![]() Archives |
---|
Hi - I see you're editing again. Do you think you'll be resuming your previous activity level or are you enjoying spending your time some other way? Just curious. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Peace and joy have returned to wiki-land, for the hero of all has returned!! I hope you enjoyed your vacation, and it goes without saying that things have been falling apart without you! :) Wiki-worshipfully, Xoloz 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[1] Guettarda 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Good job on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Sandifer. It's great to see people actually taking the time to do some analysis instead of just slapping a "no consensus" on it. Friday (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey there- thanks a lot for that very thoughtful response! It helped me a lot, as no one was really telling me where I went wrong. So again, thanks...I appreciate it. -- Osbus 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask you to relist Donald Gage? With only four votes, I think a consensus is not precluded from developing. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Re. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philip_Sandifer. Thank you for taking so much care over closing this debate. My comment (which you wrote was "almost self-contradictory") was a rather abstruse reference to a comment by Albert Einstein. The story goes that Hitler wanted to discredit him as a physicist and so got 50 German physicists to sign a letter saying the Einstein was useless. Einstein replied that if it was true, one would have been enough. So here we have an article which over 60 Wikipedians have taken part in to say it wasn't notable. Next time I make a point like this, I'll link to a reference. PS I don't feel strongly about it, and I think your summing up was fair. Stephen B Streater 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
While I haven't completely understood the edit-conflict-merging code either, I think the second thing you said is what happens. I believe the code tries to read the line above and below the two edits, and if they don't match, it merges the conflict automatically. If the top line is the same, then the test fails and it whines asks for human intervention. By the way, it's nice to see you back... I had been trying to drag myself here, but there's an awful lot to do at
WP:V0.5N...
Tito
xd(
?!? -
help us)
23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed you're correct. I just saw what looked like random dates (one was a lot different than another), so I reverted. I usually avoid reverting such topics because I have no clue if the edit is true or not, but I guess in this case I forgot about that. Anyway, thanks for catching my mistake. Cheers, Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"This article was redirected to Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon." It does not seem to have yet been redirected. But perhaps I misunderstand. Sorry for the disturbance. Lima 03:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
(As opposed to "rebar"). My compliments to your humour detector. Maybe I wasn't being sufficiently clear in my sardonism. I felt that the closing administrator might like to take into account the utterly trivial nature of what was being voted about; as well as the (IMHO) threatening phraseolofy of "afdsock" -- some people do actually go through AfD without having to be directed there, and not everyone sheep-votes. However, my apologies for however long it took for you to realise that there were no other sheep (in cubs' clothing or not) -- SockpuppetSamuelson
Thanks for this revert. -- Uncle Ed 17:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I am starting to think that the if (!addtab) thing is bugged....yes it is. I tried to have JS not waste the time reaffirming that func. by testing if it already exist. That "if" and its { } should be removed, so that the functions is always loaded. Voice-of-All Talk 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've whitelisted the user in question, still trying to find the exact word that triggered it, I see it was unblocked before I got back to a computer, thanks for the notice first. Just FYI in the future you can stop the bot (shorter term / from reverting a specific user) by going onto freenode channel #tawker-bot and opping (/chanserv op #tawker-bot) and then issuing "ctawkbot norevert" into the channel or for a specific user ctawkbot wl add (username), that will stop it from commiting edits -- Tawker 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. -- digital_m e( t/ c) 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
My Lord,
Help! I cleared out Springfield M21 from DRV, where there was a consensus to allow the recreation of the redirect and undelete the history. So fine... I deleted the redirect to restore the entire history. I restored, but the history didn't appear. I tried again, this time check-marking all revisions to be safe. Now the redirect is restored, but it seems to have NO HISTORY at all. The history screen is unlike anything I've seen, so I'm not sure what I did. Eeep! Did I encounter a bug, or was this my routine stupidity. Dunce-cap wearing, Xoloz 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! -- Osbus 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering, why did you remove all the internet slang words? -- Alexie 00:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hu? I thought the stuff was referenced by the links at the bottom. Maybe we should port the list over to Wikitonary, as wikipedia isn't a dictionary anyways. Referencing is much lower standard for dic defs.-- Rayc 03:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Whilst I can understand that you wish to actively protect this page from vandalism - a good thing - you are deleting many entries which are perfectly valid and historically-accurate as a side-effect of your actions. Please consider your actions in this respect. Whilst citing a source for new terms is to be recommended it is not the case that a source is obtainable for everything (otherwise all of our more-than-one-million pages on WP:en would just be references off-site). As such one must use common sense it what to leave in place and what to delete. -- AlisonW 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If anything we reached a clear consensus on sports scores on the main page, believe it or not IRC had nothing to do with it, I just felt bold. -- Tawker 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems like my browser is hit by the bug too... back to IE, I guess. :( Tito xd( ?!?) 05:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You blanked the entire page. Yes, they may all be unverifiable, but making a page a borderline A3 isn't how to resolve that problem. You should discuss it on the talk page or AfD first, as unilaterally blanking a page because it's unverifiable is clearly a violation of WP:POINT and certainly not following any process. -- Rory096 07:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to my request for investigation on a couple of afd's, I see that you blocked a few users. Here's who else you can block who have had similar traits: MrPhillyTV ( talk · contribs), TVXPert ( talk · contribs), and anyone from this link from when he did the same exact thing (in a more overblown fashion) last year. Just a heads up. ErikNY 22:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I should add to what ErikNY just said. The knot of socks you just blocked were accounts used by the same person using Spotteddogsdotorg ( talk · contribs), Toasthaven ( talk · contribs), Toasthaven2 ( talk · contribs), WashingtonWillie ( talk · contribs), TheSpottedDogsOrganisation ( talk · contribs), Melvis ( talk · contribs), SquirrelKabob ( talk · contribs), ShyLou ( talk · contribs), Frühstücksdienst ( talk · contribs), Hohokus ( talk · contribs), WestchesterGuy ( talk · contribs), MilesToGo ( talk · contribs), WWACArtist ( talk · contribs), and a bunch of other accounts. A few of these are already marked "suspected sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg" and it might be good to combine them. Spotteddogsdotorg, Melvis, and TheSpottedDogsOrganisation were indefinitely blocked last year. Should this be suspected sockpuppets of the first account of these created (which I think was Spotteddogsdotorg) or some other criteria? I did some digging last week after the WWAC-TV hoax and it was pretty easy to find out this user's real IRL identity. I won't post it since it's against Wikipedia rules but all of his accounts definitely need to be blocked. 70.108.73.24 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Results of more digging: Unless there were some earlier edits from an account or IP that I haven't found, this person's first edits were in December 2004 from 209.137.173.69 ( talk · contribs) and he still edits from that IP from time to time. Spotteddogsdotorg appears to be his first account created in early 2005. Some socks were created a week or so after Spotteddogsdotorg was. Another IP he has edited many times from is 68.83.229.146 ( talk · contribs). 70.108.73.24 00:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Also KingsCountyToasterAssociation ( talk · contribs) found in an IfD. - Splash - tk 04:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking the socks. Much appreciated. Check Kramden4700 ( talk · contribs) too. He redirected Jim Gardner and Dave Roberts (reporter) during the AfDs, and then redirected them again after you closed the AfD's. 70.108.108.15 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Dang! Here I've been looking all over the net for info on the computer system (AN/FSQ-31V SACCS DPC) which I got my start in computers on in 1972 and the closest I could find on Wikipedia turns out to be the creation of a sockpuppet!! So I guess no one would object if I were to fix it in spite of not being able to cite sources since I have yet to find any that fit WP's requirements...
Chuckharding
08:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
How I got here - I found the Q32 article created by TVXPert which has some erroneous information in it. While looking at the history of the article I looked at the user page for TVXPert where it states that he may be a sockpuppet and found a link to your userpage. ChardingLLNL 17:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think he may be back. Look at Kramden4700 ( talk · contribs), Adam 1212 ( talk · contribs), Travel Plaza Babes ( talk · contribs), Wrath of Roth ( talk · contribs), Pressure Thirteen ( talk · contribs) and Rekarb Bob ( talk · contribs). They all share the same editing traits, and have voted in a series of complex Philadelphia TV AFDs lately, one of which has been successful. Kirjtc2 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, so after some studying, I've blocked all the ones you listed, apart from Buckner 1986 ( talk · contribs) about whom I am unsure. I found Cabled Substitution ( talk · contribs), who certainly appears to have the whole NJ thing going on and was registered about the right time, but doesn't actually seem to touch TV-related stuff. (If you're watching, Cabled Substitution, then yes, I'm watching you, too.) What do you think? I've cancelled one AfD, taken to task another, checked a couple that were unanimously deleted (although I wonder about some of the editors there) and am going to take a look through those still running. - Splash - tk 21:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done a mixture of striking and cancelling on most of the following AfDs; some were already closed adn I don't think the outcome was determined by socks. The later of these remain open and are worth watching as a result: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCAU Personalities Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KYW-TV Personalities Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Howard Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (second nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KYW-TV Personalities Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPVI-TV Personalities Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Jolls Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Mabry Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Kerr Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irv Weinstein Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Hennis Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Portland Street Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Network Switch Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPVI-TV Personalities Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Joseph Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2 in baseball Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Beast (Kirby series) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Beast (Kirby series) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Donoghue Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Caine Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brute Force Committee Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benefiber - Splash - tk 22:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of those deletions were completely legit (I would have voted delete on some of them). The ones at the bottom started by non-suspected sockpuppets are totally OK except for the fact that one/two of the socks voted on them. The TV personality AFDs, however, were simply disruptive. Look at how with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irv Weinstein, when the first 5 votes were all "keep", they only then decided to send in the troops.
Thanks for doing this....it's gotta be like Wikipedia's version of whack-a-mole. Kirjtc2 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. It's about time. Well, long past time, actually. I don't know why people think the verifiability policy doesn't apply to lists, or "fun" pages, or popular culture topics... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope that either a)"Oversight" will be expanded in the coming months (I talked to several arbcom members, and they agreed not to expand it now) or b)This [2] will be implemented sometime soon. I just had to delete a page with 1200+ revisions due to personal info, and 1000 is a low number in a lot of cases. Its still faster then spamming oversights and AN to wait for a response though. Voice-of-All 03:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I notice that you deleted {{ Template:Steven Spielberg's Films}} back in October. I came across {{ Template:Steven Spielberg}} today: is this the same, or was there a different decision reached on film director templates? (And, in the same vein, there's {{ Template:Francis Ford Coppola's films}}, which I ran across and what prompted my searching in the first place, as some editor is creating microstubs to blue-link the titles within ("TITLE is a YEAR film directed by Francis Ford Coppola. {{ Template:Francis Ford Coppola's films}}").
