job on this! I'm probably just extremely stressed and thinking irrationaly, so I most likely will be back. I simply can't deal with User:Ling.Nut's statement at 1964 Gabon's FAC and that I can't translate directly from other Wikipedias per WP:V. Now I feel my effort at various articles Nishkid and I translated was of no value. Take care. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rather ironically, I translated the above article from French, and simply added sources (both French and English). But I suppose a featured article is a lot more demanding.how do you turn this on 00:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I link to St Ives (disambiguation) so that when I look at the "what links here" for St Ives it is easy to spot which are deliberate links to the dab page, and which are accidental. This is quite a common practice for dab pages. DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

St Ives should really be moved to St Ives (disambiguation) in that case. I dislike there being a redirect. how do you turn this on 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, St Ives should be the disambiguation page, if it isn't someone will come along and write an article on it, and that will make dabbing links even harder. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well the link is supposed to go to the disambig page, not the redirect - it's just more efficient imo. But I'm not overly concerned. how do you turn this on 23:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

By linking to the redirect, it makes it clear that it is meant to go to the dab page. Linking directly to the dab page makes it impossible to tell if it is intentional when viewing what links here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is an incredibly random question, but are you interested in earthquakes? Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 00:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't say they were a big interest of mine, but I'm not disinterested in them, if you know what I mean how do you turn this on 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi How do you turn this on. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Read my userpage, you'll find out there. Also, check out some of the newer threads on my talk page. That should give you enough info, I really don't want to go into a full-blown explanation. Jn t • c 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have a question regarding this comment of yours. Did you mean "the bot was a bad one" or "the block was a bad one"?

The block.-- how do you turn this on 21:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I also have a comment reagarding your statement on RfAr. First of all, your experience with me seems only superficial and the description you provide oversimplifies my actual reaction. It's not a mere "stop wonking", it's rather "stop wonking unless you have an actual concern". Furthermore, your statement that I'm not interested in what the community thinks about my bot is patently false - they were public knowledge for a long time and the way to express concerns is right over there all the time. Anyone who comes with a question or a genuine issue is treated seriously and has always gotten a due explanation. Lastly, regarding your concern of my refusal to get the bots aprroved, please be advised that: 1) my bots have community approval already, 2) there is no current process of approving adminbots (save an RfA, which is a retarded way to do it) and 3) I am putting a lot of work into actually creating a workable policy out of the RfC (WP:BOT/WT:BOT) so that adminbots can follow it without unnecessary nonsense in the way.

Regards, Миша13 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you show me the bot approval page for your adminbot(s)? I'm sorry, but I can't take you at all seriously when you describe RfA as the "retarded" way of doing it. I appreciate the work you're doing on the policy, but calling processes you disagree with "retarded" is hardly a good idea. -- how do you turn this on 21:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

If it doesn't work, it's retarded. And it doesn't work for adminbots (no opinion about regular users) because 1) it's a vote instead of a discussion aimed at building consensus and 2) attracts a good deal of people who have no iea what they're voting on, so will vote oppose because of nonsense such as "not enough edits", "zomg Skynet!" and the such.

The approval for my bots is not focused in one place. For the image deletion bot you might start with this; it should lead you to several archives of my talk too. The blocking bot is more complicated, as it's been on AN/I way too many times for me to remember; though you could check this (and the threads that immediately follow) out as an example. Миша13 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm aware, one bot successfully passed through the RfA process. Only three requests have ever been made there. That's not a good indication that it doesn't work. And it must work if one has passed that way. If you haven't tried it, how do you know?

My point with my question was showing there is no actual page showing official approval. Sure, people have accepted it over time, but we also accept the fact there are criminals in the world. Doesn't mean it's right does it? If you just got it officially approved like every other bot, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. -- how do you turn this on 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're hitting about but not the point. One might've passed but there won't be another. The first ever attempt was shot down due to nonsense, mostly, that's why there haven't been many more thereafter. If you suggest I try it then you probably also walked into a car to make sure it hurts?

Oh yes, no official approval but it's approved nonetheless. That's a tricky one to accept, right?

Your parabole with criminals is a complete miss. Criminals elude law enforcement; I'm here all the time, the block button is right there, a way to desysop too, I'm open to recall all the time. If there were really any issues, I'd be without the bit long time ago. Thus, what remains must be non-issues. Миша13 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You were blocked just the other day. Don't claim that's a way to stop you running it. -- how do you turn this on 23:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, why don't you put your bots through a BRFA like Cyde has done? It'll help end all this bitterness. -- how do you turn this on 22:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not that simple. Cyde's bot does only a limited amount of uncontroversial deletions. Putting through a bot that actually blocks people will require more preparation, so it's not shot down for some idiotic reason. Also, an actually agreed (not proposed like it is right now) process for that would be most welcome before I attempt this stunt. Миша13 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

