User talk:Splash/Archive4

Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005 – Archive to 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC)

I'm trying to post Turniphead.jpg (a mspaint cartoon that was uploaded as part of the Turnip Head attack page, but I keep bungling the formatting on IFD. Since it's a nonsense image anyway, could you possibly do a speedy delete on it? Thanks. DS 17:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looked very much to me like an attempt on the part of a teacher to communicate with his/her students. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, anytime :-) --HappyCamper 22:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I replied here, also, I remember i used to count the hours and do it from the bottom, but one day I thought I had the timeline figured out right and closed the day at the 168 hour mark, but I miss calculated. Thanks for pointing it out. ;-) ∞Who?¿? 01:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I saw the rugby closing, pretty much agree with your closure. I remember the previous cfd on it. I did think about the early closure bitchings, but think its a bad faith nom and you're justified.

I need to stay away from controversial things for awhile, especially till after Oct 1st (or so), so its no big deal for me not closing the rest of those Cfd's. For now, the less possible complaints towards me is good. Its sad though, I've been doing it for awhile, just glad it was you or Kbdank71 to point that out. ∞Who?¿? 01:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea shortening Cfd maybe a good idea, we would have to bring it up on the talk page. When i get back online and more dedicated time, I will help to work on it. As it is now, I barely have enough time to finish the Cfd stuff or reply to all the msgs. I have to get offline now and get back home. ∞Who?¿? 02:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Splash, I've noticed you're on a roll. Lol. Keep up the great work, but don't burn out, 'k?—encephalonέγκέφαλος  03:10:38, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Yeah, I've been busy exercising some functions of my new mop. I've cleared most of 3 days of copyvios, 2 days of AfD, some TfD and some speedies. I did some RC patrol, but didn't have to block anyone. Yeah, watching out for burn out is a good idea! -Splash 03:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering something: when an article talk page gets too long, what's the ediquiette on archiving it? I know user talk pages such as your own frequently get archived, but I don't know about article pages. (Is there a help/WP page on this?) If a page should be archived, when is it considered too big? KB-wise? Number-wise? Thanks, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} 03:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following your note on my talk page, I added the new infobox directly to Midi-Pyrénées. Thank you for taking care of all these templates. -- User:Docu

You shot from the hip and you missed. Someone failed to put a proper edit comment when they nominated for VfD, but the tag is there in versions in the edit history. Not only was it deleted in process, but the deletion was deserved. Please re-delete it ASAP. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not shoot from the hip, although I missed; the result of technical problems in earlier versions of MediaWiki. It's been sorted out in the VfU.-Splash 17:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have rushed to delete Template:Corse infobox heedless of the fact that Corsica is not a French région properly speaking, and so it needs its specific infobox. Can you please undelete that. Thank you. Hardouin 19:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Copy the deleted infobox inside the Corsica article. Hardouin 16:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening here?

Scott 00:21:56, 2005-09-13 (UTC)

Thank you for relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PetsOvernight.com, as I agree with you that more eyes are needed. I can assure you, however, that the article is no more notable than the variations of 2Pac's haircut. (Bad example, I know, but I'm trying). As a big fan of the game, and multi-time viewer of the website, I will tell you with absolute certaincy that this is not worth its own article. If, however, you still need more confirmation, I will drop a line on a few of the editors of either Grand Theft Auto III or Grand Theft Auto III sountrack (depending on the protocol of this kind of voting process). I realize that you need more evidence, and re-listing was probably the best idea. If the page doesn't get the attention it deserves by a set time, say, 24/48 hours, I'll go about with said (push-)poll. Good luck with your new admin-y powers, and good day, sir. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} 00:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding at my talk page. I see you are already making handy use of your Divine Power, and doing what I hope to someday do (but of course, I'll need a lot more experience). I can tell you with full confidence that this article is OK to be deleted (if it's needed, it can be undeleted, and the blame can be placed on me). I need to get back into AfDs and such, as it seemed that every page I voted on, your sparkling sig would be there as well. Thank you for this experiment, as it seems to be a success, and good luck. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Dammed when you do and Dammed when you don't! I read the Speedy deletions page and it doesn't offer any advice on signature. I only try to follow policy, perhaps if you think this is the norm then you would change the instructions?

