![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have constructed a somewhat whimsical draft about this subject at User talk:Filll/beedrunk. Do you think it has a chance to survive? I did get the bee expert User:Dyanega to help write it and edit my stupidities and give me feedback. Do you think it can survive as an article on its own? Or should it be part of other articles?-- Filll 18:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just writing to let you know that i have begun editing proper. I have spent some time working on the images that have unknown copyright infomration and am beginning to start making a dent in the pile. i think that my time would be best spent in this area as i have had a lot of practice with this on the wikibooks.
Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Another of my articles that was hit with a speedy is Thomas Wight. I have been slowly nurturing it in a sandbox. Here it is so far: User:Filll/Thomas Wight. Is it worthy of WP?-- Filll 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Just an alert in case you missed my reply: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Troll_organization. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts on this? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I got a kick out of it; I'm sure it is just a matter of time before at least one of those things come true.-- Isotope23 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I want to know what's "External links - Rm link per EL" means ? Just to avoid the same mistake
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Machsys ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
No problem - I've seen that RfC had been stressed elsewhere, but though I'd at least try to get my thoughts in - after all, any case when an editor leaves under a cloud is a bad one, and I'd always prefer to see the problems resolved amicably. You are to be commended for your handling of the dispute so far - well done :)! Feel free to contact me if you need any help. Mart inp23 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Unbelievable. So (albeit for a tiny % of votes) I lose my RFA because it was assumed I killed song birds. Now I realise there's an admin lurking out there with a murderous canine title. Whatever next. You'll be glad to know I realised the error of my ways! Next time I'm up for RFA, rest assured, I'll hunt you down....... The Rambling Man 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your comments. Hurrah for people that can maintain a sense of humour throughout. I knew my RFA was doomed despite the username, hopefully the two or three who found it utterly reprhensible will be able to cope with my latest incarnation. Still, lovely to bump into a fellow "killer"! Cheers! The Rambling Man 23:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for taking the time to send all that information to me. I am reading "How to edit a page" now. Sorry for not using edit summaries. I will try to do that in future. I clicked on the link for your name and it took me to a page that had "discussion" in a link at the top. You said to ask you on your "talk" page if I have any questions. Is discussion the same as talk? It says at the top of this page that people who are replying to your messages should reply on their own pages. So I'm not sure whether I should have replied here or back there. Anyway, I appreciate the help. ElinorD ElinorD 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help so far. I haven't finished reading all those pages, but I have another question. I was looking at an article called "Josiah Henson". It has a list of "categories" at the bottom. One of them was red, and said "Native america josiah henson". When I clicked on it, it didn't seem to lead to anything. I didn't think it should be there. Henson wasn't a Native American. I opened the edit box for the article, and removed "Category:native america josiah henson", but when I press "preview" to see what I've done, the categories don't seem to appear with the rest of the text. None of them. I haven't saved the page yet: I don't want to mess up anything. Should I take out that bit? Thanks. ElinorD 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (signing properly this time!)
Also, when I was typing that question to you, I put "Category:native america josiah henson" with two square brackets on each side, because that's how it appeared in the article that I was trying to remove it from. But when I looked at my question through "preview", all the words had disappeared, and I could just see "". So I changed it before saving it. And I've added your discussion/talk page to my watchlist. ElinorD 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you yet again. I've done it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Josiah_Henson&action=history
I feel bad about putting you to the trouble of typing such a long answer, because I'm sure (I know how to make italics!) that the answer is contained in one of the pages you linked to when you welcomed me. I think I understand categories now. So if I had saved my original question to you without previewing it, I would have added your discussion page to the category of Native Americans. Right? ElinorD 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and make yourself a copy of my toolbox. Martial Law 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This one is for your offer to mentor me.
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For making Wikipedia a better place for all. Martial Law 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
and this one
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
For making Wikipedia a better place for all. Martial Law 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
as well. You like ?