So you're saying your blocks are controversial? Why are you doing them then? I think that while this business is going on, if you haven't already you should stop running the bot to show some good will, and wait until it's properly approved. -- how do you turn this on 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you entirely understand what "controversy" means or what I'm saying. And it's not the blocks that are controversial but the concept that it's done by a bot. And no, I have no intent at all to discontinue the operation of my bot for no reason; the vandals certainly wouldn't do the same just to "play fair". This is a nonsensical suggestion. Миша13 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thought not - it was nonsensical to believe you'd be willing to be reasonable about this. -- how do you turn this on 23:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's you're third revert at snopes today. Please stop or you are quite likely to be blocked. I am open to discussion on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted twice. I need four to be blocked, and I don't intend to continue. -- how do you turn this on 21:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah--that is annoying, I know. I think it's hidden in User talk:Editorofthewiki/Header, though I'm not sure how to fix it. Do you? Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 13:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a look -- how do you turn this on 13:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it's the fact you've got the TOC on the right hand side, and it obviously grows larger. You'd probably be better off converting the whole thing to a table instead of floating divs. -- how do you turn this on 13:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I still am. Why? Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 16:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I thought I might like to nominate you sometime. What do you think? -- how do you turn this on 16:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

(ec)Oh, and I was half kidding about Speight. I didn't actually think you were going to review 1,000 news articles. Just a hundred or so. :)

(Reply to Hdytto) Sure. go ahead. I really think the chances of me beind promoted are rather slim, but still, I'm leaving the door open. Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you'd stand a better chance if you follow some things mentioned in your editor review (such as, unlink your sig a bit, or make it more obvious where the talk page is) -- how do you turn this on 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

How bout this: Your friend User:Editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/random article/editor review) 17:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you should remove the Special:Random page, as it's not about you, and remove User: from the first bit. Otherwise, it's OK. Oh, and btw, have a look at this - is there anything I've missed off/or is inaccurate? -- how do you turn this on 17:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

God when you said you thought about nomming me I didn't think you meant today! Give me some time to think this one over. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 00:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

(undent) I imagine you forgot to support my RFa as the nominator. :) Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 03:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why did you nominate Editorofthewiki if you aren't going to support him? EJF (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was going to, but he added the nomination after I went to bed. -- how do you turn this on 12:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can still support him now, the first support does not have to be the nominator's. Regards, EJF (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Oops, missed that, I didn't see you added a support a few minutes ago. Cheers, EJF (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This AN thread may be of interest to you. EJF (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I'm glad you're eager to participate. I hope you stick around.
• AFAIK, there's absolutely no rule saying that you can't nominate RfA.
• But you shouldn't. You been around for about a month. You almost certainly wouldn't pass RfA yourself; how can you nom other folks? You do folks a huge disfavor by nomming them—if they are rash enough to accept your nom... Please take a deep breath, relax, and get some experience writing articles. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do find that quite offensive, Ling. I've done plenty of article work, and have been around over 2 months, not one.

It's the editor's choice if they choose to accept the nomination. I put a lot of effort into writing EOTW's nomination, as you can see by the statement. What's next, are you going to be telling me I can't vote either because I'm too new? If I'm allowed to vote, I'm allowed to nominate. -- how do you turn this on 15:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suspected you might find it offensive, and was willing to take the bullet in that regard. And you 'are allowed to nom. But do you have the exp. to distinguish when to nom folks? As for your exp... I won't dig into it. But please, take a deep breath and consider listening to others: The meta-aspects (including nomming, voting and running for RfA) are not the main point here, and should not be the main focus of attention... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I personally don't see it as an issue, but your opinion is noted. -- how do you turn this on 15:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

So if he came across the best admin candidate ever, stellar record, likely to pass with 0 opposes, he wouldn't be a good person to nominate that person? Sounds fishy to me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't Hdytto's fault of nominating me, more so mine of accepting when I didn't think I would pass. But I gave it a shot, and made myself look like a dick in the process. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 19:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No you didn't. You're a great editor, and even a lot of the opposers said so. You just aren't ready for adminship it seems. -- how do you turn this on 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey there How do you turn this on... I know what Ling.nut said came across wrong, but who nominates a candidate does have an affect on the nomination. In theory it shouldn't but the reality is that it does. A person who has been around for only a few months will garner additional scrutiny to the potential admin. The relative newbie hasn't developed a reputation yet... either at RfA's or in other areas of the project to indicate that the newbie understands what is expected. Thus, not only is the newbie's perspective on what is expected incomplete, but their judgment hasn't been developed on the subject yet. On the flip side, when an experienced admin with a solid reputation at RfA's nom's a candidate, they are more likely to buy their candidates additional supports because people realize that the experienced admin doesn't nom somebody who isn't ready. For example, I'm here because I've been reviewing Ling.Nut for the past four hours! People know that I do this with my noms/coachees, thus when I nom somebody, people are more likely to trust my judgment. In short, what I think Ling.nut was saying, is get experience on the project and develop a reputation, then start looking for potential admin's. If you find somebody you think should be an admin, take that person to somebody else. If you feel strong enough to nom somebody, try to get somebody else to co-nom with you. That will help others trust your judgment. This isn't something new, see point 4---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

So what's the magical time someone is suddenly allowed to nominate someone? (Not that I'm planning to, just interested.) -- how do you turn this on 13:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