Congrats! I have to watch you? Pffft... please! As if you'll ever screw up. :) I really, really thought you were already an admin. You emit that professional aura. Acetic'^Acid 05:23, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

These have the necessary majority (all VfU needs) to undelete. However, undeletion of categories, as I imagine you know, does not restore their entries since they have no 'memory'. The category pages themselves have a history, but in the case of Category:Wikipedians by generation it has only ever been blank. Would you like me to undelete them both anyway (I know you could do it yourself, but I figure you'd rather not as the nominator)? -Splash 03:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in the case of categories, undeleting should mean repopulating. I suppose that would mean spying on the contributions of the person who deleted the category, to figure out what categories they removed. dbenbenn | talk 14:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my RfA and for your kind comments. Congratulations on your own mop. :-) android79 15:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've recorded some of my thoughts and ideas about problems within Wikipedia, and some possible solutions here. I'd like your thoughts, and whether or not you think I'm crazy. Thanks.--Scimitar ^parley 17:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, I took a couple of minutes to look through your admin logs and your recent contributions. You're doing a great job as an admin thus far, man. I noticed that you've been reposting lightly-debated AfDs; I totally support this. I've been doing it, too. In my mind I call it The Sidaway Doctrine, because I learned it from watching Tony, but I'm not a big enough dork to actually call it that when I do it.

At any rate, your edit summaries whenever you make a page move or article deletion are excellent, and I think you've more than justified the deluge of support that your RfA recieved. Keep it up, brother. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The strange thing is that I have absolutely no recollection of doing a cut-and-paste move on that; I know it's an issue, and have always previously used the move feature. Which means either I have multiple personalities I didn't know about, or there was a technical snafu of some kind. But, to answer your question, I've already done the following in response: I deleted Jack Douglas (record producer), then reverted the Jack Douglas disambiguation page to the biographical version, then moved the dab page back to the title "Jack Douglas (record producer)", then recreated the dab page. As a result, all of the history is now in the correct place. Bearcat 18:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you were looking at is more of a special case for when something like this has to be fixed after further edits have taken place. In this one, nobody had edited either article after my September 1 edits, so we could just follow the "easy case" scenario listed on the same page. Bearcat 18:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not written very clearly -- but the way I understand it, it's about further post-move edits whose contribution history would be lost if the old procedure were followed. That is, if somebody had added significant information to Jack Douglas (record producer) after the move but before I corrected it, then the process I followed would be problematic, because the first deletion would have stricken their name from the edit history. But in this case, that didn't happen. It's not the move itself, but whether the article has been edited after the original move that makes the difference. Bearcat 19:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, bureaucrats are admins are editors both...

Oh, I'm quite aware of the background to all this, Splash :). I doubt anyone missed it, lol. I agree it's important that "admin" be specified if we're using the term "editor" in there. It's just that, just as admins are editors, but might plausibly say they aren't held by the same rules, I think it's plausible that a (theoretical) Bureaucrat may try the same trick. I don't think it has any practical relevance at the moment, of course. In any case this is minor. What is major however is the developing storm over whether speedies are bound by it. The proposal specifically says they are. It seems to me pointless if they weren't, because that has been the source of much of the recent disagreements, there being few policies in place to guide the issue. And it's really no different than what (should properly) happen now.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  00:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there to be a poll? My feeling is there needs to be. The reasons this is a good proposal should be made clear, too. It would help to make a good faith effort to resolve the minor lingering differences of opinion prior to the poll, although this may not be entirely successful.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  18:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Oh, and Splash. Is there any chance I may be able to interest you in a signature that also links to your Talk page? :) —encephalonὲγκέφαλον  18:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your closing of the VfD's

• Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad
• Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle

Klonimus 04:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't think I had any choice but to call them both as no consensus; I was surprised by how many people participated actually. -Splash^talk 20:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping the ball rolling. Rossami (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I hope we can extract a useful change so that _fD closures can be less acidic than some recent ones. -Splash^talk 20:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you left the following comment on a user talk page whose owner asked me to delete it:

User talk: pages are not usually speedies unless there are some exceptionally extenuating circumstances. You can just move it to an archive (use the move button, or some people just copy and paste) if cutting it back to size is what you're after.

Where is that written? Because it contradicts what is written on Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?:

Where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page or talk page be deleted... The user page should be listed on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, along with the reason you need the page deleted.

Granted that the user tagged it as speedy instead of actually listing it on WP:SD, but the intent of that user is the same. Still, we better clear up this apparent conflict of different policies. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and WP:CSD#User pages also says:

  User and talk pages on request of the user, where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the page.

  Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yeah, I have seen many admins delete their own user pages even though WP:SD#Deletion of personal pages says that it should be done by another admin. Take care. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This fact is not in dispute (check Yahoo! Sports). Yet you decide to delete this fact. Why? Who are you protecting?

