|
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Heidi Horten, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Heidi Horten seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Heidi Horten, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
13:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I've responded to your comments at the review. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I read your comments regarding Valley of peace initiative. thanks for your feedback. I will try to give that some thought. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm just peer reviewing the article now and I think you should take a look here for things to look out for next time you review an article. I really don't mean this as an insult but perhaps you are not ready for reviewing yet: maybe a couple of months more experience and you'll be more aware of the ins and outs of wikipedia. Congrats on diving straight into the reviewing though! Normally people just write a bunch of stuff and hope it's all good but you seem keen to iron out problems. If you need any advice on how things work (like WP:LEAD or other wiki crap) feel free to contact me on my talk and i'll help you out as soon as. Take care. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Double posting - hope you see I was trying to help! A good way of learning how to review is to look at other reviews by more experienced editors. Take a look at WP:Good article nominations and look things through. At the moment though, perhaps WP:Peer Review might suit you better, you'll notice what things people suggest there (though GA criteria and the more informal peer review style are unrelated of course). On peer review you can just post a couple of minor comments or improvements you think can be made - without taking the whole pressure that you are the sole reviewer. I'll try to keep an eye on what you're doing though and you can always throw any comments or questions my way. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd greatly appreciate if you'd review it, though maybe I should hold off on GA nomination, and jut work to make it better. I have, at least, gotten rid of the "Cultural impact" section millstone around my neck, and, in a pinch, could make that whole section a simple "See also" =) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your review on the abovementioned. Pse refer to my follow-up edits & reply here. -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of my new solution.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You nominated this article for GA, which I have put on hold for now. Please read my comments and fix if possible. Cheers, bibliomaniac 1 5 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash ( talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PLease? It is very distracting. Viridae Talk 12:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:-( What is distracting about it particularly? how do you turn this on 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not change it, I've decided. Is it violating any rule? I'll happily change it if it's causing a big problem, but I don't think it is, and I think discussion of other things elsewhere would be better use of time. how do you turn this on 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello;
I don't think that we've ever interacted, so I hope that this request does not seem too terribly left-field-ish: I too find your current signature to be highly distracting. (Note that this is coming from someone who made sort of a big issue about people being allowed to make fancy signatures if they wanted.) Not only is it black, it's big and black.
Also, I note that you've indicated that you're interested in adminship. Without meaning to offend, right now I'd oppose just do to the comment "Is it violating any rule?" I'm happy to discuss further (if you're at all amenable) why that is a problematic thing to say.
brenneman 07:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I will say it directly: I strongly suggest you withdraw your current RfA. There is basically a 100% chance that this RfA will be closed under WP:NOTNOW because with only one month experience people will not be able to judge your performance correctly. We appreciate your contributions and encourage you to continue to do so but I am afraid your request for adminship will not be successful and you should consider withdrawal. Have a nice day So Why 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice job with this article. I've been wanting to work on it for a while, but never did. I'm currently quite busy, but, in the future, do you want to collaborate for an FA? --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Christopher Dorling, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. chrylis ( talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you left some comments at 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake's FAC, and i was wondering if you could make a !vote please? Thanks, — Sunday Scribe 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I wonder is the user may have once been on the game and hated it, so maybe bias? Doubtful, but can we collaborate on a thourough GA review for the article? Thanks!
Jon
How's the weather? -
talk about me behind my back
17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, I saw you were a bit confused about the difference of these on AN, and the discussion sort of took a turn away from you before you got a clear answer. Just in case you still were confused, I thought I'd drop by.
I realize that was a bit long, but I hope I've explained things fairly well. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. It'd be a nice break from the sort of questions I usually get on my talk page. Anyway, I hope this helped, and happy editing! Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reconsidered and implemented your suggestion at MediaWiki:Tooltip-ca-edit; you can read my reasoning at MediaWiki talk:Tooltip-ca-edit. {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Until you can provide a solid source that states W had X nominations, Y had Z nomination etc, the section remains off. Dalejenkins | 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
"getting the tools to assist with your own articles, as it seems to me, isn't really appropriate." Why not? --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 21:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I link to St Ives (disambiguation) so that when I look at the "what links here" for St Ives it is easy to spot which are deliberate links to the dab page, and which are accidental. This is quite a common practice for dab pages. DuncanHill ( talk) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an incredibly random question, but are you interested in earthquakes? Your friend Eddy of the wiki citation needed 00:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hi How do you turn this on. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, — αἰτίας • discussion• 22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Read my userpage, you'll find out there. Also, check out some of the newer threads on my talk page. That should give you enough info, I really don't want to go into a full-blown explanation. Jn t • c 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have a question regarding this comment of yours. Did you mean "the bot was a bad one" or "the block was a bad one"?
I also have a comment reagarding your statement on RfAr. First of all, your experience with me seems only superficial and the description you provide oversimplifies my actual reaction. It's not a mere "stop wonking", it's rather "stop wonking unless you have an actual concern". Furthermore, your statement that I'm not interested in what the community thinks about my bot is patently false - they were public knowledge for a long time and the way to express concerns is right over there all the time. Anyone who comes with a question or a genuine issue is treated seriously and has always gotten a due explanation. Lastly, regarding your concern of my refusal to get the bots aprroved, please be advised that: 1) my bots have community approval already, 2) there is no current process of approving adminbots (save an RfA, which is a retarded way to do it) and 3) I am putting a lot of work into actually creating a workable policy out of the RfC ( WP:BOT/ WT:BOT) so that adminbots can follow it without unnecessary nonsense in the way.
