Hi, I just wandered over here to find out about an argument that had occurred to see how it ended so as to learn how other editors handle difficult situations but find that you have archived your talk page and not provided links to these pages? Could you explain why to me as it is a curious thing to not keep archives of talk? - Localzuk (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As you requested, this is to let you know that I reverted an edit to User:Grace Note/proposed FAQ for Wikipedia report from a banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This template was not recreated. The original reason for deletion was not a criterion for speedy deletion; therefore it was out of process and I speedily undeleted it. The deletion review discussion will clearly result in the template being undeleted. — Guan aco 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a question - with this new system, we no longer put in "jewish father" or "Italian mother", right? Someone is now either "Jewish" or "Italian" or not on the list? In that case we had better remove these tags from the people we keep (if the tags are there). Vulturell 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That is so kind. Thank you! I really do value it coming from you. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice comment! I hadn't really considered this before but it is nice that my work here is appreciated. I think I have 16 thousand edits or something since I started in summer 2005. I'm going to look back and see where I know you from; I can't remember but maybe it's somwhere music-related (?) I'm not sure I want the added responsibility of being an admin (especially having to handle disputes), though; as here, as in life, I prefer doing work in the background ;-). Badagnani 07:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, right; there's our exchange in my "talk" page (which I've never archived, ha ha)...you're from Brisbane. The Melungeon dispute you speak of did resolve itself very nicely, but now has become quite silly in that the editor in question now doesn't like to permit other editors to add information to the article, posting in "discussion" more than once that she is the real author of the article, etc. Hope you have a nice trip; just curious, where to? Badagnani 07:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you! Hi Grace Note/Archive March-May 2006 thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
I have responded on my RfA to your comments about my answer to one of the questions posed to me, and was hoping you would consider my response to your "oppose" vote. As I said on that page, the question posed to me asked about sockpuppets being used abusively, which I took to mean that they were being used to commit gross policy violations. Regards, JDoorj a m Talk 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox. |
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde Weys 04:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Arnie, please, I realise that for whatever reason you wish to add as many people as possible to the list of British Jews. But you can see that I'm systematically working through the list. Why be in such a hurry to revert? I'm not going to have changed my mind in the ten minutes since I removed Born, for instance. You are simply creating conflict. Why not discuss it on Talk? Why not wait until I have finished and then bring those names you have a problem with to my talkpage? Simply editwarring over them is not constructive and, I have to say, does not paint you in a good light. Grace Note 03:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
When referring to a template in a post, you can add tl| (T+L+pipe) inside the curly brackets, before the template name, and it will call the Template link template, which avoids including the template (and any included categories) on the page. For example, with the template citation needed, if you add the tl|, it renders like this: {{ citation needed}}. Anyone can follow the link to see what the template is, but the page is not modified. Hope this helps you! KillerChihuahua ?!? 05:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Was restore names you just removed, with better citations. I can't see how that has anything to do with your current edits. Vulturell 09:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Howdy Grace,
Just thought I'd drop a comment regarding your reference to my remark in Will McWhinney; I see no reason to make the observation there. First, I don't consider proper invocations of CSD to be "unilateral." CSD is a process, with rules for its execution, and a procedure for appeal. There is no sanction for truly unilateral deletions on Wikipedia, save Jimbo (now sometimes in the form of the problematic policy WP:OFFICE, which is hard to consider as a process, since it operates secretly.)
