User talk:Cactus.man/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Cactus.man. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I just wanted to say thank you, for checking up what people write and for fixing the bugs, fixing the bitchings and the malicious comments.

You made my day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.13.160.120 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was glad to see you back to editing. Your vacations have been much longer than people in my part of the world usually have! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ghirla, nice to hear from you. "Briefly", because I am having an extended break due to many real life issues that require my dedicated time. I still keep an eye on matters here though, especially my watchlist and larger issues such as the now current ArbCom elections. It's important to me to express my views on these matters, hence my brief return. Although I am not contributing much (or anything) at the moment I am still committed to WP and will return to productive status soon, most likely in the new year.

Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wish you good luck with you real life and hope you will be back soon. And merry Christmas in case I won't see you until then. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, see you in the new year ... or around the ArbCom pages :) --Cactus.man ✍ 15:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, can you upload them to Commons? I'd like to use them in de:Old Course. -- ulim, 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi ulim, thanks for your message. The photos are already on Commons:

Image:18th Green and Clubhouse.jpg

Image:Bridge over the Swilken burn.jpg

Image:Old Course 1891.png

Image:Road hole bunker.jpg

Hope that helps. --Cactus.man ✍ 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. The images weren't in the Golf category tree, that's why I didn't find them on Commons. Could have found them by name, though... guess I was sleeping :)

I categorized them now. --ulim, 17:15, 8. December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Greg, I just dropped by to say thanks for your work on the WikiWorld cartoon strips, great stuff and long may it continue. I look forward to regular postings in the Signpost to add some colour, humour and a welcome smile to the site. I enjoyed the strips you've done so far very much indeed, (the veangeful pet skunk image is my personal highlight so far). It's a wonderful idea for Wikipedia, keep up the good work. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cactus.man. Since I've built up a small stockpile of comics (as you've seen), I'm planning to present a mix of new and existing comics in the Signpost for the first few weeks, just to get things rolling. I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying the project. --Greg Williams 13:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a page posted under Gertrude Peabody Residence Hall and it was taken down. I read that you might be able to provide me with the text of the page. I don't know at this point if I will repost in some fashion... mostly likely not since it doesn't meet the critera... however I was wondering if there was a way to get the text posted somehow so I can keep a copy for historical purposes. They deleted it before I had a chance to do so. I read on here that you might be able to assist in that way. Could you kindly let me know. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.247.83.61 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your message re the above deleted article. I see it was deleted after an AfD and there were concerns raised about copyright violations. In such circumstances it is not appropriate to have copies of the material residing in user space. I would be happy to email you the text for your own records, and to work on if you wish to repost the article in an improved fashion without copyright infringements. Bear in mind that an article reposted which is a "substantially identical copy" of the deleted article will be liable to be speedily deleted under criteria G4. Another option for you would be to request undeletion at Deletion Review, although looking at the article history and the comments at the AfD, I doubt if this would be successful. I hope this helps, and let me know if you wish me to email the text. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I request that content of following pages be restored for temporary basis. I have some very important information that i compiled over last few months. I'll highly appreciate your assistance.

• India
• Australia
• Paintings
• others
• Chandigarh

Please send me an email when the pages are available so i can get the content. I promise i'll get rid of the pages immediately after. Also i apologize for ignorance.

Thanks, Sameer (sameer81@gmail.com)

Vayaka 12:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Same problem.--Vayaka 10:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

		The Purple Star
		I hearby award you this barnstar cactus man as your userpage is always suffering from heavy abuse. Retiono Virginian 11:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cactus.man —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patricia.fidi (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I need to get a copy of my text that was deleted. It was titled "Freque" if you can't put it back up could you email it to me at flower.faeries@yahoo.com

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Hey, I wanted to let you know that Leslie Hunter is now Leslie Hunter. There's four George Hunters, so I've been adding the disambig etc. Qmax 13:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Qmax, a very belated thanks for the heads up on this. I'm just catching up on things after a long break, but thanks again. Cheers. -- Cactus.man ✍ 23:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your name is included twice in Category:Wikipedians with committed identities because of the header on your user page. If you wrap the template in <includeonly>...</includeonly> in the header, that will fix the problem. CMummert · talk 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi CM, thanks for the note. Not being a WikiMarkup guru, I failed to implement my own specialised version of the template properly. Nice to have that tip though, I've fixed some other double transclusion category problems as well. We all live and learn :) Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hockney, We Two Boys Together Clinging.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hockney, A Bigger Grand Canyon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mais, long time no speak but I'm kind of back from a long wikibreak (hopefully). I see you've had some discussion with Alex about his bot. Please check out this this thread and add the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. Looks like there will be a daily set of results to check.