Regards, Миша 13 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That's you're third revert at snopes today. Please stop or you are quite likely to be blocked. I am open to discussion on the talk page.-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah--that is annoying, I know. I think it's hidden in User talk:Editorofthewiki/Header, though I'm not sure how to fix it. Do you? Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki citation needed 13:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I imagine you forgot to support my RFa as the nominator. :) Your friend the editorofthewiki ( talk/ contribs/ editor review) 03:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
This AN thread may be of interest to you. EJF ( talk) 15:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
So if he came across the best admin candidate ever, stellar record, likely to pass with 0 opposes, he wouldn't be a good person to nominate that person? Sounds fishy to me. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey there How do you turn this on... I know what Ling.nut said came across wrong, but who nominates a candidate does have an affect on the nomination. In theory it shouldn't but the reality is that it does. A person who has been around for only a few months will garner additional scrutiny to the potential admin. The relative newbie hasn't developed a reputation yet... either at RfA's or in other areas of the project to indicate that the newbie understands what is expected. Thus, not only is the newbie's perspective on what is expected incomplete, but their judgment hasn't been developed on the subject yet. On the flip side, when an experienced admin with a solid reputation at RfA's nom's a candidate, they are more likely to buy their candidates additional supports because people realize that the experienced admin doesn't nom somebody who isn't ready. For example, I'm here because I've been reviewing Ling.Nut for the past four hours! People know that I do this with my noms/coachees, thus when I nom somebody, people are more likely to trust my judgment. In short, what I think Ling.nut was saying, is get experience on the project and develop a reputation, then start looking for potential admin's. If you find somebody you think should be an admin, take that person to somebody else. If you feel strong enough to nom somebody, try to get somebody else to co-nom with you. That will help others trust your judgment. This isn't something new, see point 4--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you plan to set up email? Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 12:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As a user who contributed to the discussion concerning Koavf ( talk · contribs), you're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals also. Thanks - Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I've provided three citations for Michael Eugene Osment's full name, since you don't accept the IMDb. What I have not cited, since it would be OR, is my own knowledge, since Michael Eugene Osment is one of my best friends. I hope the additional cites will be sufficient for you. Thanks. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 03:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I don't intend to keep reverting the IP, and have left them a note on their talk page. Glass Cobra 13:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
[1] - New article from today, could be useful. Gran 2 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi.
If you have time could you please take a moment to review The Scott Mills Show. I have been working on it for quite a bit and just need someone to review it and give their opinions.
Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've hidden my comments. I've read your responses and trust you to have to corrected them, in general, as you said you did. I don't have a great deal of time on my hands for any one specific issue at the moment but I've removed the oppose. I'm sure, if Sandy is happy enough, your bronze star isn't too far away. Good luck, keep up the good work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not "trying to make enemies." I was trying to help you with the article. You said you'd rather I raised my concerns at the FAC. This I did. They you started badgering me, rather than reading what I was saying. You also don't seem to understand the FAC process very well as yet. -- jbmurray ( <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:VoABot/adminlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:VoABot/botlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Voice of All/Dates.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Voice of All/monobook/parse.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/72.35.4.220, already linked from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.35.4.220. Feel free to merge yours. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I just checked a couple more of the sources. (And yes, when you check a source you should update an accessdate... that's the point!) Here's your problem: most of them, as far as I can see, are very poorly paraphrased, bordering on plagiarism. However, I note that as you try to produce a better paraphrase, you tend to distort the meaning of the original source. E.g. (in addition to the earlier example re. the wedding) here. The service wasn't "complemented" by the choir's performance. The performance was clearly an integral part of the service. So you've fixed one problem, but introduced another.
But here's your solution, if you have problems paraphrasing (as it seems you do): use direct quotations. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys.
Just a little patronising note (sorry, I can't help it) to remind you both that you're on the same side.
I have seen enough of both of you around the wiki to know you're both committed to improving the encyclopedia and developing high quality content.
Somewhere, something's gone a little awry in your communications with each other. Please see if you can attempt not to appear to be riling the other one or scoring points.
The kind of dispute you two are beginning to cook up never ends well and is particularly silly when you realise that you're actually on the same side.
Please excuse this well-intentioned personal comment.
I am, as ever, Dweller ( talk) 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
My approach was that if I found that many issues, at speed, in one section of the article, it wasn't ready for FAC and should go back for a third party copyedit or PR. That you've fixed the items I brought up is great, but doesn't change the premise under which I presented them. To be fair, I'll review the article with an open mind; if I don't think there's much tinkering left, I'll list any issues at the FAC. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look like anyone has replied to you specifically about this, so just in case -- a requirement for RFCU clerks is that they be administrators. This is because a primary duty of a clerk is making blocks as appropriate for identified abusive socks. If you've already been informed, sorry for the inconvenience. Avruch T 18:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Loved this one. Congrats! NVO ( talk) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, didn't notice those were the links; my bad totally. Keep up the good work (and Mark Speght will be an FAC in no time, I can feel it) :D RkMnQ ( talk) 22:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal is currently at deletion review on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 8#User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal and I'd like to ask if you could clarify your support in the MFD. Basically, we are wondering if you felt the page violated WP:MYSPACE. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Poking in...just wondering if you could e-mail me? That's really the only way I can get a hold of you privately, and yes — it's private. Thx! Jn t • c 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. As you can see from the other editors edit history, they have been edit warring on other pages. His birth place is referenced, and this user is now using an IMBD profile based on an old Wikipedia article to back this up. They have also been making identical edits using other IP addresses. Please see the talk page on Jimmy Carr. Thanks.
92.11.249.102 ( talk) 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I see the article has now been proected - shame it was protected leaving the unreferenced incorrect version in place! What happens now? When it is unprotected the other IP editor will vandalise again using one of their many IP addresses.
92.11.249.102 ( talk) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!