I Googled for the fact, and it didn't turn up. But yes, it's on Y! Sports. -Splash^talk 00:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey splash :) In your opinion is this pic wikipedia material?

http://ccpl.lib.co.us/Images/KKKFerrisWheel.JPG

BTW this is where I got it http://ccpl.lib.co.us/KKK/KKK%20Essay.html

Probably not, no, although it is funny! This is an encyclopedia, after all. You might be able to find some legitimate use for it (although it is probably copyrighted) but you'd be likely to see it removed pretty quickly, I think. :) -Splash^talk 01:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it definately is funny (if no other place, it could sit comfortably on my user page, giving me a chuckle for as long as it's needed). By the way, please sign your posts, and I hope you can find some reason for that to be a part of our encyclopedia, because that shore would look mighty fine on my user page . -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{01:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you for your diligent attention to matters concerning my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. I do confess I did not understand the "hardly every delete" quotation. Regardless, the full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Sincerely, Leonard G. 04:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought out a simple means of reducing my personal vandal stress without the one button revert - I won't look at my watch list! I was pleased to see that all was taken care of in the featured article (SFOBB) by others - over 17 reverts and I did not have to do any of them, and a few minor things got fixed along the way. Best wishes, Leonard G. 04:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of your repeated comments about consensus on the deletion logs? paul klenk 18:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this comment "Consensus is more than 2 people agreeing with each other. Do more people agree with them? -Splash" on many deletion pages. paul klenk 19:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you're tying to make a point. I smell a mission, as if you wish to use your "consensus" comment in the future to justify reposting the article. Instead, why not just evaluate the article that's been nominated for deletion, suggest an action (keep, delete, etc.) that you believe is warranted, and give your reasons for that action -- like everyone else? paul klenk 19:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting you're being "purposefully disruptive to satisfy [your] own evil ends". Just that it's rather odd, and doesn't appear to accomplish anything. Looks like many of these articles have only recently been nominated, and haven't had a chance for many people to look at them. Your comments are too vague; nothing in them indicates you're closing the discussion. It's just very odd, and gives the impression I suggested above. paul klenk 19:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding some context; it will help others reading it. Ciao. paul klenk 19:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalism, but a question: From user (IP adress). Are you an administrator for Wikipedia? Can you block people? Do you monitor pages to see if they have flaws?

Hello. Yes, I'm an administrator, and yes admins can block people but only for specific reasons (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy). Every contributor to Wikipedia is able to monitor pages, since anyone can edit them to remove errors and vandalism. Admins are not, of themselves, charged with monitoring content — the community at large does that. It is possible for everyone to study all the recently created pages and recently changed pages seperately, and this is how people can pick up on where things need fixing. Administrators have a couple of extra tools to speed the process of fixing/cleaning/removing up: in some cases it becomes necessary to block people who won't be persuaded to stop defacing pages. I don't recall precisely what caused me to drop that message on your talk page; it looks like you had probably interrupted the debate somehow — repeatedly doing so is blockable since it can become disruptive. As to how people found the article on F-5 tornados, all articles that have been nominated for deletion each day are listed in the links available from Articles for deletion. Hope that helps. By the way, if you get an account, you'll have a talk page of your own. -Splash^talk 21:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yea, thanks for the information. I would not rather own an account, but I still have a talk page of my own. Either way, how do you come about being an admistrator. I see vulgar vandalisers, and I would kill to block them at my power.68.47.26.123 01:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot be an admin without getting an account, as a matter of accountability and policy. You can read Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship for the sort of standards expected: typically at least 3 months good editing along with at least 1000 good edits. -Splash^talk 21:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that you changed the page, it makes more sense this way. I don't know if anybody else uses my autocopyvio script, but then again, I come across users here and there that have borrowed stuff from my monobook.js, so who knows. I've modified my script to work with the new page(s), and it is actually more accurate (before it would search for the footer and insert the copyvio information right before it, now it can just insert it at the bottom of the subpage). Thanks for the heads up. Also, nice work!

Oh, one last thing. The instructions at the top that are numbered I, II, III, IV, don't those seem counter-intuitive? That is, the numbering of them? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the Roman numerals, or the fact that it's more of an if-then than a 1-2-3-4? The various other instructions, like in {{afdfooter}} use Roman numerals so I didn't change it here (but note that I didn't write the original form of the CP instructions). I'm thinking that the instructions on CP should be refactored into two halves, in two columns: is it (a)An article or (b)An image. That will probably help clarify things a little. -Splashtalk 12:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)`