Martial Law
00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. Concering the latest with Ilena, I'd like your perspective. If you don't have the time, let me know and I won't be offended. The RfM was nonsensical from my viewpoint. I've gone into detail on its discussion page, but in light of the RfA, I think one thing needs to be pointed out: Wizardry Dragon was unclear in the RfM on what specific issues he thought needed moderation. His adding Breast implant to the RfM two days after initially writing it only made it more confusing Jance is the only party that has actually edited the article (other than a single wikify edit by Fyslee, and a single edit by Ilena that added a sentence and reference). From my perspective, he made multiple mistakes in writing up the RfM, and then did not take the time to resolve them himself and didn give others enough information to assist. The RfA is clearer, but writing it because the RfM was refused only ignores his mistakes. He should rewrite the RfM, be clear on the issues he sees, explain what Breast implant has to do with anything or remove it, and ensure that the RfM actually makes sense. Additionally, the RfA makes it clear the he's ignoring Ilena's behavior, specifically her inability to learn and respect wiki policies and guidelines. How can you moderate with someone about neutrality, external links, and inflammatory content when that person shows no understanding of any of the relevant guidelines. -- Ronz 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I hate to do this, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, so you are being named in an (IMO premature) RfArb here. Please add your comments. -- Fyslee 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your extremely kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I was in naughty mood... -- BorgQueen 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
please dont block the rightest non biased group consisting of 2,000 members and 300 ip adresses. this is rude and illegal. have a nice day —Preceding unsigned comment added by rightwing09 ( talk • contribs)
I have no idea what this means but here it is.-- Filll 16:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, yeah, I know I should put work into the Kriss Donald article and indeed mediation, but I'm currently barely on Wikipedia and not likely to dive back into nasty stuff when I do return. I certainly don't have the patience to work between Ldxar, the anon who is a major contributor and Guardian Sickness who, last time we interacted, made a completely unfounded accusation and followed it with "You are a joke!" [1] (I see s/he is now screaming incivility for much less: ho hum).
So I'm more likely to slap them than contribute constructively, I'm afraid.
In fact this article is always going to have some of these issues, regardless of whether Ldxar and GS are on it, due to the nature of the crime, so some publicly stated agreement on contents would be jolly useful. JackyR | Talk 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
How could I go about deleting this account and getting a new account? Or better yet changing my username License2Kill?
Hi, I have a couple of comments on your Soapbox. You say "There seems to be a strong bias in WP to show the Christian view always, often divided into Roman Catholic and Protestant; followed by the Judaic view and/or Islamic view..." Are you sure? I know that some views are under-represented, but Islam is surely not one of them. Judging from the discussions on controversial talk pages, everyone's getting to shout his POV, often creating a painful cacophony.
Then you move on to "I am merely suggesting that the major religions of the world are poorly represented..." and "At the very least Islam and Hinduism should be presented..." You have said above that the Islamic view is often given, second to the Christian view. This correlates with your table, so how is Islam poorly represented? I don't understand your logic.
Finally, let's remember that many people believing in something is not a reason to give it more weight in an encyclopaedia. NB I have just reread my words, I often look aggressive in print, this is not the case, I'm just terse by nature. :) Antgel 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi KillerChihuahua, sorry for my delay in stating my position in the mediation process. I usually visit Wikipedia everyday, but I am having computer problems and am therefore using someone elses computer. I am doing my best to sort this out, but will try and reply to any post as soon as possible.
-- Guardian sickness 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have another question for you. Jkelly has been very kindly helping me with image copyright problems. (I had registered an account at Wikimedia Commons, and had uploaded some photos I took myself of figurines, but I didn't realise that the maker of the figurines might still hold the copyright.) S/he suggested that I should try to improve the rather poor Fontanini article, since I'm interested in figurines. I looked carefully at source code for other articles before I tried it. At first I just linked to vaguely relevant articles, or didn't link at all. For example, there is an article called Biblical magi, but in the Fontanini article, I wanted to call them the wise men. That article links to a general page, from which you can find the Biblical magi article. Having looked at other articles, I see that editors use a vertical line like this | between the name of the article they link to and whatever they want to call it in the article they're writing. So you could write either "[[Prince Charles]] and [[Queen Elizabeth]]" or "[[Prince Charles]] and [[Queen Elizabeth|his mother]]".
Where can I find that vertical line on my keyboard? When I was editing Fontanini, I copied it from the source code in another Wikipedia page, and pasted it in wherever I wanted to use it. But there must be a simpler way than that! I have a British (QWERTY) keyboard, by the way. I don't know if that makes any difference. (Certainly, the French keyboards are different.) I don't think I ever saw that line in my life before joining Wikipedia. I've looked at my keyboard, and I don't see anything that looks like it. Thanks. ElinorD 16:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Killer, I see that you deleted the page I created on Morfik. The note I see states that it is "Tagged as A7 but it is G11"). I'm not sure what the tag means, but Steel359 originally deleted the article then restored it and asked me to work on it to ensure that it conforms with all policies. I logged in this morning to work on it, when I saw that you deleted it.