92.11.249.102 ( talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I have refactored the offending comment to "user in question". Hope this works. Sorry about earlier. Rough day at work. Arbiteroftruth ( talk) 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_checkuser%2FClerks&diff=244410008&oldid=244408018
No, no, I am to be considered away for the time being. I simply had a spare moment, and did a bit of clerking. :-)
Apologies for any confusion. Anthøny ✉ 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
– RyanCross ( talk) 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know: I added a G10 (Attack page) template on this particular page you added for MFD. Personally i don't think this will need to go the long way around for MfD :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 21:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
How do you turn this on, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I realised that I got a little confused on the Myron Evans deletion page (which I was asked to set up today, somewhat unwillingly). I hadn't noticed that one of the editors had called Evans a crank, so I slightly misread the thread. I apologize for any problems that this might have caused you. I think Hans Adler spotted this confusion. Anyway sorry again. I agree with you that it was unhelpful to use the word crank. I also decided that it was not useful to go into a technical discussion of the mathematical problems with Evans' work, either in the article or in the deletion discussion. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
– RyanCross ( talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello How do you turn this on. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
Looks like you're having some trouble negotiating the tables at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case. You might want to have a look at some of the fixes I made with this edit. Let me know if you have any questions. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
That was a really awesome cheat. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 07:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I've found some peer-reviewed publications that discuss Hoser's work. Could you take another look at the article and the AfD discussion? Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
RE your comments about the exam questions... AMEN!!! To think, less than a week ago, I was waiting for you to run for RfA so that I could oppose... now, I'm ready to support... since you've hit my radar, I've liked most of what you've said (as long as you aren't saying it to me ;-) )--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Hdytto. Long time no see. Just wondering if you could review Paul Gondjout at FAC--I'm terribly sorry I didn't devote more time to Speight, I'm working on a featured topic! ~one of many editorofthewikis ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll probably send it tonight. Homework, y'know! *rolls eyes*
Jon (
talk)
20:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
JayHenry ( talk) 02:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I responded to your comment on my DYK. Gary King ( talk) 02:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=245976644&oldid=245975638.
Be careful. The role of the clerks is explicitly to not comment on whether a check is worth running. If you wish to comment on the validity of a check, do so carefully, and don't use {{
Clerk-Note}}: any such comments should be with your "clerk hat off," so to speak.
You might want to rethink your comment there.
Regards, Anthøny ( talk) 23:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It used to be in the guidelines, hmmm. I'll add it back it. It's a basic guideline of wiki clerking. Thanks for understanding. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Your bug report which has been added to this section has been read and dealt with. A new version of huggle(0.8.2) has just been released and I would be gratfull If you could download it and test it to ake sure that this bug has been fixed :). Thats for the report and if you wish to reply to this message could you please use my talk page as I have sent this message to more people that just you. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 10:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, pudding. I don't know a better comparison. Jello is sometimes used, but to me living brain tissue doesn't seem as "rubbery" as jello -- more like tapioca. (My experience is mainly with rats, by the way.) Looie496 ( talk) 04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Friendly mail sent, How do you. Ceoil sláinte 13:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello HDYTTO. Yes, indeed. I apologize as it's not my usual behavior to give attention to every single provocation directed at me. Let's say that I'm not in my best mood and not particularly pleased with the way some Wikipedians enjoy addressing others. You may remove any recent unhelpful comments of mine (or move them elsewhere). It is not my intention to give that atmosphere to the RfA, although I must say I'm not the only culprit. Regards, Hús ö nd 18:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
...is an edit summary of my addition(s). Hopefully my addition is help ... if not then the ? covers it. Hope that helps? Fine. Thx for contributions Victuallers ( talk) 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC) thx for the halloween pennant contribution... are you going to move apple bobbing in too? well done Victuallers ( talk) 16:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 11:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Do I subst: just the top or the top and bottom?
Incoming.... Ceoil sláinte 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Ja! I spent 6 years in evil frickin medicine school so that has to account for something! Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 16:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of hard not to leave a mean comment when someone freaks out at you for no good reason. Schuym1 ( talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Odd that you should turn up with an openion on this. Would you mind letting me be. Ceoil sláinte 06:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the vandalism. :) Thanks also for the other times when you've commented on my talk page when I haven't been around. Best wishes. Acalamari 19:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 20:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry. My on-wiki time has been a bit limited as of late, although I've tried to chip in when I can; I'm not (with my current uni schedule) really up to fixing an entire article in just a day :(. Ironholds ( talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review and edits. I think all of your edits improve the article, and I there's definitely some stuff that you identified in the peer review that I plan on acting on as well. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 17:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed your template {{ DYKusertalk}}. As it happens, I just made a very similar template (I hadn't noticed yours already there), for probably the same reasons as you (I found myself frequently notifying nominators about questions at T:TDYK, and figured a template would be useful). The template I made is {{ DYKquestions}} (still working on thinking of a better name, since the current name is awkwardly similar to {{ DYK?}}). I don't know how often you have been using yours, but I have been using mine a lot and gradually trying to get other people into it. Suntag just created a category for all DYK templates and asked me to go through and see if there are any redundant or unused templates...since both of ours are very similar, to you think it would be ok if we made one of our templates redirect to the other? (Of course I am partial to my own template, but since both of our templates are very similar it should be easy to incorporate either one into the other, if you think there are deficiencies with either or both of the templates right now). Thanks, — Politizer talk/ contribs 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I understand completely. I'm sorry if my comments may have come across stronger than I meant them. Ral315 ( talk) 00:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks good. I've updated the list of nominees, as we've gotten a few in since you last updated. The question item is interesting; in theory, we were asking for general questions until the 17th. At that time, the Question pages would be created and the general list posted to each candidate, so all candidates get the same list of questions. Editors could then post candidate-specific questions. In practice, we already have some user-specific questions, and some candidates have already copied the general questions and started answering - so who knows where that will go? You might consider mentioning that editors can ask a question to everyone by posting it at the general list; beyond that, you seem to have hit the high points. Thanks for working on this, btw. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get a chance to formally ask you about writing something for the ArbCom elections -- if you'd like to do so, that'd be great. If you have time before we go to press, I need a story this week on the opening of candidate statements for the election. Otherwise, I'll take it for this week, and you can handle it thereafter, if you like. Let me know as soon as you see this whether you can do a write-up. Thanks, Ral315 ( talk) 23:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Such an elegant solution to the referencing problem! I'm an idiot for not seeing it myself; one of those "what the deuce?" moments. Ironholds ( talk) 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
I'm sorry you had to withdraw. I personally do not think short articles should be held back or that a rigorous ToC standards should be applied here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting me at my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you in the future!-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Haha, tis alright. A single glance at the discussion will tell anyone that BITE doesn't apply; i've tried to be courteous (although I believe it has now got to the point where his "removal of unsourced information" counts as vandalism. Ironholds ( talk) 04:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() ![]() |
Hello, Amicon/Archive1, and
welcome to
Wikiproject Greater Manchester! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Greater Manchester Project Wikipedian!