After you've been around long enough to develop a solid reputation---which doesn't occur in 2-3 months. I would say that if you don't have enough experience to be an admin yourself, you probably shouldn't nominate somebody on your own. Ling.nut was trying to pass on good advice in that noming somebody after 2 months usually hurts a candidate because people wonder "Why didn't somebody with more experience nominate the candidate? Is the nom a meat puppet?" They are thus more critical. It also looks like somebody who is ready to play the game---why are you interested in noming after only 2-3 months? Is it because you have your eyes on the prize---eg you want to be an admin and that is your focus? In other words, it can also hurt your chances if you want to become an admin. If you still want to nominate somebody, ask them if they are interested. Express interest in noming them and find out if there is somebody else who is interested in CO-noming them. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

"which doesn't occur in 2-3 months" In your opinion. As Swatjester notes, it's not relevant who nominates. It doesn't matter at all. Does it matter why I wanted to nominate him? The truth is, I thought he'd make a good admin (and still do). I didn't do it for myself. And why exactly do you refer to adminship as a prize? Is that what you see it as? I don't want to become an admin (yet - I already failed one RFA). I don't want to co-nominate people. One nomination is enough, and as long as the nominator isn't brand new (like one day), there's no issue. Stop trying to make problems where they don't exist. -- how do you turn this on 15:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you plan to set up email? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd personally rather not. Unless it's completely confidential, or potentially damaging, I'd rather contact was kept on-wiki, and not off. Why, is there something you wanted to ask? -- how do you turn this on 17:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, it was something I wanted to email you. A few more sources for Speight, although I won't guarantee that they will add anything new. I just skimmed the hundreds of articles about his death/girlfriend's death, and copied about 5 ot 6 that looked like they might have info... e.g. he allegedly introduced his girlfriend to drug use.. etc. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It'd be useful if you could add this to the FAC. -- how do you turn this on 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You want me to paste the full text of half a dozen long newspaper articles into the FAC? That wouldn't seem to be the best way to share them. If you don't need them, I'll delete them. I'm not promising they have useful info anyhow. I just kinda skimmed them. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

As a user who contributed to the discussion concerning Koavf (talk · contribs), you're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals also. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've provided three citations for Michael Eugene Osment's full name, since you don't accept the IMDb. What I have not cited, since it would be OR, is my own knowledge, since Michael Eugene Osment is one of my best friends. I hope the additional cites will be sufficient for you. Thanks. Monkeyzpop (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is he known by his middle name then? There are numerous references that refer to him as Eugene Osment. -- how do you turn this on 12:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

He is known as Michael to friends and family. He uses Eugene as his professional name, as an actor and producer. He used to go by Michael professionally as well, but began using Eugene professionally in the mid-1990s. Monkeyzpop (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help. I don't intend to keep reverting the IP, and have left them a note on their talk page. GlassCobra 13:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

[1] - New article from today, could be useful. Gran² 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot, highly useful. -- how do you turn this on 13:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It should be big enough for a DYK now. Any ideas for the hook? Gran² 13:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

How's it going? Any luck getting a free image of Speight? Gran² 13:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Speight of the Art foundation got back to me over a week ago now, saying they'd provide a free pic if we credited them. So I asked them to send me one, and agree to release it under a free license etc, but they have yet to get back to me. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

If you have time could you please take a moment to review The Scott Mills Show. I have been working on it for quite a bit and just need someone to review it and give their opinions.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a look, but can't promise anything. -- how do you turn this on 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've hidden my comments. I've read your responses and trust you to have to corrected them, in general, as you said you did. I don't have a great deal of time on my hands for any one specific issue at the moment but I've removed the oppose. I'm sure, if Sandy is happy enough, your bronze star isn't too far away. Good luck, keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Moving house? Nah. I'm off travelling for five months! I guess you could call that continual house-moving... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not "trying to make enemies." I was trying to help you with the article. You said you'd rather I raised my concerns at the FAC. This I did. They you started badgering me, rather than reading what I was saying. You also don't seem to understand the FAC process very well as yet. --jbmurray (<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VoABot/adminlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VoABot/botlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Voice of All/Dates.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Voice of All/monobook/parse.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, being my first FAC, so help me out a bit more, instead of saying vague unhelpful comments like "prose issues". If you have issues, raise them all, not one or two - how am I supposed to improve it if you don't tell me what to improve? It seems to me like you've come to the article with a mindset to oppose and not help me improve Wikipedia. I'm not doing this for my own ego. I think the article is fine, so I'm not going to be able to magically find the things that are wrong with it am I? If you want to review it, review it properly, and point out all the mistakes. Saying "prose issues" isn't the slightest bit helpful when at least 3 others have gone through it and thought it was fine. I'll see if I can fix the publishers for consistency. -- how do you turn this on 13:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I will say this only once more: I have raised the issues on the FAC. Reviewers aren't (and shouldn't be) required to give all instances of those issues. See Tony1's similar random examples of prose problems. If, following on from the examples given, you yourself can't see any other places where there are problems, then (as I said) you should ask someone else if they have time to take a look at it. That is how FAC works.