Again, I don't understand what the rationale is, but I would ask you to restore it so that I can work on it and get it into compliance. As the article is already being monitored by another admin, I request that you let this process continue. If you have feedback on what should be done to improve the article, of course I welcome it. MikeyTheK 16:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Physics is being rewritten and we are looking for contributors and/or moderators at Talk:Physics/wip Do you have any suggestions? -- Filll 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I am currently sick as a dog (not a chihuahua, mind!), but, I browsed briefly through Wikipedia and checked my Talk page out. Thought you should know about this edit summary on Talk:Abortion. - Severa ( !!!) 02:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Bluestripe 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm finding my way around Wikipedia very nicely now, and have even, at the suggestion of Jkelly, joined Wikimedia Commons.
I discovered that if I enter the name of an article into the box at the left and press "search" instead of "go", I get taken to a list of all the articles that have that word. So I decided to look for some spelling mistakes; correcting such errors would give me a chance to get familiar with Wikipedia before I try creating articles. (I'm also reverting some vandalism.) So I used the search box for things like "geneology", "seperate", dissapoint", etc. Sometimes it might lead me to an article on a subject that I have no interest or expertise in.
What should I do when I find (what I think is) a really bad article? When I first found Fontanini, it looked like this. I didn't want to barge right in, so I just corrected the spelling, but then Jkelly suggested that I should try to rewrite it, as I'm interested in figurines, so I did. I'm not saying it's wonderful now, but at least it looks more like an article.
When searching for the spelling "dissapoint", I found LO Zone and Pogo Island Hands-On. They seem quite bad as articles, but I don't have any expertise that would enable me to fix them, and I'm not sure that they should even exist. In fact, I'm even a little embarrassed just to go in and fix the spelling of disappoint, since that might seem as a tacit endorsement of the rest of the content. What am I meant to do when I find articles like that? Thanks. ElinorD 19:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi KillerChihuahua, I'm am not sure whether I should be posting in the mediation page only in response to your requests there, or whether I should engage in discussion on the mediation page with Ldxar. Maybe you could let me know as the discussions can become quite lengthy.
-- Guardian sickness 01:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, It is difficult not to respond, especially when it is regarding a policy issue. Please let me know if and when you require me to reply to these posts. -- Guardian sickness 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note and the advice. I had a pretty good laugh about it last night when I protected the "wrong version" of Barbaro, my first page protection. Anyway, sorry for the late reply - I've been very busy with the new tools - but I just wanted to let you know I appreciated it. Kafziel Talk 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey puppy, I can't believe I forgot to mention to you that I got into American University! I've also been provisionally accepted into University of South Carolina but since I haven't actually applied there, I'm not going to call it a full acceptance (they just mailed me and said "If you apply you'll get in!"). I've been assured I'll be accepted at University of Florida which is a big deal since that's a really good law school, but I've always wanted to go to law school in D.C. so I don't know exactly what I'm going to do yet. I'll let you know as the process goes on. As for the RFA, heh I didn't want to campaign, but yeah! Looks much better this time. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 17:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Update: I just got accepted to University of Denver Sturm College of Law, which is one of the top schools that I wanted to get into.....keep you posted. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Amen Raul654 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
In a roundabout way, Talk:Intelligent design#Future research? Possible applications? was a genuine enquiry by Thedewi – as discussed at User talk:Thedewi... However, I fear that our voluble IDist friends will never actually come up with a programme of research, confining themselves to their usual modest ambitions to change the world and overthrow science. Just thought you might like to see the context of the discussion. :) .... dave souza, talk 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your revision on Elaragirl's page regarding WP:NPA. Since you are an administrator, can you tell me what your interpretation of WP:NPA is, because I clearly saw a personal attack on her page. Also, I am semi-new to wiki rules. Real96 05:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
(reduce indent) I was talking about the blocking/banning of user for a certain duration, in this case, Flameviper. However, this conversation is moot since the person who violated NPA was blocked, and later banned. Thanks for your input! Real96 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. There's never been an urgent need for contact outside Talk pages so I've never got around to setting it up. There's an explanation in the edit history of my user page. Thanks again for everything. :-) - Severa ( !!!) 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Donald Albury 12:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Wooden shoes! Adds a pleasant clomp-clomp-clomp to (sometimes) unpleasant tasks. Also goes well with a good book on Vermeer and a nice cup of Rooibos. I just hope they have them in size 9 1/2... - Severa ( !!!)