As a project we aim to have all our articles compliant with the various editing policies and guidelines. If you are contributing an article, it is good practice to ensure that it’s properly referenced with reliable sources, otherwise any contentious content may be removed by another editor. A good starting point for articles about settlements in Greater Manchester is the WP:UKCITIES guideline. If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your ideas. Again, welcome, and happy editing! |
Welcome to the dark side Greater Manchester wikiproject.
Nev1 (
talk)
03:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Voeller_2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ★ Bigr Tex 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
-- Efe ( talk) 08:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Presented in appreciation of your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for strengthening the content and character of the project! Ecoleetage ( talk) 11:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
Hello! Sorry, I should've replied after your first message. I have been trying to add older hooks; the oldest ones at present haven't been verified so I have been added the oldest verified ones. (From Nov 17 and now Nov 18) Looking at the Nov 15 section I can't see anything I'm confident enough in verifying myself. Sincerest apologies for the inconvenience. \ / ( ⁂) 01:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar | |
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. |
Is there any reason why you extended the area covered by the article on Wilmslow Road? I took the article as I found it, covering Wilmslow Road, Oxford Road and Oxford Street in the City of Manchester. You extended it into the metropolitan borough of Stockport. I admit the borough boundary seems arbitrary but you have to call it somewhere. If you extend it to Cheadle then you could include the Wilmslow Road going out of Cheadle.
I didn't decide on that boundary but it makes sense to me. Perhaps you could add something on the discussion page.
Yaris678 ( talk) 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah! Getting to GA status would be great. Never done it before so you are going to have to explain how.
I have just replied to your other point on the talk page of the article. It's a bit long-winded, but hopefully you can see where I am coming from.
Yaris678 ( talk) 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've replied to your comment
Hey HDYTHLO, I wouldn't reopen the original ER, but ER_2... create a new one to get a fresh view. I'll try to get to ya, but no promises on when.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message! I'm not stressed at all over DYK; it's quite enjoyable. The note on my user page is just because of someone being a dick at a different page, so I'm taking a break from that discussion until I can trust myself not to call anyone an ass hat. But thanks for all your work at DYK and your help with the template; best, — Politizer talk/ contribs 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I cannot believe you only registered in July, ya seem like an expert and that was a while ago! I came here to advise you that you should run for admins soon, however I looked it up and you recently did one. Anyway, if and when your ready to run I will nominate you if you would like. If you have other offers in the pipe line or would rather not accept my offer I understand. — Realist 2 02:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI if you ever want to find a free picture of someone, type their name and then site:.gov into the Google Image searchbar. All US government images are in the public domain. I don't know too much about image copyright etc. but this I do! The fact that we didn't have an image of the world's oldest person was really starting to annoy me and I was going to upload a nonfree one if I didn't find a free one. Best, ~the editorofthewiki ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 23:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Most stale pages as of the October database dump. Dragons flight ( talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a shame what happened with the FAC but why not take the article to GAN? It would seem silly not to and I'm sure you'll get a few helpful pointers from the review. It appears that you've clashed around with the FA folk this last month or so; I wouldn't take it personally as in both circumstances you've accidentally stepped into areas of high tension. (I'm sure you've had a look at all the featured short article talk). I know it was especially tough as it was your first attempt for featured article too. Hope you've not been put off article writing too much — remember: a high quality article without an FA star is still a high quality article! Take care. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 01:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Trasnclude. -- Melab ± 1 19:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah sure :)
07:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes I want it transcluded, but I do not know how to do that. While we're on the subject, could you please take some time to add to it, because I have'nt gotten any feedback yet. BTW, How did you come across it? Thanks in advance! Dudemeister1234 ( talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not the elections - it's the stupidity. I might edit by IP if I ever feel like contributing, but I don't think I will regularly any more. 220.240.24.119 ( talk) 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky ( talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your swift action. Durova Charge! 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi How do you turn this on (H-DYTTO?). At Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Christmas_DYK, you expressed interest in Christmas topics. Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays/Christmas task force now has been created. Please consider joining and participating in that task force. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
.. helping cleaning up the mess on List of best-selling books. I didn't see it was 2 different IPs when I rolledback. Cheers -- Aff123a ( talk) 22:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back. Anyway, I agree with your general plan for the layout of the article...pretty similar to the outline now, the first section should probably be a description of the usage and style, and then there could be sections on the history and on the significance in popular culture. The hard part is establishing the phenomenon's significance and widespreadedness but still keeping out all the crap that people are always wanting to add to the article (like lists of celebrity spinoffs or similar websites that use other animals...in just the past couple months i remember us having had to repeatedly move stuff like LOL Pussycat Dolls, LOL Lindsay Lohan, LOLdogs, and yada yada...and I'm sure you've been dealing with tons more of that stuff since long before I joined WP).