There are a lot of false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output (well, those who know regexp can - us mortals will have to just think of suitable terms to search for). Already I can see Isle of Man and Nova Scotia in there !! Anyway, I've added the first results here, please review and update the New articles page if you get a chance. I'll get onto some of them shortly I hope.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. I'll add notification of this to all WP:SCO participants in due course. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was absolutely delighted when Alex just went ahead and set it up himself! I was not relishing all the head-scratching that would have entailed had I attempted it ;)

Actually, I was very pleased at the low number of false hits from the first run! I had expected a lot worse.

I am not sure it is such a good idea to shuffle it off to a new subpage but we can discuss that. I don't think any other WikiProjects do that?

By the way, if you had not already spotted it, Portal:Scotland was promoted to Featured portal status a couple of days ago. Many thanks for your input into that project. It will be a wonderful asset for future Wikipedians.

Check out this new "Suggestions" page, and fill it up with goodies if you can!

• Portal talk:Scotland/Suggestions

--Mais oui! 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Mais. I note your concern about the subpage but that was only a temporary measure until we can get enough eyes on the results page. Reading the various bot pages (and a bit of reading between the lines because Alex hasn't got back to me yet) I think it works along the lines of:

bot does nightly run, adds figures to the log page explaining the calculation of results, and adds the articles found to the results page.

It is then expected that Portal and Project participants will manually transfer the results and use them in whatever fashion they see fit. In this case, Alex just transcluded the results page himself to our page, generating the list, warts and all. I merely deleted the transclusion and substed to the new page. When things are running as they should be, the bot will not be transcluding the results, but all our eagle eyed members will pull out only the proper articles and add them manually before the next results overwrite them. Because it looks like a 24 hour turnaround cycle, I'm keen to get this heavily watched ASAP. I hope to get all the notifications done today, then I'll delete the sub page. Hope that makes sense.

I did also note the Portal was now featured, you deserve mighty congratulations for your efforts there. I was disappointed to see the DYK section has gone, which is surprising. I think I'm right in saying most, or all, of the other National featured portals have a DYK section, and part of the portal concept is to be similar to the main page. No doubt this was all hammered out in some discussion, but I've not been able to find it. No big deal I suppose, but it would be nice to see it back.

The DYK list at WP:SCO is a bit light, more stuff on my returning todo list :) --Cactus.man ✍ 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PS - Time for a talk page archive perhaps? :) --Cactus.man ✍ 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC

Archiving my own stuff is "not a priority", as they say... ;)

I will do it at some point. --Mais oui! 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, have a belated Hogmanay greeting! .. dave souza, talk 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the shortbread, hope you kept a few for yourself. Should go well with a wee Bunnahabhain :) --Cactus.man ✍ 09:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Cactus.man. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Huszar miss-blanche.gif) was found at the following location: User:Cactus.man/Contributions/Images. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've added the page. How close to 2 million now? I'm not as active now as I was then so I've not been keeping track ;) Nach0king 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We're just short of 1.8 million at the moment, so I reckon that gives you around 3.5 months. If you bagged it, I'm pretty sure you could depose Jimbo :) --Cactus.man ✍ 14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The revolution starts here! :D Nach0king 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jmcc, I just spotted this article, thanks for creating it. I'm astonished that none existed before for the man who roved so enigmatically across our flickering black and white screens all those days ago. Something to add to my list of stuff to work on. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an obvious gap but I have only just started to fill it. There is an entry in ODNB which I will track down to give Fyfe full justice. Anything that you can add is appreciated. JMcC 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I subscribe to the ODNB RSS feed, and often find interesting and useful material in their open reading room and "Lives of the Week" feature, but am not a subscriber. In theory, my local library membership should grant me full membership also, but I have never been able to access the restricted database properly. Something else to chase up next week :) --Cactus.man ✍ 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Kirk o' Field? --Mais oui! 05:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I spotted it on the bot list and thought it was too good to pass over - the system is working. Some nice juicy DYK stuff to pluck out there. I'll apply the thinking cap to try and distil it down to a decent length. Feel free to nominate it yourself if you come up with something nice and concise in the meantime. Thanks also for adding the categories, that's always the bit I mess up on - but that's why we've got Cat-Guru's like you around :) BTW, I take it "Murder in Scotland" is a new one you're going to create - as they say in Taggart, "there's been a murder..." --Cactus.man ✍ 05:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durin, I heard you were looking for Guinea Pigs, so, herewith: Nibbles and Strips, both fine specimens I'm sure you'll agree.