I have un-protected the page. I did not think more talk was going to help, and by unprotecting hte page people now really must work with one another. One person has already asked for page-protection again, but in my opinion this is just a way to ensure that no one else will ever work on the article. I am willing to give it a week to see if they can learn to cooperate and collaborate and compromise. If they do not, they will surely either have to request formal mediation or go to ArbCom. Is the problem with my e-mail address? I can give you an alternate if that is the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Look here - if you have the interest and will, you may want to nominate yourself to mediate between Jere Krischel and WRN. If you do so it whould be as a formal process rather than the informal way I did it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no error in your thining. But I do think you ought to voice your opinion concerning requests to protect the page, and also the current protected status of a content-fork page, Race and intelligence (explanations). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!! I'd appreciate it though it you could continue watching these articles. I suspect one editor who will keep calling for protection rather than deal with mediation and it is a cop-out. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Tnx for your disposition, upon yr concurrence, re his bio. I note with pleasure that yr summary once again justifies your choice of user-ID. But i also wanted to share w/ you my sense that those comments are separate form a function that i see as crucial: the clarification that the deleting admin cares that the nom'n was a "valid A7" (or whatever other specific CSD applies). That is, i think that
I think it's rare for admins to abuse the process by executing CSD delns w/o meeting the criteria, but it does happen and i believe the community deserves the reassurance as to how overwhelmingly the deleters pay enuf attention to the criteria that mention the specific criterion for the case at hand is an insignificant burden: a transparency measure i'd call (whether per CSD, Prod, or AfD) "no deletion without a process, and no such process without a policy", ala
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali. Thanks!
--
Jerzy•
t
17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Arf. Arf arf ruf. Bark bark bow wow, which I think translates to thanks for the kind words of support. I really appreciate it, especially coming from you. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, best not to subst: most of these, or {{ stub}}. See WP:SUBST for details. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 17:19 16 February 2007 (GMT).
Hey puppy, I can't get that whole bot rollback for mass vandals thing to work....I went to the contribs page and added &bot=1 to the end of the URL but then it just listed it as having 0 contribs. Am I doing something out of order? The link on the admin how-to guide has a different style URL than mine too, it has a phtml and &target= tag in the URL that mine didn't. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
. That's what I can't get to work. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)In cases of large scale vandalism that flood recent changes, you may use "bot rollback". Add &bot=1 to the end of the URL used to access a user's contributions. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Vandal&bot=1. When the rollback links on the contributions list are clicked, the revert, and the original edit that you are reverting will both be hidden from the default Recentchanges display. See Wikipedia:Revert.
Hi just wanted to say even though i think that kent hovind is one of the most evil people ever born i complety agree with your objectivity thanks for your honesty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovefestguy ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua,
I have recenetly been thinking about it, and i would like very much to myself adopt a user as you adopted me. Though i have not got the recomended number of edits, I have been told that as long as i okay it first by posting on the adopt site, it will not be a problem. Before proceeding with this, i wanted to know whether or not you would approve of me doing this, as it would require a termination of your adoption of me.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I asked for Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov to be moved on top on Vladimir Stasov. Vladimir Stasov was tagged for db-move, not for deletion. The patronymic is not necessary for disambiguation, and the naming convention requires the article title be simplified. - Tragic Baboon ( banana receptacle) 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua,
I have recenetly been thinking about it, and i would like very much to myself adopt a user as you adopted me. Though i have not got the recomended number of edits, I have been told that as long as i okay it first by posting on the adopt site, it will not be a problem. Before proceeding with this, i wanted to know whether or not you would approve of me doing this, as it would require a termination of your adoption of me.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I asked for Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov to be moved on top on Vladimir Stasov. Vladimir Stasov was tagged for db-move, not for deletion. The patronymic is not necessary for disambiguation, and the naming convention requires the article title be simplified. - Tragic Baboon ( banana receptacle) 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You may note that Judaism occupied an important place in the history of western religious thought, far more prominent than current numbers would reflect. Think or how much place we give to Greek ancient culture, versus, say, Moroccan culture of the same period. Influence is key to importance, not only numbers. Samfreed 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not an official MedCom request, but I feel you could do a lot of good here. -- Ideogram 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have constructed a somewhat whimsical draft about this subject at User talk:Filll/beedrunk. Do you think it has a chance to survive? I did get the bee expert User:Dyanega to help write it and edit my stupidities and give me feedback. Do you think it can survive as an article on its own? Or should it be part of other articles?-- Filll 18:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just writing to let you know that i have begun editing proper. I have spent some time working on the images that have unknown copyright infomration and am beginning to start making a dent in the pile. i think that my time would be best spent in this area as i have had a lot of practice with this on the wikibooks.
Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Another of my articles that was hit with a speedy is Thomas Wight. I have been slowly nurturing it in a sandbox. Here it is so far: User:Filll/Thomas Wight. Is it worthy of WP?-- Filll 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Just an alert in case you missed my reply: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Troll_organization. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts on this? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I got a kick out of it; I'm sure it is just a matter of time before at least one of those things come true.-- Isotope23 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I want to know what's "External links - Rm link per EL" means ? Just to avoid the same mistake
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Machsys ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
No problem - I've seen that RfC had been stressed elsewhere, but though I'd at least try to get my thoughts in - after all, any case when an editor leaves under a cloud is a bad one, and I'd always prefer to see the problems resolved amicably. You are to be commended for your handling of the dispute so far - well done :)! Feel free to contact me if you need any help. Mart inp23 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Unbelievable. So (albeit for a tiny % of votes) I lose my RFA because it was assumed I killed song birds. Now I realise there's an admin lurking out there with a murderous canine title. Whatever next. You'll be glad to know I realised the error of my ways! Next time I'm up for RFA, rest assured, I'll hunt you down....... The Rambling Man 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your comments. Hurrah for people that can maintain a sense of humour throughout. I knew my RFA was doomed despite the username, hopefully the two or three who found it utterly reprhensible will be able to cope with my latest incarnation. Still, lovely to bump into a fellow "killer"! Cheers! The Rambling Man 23:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for taking the time to send all that information to me. I am reading "How to edit a page" now. Sorry for not using edit summaries. I will try to do that in future. I clicked on the link for your name and it took me to a page that had "discussion" in a link at the top. You said to ask you on your "talk" page if I have any questions. Is discussion the same as talk? It says at the top of this page that people who are replying to your messages should reply on their own pages. So I'm not sure whether I should have replied here or back there. Anyway, I appreciate the help. ElinorD ElinorD 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help so far. I haven't finished reading all those pages, but I have another question. I was looking at an article called "Josiah Henson". It has a list of "categories" at the bottom. One of them was red, and said "Native america josiah henson". When I clicked on it, it didn't seem to lead to anything. I didn't think it should be there. Henson wasn't a Native American. I opened the edit box for the article, and removed "Category:native america josiah henson", but when I press "preview" to see what I've done, the categories don't seem to appear with the rest of the text. None of them. I haven't saved the page yet: I don't want to mess up anything. Should I take out that bit? Thanks. ElinorD 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (signing properly this time!)
Also, when I was typing that question to you, I put "Category:native america josiah henson" with two square brackets on each side, because that's how it appeared in the article that I was trying to remove it from. But when I looked at my question through "preview", all the words had disappeared, and I could just see "". So I changed it before saving it. And I've added your discussion/talk page to my watchlist. ElinorD 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you yet again. I've done it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Josiah_Henson&action=history
I feel bad about putting you to the trouble of typing such a long answer, because I'm sure (I know how to make italics!) that the answer is contained in one of the pages you linked to when you welcomed me. I think I understand categories now. So if I had saved my original question to you without previewing it, I would have added your discussion page to the category of Native Americans. Right? ElinorD 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and make yourself a copy of my toolbox. Martial Law 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This one is for your offer to mentor me.
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For making Wikipedia a better place for all. Martial Law 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
and this one
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
For making Wikipedia a better place for all. Martial Law 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
as well. You like ?
