The content of this page is an archive of my talk page. Please do not change the substance of its contents (typos are fine) or reply here.
I'm well aware that this archive exceeds the standards of Wikipedia:Article size. However like Durin I feel the multiple archive structure to keep talk page archives small is not scalable, and induces significant effort on the part of users who are attempting to scan the archive for particular content (as well as on myself in maintaining it). Thus, I've merged all of my archives into one giant archive, and given it section headers by month
Dear Nae'blis,
Greetings from India, nice to see you another wikipedian interested in Criminology. I hope you develop this discussion/talk page.
--Cyril Thomas18:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cyril, nice to meet you too. I haven't done much work in the Criminology cat yet, but if you come across anything I can help with, feel free to drop a line. Nae'blis20:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your edits on the mafia (game) and visited your userpage to see if you were one of the people I encouraged to go here as part of a game if mafia with a Wikipedia theme. When I came to your userpage, I noticed you have an interest in Criminology. Is there any chance you can fill in the ugly red link I've got on Criminal profiling on the forensics page? - 131.211.210.1211:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you do set up a wikiproject, let me know...I'm definitely interested in keeping an eye on it and making some edits here and there, although I don't know how much significant new content I would provide. Christopher Parham(talk)20:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding to and revising my Mashadar stub. It's my first Edit and I am not very good at it, and I hadn't even finished the 9th book when I did it, but I thought it would be a good idea to do it because it hadn't been done yet. Thanks for revising it :). --Alex11:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No prob Alex, glad I could help. I'm amazed to see what other people can do with the stubs I throw up there, so it's all good... by the way, would you be interested in writing more WoT stuff somewhere down the line? A couple of us are thinking of starting a Wiki just got that series...(see Gherald's comment above) nae'blis(talk)18:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I checked out the wikicity Gherald posted and I signed up on the mailing list. I'll be sure to add what I can there, although I'm not extremely good at it. Alex21:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nae'blis. Discussion on this award at WP:BAP has been at a standstill for almost two months. Since you were previously involved in the decision-making, please consider reviving the discussion. If no attempts are made within a week, it will be archived. Thanks, Sango123(talk)15:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is correct behavior. The only thing the bot looks for is the {{nosource}} tag. And yes, the image is indeed unsourced: "public domain" is a copyright status, not a source. A source is needed so that we can verify that the image is in the public domain, and it's not a case of someone ripping off a pornography site and then claiming "it's on the internet so it must be public domain". --Carnildo07:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Nae'blis! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. While you voted oppose, I still hope you'll be content with the way I use my newly granted WikiPowers. If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion(?)07:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering all of the verb-tense juggling you've been doing lately, I figured you were about to will have been re-becoming an expert... or whatever. Cheers! -- nae'blis(talk)21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. I'm not sure why I had the idea that <noinclude/> somehow disrupted subst: usage; maybe I saw one of those templates saying "This template isn't suitable for use with subst: and made a wrong assumption. DemiT/C00:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You tell those people. Eat their heads.
Also, hi! I have just discovered that either I have opened an account here before, or that someone else has my user name of record here, so am currently searching for a new name.
-o-
I'm not sure which name you were after – User:Orbiting was taken? I don't see that anyone ever used it, but I'm not sure how to check more completely... can talk about it more tonight, am off to meeting hell now. -- nae'blis(talk)17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orbiting was, in fact, gone. I may have regged it in the past, and simply have no password, tried all my usual ones, but no love. It's all well and good now, new name acquired. :) --Honeygnome19:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. I admit I was a bit put off. He needs to be careful not to open fire on anyone and be more civil or else inniocents are hit in the crossfire, like you said. Just my OP. Thanks again, I appreciate it.Gator(talk)21:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I have removed the tag, but first made another little edit: I have created a "Reference" section and copied the book there. In general, it does not make much of a difference, but the end of the article is the first place in which people would look when scanning the article for references. - Liberatore(T) 21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This phrase is appropriate in the article about Malcolm X himself, but it isn't appropriate for a userbox because, as a Malcolm X quote, it implies a threat of violence. The version I chose says that the person using the userbox admires Malcolm X and contains the link to his article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk14:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, apart from you not respecting the TfD-procedure, it is also your misinterpretation that it implies 'violence'. Stop changing the template! -- ActiveSelective15:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20
You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.
Well, judging by his nasty follow up, it doesn't look like they were. He's now saying I am the one with the nasty attitude....you gotta be joking! I didn't deserve to be yelled at by him for doing nothing wrong. He needed and still needs to AGF and knock it off! That's the last time I try to help clear things up. "Be bold" my butt. What a nut. i could care less abotut he category issue, Iw as just tryong to help out and he turned on me. I expect an apology from him.Gator(talk)15:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote (as "neutral" in my RfA): There seems to be an awful lot of counter-campaigning being done in the Oppose section by friends (?) of the nominee.
Actually, this is nothing! See, for example this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite. I confess that I'm one of many who commented there, but not as a "friend" of Ramallite: I've never communicated with him or even worked on the same page (other than a polite thank you from him after the RfA was over). I guess some people get annoyed on RfA's where "oppose" votes are cast out of really old grudges, or purely based on (perceived, not necessarily accurate) external political opinions. That was overwhelmingly the case for Ramallite; and is also the case to a much lesser extent on my RfA. My "friends" at my RfA are mostly people I've never particularly communicated with, but who more carefully checked some of the oppose diffs and the like... or at least that's my impression. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters20:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, most of it seemed to be well-intentioned and I certainly wasn't accusing anyone of collusion, I was just boggling over the sheer amount of it. I'm torn on the whole subject of how RFA works, actually. -- nae'blis(talk)20:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take it or leave it, but an editor whom I feel has been a POV-monger (and editing only a single-topic where I was trying to keep things NPOV) just stumbled on my RfA, and has now added rambling arguments against a bunch of the support voters. I can hardly argue with your neutral vote; but I think you'll sympathize with my distaste for editors who use every WP administrative mechanism (not limited to RfAs) as a place to argue their political opinions. While so far not even remotely approaching the foolishness of turning Ramallite's RfA into a plebiscite on the Israel/Palestine conflict (on the grounds that Ramallite is Palestinian; it's ancient history, but much of that was refactored into the talk page for the RfA), I do feel like my RfA is drawing out of the woodwork an analogous political faction of editors on "controversial" articles where I have tried to keep things NPOV. All the best wishes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, please stop. Take a break, go outside, something. Your constant reversion/moving of comments on this subject is having a ripple effect far beyond the harm of any CfD discussion ("not a vote"). You've spent five years helping build this project, yes, but when you do things by fiat you not only do not necessarily have the community's backing, but you can actively turn it against you.
I'm sure you've got legal threats, nasty emails and screaming phone calls running you down about "what Wikipedia says about Joe Blow". What would have been the harm of proposing this idea, exploring metadata options, and then going forward? You may have the authority to do this (I'm too new to know for sure), but it's emphasizing the heirarchical nature of the project to a degree that many may find intolerable. And you'll NEVER get the chance to convince them otherwise, if they leave because of your edit. You're not just "another editor" in this case, no other editor has the authority to unilaterally close a CfD. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've been rather taken in by some trolling. There is absolutely nothing controversial about moving comments, and any respected user can close any CfD discussion at any time. The "community" I answer to is the community of 'all' good users who are trying to build an encyclopedia, you see, and I can very well say that those users are in strong agreement that rushing a category that was just started into CfD without discussion or comment is something that can and should be stopped in its tracks in favor of moving the entire discussion to somewhere where it can proceed productively. It is a huge mistake to confuse AfD/CfD regulars (who do wonderful work of course) with the broader interests of the entire community.
I think that, absolutely, the meta-question of how to do things around here is much more important than the specific questions about these categories. And what must be said is that genuine respect for thoughtful discussion is absolutely more important than attempts to enforce one's will through voting or any other mechanism. This is not a mobocracy, it is not a democracy. It is an encyclopedia project. --Jimbo Wales23:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel I've been 'taken in' by trolling. I'm relatively new to this site (as an editor) and trying to learn the culture and rules. I thought I understood Wikipedia:Consensus, but your talk about "trusted users", an "aristocracy of good editors", and "norms and traditions". These are all good press but terrible policies, in the sense that they allow and can even condone abuse of power, conservative handling of systemic problems, and heirarchical anarchy where "consensus" means that some group of users banded together to back each other up until the other side quits.
I doubt you're still watching this page, but you've deeply wounded my view of how this site and I acn interact in the future. Respectfully... -- nae'blis(talk)00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been posting admin graphs for quite some time now. I did do one recently for Chairboy's RfA, but only did so after I suggested it to him. At the time that I was doing them, I came under attack from a minority but vocal group of people who insisted I was damaging RfA by posting them. Reality was different. I did the graphs for RfA candidates with >500 and <2000 edits. In that grouping, my graphs appeared to have a close to 10% improvement on the chances of the candidates. Improving their chances was my goal. Nevertheless, the vocal minority made it rather unpleasant for me to continue making the graphs, so I have stopped. I still have the spreadsheet that contains the information, and I routinely use it myself for analysis of candidates. It's gone through a lot of improvements since I created User:Durin/Admin nominee charts. --Durin18:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a redirection doesn't destroy the history, so technically it doesn't require you to go to AfD first (precisely because they can be easily reverted if someone has a problem with it). There were four "lists" branching off the Blender (magazine) article, all simply recreations of Blender's content with some additional original research added on. When the Blender article itself is still a minor stub, I couldn't see having four other targets for vandalism that cannot, by definition, ever be expanded. I included links to the Blender website versions of those lists when I replaced the page links, but two of them I couldn't find (their search engine is pretty awful). That's why I was changing those 'articles' into redirects... hope that helps. -- nae'blis(talk)17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contacting me. In fact, I play a lot of mafia and I think I can give some valuable input. I would therefore ask you to postpone any mergers until 14:00 UTC this Sunday, so I have some time to construct my reponse. - Mgm|(talk)18:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you recently commented on bible-verse articles, and may therefore be interested in commenting about a proposed policy covering roughly 50 specific verses:
The part about the first choice dorms I believe is notable because it helps students maintain the party image, not create it. And the part about the 2006-2007 school year does not have a source (like much of the Saugeen Stripper section [Drudge Report, Inside Edition]) because it is a rumour. I wish I had proof but I did get this information from a current staff member, and I think it is interesting and relevant especially if it holds true. Please revert my contribution back. The Vince-alator07:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for waiting. I've looked it over, and I think that if you include "Werewolf" or "Are You a Werewolf" as possible titles for the game mafia you can merge it into it leaving a redirect at above names. All you need to include in the mafia article is how it can be played using werewolves instead of mafia and what the roles are called in such games. - Mgm|(talk)08:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message and the barnstar! The userboxes thing seems to be (very?) gradually cooling down; hopefully given time and thought some kind of serenity can be reached. -Splashtalk23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to figure out how to say I agreed with you about moving back to the relevant talk page, without polluting your talk page more... -- nae'blis(talk)18:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing my statement to say what I really meant! Those troublesome little parts of speach such as "not" can really make a difference, can't they! Johntex\talk18:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry? I will not make a point of being extra polite to rude editors. People who bitch about "extremely skimpy and inadequate" descriptions, calling people "dude", instead of making constructive additions/suggestions will have to live with getting a reply in their own tone. Presenting external links for the purpose of illustration in a discussion is certainly good enough. dab(ᛏ)21:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring Aaron to the new MediaWiki tag <ref> rather than the templated version {{ref}}. To do it the template way, you mark the point in the text where you plan to use the reference with
{{ref|refname}}
and then, the references section you use:
*{{note|refname}} Text of reference.