And no, I didn't come to the article with a mindset to oppose (why would I?). I was working on the article myself until you asked me to stop. You'll find, by the way, that adding inline queries is a very common way of indicating minor problems that aren't worth taking the time to raise at FAC. But this badgering of yours has simply taken up too much of my time now for me to continue. All the best with the article, but it does need a thorough look, probably (it seems) by new eyes if despite my comments you still think it's "fine." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have asked lots of people to look at it already, and none of them had issues. And again, I didn't ask you to stop working on the article, just to stop peppering it with unneeded fact tags and hidden comments that I'd never see. -- how do you turn this on 14:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/72.35.4.220, already linked from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.35.4.220. Feel free to merge yours. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just checked a couple more of the sources. (And yes, when you check a source you should update an accessdate... that's the point!) Here's your problem: most of them, as far as I can see, are very poorly paraphrased, bordering on plagiarism. However, I note that as you try to produce a better paraphrase, you tend to distort the meaning of the original source. E.g. (in addition to the earlier example re. the wedding) here. The service wasn't "complemented" by the choir's performance. The performance was clearly an integral part of the service. So you've fixed one problem, but introduced another.

But here's your solution, if you have problems paraphrasing (as it seems you do): use direct quotations. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi guys.

Just a little patronising note (sorry, I can't help it) to remind you both that you're on the same side.

I have seen enough of both of you around the wiki to know you're both committed to improving the encyclopedia and developing high quality content.

Somewhere, something's gone a little awry in your communications with each other. Please see if you can attempt not to appear to be riling the other one or scoring points.

The kind of dispute you two are beginning to cook up never ends well and is particularly silly when you realise that you're actually on the same side.

Please excuse this well-intentioned personal comment.

I am, as ever, Dweller (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

NB You can score the first brownie point by amending references to jbmurray to use his full username - use of the surname does come across as harsh, rather than abbreviation, particularly given the context of a dispute. --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right, done. -- how do you turn this on 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I award you a brownie point. You're both great contributors and you've just had a miscommunication. Neither of you is looking for a fight. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you rack up brownie points at this kind of speed, you'll be a guide in no time at all. <grins> Thanks --Dweller (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

My approach was that if I found that many issues, at speed, in one section of the article, it wasn't ready for FAC and should go back for a third party copyedit or PR. That you've fixed the items I brought up is great, but doesn't change the premise under which I presented them. To be fair, I'll review the article with an open mind; if I don't think there's much tinkering left, I'll list any issues at the FAC. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't look like anyone has replied to you specifically about this, so just in case -- a requirement for RFCU clerks is that they be administrators. This is because a primary duty of a clerk is making blocks as appropriate for identified abusive socks. If you've already been informed, sorry for the inconvenience. Avruch ^T 18:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was informed by Tiptoety and Nishkid64 that this wasn't the case. I can't do any blocks, but I can archive the page, and remove bad requests and such. Also I can tag sockpuppets, and if any need blocking, I can report to AN or something. -- how do you turn this on 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, well perhaps it used to be the case and isn't any longer. I don't recall seeing a non-admin RFCU clerk before, but maybe you can be the first. Avruch ^T 18:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have a look at this. -- how do you turn this on 18:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, I wasn't an admin when I joined the clerking team (back in... wow March 2007 apparently). It used to be the case before that. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well then - I simply have no idea what I'm talking about, and should be quiet! Avruch ^T

Just saw you clerking about and wanted to thank you for that. If you run into any questions about the process, I (and doubtless any of the other former or current clerks) would be happy to help answer them. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I probably could have been more clear about that one. It should be ready to archive, yeah. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Loved this one. Congrats! NVO (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! :-D -- how do you turn this on 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, didn't notice those were the links; my bad totally. Keep up the good work (and Mark Speght will be an FAC in no time, I can feel it) :D RkMnQ (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal is currently at deletion review on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 8#User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal and I'd like to ask if you could clarify your support in the MFD. Basically, we are wondering if you felt the page violated WP:MYSPACE. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Poking in...just wondering if you could e-mail me? That's really the only way I can get a hold of you privately, and yes — it's private. Thx! Jn t • c 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sent you one. -- how do you turn this on 15:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. As you can see from the other editors edit history, they have been edit warring on other pages. His birth place is referenced, and this user is now using an IMBD profile based on an old Wikipedia article to back this up. They have also been making identical edits using other IP addresses. Please see the talk page on Jimmy Carr. Thanks.

92.11.249.102 (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see the article has now been proected - shame it was protected leaving the unreferenced incorrect version in place! What happens now? When it is unprotected the other IP editor will vandalise again using one of their many IP addresses.

92.11.249.102 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

If they do, I'll revert. It's quite obvious IMDB is wrong here, and this editor needs to stop POV pushing. -- how do you turn this on 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help!

92.11.249.102 (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have refactored the offending comment to "user in question". Hope this works. Sorry about earlier. Rough day at work. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_checkuser%2FClerks&diff=244410008&oldid=244408018
  No, no, I am to be considered away for the time being. I simply had a spare moment, and did a bit of clerking. :-)

  Apologies for any confusion. Anthøny ✉ 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

– RyanCross (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Credit for this really goes to Gran2. I simply created this as a one-line stub. -- how do you turn this on 02:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

But you still created it. ;) I'll give the credit to Gran2 (talk · contribs) also. Thanks for the note, – RyanCross (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know: I added a G10 (Attack page) template on this particular page you added for MFD. Personally i don't think this will need to go the long way around for MfD :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do you turn this on, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I realised that I got a little confused on the Myron Evans deletion page (which I was asked to set up today, somewhat unwillingly). I hadn't noticed that one of the editors had called Evans a crank, so I slightly misread the thread. I apologize for any problems that this might have caused you. I think Hans Adler spotted this confusion. Anyway sorry again. I agree with you that it was unhelpful to use the word crank. I also decided that it was not useful to go into a technical discussion of the mathematical problems with Evans' work, either in the article or in the deletion discussion. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