I've been keeping half an eye on things during my extended break. I'm not sure what the RfA solution may be, or even that the intrinsic "process" is really that fundamentally flawed, alhough the current working of the process probably is. My initial gut feeling is that any probable solution revolves around the Bureaucrat issue - more of them, wider discussion of disputed promotions etc. After all, they are there to judge consensus and implement the will of the community. More explanation, transparency and openness about these matters never hurts, usually always helps and is the way things should be done.

I also think LateNightDoubleFeatureCreature deserves recognition for Username of the Year. If I find a suitable barnstar I'll lob it on your page to add to Rhetorical rhino, Flippant, One-man wrecking ball, Wiki Bully!, The Boss, and Proud Blithering Idiot.

:) --Cactus.man ✍ 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heh :) Yeah that name popped out of my deranged head. Further evidence I need help :) Other than "blithering idiot" the other badges of honor were said of me, so that's how they got there. I've frequently been referred to as an idiot though, thus "blithering idiot". Glad you read the essay. Feedback? Thanks for heads up on the rodents. Holiday weekend and all, it'll have to wait until next week at least. --Durin 12:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what NYB said above. When delivering your guinea pigs I meant to express my horror that you had resigned your adminship!!! I understand that frustration can drive you to implement desperate measures on occasion, but this ... ?

To repeat the mantra, "Adminship is no big deal". Although many people on both sides of the fence work feverishly, by words or actions, to disabuse people of the simple truth encapsulated therein, it's still a refreshingly appropriate view of what it should be. You could do so much more with the tools, and as you often point out, it matters not whether an admin uses them once, once a year, once a month, day, hour or minute. If they are used wisely for the betterment of WP, that's a good thing. Which is what RfA really is all about, selecting suitable editors to use the additional tools appropriately.

Now that your holiday weekend is over, go and get your tools back. BTW, I missed your RfB nomination but I'll definitely catch the next one :-) We do need more crats. As for feedback on the essay, well I'll ponder that for a bit longer. Hell, it might even inspire me to go and write one of my own - not something I'm usually inclined to do. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I won't be running another RfB. When I ran, it was with full knowledge that it would fail. It was part of a larger strategy that began in January of this year upon realizing a number of things. I've written extensively elsewhere on this, and I'd be happy to point you to various diffs regarding this if you like (short on tonight though), but in a nutshell; I intended to resign adminship all along, and felt the need to do so as part of a larger reform effort. Once my efforts are done either successfully or unsuccessfully, my purpose at Wikipedia will be complete. I'll step away. That's not to say that I think Wikipedia is bad or anything like that, just that my work is done. I largely gave up on the main namespace near three months ago now. I gave up on images too, but went back into that sandtrap to help get fair use things in order. I've been especially pleased by the introduction of a fair use bot to remove fair use abuses outside of mainspace. There's other things I could do here, but there's other things in the 'real' world for me to do as well. --Durin 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No need for diffs, the one half of my eyeball pair that was working during my break caught most of them, the other half can track down the rest (I think).

I understand your frustration, and desire to reform, but I don't think this is the way to achieve it - by walking away. My time tonight is also limited - (Horlicks and all that, not that I've ever consumed it : ) All I'll say for now is that you popped up, out of the blue, to plonk me up for RfA when I was pretty disillusioned with most things around here and your words of encouragement were decisive in my decision to accept the nomination, and to continue working here. Those very same words should be directed back to you now, because they apply equally well.

Wikibreak, recreation, family, friends, foreign travel, strong coffee, whatever - take some time out and reconsider? I'll hopefully expand on this later, but whatever the outcome, I'll respect your decision.