(you can use #'s if you prefer, of course). The disadvantage to that is that you have to manually re-order the references if the citation order in the articles is changed, or added to in the middle or something. So a more flexible way to take advantage of Cite, a new thingumy that only appeared in December. For this, you use:
...yadda yadda<ref>Text of reference</ref>
and then, in the reference section, you just have to type
<references />
and MediaWiki will automatically produce the full list of refs at that point and work out the numbering both within the text and the references section for you. If you want to use one ref multiple times, you just have to give that ref an id that you can then refer to:
<ref id="myname">Text of ref</ref> the first time you use it, then
Mediawiki will take care of adding extra links to the references section to handle it. The equivalent for the templated version is rather arduous; see WP:FN. NOTE that done this way, Mediawiki will always number the references, rather than use bullets, so you might find it inconvenient in Saugeen-Maitland Hall where not all the references appear to be used in the article. -Splashtalk23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah you did catch me wrong, actually. I'm thinking about your first comment, if there was another later I didn't catch it, can't keep up with all that! But yeah I did think it was a little snarky, but no big deal, I'm not mad or anything. Sheesh what a mess!!! I was a little frosted (not at you in particular) for about an hour, but now I gotta laugh... sheesh. Herostratus05:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I am not sure if you recall crossing paths with me before, however concerning this comment on my talkpage, it seems people have looked back and are percieving it as an act of bad faith or the like. I wanted to say I apologize in case it rubbed you too much the wrong way; I had no idea that creative venue was so disruptive to the community, and I was only attempting to find something that suited me best. Please accept my apologies. -ZeroTalk04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the fox hunting template is divisive, so is the George Bush one and so many other templates on Wikipedia. I don't understand why a particular one has to be singles out. Btw, same for the other templates going through deletion, though I know you didn't put them all up for deletion. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to be honest, I had no idea about this particular edit. Whether or not it was genuine or someone having a joke is something I don't know. This is the problem when one uses a computer which one shares with others. That subject is one that as yet I don't know anything about BUT it does look interesting. I'll read about it and get into it but I assure you that I am not unable to contribute anything for now, even though I take a big interest in social science. Thank you for clearing this up; I'll try to make sure no more nonsense comes from this station. Celt 18 February 2006
Hi. If you recall, you voted a opposition in regards to my rfa, and you cited that such things as "hotheadedness", "furious and quick-tempered" [2] and the like. Could you please depict where I conveyed this imflammatory behavior..? I see where your concerns stemmed from, but upon analysis of your concensus I am honestly confused.-ZeroTalk23:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the query. I'm trying to comprehend your vote so that I may make ammends and ensure the upmost behavior in the community. I really want to see a diff or whatnot; as I see your vote as questionable and I am not sure if it can be supported by varitible fact. -ZeroTalk18:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)
Dear Nae'blis,
I am beginning the process to create a wikiproject for Missouri. in order to do so i'm required to show that there is a base of at least 5-10 people who would be interested in contributing to such a project. the project would serve to aid in the creation and editing of articles related to the U.S. State Missouri, its cities, counties, geography, transportation, culture, history, education, and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on Missouri in a fair and accurate manner. Since you're stated as being a wikipedian in missouri, i wanted to see if you were interested. if you are, please add your username at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Missouri and User:Preschooler.at.heart/Missouri. thanks for your consideration.
--preschooler.at.heartmy talk - contribs16:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm responding in the incorrect location, I'm still a little new to these. You commented to me about adding links for Oklahoma Night Life to the "external links" section of the wiki and mentioned how you don't feel it is encyclopedia information? I feel it is adding value. I'm not a robot just adding random links to entries on here and I feel that some of the people who are finding information can benfit from the information on the website I'm linking to. Pleae don't take any of this the wrong way or like I'm trying to be offensive I'm just wanting to state my case. I appreciate all the information that is on here and all the hard work that is put into it. I would love to discuss this further with you.
I thought you might want to know that User:DakotaKahn is taking part in a conversation about you. I don't like to see people being talked about behind their backs, so felt I should let you know. --62.255.232.7613:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted DakotaKhan to ask if you were an administrator because it was my understanding, based on this page -Speedy Deletes-, that removing a speedy delete tag placed in good faith was only the responsibility of Wikipedia Administrators. I understand that you and I didn't see the article in the same manner regarding criteria for deleting. Due to your, and the original author's deletions of my speedy delete nomination, the article went to AfD and was deleted summarily based on the same criteria I used for the speedy delete nomination (see here). Although I may have been too hasty with the posting of the speedy delete, but was also a bit suprised to see a non-administrator reverse it, as this seems to be uncustomary in Wikipedia. I hope this clears things up.
Actually, other non-administrators generally avoid such practice, as it can be seen as colluding with the author or even as vandalism. No worries. I would likely not do it as a user, but that is just me. Thank you for your direct, quick and civil response. Best, Kukini20:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but you did come across as a sock puppet of the author of that article at that moment. But that might just be the lens through which I look. Peace, Kukini22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The recent addition you made to glaive, implies to me that you know of other examples of the giant shuriken/boomerang type "glaive." If any of these are older than Krull I would be very interested in knowing. Thanks, Iustinus00:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't, and you didn't do anything wrong: I was simply reiterating to WAS 4.250 that it was a conscious decision on my part, based on a number of reasons, to take the page to MfD instead of speedily deleting things. The "thanks!" is an usual part of my dialogue - see my comments elsewhere for some examples. :-) Sorry for any misunderstanding this may have caused. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nae'blis, and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chancetoseemeinaction. Please let me know what you think! I plan to ask NLSE for feedback directly now that some time has passed... Thanks again, and I will do everything I can to justify the trust you've placed in me! ++Lar: t/c03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I saw that you reverted the removal of some information in the X-Files article. I was wondering if you would comment on the usefulness of this information in the talk page for the article. I'm not for you or against you in the least, but I would like to open a discussion about this page and how it can be improved. - Zepheus02:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no prob. I wasn't upset by your comment in the slightest. I wouldn't be much of a Wikipedian if I couldn't stand critique. :) Kasreyn21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
Hi Nae'blis! I removed the note at the top of the talk page as it no longer applies. I had forgotten it was still there. Its only purpose was to halt an edit war on the page 2 weeks ago, and this appears to have been successful. I didn't write and have no interest in the content of the article itself, and thus no stake to WP:OWN. I am watching the page, but simply because the edit war could break out again (it is bubbling under at the moment) and I'd like to be able to step in and stop it if needs be. Cheers ➨ ЯЄDVERS20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got an offwiki response that was good enough for me, and I relayed its contents to everybody else. The purpose of the request was to get him to respond, and that happened. If you need more, I'd say feel free to ask him to verify what I said, or ask him your own questions.
Look, here's what it comes down to. Has he been swearing since the discussion? No, not yet. Has he been incivil since the discussion? No, not that I know of. How about on the Duckdid side? Well, he got blocked as a sockpuppet, a troll, and a vandal (if you disagree with that assessment after reading that thread we had on AN/I, I point you to [5] and [6]). I think that's fairly O.K. for the time being. As for deleting warnings, well, why don't you try talking to him about it?
Now. I stated extremely clearly and several times that I WOULD NOT GET BACK INTO THIS DISPUTE until someone who has a problem with Alkivar actually talks to him. A week and a half later, that hasn't happened. Please don't take offense at this, because I have no beef with you whatsoever and am sure you're a fine editor, but please don't bother asking me about this anymore until that fundamental and basic condition has been met. Snoutwood(talk)00:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm realizing that this post might be taken harshly, and I really don't mean it like that. I don't at all have any trouble with you and I was trying to answer your questions while explaining that I don't want to get involved again while no one is really willing to take responsibility for their own troubles with the man (and admittedly, I was rather frustrated that this whole thing's come up again without anybody bothering to talk to him). I really hope you take my above words in the feeling of helpfulness in which I meant them (and eliminate the frustrated bits while getting their points). Feel free to contact me about whatever you need to. Snoutwood(talk)05:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, understood, and respected. Outside onlookers are good. I highly support not acting until something really happens — that's all that really matters, anyhow (and by the by, I think that your words will have some weight: I knew who you were when I saw your username the other day, you're known at the very least). Oh, and don't worry, there's no offense taken - my only regret here is that I may have lost a Wikipedian friend by being to much of a dick on your talk page :(. Let me know if the whole thing starts up again and talking doesn't work, and I'll try to help out. Cheers, Snoutwood(talk)06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am kind of suspiscoius so does it exist when did it come out could it be made into it's own article perhaps the table top game as well. Jamhaw18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw[reply]
Dear Nae'blis/Archive,
Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The logs don't lie. It was a privately emailed request. It's a userspace page, so I think there's good reason not to further scrutinize it. Thanks. - CrazyRussiantalk/email13:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw your question ccwaters' page. He gave a good answer... but I'll give you an answer specific to the league that caused the question. Basically, the TBJHL is a Junior B league. Junior hockey is the elite level of Canadian players between the age of roughly 16 and roughly 21. Junior hockey is considered extremely respectable and important in Canadian culture. The Juvenile and Midget aspect is different. Because the TBJHL is only 4 teams, the league needs to find other teams to play against to fill in time. Juvenile is the highest age group in minor hockey -- 18-20 years of age and Midget is the second highest at 16-18. Midget is generally better than Juvenile because all the better players eligible to play juvenile will be in some level of Junior hockey. In the case of the TBJHL, Juvy and Midget only compete in regular season games and not playoff games. As I said, it is a Junior B league and therefore the champion MUST be a Junior B team. Thank you for your inquiry, I would be happy to answer any further questions... just ask on my talk page. DMighton12:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to changes of the article: Lews Therin Telamon, I feel the correct statement is 'human warmen', as stated in 'The World of Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time.' It might seem a minimalistic change, but let me know of your thoughts on the matter! --Mikoto Sho13:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<<Is there a template for this? I'd love to mark a few pages that I come across, but don't personally have time to archive when I see them... if not, I can make one, but just wondering. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)>>>
I saw your spreadsheet about new admins, and it's interesting data, but I think you had a methodological flaw. Instead of raw support-oppose*3, that column should probably be equalized to a percentage system (support/support+oppose). Then people who had less voters aren't penalized, and your top placements shift a bit (although not in most of the lower cases). Also, Deletes/day is probably a better sort key than raw # of deletions, since the latter is prejudiced toward people who have been around longer (this puts Jaranda in first place by the way, instead of you). -- nae'blis(talk)16:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I had three sheets on that spreadsheet, with the ranking via three measures, total deletes, delete rate and also delete rate per unit net support. You can have a look using the other two sheets. The reason that I think the percentage system isn't as true as the net support, is that the guy who gets 100-0 is presumably more hardworking or has contributed more than the person who got 25-0; hence I'm using it to work out which admins seem to be overrated or underrated. Just to see who got lots of votes and hasn't been doing much.Blnguyen | rant-line02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
because the talk page is not article space, and my mistakes are mine to make. If I want to change them I'll do so. The only changes I make to other's comments are to thread them if they've been placed out of order, or sign them if they're unsigned. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way as there is a template to that effect Template:Notyours.--Crossmr18:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Nae'blis. Your recent reply to me on the Starcraft Units page (which is up as an AfD right now) strikes me as ironically relevant to the sentence you have in your very own profile regarding "lynch mobs, factions, cabals, and armed camps." Treating each Wikipedian as if he/she is part of a single homogeous faction without any differing opinions leads to factionalization. Nowhere did I state that the page is or is not a game guide. Others did. Thus, your comment:
Blizzard... has endorsed much of the strategy on this page. I wish you guys would make up your mind on whether or not this is a strategy guide or not.
is neither clever nor correct with regards to my post. Who are "you guys?" Wikipedians may vote for something for different reasons. Attributing the arguments of others as mine in order to undermine my argument is something you probably are familiar with, it is the strawman fallacy. The fact that, despite my numerous (and voiced) reservations, I voted Delete marks me as quite clearly separate from those in both the Keep and Delete camp. Lest you misunderstand, I'm not angry, but merely annoyed that despite taking so many pains to explain my reasoning both for and against (unlike the others who merely stamped in typical "concise" style "Crft. Nuft sad" and flew off to other AfDs ) that my argument was simply ignored and bundled with the others despite being entirely different. Perhaps there is not so much factionalization on Wikipedia as there is the perception of such factionalization. -- Solberg22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Thanks for your insight on the Afd on Erik Rhodes (porn star) and your remarks. My concerns are several fold. First with the campaigning done within a group with a bias, it helps to set a precedence on an area that has much wider impact. My biggest concern is the notability of a gay porn star. We are talking about a very vocal but small group here. Only a small percentage of gays even view pornography, so if there is not notability outside of the career, I don't see how that meets the test. A side concern is the number of links to sites that sell porn, even under the heading of filmography. The only way that I would have known of this Afd is because of the DAB discussion I got into over the established actor of the same name. Thanks. Doc00:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, it actually comes from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series of books, where it's a title for "second in command", sort of. It's been my handle/e-mail online for a long time, both as a reminder that I'm not in charge, and not to be so self-effacing. I find it a nice compromise... -- nae'blis(talk)15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you by chance vote support here without being logged in? There's been some problems with imposters, but sometimes users get logged out accidentally, etc... just checking. -- nae'blis(talk)13:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't vote in this RfA. It looks like an AOL vandal took a liking to my sig and copied it in order to abuse the process. Now that you mention it, I am having problems staying logged in to the servers and my Talk page keeps losing conversations. They exist in the history but not on-screen. A problem with the Wiki LDAP server, perhaps? (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had trouble with getting bumped off my supposedly persistent login too, but I figured it was probably related to my firewall... no idea what's going on with your talk page. You didn't sign up for WerdnaBot's archiving, did you?