Secondly, "Statement X is absolutely ridiculous" is a favorite catch-phrase of the Cabal, isn't it? I had thought you were above that sort of remark. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I appreciated the show of support and all the kind words. If there's ever anything I can do to help with my new administrator status, please don't hesitate to contact me. -- Myles Long 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. -- Bhadani 17:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I wrote a response to your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Hills Elementary School. ClarkBHM 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
When nominating Template: space, or other pages that are transcluded for Speedy Deletion, please wrap <noinclude>...</noinclude> tages around the {{ db}} tags so that it does not categorize pages transcluding the page for speedy deletion as well. Thanks! — xaosflux Talk 02:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Any way: check this, if you like: [1] Regards, Huldra 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way; here is what is at the heart of the matter: here is Jay/Slims version of the Ben Dunkelman article, while here is my version: [2] (this version in no way is a "finished" version, as I pointed out on the talk-page: there was e.g. nothing on his lfe between 1948-1997. ) Everything they took away was sourced in the book I gave as a referance. Regards, Huldra 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have protected the Schools page (at the wrong version of course). Try to reach agreement with Rob on the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Grace Note, I'm sorry if you took offense to my reverting you. While I agree that reverting edits is not as good as discussion, they do have their place and they are not limited to vandalism. Just as you were under no firm obligation to discuss your edit on the talk page before you made it, another editor is under no obligation to have to discuss it before rolling it back. Johntex\ talk 11:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This template has already been thoroughly discussed at TfD, where it received an overwhelming consensus to keep (22 Keep votes versus 3 Delete votes). Please review the arguments put forth there, and if you still think the template should be deleted, please go through the proper channels, as it's clearly not a speedy candidate given the number of people who voted to keep it at TfD. - AdelaMa e ( talk - contribs) 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Grace Note. Thank you for writing on my user page regarding the marriage man-woman template. I refer you to the same link you sent me about civility. Have a great day.
Stanley011
05:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry! I meant my "discussion page" not my "user page." You did not write on my user page, that was a mind lapse--I appologize for the accusation, it was not intentional. Anyway, I still refer you to the link you sent me about civility. Have a teriffic day. Stanley011 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.
The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.
I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [3] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I am a little mystified at this edit in Wikipedia:Schools. I can't conceive of why you would add wording that basically says we shouldn't have articles on the typical school. I thought you wanted articles on all schools. I'm not reverting you, because I think you added an opinion opposite to what you want. -- Rob 08:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I hope you're finding the warning toolbox useful. I've made a few minor changes to it that you might want to be aware of. -- Kbh3rd talk 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Some interesting ideas. Thanks for posting them - hopefully they'll get a lot of readers, and perhaps even some action... Ckatz 06:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
While I may not like what you said about ArbCom on the mediation cabal page, you were fair, and I appreciate that. It's the first bit of fairness I've had. Thank you. Ardenn 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Grace, please don't add editorial comments to articles please. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't say that I agree with every position you've taken, but I appreciate your honesty, your integrity with regards to your principles, and your willingness to stick with an endeavor that can so often drive us insane. For that, I'd like to award you the Resilient Barnstar.
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For being willing to take on the powerful, speak the truth, and remain fair in the face of a messed-up, chaotic community Captainktainer 03:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken Talk |
Thank you for spelling out my feelings so eloquently, on your user page. -- Connel MacKenzie 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Out of interest, Grace Note, are you an administrator of Wikitruth.info? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my asking for clarification could have been perceived as bullying as I certainly didn't mean it as such. For the record, I've had no major interactions with Lar and have no reason to bully people into supporting him. I simply wanted to know more about your reason for opposing because it might change my opinion; I supported only based on what information was available, so I might have missed something. My apologies if I came off differently than intended. — Cuivi é nen, Friday, 5 May 2006 @ 22:40 UTC