– RyanCross (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you're having some trouble negotiating the tables at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case. You might want to have a look at some of the fixes I made with this edit. Let me know if you have any questions. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's the cases that have multiple rows that messed it up. I've done it right before though, so I expect that was just a one off mistake. Thanks for fixing. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 15:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

That was a really awesome cheat. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 07:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it was! -- how do you turn this on 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I've found some peer-reviewed publications that discuss Hoser's work. Could you take another look at the article and the AfD discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Stricken vote, thanks for doing the research. I'd rather not vote keep on a subject that requested deletion, but there is indeed to much to simply delete. I'll abstain. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Understandable, thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

RE your comments about the exam questions... AMEN!!! To think, less than a week ago, I was waiting for you to run for RfA so that I could oppose... now, I'm ready to support... since you've hit my radar, I've liked most of what you've said (as long as you aren't saying it to me  ;-) )---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well I already ran once, and failed, and don't particularly wish to fail again. I am honored that you say you'd support, though I doubt I even meet most people's expectations. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 22:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would actually have to take a closer look before supporting/opposing, but I've been watching you a little closer since our run in a week or so ago... and despite my initial misgivings, I've been impressed with your edits/demeanor. If you ever decide to run and want an appraisal of your chances before going for it, let me know...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Hdytto. Long time no see. Just wondering if you could review Paul Gondjout at FAC--I'm terribly sorry I didn't devote more time to Speight, I'm working on a featured topic! ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

No need to be sorry at all. I have quite a bit on right now. However, I'll make a note to review it. Give me a poke if I haven't by the end of the week. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 23:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'll probably send it tonight. Homework, y'know! *rolls eyes*   Jon (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

JayHenry (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I responded to your comment on my DYK. Gary King (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=245976644&oldid=245975638.
Be careful. The role of the clerks is explicitly to not comment on whether a check is worth running. If you wish to comment on the validity of a check, do so carefully, and don't use {{Clerk-Note}}: any such comments should be with your "clerk hat off," so to speak.

You might want to rethink your comment there.

Regards, Anthøny (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with AGK. Clerks, whether arbcom or checkuser clerks, have to maintain strict neutrality when clerking. If the clerk wants to participate in a non clerk role they can, but should then refrain from clerk activities on that case. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I read through Clerk guidelines and such, and saw no such explanation on what a clerk is and isn't permitted to do, in this regard – please link the relevant part(s). If the user is an obvious sockpuppet, the request is non-compliant, and a check does not need to be run. Clerks are permitted to note such things. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've removed it since it's seemed to have upset/irritated people, and I didn't want to cause a problem. Thanks both, and have a lovely weekend. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your understanding. I just wished to point out the importance of segregating one's role as an uninvolved editor commenting on the case, and as a checkuser clerk processing that page; on a case-by-case basis, select which hat to wear, and be careful to not pick up the clerk one after you've been wearing the "this case does not warrant a check" one, if that makes sense. Otherwise, do keep up your impressive and helpful work as a clerk. Cheers, HDYTTO. Regards, Anthøny (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It used to be in the guidelines, hmmm. I'll add it back it. It's a basic guideline of wiki clerking. Thanks for understanding. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it's still there, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Procedures#Clerks, re "clerks should generally avoid commenting on the merits (or lack of merits) of any current, completed, or possible request." — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

"with the notable exception of #Non-compliant requests". But nevermind, I'm being too bold here. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

"#Non-complaint" is a reference to requests that can be {{Delisted}} and placed into the Non-complaint section of WP:RFCU; in other words, requests that fail to meet the requirements of a request code letter. That doesn't mean requests that are not warranted—a request can meet a code letter and still be {{declined}} by a CU as not being justified. Anthøny (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Your bug report which has been added to this section has been read and dealt with. A new version of huggle(0.8.2) has just been released and I would be gratfull If you could download it and test it to ake sure that this bug has been fixed :). Thats for the report and if you wish to reply to this message could you please use my talk page as I have sent this message to more people that just you. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 10:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes, pudding. I don't know a better comparison. Jello is sometimes used, but to me living brain tissue doesn't seem as "rubbery" as jello -- more like tapioca. (My experience is mainly with rats, by the way.) Looie496 (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's an interesting comparison for sure! -- How do you turn this on (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Friendly mail sent, How do you. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello HDYTTO. Yes, indeed. I apologize as it's not my usual behavior to give attention to every single provocation directed at me. Let's say that I'm not in my best mood and not particularly pleased with the way some Wikipedians enjoy addressing others. You may remove any recent unhelpful comments of mine (or move them elsewhere). It is not my intention to give that atmosphere to the RfA, although I must say I'm not the only culprit. Regards, Húsönd 18:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not for removing any comments; just suggesting you perhaps keep away from the RFA, since most of the arguments on it seem to be involving you. Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

...is an edit summary of my addition(s). Hopefully my addition is help ... if not then the ? covers it. Hope that helps? Fine. Thx for contributions Victuallers (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC) thx for the halloween pennant contribution... are you going to move apple bobbing in too? well done Victuallers (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to, but there's barely any sources out there to work from. If you can find some, that would be good. I'm quite pleased with the image I added though. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

BorgQueen (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do I subst: just the top or the top and bottom?