(I tried looking this up in Templates for Deletion, but frankly it was as clear as mud understanding what people were deciding in there.) -- Calton | Talk 06:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comments, I'll be putting a comprehensive reply together later but a couple of points I wanted to raise here first rather than there:
Hope those commments are helpful. I'd rather get your personal feedback on them here before I do my general reply. If this gets overturned I'll delete the article myself unless someone beats me to it, but right now it's not quite the learning experience I had hoped for... "Absolute travesty" and "saintly" as some others commented, don't help one learn too much... + + Lar: t/ c 15:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Summing up: Thanks for your thoughtful comments, they have been very helpful, I think we're done... don' t worry, I'm not going to take it badly no matter what, and don't be a chicken about Lightsaber! + + Lar: t/ c 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
True, dear Splash, Kimchi.sg doesn't give out chocolate... so I think I'll just share it aaaaall with you ;) *slurp*! Have a nice day! A chocolate-covered kiss, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 09:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick unblock. How'd you notice so fast? :-) -- Uncle Ed 15:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the difference between an "infinite" and an "indefinite" block? In what cases should I use each one? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you sir for restoring the page. Our only intention was to try and help others, and I thank you deeply for seeing that. Thanks again, Thetruthbelow 00:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the main page, but could you also restore the sub-pages like designers and such? Thanks, Thetruthbelow 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you review the last section on Tony's talk page. He makes a personal attack against me. Thetruthbelow 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep an eye on Female_ejaculation, a user keeps added an uncaptioned pick, with a crappy license, no reason to be there, and it may even be fake. Regards. Voice-of-All 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for voting! Hello Splash/Archive15, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care. |
-- Pilot| guy 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
...Well, not literaly. We seem to have a paradox, dictionary.com is listed a reliable source, but it references Jargon file, which isn't. So would this [3] be a reliable source or not?-- Rayc 23:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Splash, as I see you've unprotected Monkey, could you remember to remove it from the list, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.
The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C
Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat
That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.
The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Does this change make sense? [4] Haukur 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just a friendly reminder that you need to keep an eye on [6] SP-KP 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Splash, thanks for your supporting comment on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Consensus_on_redirect_and_delete thread. It really bothered me how quick some of the admins were to attack me merely for questioning why these admins weren't following procedures and guidelines with regards to redirects. I mean, shesh, here I was thinking that we admins had to set a good example and follow the rules. Now I know better :-). Anyway, I appreciated the support on the issue and if you ever need any help please let me know. Best,-- Alabamaboy 14:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
My second User page vandalism (the first was by Tobias Conradi on my old camelcase WilliamAllenSimpson), and you noticed it before I did! Thanks!
Hey, there! Now, now, we aren't commercial users are we? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, isn't it? I don't actually know, but, I think, under Indian law, use of a product for educational purposes doesn't classify as commercial use. I'll look it up and let you know. rohith 14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Splash, it classifies for fair use!! You see, it is the screenshot from the Indian ( Malayalam) movie Rajamanikyam. rohith 14:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You know what, I was right, right from the beginning. Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 clearly states that:
Acts done in pursuance of ends specifically authorised by the Copyright Act, such as advancement of education, use in libraries and/or research, in the course of instruction, performance in classrooms, broadcast recorded for educational use, etc. are exceptions to Copyright Infringement and qualifies as fair use.
Since all who are involved with this movie are Indian, The Wikimedia Foundation and/or the people responsible for the upkeep of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia are extremely unlikely to face prosecution under Indian law (especially since the matter comes under the jurisdiction of Indian courts and Indian courts alone). rohith 15:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
My Lord,
As you may have noticed, I was recently subject to some vigorous criticism for closing DRVs regarding cross-space redirects. Since the criticism included some remarks which might be called personal attacks, I have forsworn closing such cases for now, for reasons of possible bias. There is only one Wikipedian I know with the Solomonic wisdom and universal respect necessary to effect these closures without inducing wiki-unrest: My Wiki-Hero! I'll understand totally if you have other matters more pressing to attend to, but I felt compelled, for Wikipedia's sake, to seek the help of our best and brightest. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Every once in a while I wonder over to check your inter-cranial pressure. *tap tap* Hmm, might be a bit on the high side. Any article that you'de really like to see cleaned up I could do to avoid you suffering over-stroppy-azation? - brenneman {L} 06:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, Splash. Thought I'd give you and a few other regulars a heads up about this straw poll which concerns a possible name change for "In the news." Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. The Tom 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry, I didn't know about this policy, I just bumped into this cross-namespace redirect (I don't like cross-namespace redirects because they break the fourth wall), and nominated it for deletion per "avoid cross-namespace redirects". I saw it was created by Angela, but I thought it was obsolate because she created it in 2003. Anyway, I closed the RfD as speedy keep and left a comment at Talk:Transwiki so this won't happen again. I do apologize. -- Zoz (t) 14:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying that the wikilink is to WP:NOT? -- ScienceApologist 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"Any objection to subst:ing the parts of the date? At the moment, the link on each copyvio'd page changes each day. Or should I be subst:ing the whole template? I had thought not since "what links here" is probably useful in this case. -Splash 00:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)"
Hi! I'm trying to figure out why the article OAIS was deleted. It's a well-known digital preservation standard. Could you help me? Thank you! betakate 15:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly "on faith". It's a term with a long provenance, well known, and the only reason I'm having trouble coming up with references is that it's a really, really nasty term and only used in a misogynistic context. Someone might call a woman a bitch or a cunt but to call her a fish is to suggest that she smells like rotting fish because she's a woman. Nevertheless the term exists. -- Tony Sidaway 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I do realise that "page update" wasn't the best example, but I think another current rfd might be a slightly better example, the redirect in question is the top search result for "a crystal ball". (a more plausible search that returns useful google results) However, the actual article "crystal ball" only appears at #10, and over half of the top results are self references in one form or other. Regards, MartinRe 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Was just about to. But thanks anyways. Welcome back -- Jay( Reply) 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Why was this editor not blocked..? Contributions prove repeated vandalism over the course of mere minutes. See the history on Ryu Hayabusa, paticularly edits such as this: [7]. The vandal IP has stopped for now and so I won't press the issue. Your reasoning provided on the edit summary was extremely unhelpful [8]. What was the purpose of not invoking a block on these manner of edits...? - Randall Brackett 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
See the talk page for discussion Talk:List of sexual slurs. -- List Expert 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've responded at some length on the talk page. How's it going, anyway? Always happy to bf of service if there is something that needs doing. - brenneman {L} 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You've made a number of double (and thus broken) redirects as a result of whatever you've been doing to the list of sex slurs. - Splash - tk 20:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm absolutely appalled. Please stop. -- Tony Sidaway 19:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