Sorry about not putting the comments on your talk page, I usually do move them over. Not sure what I was thinking and in the case of the link I'm not really sure what I was thinking about that. OK now I know why I missed the message to you. I cam here indirectly from the WP:ANI through Incorrect's contributions list. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, done. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for what you said under the strong throw out altogether section. You got a chuckle out of me. I am pretty new at Wikipedia but am being watched like a hawk. I need all the help I can get at this point. I've been harassed, lied to, insulted, lawyerized in debate and blocked four times since I joined on 3/22/06. All I want to do is bring neutrality back into Wiki articles. At the bottom of my page is a warning left by SlimVirgin. Can you help me please? Maggie thewolfstar 05:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote in my RfA! I greatly appreciate your concern, and liked your comment. The nomination did not gain consensus, but I'm happy to have accepted it; it has been a good learning experience. - Amgine 17:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are you stating that this proposed guideline was rejected? Please state your objections in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we team up? As you may or may not know, I want all the Wikipedia "foo" or "Foo-American" lists to be in synch with each other. If you're saying that the people on all of these lists have to be described as "foos" or "Foo-Americans" (i.e. described as "Greek" or "Greek-Americans", for example) to be included and avoid original research, then that is how they will be organized. As you probably remember, I did the Catholic American list pretty quickly, and that is how I would like to do all the other lists. However, I do need the assurance and back-up, because there are editors on certain lists, like the aforementioned Greek Americans, who insist on including anyone who has any "Foo" ancestry. Essentially, I'm willing and ready to do the work on all the lists we have (there isn't an unreasonable amount of them) and finally get this over with, but what I need is your back-up - something like a note co-signed by both of us on all the pages explaining the Original Research policy and what I am doing. I could paste it around. By the way, something I'm not clear about, are people who are described as, say, "Polish-born" (like "Polish-born American artist" or something) or "born in Poland" immediately Polish-Americans? Or is that not acceptable either? Looking forward to getting these lists organized, Mad Jack O'Lantern 03:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting read. It's uncomfortably close to the truth. I just keep trying to figure out ways to solve some of the problems you point out. Can you help? Kim Bruning 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It may very well be a "waste of time" but I have a perfectly logical reason for filing the RfC: We can both agree that the block was excessive. He deserves a review by his peers.
I believe that any admin who makes those kinds of mistakes deserves a review by his/her peers.
True, he may have too many admin friends who would back him - the whole thing reeks of cabalism. — Natha n (Got something to say? Say it.) 16:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, so far I've already fully sourced a few full lists (alphabetically up from Vietnamese/Swiss/Swedish/Russian/Romanian) with this method, and haven't been opposed to yet. Mad Jack O'Lantern 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
However strongly you feel about issues, please remain civil during discussions. Your comments at [4] and [5] are inappropriate and are inflaming already difficult situations. Thanks, Gw e rnol 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Nothing should be expected of admins but that they apply the policies. IAR was okay for a small wiki but it's shit when you have thousands of editors. IAR should only apply to not stressing noobs out with a whole bunch of policy they have to obey or perish. It should not be a licence for the likes of Aaron to do what he likes without let or hindrance. Grace Note 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, this message is because of your comments opossing User:Ta bu shi da yu admin here. Because of the abuse of authority of User:Ta bu shi da yu, Tens of thousands of images have been deleted by a small handful of wikipedians, citing "fair use".
Would you be interested in joining a group on wikipedia which counters the heavy handed tactics of the copyright police. We can't fight them on my own. User talk:Ed g2s has began deleting fair use image on every person's user page and on several other pages, inspired by WP:FUC which was written by another paternal copyright policeman with absolutly no legal training and little understanding of copyright law. User:Ta bu shi da yu created the WP:FUC page and was responsible for deleting hundreds of Time magazine covers and refused to stop even after Time magazine sent an e-mail allowing wikipedia to use the images.