Oh, I know these are the original instructions, I just figured while we were changing the page we might as well take a look at the instructions too. I think it's counter-intuitive that it says If X then go to 2, and then at the end of Step 2 (and 3 and 4) it says The task is now finished. I agree that columns or another organization would be more effective. Thanks for the response. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 15:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Google for "jackson system development". I don't think that was a joke article, though I was puzzled at first, as well. android79 12:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Splash. Question: I noticed that the history had been undeleted on that page after cesarb's note on VfU. I had wanted to revert it per the VfU discussion; would I have been wrong to do so? Incidentally, the author has been in touch with Arcturus. And say, what's to happen to The Great and Noble but Somewhat Tragically Mired Proposal on DR?—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 15:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#"Purpose of the page" section and the history of Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. I would appreicviate more people being involved in this matter. DES ^(talk) 16:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I usually place the {{test4}} warning label to those who "intentionally vandalize" an article, especially with unnecessary obscenities in its content. UniReb 22:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! From now on, I will do as what you have suggested. Thanks for the info. =-) UniReb 23:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote (on my talk page): Whilst I certainly support your interpretation of the purpose of VfU, the proposal at Udneletion policy seems very similar to that already under discussion at VfU, no? Even if it's different, the two are so closely dependent on one another that keeping it all in one place would seem better. Fragmented discussion is hard to turn to a consensus. -Splash 22:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am glad you agree with my general view of VfU. I responded on Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy. My proposal was only to change the policy wording, and IMO would have little or no actual effect except to remove a basis for misunderstanding and wikilawyering. The Deleteion Review proposal is substantive. If the DR proposal were moved to a new page, ratehr than Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion it could explicitly include the wording changes in undeletion policyu i am proposing, and perhaps other suppoirting policy changes as well. If that happens, i will gladly point further discussion of my proposal fromWikipedia talk:Undeletion policy to such a new page. DES ^(talk) 23:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: Ok, hmmmm. Now that I've had an enforced 20 minute cogitation period, I think I see that your wording on undel policy deals with the reasons that the possible new or existing scope of VfU might come into effect, so the two are somewhat decoupled. Not completely, mind. So perhaps we can let them run their own courses and they will be self-integrating. On a different note, I read a pretty clear consensus at VfU-talk (do you agree?) and would like to move forwards. Things seem a little mired; we haven't settled on a mechanics of the thing and we can't make the change until we have. What do you think would stir things up and move them forward? -Splashtalk 23:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes i agree. almost everyone but Tony supports. But have there been enough people commeting overall? You know that anyone who opposes will calim that there was not a wide enough consensus. I think we need to comb the discussion for suggestions worth incorporating and comup with a (hopefully final) text that includes these and post it, perhaps again boxed. I hope we can avoid a formal poll, but given Tony's strong opposition perhaps one is needed. i need to go off line for a while, so i don't have time to help create a draft of this just now. if you want me to look over a draft I will certianly log in within 24 hrs probably much less. DES ^(talk) 00:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I blame the incredible slowness of the servers lately for making me impatient. I'll fix it presently. Nandesuka 00:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I'll try my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. One thing I've been very impressed with about you is how you hit the ground running right after your RfA. I'm hoping to be able to emulate that. Thanks, Nandesuka 00:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you delete articles, please check Special:Whatlinkshere and delete or retarget any redirects. For articles that should never exist (ie, most articles deleted via afd), all the incoming redlinks should be removed as well. —Cryptic (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I understand what you're saying, I did what I did because I felt it was the right thing to do. In my opinion, the individual made an honest mistake. My userfying the article, welcoming and explaining to the individual what is going on and why, the user will not feel offended or unwelcome. We shoud bend over backwards not to bite the newbies, but you already understood that part.

Roodog2k (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really approve of any of your three proposals. I particualrly oppose any proposal that would treat keeps as much harder to overturn than deletes. I would most favor a system in which a majority was sufficient to change any outcome, provided that the majority agreed on a process-based rationale. This IMO is leaving the current practice changed but slightly clarified, and simply adding the compementary practice when a decision other than "delete" is to be reviewed.

If you really think that couldn't get support, then something like the "purgatory" proposal is what I would favor. How about the following:

In the deletion review discussion, users may opt to either overturn or endorse the previous deletion decision. Those opting to overturn should also specify whether the page should be relisted, kept, merged, redirected, or deleted. If a majority, but less than a strong consensus, favor overturing the deletion decision, then the article will be relisted (or initallly listed, if it was initally speedy-deleted) for discusion on the proper XfD page, with links to the DR discusion and any previous XfD discusiion. If there is a clear consensus (say 70% or more) then the decision may be overturned directly. However, the consensus may be to relist, in which case that will be done. If there is consensus to overturn a previous decision, but not on what the result will be, the item in question will be relisted as above. Anyone expressing an opnion should also provide reasoning, at least in the form of a shorthand expression. Opnions that rely primarily on the contnet of the item, rather than the process being reviewed, will be ignored. Howver, a claim that valid resons were simply ignored during the deletion discussion is about process. Exception: users stating that they were not aware of the deletion discussion may indicate that they had valid reasons which they would have expressed at that discussion. Such users should normally opt for Overturn and relist so that their reasons can be more fully evaluated in a proper deletion discussion. (obviously users who commented in the previosu deletion discussion cannot honestly claim to have been unaware of that discuussion.