Thanks for clarifying about your vote. It certainly is a distinctive signature. -- nae'blis(talk)15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your supportive comment about my RfA. I don't expect to self-nom again but plenty of commentators supported a renom in the fall-winter timeframe so maybe someone will come along then. Best wishes. Eluchil40419:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know Jimbo signed as a supporter of Ignore all rules. He's also responsible for the rules restricting bots, for the same reason (as far as I can interpret his position). Namely: Wikipedia should be edited by human beings, who should be able to bring their full intelligence, skill and creativity to bear on the problem.
I think it's important to point out that very influentual people (including wikipedias founders) are diametrically opposed to strict following of process.
While perhaps you'd like to have the quote elsewhere on that page or even not at all, and I agree it's certainly inconvenient, it would be dishonest not to supply it, now that we know it exists. :-/
I think it might be slightly dishonest to claim that process is important isn't somewhat controversial though. I'm not sure as to the best course of action. <scratches head> Kim Bruning20:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh; and for me, personally, I've been feeling more frustrated and snappish lately than usual. Which controversy, if you don't mind me asking? Thanks, in any case, for the vote of confidence... -- nae'blis(talk)22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, if anyone tries to use this as leverage to keep any other article, you can remind them that A) There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, 2) There is no requirement for consistancy, and most importantly D) Fonzie only survived predicated on a total re-write complete with name change and location of sources. - brenneman{L}06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your sig/I just saved a ton of characters on Geico!
Y'know, I thought I fixed that months ago. Seems like somebody else commented on the same thing, once upon a time...thanks for the catch! I've actually shortened it even more drastically... what do you think? -- nae'blis15:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I shortened it even further.. course, it looks funny on my own talk page now, so you can see it here. What do you think? Thanks for the catch about the HTML though, I thought I'd fixed that months ago... -- nae'blis15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, most of my edits are to the categories and types of articles on my user page: (neo)paganism, sociology, criminal justice, The Wheel of Time series (which is my biggest fandom, but now has its own wiki), and whatever else I happen to come across. -- nae'blis18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, those are tough topics... I hope you do not have to deal with constant flame wars etc.
Well, I am not a big fan of other wikis as I believe wikipedia should be the prime source of info. But thats just my view. After a quick review, I acualy like the way that series is covered on wikipedia. I think I'll use something like that for the Oh My Goddess! related articles.
I think the discussion is turning into a flamewar and I am inclinded to bail out yet again.
I would like some sort of advice from a seasoned wikipedian (you) because I am getting tired of these constant flamewars.
It appears to me some of the participants there are more interested in establishing standards in a more burocratic manner. The entier nonsense at Talk:List of Air episodes and its sub page is visible fir instance.
I just want to be left alone when editing articles unless the person is interested in "expanding" or improving rather than barraging in quoting random policies and guidelines... --Catout19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in fairness, there's a balance somewhere between immediatism and eventualism (or deletionism and inclusionism, or exclusionism and inclusionism). Neither side is wrong, they're just of differing views. Wikipedia on a whole is a combination of policies, ideals, guidelines, ideas, and creativity that's staggering in its depth: if you're getting frustrated, I'd suggest maybe to step back out of the project space and go back to working on articles and not worry so much about the behind the scenes. I don't think anything much is going to change with the notability (fiction) requirements... much of what we do is talk and discussion, rather than debate and argue, thankfully. -- nae'blis19:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but some of the people discussing that are giving me a hard time outside of project-space such as getting articles deleted, mumbling incohirently etc... while not contributiong at all to the topic.
I especialy need advice on how to deal with nonsense visible at the hsotry of List of Air episodes...
I'm not ignoring you, just thinking about how to best approach answering (also, it's Friday and I'm trying to get stuff wrapped up here at the office). I'll respond sometime this weekend, most likely; there's a lot more behind the scenes here than I had previously realized, and people on both sides of the discussion are acting in disappointing fashion. Keep your chin up, and keep up the article edits! -- nae'blis20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll wait. :) I appriciate any assistance as I desperately need it.
I understand as a fellow seasoned editor that it should be I desclating the issue but all my attempts so far has been most unsuccesfull.
I am not trying to rush the issue, just making sure you havent forgotten about me. :) I really need tha advice :) --Catout14:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Embassy#Belaya Vezha?: Yes, you were in the wrong place. That page is about coordination of the Wikis in different languages. I can't work out from your comment what article your question is about, nor exactly what you are asking. If you can clarify on my talk page, I can try to help sort out where to ask. - Jmabel | Talk05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your beat-the-nom-support on my RFA. The final vote count was (61/9/3), so I am now an administrator. Thank you especially for your continued support in the face of adversity. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. Once again, thank you. Wickethewok15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote me with respect to my neutral and I was a bit derelict in replying to you; please accept my apologies for the tardiness of my reply. Even as I failed to reply, though, I did consider your note more-than-cursorily but concluded (a) that the RfA was insufficiently close that my participating would affect the outcome (with just a few hours left, the support was only around 65%) and (b) that, in view of the candidate's conduct relative to the RfA (none of which was indecorous or uncivil but the sum total of which raised, at least for me, concerns as to the candidate's willingness to collaborate and compromise and, more to the point, to permit other users to have the last word—to be sure, there is none who prefers getting the last word more than I, and it's a temptation to which I've acceded on occasion, even where there's no encyclopedic purpose to serve), were I to have changed my neutral, such change would have been to oppose (although should no further problems arise and should the candidate's participation in a subsequent RfA allay my fears, I can't imagine there'd be any reason for which I wouldn't support). In any event, I'm altogether sorry for having failed to reply sooner, but, at the very least, your comment was not ignored. :) Joe02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'm new to the whole non-admin AfD closing thing :) Seems the consensus is I might have been a bit overenthusiastic in deciding what "unambiguous" is, but that's what learning is for! :D --james(talk)09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed the problem that caused the bad DRV page: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 <august-gen> 4. In the last few days I've fixed the same bug in various AFD pages and templates. A system variable got changed. Let me know if you see this again, or anything with that <august-gen>. Fan-196721:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm not an admin, I can't merge histories, but there wasn't much, just two requests, no responses. One was unsigned but I tagged it. I did leave a note in the history, and the bad page is still there, if someone wants to access it. Fan-196721:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Ultimately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, thank you for your constructive criticisms and I will definitely look into your comments.
Hi. I don't disagree with the decision to delete this, since it would inevitably have been deleted one way or another (I'd suggest that it's all speculative fiction and therefore not encyclopedic). I just want to observe, however: the article from which the text was plagiarised explicitly gives permission for the text to be used in this kind of way. Indeed, the website that it was taken from uses wiki-code and frequently co-operates with wikipedia to exchange text. - Richardcavell06:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I really dropped the ball on getting back to you. Hope life's been less stressful of late; mine's been sort of jet-fueled, but I figured if I didn't respond now, it'd be another two weeks...
Per our previous discussion, I said I'd try to give you some advice about how to handle disputes. The biggest thing I can think of is the old Fight Club mantra, "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake." Wikipedia is about the collaborative effort of the many, not the shining brilliance of the one. Take a look at the history of Nupedia for how that other approach failed in spectacular ways. Wikipedia will manage just fine if you, or I, or Angela Beesley or even Jimbo Wales, at this point, were to disappear (though the latter would require an election, of course). It's become big enough and self-sustaining, on the whole.
Does it make mistakes? Sure. Any big, disorganized, labyrinthine project to build such a massive encyclopedia is bound to have its false starts, digressions like the userbox wars, and collateral damage like vandals getting pages screwed up or deleted. But it's a wiki. It's almost uniquely well-designed to overcome all of those problems. EVERY SINGLE EDIT to an article is recoverable somewhere, by someone, unless a developer actually goes into the database and deletes it, and that's just not done very often. Even if a page is deleted by consensus, there's deletion review. If a subject gains notability/verifiability later that they didn't have in the 1st/2nd/5th draft, they can have a page recreated, and the old page(s) can be recovered from deletion if there's something worth salvaging in there. It's easy to fix.
So what am I getting at? Slow down. Don't take everything personally, or feel like it's your "job" to "fix" things. We're doing this out of volunteer love for the project, or the subject material, or humanity, right? Volunteers can take breaks. They can step back and let someone else shovel for a while. The job still moves forward, even without you. If you're getting hot under the collar, go do something unrelated: sort some stubs, click random article and fix some grammar, or just log off and come back in a few hours/days. I've got faith that other editors can come to the right decision, even in my absence.
Which doesn't mean I don't spend way too much time and effort here, anyway, because I do make valuable contributions - and so do you! See you around... -- nae'blis16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't a content disagreement.
I haven't been allowed to write articles for a year and a half now. It was at first Davenbelle then Moby Dick (arbcom case just closed), and finaly Ned Scott. I am seriously growing tired of dealing with such issues. In all fairness Ned's case isnt as severe as Davenbelle's.
Furthermore, what you suggest does not explain this or especialy this. One of the links is not even related to this project (and that RfA itself has issues at the very least according to the bcrat closing it).
Please understand that I am not intimately familiar with your edit history, but it seems to me that no one has "prohibited you from writing articles". You're on restriction from Turkey/Kurdish subjects until October, and I don't see any restrictions placed against you in the Moby Dick case. I know you and Ned Scott don't get along, but he can't prevent you from editing (I would suggest not responding/baiting each other as often as you two seem to do; I saw the whole spellchecking thing and it looked like a pissing contest on both sides). The bigger problem I'm seeing is that you get upset when people disagree with your way of doing things. I get the strong impression you used to be a big vandal fighter; what happened there? Maybe something less content/admin-driven, more article-based and less controversial, would help you "get away from it all". -- nae'blis18:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nae'blis/Archive, I noticed that you have some interest or expertise in C. S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia. I thought you may be care to know that there is a WikiProject working to improve articles about Narnia, and your help would be greatly appreciated. Please consider joining the Chronicles of Narnia task force by adding your name here, to the bottom of the list Novels Project list and then visiting the talk page to see how you can get involved, if you like. If you want, my best suggestion is to first get acquainted with the ventures of the project, and then try adopting an article. Thank you! ~~~~
Hi, I see you're not an admin. I believe admin tools would help you with your work here on wikipedia, and you're certainly qualified enough. I was thinking about nominating you. Would you accept? ~ c.tales\\tk//03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is in regard to Boris Grishenko, from Goldeneye.