We stared this page, with this purpose: User:Travb/Misguided and heavy handed tactics of some admins regarding copyright
Please tell others about this project. The paternal copyright police are well organized and are intoxicated with their own trival power here on wikipedia. Like most authoritarian personalities, these misguided copyright fanatics have finally have overstepped the bounds of good sense and restraint, when they began deleting tens of thousands images from wikiusers' pages. Only a large number of wikipedians will stop this abuse. Travb 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[6].-- Sean Black 23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you wish to archive your talk page, but you must provide a link to the content for it to not simply be considered talk page blanking. Please do so. — Cuivi é nen T| C, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 01:16 UTC
As your discussion page contains admin warnings, you need to either keep these on the page or achive the contents via cut and paste on a subpage see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just wandered over here to find out about an argument that had occurred to see how it ended so as to learn how other editors handle difficult situations but find that you have archived your talk page and not provided links to these pages? Could you explain why to me as it is a curious thing to not keep archives of talk? - Localzuk (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As you requested, this is to let you know that I reverted an edit to User:Grace Note/proposed FAQ for Wikipedia report from a banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This template was not recreated. The original reason for deletion was not a criterion for speedy deletion; therefore it was out of process and I speedily undeleted it. The deletion review discussion will clearly result in the template being undeleted. — Guan aco 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a question - with this new system, we no longer put in "jewish father" or "Italian mother", right? Someone is now either "Jewish" or "Italian" or not on the list? In that case we had better remove these tags from the people we keep (if the tags are there). Vulturell 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That is so kind. Thank you! I really do value it coming from you. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice comment! I hadn't really considered this before but it is nice that my work here is appreciated. I think I have 16 thousand edits or something since I started in summer 2005. I'm going to look back and see where I know you from; I can't remember but maybe it's somwhere music-related (?) I'm not sure I want the added responsibility of being an admin (especially having to handle disputes), though; as here, as in life, I prefer doing work in the background ;-). Badagnani 07:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, right; there's our exchange in my "talk" page (which I've never archived, ha ha)...you're from Brisbane. The Melungeon dispute you speak of did resolve itself very nicely, but now has become quite silly in that the editor in question now doesn't like to permit other editors to add information to the article, posting in "discussion" more than once that she is the real author of the article, etc. Hope you have a nice trip; just curious, where to? Badagnani 07:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you! Hi Grace Note/Archive March-May 2006 thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
I have responded on my RfA to your comments about my answer to one of the questions posed to me, and was hoping you would consider my response to your "oppose" vote. As I said on that page, the question posed to me asked about sockpuppets being used abusively, which I took to mean that they were being used to commit gross policy violations. Regards, JDoorj a m Talk 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox. |
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde Weys 04:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Arnie, please, I realise that for whatever reason you wish to add as many people as possible to the list of British Jews. But you can see that I'm systematically working through the list. Why be in such a hurry to revert? I'm not going to have changed my mind in the ten minutes since I removed Born, for instance. You are simply creating conflict. Why not discuss it on Talk? Why not wait until I have finished and then bring those names you have a problem with to my talkpage? Simply editwarring over them is not constructive and, I have to say, does not paint you in a good light. Grace Note 03:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
When referring to a template in a post, you can add tl| (T+L+pipe) inside the curly brackets, before the template name, and it will call the Template link template, which avoids including the template (and any included categories) on the page. For example, with the template citation needed, if you add the tl|, it renders like this: {{ citation needed}}. Anyone can follow the link to see what the template is, but the page is not modified. Hope this helps you! KillerChihuahua ?!? 05:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Was restore names you just removed, with better citations. I can't see how that has anything to do with your current edits. Vulturell 09:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Howdy Grace,
Just thought I'd drop a comment regarding your reference to my remark in Will McWhinney; I see no reason to make the observation there. First, I don't consider proper invocations of CSD to be "unilateral." CSD is a process, with rules for its execution, and a procedure for appeal. There is no sanction for truly unilateral deletions on Wikipedia, save Jimbo (now sometimes in the form of the problematic policy WP:OFFICE, which is hard to consider as a process, since it operates secretly.)