What do you think of the above proposal on mechanics? DES ^(talk) 21:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to butt in here, Splash, but it seems DES's proposal is quite workable (at least the first part). Again, I believe that the consensus for outright reversal has to be quasi-unanimous, and I'm not sure about the exception. I believe that the only exception that should be placed in the proposal is a substantial change in content in the middle of a deletion discussion, and the rest should be left to the VFU users' discretion. Outside of that, it's good.

Kudos on the good work you've been doing with this, Splash. --Titoxd 19:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope something comes of it. Though I fear we will get mired in politics over the mechanics, and I'm going to resist that as much as I can. I've replied on the VfU talk page about quasi-unanimity. It won't work, unfortunately, because it allows small numbers of agenda-led users to hold everyone else to ransom. -Splash^talk 23:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just in case you didn't catch it on your watchlist, I left a note for you and Kbdank71 on his talk page here if you get a chance. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 00:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A break from the typical admin stuff; see my first attempt at the phase-shift keying receiver for QPSK :) --HappyCamper 00:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite satisfied with the article as it is. Heh, I've even given it to students to use and they love it! I like how that page has everything together, and I don't think adding more material to the article so that it becomes "watered down" would benefit it substantially. In my mind, it's great the way it is. Suffice to say, it is an excellent article - thanks to your initial editing. It would be nice to see it officially recognized as a Featured Article on Wikipedia, but I think it would require too much additional effort on our part. I hope the Power of the Wiki will magically take over and guide it towards that direction though.

Perhaps we should work on another topic, and then come back to it later. As it stands, I sort of feel that we might as well collaborate on writing a DigiComs textbook on WikiBooks if we add more explanations to it! I think we'd need to add quite a bit of dry stuff to it just to be able to reasonably split the current PSK page. --HappyCamper 02:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the new deletion guidelines for images? Check out Jimbo's talk page for details. Also, Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown copyright status. I've got all the links together on my user page if you want to take a look at that too. Just thought I'd bring it up since you seem to be so efficient with those admin buttons! :-) --HappyCamper 02:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, what you left on my talk page is exactly how I've been processing those images. Just go slowly at first...trust me, you'll occasionally run into the legitmate image that shouldn't be deleted yet. Perhaps 5% of the time I estimate. --HappyCamper 00:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as our anonymous friend is still removing the tag, and the AfD was over two days ago with all delete votes, any chance you could close it off and delete it, Mr. Admin? siafu 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! siafu 00:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you deserve an entry on a list for "most detailed AfD closes ever". Seriously, that was nicely done :) --TimPope 21:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the way it should be done, really. Splash is demonstrating every day how much he deserves all our confidence at the RfA. KIU bud.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 21:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. -Splash^talk 22:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are getting a doctorates in really smart stuff. I also see that you are connectively dealing with physics, and you want to figure out time space differentials. Could you tell me anything about string theory, I am doing a thesis.68.47.26.123 22:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC) I would rather hear information from a live person, I've allready checked out the page itself. Thanks.[reply]

Hello, there. My doctorate is in multiple-antenna wireless communications (ps, that's a rubbish article I plan to rewrite at some point) where we use the 'space–time' terminology very differently to physicists. My 'space' is my various antennas and my 'time' is the discrete time-slots that digital data are transmitted in. So I can't be much help with string theory at all; I've never studied it although I have read about it. You almost certainly know much more about it than I do. You will probably find someone who can help you at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, which is manned by 'live people' or by doing some careful searching in the search box on the left side of the screen. Good luck. -Splash^talk 23:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know wireless can be a bit confusing too. Last year, I did a thesis on specific radio waves interacting with solids. But thanks again.

You're welcome, and good luck! -Splash^talk 23:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was I too bold? brenneman^(t)(c) 00:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this needs to be settled post-haste. I'm currently reviewing all the "mechanics" discussions. Excellent work, by the way! brenneman^(t)(c) 01:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken DES's initial offering and re-crafted it in my own image. My thought process goes something like this:

1. We've already got a pretty robust AfD process. Wide audience, good mechanics, transparency. Hits the mark 98% of the time.
2. We've also got a pretty rough-and-ready back up process for that other 2%.
3. We clearly don't want DR to be exactly like AfD, because for that 2% it didn't work the first time!
4. This doesn't mean it can't have internal consistancy. It can look, sound, and smell very much like AfD. Take what works and use it, no need to start from scratch.