Martial Law
00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. Concering the latest with Ilena, I'd like your perspective. If you don't have the time, let me know and I won't be offended. The RfM was nonsensical from my viewpoint. I've gone into detail on its discussion page, but in light of the RfA, I think one thing needs to be pointed out: Wizardry Dragon was unclear in the RfM on what specific issues he thought needed moderation. His adding Breast implant to the RfM two days after initially writing it only made it more confusing Jance is the only party that has actually edited the article (other than a single wikify edit by Fyslee, and a single edit by Ilena that added a sentence and reference). From my perspective, he made multiple mistakes in writing up the RfM, and then did not take the time to resolve them himself and didn give others enough information to assist. The RfA is clearer, but writing it because the RfM was refused only ignores his mistakes. He should rewrite the RfM, be clear on the issues he sees, explain what Breast implant has to do with anything or remove it, and ensure that the RfM actually makes sense. Additionally, the RfA makes it clear the he's ignoring Ilena's behavior, specifically her inability to learn and respect wiki policies and guidelines. How can you moderate with someone about neutrality, external links, and inflammatory content when that person shows no understanding of any of the relevant guidelines. -- Ronz 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I hate to do this, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, so you are being named in an (IMO premature) RfArb here. Please add your comments. -- Fyslee 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your extremely kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I was in naughty mood... -- BorgQueen 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
please dont block the rightest non biased group consisting of 2,000 members and 300 ip adresses. this is rude and illegal. have a nice day —Preceding unsigned comment added by rightwing09 ( talk • contribs)
I have no idea what this means but here it is.-- Filll 16:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, yeah, I know I should put work into the Kriss Donald article and indeed mediation, but I'm currently barely on Wikipedia and not likely to dive back into nasty stuff when I do return. I certainly don't have the patience to work between Ldxar, the anon who is a major contributor and Guardian Sickness who, last time we interacted, made a completely unfounded accusation and followed it with "You are a joke!" [1] (I see s/he is now screaming incivility for much less: ho hum).
So I'm more likely to slap them than contribute constructively, I'm afraid.
In fact this article is always going to have some of these issues, regardless of whether Ldxar and GS are on it, due to the nature of the crime, so some publicly stated agreement on contents would be jolly useful. JackyR | Talk 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
How could I go about deleting this account and getting a new account? Or better yet changing my username License2Kill?
Hi, I have a couple of comments on your Soapbox. You say "There seems to be a strong bias in WP to show the Christian view always, often divided into Roman Catholic and Protestant; followed by the Judaic view and/or Islamic view..." Are you sure? I know that some views are under-represented, but Islam is surely not one of them. Judging from the discussions on controversial talk pages, everyone's getting to shout his POV, often creating a painful cacophony.
Then you move on to "I am merely suggesting that the major religions of the world are poorly represented..." and "At the very least Islam and Hinduism should be presented..." You have said above that the Islamic view is often given, second to the Christian view. This correlates with your table, so how is Islam poorly represented? I don't understand your logic.
Finally, let's remember that many people believing in something is not a reason to give it more weight in an encyclopaedia. NB I have just reread my words, I often look aggressive in print, this is not the case, I'm just terse by nature. :) Antgel 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi KillerChihuahua, sorry for my delay in stating my position in the mediation process. I usually visit Wikipedia everyday, but I am having computer problems and am therefore using someone elses computer. I am doing my best to sort this out, but will try and reply to any post as soon as possible.
-- Guardian sickness 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have another question for you. Jkelly has been very kindly helping me with image copyright problems. (I had registered an account at Wikimedia Commons, and had uploaded some photos I took myself of figurines, but I didn't realise that the maker of the figurines might still hold the copyright.) S/he suggested that I should try to improve the rather poor Fontanini article, since I'm interested in figurines. I looked carefully at source code for other articles before I tried it. At first I just linked to vaguely relevant articles, or didn't link at all. For example, there is an article called Biblical magi, but in the Fontanini article, I wanted to call them the wise men. That article links to a general page, from which you can find the Biblical magi article. Having looked at other articles, I see that editors use a vertical line like this | between the name of the article they link to and whatever they want to call it in the article they're writing. So you could write either "[[Prince Charles]] and [[Queen Elizabeth]]" or "[[Prince Charles]] and [[Queen Elizabeth|his mother]]".
Where can I find that vertical line on my keyboard? When I was editing Fontanini, I copied it from the source code in another Wikipedia page, and pasted it in wherever I wanted to use it. But there must be a simpler way than that! I have a British (QWERTY) keyboard, by the way. I don't know if that makes any difference. (Certainly, the French keyboards are different.) I don't think I ever saw that line in my life before joining Wikipedia. I've looked at my keyboard, and I don't see anything that looks like it. Thanks. ElinorD 16:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Killer, I see that you deleted the page I created on Morfik. The note I see states that it is "Tagged as A7 but it is G11"). I'm not sure what the tag means, but Steel359 originally deleted the article then restored it and asked me to work on it to ensure that it conforms with all policies. I logged in this morning to work on it, when I saw that you deleted it.