• I'm perhaps not making a clear distinction. I'm not disillusioned with the project as a whole. I do think it faces some serious obstacles. Regardless, my desire to leave has little to do with the obstacles. It's likely I'll hang around a bit, poke at things here and there. But, my involvement is eroding. --Durin 13:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Great to see you back again Cactus man!!! Hope all is well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bl, thanks for the nice welcome back :) I'm kind of only half back, but this should improve in the coming weeks. During my half-eyed review of things in my absence I saw that the DYK process changed somewhat, so I'll give you a shout for a mini-tutorial before I get back to the coalface. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up all the images of the various islands, it makes the articles look a lot better. I only have one query though, and I'm not sure how to verify it - can you check if the picture of Eilean nan Ròn is for the right island please. The article is for the one off Sutherland, rather than the one in the Inner Hebrides. All the best --MacRusgail 14:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I saw the warning at the head of the article and double checked before uploading the image. Place names are always a bit of a banana skin for the unwary Highlands and Islands adventurer :) Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of creating an article for the other one, but I wasn't sure if it was the right one. I'd have to look on a map. By the way, I've taken your lead, and uploaded some images from geograph on St Kilda etc. Took me a while to work out how you did it, so I wouldn't get the copyright bot chasing me etc... --MacRusgail 20:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Geograph is an invaluable resource for images related to UK places. Sometimes there is a free lunch :) --Cactus.man ✍ 23:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

On 25 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kirk o' Field, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Did you know...

• ...that Kirk o' Field (pictured) in Edinburgh was the location of one of the world's great unsolved historical mysteries, the murder of Lord Darnley, second husband of Mary Queen of Scots, in 1567?

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got some excellent taste in films. I was going to add an entry, but since it was basically the same as yours.. Michaelas¹⁰ 21:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that but, with these compliments, you are spoling me ... Just go for it, add your stuff and let's see. After all, these lists are usually out of date - mine needs to be updated ... (Memo to self: ...). --Cactus.man ✍ 00:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Alfred John Monson? --Mais oui! 05:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Dunvegan Cup? --Mais oui! 06:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Alfred John Monson - Yep, interesting enough but is in serious need of cleaning up first. I'll have a look over it in the next day or so. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunvegan Cup - Great find, fascinating read too. Working on this as well now. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Mais. I'm pretty much through a substantial reworking of the Monson article. Some bits and pieces to check at the library tomorrow hopefully, and that's probably it. I'd welcome your input though on 2 issues:

• The DYK nom needs to be concise. There's so much interesting stuff in there that I'm having trouble devising a suitable wording for the entry. It seems to me that the key elements for this DYK are:

- Not proven - a uniquely Scottish verdict.

- This is a significant unresolved Scottish murder case - another murder mystery.

- The Tussaud's libel case - highly significant in establishing defamation precedent in English law and in shaping future legislative thinking in other jurisdictions.

- The paltry one farthing damages awarded in the Tussauds case - this reflects back to the original not proven verdict in the murder trial. (Monson was, after all, a Cad and a bounder :-)

Hmm, please reduce that to a 200 character (or thereby) wording suggestion. The reworked article will be no different in substance to what's already there, just expanded, reworded and fully referenced. Your suggestions are eagerly awaited :)

• This should probably be a redirect to Ardlamont mystery. It's not really a biography of Monson, there's not that much info out there about him. It's really an article about the murder and the trial, of which there is a reasonable amount of information. My feeling at present is to leave it be until the article is a bit more stable, then move for a redirect. Thoughts?

Now, the Dunvegan Cup is a different beast altogether - some thoughts to follow. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mais, bit of a problem, my PC blew up this morning. I suspect a fried motherboard, so it'll likely be a few days before I can get things sorted out. Can you go ahead and stick these on DYK if you get a chance. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I left User:Akradecki the following query.

I told him or her I found it surprising that they would both relist an {{afd}} and weigh in with an opinion. One or the other, not both, were the choices I thought were open to them.

I'd appreciate your opinion. I'll check back here.