Also, I spent a good chunk of this afternoon with print-outs of the relevant discussions, looking over some of the more verbose objections. While mostly in the realm of "the sky will fall", there is one kernal of goodness: we should keep the aim in mind, to build a great encyclo... ahh, you know the quote. So I've left two explicit loopholes in my version: 1) It can be about content. Well, more to the point, discussions of content are not prohibited. and 2) It can be recursive. I'm sure it can be polished further, but I think it would be good to aim for less not more. Cheers,
brenneman^(t)(c) 13:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the talk-page move which was a "revert" from the AfD voters' standpoint while preserving the content easily for admins dealing with that upset user. I posted this at vandalism-in-progress, I'm not sure whether you're responding to that call or just cleaning up a mess. Either way, thank you. I'll post a note in the regular AfD section if you haven't done it by the time I get there. Barno 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

I'm confused about the transwikim of bitch-slap since the article is still present here in all its dubious glory.

In practice, everywhere except AFD, "transwiki" just refers to copying content between projects, not copying it there and then deleting it here. Bitch-slap, in addition to containing a fairly complete dictdef, also has (barely) encyclopedic content, so I didn't take further action. See Template talk:Move to Wiktionary#Move_vs._copy for more on this subject. —Cryptic (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must be getting more dense than usual. Which template did you mean? This {{copyvio|url=[insert URL here]}} ~~~~ or this {{subst:article-cv | PageName}} from [insert URL here]? I suspect you mean the second as I think I was using the first. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather 17:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok got it now. No problem. CambridgeBayWeather 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, noticed your change speedy to afd. You are, of course, correct - my speedy tab was inappropriate as it does not meet any of the criteria. My hestitation in sending it to afd was that afd can be harsh on articles, even nasty at times, and I had felt (perhaps wrongly) that it might be better just to disappear (since it will surely face deletion either way). Anyhow, perhaps we can both watch it and make sure it gets a gentle ride. --Doc (?) 23:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wiping my subpage so promptly! --High^(Hopes) 00:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Here to help. -Splash^talk 00:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have (unilatterly) taken away the 'assembly' idea, as per my reasons at that edit summary and per Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter. I have left the admin general, as some leadership is good. Now, all you have to do is be a member to establish consensus, the whole assembly idea is gone. Also, I have added an advisory committee, of four members, with limited power besides watching over the admin general and making sure he doesn't do anything stupid. Please look at the ammended charter, and I would love a comment. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off copying that message to members of Esperanza, but as you mentioned your disdain of that, I thought you'd want to see. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll give that a thorough read through a little later. About my bedtime now. -Splash^talk 01:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was easier than I thought, since the improvement was so clear-cut. I left a comment on the talk: page. -Splash^talk 02:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice instructions at the top of the Copyright problems page. Also, I've noticed you've been working on the backlog there. Keep up the good work! I hope you don't mind, but I have a few suggestions as far as working on that page. If you delete a copyvio that is listed on the page, please also remove the listing from WP:CP. That also applies if you determine it to not be a copyvio. Also, for articles where the article creator/poster claims that he/she is the copyright holder or has permission to add the content to Wikipedia, please move that listing to that section ("Poster claims to be the author or to have permission"). Thanks a lot, and again, keep up the good work! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the creepy pic. :) After I typed my reply to Mr. Brooks I went to his page, wondering if I could formally welcome him or something. Guess what. The guy's a veteran. You know, that's probably a saner way to have a relationship with WP—do the real stuff, writing articles.