In case you haven't noticed, "novelizations" (the lowest of all art forms) hardly, if at all, stick to the original source. This "Goldeneye" one is no exception, for it even adds a pre-Dam action sequence. You think the author was dictated in printing ONLY what was in the film? This is not the case, not by any stretch of the imagination no matter how close-minded you may be. However it did take imagination for the author to come up with phony facts which were never stated in the film. And please, how long do you think something would stay frozen with THAT MUCH fire surrounding? Not long. Just drop it and face the fact that the author of this novelization was just a hack and that going by what the film provided us, Boris is clearly still living. He may have died in the contrived 'novelization' but not in the film. Get over yourself, you Wikiwhore-
IAN
I'm sure the standstill (so to speak) over Boris' current status has been as much a vexation on you as it has for me. You see I cannot stand to deal with such people that ignore the obvious so thoroughly, especially regarding great cinematic characters. However it seems that you have your own 'cold' version of the obvious that, to my ever-extensive knowledge, ring no such bells of intelligence; though this observation will not change a stubborn mind such as the one you unfortunately own. I could pursue the back and forth with you, and pursue it until time freezes. Somehow though, when taking your vast stubborness into account, this would last until one of us dies. So, instead, I propose a solution. I will edit a neutral version of Boris' status and we shall both be satisfied, or so I hope. If you change this edit, I will accept that you want to continue with this silly wikitennis, and trust me I have as many balls as you have. Please be reasonable, and let this discontinue at the new edit (which I will post soon.) Thank you-
IAN
Unfortunately, this is not acceptable, as Wikipedia is not a game. Someone has provided a source (the novelization) that directly states that Boris Grishenko is dead. For you to remove that information for the article, the responsibility is on you to find a reliable source which states otherwise; that might include an interview with the director stating that the novelization got it wrong, an authorized sequel (including the video game, perhaps) that shows Boris unequivocally alive after the scene in the control room where he dies, or the like. Your opinions, and mine, about the interactions of fire and liquid nitrogen are really irrelevant here. We're an encyclopedia, not a debate team. Thank you, and I look forward to your response. -- nae'blis14:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I remembered the AfD has two articles to delete (which I tend to forget), but in the process somehow forgot to close it! :P - Cheers, Mailer Diablo17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One minute before you made your edit[7]...the page had been protected...you might want to revert yourself and bring it to discussion--MONGO18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That terminology is a bit of a mystery to me...but the autoconfirm deals with protecting the article from newer accounts...the software determines the account as either being an established editor or not one...the sysop log wording means that only admins can edit the article...but that doesn't mean they can "rightfully" do so, except to remove personal attacks, vandalism or to add/remove text that is agreed to by consensus via the talk page.--MONGO19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the comment that you had edited a protected page...I thoought you were an admin...so now I ask why you aren't one...have you considered it? I'm possibly not the best person to nominate anyone though.--MONGO19:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think most everything looks fine...Durin is a good choice to ask for a review from. I watch Rfa, so I'll keep a lookout for you.--MONGO04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for spoiling the removal of redirects for ETH Zurich. You obviously didn't read carefully enough, since one of my arguments for deletion was that members of the ETH Zurich couldn't be found easily enough with pages of redirect links. And trivially, ETH Zurich shows up first if you type in ETH Zurich. that is the way search engines supposed to work, isn't it?
this is why we have redirects: please, if we would have one link for every possible misspelling of this institute Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, plus the english name Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, adding redirects with or without Zurich or spelled natively with Zürich, then there would be a vast number of redirects.
this institute if struggling with consistency for its naming particularly abroad, since rankings were effected recently because not all papers from this institute could be identified as such because of 113 different namings for this institute in notable science mags.
oh, you mean every page is cared for by the wiki community? would you please tell me why i am the first one here to nominate misspelled redirects for deletion that were used in a few articles about members of this institute? my point is, you wouldn't care, or you don't know about the misspellings, and that is why the misspelled redirects must go, since people who read the articles containing misspelled redirects that work anyway will memorize the wrong names, and that i consider spreading of false information, though arguably, it is of minor significance in this case.
yeah that comment was from me. It probably showed up like that because I didn't know how to do the "~" thing at the time and typed the signature in myself. Neokyotodragon05:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever decide to be an Administrator, you have my support after seeing the large amount of helpful conurbations you have made; I think you would be an excellent one. I thank you for being considerate and showing a good character --Sirex9806:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments on my recent Request for Adminship, and for your faith in my willingness to improve. The request was ultimately unsuccessful - which wasn't entirely surprising - and so I'll be taking special care to address the concerns that were raised before running again.
I'm anxious to improve my work generally, even if it doesn't result in a future adminship, and so please don't hesitate to leave any further feedback or comments at my talk page. Thanks!
Hi, the more I surf around here, mainly on the literature pages, the stranger it gets. Just now, reading through Crime fiction, I found a link to The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time and realised through the edit history or whatever it is called that you have deleted the list becuase, as you say, it is a copyvio.
Is the list of works written by one author (say, Shakespeare) also a copyvio?
Nope; what happened was I edited out the full list, which was compiled by the publisher, the Crime Writers' Association. A bare list of crime novels by Raymond Chandler could not be copyrighted, as it contains only "facts" (like a list of the biggest cities in the world, or whatever). IF this list was compiled by public vote and the reports simply tallied with no editorial decisions, then maybe we could include the full list, but it's probably not necessary, when including 3 or 4 examples would make a better narrative for the article, rather than just a list. The "book that was not a book" on the list, for example, is very interesting and could/should be added back in. -- nae'blis15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine that the two books mentioned in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time have only two to three pages each (which contain those lists).
Not sure what you're saying here. I didn't do any editing of the rest of the article, so if it doesn't make sense now selected information can be added back in. My concern that day was clearing out several "Top 100" pages so I was a little quick with the edit; see Rolling Stone's "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" for a good example of how this can be done more seamlessly. -- nae'blis15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My questions:
1. Were these lists written by one author (whose copyright would be violated if we published them in Wikipedia)?
That's a good question. The article seems to indicate that it was collected by the CWA from its members, and doesn't say if there was editorializing beyond counting the votes. They would own the copyright, I expect, if anyone did, on said list.
2. In the two Crime Companions, is there an article on each of the novels? If so, all we would publish is a table of contents. And I've come across several in Wikipedia.
Unfortunately I haven't read them, so you'd be better off asking on the article's talk page (or perhaps better yet, Talk:Crime Writers' Association.
Good luck, and thanks for asking me to clarify. This is not my area of expertise, but copyright violations are a Big DealTM. -- nae'blis15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A comment you made at DRV led me to conclude that you're not an admin. WOW... this is truly shocking, rfa cliche moment! :) Are you interested? You are amply qualifed and deserving. Best wishes, Xoloz16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am inordinately pleased that you were "fooled" by my lack of the bit. *grin* Actually I've got a few folks reviewing me right now, but barring any skeletons in my closet that they uncover, I'll be headed that way very shortly - thank you for the compliment! Strangely, you're not the first... -- nae'blis20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timeshift, I'm not an admin but I can try to answer your question. I expect the reason you didn't get a reply is that content disputes don't generally require administrator intervention; anyone can help edit an article to keep it in line with a verifiable, neutral point of view. In looking at the article history, there's a lot of back-and-forth that isn't productive. Continue to try to work it out on the talk page rather than getting into an edit war, and you may want to ask for a third opinion to make it be about more than just the two of you. Bewaer of the three-revert rule, as well; reverting non-vandalism edits (i.e. content arguments) more than 3 times in a 24 hour period can get both/all parties involved blocked for 24 hours.
Thankyou for your suggestion, I have taken that course of action. It seems a bit strange and somewhat rude that the admins weren't even prepared to give me the time of day. All they had to do was say please take this to Third opinion as you have done. Again, thankyou. Timeshift16:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ANI (as the Administrator's Noticeboard is sometimes called) is a very busy place, and sometimes small threads can be overlooked in the fracas. I'm sure no one intended any slight by not responding in a more timely manner. -- nae'blis16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got enough help, in that being two opinions who disagreed with the user were enough to eventually get him to give up continually reverting his crap. Thanks for your help. Timeshift04:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Sorry about hitting the wrong tag on those two, and thanks for the reminder. I've re-re-re-reviewed WP:CSD criteria and will try to do a better job of remembering which is the best tag to use when I run across an obvious deletion candidate during my categorization sweep. :) --Elonka20:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nae'blis,
this is about your Talk Page entry you left a few days ago. I will try to contribute to your Wiki as well as I can, but please be aware that all facts will often be cited straight from the books (word by word, even) and most suspicions about the real behind-the-scenes reasons might be based on a lot of personal opinions (mine and others) and probably a lot of in-depth details would be required. If that's okay, I'd be happy to help - although I think the novels have been getting progressively more boring.
I merely find it silly to put a tag on the page which suggests that it is not currently being used in the decision-making process (e.g. closing obviously failed RFAs) due to its being a work in progress. The fact remains that, whether or not it has recently been adjusted, it remains in constant use, rendering the 'proposed' tag useless, if not simply wrong. — Dan | talk01:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding; I've closed it as moot, since the prior DRV has already restored in its restoration, and it will be relisted within the terms of that DRV. Best wishes, Xoloz23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's that special, special time! No, grandma's not coming over. No, not time to clean out the fridge. It's sidebar redesign voting time! Yes, the community has narrowed it down to 3 different options, and a vote for the same old original sidebar is a choice one could vote for as well. Voting for multiple options is allowed, and discussion on the whole shebang is right there on the vote page itself.
Hi Nae'blis I am having a bit of trouble with someone putting the lycos forum link you mentioned on the Jack Nicholson Article, despite it's repeated removal. I can clean it up but am having to check the page every day. Is there any other alternatives or do I just need to keep an eye on it? Thanks --Jackfan22206:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jack. I'm not seeing it having been added more than once since the 15th, unless he's doing it some other article. Just keep checking on the article (and I will keep it on my watchlist a little longer, too), unless you can determine that it's one specific IP/user, in which acse you might be able to get them to dialogue with you. -- nae'blis13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nae'blis I'm afraid dialogue might not serve much purpose. I don't know if you noticed but when you last reverted they had not only added their site but they had vanadalised the jacknicholson.org link they changed it to jacknicholson.ofg making it cease to work. Within 2 hours of you reverting their changes they had come back re-added their site and changed the jacknicholson.org to jacknicholson.orpg. I guess we will just both have to watch it. Thanks --Jackfan22205:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Naeblis i just checked it again and they had not added their link but they had changed jacknicholson.org to jacknicholson.ogg how do I apply to have part of a page locked for a period? If that is possible? I don't actually know, I just know they will keep vandalising every few hours and I can't be on here every second of every day so there is going to be times when the vandalism means the link on the page is broken. Any suggestions. It is sad really that someone want to deliberately vandalise the page and also that they are someone with a forum for Jack Nicholson but they want to stop fans finding resources about Jack. --Jackfan22202:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible to lock "part" of a page, unless you do some fancy transclusion which obviously isn't warranted here. What it looks like is we've got a low-grade linkspammer who wants to hijack/replace your link with his own. Working under the assumption that your link has some sort of consensus, which I believe to be true, the slow/relatively infrequent rate of editing by that IP means we just have to keep an eye on it. Administrators don't generally protect pages unless it's showing to be difficult (several times a day, sometimes) to keep up with the vandalism/POV-pushing edits. Cheers; I know it's frustrating, but I think it's less of a big deal than you think. It'll be okay, even if the link is different for a few hours. -- nae'blis02:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Naeblis, I'm fine with just watching it but it has been fairly frequent (4 times in 3 days and 3 times in a little over 24 hours) and the last time they didn't even add their link they just vandalised the other link, so I would say the motive is grey. I'm not that worried about the length of time the link is broken for though I can imagine it's not great for anyone trying to use it, it's more a principle. Anyway, let's wait and see with any luck they'll give up :) --Jackfan222 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
edited to add: Apologies I've just realised that i had you mixed up with another user Nlu who has also been looking into external links on the Jack Nicholson article, so I assumed quite a lot of history in talking to you, sorry I'm sure my comments seemed very out of left field lol Thanks for your help --Jackfan22206:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comming from the discussion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo and I first want to say thanks for stepping in for my initiative, as my intention was to improve the existing articles on Wikipedia, bands pages in particular. I have a couple of questions regarding this:
1) When the discussion of the page being kept or deleted comes to conclusion? What I mean is, I don't want to start attracting more users to the project with it having such headers as it has now. To be honest I never had time for this, because the project was suggested for deletion in the first week of it's existence
2) If the project is to be kept, how may I attract more people who would contribute to it, because I don't really feel that going around Wiki and pimping my project is a good idea, with all honesty. But finding them seems to be vital, because one of the major complaint about the project was the number of users.