Top and bottom, otherwise the entire page will have the archive background color! – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes. Adding subst did change it. I thought just telling it where the top and bottom were was enough. HalfShadow 23:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Incoming....Ceoil ^sláinte 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Euff, man; had typed out a long relpy to your mail, but IE6 crashed and it was left to dust. Anyway, the jist was were on the same page...Ceoil ^sláinte 00:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ja! I spent 6 years in evil frickin medicine school so that has to account for something!Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's kind of hard not to leave a mean comment when someone freaks out at you for no good reason. Schuym1 (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Odd that you should turn up with an openion on this. Would you mind letting me be. Ceoil ^sláinte 06:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Explain please, I'm starting to feel creepd out. Ceoil ^sláinte 08:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean, letting you be? I'm allowed to comment where and when I like. I happened to follow a link from your talk if you must know. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dont follow links from my talk, please. Leave me alone. Dont let one incident led to a second, third or fourth by digging for them through following links from my talk. Ceoil ^sláinte 16:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't tell me what to do, please. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing the vandalism. :) Thanks also for the other times when you've commented on my talk page when I haven't been around. Best wishes. Acalamari 19:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

BorgQueen (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, sorry. My on-wiki time has been a bit limited as of late, although I've tried to chip in when I can; I'm not (with my current uni schedule) really up to fixing an entire article in just a day :(. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your review and edits. I think all of your edits improve the article, and I there's definitely some stuff that you identified in the peer review that I plan on acting on as well. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just noticed your template {{DYKusertalk}}. As it happens, I just made a very similar template (I hadn't noticed yours already there), for probably the same reasons as you (I found myself frequently notifying nominators about questions at T:TDYK, and figured a template would be useful). The template I made is {{DYKquestions}} (still working on thinking of a better name, since the current name is awkwardly similar to {{DYK?}}). I don't know how often you have been using yours, but I have been using mine a lot and gradually trying to get other people into it. Suntag just created a category for all DYK templates and asked me to go through and see if there are any redundant or unused templates...since both of ours are very similar, to you think it would be ok if we made one of our templates redirect to the other? (Of course I am partial to my own template, but since both of our templates are very similar it should be easy to incorporate either one into the other, if you think there are deficiencies with either or both of the templates right now). Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Politizer. I used the template maybe three times. It would probably be better, as you say, to redirect one to the other, keeping the better features into one. Yours looks a lot more advanced than mine, so feel free to redirect it. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I understand completely. I'm sorry if my comments may have come across stronger than I meant them. Ral315 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It looks good. I've updated the list of nominees, as we've gotten a few in since you last updated. The question item is interesting; in theory, we were asking for general questions until the 17th. At that time, the Question pages would be created and the general list posted to each candidate, so all candidates get the same list of questions. Editors could then post candidate-specific questions. In practice, we already have some user-specific questions, and some candidates have already copied the general questions and started answering - so who knows where that will go? You might consider mentioning that editors can ask a question to everyone by posting it at the general list; beyond that, you seem to have hit the high points. Thanks for working on this, btw. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't get a chance to formally ask you about writing something for the ArbCom elections -- if you'd like to do so, that'd be great. If you have time before we go to press, I need a story this week on the opening of candidate statements for the election. Otherwise, I'll take it for this week, and you can handle it thereafter, if you like. Let me know as soon as you see this whether you can do a write-up. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I already started something. Should be ready by Monday, assuming that's when we go to press. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was actually going to press tonight for this week's issue. If you have time over the next few hours, you could finish it; otherwise, do you mind if I polish it up a bit and publish it for this week? Ral315 (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. Thanks for finishing it! Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem, and great timing, I guess -- you posted that comment in the three seconds between when I went to this page, and when I clicked the edit button :)