However you protected to a page about which there was no consensus. If you see my revert previously I had reverted to a page about where there *was* consensus. So your protection isn't helping the situation. We are modifying this page co-operatively in talk as you can see. Wjhonson 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Gerry Ashton 20:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, sure. -- GoOdCoNtEnT 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For this great post [9] on the Administrators' noticeboard. When I first stumbled on your user page in August 2005, I knew that you were cool to be named (albeit coincidentally) over my favorite Las Vegas show...but that was just awesome. Hbdragon88 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
I have been thinking about this for some time...in Rayleigh fading, where you have the model distribution
I wonder if it might be better to define say, , and set this quantity as the reference total power? After all, the radial distribution arises from the summation of two Gaussians, so, I wonder whether it is necessary that both of these components contribute only half of the total. What do you think? -- HappyCamper 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we might have enough concensus to unprotect WP:RS now. Terryeo 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. It has been explained to me in the last twelve hours quite how wrong I was - and indeed, it was because, as a less-experienced user, I had taken that notion as a form of gospel. Go figure! :) - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have responded to you at Template talk:Copyvio#Dated categories. — Centrx→ talk • 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Splash,
In March the article Ryan Scott Ottney was deleted on AfD. (And you did the deleting - that's why I'm writing to you.) [10] The article was mainly created by Ryan himself. Now someone has recreated the article. Looking at the user contributions of the person who is recreating it [11](focusing on the publishers and works of Ottney and his cronies) it seems as though Ryan (or someone very close to him) is back. What is the etiquette for this? Does this get prodded, speedied, AfDed? Or does nothing happen? Thanks for your help.
ADDITION: I found this discussion on the WHAT LINKS HERE on the Ryan Scott Ottney page. I am Ryan, and I did not create this page. The page was created by Rob Levin (clerk976), but not at my request, or even my knowledge. Previously the page was taken down because I created it and it was considered a vanity page. It was removed and now someone else - the Managing Editor of
Top Cow comics, no less - has created a new page (to which I have added content). This new page was not created by me, I had no part in it's return, and it focuses on published, professional work credits cited throughout WikiPedia. As a published professional, I would argue it should stay. But I just wanted you to know it was NOT me who created this page.
Hi splash. I am concerned that some material may have been inappropriately speedy deleted from Eagle High School. Can you please review the deleted histore and restore any of the non-libellous content so that we are kosher with GFDL and such? Thanks much, Silensor 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Splash, would you please give me your opinion, on whether or not the Ryan Conferido article was appropriate to speedy-delete in its latest version? Would you consider undeleting it? Or do you recommend that I go through Deletion Review? Thanks. -- Elonka 23:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've never quite seen a personal attack like this: [12]. I reverted most of his edits as unhelpful trolling, but I haven't bothered to block as it appears to have been a one-time role account. - Will Beback 21:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
(This is in reference to More Sockpuppets above.)
In the message "More Sockpuppets", regarding User:Kramden4700, you said "he got fingered slightly further up, too". I suppose you have seen my suspected sockpuppets nomination. I trust you for your judgment, as you made a stronger case than me. As your reasoning holds, this User:Spotteddogsdotorg is very abusive.
But I want to direct your attention to my recent edit war with Kramden and Wrath of Roth. Reading the following will tell my story and the responses:
The puppet master seems to be expanding his reach. So if you're monitoring Spotteddogsdotorg, I suggest you look out for edits to redirects of place names (and perhaps people) by WP:DAB#Primary topic in the name of "nationalistic/geographic bias" and disregarding primary topic disambiguation. I think you can do the investigation yourself (and with others as you wish), but if you need my assistance, you can always talk to me.
Finally, I am repulsed at my possible assistance of a sockpuppet. But I didn't know the whole story, you did. So for that, I know better, and I thank you. Tinlinkin 07:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've seen that you unprotected the Fidel Castro page earlier and you have since stated that protection shouldn't be too long. I very much differ in view here. This isn't a common and garden biography, this is a very serious political issue that has massive implications for a lot of people. Given Wikipedia's well publicised poor record with Cuban issues [13] which is repeated in many journals discussing the failings of wikipedia, there can be no margin for error. If enough people get the wrong idea over the next 48 hours that Castro is dead, or has resigned due to our users vandalism or poor editing this is big trouble for wikipedia. I urge - as I have on the admin noticeboard since the start of this latest affair - all admins to treat this case with upmost caution.-- Zleitzen 00:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see my notes at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#BetacommandBot_expansion_of_task. I do not disagree with your block of that bot at all, but should you not be around would you agree to allow anyone to unblock it if it will only operate under the new trial conditions? (I also respect that you disagree with it's usefulness, but would like to give them a chance to demonstrate usefulness during the trial during which comments can be gathered. Perhpas linking the bot discussion to CFD talk may help bring in some more experienced category editors as well.) — xaosflux Talk 02:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
For this. I was just fighting with Cyde on IRC about it =D. AmiDaniel ( talk) 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Raul's user space page is User:Raul654/protection ( [15]). Raul's page, WP:SEMI and, as far as I can tell, long-standing practice only apply to the featured article on the Main Page, not to every single article with a link on the Main Page. That's quite a lot of articles, they don't receive the same monitoring as the featured article, and they aren't intended to be the singular showcase of Wikipedia for the day. I don't see why they couldn't be semi-protected for a few hours. — Centrx→ talk • 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() Archives |
---|
Hi - I see you're editing again. Do you think you'll be resuming your previous activity level or are you enjoying spending your time some other way? Just curious. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Peace and joy have returned to wiki-land, for the hero of all has returned!! I hope you enjoyed your vacation, and it goes without saying that things have been falling apart without you! :) Wiki-worshipfully, Xoloz 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[1] Guettarda 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Good job on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Sandifer. It's great to see people actually taking the time to do some analysis instead of just slapping a "no consensus" on it. Friday (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey there- thanks a lot for that very thoughtful response! It helped me a lot, as no one was really telling me where I went wrong. So again, thanks...I appreciate it. -- Osbus 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask you to relist Donald Gage? With only four votes, I think a consensus is not precluded from developing. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Re. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philip_Sandifer. Thank you for taking so much care over closing this debate. My comment (which you wrote was "almost self-contradictory") was a rather abstruse reference to a comment by Albert Einstein. The story goes that Hitler wanted to discredit him as a physicist and so got 50 German physicists to sign a letter saying the Einstein was useless. Einstein replied that if it was true, one would have been enough. So here we have an article which over 60 Wikipedians have taken part in to say it wasn't notable. Next time I make a point like this, I'll link to a reference. PS I don't feel strongly about it, and I think your summing up was fair. Stephen B Streater 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
While I haven't completely understood the edit-conflict-merging code either, I think the second thing you said is what happens. I believe the code tries to read the line above and below the two edits, and if they don't match, it merges the conflict automatically. If the top line is the same, then the test fails and it whines asks for human intervention. By the way, it's nice to see you back... I had been trying to drag myself here, but there's an awful lot to do at
WP:V0.5N...