Thanks again. Iceness 11:04, 28 September 2006 (GMT)
Where should a provide the source for the Tom Paxton photo that I added to his Wiki profile? The photo is one that I got from Tom's website, and he gave me permission to use it on the myspace account I set up for him and is fine with it being used on the Wiki profile page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geneisner (talk • contribs) 00:32, September 29, 2006
Mmmm, tough one. Did you get an email or just a verbal confirmation that the picture was usable on Wikipedia? If it was an email, I would post it on the talk page, maybe with the email address munged. -- nae'blis16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got a message from Tom Paxton, and he said that it was OK for Wiki to use the picture of him. Here's the message:
"Tell the Wikipedia guys the use of the picture is fine. They should credit Irene Young. Tom"
...but statisics can serve as a good guide to why it was right for me to withdraw. There has never been a RfA that has succeeded with as unfavorable a ratio as mine with a sample size as large as mine. There would have had to have been 60 to 75 additional people like you and zero oppose votes to make a requisite threshhold of 70 to 80% support votes. There has never in the history of Wikipedia been a RfA that has succeeded with that kind of weight stacked against it and it is statisically impossible as well. I'm manifestly a realist. It is a fact of life that all else being equal, 68% of the time we are within a confidence interval of the mean, and the confidence interval away from the mean that would have lead to a successful adminship is on the order of 8-sigma away from the expectation value. That's 1 chance out of a billion that I would get to be successful. More likely to win the lottery than to be an admin with that request. --ScienceApologist21:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to follow the steps you've mentioned in your reply if the project is to be kept, I'll try searching on message boards aside from wiki as well. Till then I'll just have my fingers crossed or something =] !
I am a bit curious why you removed this tag. It is very clearly patent nonsesnse. Searching for "Thomas Whyte" in google gives no relevant hits, and if one limits it to hits in German, there are four hits, all of which are not relevant. One of the two sources the author gives does not even mention the person, while the other is no source at all, only showing that an eight year old named Thomas lives in Kaiserslautern. Furthermore, the article claims that a person born in 1990, making him sixteen today, speaks five languages, is an opera star, an author, and a playwright. If such a prodigy truly existed in Germany, there would surely be at least one hit about him If that is not a hoax, I don't know what is. Indrian18:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What was it that made your skin crawl... was I not transparent enough (I'm just curious as to what I did wrong) -- Tawker03:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been burned at least once by an admin who made a promise in their RFA that they since went back on, which has caused a lot of grief in the community in my opinion. The link mentioned by Splash contradicts the sentiment behind your 2nd RFA (the one that passed), where you said Tawkerbot2 would never touch your admin account, and you would only "consider" getting admin access for your bot if "95% of people wanted it". Granted, technically Tawkerbot2A =/= TawkerbotTorA =/= Tawker, but we're only six months down the line and this is your second attempt to get admin powers for a bot. I have no problem with yours and Werdna's coding proficiency or commitment to the project, but there's a lot of unclarified matters at the RFA/RFBOT (is it manual or automatic? How many cases are we talking about?) and your collective abruptness/impatience/desire to take discussion off the RFA page bothers me. Sorry, I don't see the need for an adminbot at this time. -- nae'blis14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all, this really is something new to the community at large and I can see a lot of the issues - that hs to be the most questions ever on a rfa (and I thought my human one was long - it seems half my responses have been buried in the massive (10 letter pages when I last checked) - it makes life fun. Anyways, thnks for the clarification - I'm just trying to see if we can make some of the unanswered questions come to light :) -- Tawker05:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can create talkpages in all namespaces, however what usually happens is some lawyer feloniously archives parts of my talk pages when he feeels like it. (;)) 68.39.174.23821:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey its not the same image, its from a wikipedia article. Maybe you should spend your time on more important things yourself than policing my user page. No, but really im just putting the same image on my page time after time just to stick it to you.
--Ian01:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in it.. and I think there may be just enough support for it. With the end of summer, I've been pretty swamped at work, and I didn't want to start an endeavor like that while it was likely that I would not have a chance to contribute myself for weeks on end. I have been thinking about it, though... especially with it's context with existing Missouri and Kansas projects, and I do think it can coexist. Especially if we make ourselves known to them early on and play nice and all. Now, I'm not tied to the idea of spearheading such a thing, so if anyone wants to go ahead and take the lead, I'll definitely jump in. I've been wanting to spend a day cruising the city and taking photos for various articles - the Liberty Memorial article especially. Anyways, if noone else takes that first step, I plan on revisiting this topic either mid November or early December myself. Who knows, maybe earlier, if things go well. --Reverend Loki03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are those enough reliable sources to create a Terminator 4 article? If the writer, Michael Ferris, is already giving interviews to Entertainment Weekly, then why can't we make an article? I swear, if given the chance, i can create a pretty good stub with plenty of sources that won't be any more against WP:NOT then the article for The Grudge 3 is, or Snakes on a Plane was before it's release. So, what do you say? dposse21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful, but I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka09:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow!That was quick. I have met such nice people on Wikipedia recently that it makes me feel bad. Keep up the good work. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not have it? Its a good idea and it gives the otherwise borig articles some zest! If you really really want me not to use it I'll {{db-author}} it but otherwise I'm keeping it.
fine, even though I hate doing it I'll put up for deletion... :(
I'm okay with having it go. Its just that I don't see any reason not to have it.
Hey, I noticed you tagged the Zap! page as db-spam. That particular version was, but the creator keeps replacing the disambiguation page with their own page. Natalie23:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, and thanks for the info about New Spring. As I told User:Randfan, it's been a few years since I last read WoT, and I would want to start over from the beginning in order to catch up... a process that would take a few months. I'm not likely to read New Spring anytime soon. I wish that Mr. Jordan would finish writing the story (again, not likely anytime soon) so that I could read the whole saga straight through. Thanks again! --Kyoko21:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Nae'blis. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to my talk page. I enjoyed looking at your user page and am getting a better idea of the Wikipedia guidelines regarding their usage. It's pretty obvious that I didn't read them before posting my page this summer. I was on an e-teaching roll and thought "What a great idea!". Oh well. The really ironic part of this issue is that I am a computer person--I am a graphic designer (20+ years) and teach web design. I wasn't looking for free web-hosting since I already have 3 websites! I merely wanted my students to use Wikipedia on a weekly basis because I am a huge fan of the project. As designers, we need to tap into both this type of cutting-edge mode of communication and the rich contemporary content. In any case, I have made a suggestion on the discussion page as to how my Course Outlines could remain with its integrated links, but I understand now that the college-specific info has to go. I spent a few hours this week transferring the page info to my own design on my server and will more than likely upload it all next week in anticipation of a serious edit of my user page. I do hope I'm not deleted entirely though! Thanks again for your thoughtful response. ProfL23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I don't think tfd-inline should be used in this template: the template is always substituted, thus causing a link to the deletion discussion to not be removed after the deletion discussion is over. This obviously causes a mess. --- RockMFR05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was a stub split out from Pascal's Wager; the original text was added by 131.91.176.226 (talk·contribs) on June 12th, 2006. It would appear to be a framing of part of the two truths doctrine, although the title may be less than ideal (I wasn't quite as adroit as making stubs back in June). It could probably be redirected or deleted with little harm at this point. -- nae'blis18:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact MONGO to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nae'blis. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
As the boilerplate states, the standard Q's must be answered and you need to accept as well. If you see something you wish me to detail better, let me know. There is also a section you'll see that permits you to expand on areas you wish to be empahsized. After you finish the Q's and your comments and acceptance, let me know and I'll add it to the list of ongoing Rfa's and add my support vote. Further instructions can be found at [8] and you may want to look over the reading list and the how-to guide, though I am sure you are pretty familiar with what admins do. Good luck!--MONGO06:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a reply to your concern, and I hope it clears up the misunderstanding. I've also changed the title of Rule 5 in an effort to make it seem a bit less heavy-handed. Thanks for your input. KafzielTalk17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was a long time ago. I think that there was either a crash of the Wikipedia servers or a good scrubbing of the deleted files between then and now. - Lucky 6.900:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You removed my speedy deletion tag from Portal:Ossetia. CSD P1 says, "Any topic that would be subject to speedy deletion as an Article." Thus, a portal with "No content whatsoever", "consisting only of links elsewhere" (A3) is subject to speedy deletion. Nobody has touched that portal for two months, since the initial page was created. Is it really necessary to go through the formality of MFD? BigDT12:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could I talk you into not tagging Mr. Brandenburg's images for speedy deletion? Unless you have reason to doubt that he has the authority to release them under the GFDL, they are properly licensed images that we may be able to use in the future (although possibly not in the articles he wants to add them to, currently). If the images are inaccurate or not useful (like the Ceres one may be, according to your comments above), nominate them for deletion. I'd rather not see you and he get into a conflict over some images that may, in fact, be of use to the project. CSD #I5 is actually only for unfree images. -- nae'blis20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just got your message. The images I uploaded are private images that I personally produced for some animation projects that we are doing for a national television show. I own the company. I own the images. They are storyboards that I've done over the years. I told a collegue that I wanted to get these images out and distribute them so teachers and students could use them.
So I uploaded them with what I thought was the proper license and put them on the pages that looked like they could use better images. While I was at it I noticed there was a page on me. I clicked some of the links, noticed that one was broken so I fixed it.
When I was uploading additional items today, they we recommended for deletion as well as the biography page for me.
I was planning on uploading most of the images from my blog (http://bryanbrandenburg.blog.com), all of which I own exclusively. But I obviously don't get how wikipeia works and now my biography looks like it will be deleted as thanks for my goodwill. Its not that I care about this, I didn't even notice it until I happened to do a search.
All I wanted to do is provide some science images for people that can't afford them, as my way of contributing. I didn't ask for credits and am a bit frustrated.
Both the Ceres and Carbon atom were based on mathematical models of which I have substantial expertise, but I'm not going to get in a fight with the editor to try and make a contribution.
I've looked at the Wiki Commons. All the images as seen on my blog( http://bryanbrandenburg.blog.com) have my name in the lower right corner. Is this a problem? If not, I'm prepared to upload them over the next week. Otherwise, I can remove this from most of the images as I get to it.
Also, which type of licensing do you suggest I use. And yes, I created the images and own the world wide rights. They are just story boards for some of the professional projects I am working on.
Nae'blis editing history is virtually blemish free...nothing but excellent work through wikipedia...I am very pleased by the showing so far.--MONGO19:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also thank you for reminding me when I mess up...I always respect reminders when they come from editors such as yourself. You're almost at 100!--MONGO21:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Nae'blis! Have fun with your new admin tools, and if you have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. Nishkid6422:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats from me too (and thanks for the kind words!) You'll be a great admin. If you ever need any help, you know where my talk page is :) Grutness...wha?23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unanimous Support @ 104 with no additional questions to boot, I'll forgot to ask how you felt about WP:WOOT! , maybe i'll ask at your RfB ;-) Congrats! ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡03:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, may the mop be with you. those goats need you. as i said, very pleased to see your thinking on/in the project and i look forward to seeing you around. and, thanks for sending me a non-boilerplate thanks for the rfa support. ttfn, ... aa:talk04:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! I couldn't not vote for you (may have to read that a couple of times for it to make sense :P) given my love for the WoT :) May I ask, out of interest, what's your favourite? Personally, I like FoH closely followed by tEotW. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ]07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care:
If I had the chance I would vote against as I have already seen this user abuse his status (see a few items down). Osomec18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please undelete Long Island Music Hall of Fame(DRV here) or if that's not possible put a copy of the deleted article in my namespace so I can rewrite it with references? The admin who deleted it has been unresponsive in the DRV and his talk page. Thanks for your help. *Spark* 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for setting this up. I can't find it at the moment though and would definitely contribute (so please give a formal link). Since I'm a bit cranky, probably my main contributions would be a wish list/todo for articles/photos. I'm plowing ahead on what I think defines the city. Thanks again. I always appreciate what you do and your enthusiasm. I think it has mightily contributed to the KC article rising above the standard wiki boosterism article. Americasroof05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had my doubts about accepting a nomination for a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the stir it caused as it drifted to the ground in flames! Still, it was as educational as ever. Thanks for your input, and for being willing to reconsider your opposition. Your comments will be on my mind as I continue to edit Wikipedia, and perhaps I will have earned your support if another nomination comes around. While I'm here, congrats on your own RfA. I would have supported along with all the rest, but it seemed like a conflict of interest to !vote while my own was still pending. KafzielTalk15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you're saying; my first block and I wasn't sure of the parameters of the template. Block was for 15 minutes; have fixed the talk page comment. Thanks for the catch. -- nae'blis17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for letting me know. I usually don't check incoming links on self-requests, but I guess I'll start... -- nae'blis22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like a decent editor. You may remember me from last week as I was posting images to wikipedia. Would you mind look at this deletion discussion? This started last week with posting of editors. My former company that we are now competing with jumped in there.