You have compiled a huge bibliography so we should have a lot of material to work with (although I presume a lot of the more mainstream articles are probably saying pretty similar things)...I probably won't have time to take a close look at much of those resources for a little while, but it might be a fun project for over spring or summer break ;). — Politizer talk/ contribs 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "was sure he was one" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 16:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
|
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Heidi Horten, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Heidi Horten seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Heidi Horten, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
13:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I've responded to your comments at the review. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I read your comments regarding Valley of peace initiative. thanks for your feedback. I will try to give that some thought. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm just peer reviewing the article now and I think you should take a look here for things to look out for next time you review an article. I really don't mean this as an insult but perhaps you are not ready for reviewing yet: maybe a couple of months more experience and you'll be more aware of the ins and outs of wikipedia. Congrats on diving straight into the reviewing though! Normally people just write a bunch of stuff and hope it's all good but you seem keen to iron out problems. If you need any advice on how things work (like WP:LEAD or other wiki crap) feel free to contact me on my talk and i'll help you out as soon as. Take care. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Double posting - hope you see I was trying to help! A good way of learning how to review is to look at other reviews by more experienced editors. Take a look at WP:Good article nominations and look things through. At the moment though, perhaps WP:Peer Review might suit you better, you'll notice what things people suggest there (though GA criteria and the more informal peer review style are unrelated of course). On peer review you can just post a couple of minor comments or improvements you think can be made - without taking the whole pressure that you are the sole reviewer. I'll try to keep an eye on what you're doing though and you can always throw any comments or questions my way. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd greatly appreciate if you'd review it, though maybe I should hold off on GA nomination, and jut work to make it better. I have, at least, gotten rid of the "Cultural impact" section millstone around my neck, and, in a pinch, could make that whole section a simple "See also" =) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your review on the abovementioned. Pse refer to my follow-up edits & reply here. -- Aldwinteo ( talk) 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of my new solution.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You nominated this article for GA, which I have put on hold for now. Please read my comments and fix if possible. Cheers, bibliomaniac 1 5 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash ( talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PLease? It is very distracting. Viridae Talk 12:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:-( What is distracting about it particularly? how do you turn this on 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not change it, I've decided. Is it violating any rule? I'll happily change it if it's causing a big problem, but I don't think it is, and I think discussion of other things elsewhere would be better use of time. how do you turn this on 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello;
I don't think that we've ever interacted, so I hope that this request does not seem too terribly left-field-ish: I too find your current signature to be highly distracting. (Note that this is coming from someone who made sort of a big issue about people being allowed to make fancy signatures if they wanted.) Not only is it black, it's big and black.
Also, I note that you've indicated that you're interested in adminship. Without meaning to offend, right now I'd oppose just do to the comment "Is it violating any rule?" I'm happy to discuss further (if you're at all amenable) why that is a problematic thing to say.
brenneman 07:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I will say it directly: I strongly suggest you withdraw your current RfA. There is basically a 100% chance that this RfA will be closed under WP:NOTNOW because with only one month experience people will not be able to judge your performance correctly. We appreciate your contributions and encourage you to continue to do so but I am afraid your request for adminship will not be successful and you should consider withdrawal. Have a nice day So Why 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice job with this article. I've been wanting to work on it for a while, but never did. I'm currently quite busy, but, in the future, do you want to collaborate for an FA? --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Christopher Dorling, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. chrylis ( talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you left some comments at 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake's FAC, and i was wondering if you could make a !vote please? Thanks, — Sunday Scribe 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I wonder is the user may have once been on the game and hated it, so maybe bias? Doubtful, but can we collaborate on a thourough GA review for the article? Thanks!
Jon
How's the weather? -
talk about me behind my back
17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, I saw you were a bit confused about the difference of these on AN, and the discussion sort of took a turn away from you before you got a clear answer. Just in case you still were confused, I thought I'd drop by.
I realize that was a bit long, but I hope I've explained things fairly well. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. It'd be a nice break from the sort of questions I usually get on my talk page. Anyway, I hope this helped, and happy editing! Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reconsidered and implemented your suggestion at MediaWiki:Tooltip-ca-edit; you can read my reasoning at MediaWiki talk:Tooltip-ca-edit. {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Until you can provide a solid source that states W had X nominations, Y had Z nomination etc, the section remains off. Dalejenkins | 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
"getting the tools to assist with your own articles, as it seems to me, isn't really appropriate." Why not? --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 21:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I link to St Ives (disambiguation) so that when I look at the "what links here" for St Ives it is easy to spot which are deliberate links to the dab page, and which are accidental. This is quite a common practice for dab pages. DuncanHill ( talk) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an incredibly random question, but are you interested in earthquakes? Your friend Eddy of the wiki citation needed 00:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hi How do you turn this on. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, — αἰτίας • discussion• 22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Read my userpage, you'll find out there. Also, check out some of the newer threads on my talk page. That should give you enough info, I really don't want to go into a full-blown explanation. Jn t • c 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have a question regarding this comment of yours. Did you mean "the bot was a bad one" or "the block was a bad one"?
I also have a comment reagarding your statement on RfAr. First of all, your experience with me seems only superficial and the description you provide oversimplifies my actual reaction. It's not a mere "stop wonking", it's rather "stop wonking unless you have an actual concern". Furthermore, your statement that I'm not interested in what the community thinks about my bot is patently false - they were public knowledge for a long time and the way to express concerns is right over there all the time. Anyone who comes with a question or a genuine issue is treated seriously and has always gotten a due explanation. Lastly, regarding your concern of my refusal to get the bots aprroved, please be advised that: 1) my bots have community approval already, 2) there is no current process of approving adminbots (save an RfA, which is a retarded way to do it) and 3) I am putting a lot of work into actually creating a workable policy out of the RfC ( WP:BOT/ WT:BOT) so that adminbots can follow it without unnecessary nonsense in the way.