I need to publish and get some sleep, but over the next few days, we should probably hammer out a schedule for the next few weeks. I'm thinking next week should be an update of new candidates, and an in-depth description of voting, and/or anything that we should cover before the elections open. For November 24, we should probably run candidate interviews -- we need to agree upon a list of questions, so we can get them to candidates sometime between September 17 and September 20 (adding the questions to each new candidate as they enter the race later). I think the list of questions we had last year was pretty good, but it'll need updating based on current circumstances. I'm rambling right now, so if I think of anything else, I'll let you know tomorrow. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and of course -- if you catch any mistakes in the article, or think something should be added to it in the next hour or two, feel free to do so. Ral315 (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! :D – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem! As I said it was one of those "why the fudge didn't I think of that?!" moments. I've finished off (I believe) your issues with the article; would you be able to check it out at some point and either point out additional issues or mark the current ones as "resolved"? Ironholds (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you had to withdraw. I personally do not think short articles should be held back or that a rigorous ToC standards should be applied here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi How do you turn this on. I wanted to encourage you not to be demoralized by the FAC and not to blame it all on Ling.Nut. Yes, he should have been more civil in his comments. It is, however, not uncommon to post on the FAC talk page to request more reviewers, although generally that should be done in a neutral tone of voice. It is likely that the post generated more eyes on the article, but I (and I would wager, Matisse and RelHistBuff) did not oppose because Ling.Nut did. We are experienced FAC reviewers who judge each article on its merits, not on what other reviewers think. I think that the article has the capability of getting to FA status, it just needs more work. We left some good constructive criticism, and I hope that you can use that to continue to improve the article. Regardless, I hope that you don't think poorly of us opposers, and that we have not scared you off of the process. Karanacs (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well... the FAC was going pretty swimmingly until Ling.Nut turned up, so it's kind of difficult not to blame him. Good points have been raised that should have been raised in the two peer reviews and the previous FAC, so that I could work on them. It's pretty irritating because I covered everything asked of me each time, but then suddenly I'm told it doesn't meet probably one of the tougher criteria to fulfil, comprehensiveness. It's simply wasting my time going for FA having been given the impression, by multiple people, experienced with FACs and not, that it was FA quality. Obviously it wasn't. I'm not at all annoyed it didn't meet the standards; you give some good examples. What I am most annoyed about is Ling.Nut's behavior regarding this FAC; first posting non-neutral messages, essentially canvassing people, comparing the article to a start class one. He then referred to it as "junk", "trivial" and lots of other negative things. I have to wonder why he didn't bring it up last time - he opposed per 1a last time. Bringing such a thing up with someone completely new to FACs is, in my view, extremely detrimental. Some wonder why users don't like writing article - this is one of the reasons that puts me off doing it more. It's too much hassle, takes far too much of my time up, too stressful, and generally a bad experience for me (both times Speight has been up on FAC). I may be able to work better in a collaboration, but on my own is too much. I won't be doing anything else with Speight, that's for sure. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd request you to rethink the FAC process. Getting an FAC is not a piece of cake, and exacting reviewers can make life difficult for a first time users. I've listed ways in which you can effectively counteract the "comprehensiveness" issue. I generally write on obscure topics these days, so I know how difficult it is to get such articles "certified as your best work". It's the challenging sweatshop that makes up FAC really proves one's mettle. That's why getting FAs are valued by the community at the RFA arena. Ling's canvassing actually did wonders for the nomination, it got more experienced reviewers to have a look at it, and tear apart his oppose. In addition, you did get some good feedback on ways to improve the article. The quality of FAC reviews are way higher than WP:PR, so don't be disheartened on it not getting enough feedback on PR. Take a break, and then try again. It's not the end of the road for the article. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Karanacs gave you info on how you could bulk up the article. Rather than taking it personally, I wish you would focus on the task at hand. I personally don't think there's enough info to make a FAC, but many others may disagree with me. That has happened many times before, and is likely to happen many times again. If I had a dollar for every time I stood alone against a crowd of folks who think I'm completely and irredeemably full of... baloney, we'll say... then I could... hmmm... OK so it would only be 7 or 8 bucks. I could go see a movie. :-) And it will certainly happen again. Perhaps this is an example.
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No thanks, you've attacked my hard work enough to put me off doing else with it. I'm moving on to another article. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You'll do well with a better topic. But I'm sad that you are sticking with the story I attacked you.. or even the article. It was not an attack. Attacks are things that are intended to hurt people. It was criticism, and FAC is a place where criticism is pubicly invited. The act of nomming a FAC is the act of asking for criticism. It can be discouraging to accept criticism, but blaming the critic is... mmm, it is perhaps a little disingenuous. But it's a human response. I hope you'll see that in time. Good luck. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll work with whatever topic I want to work with. I have never said you attacked me; just my work. There are ways of criticising an article: politely, coherently, calmly - the way you did isn't one of them. You seemed almost angry at it. See Taxman's comments on the talk page of the FAC, he says it better than I could. Creating pointless threads on FAC talk just to draw attention to it makes me also question whether you're just reviewing it like everyone else, or what your other motives were. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• (undent) I can't speak for Taxman, but I certainly disagree with his POV. He ain't the last word or the final source of truth.. but neither am I. ;-) My whole point is that wondering about my motives is destructive to you (in the sense of making you distrustfulof someone who means you no harm), esp. when I spelled my motives out very clearly in my remarks regarding "hostility".
• But you are angry. I will go away and work my evil plans somewhere else.
• Good luck. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for supporting me at my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Haha, tis alright. A single glance at the discussion will tell anyone that BITE doesn't apply; i've tried to be courteous (although I believe it has now got to the point where his "removal of unsourced information" counts as vandalism. Ironholds (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the dark side Greater Manchester wikiproject. Nev1 (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It certainly is an active project, one of the most active UK ones in my experience, as can be seen on the talk page. As a group, we've been around for a while and have gained experience alot of different areas. Do you have any particular interests related to GM? There's probably someone in the project who could help. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading Image:Voeller_2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  ★  Bigr Tex 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