Thanks in advance, and later too. Geo Swan 15:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geo, thanks for the note re the above AfD. I see it was originally listed on 21 May by User:Tempshill, but I can't find any record of it being formally closed. Perhaps I've missed it somewhere, but this looks more like an ongoing unclosed discussion rather than a relisting. If that is the case then Akradecki's opinion is really no more than a belated addition past the normal 5 day discussion period. It was pretty lightly trafficked and could quite properly have been closed as a no consensus keep. In such cases it's not unreasonable for it to be re-opened for further discussion fairly quickly, but to do so AND weigh in with an opinion is pretty poor form in my opinion, although not prohibited by policy. (I say that after just coming back from a long break - better go and read the policy page again to check it's pretty much as it used to be :-)

I would be inclined to close it after another day or two, but my opinions on the topic are well known, so to avoid COI issues I will not close this personally. I will make comment on the AfD and the relisting / non closure issue in due course though, and drop a line to Akradecki. It's open to any editor of course to open, close or relist AfD's, not just Admins.

Hope things are well with you. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Geo Swan 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Akradecki, just FYI Geo asked for my comments on this which you'll find here. As it appears not to have been formally closed previously I think removal, or striking , of the "Relisting" wording might be appropriate in this case. I'll leave that to your discretion. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you note on my talk page. I confess I'm a new admin getting my feet wet. WP:DELPRO, when discussing the relisting of an AfD, says nothing about formally closing it, so I'm a bit confused about your comment. I thought I followed the instructions there exactly...comments on where I went wrong would be most appreciated. As far as Geo Swan's comment, I found no guidance that says I can't comment on the AfD after relisting it. In fact, I thought I was being neutral by doing it that way...if I had a bent towards imposing my will, I would have closed as delete (which, of course, would not have been proper) instead of relisting it and then adding my comment. As I said, input is appreciated. AKRadecki 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. My, how things change when you're not looking, or on a long break :)

I now see that you used the {{Relist}} template for this and, as you say, followed the instructions at WP:DELPRO correctly. I was never intending to suggest that you did anything wrong or acted with malice. The problem I see is that this is not a relisting, merely a continuation of an existing discussion (having never been formally closed). In that sense, the wording at WP:DELPRO is misleading at best - something I'll look into shortly and add some more clarification, or add {{AfD_Extend}} to the mix.

My gut feeling on this is that a removal of the "Relist" wording is appropriate, and leave it to run it's course to closure is all that is required. As before, I'll leave this to your discretion. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as AK's coach prior to his adminship I was asked to comment. I see nothing at all wrong with the use of the relist template. It is the appropriate template to use when in an admin's judgement, extending the discussion would help generate a clearer consensus, which given the relative paucity of comments prior to the relist, seems prudent in this case. The relist is perhaps not well named but it is NOT used after a formal close, but rather, used instead of it. That AK also gave his opinion on the article has perhaps the merest tinge of incorrectness but most people would have no issue with it. I certainly do not. AK probably should not be the closing admin though. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 10:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Akradecki, just to keep you in the loop, I commented to Lar here. Sincere apologies if this is causing stress for you, but this seems to be a case of poorly worded guidelines. As I said before there is absolutely no question of any impropriety on your behalf. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cactus and Lar...no stress at all, and I didn't mean to imply anything to you, Cactus, but asking Lar. I'm still really new at this, recognize I'm really new, and just want to do things right, and a double check never hurts! AKRadecki 16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, glad you're not stressed. And double checking with others is absolutely fine, particularly if they were your Admin coach!!! I've worked with Lar quite a bit in the past and just wanted to set the record straight with him that I wasn't questioning your actions. No sinister implications by you were inferred on my part whatsoever, so no worries there. The important thing to remember is that we're all new at this in a sense. Guidelines, policies, templates and the like are being tweaked, reworded, deleted, re-invented and so forth all the time. Just keep doing what you're doing, if it's done in good faith there's absolutely no problem. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Lar, LTNS :), hope you're well.

I know you don't like unthreaded discussions, but here's me unthreading anyway - what the hell, there's other stuff I want to discuss. This particular issue was flagged up by Geo Swan as an AfD relisting which he asked me to look into. Duly done, I commented to both parties then pondered some more. A bit more digging revealed the {{relist}} template was at the core of the issue. I have absolutely no problems with anything Akradecki did, it was textbook per the instructions at WP:DELPRO (minus the actual moving to the current date log - which I've now fixed).

To extend discussion for further input, rather than a quick close, is absolutely fine and commendable. The problem I see is that it's not a relisting (having never been formally closed), it's an extension of the discussion period. On the other hand, it is a relisting because it gets moved to a new listing date. It's understandable that article creators become aggrieved at rapid "relistings" and percieve POINTY implications, but I feel the guidelines need tightening up a bit to distinguish between genuine article relistings and unclosed AfD extensions.