Regards, Миша 13 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That's you're third revert at snopes today. Please stop or you are quite likely to be blocked. I am open to discussion on the talk page.-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah--that is annoying, I know. I think it's hidden in User talk:Editorofthewiki/Header, though I'm not sure how to fix it. Do you? Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki citation needed 13:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I imagine you forgot to support my RFa as the nominator. :) Your friend the editorofthewiki ( talk/ contribs/ editor review) 03:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
This AN thread may be of interest to you. EJF ( talk) 15:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
So if he came across the best admin candidate ever, stellar record, likely to pass with 0 opposes, he wouldn't be a good person to nominate that person? Sounds fishy to me. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey there How do you turn this on... I know what Ling.nut said came across wrong, but who nominates a candidate does have an affect on the nomination. In theory it shouldn't but the reality is that it does. A person who has been around for only a few months will garner additional scrutiny to the potential admin. The relative newbie hasn't developed a reputation yet... either at RfA's or in other areas of the project to indicate that the newbie understands what is expected. Thus, not only is the newbie's perspective on what is expected incomplete, but their judgment hasn't been developed on the subject yet. On the flip side, when an experienced admin with a solid reputation at RfA's nom's a candidate, they are more likely to buy their candidates additional supports because people realize that the experienced admin doesn't nom somebody who isn't ready. For example, I'm here because I've been reviewing Ling.Nut for the past four hours! People know that I do this with my noms/coachees, thus when I nom somebody, people are more likely to trust my judgment. In short, what I think Ling.nut was saying, is get experience on the project and develop a reputation, then start looking for potential admin's. If you find somebody you think should be an admin, take that person to somebody else. If you feel strong enough to nom somebody, try to get somebody else to co-nom with you. That will help others trust your judgment. This isn't something new, see point 4--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you plan to set up email? Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 12:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As a user who contributed to the discussion concerning Koavf ( talk · contribs), you're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals also. Thanks - Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I've provided three citations for Michael Eugene Osment's full name, since you don't accept the IMDb. What I have not cited, since it would be OR, is my own knowledge, since Michael Eugene Osment is one of my best friends. I hope the additional cites will be sufficient for you. Thanks. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 03:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I don't intend to keep reverting the IP, and have left them a note on their talk page. Glass Cobra 13:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
[1] - New article from today, could be useful. Gran 2 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi.
If you have time could you please take a moment to review The Scott Mills Show. I have been working on it for quite a bit and just need someone to review it and give their opinions.
Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've hidden my comments. I've read your responses and trust you to have to corrected them, in general, as you said you did. I don't have a great deal of time on my hands for any one specific issue at the moment but I've removed the oppose. I'm sure, if Sandy is happy enough, your bronze star isn't too far away. Good luck, keep up the good work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not "trying to make enemies." I was trying to help you with the article. You said you'd rather I raised my concerns at the FAC. This I did. They you started badgering me, rather than reading what I was saying. You also don't seem to understand the FAC process very well as yet. -- jbmurray ( <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:VoABot/adminlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:VoABot/botlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Voice of All/Dates.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Voice of All/monobook/parse.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/72.35.4.220, already linked from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.35.4.220. Feel free to merge yours. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I just checked a couple more of the sources. (And yes, when you check a source you should update an accessdate... that's the point!) Here's your problem: most of them, as far as I can see, are very poorly paraphrased, bordering on plagiarism. However, I note that as you try to produce a better paraphrase, you tend to distort the meaning of the original source. E.g. (in addition to the earlier example re. the wedding) here. The service wasn't "complemented" by the choir's performance. The performance was clearly an integral part of the service. So you've fixed one problem, but introduced another.
But here's your solution, if you have problems paraphrasing (as it seems you do): use direct quotations. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys.
Just a little patronising note (sorry, I can't help it) to remind you both that you're on the same side.
I have seen enough of both of you around the wiki to know you're both committed to improving the encyclopedia and developing high quality content.
Somewhere, something's gone a little awry in your communications with each other. Please see if you can attempt not to appear to be riling the other one or scoring points.
The kind of dispute you two are beginning to cook up never ends well and is particularly silly when you realise that you're actually on the same side.
Please excuse this well-intentioned personal comment.
I am, as ever, Dweller ( talk) 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
My approach was that if I found that many issues, at speed, in one section of the article, it wasn't ready for FAC and should go back for a third party copyedit or PR. That you've fixed the items I brought up is great, but doesn't change the premise under which I presented them. To be fair, I'll review the article with an open mind; if I don't think there's much tinkering left, I'll list any issues at the FAC. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look like anyone has replied to you specifically about this, so just in case -- a requirement for RFCU clerks is that they be administrators. This is because a primary duty of a clerk is making blocks as appropriate for identified abusive socks. If you've already been informed, sorry for the inconvenience. Avruch T 18:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Loved this one. Congrats! NVO ( talk) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, didn't notice those were the links; my bad totally. Keep up the good work (and Mark Speght will be an FAC in no time, I can feel it) :D RkMnQ ( talk) 22:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal is currently at deletion review on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 8#User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal and I'd like to ask if you could clarify your support in the MFD. Basically, we are wondering if you felt the page violated WP:MYSPACE. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Poking in...just wondering if you could e-mail me? That's really the only way I can get a hold of you privately, and yes — it's private. Thx! Jn t • c 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. As you can see from the other editors edit history, they have been edit warring on other pages. His birth place is referenced, and this user is now using an IMBD profile based on an old Wikipedia article to back this up. They have also been making identical edits using other IP addresses. Please see the talk page on Jimmy Carr. Thanks.
92.11.249.102 ( talk) 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I see the article has now been proected - shame it was protected leaving the unreferenced incorrect version in place! What happens now? When it is unprotected the other IP editor will vandalise again using one of their many IP addresses.
92.11.249.102 ( talk) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!