Tito
xd(
?!? -
help us)
23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed you're correct. I just saw what looked like random dates (one was a lot different than another), so I reverted. I usually avoid reverting such topics because I have no clue if the edit is true or not, but I guess in this case I forgot about that. Anyway, thanks for catching my mistake. Cheers, Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"This article was redirected to Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon." It does not seem to have yet been redirected. But perhaps I misunderstand. Sorry for the disturbance. Lima 03:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
(As opposed to "rebar"). My compliments to your humour detector. Maybe I wasn't being sufficiently clear in my sardonism. I felt that the closing administrator might like to take into account the utterly trivial nature of what was being voted about; as well as the (IMHO) threatening phraseolofy of "afdsock" -- some people do actually go through AfD without having to be directed there, and not everyone sheep-votes. However, my apologies for however long it took for you to realise that there were no other sheep (in cubs' clothing or not) -- SockpuppetSamuelson
Thanks for this revert. -- Uncle Ed 17:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I am starting to think that the if (!addtab) thing is bugged....yes it is. I tried to have JS not waste the time reaffirming that func. by testing if it already exist. That "if" and its { } should be removed, so that the functions is always loaded. Voice-of-All Talk 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've whitelisted the user in question, still trying to find the exact word that triggered it, I see it was unblocked before I got back to a computer, thanks for the notice first. Just FYI in the future you can stop the bot (shorter term / from reverting a specific user) by going onto freenode channel #tawker-bot and opping (/chanserv op #tawker-bot) and then issuing "ctawkbot norevert" into the channel or for a specific user ctawkbot wl add (username), that will stop it from commiting edits -- Tawker 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. -- digital_m e( t/ c) 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
My Lord,
Help! I cleared out Springfield M21 from DRV, where there was a consensus to allow the recreation of the redirect and undelete the history. So fine... I deleted the redirect to restore the entire history. I restored, but the history didn't appear. I tried again, this time check-marking all revisions to be safe. Now the redirect is restored, but it seems to have NO HISTORY at all. The history screen is unlike anything I've seen, so I'm not sure what I did. Eeep! Did I encounter a bug, or was this my routine stupidity. Dunce-cap wearing, Xoloz 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! -- Osbus 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering, why did you remove all the internet slang words? -- Alexie 00:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hu? I thought the stuff was referenced by the links at the bottom. Maybe we should port the list over to Wikitonary, as wikipedia isn't a dictionary anyways. Referencing is much lower standard for dic defs.-- Rayc 03:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Whilst I can understand that you wish to actively protect this page from vandalism - a good thing - you are deleting many entries which are perfectly valid and historically-accurate as a side-effect of your actions. Please consider your actions in this respect. Whilst citing a source for new terms is to be recommended it is not the case that a source is obtainable for everything (otherwise all of our more-than-one-million pages on WP:en would just be references off-site). As such one must use common sense it what to leave in place and what to delete. -- AlisonW 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If anything we reached a clear consensus on sports scores on the main page, believe it or not IRC had nothing to do with it, I just felt bold. -- Tawker 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems like my browser is hit by the bug too... back to IE, I guess. :( Tito xd( ?!?) 05:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You blanked the entire page. Yes, they may all be unverifiable, but making a page a borderline A3 isn't how to resolve that problem. You should discuss it on the talk page or AfD first, as unilaterally blanking a page because it's unverifiable is clearly a violation of WP:POINT and certainly not following any process. -- Rory096 07:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to my request for investigation on a couple of afd's, I see that you blocked a few users. Here's who else you can block who have had similar traits: MrPhillyTV ( talk · contribs), TVXPert ( talk · contribs), and anyone from this link from when he did the same exact thing (in a more overblown fashion) last year. Just a heads up. ErikNY 22:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I should add to what ErikNY just said. The knot of socks you just blocked were accounts used by the same person using Spotteddogsdotorg ( talk · contribs), Toasthaven ( talk · contribs), Toasthaven2 ( talk · contribs), WashingtonWillie ( talk · contribs), TheSpottedDogsOrganisation ( talk · contribs), Melvis ( talk · contribs), SquirrelKabob ( talk · contribs), ShyLou ( talk · contribs), Frühstücksdienst ( talk · contribs), Hohokus ( talk · contribs), WestchesterGuy ( talk · contribs), MilesToGo ( talk · contribs), WWACArtist ( talk · contribs), and a bunch of other accounts. A few of these are already marked "suspected sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg" and it might be good to combine them. Spotteddogsdotorg, Melvis, and TheSpottedDogsOrganisation were indefinitely blocked last year. Should this be suspected sockpuppets of the first account of these created (which I think was Spotteddogsdotorg) or some other criteria? I did some digging last week after the WWAC-TV hoax and it was pretty easy to find out this user's real IRL identity. I won't post it since it's against Wikipedia rules but all of his accounts definitely need to be blocked. 