I'll stick my feeble brain onto the issue in the next few days, probably a new template and a bit of rewording, but any feedback is welcome. I'll drop a line to Akradecki to keep him in the loop.

Now, onto other things. Are you still a regular DYK updater? I see that things have changed somewhat in my recent absence - any handy hints or pointers before I get back to doing my bit would be gratefully received --Cactus.man ✍ 11:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisting may indeed be semantically not quite right terminology, given that we also refer to an entirely new nomination in rapid succession (something frowned on) after the real close as a "relist", but it's the term I've seen used since as long as I can remember. If you change it around you'l want to leave scads of notes and redirects or mass confusion may result. That is, if you can come up with a more unambiguous term at all! I wish you well on that but offhand I didn't think of one. As for DYK I've been quite out of the loop of late, and have to do the same as you, read carefully to see what is up, should I decide to plunge in again. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, point taken about the extent of the notification - checking the history of the template, it's been around far longer than I remember. However, there's definitely a semantics problem to be tackled. Bigger thinking cap required :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that! Seems a worthy endeavour, and if you need any feedback once you have a new template and or meme, LMK and I'll be happy to give you some ... best of luck and happy editing meanwhile. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geo, I see the article, rather bizarrely, has been deleted. Quite how Gnangarra determined a consensus to delete from the discussion is beyond my ability to comprehend. I suspect you may be putting this up to DRV. If so, could I ask a favour of you? I'm working at present with only half a connection and half a PC due to a fried motherboard on my main PC. So I'm using an old box (Win 98 and dial up connection - my, how we forget how SLOW things were back then!!). If you do put it up for review could you drop a note on my talk page or e-mail me via the Userpage link as I certainly think the deletion is flawed and should be overturned. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks for all your help, and for the heads-up.

Sorry to hear you are having computer problems.

I was feeling very low yesterday over the various {{afd}}s I had given up on Jabir al Qahtani, until your comment came through there. The other two are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-hearing hearings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walid Said Bin Said Zaid. User:Arkyan left an outwardly appreciative comment when they voted delete on Walid Said Bin Said Zaid, but they also said it looked like this article was "identical" to dozens of other articles. I can't escape

Yes, I think I will initiate a request for undeletion. But first I will update that page where I keep track of all the attempts to delete Guantanamo related articles. And I will leave a request for an explanation on Gnangarra.

I am also thinking of requesting undeletion of some of the categories that were deleted when you were on a wikibreak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_27#.5B.5B:Category:Guantanamo_Bay_detainees.5D.5D

Thanks again for all your help! Geo Swan 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm back up and running now at Warp Factor 11 - ( I took the opportunity to add more memory, a new graphics card and extra HD storage :-) I've also added User:Geo Swan/working/Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion to my watchlist to keep a better eye on this important material. In the meantime, enjoy the barnstar. Hopefully it will lift your spirits. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Thanks for your help with the AFD and DRV. It makes a big difference for me.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see the DRV failed, but at least Gnangarra gave a detailed and plausible rationale for his deletion closure. And yes, to your unsanswered question, DRV is supposed to be about the validity of the deletion process, not the original content. Hence my rather abrupt comment to Guy who really should know better. It was encouraging to note that many who supported the closure were not against recreation of the article if there is more information, so if you need a copy of the deleted content to work on, let me know. I'm going to create a protected redirect for the article meantime as many of the commenters at the DRV suggested. If and when you construct an enlarged version, give me a shout and I'll unprotect. At least the Walid Said Bin Said Zaid article made it :) --Cactus.man ✍ 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the updates to the New Articles page you've been doing. I was mid-update myself to the last set of results, when you beat me to updating the page. It was good to see that your prunings matched mine. It's often difficult to prune out the "was born or made in Scotland, or had a dog who lived there" entries from the real ones :-) Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. One thing I've been meaning to bring up was the number of Isle of Man related articles that seemed to be appearing among the rest, and I noticed a mention of the IoM on here and didn't want to make an attempt at fixing it in case I broke something ;). WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's a problem with the regexp parameters. I'm no expert myself which is why I asked for some regexp gurus in my original postings. There's also