92.11.249.102 ( talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I have refactored the offending comment to "user in question". Hope this works. Sorry about earlier. Rough day at work. Arbiteroftruth ( talk) 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_checkuser%2FClerks&diff=244410008&oldid=244408018
No, no, I am to be considered away for the time being. I simply had a spare moment, and did a bit of clerking. :-)
Apologies for any confusion. Anthøny ✉ 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
– RyanCross ( talk) 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know: I added a G10 (Attack page) template on this particular page you added for MFD. Personally i don't think this will need to go the long way around for MfD :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 21:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
How do you turn this on, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I realised that I got a little confused on the Myron Evans deletion page (which I was asked to set up today, somewhat unwillingly). I hadn't noticed that one of the editors had called Evans a crank, so I slightly misread the thread. I apologize for any problems that this might have caused you. I think Hans Adler spotted this confusion. Anyway sorry again. I agree with you that it was unhelpful to use the word crank. I also decided that it was not useful to go into a technical discussion of the mathematical problems with Evans' work, either in the article or in the deletion discussion. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
– RyanCross ( talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello How do you turn this on. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
Looks like you're having some trouble negotiating the tables at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case. You might want to have a look at some of the fixes I made with this edit. Let me know if you have any questions. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
That was a really awesome cheat. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 07:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I've found some peer-reviewed publications that discuss Hoser's work. Could you take another look at the article and the AfD discussion? Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
RE your comments about the exam questions... AMEN!!! To think, less than a week ago, I was waiting for you to run for RfA so that I could oppose... now, I'm ready to support... since you've hit my radar, I've liked most of what you've said (as long as you aren't saying it to me ;-) )--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Hdytto. Long time no see. Just wondering if you could review Paul Gondjout at FAC--I'm terribly sorry I didn't devote more time to Speight, I'm working on a featured topic! ~one of many editorofthewikis ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll probably send it tonight. Homework, y'know! *rolls eyes*
Jon (
talk)
20:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
JayHenry ( talk) 02:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I responded to your comment on my DYK. Gary King ( talk) 02:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=245976644&oldid=245975638.
Be careful. The role of the clerks is explicitly to not comment on whether a check is worth running. If you wish to comment on the validity of a check, do so carefully, and don't use {{
Clerk-Note}}: any such comments should be with your "clerk hat off," so to speak.
You might want to rethink your comment there.
Regards, Anthøny ( talk) 23:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It used to be in the guidelines, hmmm. I'll add it back it. It's a basic guideline of wiki clerking. Thanks for understanding. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Your bug report which has been added to this section has been read and dealt with. A new version of huggle(0.8.2) has just been released and I would be gratfull If you could download it and test it to ake sure that this bug has been fixed :). Thats for the report and if you wish to reply to this message could you please use my talk page as I have sent this message to more people that just you. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 10:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, pudding. I don't know a better comparison. Jello is sometimes used, but to me living brain tissue doesn't seem as "rubbery" as jello -- more like tapioca. (My experience is mainly with rats, by the way.) Looie496 ( talk) 04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Friendly mail sent, How do you. Ceoil sláinte 13:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello HDYTTO. Yes, indeed. I apologize as it's not my usual behavior to give attention to every single provocation directed at me. Let's say that I'm not in my best mood and not particularly pleased with the way some Wikipedians enjoy addressing others. You may remove any recent unhelpful comments of mine (or move them elsewhere). It is not my intention to give that atmosphere to the RfA, although I must say I'm not the only culprit. Regards, Hús ö nd 18:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
...is an edit summary of my addition(s). Hopefully my addition is help ... if not then the ? covers it. Hope that helps? Fine. Thx for contributions Victuallers ( talk) 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC) thx for the halloween pennant contribution... are you going to move apple bobbing in too? well done Victuallers ( talk) 16:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 11:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Do I subst: just the top or the top and bottom?
Incoming.... Ceoil sláinte 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Ja! I spent 6 years in evil frickin medicine school so that has to account for something! Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 16:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of hard not to leave a mean comment when someone freaks out at you for no good reason. Schuym1 ( talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Odd that you should turn up with an openion on this. Would you mind letting me be. Ceoil sláinte 06:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the vandalism. :) Thanks also for the other times when you've commented on my talk page when I haven't been around. Best wishes. Acalamari 19:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 20:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry. My on-wiki time has been a bit limited as of late, although I've tried to chip in when I can; I'm not (with my current uni schedule) really up to fixing an entire article in just a day :(. Ironholds ( talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review and edits. I think all of your edits improve the article, and I there's definitely some stuff that you identified in the peer review that I plan on acting on as well. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 17:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed your template {{ DYKusertalk}}. As it happens, I just made a very similar template (I hadn't noticed yours already there), for probably the same reasons as you (I found myself frequently notifying nominators about questions at T:TDYK, and figured a template would be useful). The template I made is {{ DYKquestions}} (still working on thinking of a better name, since the current name is awkwardly similar to {{ DYK?}}). I don't know how often you have been using yours, but I have been using mine a lot and gradually trying to get other people into it. Suntag just created a category for all DYK templates and asked me to go through and see if there are any redundant or unused templates...since both of ours are very similar, to you think it would be ok if we made one of our templates redirect to the other? (Of course I am partial to my own template, but since both of our templates are very similar it should be easy to incorporate either one into the other, if you think there are deficiencies with either or both of the templates right now). Thanks, — Politizer talk/ contribs 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I understand completely. I'm sorry if my comments may have come across stronger than I meant them. Ral315 ( talk) 00:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks good. I've updated the list of nominees, as we've gotten a few in since you last updated. The question item is interesting; in theory, we were asking for general questions until the 17th. At that time, the Question pages would be created and the general list posted to each candidate, so all candidates get the same list of questions. Editors could then post candidate-specific questions. In practice, we already have some user-specific questions, and some candidates have already copied the general questions and started answering - so who knows where that will go? You might consider mentioning that editors can ask a question to everyone by posting it at the general list; beyond that, you seem to have hit the high points. Thanks for working on this, btw. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get a chance to formally ask you about writing something for the ArbCom elections -- if you'd like to do so, that'd be great. If you have time before we go to press, I need a story this week on the opening of candidate statements for the election. Otherwise, I'll take it for this week, and you can handle it thereafter, if you like. Let me know as soon as you see this whether you can do a write-up. Thanks, Ral315 ( talk) 23:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Such an elegant solution to the referencing problem! I'm an idiot for not seeing it myself; one of those "what the deuce?" moments. Ironholds ( talk) 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
I'm sorry you had to withdraw. I personally do not think short articles should be held back or that a rigorous ToC standards should be applied here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting me at my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you in the future!-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Haha, tis alright. A single glance at the discussion will tell anyone that BITE doesn't apply; i've tried to be courteous (although I believe it has now got to the point where his "removal of unsourced information" counts as vandalism. Ironholds ( talk) 04:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() ![]() |
Hello, Amicon/Archive1, and
welcome to
Wikiproject Greater Manchester! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Greater Manchester Project Wikipedian!