Kudos on your well-deserved adminship, unanimously bestowed (everybody loves you!), and your cute RfA thank-yous! :) You are welcome to help out at DRV whenever you like, perhaps starting today! ;) There is a listing for Nov. 19, in which both Trialsanderrors and I have commented -- somebody else has got to close it, so this is a gentle prod. Thanks and congrats again!, Xoloz17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me - my only concern is that the original CfD debate was not referenced in the DRV from the start, but to due the apparent mixed consensus at DRV, I agree with what you've done (and the fact that consensus can change. Thanks -- Martinp2319:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the compliment ("I closed out the 19th in what I feel is a very Xoloz-like manner (and that's a good thing in my world"), but I fear that you live in a very strange and disturbing world! ;) Better that the rest of us should try to imitate you, since I can't think of any more shining example! :) Best wishes, Xoloz21:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not acceptable to use "speedy delete" on a controversial category that was last deleted a year ago. There was already a keep vote from a regular visitor to categories for discussion and I wished to add another. Category:LGBT criminals is a necessary counterbalance to all the positive LGBT categories introduced for propaganda purposes, and deletion of it shows Wikipedia's systemic bias towards imposing the agenda of American liberals on a supposedly global project. It seems most likely to me that you deleted the category because you disapprove of it yourself, not because of any desire to implement consensus as you made sure that there was insufficient time for that to be established. Overuse of speedy deletion is an unacceptable way of enforcing establishment orthodoxy, used to create inertia in Wikipedia's develpopment by administrators who find that the current approach suits their own point of view. Osomec18:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of the category was established through discussion at Categories for deletion/discussion in February of this year. If you believe that decision is no longer valid or feel it was handled inappropriately, the place to debate that is deletion review. Until a change of consensus can be established, recreation of the category is not permitted. -- nae'blis18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that line of argument at all as it is grossly skewed towards maintenance of the status quo. Deletion review should be for review immediately after deletion and speedy deletion should be for categories recreated promptly or in bad faith by the same user. If a category is recreated by a different user after a long gap it should be given a fair hearing. When it has been repeatedly deleted it can be marked as a protected category. Your approach uses the wrong tools for the job and suppresses free speech. Also it seems to me that deletion review is largely under control of admins who are over-protective of admin power and does not offer non-admins a fair hearing. Osomec18:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you don't agree with that line of argument, but "status quo" is another word for Wikipedia:Consensus; we do/don't-do things because editors agree they are good things to do/not-do, acknowledging that that opinion may change sometime in the future. Once a deletion decision has been rendered on the topic of a page, usually deletion review is the way to try to show that consensus has changed (as opposed to when it is deleted for copyright violations, or not having sources, or something else "fixable"). In the case of a category, it either is or isn't appropriate; that's why criterion G4 exists. I'm not exactly sure why you feel DRV is controlled by admins; does the title of the category not give you enough information to render an informed decision in this case? The category description page was blank in this case, so you're not 'not seeing' anything that I can see.
Since you've replied here, I'll continue the discussion here to avoid fragmenting things between two talk pages, if that's alright with you. -- nae'blis18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just starting doing that recently, use it to easily track my recent talk page postings. Not certain if it's worth it or not. *Spark* 13:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you undelete Image:limhof.jpg? It was orphaned when the article was speedied, and the note in the image description said it would be deleted if no article referenced it. Well, and article *is* referencing it, and it was still deleted. *Spark* 14:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I found who deleted it and requested they restore it as well. Seems to be restored. Question - when an image is deleted, links to it are converted to Special:Upload&wpDestFile=imageName, which doesn't let you check history. Wouldn't it be better if it linked to the image page which has a note with "please upload", which I get if I type in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SomeUnknownImage.jpg in my address bar, but not if I link to Image:SomeUnknownImage.jpg ? *Spark* 14:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I could not figure out how to use your Authoronlinesource2006 template optional unnamed parameter. Would you please provide an example here? Thanks. Also, if you know how to provide multiple tags, please provide an example.-- Jreferee17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to provide the example of the unnamed parameter in use, but I'm not sure how to do the other thing, sorry. -- nae'blis18:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no reason. In fact, my bot does already support the last few versions of Template:RfA. (WP:BN, the page you cite, is updated by my bot, btw ;) ) The reason why I added that notice to the top of Template talk:RfA is because there have been numerous occasions on which someone changed the template, breaking the operation of the bots, yet did not think of notifying the operators. I did ask people to notify operators in case of any updates a few months back at WT:RFA, but since that has gone into the archives, nobody seems to bother to tell us anymore. - Tangotango04:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you didn't take the bad joke personally at the KC Project page; I have a weakness for bad jokes. And congratulations on the appointment I was joking about. I also have a serious question. If you look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missouri page, you might get the definite impression that the leaders of the project think (or thought) that projects gets "assigned" featured articles for some reason other than on the basis of quality review. This may well have been an impediment to the project to date. If you think you would have any interest in the project, given your generally broad and well-informed background in wikipedia, I think the project would be greatly enhanced by your membership. Your success in putting together the Kansas City Project page would also make you a person who the other members would look up to. Just a thought, anyway. Badbilltucker23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, since CallMe Communications has been speedy-deleted (a deletion with which I heartily concur), do you think we should also delete User:Callmeau/temp, which essentially duplicates the information? I'm not entirely clear on what the procedures are for deleting commercial content that is being maintained in userspace. Does it need a formal AfD, or what should the next step be? --Elonka21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. This is stupid and provincial, but can you make your bot spell out the month when they do timestamps? I seriously read 11/12/2006 as November 12th, and couldn't figure out why it was so backlogged... -- nae'blis17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on getting over 100 support votes. Sorry it took me so long to reply to your question but I tend to get irresponsive at times.
Having spent a few years of my life working in a call centre handling escalated issues and irate customers, I have found that dispute resolution is an art, a natural skill very hard to acquire and implement consciously in the middle of heated arguments.
Browsing through your edits to form my opinion for your vote, I found that you were handling conflict very well, knew how to progress issues and avoid neverending arguments. Personally, I enjoy following the arbitration and to a lesser extend the mediation page and could see you into one of those roles in the future... though I am thinking more informal coaching and help might well be more rewarding.
Heh. My job prior to my current one involved working with criminally adjudicated, abused, and neglected youth in a group home setting. Dealing with tough personalities on Wikipedia is easy after that (no one's ever taken a golf club to my CRT, and I very rarely have to wrestle editors to the ground). I appreciate your kind words about dispute resolution and if/when my workload ever lightens up, I'd like to look at taking on an arbitration/mediation role here. But for right now, my to-do lists keep growing faster than I can knock them down... -- nae'blis23:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant my workload at work and church *laugh*. My workload here is intermittent, those things still come first (and I'm about to go on vacation, to boot). -- nae'blis15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. In a bid to keep the request as simple as possible and to forestall destructive tension on BugZilla, I've not included specific suggestions for mark-up, and intend to exclude issues such as the comma and anything that would have back-compatibility ramifications.
However, I'm concerned about the matter you raised of the need to put it on a silver plate for them—make it as easy as possible. This is why I wonder whether the addition of a simple sentence such as the following might satisfy your concern and mine:
"Some supporters have suggested <<date>> for the new syntax."
That seems to be the only one that brought up no problems in the discussion. I definitely don't want to cause problems with back-compatibility.
Are you a programmer? I just noticed the comment somewhere that said, !vote-based (on a discussion of RFA). I, at the time just read it as (not)vote-based, but realized that I had not seen that used on wikipedia like that before. Interesting nonetheless -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a semi-common conceit to shorthand "this isn't actually a vote". I'm terrible about throwing math/code terminology into informal writing, too many years on the Web and as a sometime programmer... -- nae'blis21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created the template Template:Removewarn because it is an issue that comes up fairly frequently, and I couldn't find a template for it. It is worded to be a cautionary note rather than an actual warning, despite the admittedly ambiguous name. StoptheDatabaseState19:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! 8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I found this very funny. When I first read this I thought you would were really upset, took me a minute to see that it was a compliment - am not very technical (if I am not - what am I doing messing with templates?!?!) oh well. Cheers lol Lethaniol16:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello nae'blis,this communication is as courtesy to your response on my talk page,I expect no further action on your part,but you did seem to wish a response.As an Admin and owner of numerous websites and research groups,and mod on others,when you mention;"or are you giving up?" or words to that effect;I see you are aware of a user friendly issue and there is not need to go into that.Normally when I create a website,I employ helps or study and use HTML and basic logic,asking questions from most orgs just gets a form response anyhow.I was pleased to actually get a response from a human,but ended up with a chain reaction anyhow.lol.As I tried to repair my user talk page so it would function,I ended up with a warning on a page dedicated to my IP address as follows,note I will adapt using parenthetical notation for excerts;("Your edits to other user's accounts.Do NOT blank,or add nonsense to any registered user's profile.Your first warning:Welcome to Wikipedia.We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia.Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing.However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User talk:AnalogHuman,are considered vandalism.If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning.Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others.Thank you.Specter01010 08:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)")FORGIVE ME FOR NOT BREAKING UP THIS COMMUNICATION,into sections so it would be easier to understand,but doing so seems to cause run ons in the pages here.Anyhow,I stopped trying to use my talk page for further discussion as I was afraid it would end up causing my IP to be banned for vandalizing my user talk page.I contacted Specter01010 and they responded after and suggested contacting yet another admin.But after reconsideration I thought this is snowballing and for something as simple as a new user name for an IP address,it's not worth it.When I joined as AnalogHuman I felt one major advantage would be removing my IP address from my contributions and gaining some control of privacy,as it said;("Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.").And I am sure Specter01010 was doing what was expected under the perceived rules,so place no no fault with that person.But I do have considerable security concerns due to research issues,in fact that was the reason my system would not work with the chat system mentioned in helps,as I don't allow that programming on my computer,or even messenger.As I first signed up,I did include an email,but as I saw any hope of enhanced privacy slipping away;I deleted it.This would have been an email but then found out by removing my email I could no longer email you.This begins to sound like a Shakespeare comedy as tragic events begat more.Alas,if only"Jim the Wonder Dog"was here,he could communicate.Have tried adding standard urls here in this message,but am worried that it would cause a run on,and did use slight HTML code in my talk page to display a link and it did work,none the less have learned to be cautious with this system as it seems to do things that always need adjusting and that might cause a vandalization issue,so will just say that a google search for"Jim the Wonder Dog"in quotation marks on Google will give a ton of results,and adding book or movie outside the marks should take you to what you mentioned on your query on my talk page.That's only if it really was of interest to you,otherwise you can drop it.Maybe when the next movie comes out,it will be more likely to be added.And yes,as I am very busy I will"Give up"as my contributions would only be sporadic at best,and please forgive me for being so long winded,but did want to respond,and in turn thankyou for your response as well.Thank You,Analog Human16:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for placing the content in my userspace for review. I'm going to blank the page for now, but it's possible I might access it later via the history so I can use it as a reference for a rewrite. (Of course, if it comes to that, I would ask for history undeletion.) Thanks again! -- Norvy(talk)03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the motto may not have any references, it is the motto of the school. Not all things can have sources and references. I know what the motto is because I am typing this from a computer in the school's library. Unfortunately there are not books or website which documents the motto and therefore I am unable to support the motto with any kind of source. In this case I feel it would be best if it remained there until someone opposed the motto and challenged or changed it to be something else. Please respond here as I am unable to login. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.252.238.158 (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately, since at least two different mottos have been posted, it's already been "contested" and therefore we do need a source in order for it to be accurate. It may seem counter-intuitive, but Wikipedia has a strong policy against original research, which is what "looking at the motto as I type" amounts to. Any author should be able to reasonably verify that what you say is true, and personal experience is incredibly hard to verify in that manner.