/\[\[\s*Category:[^\]\|]*Scot/ , /Nova\sScotia/
-3 /\WCanad(a|ian)/
-3 /\WUSA\W/
-3 /America/
-3 /Australia/

You've probably noticed a few Canadian / American / Australian politician and other type entries appearing. This can all be fine tuned, but I'm not the guy to do it. Oh well, heading off to find a copy of Regexp for Dummies for better understanding. -- Cactus.man ✍ 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't quite see why you hate it that much. It is only used on userpages, after all – and I can think of plenty of far more annoying userpages that I can't control – Gurch 16:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, just spotted you were the main authour for the template. No intent to offend you, but yes, I abhor banner ads (and other intrusive style internet ads) with a veangance. Thanks for cleaning up my wording on the template page. I think it's useful to include some instructions for my fellow banner haters :) I've had a pretty bad couple of weeks with my computer system, having to rebuild from scratch, so I was probably a bit over cranky when I got a blinking banner on somebody's talk page. I'll go and tone down my css content a bit. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I fully understand your reasons for not liking them. If they were in project space, article talk space or – god help us – article space, I would be mortified, and revert them immediately. They're only intended as a bit of harmless WikiProject promotion on userpages – every new WikiProject participant helps the project. Yes, they're a little intrusive. But then, this is userspace we're talking about, a namespace that has long since been buried under a pile of multicoloured userboxes :). At least, unlike those, these ads are all Wikipedia-related. To be honest, I'm in two minds about users having them on their talk pages, which they're meant to use for interaction with other users and as such perhaps shouldn't be subject to quite so much flexibility as userspace proper. But current convention is to let users have whatever they like on their talk pages, and I'm not going to start arguing with them :) – Gurch 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, fair points. I think you've done a great job with the template, but it's nice to give users a choice to view or not. Your revised wording on the template is good - nice and simple, neutral and informative. I think that's a good outcome, I'm sure you would agree. I've got my Firefox installation pretty heavily configured against most web intrusions, but if I could get an extension that filters out userboxes ... well. Now, there's a project. OTOH, sometimes they can be quite an amusing read in moderation, so a switchable extension would be dandy. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

.userboxes {display: none} will hide those that have been grouped with {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}.

.wikipediauserbox {display: none} will hide some, but not all, individual userboxes – specifically those that transclude {{userbox}} or were substituted from that template any time after that class declaration was added.

Unfortunately the userbox template (and hence most substituted userboxes as well) is constructed in a rather odd way – a table nested inside a div. The width specifications are on the table, which is a shame, as otherwise more advanced CSS could be employed to hide all 238px-by-45px boxes; at best, you would be left with a contentless coloured border (which would at least collapse, I suppose) – Gurch 18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Replying here as I see you've blanked your talk page in protest over Gracenotes RfA and I don't wish to intrude on your blanking. Thanks for the suggestions, will give them a try. Would be nice to be able to turn them on and off on the fly though. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not blanking, just very aggressive archiving – Gurch 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Cactus.man. Instead of giving you the generic missing rationale messages, I thought I should be more straight-foward. The Images Image:Capa, D-Day1.jpg, Image:Capa, D-Day2.jpg and Image:Capa, Death of a Loyalist Soldier.jpg all need rationales. They will be deleted on the 29th if you can't. Could you do me and another editor a favor and provide them so they can continue to be used? Thank you! — Moe ε 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm the 'other editor' and I went ahead and provided the rationales for all three. I had to re-upload them all though to reduce the resolution so that they would comply with fair use requirements. Hope that's OK. Cheers. --FactotEm 20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi FactotEm, thanks for adding the fair use rationales to these images. You just spared me a wee bit of work. No big deal perhaps, but much appreciated nonetheless. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Moe, thanks for the note you left me, and for sparing me the standardised template warning of doom :) Sorry for the late response, I've been having some computer problems of late. Anyway, I've been working my way slowly through all my fair use image uploads, adding rationales and fixing image tags where necessary. You just got to these ones before me. I see that FactotEm has added the necessary info, but if you come across any more of mine in need of fixing, just drop me a line. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your computer troubles, that always bothers me as well. It's good you are taking the time to add the rationales instead of waiting like other editors. I myself wait for the messages to come to my talk page before I do anything :) Factotem seems to have done an excellant job tagging those images. I'll do my best to notify you of any more missing rationales if I find any. Cheers! — Moe ε 14:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)