Secondly, "Statement X is absolutely ridiculous" is a favorite catch-phrase of the Cabal, isn't it? I had thought you were above that sort of remark. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I appreciated the show of support and all the kind words. If there's ever anything I can do to help with my new administrator status, please don't hesitate to contact me. -- Myles Long 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. -- Bhadani 17:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I wrote a response to your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Hills Elementary School. ClarkBHM 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
When nominating Template: space, or other pages that are transcluded for Speedy Deletion, please wrap <noinclude>...</noinclude> tages around the {{ db}} tags so that it does not categorize pages transcluding the page for speedy deletion as well. Thanks! — xaosflux Talk 02:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Any way: check this, if you like: [1] Regards, Huldra 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way; here is what is at the heart of the matter: here is Jay/Slims version of the Ben Dunkelman article, while here is my version: [2] (this version in no way is a "finished" version, as I pointed out on the talk-page: there was e.g. nothing on his lfe between 1948-1997. ) Everything they took away was sourced in the book I gave as a referance. Regards, Huldra 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have protected the Schools page (at the wrong version of course). Try to reach agreement with Rob on the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Grace Note, I'm sorry if you took offense to my reverting you. While I agree that reverting edits is not as good as discussion, they do have their place and they are not limited to vandalism. Just as you were under no firm obligation to discuss your edit on the talk page before you made it, another editor is under no obligation to have to discuss it before rolling it back. Johntex\ talk 11:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This template has already been thoroughly discussed at TfD, where it received an overwhelming consensus to keep (22 Keep votes versus 3 Delete votes). Please review the arguments put forth there, and if you still think the template should be deleted, please go through the proper channels, as it's clearly not a speedy candidate given the number of people who voted to keep it at TfD. - AdelaMa e ( talk - contribs) 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Grace Note. Thank you for writing on my user page regarding the marriage man-woman template. I refer you to the same link you sent me about civility. Have a great day.
Stanley011
05:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry! I meant my "discussion page" not my "user page." You did not write on my user page, that was a mind lapse--I appologize for the accusation, it was not intentional. Anyway, I still refer you to the link you sent me about civility. Have a teriffic day. Stanley011 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.
The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.
I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [3] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I am a little mystified at this edit in Wikipedia:Schools. I can't conceive of why you would add wording that basically says we shouldn't have articles on the typical school. I thought you wanted articles on all schools. I'm not reverting you, because I think you added an opinion opposite to what you want. -- Rob 08:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I hope you're finding the warning toolbox useful. I've made a few minor changes to it that you might want to be aware of. -- Kbh3rd talk 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Some interesting ideas. Thanks for posting them - hopefully they'll get a lot of readers, and perhaps even some action... Ckatz 06:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
While I may not like what you said about ArbCom on the mediation cabal page, you were fair, and I appreciate that. It's the first bit of fairness I've had. Thank you. Ardenn 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Grace, please don't add editorial comments to articles please. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't say that I agree with every position you've taken, but I appreciate your honesty, your integrity with regards to your principles, and your willingness to stick with an endeavor that can so often drive us insane. For that, I'd like to award you the Resilient Barnstar.
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For being willing to take on the powerful, speak the truth, and remain fair in the face of a messed-up, chaotic community Captainktainer 03:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken Talk |
Thank you for spelling out my feelings so eloquently, on your user page. -- Connel MacKenzie 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Out of interest, Grace Note, are you an administrator of Wikitruth.info? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my asking for clarification could have been perceived as bullying as I certainly didn't mean it as such. For the record, I've had no major interactions with Lar and have no reason to bully people into supporting him. I simply wanted to know more about your reason for opposing because it might change my opinion; I supported only based on what information was available, so I might have missed something. My apologies if I came off differently than intended. — Cuivi é nen, Friday, 5 May 2006 @ 22:40 UTC
Sorry about not putting the comments on your talk page, I usually do move them over. Not sure what I was thinking and in the case of the link I'm not really sure what I was thinking about that. OK now I know why I missed the message to you. I cam here indirectly from the WP:ANI through Incorrect's contributions list. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, done. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for what you said under the strong throw out altogether section. You got a chuckle out of me. I am pretty new at Wikipedia but am being watched like a hawk. I need all the help I can get at this point. I've been harassed, lied to, insulted, lawyerized in debate and blocked four times since I joined on 3/22/06. All I want to do is bring neutrality back into Wiki articles. At the bottom of my page is a warning left by SlimVirgin. Can you help me please? Maggie thewolfstar 05:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote in my RfA! I greatly appreciate your concern, and liked your comment. The nomination did not gain consensus, but I'm happy to have accepted it; it has been a good learning experience. - Amgine 17:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are you stating that this proposed guideline was rejected? Please state your objections in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we team up? As you may or may not know, I want all the Wikipedia "foo" or "Foo-American" lists to be in synch with each other. If you're saying that the people on all of these lists have to be described as "foos" or "Foo-Americans" (i.e. described as "Greek" or "Greek-Americans", for example) to be included and avoid original research, then that is how they will be organized. As you probably remember, I did the Catholic American list pretty quickly, and that is how I would like to do all the other lists. However, I do need the assurance and back-up, because there are editors on certain lists, like the aforementioned Greek Americans, who insist on including anyone who has any "Foo" ancestry. Essentially, I'm willing and ready to do the work on all the lists we have (there isn't an unreasonable amount of them) and finally get this over with, but what I need is your back-up - something like a note co-signed by both of us on all the pages explaining the Original Research policy and what I am doing. I could paste it around. By the way, something I'm not clear about, are people who are described as, say, "Polish-born" (like "Polish-born American artist" or something) or "born in Poland" immediately Polish-Americans? Or is that not acceptable either? Looking forward to getting these lists organized, Mad Jack O'Lantern 03:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting read. It's uncomfortably close to the truth. I just keep trying to figure out ways to solve some of the problems you point out. Can you help? Kim Bruning 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It may very well be a "waste of time" but I have a perfectly logical reason for filing the RfC: We can both agree that the block was excessive. He deserves a review by his peers.
I believe that any admin who makes those kinds of mistakes deserves a review by his/her peers.
True, he may have too many admin friends who would back him - the whole thing reeks of cabalism. — Natha n (Got something to say? Say it.) 16:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, so far I've already fully sourced a few full lists (alphabetically up from Vietnamese/Swiss/Swedish/Russian/Romanian) with this method, and haven't been opposed to yet. Mad Jack O'Lantern 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
However strongly you feel about issues, please remain civil during discussions. Your comments at [4] and [5] are inappropriate and are inflaming already difficult situations. Thanks, Gw e rnol 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Nothing should be expected of admins but that they apply the policies. IAR was okay for a small wiki but it's shit when you have thousands of editors. IAR should only apply to not stressing noobs out with a whole bunch of policy they have to obey or perish. It should not be a licence for the likes of Aaron to do what he likes without let or hindrance. Grace Note 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, this message is because of your comments opossing User:Ta bu shi da yu admin here. Because of the abuse of authority of User:Ta bu shi da yu, Tens of thousands of images have been deleted by a small handful of wikipedians, citing "fair use".
Would you be interested in joining a group on wikipedia which counters the heavy handed tactics of the copyright police. We can't fight them on my own. User talk:Ed g2s has began deleting fair use image on every person's user page and on several other pages, inspired by WP:FUC which was written by another paternal copyright policeman with absolutly no legal training and little understanding of copyright law. User:Ta bu shi da yu created the WP:FUC page and was responsible for deleting hundreds of Time magazine covers and refused to stop even after Time magazine sent an e-mail allowing wikipedia to use the images.
We stared this page, with this purpose: User:Travb/Misguided and heavy handed tactics of some admins regarding copyright
Please tell others about this project. The paternal copyright police are well organized and are intoxicated with their own trival power here on wikipedia. Like most authoritarian personalities, these misguided copyright fanatics have finally have overstepped the bounds of good sense and restraint, when they began deleting tens of thousands images from wikiusers' pages. Only a large number of wikipedians will stop this abuse. Travb 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[6].-- Sean Black 23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you wish to archive your talk page, but you must provide a link to the content for it to not simply be considered talk page blanking. Please do so. — Cuivi é nen T| C, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 01:16 UTC
As your discussion page contains admin warnings, you need to either keep these on the page or achive the contents via cut and paste on a subpage see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)