I found it hard to believe that the motto isn't documented anywhere (a yearbook or student guide, perhaps?), so if you do happen to find it in print/on a website somewhere, then it can be reincluded. Thanks for your consideration. -- nae'blis14:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have managed to find an image of the school crest containing the motto which I will upload shortly. If however the motto was not documentated in any such way would it not be re included even if many people related to the school could testify?
In addition, may I ask why the abnormalities section was deleted? I would be happy to provide a date for that particular incident.
Oliverwk17:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A date is not so important as a reliable source; media coverage of the incident (and I don't mean the school paper) would be best, a press release from the school about it would be somewhat helpful to fill in details. But again, personal anecdotal evidence counts as original research, even if it's something that seems "common knowledge" to a Claremont student. Remember that Wikipedia's audience is global, and may not know things that you take for granted. If we don't have someplace to "back up" our facts, we lose credibility in their eyes. The Abnormalities section as originally written was anecdotal and seemed to be from the perspective of someone involved/witnessing it. Think more of what someone would write in an out-of-town newspaper or a book about Claremont for the writing style we're looking for.
You're welcome to continue the conversation here or on the article's talk page, I'll try to check that over the next few days as well. -- nae'blis20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that the section in question was not written in the rightfully expected encylopædic tone, however the incident was on a small scale and did not/would not attract the attention of local news papers and a press release was not issued by the school. Perhaps it is of so little importance that it is not worth mentioning it, however it is an example of an ignorant attack on a religion, well a denomination of Christianity.Oliverwk21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping out in WP:MFD! When closing MFD discussions would you please subst: in the closeout templates, and place the top above the header name on the page like this? It helps to keep all of the pages consistant. Thanks again! — xaosfluxTalk03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and I'll try to remember that in the future. It's always a hassle remembering what gets substituted and what doesn't, and I haven't memorized the list yet... -- nae'blis15:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re [9]: You're right. I am obstructionist. I have every intention of being obstructionist to poorly thought out ideas that do not approach modifying RfA through some form of methodical approach, for example a SWOT analysis. That's my proposal for solving it. I've said it dozens of times, and I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face. Plenty of people want to "reform" RfA, yet few have made any real attempt to ascertain what's wrong with it. I've already done multiple point by point assertions and responses before. --Durin14:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know better than to be so :) Just making a joke. Note that SWOT is just one method. It might not even be the best method, but it's probably a good starting point. Another alternative might be a wikipedia adaptation of Eight Disciplines Problem Solving to address particular concerns. --Durin03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing that unblock request to my attention. Although that user has caused problems in the past, and with such a blatant sockpuppet name, I decided to give the user one more chance. Thanks for letting me know. :-) ZsinjTalk14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your exceptionally kind and thoughtful comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please tell me when your recall is? I would like to vote in it. Unless you do something stupid (I doubt it) I will support you. You are a great admin. Peace. --James, La gloria è a dio00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will make an open link if a recall is ever requested, but right now there is none ongoing. Thanks for your 'vote' of confidence, though. Cheers! -- nae'blis03:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey -- there is a way you could help, actually. I gave ratings for the 50 articles I looked at on a scale of 1-5, and it might be nice to have an independent opinion. On my scale, basically, 5 was unquestionable, 4 was very sound (but with the most minor excuse that no one I can think of would accept for keeping), 3 were articles that clearly meet the criterion but which require a little judgement, 2 were ones that I thought were technically okay but a stretch, and 1 for articles where the criterion clearly doesn't apply.
Any interest? Mangojuicetalk14:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, acceptance of adminship was tantamount to an agreement to give up real life and serve only Wikipedia ;). NoSeptember 16:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice you changed the name of "Late Antique Christianity" back to "Nicene Christianity" saying there was no concensus on the Nicene Christianity talk page. But, there isn't a Nicene Christianity talk page. It hasn't been created. The article is new and I think the person who made it simply made a mistake. Late Antique Christianity is the more common term (e.g. 1.1 mil goodle hits vs 683k for nicene christinity, most being links to the ante-nicene fathers, a different topic). I haven't seen any scholarly works use that label, whereas Late Antique Christianity is common (examples could be given). Also, Nicene Christianity sometimes means something elese: the Christian tradition that came to be orthodox (Greek & Catholic & even traditonal Prot.) Christianity of today, thus its meaning is quite different than as a historical era of the Church. Lostcaesar18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll drop something over on talk in a bit, thanks for the reply! =D
I'm still kind of boggled by the deletion process here. It appears the one tool that kept me actually editing wikipedia, Template:Future_article_talk_page got deleted. I've tried very hard to follow the wiki policy, it seemed clear that talk pages designed to help create an article are not covered under any grounds for deletion. I'm looking for a good place on wikipedia to discuss this issue :) I was hoping you could help? Mathiastck15:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Oh and if you're already working away on CSD please disregard this message; it's not meant as a slight against any hard work you're already doing. Cheers! Anchoress18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you did with this - it says you moved it to upper case surname, which should automatically turn the first article into a redirect, but now they're both in existence!? Tyrenius23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check again, the Froggy editor didn't catch on at first to what happened, so he kept editing the original title... -- nae'blis23:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "I'm not entirely clear why you protected his talk page; he's making expressions of frustration with a block he clearly does not agree with, but cutting off communication doesn't seem likely to help him understand or change his behavior. I didn't see his behavior as warranting cutting off his last method of communication on-wiki. Would you consider removing protection and settle for removing any explicit attacks?"
He was blocked for rampant personal attacks. He continued making these personal attacks on his talk page once he was blocked. In my opinion, it is entirely inappropriate to allow him to continue making the personal attacks. If you can get his personal assurance that these will cease, I would be happy to lift the protection from his page, however. If not, the protection expires around the end of his 48 hour block, give or take a few minutes. --Yamla18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, if you are an administrator, you have my blessing to remove the protection under the same terms. Alternatively, if you are willing to monitor and remove any personal attacks from his page, you have my grudging consent. I do not believe that a person blocked for personal attacks should be permitted to continue making them, however. --Yamla18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me in this manner, but I have just gotten back from moving and taken myself off of wiki-break, and have yet to get a permanent internet connection ( I use a library computer for now). Once I do, I will gladly accept another nomination. See you around the boards. SynergeticMaggot22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your recent removal of the "Largest Metro" statistic from the Missouri info box. I have done some research on the definitions of MSA and the Missouri components of both the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas. Perhaps you'd be willing to reconsider your recent edit based on that research, and or provide some additional input to the discussion. I would like to gain a more complete understanding of why that statistic was removed, as it would benefit the Wikipedia readers. Perhaps we could work together to provide guidelines on when the largest metro statistic should or should not be used. One possibility would be to completely omit the largest metro stat. Another would be to only include it in states in which the entire MSA lies within only one state. Another would be to always list it. Another would be to only include it in states in which the largest city does not anchor the largest MSA.Cynic78320:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have me confused with the anonymous user who made that edit back in December; I personally don't have a problem with it, since there seems to be a space for it in the template, but it's also misleading in Missouri's case where it isn't necessarily so in some other states. I would support a footnote that says to look at the section where it describes the difference between metro size (STL on top) and city size (KCMO on top). -- nae'blis23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you say it's misleading do you mean because the MSA's aren't completely in the state of Missouri? Of the arguments I've read that's probably the strongest. So far we have Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Florida using the LargestMetro tag. I found those by just searching for "LargestMetro". Of those, Nebraska and Tennessee (maybe the others, didn't have time to check) have metros that cross state lines. What about adding the largest metro with a footnote that explains that both MSA's are in two states and perhaps reaffirming that Kansas City proper is the largest city (in terms of both area and population).Cynic78316:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fine, actually. It's actually interesting (to me) that KCMO and STL have such differing characteristics, and the State Legislature takes advantage of that from time to time to enact legislation that only affects one, or the other, or both but no other city. Kinda wild. -- nae'blis16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the RfA nom, and sorry it didn't go well. I just closed it because the opposes are about half based on incorrect assumptions and claims at this point, and it was only getting worse. I probably won't try again for quite some time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ01:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and I'm glad to have done it. It was certainly an "eye opening" experience for me watching your candidacy's progress, and I'm sorry it didn't work out better for you. Make sure to let me know if you run again, I still have no real problem with supporting you for the bit. -- nae'blis16:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll MfD the page, but your reaction is precisely why I tagged the page. The casual viewer has absolutely no idea what's going on there, and makes an incorrect assumption. Jefferson Anderson is a user who, in three months, got involved in two Arbcom disputes, continually edited against consensus, and was all in all a problematic user for quite a number of articles and people. His accusations are totally baseless, and I see no reason to let him use his user page to accuse other editors (including myself) of improper conduct, when he is the one acting improperly. Also, how do you enter into dispute resolution with a user who has left Wikipedia (and has, BTW, done so with two AMA cases open that he started in the first place)? MSJapan16:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't see that in the history of the contested prod page. Was there any rationale other than the procedural one? I won't AFD it right away if someone threatened to fix it, but if the overturn was only procedural, I certainly will. Angus McLellan(Talk)21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Can you recover the deleted article Janicism and send it to me by "email user"? Possibly File:Janicism article.jpg too. I would like to obtain the copy just for reasons of curiosity to the controversy (also a funny controversy one can say). I promise I will not post it anywhere on Wikipedia. Thanks! Wooyi22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind words and supportive comments on my recent RfA. I've been shot down again, so it won't be happening this time. I hope, though, that I can hear from you again next time around - and there definitely will be a next time.
Hi. I have reviewed your decision in regards to this page and I find it to be arbitrary at best. The person this page refers to has a Wikipedia article at James Bradford; a great deal of the assertions in User:Orthogonal/non-famous_person could be considered libelous. Although the article is located on a user's talk page section (a user who, by the way, has not used Wikipedia since 2004,) the content still falls under the policies of Biographies of Living Persons, which states that "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." The content at User:Orthogonal/non-famous_person needs to be removed PERMENANTLY, as does all of the variations in the history. Midnightguinea16:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded on the appropriate page on my feelings on the matter. My most pertinent concern is that the Orthogonal article ultimately be completely removed, including it's history, in order to wipe out repeated variations on the same potentially libelous comments. Otherwise, good work! Midnightguinea22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question copied for continuity: I must be blind or misreading something (that page has gotten way too long), but where in his supplemental statement does Danny say/imply his fellow admins are lying? That would be very concerning to me, but it is still early here... maybe I'm just blind. -- nae'blis16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 5 under "Danny's supplemental statement" - "As for this RfA, I may have done something unprecedented here. I may have actually told the truth in all of my answers." --BigDT23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<quote>this looks like a slam; there's no mention of 7/11 in the cont. Christian music article</quote>
I have heard the term 'seven eleven' used to describe contemporary Christian music (as opposed to hymns) in at least two of my house churches. While it may be said that such a label is given to any particular song as a 'slam', I was not aware of any such policy/censorship in wikipedia against documenting such. If you mean that I intended to 'slam' ccm in adding it to the wiki, my motivation was actually that I was looking for a list of such songs (perhaps sorted by the degree of this effect), and added this reference when I found such lacking. (Though it may classify as original content?) that I have heard it from disparate sources (also a distinct-but-similiar numerical reference which illudes me at present), would it not be correct to indicate that seven-eleven 'may refer to' repeatitive ccm? —comment added by Osndok(t/c)
Actually, all it would need in that case would be a source that backs up what you've heard, personally. Anecdotal evidence is not admissible as a source for Wikipedia, but if it's been covered in a news piece on CCM or something, that'd be a great addition to the page (although really, it should be included on the CCM page and referenced from the disambiguation page, if that makes sense). Even though the term may be a slam, if it's verifiable, it's valuable information. -- nae'blis22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added such a reference to the CCM page, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by referencing that section from the disambiguation page (like an HTML anchor?), so I just replaced the previous link in 7-Eleven (disambiguation); someone will fix it if the CCM page gets too big (right now it is quite small). Thanks. --Osndok15:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I responded to you on my talk page. I prefer to have the discussion there. Thank you for responding to my coaching request. Alan.ca08:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; you know, it cracks me up that I visited that page today for the first time, and now hours later I'm seeing it again! Happy (and stress-free) editing! -- nae'blis20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, you probably should have discussed, then you would have found out about the IP address with all of the trolling and personal attacks. Also, you erred in unblocking RDH as he was already serving out a 48 hour block by an "uninvolved user" for his latest disruption anyway. I lengthened it to indefinite, but rather than shortening it back to the original block length, you lifted it entirely. You messed up; please fix it. --Cyde Weys17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a 48-hour block in the recent past and am not seeing it, Cyde. January 31st he was blocked for 48 hours, is that what you mean? Even though we don't always see eye to eye, I think we still live in the same space-time continuum... unblocking a disruptive IP though would have been a mistake, if I did so let me know or feel free to correct that error yourself. -- nae'blis17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrrmmm ... nevermind then. I do believe we're in the same space time continuum. Sorry for saying you did something bad that you didn't. With all of the new evidence however, I do believe the verdict of indef is going to stick. --Cyde Weys17:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely Cyde's fault for not giving a proper reason on the block log. Interesting he talk now of "new" evidence - did he not know of it when he issued th eblock after all then? Giano17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Stoopid question about IP blocks (since you've done a lot more than I). If I unblock a user, there's no option to 'avoid' unblocking the IP is there? Or does it only unblock the name, in which case I'm not sure what your warning was about earlier... any clarification would be nice. Usually I'm not around enough to worry about this sort of thing, but forewarned is forearmed for next time... -- nae'blis18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, unblocking users does not lift any blocks placed on the IP address (assuming there are any). Autoblocks would have to be cleared out manually. In this case, I think it makes sense to apply the same sentence to his IP address as his username, as it's clearly the same guy. For the IP address I didn't block indefinitely because someone else could theoretically get that IP address down the line, but the same threat does not exist for his username. --Cyde Weys21:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would still be interested in administrative tools, however it might be better to wait a month or so as due to exams I'm not very active on Wikipedia at the moment (my exams are this month, so after that I should be back). Thanks. Cynical15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "leave Mikka alone" do you not understand?