Again, I don't understand what the rationale is, but I would ask you to restore it so that I can work on it and get it into compliance. As the article is already being monitored by another admin, I request that you let this process continue. If you have feedback on what should be done to improve the article, of course I welcome it. MikeyTheK 16:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Physics is being rewritten and we are looking for contributors and/or moderators at Talk:Physics/wip Do you have any suggestions? -- Filll 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I am currently sick as a dog (not a chihuahua, mind!), but, I browsed briefly through Wikipedia and checked my Talk page out. Thought you should know about this edit summary on Talk:Abortion. - Severa ( !!!) 02:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Bluestripe 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm finding my way around Wikipedia very nicely now, and have even, at the suggestion of Jkelly, joined Wikimedia Commons.
I discovered that if I enter the name of an article into the box at the left and press "search" instead of "go", I get taken to a list of all the articles that have that word. So I decided to look for some spelling mistakes; correcting such errors would give me a chance to get familiar with Wikipedia before I try creating articles. (I'm also reverting some vandalism.) So I used the search box for things like "geneology", "seperate", dissapoint", etc. Sometimes it might lead me to an article on a subject that I have no interest or expertise in.
What should I do when I find (what I think is) a really bad article? When I first found Fontanini, it looked like this. I didn't want to barge right in, so I just corrected the spelling, but then Jkelly suggested that I should try to rewrite it, as I'm interested in figurines, so I did. I'm not saying it's wonderful now, but at least it looks more like an article.
When searching for the spelling "dissapoint", I found LO Zone and Pogo Island Hands-On. They seem quite bad as articles, but I don't have any expertise that would enable me to fix them, and I'm not sure that they should even exist. In fact, I'm even a little embarrassed just to go in and fix the spelling of disappoint, since that might seem as a tacit endorsement of the rest of the content. What am I meant to do when I find articles like that? Thanks. ElinorD 19:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi KillerChihuahua, I'm am not sure whether I should be posting in the mediation page only in response to your requests there, or whether I should engage in discussion on the mediation page with Ldxar. Maybe you could let me know as the discussions can become quite lengthy.
-- Guardian sickness 01:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, It is difficult not to respond, especially when it is regarding a policy issue. Please let me know if and when you require me to reply to these posts. -- Guardian sickness 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note and the advice. I had a pretty good laugh about it last night when I protected the "wrong version" of Barbaro, my first page protection. Anyway, sorry for the late reply - I've been very busy with the new tools - but I just wanted to let you know I appreciated it. Kafziel Talk 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey puppy, I can't believe I forgot to mention to you that I got into American University! I've also been provisionally accepted into University of South Carolina but since I haven't actually applied there, I'm not going to call it a full acceptance (they just mailed me and said "If you apply you'll get in!"). I've been assured I'll be accepted at University of Florida which is a big deal since that's a really good law school, but I've always wanted to go to law school in D.C. so I don't know exactly what I'm going to do yet. I'll let you know as the process goes on. As for the RFA, heh I didn't want to campaign, but yeah! Looks much better this time. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 17:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Update: I just got accepted to University of Denver Sturm College of Law, which is one of the top schools that I wanted to get into.....keep you posted. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Amen Raul654 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
In a roundabout way, Talk:Intelligent design#Future research? Possible applications? was a genuine enquiry by Thedewi – as discussed at User talk:Thedewi... However, I fear that our voluble IDist friends will never actually come up with a programme of research, confining themselves to their usual modest ambitions to change the world and overthrow science. Just thought you might like to see the context of the discussion. :) .... dave souza, talk 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your revision on Elaragirl's page regarding WP:NPA. Since you are an administrator, can you tell me what your interpretation of WP:NPA is, because I clearly saw a personal attack on her page. Also, I am semi-new to wiki rules. Real96 05:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
(reduce indent) I was talking about the blocking/banning of user for a certain duration, in this case, Flameviper. However, this conversation is moot since the person who violated NPA was blocked, and later banned. Thanks for your input! Real96 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. There's never been an urgent need for contact outside Talk pages so I've never got around to setting it up. There's an explanation in the edit history of my user page. Thanks again for everything. :-) - Severa ( !!!) 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Donald Albury 12:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Wooden shoes! Adds a pleasant clomp-clomp-clomp to (sometimes) unpleasant tasks. Also goes well with a good book on Vermeer and a nice cup of Rooibos. I just hope they have them in size 9 1/2... - Severa ( !!!)