--Efe (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are people here who respect your contributions and welcome your input. Look past the nasty people -- they're not worth the bother. And always remember that old Missouri aphorism: Never try to argue logic with a mule -- you'll never get your point across and you'll only annoy the mule! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for your kind words. The good outnumber the bad by miles here luckily. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. congratulations on being the 100th thread on my talk page! I think it may need archiving soon... – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Sorry, I should've replied after your first message. I have been trying to add older hooks; the oldest ones at present haven't been verified so I have been added the oldest verified ones. (From Nov 17 and now Nov 18) Looking at the Nov 15 section I can't see anything I'm confident enough in verifying myself. Sincerest apologies for the inconvenience. \ / (⁂) 01:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it's alright. I wasn't aware they weren't verified, so good job for being careful and waiting. Thanks for doing all the work around DYK. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason why you extended the area covered by the article on Wilmslow Road? I took the article as I found it, covering Wilmslow Road, Oxford Road and Oxford Street in the City of Manchester. You extended it into the metropolitan borough of Stockport. I admit the borough boundary seems arbitrary but you have to call it somewhere. If you extend it to Cheadle then you could include the Wilmslow Road going out of Cheadle.

I didn't decide on that boundary but it makes sense to me. Perhaps you could add something on the discussion page.

Yaris678 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I travel down the entire length of the road every day. It starts as Wilmslow Road in Cheadle, as can be seen on any map... – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

BTW, are you interested in working on the article in order to get it to GA status? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah! Getting to GA status would be great. Never done it before so you are going to have to explain how.

I have just replied to your other point on the talk page of the article. It's a bit long-winded, but hopefully you can see where I am coming from.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I've replied to your comment

Hey HDYTHLO, I wouldn't reopen the original ER, but ER_2... create a new one to get a fresh view. I'll try to get to ya, but no promises on when.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I already did... whoops. Should I leave it, or start a new one from fresh? – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would start a new one from fresh and include a link to the original one... but that's me.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message! I'm not stressed at all over DYK; it's quite enjoyable. The note on my user page is just because of someone being a dick at a different page, so I'm taking a break from that discussion until I can trust myself not to call anyone an ass hat. But thanks for all your work at DYK and your help with the template; best, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I cannot believe you only registered in July, ya seem like an expert and that was a while ago! I came here to advise you that you should run for admins soon, however I looked it up and you recently did one. Anyway, if and when your ready to run I will nominate you if you would like. If you have other offers in the pipe line or would rather not accept my offer I understand. — Realist² 02:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Heh, I would co-nom you if you needed one. You've been here only for 5-6 months, I think, and you already show good judgment and willingness to help anyone. I would certainly be greatful to co-nom; if it were to happen. RockManQ ^(talk) 02:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, no one has offered actually. My first RFA was around three months back, and was obviously premature. I would think sometime in January, once I have at least five months experience, would be a better time to go (if I ever do). I'd like to get another GA before running at least. Thanks for the kind words, both of you. – How do you turn this on (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree that many editors are put off by new editors, no matter how much that editor has grown in the time they have been here. There does seem to be this almost arbitrary date of "you must have been here at least 6 months before I will support your RfA". I have been known to support editors with 4 months experience. However, I think we are in such a desperate situation at the moment, maybe the arbitrary dates will subside, hopefully anyway. My gut feeling is, if you were to run right now the chances of success would be low, because it hasn't been long enough since your last RfA. I would certainly be prepared to nominate you soon, but rushing into another RfA right now could backfire, then you really would have to wait a long time. Let's just imagine you hadn't done that first RfA, instead your first RfA were to take place in 2 weeks time, I think you would pass. My advise to you would be to continue what your doing for the next 4 weeks and get some good nominators for your RfA (I would certainly be involved with the nom if you wanted me to be). As for me, yes, there is a possibility that I will be running soon. — Realist² 00:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

FYI if you ever want to find a free picture of someone, type their name and then site:.gov into the Google Image searchbar. All US government images are in the public domain. I don't know too much about image copyright etc. but this I do! The fact that we didn't have an image of the world's oldest person was really starting to annoy me and I was going to upload a nonfree one if I didn't find a free one. Best, ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for advice. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is not true. Works by the United States federal government are in the public domain; works by US government agencies and government-owned corporations, individual state governments, most other governments, and works hosted on US government websites are not. See here for a detailed explanation of this particular legal minefield. – iridescent 16:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most stale pages as of the October database dump. Dragons flight (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Moved to User:How do you turn this on/stale. Thanks! – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a shame what happened with the FAC but why not take the article to GAN? It would seem silly not to and I'm sure you'll get a few helpful pointers from the review. It appears that you've clashed around with the FA folk this last month or so; I wouldn't take it personally as in both circumstances you've accidentally stepped into areas of high tension. (I'm sure you've had a look at all the featured short article talk). I know it was especially tough as it was your first attempt for featured article too. Hope you've not been put off article writing too much — remember: a high quality article without an FA star is still a high quality article! Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's a good idea. I'll do it. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Trasnclude. --Melab^±1 19:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah sure :)

07:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I want it transcluded, but I do not know how to do that. While we're on the subject, could you please take some time to add to it, because I have'nt gotten any feedback yet. BTW, How did you come across it? Thanks in advance!Dudemeister1234 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looking in the editor review backlog. It's not difficult to transclude - just add it in the same format as the others on the main editor review page, using {{ }} brackets instead of [[ ]]. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not the elections - it's the stupidity. I might edit by IP if I ever feel like contributing, but I don't think I will regularly any more. 220.240.24.119 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply