User talk:TeaDrinker/Archive6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TeaDrinker. 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.

Hello, TeaDrinker! And thank you so much for the kind welcome-to-Wikipedia, after you (apparently) noticed my so very few edits so far. I think this will be a great experience, however, and I hope to help out a great deal more in future. By the way, is this the correct way to communicate with you -- via an "edit" to your talk-page? carminasteve 11/1/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carminasteve (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy again and of course welcome! A message on the bottom of someone's talk page is indeed the standard way to get a hold of them. Where the reply goes is not standard; some people will reply on their own page, others on the talk page of the sender. Myself I try to reply on my own page, but if it is likely that the other person won't see it (either because they don't usually watch pages, or if it has been more than a day or two), I will copy both messages onto their page. It is a somewhat confusing system. You can also sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically creates a link to your userpage along with the date and time. In any event, it is always great to see new users on the project. Thanks for the note, and let me know if you have any other questions! --TeaDrinker 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you've removed significant content from this article under the false assumption that this content was a copyright violation. Please consider restoring these contributions as they are Public Domain and this entails a fair amount of content including but not limited to the entire article introduction. This issue has been addressed for some time in the header of the discussion page as well as in the category: "Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica". As well as the template in the footer of the article. If you believe I am mistaken feel free to verify or explain your reasioning, as far as I can tell you were misled by the overly aggressive contributions and vandalism (page blanking) of another user. 99.229.239.0 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the removed section, and it does appear to come from the modern Encyclopedia Britannica (2007 ed., online here). The language is not found in the 1911 version here. It looks like one other section was removed as copyvio from the American Heritage Dictionary. I don't think, at least as I see it, it would be legal to restore the text. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 02:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear response, time and consideration. I understand you're reasoning and appreciate your efforts to clarify.99.229.239.0 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that adminship might aid in your editing? If you're fine without the tools, all is well. If you think they might help you out, I'd be more than happy to nominate you. Keegan^talk 05:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Coincidentally, Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) suggested the same via email a few days ago. I was going to put off going though a nomination until some "real life" work was sorted out in a few weeks (my thesis committee suddenly, as a meeting approaches, wants a bunch of documentation on my work... ugh.). But thanks for the offer and I'll be looking at that in a few weeks. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 21:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But don't take too long :) Keegan^talk 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Do take too long :-)! I'll add a co-nom as promised in the morning (just in bed now!) Ryan Postlethwaite 03:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! I have gone ahead and filled out the form. Thanks for all the kind words. --TeaDrinker 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! Weirdy Talk 09:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it acceptable to liberally employ that allegation of sockpuppetry, it is also expected that an RfA where it has been brought up will be immediately withdrawn by the candidate. Also, participants in the discussion should prophylactically change to oppose. Better safe than sorry...

Kidding aside, you guessed it: It's just a joke. On Gurch's behalf, I'd like to apologise for the mild pointy disruption at your RfA. Just ignore it, the closing 'crat will do the same (and either chuckle a bit or frown a bit). Gurch probably made that joke specifically on your RfA precisely because there is no reason whatsoever to assume that you are using sockpuppets. — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No worries, I was just a bit confused. Thanks for all the work. --TeaDrinker 20:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clues on the help desk re above. Where can I find a list of codes for different colours? (I see some just have say colour 'green' in the signature text string rather than code?) Interested in trying bolder black, darker green and burgandy. Also want to superscript (talk) Hope this not inconveinient Jagra 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm happy to help. A list of colors is available from any number of sources (just google "html color" or "rgb color"), here or here are some examples. To use a superscript, just enclose what you want in  tags (likewise <sub> for substript). For example,

[[User:Jagra|<font color="#8b008b">Jagra</font>]] ^{<font color="firebrick">(</font>[[User_talk:Jagra|<font color="firebrick">talk</font>]]<font color="firebrick">)</font>}

Appears as Jagra ^(talk). Colors can be described using either their name or the hexidecimal code corresponding to the red, green, and blue levels in the color. I generally have to look up both, so I tend to use rgb code which is generally shorter. You can also play with the size using the size parameter or the font using the face parameter (edit this section to see how this was done). Hope this helps, and by all means, let me know if there is anything else I can do. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 01:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Jagra 02:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly message and the helpful articles. You are a great person. Thankyou again for the welcome. :) -Thanno1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanno1995 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're here. I looks like you're doing great work on the 3803-3810 article. You might be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains group. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line. Thanks and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 08:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

-Okay thanks again if you get this. :) that wikiproject trains group is really interesting. Thanks again. :D I know that the 3820 article and the 3803-10 article still need a lot of work but i'm going to keep trying.

-11 november 07 -thanno1995

The article I wrote is not original research. The reference for the article is on the bottom of the page. It is a notable, published article from a legitimate journal in the field. Posting this summary was an assignment for class; please do not delete it. Once again, this is not my research. This is real, published research in the linguistic field.

Ashkap813 04:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think perhaps I may have given you the wrong impression of what gets into Wikipedia. As a traditional encyclopedia, it does not generally summarize specific papers or academic works, unless the work is notable itself for some reason (although such research may be referenced in an article). I understand better the article itself, and I did go ahead and look up the article. You're correct, it is not a clear-cut case of original research. However I am not convinced that the work is really suited for Wikipedia (per both the intent of original research and notability requirements). With your clarification, however, it does seem like getting more input from other editors would be a good idea. What I can do is move it from a proposed deletion to and article for deletion, which allows (and encourages) discussion and debate about including the article in the encyclopedia. --TeaDrinker 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

hi Teadrinker, its me, Thanno. I lost my password, next time I log off, I won't be able to log in :[. If you are able to access my password, please send it to me on garion.thain@optusnet.com.au Sorry for being so silly. I'm was sure about my password, but when I tried to log on at a friends house, I couldn't. (UTC)Thanno1995 05:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, I can't access your password, but I can help you set a new one.

1. Be sure that your account has an email address (to set your email address, go to "my preferences" at the top of the screen and enter your email in the appropriate field--be sure to save the changes).
2. When you log out, click the "login" screen link, again at the top of your screen.
3. You should see a button which says "email new password"
4. Click it, and check your email. It should arrive very quickly. You will be required to enter a new password when you log in again.
5. Login using your temporary password from the email, and you will be prompted to enter a new password.

If you have any questions, let me know before you log out. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 05:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it!. Thank you, Rjd0060 07:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help! --TeaDrinker 07:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Phipson ! That was super fast ! Thanks ... Shyamal 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I spotted it on recent changes. It looks like you're doing some great work! Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 07:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed your line of interest. May I interest you in thinking of ways to make these two articles more readable and accessible - Unified neutral theory of biodiversity and Metapopulation. Cheers ! Shyamal 08:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a gander at them, but Biodiversity/Biogeography is a bit outside my technical field (I most often to modeling for natural resource management). Thanks for the suggestions, however. --TeaDrinker 08:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your message regarding the arctic shark. it may have other names just i was not able to find them. also, i used the skark tempplate just waiting for shark experts (i am not one ) to classify it properly.

The Arctic Shark is known to survive in the cold waters of the arctic ocean, it totally amazes me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgarypower (talk • contribs) 07:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. A good reference on fish in general is FishBase, which lists neither common names you included. Artic shark can be used to describe any shark which lives in the arctic, however it is not a common name for any of them, to the best of my knowledge. The information about the size you added [1] is almost certainly incorrect, as no shark is that long (compare to the largest prehistoric shark, Megalodon, which grew to about 16 meters by some estimates). I think the article is best deleted, but we will see what other people think at the articles for deletion discussion. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 08:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

its known as the northern canadian shark we learned about it in school years back. i didnt add any legth, that asshole mitx would put in things as i was just putting hte article together

then within seconds you put the article for delettion because i used another shark template, didnt even give me a second to remove information from the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgarypower (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The history of the article indicates this was the last edit before Mitx (talk · contribs) made any edits. If you learned about the shark in school I'm afraid you were misinformed. There is no shark commonly called the northern Canadian shark or arctic shark. The latter could be used to refer to any shark inhabiting the arctic (of which there are many), including the Greenland shark, but the term is not common. If it did refer to a specific shark, the article should be made to be a redirect, however I don't see that to be the case. I still think deletion is the best option. --TeaDrinker 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was mistaking it for that other disease, as they seem to be similar. Sorry to intrude, but thanks for the heads up! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I was thinking that this may be a common issue. We should think about ways to improve the article to make this more clear. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 06:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi TeaDrinker. I did some work on Eared Seal. It would be great if you looked it over. In doing research, I discovered that the taxonomy is totally outdated (see the text, reference and discussion on the page). This is something you should perhaps be aware of, since you also contribute to Pinniped articles. I'm not sure how deep that goes - I do know I don't have the time to deal with it any time too soon. But at some point it ought to be addressed. Perhaps you can recommend a way to engage other people? Doesn't it seem like a Wikipedia:WikiProject Pinniped is called for? (the Cetacean seems like an exemplary group). If I didn't know enough about you to know that you should be paying as much more attention to your "Real Work" as I should be, I would recommend that you spearhead such a thing.

Also, I have a few technical questions. How does one make a redirect (e.g. Otariid should definitely redirect to Eared Seal, Hooker's Sea Lion should redirect to New Zealand Sea Lion)? Also, is there a way to make links less sensitive to capitalization and plurals? Thus Australian sea lion and Australian sea lions won't work; only Australian Sea Lion does. (While I will not make a big fuss about other people going through and capitalizing species, I refus to voluntarily Indulge in The Obscenity of Arbitrary In-line Capitalization of Species Names myself). Bestest, - Eliezg 01:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work! I'll take a closer look at the taxonomy and read the Wynen paper (which I probably should do anyway for my research). Certainly a pinniped project (under the mammal wikiproject) would be neat. I will look into it, but do feel free to work on starting it if you are so inclined.

Redirects are easy to create; simply put #REDIRECT [[name of page with content]] on any page you want to redirect from. Full details are at Wikipedia:Redirect.

Caps are something which grate on my eyes too; they are consistent with the Manual of Style, but the tree of life project indicates common name capitalization is not uniform. The relevant wikiproject, Wikiproject mammals gives little guidance. I tend to avoid getting into changing it because it is minor, but it is something that perhaps warrants further discussion.

Thanks again for all the work! --TeaDrinker 01:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I have so much real work to do, I went ahead and updated the taxonomy on Eared Seal myself. While doing so, I did come across the following enigmatic object: <!-- Syst.Biodivers.1:339 --> underneath the species listing. What is it? Also, I somehow stumbled across a page on "Transclusion", which implied that there are some sorts of secret underground connections between articles which I didn't understand. Can you enlighten me, oh newly-administrative one? Thanks, Eliezg 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ps - congratulations! i promise i won't tell your thesis adviser.

The <!-- is a hidden note. I believe it is a journal ref, to Systematics and Biodiversity, vol 1 page 339, which is Fur seals and sea lions (Otariidae): identification of species and taxonomic review. Why it is in a hidden note? I have no idea. We should probably make it a reference (or remove it entirely).

Transclusion is a reference which calls the content (or specified contents) of another article. It is done by enclosing the page being called in braces: {{:page name}} calls the page page name and displays it instead of the original data. It is often used for templates, in fact if you remove the colon, the page called is not page name, but Template:page name. The taxobox is a (complicated) template which is transcluded on many animal articles, since including all the formatting and such would be unwieldy. For more details, see Wikipedia:Transclusion.

As for my advisor, he is largely unaware of the project. Through Ian regaling the department at soup with stories of Wikipedia however, everyone else now knows of your and my hobby. --TeaDrinker 04:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You are now an admin! Secretlondon 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!! Best of luck, you know where I am if you need any help. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tea break over, get to work! Raymond Arritt 01:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*grin* Thanks! I'll take a look at the new admin school post haste. And then get on with doing something useful. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 01:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there TeaDrinker, Congratulations on becoming an administrator. Obviously, it is unlikely that you will know how to use the tools at first and mistakes are bound to happen, so if you would like to practice using them, with step by step guides to follow, in an environement that you can do no harm in, then why not pop down to the new admin school where we have pages on blocking, deleting and restoring pages, protecting and unprotecting pages and viewing deleted pages. Once again, congratulations and best of luck with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done, well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to each of you! It is good to know there is support around. --TeaDrinker 06:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, that was you I voted for?! Congratulations! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, you look like you will do a good job. I voted for you even though I despise tea, so that says a lot ;-) haha jkjk. But seriously congrats and good luck!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats TeaDrinker! Good luck, feel free to drop me a line if you ever need help or a second opinion or something, okay? :) GlassCobra 05:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, I appreciate any help or advice you can provide. Gonzo, no tea... ever? How do you get by? Well, thanks and best wishes regardless. --TeaDrinker 06:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your impeccably successful RfA. I see that the mop and bucket have already been delivered. Use them wisely! :-) Festive regards, Húsönd 06:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, let me know if I err, big or small. --TeaDrinker 06:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I guess that wasn't completely true, I have had green tea, does that count? I just cannot drink hot tea, like I said coffee is my hot drink of choice. But don't worry, I wont hold anything against cuz your a tea drinker, ;-) haha good luck again.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

...glad I could help steer the boat. I've had my bit for awhile, let me know if you ever have questions. Keegan^talk 06:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A nomination I could not refuse. Thanks! --TeaDrinker 06:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you've got down to the slog at CAT:CSD. Congrats on your status and thanks for helping on the never ending pile of crap!! Pedro :  Chat  11:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help, thanks for the note! --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! -- Acalamari 18:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I'm glad to see you succeeded! You might want to try out your new tools at the useful admin school, something which I'm still doing yet! Best wishes, Lradrama 18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Good luck as an admin! - Weirdy Talk 08:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to each of you for your support. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and best of luck! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian'sBooties (talk • contribs)

Thank you for blocking a vandal after this [2]. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, TeaDrinker ... You declined my WP:CSD of Aliya-Jasmine Sovani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), so I'd like your opinion about Jun Mapili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) before proceeding to the 3rd Step of my Warn-bio protocol ... a very persistent WP:SPA has been trying to place WP:LINKSPAM in this piece of WP:VSCA in spite of the efforts of several WP:GNOMEs to put lipstick on this pig ... Happy Editing! —72.75.79.128 (talk · contribs) 20:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the page for lack of notability. I also left a note on the bottom of the creator's page. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thnx ... BTW, do you have any comments on my deletion warnings protocol? —72.75.79.128 (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like some good work! I agree Wikipedia needs to be a bit friendlier to the people who are trying to create content. I'll leave some specific comments on the talk page. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi TeaDrinker, thanks for removing my name from AIV! I think Naohiro was confusing me with another editor (whose edit summaries and page moves indicated he/she was a possible sockpuppet of Grawp) who moved Anarchism and Football disruptively. Thanks for assuming good faith on my honest mistake :). Thanks a lot! Sincerely, GlobeGores (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It looks like you're doing great work. Keep it up! --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks around for TeaDrinker's RfA Argh! It passed only 16 days ago! I would have most certainly !voted support there...GlobeGores (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the support. --TeaDrinker (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I'll try not to let other users annoy me. ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing can certainly be frustrating. Try to not let it get to you. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

for blocking vandals from attacking my Admin page at User:Bearian. I am 2,000 miles away visiting my dying mother, and can't get to a secure netowrk to fix it myself. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted an AIV post about Usesomelogic (talk · contribs) earlier today and you made a comment on their talk page that they should take it to Talk:Dino Rossi instead of making the edits.[3] Well, they just came to the article and made the same edit and did not include an explanation for their change.[4] I've been treating it like vandalism, but since you're saying its a NPOV issue, I'm not going to revert the change (I'd go past 3rr), but figured I'd let you know they're back doing the same thing despite your comment. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I don't mean to be critical, you're doing everything correctly. I was hoping to avoid blocking someone who, perhaps, simply did not know about talk pages or WP:NPOV. Editors making controversial changes without discussion can be frustrating. I agree the criticism should be in there, or at least I would like to hear the argument for the removal. I have reverted the change and given a last npov warning (there's actually a warning for cases like this {{uw-npov4}}, which is like {{uw-vand4}}). Hopefully we can get the user to discuss the changes on the talk page. Thanks and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were being critical, I was just changing tack since your decision on AIV was that it was an NPOV issue. Thanks for the revert and warning. Hopefully the talk page will get a message from the user in the near future. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how to use this thing, or how to communicate, but will try my best here.....what I have done is simply taken out a paragraph on Dino Rossi that seems to be politically motivated. With an election year coming up, talking about how a candidate has been "criticized", when the people who are criticizing him are from the party he is running against, is not staying in the NPOV guidelines. If you look at the person who he is going against there is nothing there about what people are critisizing her for. I can understand taking out someof my political rants, but in this case I'm just trying to keep it in line with what your guilines state NPOV. Please let me know if this works. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usesomelogic (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I will go ahead and copy this over to the Talk page for Dino Rossi, Talk:Dino Rossi (article talk pages are for discussions about an article). It can be a bit confusing at first, but feel free to post there. You can indent discussion by using colons, and sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, and let me know if you have any other questions. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

TeaDrinker, just as an FYI, I left some instructions and the welcome template on Usesomelogic's talk page so they have some links to Wikipedia help files.[5] It also looks like the user has figured out how to post on the article's talk page.[6] So, thanks for your help. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks. I just started a discussion on the talk page, and will keep an eye on it for a few days. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe he keeps creating pointless and "spammy" articles on communism, and I believe I reported his user accidentaly, because I had been copying and pasting a lot, so I think I wanted X-tiinniie-biitch. I posted the template a while ago and she has not replied.

By the way, congrats on your RFA, I tried to vote for you, because you always beat me to the reverts (!), but my computer crashed.

Cf38 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and great work. I went ahead and blocked X-tiinniie-biitch per the username issue. I'll go ahead and remove the category from John's talk page. I'm afraid the two articles you tagged for speedy deletion did not meet the criteria for patent nonsense, and seemed to be about fairly notable topics. It is probably better to improve them for the time being. In any event, thanks for the clarification and hard work--keep it up! --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello TeaDrinker, you deleted this article (which I marked with {{db-person}} ) although the user who created it had put {{hangon}} on it and was trying to make a case on the talk page. Is it possible to undelete it until a consensus is reached that the article is unencyclopedic or not? Tell me if I am mistaken. Thanks, GlobeGores (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to undelete it. I did read the two messages on the talk page before deleting but did not see a claim of notability in the article (the closest being the cover of the magazine, did not substantively meet the criteria). But if you would like to take up the issue, I'd be happy to help (and it does make deletions go a bit easier on those who are, after all, creating Wikipedia's content). --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the claim of notability has been exhausted and found to have not much support. I am going to tag the talk page with a deletion message now and follow up on Joelav128's talkpage. GlobeGores (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello TeaDrinker, sorry to keep pestering you, but could you take a look at this article and see if it satisfies the speedy deletion criteria? I originally thought it did, but references have been added... The relevant policy page seems ambiguous on the subject. Could you help? (You're the only admin I know.) GlobeGores (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. A few things to note: the article has the incorrect name (not only a spelling error, but is not really in line with the manual of style). Generally I would prod rather than speedy delete (and move to WP:AFD if the prod was removed, but since the article is taken directly from this website, I went ahead with a speedy deletion. I marked it as a copyright violation, although in retrospect, as a US Federal Government website, the material was very likely in the public domain. It is tough to determine notability, especially outside of our fields of expertise, so if you're not sure, I would tend toward articles for deletion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm somewhat tardy (I've been away a few days), but congratulations on your new janitorial supplies! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again ... an anon WP:SPA has removed without comment the WP:PROD and other tags that I had placed on Aliya-Jasmine Sovani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... would you endorse taking it to WP:AfD, or at least warn them about removing tags placed in good faith by other editors? Happy Editing! —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~Eliz81^(C) 02:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw you nominated STIDS for prod about the same time as I AFD'd it. I've removed your prod template in favor of the AFD, and of course, you're more than welcome to chime in on the discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds wise, and thanks for the note! I will take a look at the discussion. Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what google search you did, but, searching for "Socialist Community of Modern Times" I returned not a single site that wasn't a redirect of Wikipedia.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I get google books which has a reference to another work. As I look over the results again, however, I am less impressed than I was initially; there is a good deal of repetition. I'll see what I can drum up for notability. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the answers.com page, it would appear that the community has an entry in the "Occultism and Parapsychology encyclopedia," which contains several more references. On counterpoint, I could find nothing in the NY Times archive or the Wall St. Journal. I tend to think this should go through AfD if it is to be deleted. But my instinct is toward keeping it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

I disagree that a 1 hour block is an appropriate measure against this user's vandalism. Based on the articles being vandalized, the time it occurs and the content of the non-constructive edits I believe that the following are sock puppets of the above IP:

• Rohand12345 (talk · contribs)
• Jack studley (talk · contribs)
• Drmjam (talk · contribs)
• Mythbusters 1 (talk · contribs)

Combined, 28 non-constructive edits have been made by those usernames today as well as 7 yesterday with 0 constructive edits.

I believe that this IP deserves a lengthier block if we don't want him vandalizing within about an hour from now.

Thanks for listening. SWik78 (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have gone ahead and lengthened the block to 72 hours. Since the IP is shared, I am hesitant to go too long--it would do no good since the user will switch IPs and the block will only impact someone else (blocks are always intended as a protective, not punitive measure). I didn't see evidence of useful contributions from the IP, so hopefully any impact will be minimal. Thanks again, and let me know if you have any other concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the users you listed, I think you're correct that they are all vandalism-only accounts. I have blocked all of them as such. Thanks and keep up the great work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

I tried reverting the last 3 edits by 67.100.110.51 (talk · contribs) on the article but for some reason it wouldn't let me do it. Could you please revert the page to the last edit by KnowledgeOfSelf (talk · contribs)?

Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and keeping an eye on the page! I find the only difference between the most recent version and Knowledge of Self's is the {{sprotect}} template I added (see diff). Are we talking about the same version? Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all good. I was mistaken. Sorry. SWik78 (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

He actually claims to be Peikoff in his thrice deleted RFA. Dlohcierekim 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If he is who he says, he is in for a disappointment; I don't think such a claim will carry much weight in an RfA. --TeaDrinker 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

His redirect of Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies to Leonard Peikoff did not seem rationale to me. :) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're probably right. --TeaDrinker