I have un-protected the page. I did not think more talk was going to help, and by unprotecting hte page people now really must work with one another. One person has already asked for page-protection again, but in my opinion this is just a way to ensure that no one else will ever work on the article. I am willing to give it a week to see if they can learn to cooperate and collaborate and compromise. If they do not, they will surely either have to request formal mediation or go to ArbCom. Is the problem with my e-mail address? I can give you an alternate if that is the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Look here - if you have the interest and will, you may want to nominate yourself to mediate between Jere Krischel and WRN. If you do so it whould be as a formal process rather than the informal way I did it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no error in your thining. But I do think you ought to voice your opinion concerning requests to protect the page, and also the current protected status of a content-fork page, Race and intelligence (explanations). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!! I'd appreciate it though it you could continue watching these articles. I suspect one editor who will keep calling for protection rather than deal with mediation and it is a cop-out. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Tnx for your disposition, upon yr concurrence, re his bio. I note with pleasure that yr summary once again justifies your choice of user-ID. But i also wanted to share w/ you my sense that those comments are separate form a function that i see as crucial: the clarification that the deleting admin cares that the nom'n was a "valid A7" (or whatever other specific CSD applies). That is, i think that
I think it's rare for admins to abuse the process by executing CSD delns w/o meeting the criteria, but it does happen and i believe the community deserves the reassurance as to how overwhelmingly the deleters pay enuf attention to the criteria that mention the specific criterion for the case at hand is an insignificant burden: a transparency measure i'd call (whether per CSD, Prod, or AfD) "no deletion without a process, and no such process without a policy", ala
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali. Thanks!
--
Jerzy•
t
17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Arf. Arf arf ruf. Bark bark bow wow, which I think translates to thanks for the kind words of support. I really appreciate it, especially coming from you. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, best not to subst: most of these, or {{ stub}}. See WP:SUBST for details. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 17:19 16 February 2007 (GMT).
Hey puppy, I can't get that whole bot rollback for mass vandals thing to work....I went to the contribs page and added &bot=1 to the end of the URL but then it just listed it as having 0 contribs. Am I doing something out of order? The link on the admin how-to guide has a different style URL than mine too, it has a phtml and &target= tag in the URL that mine didn't. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
. That's what I can't get to work. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)In cases of large scale vandalism that flood recent changes, you may use "bot rollback". Add &bot=1 to the end of the URL used to access a user's contributions. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Vandal&bot=1. When the rollback links on the contributions list are clicked, the revert, and the original edit that you are reverting will both be hidden from the default Recentchanges display. See Wikipedia:Revert.
Hi just wanted to say even though i think that kent hovind is one of the most evil people ever born i complety agree with your objectivity thanks for your honesty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovefestguy ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua,
I have recenetly been thinking about it, and i would like very much to myself adopt a user as you adopted me. Though i have not got the recomended number of edits, I have been told that as long as i okay it first by posting on the adopt site, it will not be a problem. Before proceeding with this, i wanted to know whether or not you would approve of me doing this, as it would require a termination of your adoption of me.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I asked for Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov to be moved on top on Vladimir Stasov. Vladimir Stasov was tagged for db-move, not for deletion. The patronymic is not necessary for disambiguation, and the naming convention requires the article title be simplified. - Tragic Baboon ( banana receptacle) 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua,
I have recenetly been thinking about it, and i would like very much to myself adopt a user as you adopted me. Though i have not got the recomended number of edits, I have been told that as long as i okay it first by posting on the adopt site, it will not be a problem. Before proceeding with this, i wanted to know whether or not you would approve of me doing this, as it would require a termination of your adoption of me.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I asked for Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov to be moved on top on Vladimir Stasov. Vladimir Stasov was tagged for db-move, not for deletion. The patronymic is not necessary for disambiguation, and the naming convention requires the article title be simplified. - Tragic Baboon ( banana receptacle) 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You may note that Judaism occupied an important place in the history of western religious thought, far more prominent than current numbers would reflect. Think or how much place we give to Greek ancient culture, versus, say, Moroccan culture of the same period. Influence is key to importance, not only numbers. Samfreed 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not an official MedCom request, but I feel you could do a lot of good here. -- Ideogram 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)