70.108.73.24 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Results of more digging: Unless there were some earlier edits from an account or IP that I haven't found, this person's first edits were in December 2004 from 209.137.173.69 ( talk · contribs) and he still edits from that IP from time to time. Spotteddogsdotorg appears to be his first account created in early 2005. Some socks were created a week or so after Spotteddogsdotorg was. Another IP he has edited many times from is 68.83.229.146 ( talk · contribs). 70.108.73.24 00:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Also KingsCountyToasterAssociation ( talk · contribs) found in an IfD. - Splash - tk 04:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking the socks. Much appreciated. Check Kramden4700 ( talk · contribs) too. He redirected Jim Gardner and Dave Roberts (reporter) during the AfDs, and then redirected them again after you closed the AfD's. 70.108.108.15 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Dang! Here I've been looking all over the net for info on the computer system (AN/FSQ-31V SACCS DPC) which I got my start in computers on in 1972 and the closest I could find on Wikipedia turns out to be the creation of a sockpuppet!! So I guess no one would object if I were to fix it in spite of not being able to cite sources since I have yet to find any that fit WP's requirements...
Chuckharding
08:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
How I got here - I found the Q32 article created by TVXPert which has some erroneous information in it. While looking at the history of the article I looked at the user page for TVXPert where it states that he may be a sockpuppet and found a link to your userpage. ChardingLLNL 17:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think he may be back. Look at Kramden4700 ( talk · contribs), Adam 1212 ( talk · contribs), Travel Plaza Babes ( talk · contribs), Wrath of Roth ( talk · contribs), Pressure Thirteen ( talk · contribs) and Rekarb Bob ( talk · contribs). They all share the same editing traits, and have voted in a series of complex Philadelphia TV AFDs lately, one of which has been successful. Kirjtc2 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, so after some studying, I've blocked all the ones you listed, apart from Buckner 1986 ( talk · contribs) about whom I am unsure. I found Cabled Substitution ( talk · contribs), who certainly appears to have the whole NJ thing going on and was registered about the right time, but doesn't actually seem to touch TV-related stuff. (If you're watching, Cabled Substitution, then yes, I'm watching you, too.) What do you think? I've cancelled one AfD, taken to task another, checked a couple that were unanimously deleted (although I wonder about some of the editors there) and am going to take a look through those still running. - Splash - tk 21:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done a mixture of striking and cancelling on most of the following AfDs; some were already closed adn I don't think the outcome was determined by socks. The later of these remain open and are worth watching as a result: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCAU Personalities Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KYW-TV Personalities Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Howard Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (second nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KYW-TV Personalities Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPVI-TV Personalities Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Jolls Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Mabry Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Kerr Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irv Weinstein Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Hennis Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Portland Street Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Network Switch Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPVI-TV Personalities Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Joseph Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2 in baseball Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Beast (Kirby series) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Beast (Kirby series) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Donoghue Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Caine Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brute Force Committee Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benefiber - Splash - tk 22:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of those deletions were completely legit (I would have voted delete on some of them). The ones at the bottom started by non-suspected sockpuppets are totally OK except for the fact that one/two of the socks voted on them. The TV personality AFDs, however, were simply disruptive. Look at how with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irv Weinstein, when the first 5 votes were all "keep", they only then decided to send in the troops.
Thanks for doing this....it's gotta be like Wikipedia's version of whack-a-mole. Kirjtc2 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. It's about time. Well, long past time, actually. I don't know why people think the verifiability policy doesn't apply to lists, or "fun" pages, or popular culture topics... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope that either a)"Oversight" will be expanded in the coming months (I talked to several arbcom members, and they agreed not to expand it now) or b)This [2] will be implemented sometime soon. I just had to delete a page with 1200+ revisions due to personal info, and 1000 is a low number in a lot of cases. Its still faster then spamming oversights and AN to wait for a response though. Voice-of-All 03:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I notice that you deleted {{ Template:Steven Spielberg's Films}} back in October. I came across {{ Template:Steven Spielberg}} today: is this the same, or was there a different decision reached on film director templates? (And, in the same vein, there's {{ Template:Francis Ford Coppola's films}}, which I ran across and what prompted my searching in the first place, as some editor is creating microstubs to blue-link the titles within ("TITLE is a YEAR film directed by Francis Ford Coppola. {{ Template:Francis Ford Coppola's films}}").