Unpleasant business on that VfU, eh? Can you believe the amount of time that's wasted on the trivialest of things? I can't. Anyway, I was going to write a formal suggestion for the VFU Talk page on The Proposal That Is Somewhat Stalled But Is Too Good To Let Fail. Some of the points I've wanted to make are gradually being mentioned, so maybe I won't. One problem that's outstanding is this idea that higher % votes should result in qualitatively different outcomes. This rather misunderstands what DR is; not sound in principle and won't work in practice. We'll see how it goes.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 02:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You must forgive my laggard pace, Splash; been up to my ears. Will join discussion soon. Regards—encephalonεγκέφαλον 04:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, I would like to present you with this Cool as a cucumber award for staying cool in discussion of a recent incident in which you were involved. Some other editors would have responded angrily and unilaterally. You responed politely and rationally, and moved to seek community consensus. In short, you stayed cool as a cucumber. Also, apologies if I got your gender wrong; it's not clear from your user page. moink 14:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You got my gender right. -Splash^talk 15:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Why didn't I think of this!? 'Tis exactly what you deserve, Splashy. I was amused when you said on my page that "perhaps I was more robust than I might have been"; dude, if you were any more gentlemanly about it you'd have been reciting his charges for him. (In fact, that's the reason I butted in there at all. I wanted to make clear what the record actually showed, because it might have escaped the attention of anyone reading that thread who wasn't also familiar with the history—and your unusual restraint in these matters.)—encephalonεγκέφαλον 16:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. I must have been closing too many vfd's at once. Anyway, I don't think it would be a big deal to delete such an article, if this happens again. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a special section of CSD with additional reasons for speedying redirs, Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion#Redirects, and 'recent uncommon typos' are there as #4. Noel (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem, glad to help. No need to worry about redirects; though - just stick them on RfD and they'll get masticated. (I've been doing RfD for several years now, so I have it down to a fine art! :-)

PS: I love your manifesto on your user page (Cogito etc). Very well put, agree completely - although I think some of our more complete articles need to move to an "editorial board" status - at

a certain point, changes become dis-improvments (sic), I find. Noel (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered why the copyvio page looked a bit different than it used to! Thanks for the heads-up on that new template. - Lucky 6.9 17:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well leave it alone because I WILL RECREATE IT. I don't take "NO" for an answer from anybody. Cjmarsicano 05:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...let me ask you this:

You've seen the last template I posted. You've seen other templates that are larger and much more redundant that the last template I posted that are still in existence on Wikipedia. Therefore, I ask you, what can be done so that a template not dissimilar to the one I posted, AND necessary to the articles linked within it (as the last template I posted clearly was) will NOT GET SO BACKHANDEDLY DELETED YET AGAIN?

I will await your answer until 24 hours from now. If I do not hear from you, I will reserve my right to create a new version of the template without consultation. Cjmarsicano 17:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my recent over-zealousness with tagging articles as speedy deletes where they didn't accurately meet the criteria. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction - constructive criticism taken on board! CLW 18:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and I never woulda known if it weren't for meddling people who at some point in history advocate highly personalized categorization of personal info on (gasp) english wikipedia. Ish (fake science alert) 01:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can be. Particularly when I'm trying. But which particular piece of harshness are you referring to? -Splash^talk 01:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I had a disagreement with Splash too, but at least I was more ARTICULATE about it. Cjmarsicano 01:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, it's almost sad when you have to ask :) ∞Who?¿? 01:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Who for adminship here. Go remove the nowiki tags :) Redwolf24 (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Not sure what you meant by the question posed by you to me on my own talk page. Could you be a little more specific? (Allow for me, I haven't had my third cup of coffee yet. ;) ) Cjmarsicano 15:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.

I'm still a little p.o'd about the second template being shitcanned considering how hard I worked on it, but that's about it. (Grrrr!)

You explained things very well, so because of that things are cool with me.

Copyright re-revision will be forthcoming. I'm negotiating new terms with myself ;)

I don't know what inspired that other guy to post the "you'r harsh" message, but IMHO he's lame on several levels 'cause a) he didn't specify what his problem was, and b) he can't spell worth a fuck.

Much respect, Cjmarsicano 15:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping he'd read the vfd but it's probably unlikely. Dlyons493 15:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have changed the proposed title of the rename to Category:Jewish classical musicians with the agreement of User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters (who first proposed the rename) as this fits the people who I have placed in the category so far. The category will then be moved as a sub category of the existing categories Category:Jewish_musicians or Category:Jewish_music. I intend to make other categories for the other genres i.e. Jewish pop musicians, Jewish jazz musicians etc. I hope this is OK and doesn't affect your vote Arnie587 16:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since you reached agreement among yourselves, I've withdrawn my previous comment. -Splash^talk 03:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very careful about things that you say about interpretation of voting shorthands on AfD. Userfy is not and has never been a delete. The material is not destroyed, and the act can be done or undone by any editor. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the iPod page back. I changed the picture so it shows the latest iPod model first. Thanks, aido2002

Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up. --Doc (?) 18:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash - I'm curious why you ruled "no consensus" on the List of Sports Busts AfD. I counted:

• 8 Delete votes
• 1 Weak delete vote
• 1 Rename or delete vote
• 1 straight Keep vote
• 3 Keep and cleanup votes