As a project we aim to have all our articles compliant with the various editing policies and guidelines. If you are contributing an article, it is good practice to ensure that it’s properly referenced with reliable sources, otherwise any contentious content may be removed by another editor. A good starting point for articles about settlements in Greater Manchester is the WP:UKCITIES guideline. If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your ideas. Again, welcome, and happy editing! |
Welcome to the dark side Greater Manchester wikiproject.
Nev1 (
talk)
03:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Voeller_2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ★ Bigr Tex 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
-- Efe ( talk) 08:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Presented in appreciation of your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for strengthening the content and character of the project! Ecoleetage ( talk) 11:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
Hello! Sorry, I should've replied after your first message. I have been trying to add older hooks; the oldest ones at present haven't been verified so I have been added the oldest verified ones. (From Nov 17 and now Nov 18) Looking at the Nov 15 section I can't see anything I'm confident enough in verifying myself. Sincerest apologies for the inconvenience. \ / ( ⁂) 01:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar | |
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. |
Is there any reason why you extended the area covered by the article on Wilmslow Road? I took the article as I found it, covering Wilmslow Road, Oxford Road and Oxford Street in the City of Manchester. You extended it into the metropolitan borough of Stockport. I admit the borough boundary seems arbitrary but you have to call it somewhere. If you extend it to Cheadle then you could include the Wilmslow Road going out of Cheadle.
I didn't decide on that boundary but it makes sense to me. Perhaps you could add something on the discussion page.
Yaris678 ( talk) 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah! Getting to GA status would be great. Never done it before so you are going to have to explain how.
I have just replied to your other point on the talk page of the article. It's a bit long-winded, but hopefully you can see where I am coming from.
Yaris678 ( talk) 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've replied to your comment
Hey HDYTHLO, I wouldn't reopen the original ER, but ER_2... create a new one to get a fresh view. I'll try to get to ya, but no promises on when.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message! I'm not stressed at all over DYK; it's quite enjoyable. The note on my user page is just because of someone being a dick at a different page, so I'm taking a break from that discussion until I can trust myself not to call anyone an ass hat. But thanks for all your work at DYK and your help with the template; best, — Politizer talk/ contribs 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I cannot believe you only registered in July, ya seem like an expert and that was a while ago! I came here to advise you that you should run for admins soon, however I looked it up and you recently did one. Anyway, if and when your ready to run I will nominate you if you would like. If you have other offers in the pipe line or would rather not accept my offer I understand. — Realist 2 02:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI if you ever want to find a free picture of someone, type their name and then site:.gov into the Google Image searchbar. All US government images are in the public domain. I don't know too much about image copyright etc. but this I do! The fact that we didn't have an image of the world's oldest person was really starting to annoy me and I was going to upload a nonfree one if I didn't find a free one. Best, ~the editorofthewiki ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 23:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Most stale pages as of the October database dump. Dragons flight ( talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a shame what happened with the FAC but why not take the article to GAN? It would seem silly not to and I'm sure you'll get a few helpful pointers from the review. It appears that you've clashed around with the FA folk this last month or so; I wouldn't take it personally as in both circumstances you've accidentally stepped into areas of high tension. (I'm sure you've had a look at all the featured short article talk). I know it was especially tough as it was your first attempt for featured article too. Hope you've not been put off article writing too much — remember: a high quality article without an FA star is still a high quality article! Take care. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 01:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Trasnclude. -- Melab ± 1 19:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah sure :)
07:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes I want it transcluded, but I do not know how to do that. While we're on the subject, could you please take some time to add to it, because I have'nt gotten any feedback yet. BTW, How did you come across it? Thanks in advance! Dudemeister1234 ( talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not the elections - it's the stupidity. I might edit by IP if I ever feel like contributing, but I don't think I will regularly any more. 220.240.24.119 ( talk) 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky ( talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your swift action. Durova Charge! 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi How do you turn this on (H-DYTTO?). At Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Christmas_DYK, you expressed interest in Christmas topics. Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays/Christmas task force now has been created. Please consider joining and participating in that task force. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
.. helping cleaning up the mess on List of best-selling books. I didn't see it was 2 different IPs when I rolledback. Cheers -- Aff123a ( talk) 22:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back. Anyway, I agree with your general plan for the layout of the article...pretty similar to the outline now, the first section should probably be a description of the usage and style, and then there could be sections on the history and on the significance in popular culture. The hard part is establishing the phenomenon's significance and widespreadedness but still keeping out all the crap that people are always wanting to add to the article (like lists of celebrity spinoffs or similar websites that use other animals...in just the past couple months i remember us having had to repeatedly move stuff like LOL Pussycat Dolls, LOL Lindsay Lohan, LOLdogs, and yada yada...and I'm sure you've been dealing with tons more of that stuff since long before I joined WP).
You have compiled a huge bibliography so we should have a lot of material to work with (although I presume a lot of the more mainstream articles are probably saying pretty similar things)...I probably won't have time to take a close look at much of those resources for a little while, but it might be a fun project for over spring or summer break ;). — Politizer talk/ contribs 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "was sure he was one" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 16:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)