(I tried looking this up in Templates for Deletion, but frankly it was as clear as mud understanding what people were deciding in there.) -- Calton | Talk 06:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comments, I'll be putting a comprehensive reply together later but a couple of points I wanted to raise here first rather than there:
Hope those commments are helpful. I'd rather get your personal feedback on them here before I do my general reply. If this gets overturned I'll delete the article myself unless someone beats me to it, but right now it's not quite the learning experience I had hoped for... "Absolute travesty" and "saintly" as some others commented, don't help one learn too much... + + Lar: t/ c 15:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Summing up: Thanks for your thoughtful comments, they have been very helpful, I think we're done... don' t worry, I'm not going to take it badly no matter what, and don't be a chicken about Lightsaber! + + Lar: t/ c 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
True, dear Splash, Kimchi.sg doesn't give out chocolate... so I think I'll just share it aaaaall with you ;) *slurp*! Have a nice day! A chocolate-covered kiss, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 09:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick unblock. How'd you notice so fast? :-) -- Uncle Ed 15:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the difference between an "infinite" and an "indefinite" block? In what cases should I use each one? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you sir for restoring the page. Our only intention was to try and help others, and I thank you deeply for seeing that. Thanks again, Thetruthbelow 00:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the main page, but could you also restore the sub-pages like designers and such? Thanks, Thetruthbelow 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you review the last section on Tony's talk page. He makes a personal attack against me. Thetruthbelow 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep an eye on Female_ejaculation, a user keeps added an uncaptioned pick, with a crappy license, no reason to be there, and it may even be fake. Regards. Voice-of-All 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for voting! Hello Splash/Archive15, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care. |
-- Pilot| guy 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
...Well, not literaly. We seem to have a paradox, dictionary.com is listed a reliable source, but it references Jargon file, which isn't. So would this [3] be a reliable source or not?-- Rayc 23:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Splash, as I see you've unprotected Monkey, could you remember to remove it from the list, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.
The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C
Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat
That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.
The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Does this change make sense? [4] Haukur 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just a friendly reminder that you need to keep an eye on [6] SP-KP 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Splash, thanks for your supporting comment on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Consensus_on_redirect_and_delete thread. It really bothered me how quick some of the admins were to attack me merely for questioning why these admins weren't following procedures and guidelines with regards to redirects. I mean, shesh, here I was thinking that we admins had to set a good example and follow the rules. Now I know better :-). Anyway, I appreciated the support on the issue and if you ever need any help please let me know. Best,-- Alabamaboy 14:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
My second User page vandalism (the first was by Tobias Conradi on my old camelcase WilliamAllenSimpson), and you noticed it before I did! Thanks!
Hey, there! Now, now, we aren't commercial users are we? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, isn't it? I don't actually know, but, I think, under Indian law, use of a product for educational purposes doesn't classify as commercial use. I'll look it up and let you know. rohith 14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Splash, it classifies for fair use!! You see, it is the screenshot from the Indian ( Malayalam) movie Rajamanikyam. rohith 14:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You know what, I was right, right from the beginning. Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 clearly states that:
Acts done in pursuance of ends specifically authorised by the Copyright Act, such as advancement of education, use in libraries and/or research, in the course of instruction, performance in classrooms, broadcast recorded for educational use, etc. are exceptions to Copyright Infringement and qualifies as fair use.
Since all who are involved with this movie are Indian, The Wikimedia Foundation and/or the people responsible for the upkeep of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia are extremely unlikely to face prosecution under Indian law (especially since the matter comes under the jurisdiction of Indian courts and Indian courts alone). rohith 15:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
My Lord,
As you may have noticed, I was recently subject to some vigorous criticism for closing DRVs regarding cross-space redirects. Since the criticism included some remarks which might be called personal attacks, I have forsworn closing such cases for now, for reasons of possible bias. There is only one Wikipedian I know with the Solomonic wisdom and universal respect necessary to effect these closures without inducing wiki-unrest: My Wiki-Hero! I'll understand totally if you have other matters more pressing to attend to, but I felt compelled, for Wikipedia's sake, to seek the help of our best and brightest. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Every once in a while I wonder over to check your inter-cranial pressure. *tap tap* Hmm, might be a bit on the high side. Any article that you'de really like to see cleaned up I could do to avoid you suffering over-stroppy-azation? - brenneman {L} 06:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, Splash. Thought I'd give you and a few other regulars a heads up about this straw poll which concerns a possible name change for "In the news." Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. The Tom 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry, I didn't know about this policy, I just bumped into this cross-namespace redirect (I don't like cross-namespace redirects because they break the fourth wall), and nominated it for deletion per "avoid cross-namespace redirects". I saw it was created by Angela, but I thought it was obsolate because she created it in 2003. Anyway, I closed the RfD as speedy keep and left a comment at Talk:Transwiki so this won't happen again. I do apologize. -- Zoz (t) 14:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying that the wikilink is to WP:NOT? -- ScienceApologist 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"Any objection to subst:ing the parts of the date? At the moment, the link on each copyvio'd page changes each day. Or should I be subst:ing the whole template? I had thought not since "what links here" is probably useful in this case. -Splash 00:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)"
Hi! I'm trying to figure out why the article OAIS was deleted. It's a well-known digital preservation standard. Could you help me? Thank you! betakate 15:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly "on faith". It's a term with a long provenance, well known, and the only reason I'm having trouble coming up with references is that it's a really, really nasty term and only used in a misogynistic context. Someone might call a woman a bitch or a cunt but to call her a fish is to suggest that she smells like rotting fish because she's a woman. Nevertheless the term exists. -- Tony Sidaway 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I do realise that "page update" wasn't the best example, but I think another current rfd might be a slightly better example, the redirect in question is the top search result for "a crystal ball". (a more plausible search that returns useful google results) However, the actual article "crystal ball" only appears at #10, and over half of the top results are self references in one form or other. Regards, MartinRe 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Was just about to. But thanks anyways. Welcome back -- Jay( Reply) 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Why was this editor not blocked..? Contributions prove repeated vandalism over the course of mere minutes. See the history on Ryu Hayabusa, paticularly edits such as this: [7]. The vandal IP has stopped for now and so I won't press the issue. Your reasoning provided on the edit summary was extremely unhelpful [8]. What was the purpose of not invoking a block on these manner of edits...? - Randall Brackett 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
See the talk page for discussion Talk:List of sexual slurs. -- List Expert 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've responded at some length on the talk page. How's it going, anyway? Always happy to bf of service if there is something that needs doing. - brenneman {L} 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You've made a number of double (and thus broken) redirects as a result of whatever you've been doing to the list of sex slurs. - Splash - tk 20:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm absolutely appalled. Please stop. -- Tony Sidaway 19:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
However you protected to a page about which there was no consensus. If you see my revert previously I had reverted to a page about where there *was* consensus. So your protection isn't helping the situation. We are modifying this page co-operatively in talk as you can see. Wjhonson 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Gerry Ashton 20:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, sure. -- GoOdCoNtEnT 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For this great post [9] on the Administrators' noticeboard. When I first stumbled on your user page in August 2005, I knew that you were cool to be named (albeit coincidentally) over my favorite Las Vegas show...but that was just awesome. Hbdragon88 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
I have been thinking about this for some time...in Rayleigh fading, where you have the model distribution
I wonder if it might be better to define say, , and set this quantity as the reference total power? After all, the radial distribution arises from the summation of two Gaussians, so, I wonder whether it is necessary that both of these components contribute only half of the total. What do you think? -- HappyCamper 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we might have enough concensus to unprotect WP:RS now. Terryeo 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. It has been explained to me in the last twelve hours quite how wrong I was - and indeed, it was because, as a less-experienced user, I had taken that notion as a form of gospel. Go figure! :) - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have responded to you at Template talk:Copyvio#Dated categories. — Centrx→ talk • 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Splash,
In March the article Ryan Scott Ottney was deleted on AfD. (And you did the deleting - that's why I'm writing to you.) [10] The article was mainly created by Ryan himself. Now someone has recreated the article. Looking at the user contributions of the person who is recreating it [11](focusing on the publishers and works of Ottney and his cronies) it seems as though Ryan (or someone very close to him) is back. What is the etiquette for this? Does this get prodded, speedied, AfDed? Or does nothing happen? Thanks for your help.
ADDITION: I found this discussion on the WHAT LINKS HERE on the Ryan Scott Ottney page. I am Ryan, and I did not create this page. The page was created by Rob Levin (clerk976), but not at my request, or even my knowledge. Previously the page was taken down because I created it and it was considered a vanity page. It was removed and now someone else - the Managing Editor of
Top Cow comics, no less - has created a new page (to which I have added content). This new page was not created by me, I had no part in it's return, and it focuses on published, professional work credits cited throughout WikiPedia. As a published professional, I would argue it should stay. But I just wanted you to know it was NOT me who created this page.
Hi splash. I am concerned that some material may have been inappropriately speedy deleted from Eagle High School. Can you please review the deleted histore and restore any of the non-libellous content so that we are kosher with GFDL and such? Thanks much, Silensor 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Splash, would you please give me your opinion, on whether or not the Ryan Conferido article was appropriate to speedy-delete in its latest version? Would you consider undeleting it? Or do you recommend that I go through Deletion Review? Thanks. -- Elonka 23:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've never quite seen a personal attack like this: [12]. I reverted most of his edits as unhelpful trolling, but I haven't bothered to block as it appears to have been a one-time role account. - Will Beback 21:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
(This is in reference to More Sockpuppets above.)
In the message "More Sockpuppets", regarding User:Kramden4700, you said "he got fingered slightly further up, too". I suppose you have seen my suspected sockpuppets nomination. I trust you for your judgment, as you made a stronger case than me. As your reasoning holds, this User:Spotteddogsdotorg is very abusive.
But I want to direct your attention to my recent edit war with Kramden and Wrath of Roth. Reading the following will tell my story and the responses:
The puppet master seems to be expanding his reach. So if you're monitoring Spotteddogsdotorg, I suggest you look out for edits to redirects of place names (and perhaps people) by WP:DAB#Primary topic in the name of "nationalistic/geographic bias" and disregarding primary topic disambiguation. I think you can do the investigation yourself (and with others as you wish), but if you need my assistance, you can always talk to me.
Finally, I am repulsed at my possible assistance of a sockpuppet. But I didn't know the whole story, you did. So for that, I know better, and I thank you. Tinlinkin 07:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've seen that you unprotected the Fidel Castro page earlier and you have since stated that protection shouldn't be too long. I very much differ in view here. This isn't a common and garden biography, this is a very serious political issue that has massive implications for a lot of people. Given Wikipedia's well publicised poor record with Cuban issues [13] which is repeated in many journals discussing the failings of wikipedia, there can be no margin for error. If enough people get the wrong idea over the next 48 hours that Castro is dead, or has resigned due to our users vandalism or poor editing this is big trouble for wikipedia. I urge - as I have on the admin noticeboard since the start of this latest affair - all admins to treat this case with upmost caution.-- Zleitzen 00:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see my notes at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#BetacommandBot_expansion_of_task. I do not disagree with your block of that bot at all, but should you not be around would you agree to allow anyone to unblock it if it will only operate under the new trial conditions? (I also respect that you disagree with it's usefulness, but would like to give them a chance to demonstrate usefulness during the trial during which comments can be gathered. Perhpas linking the bot discussion to CFD talk may help bring in some more experienced category editors as well.) — xaosflux Talk 02:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
For this. I was just fighting with Cyde on IRC about it =D. AmiDaniel ( talk) 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Raul's user space page is User:Raul654/protection ( [15]). Raul's page, WP:SEMI and, as far as I can tell, long-standing practice only apply to the featured article on the Main Page, not to every single article with a link on the Main Page. That's quite a lot of articles, they don't receive the same monitoring as the featured article, and they aren't intended to be the singular showcase of Wikipedia for the day. I don't see why they couldn't be semi-protected for a few hours. — Centrx→ talk • 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)