If you have something to say to me, say it to me on my talk page, not on someone else's. Doing the latter is just plain rude. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been an edit conflict. I tried to revert the vandalism by 67.64.47.141 by going back until the "yoyoyo hello!!!" disappeared from the page: unfortunately, I stopped at the wrong one (I actually should have gone back farther, since the previous anon editor was putting crap in as well; it was on one of his/her contributions that I stopped on). Thanks for picking it up; in the meanwhile, the "yoyoyo" was still there; I got rid of it -- manually this time! Cheers. --SigPig |SEND - OVER18:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer and confidence, but I am not interested in being a sysop. I prefer being an editor rather than a janitor, though my busy schedule has taken a toll on my editing as well. Thanks again for the offer. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the offer but right now is not a good time due to real-life obligations. I'll let you know if I change my mind one of these days. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nae'blis -- Responding to your request to add a comment on Talk:PIT_maneuver: I'd already done that prior to my edit to the article. Please see.
For convenience, here it is again:
I'm removing the reference to the Supreme Court case Scott v. Harris as irrelevant to this article on the PIT maneuver. The decision in that case makes clear that the PIT was not employed in the case:
Following respondent's shopping center maneuvering, which resulted in slight damage to Scott's police car, Scott took over as the lead pursuit vehicle. Six minutes and nearly 10 miles after the chase had begun, Scott decided to attempt to terminate the episode by employing a "Precision Intervention Technique ('PIT') maneuver, which causes the fleeing vehicle to spin to a stop." Brief for Petitioner 4. Having radioed his supervisor for permission, Scott was told to "'[g]o ahead and take him out.'" Harris v. Coweta County, 433 F. 3d 807, 811 (CA11 2005). Instead, Scott applied his push bumper to the rear of respondent's vehicle.1
1Scott says he decided not to employ the PIT maneuver because he was "concerned that the vehicles were moving too quickly to safely execute the maneuver." Brief for Petitioner 4. Respondent agrees that the PIT maneuver could not have been safely employed. See Brief for Respondent 9. It is irrelevant to our analysis whether Scott had permission to take the precise actions he took.
It might be appropriate in some other article that more generally discusses police intervention through vehicular contact, but not this one.
That's probably true of the other paragraph in the Legal opinions section, too, but since the Scott case expressly states that the PIT was not involved, the paragraph on that case is the only one I'm deleting.
Nae'blis, no problem. I top-posted on that talk page, which may be why it was missed. I've corrected that.
I also today added a proposal to move the entire section to Deadly force, because I took a look at the other cases cited and it turns out that none of then involve PIT.
Yes, just that. Thanks for asking :-) I replied on my Talk, for those who watch it, but I am pretty mellow just now, other than transient frustration with irc. I'm taking a couple of days off OTRS, to calm my nerves. That's a high-burnout place. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the problem is? This is the old name for {{cent}}, and it was always intended to be transcluded at the top of the daily then-VFD log. The only surprising thing is that the old logs transclude the present-day template. >Radiant<08:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFC 2119 defines how to specify requirements. Sometimes it's useful to use terms like MUSTRFC 2119, and SHOULD NOTRFC 2119, as defined in that document. If I don't tag those, people might think I'm SHOUTINGRFC 1855, section 2.1.1. ;-) --Kim Bruning16:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand that (I write bylaws as part of my job and hobbies). I was just confused because I misunderstood rfc for WP:RFC. -- nae'blis16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nae'blis, thank you for your participation in my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday. In the end, I did change back to the default sig, in order to avoid any chance of disruptiveness. Thank you for raising your valid and reasonable concerns, and I hope we will have the opportunity to work together in the future. Pastordavid16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that there is some controversy about whether an opinion on policy can be opposed in RfA, and I'm almost sorry that Gracenotes phrased the answer as he did (I understand the "any context" line), rather than in a less controversial manner similar to some of the others up for RfA. However, as long as that is clearly his position, I just wouldn't be comfortable with him having the tools. I sincerely hope that I'm not overreacting, but I suppose I'd be the last to know it. Cheers, TewfikTalk22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My response to your note (I see you posted it to others) is that my concerns are unchanged. I thought his "clarification" was as murky as pea soup. Cheers, --Mantanmoreland22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Your lobbying on talk pages, and your insertion of favorable comments at the very top of the discussion portion of the RfA, is not going to further your cause IMHO.--Mantanmoreland23:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I wasn't aware that providing a link to a discussion was considered 'favourable comments'. Shame on you, nae'blis!(jk) Bladestorm23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nae'blis, and thank you for your note. I feel poorly about my !vote as I think very highly of Gracenotes and the opinions of his nominators and supporters. However, I feel very strongly that links to identified attack sites should be removed aggressively, and as such, cannot support Gracenotes' nomination at this time. Thanks for understanding -- Samir06:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked into this a bit more - he does appear legitimate. Given that he is her lawyer, he should NOT be taken through DRV. This needs to go straight to the Foundation or arbcom. Phil Sandifer21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you struck out the comment by William Henry Harrison in my Request for Admin. I feel vindicated by this, as I had initially requested that his vote be ignored, as his contributions did not indicate that he was a constructive/productive editor. Consequently, a lot of my "anti" votes were based on my "incivility" towards this guy, who has since been banned as a sockpuppet. I sincerely hope whoever comes to review my RfA will take this into account, as that "incivility" swung the balance against me, especially if you read people's reasons for voting as they have.
True, but people are opposing on a variety of issues, not just the WHH point. And a big part of being civil is being civil to those we don't like (i.e trolls and vandals). If you had made a more moderate response to WHH, that flak would not have occurred, I believe. At this point your RFA is statistically impossible to pass in the next two days (you'd have to get ~70 supports w no more opposes), so if you're comfortable with the amount of feedback you've received, you might consider withdrawing and trying again at a later date (P.S. Next time use {{rfa-notice}} on your talk page, it's neutrally worded). -- nae'blis13:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I'd rather not withdraw though. Foregone conclusion it might be, but that's not reason to simply give up.
I've read the series at least five times now (or at least the books which are out), I've seen you for months, and I just got the reference today. I'm not sure how that reflects on me, but it is funny. -Amarkovmoo!23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your comment on RfA, and I went back and completely reworded the statement on that page, still with the same meaning, but less confrontational, I believe. After sleeping on it, I also decided to move my vote to neutral, as that would not as much be a reason to oppose, but, rather, I reason to not support. Cheers. hmwithtalk12:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for facilitating the return of this article. I can quite see why it was deemed non-notable (although I think an AfD rather than a speedy would have been more appropriate when it was originally deleted.) However it's back, and we can now try and keep it there with some decent citations. If only people drafting articles would support them with decent references in the first place! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk to me)16:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's active work happening right now with and on Consensus Polls. Thought you might be interested after your work on this last fall here at wikipedia. peace, Tedernst | talk
Earlier you had expressed a willingness to nominate me for adminship if/when I it would be productive and usefull. I have been more active over the past few weeks and certainly wished that I could help more with the backlogs in AfD closings. I would invite you to examine my contribs and then nominate me they demonstrate trustworthiness and use for the tools (as I think they do). Thanks a bunch. Eluchil40422:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
okay! I didnt know that and had assumed you were a new anon not an admin. Redirecting the article is s[pot on, IMO. Have a nice w/end, SqueakBox17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read what I wrote? I was wondering because you've not responded. If you have nothing more to say regarding my RfB, then please tell me so I know to stop badgering you. :-) --Deskana(talk)17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, weekend was completely insane (something about aspecting a god tends to keep you off the Interwebs), but I'll get back to you later today, I expect. -- nae'blis13:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, there's about 30 hours left on my RfB yet. By the way, you've made an amazing comment here, because no matter how many times I purge and force refresh, it won't show up on the page, I can only see it in the diff on the page history! --Deskana(talk)13:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's no good for communication. :P It seems to be present now, at least on my computer; when I have this problem, it's usually related to my firewall at work caching too aggressively. -- nae'blis15:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated you for admin...I originally suggested it to you, you declined and then at a later date you asked me to nominate you and I did...your comment here seems to indicate you wouldn't support myself and and couple others for admin. Luckily, I have no intention of running anytime soon, so I won't need your support. Thanks.--MONGO01:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any need to respond to me at all. I was just think that objecting to a candidate based on who they respect is odd. Best wishes.--MONGO19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a reply to your vote in my RFA, the main reason why I became inactive was because of very personal problems. I do have the stabilty in this project. Thanks Jarandawat's sup02:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with your self-assessment, but it looks like you're going to pass anyway, so good luck maintaining a level head. -- nae'blis13:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at my response to your !vote in my RfA. In short, I was surpised to see the note on your user page that you focus on maintenance work because you don't have much time for writing content, as my similar statement was the basis for your objection to my RfA. That strikes me as somewhat unfair. Am I missing something? Thanks for your input. --But|seriously|folks17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I just wanted to let you know I was inspired by comments made by you and a few others at my RfA to contribute what I hope is useful article content. I talk about it here. I'm not expecting to sway your vote with one more stub, but I wanted you to know that I am taking your views seriously. Thanks for your input! --But|seriously|folks03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to keep your concerns in mind as I perform my duties. Andre (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's a gigantic difference between CNN saying it's an allegation and the article saying he is heading a heroin smuggling organisation. The CNN source (nor the Bloomberg one I read earlier) is not good enough to support what the article claims. Anyhow, I've cut it per WP:BLP so there's not a lot left. ROGERTALK13:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka05:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you redirect someone to another page to view articles? note: i am a beginner html user so i need help with these things... thanks if you can help! SakuraAvalon8621:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left this message on your IP addess talk page. I'm not sure if you got it:
You might also want to try the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template. It automates the process and sorts correctly based on what you've described. If you can give me a link, maybe I can help. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
07:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
We are here to build an encyclopedia!
For helping me find the Renaissance man userbox.Rosa 22:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
—Doug Bell talk 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Resolved