Even if you give Grutness' "Rename or delete" vote to the keep side, that's a nine to five margin in favor of deleting. If you discard it, it's 9:4. (Needless to say, I voted Delete.) So I thought I'd ask what the reasoning was behind keeping the page. Thanks. | Keithlaw 22:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at User talk:Keithlaw in case anyone else comes here with the same question. If you're looking to answer my response, then do come back here, though. -Splash^talk 22:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, thanks for the reply. One thing I didn't realize was that anonymous votes were always discarded. I've seen suspected puppets disregarded in other AfD votes, but I figured that an anon vote in a non-contentious AfD would count. I'll slap one or more tags on the page - {{cleanup}} at the very least - but as to your suggestion of an {{npov}} tag, that cuts right at the heart of why I voted Delete: this sort of article is inherently NPOV. Whether or not a player is a bust or a flop is completely subjective. I just don't think the article can really be made factual ... but of course, that's a subjective statement too. Thanks for responding. I'm relatively new to anything at Wikipedia beyond correcting grammar and spelling, so I appreciate the info. | Keithlaw 00:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message :). I should mention that in reference to " that day" the blogosphere afd was listed today and deleted today. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ABC_Nursery_School. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I speedied were speedy deletion candidates either because of criterion #1 or #7. Just trying to save some time for sysops later on. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 23:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure not to delete any that had even a single keep vote. Neutrality^talk 00:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per Redwolf24's request, I've separated out the color articles at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you're the first. And its so pretty! --Redwolf24 (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooooooh. I think I need to work on more copyvio's :) ∞Who?¿? 05:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following through with tagging those pages. My internet connection went down when I needed it the most! --HappyCamper 17:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash,
I may have rubbed you wrong, but that (points up) comment seems a bit over the top. I'm saying this in the nicest way I can, because I certainly don't want you to be cranky, but, umm... why do you get to decide that? If you'd said "the nominations shouldn't be removed" that would have given a different impression indeed.
With respect,
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash,

• Again, trying to be aware that there is no "tone of voice" here - you seem a bit more forceful than usual? Is everything kosher?
• This VfU was as obvious as they come, which is an even better reason to not have had it go to the VfU page. N may not want to talk about it, but he wasn't given the right of refusal. He may have made a mistake, perhaps, but a public flooging doesn't help much.
• As to the other matter: If I were going to remove them from the page, wouldn't I have simply done that rather than trying to get consensus to do so? I agree with almost everything you've said, I was simply trying to use the process to end the process. And did you just pull the admin card on me? ^_^
  brenneman^(t)(c) 00:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Not being familiar with this closer, it seemed to me that he must have had a temporary brain cloud, and that a quick "Dude, WTF?" on his talk page could have avoided bringing the (always entertaining) school debates to VfU. Not the first and maybe not the last time I'll be wrong! So, move along, nothing to see here... brenneman^(t)(c) 01:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Splash!

Regarding Neutrality's recent deletions of school articles, I might mention that this is not the first time I've had a run-in with him regarding deletions. You might want to check out what happened after I closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews. (Check the history and talkpage of that article). See also the subsequent VFU debate, the deletion log, the article's talkpage and some of the entries on my July & August talkpage.

The incident is one which renewed some of my interest in the undeletion policy in general. At that time, I was surprised that an arbitrator admin would make decisions like that, especially since Neutrality appears to be a fine arbitrator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I added a category to this Cfd and commented. ∞Who?¿? 19:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you very much for your vote on my RFA. Greatly apperciated, I owe you one! Journalist | huh? 18 December 2024

Hey there. :-) You left a message for me about images with no "source" information. I do not exactly know what that means, but I tried to re-upload a version of one of them: Budwaltonarena.jpg and put down at the bottom the bottom on the upload page the "Public Domain (generic)" option. After I was done, however, the picture still displays the warning down at the bottom. I am not sure if that is what you meant to do, or if there is some other way to edit them. If there is, would you be able to tell me how to edit them, and I would be delighted to do so. Thank you in advance! (Cardsplayer4life 22:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the help on the images! I will make the appropriate edits. You are a very helpful wikipedia individual. Thanks again! :-) (Cardsplayer4life 23:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I believe we can't use them. We've been told that Crown Copyright is incompatible with the GFDL. (see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#UK_government_copyrights. Template_talk:CrownCopyright lists government departments which we've put into 2 categories (ignoring the HMSO belief that we can't use any of them). The highway code is in the second category - the relevant department is the Department for Transport copyright notice. Only allowed use is for "research, private study or for internal circulation". Other uses need a click through license - I think they would count as value-added which would mean £50 per illustration. Secretlondon 23:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I orphaned them when I listed them. No-one's commented on that article's talk page - the uploader hasn't been back since the 11th Sept. We have photos we could use - they were just stuck in a table and were a fairly random selection. Secretlondon 23:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]