Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005
Hey, Splash. Are you an adm. If not, I'd be glad to nominate you - so long as it doesn't end up like the last one I nominated. Take care,
D. J. Bracey
(talk)
20:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
May I ask how the circular presentation of the signal constellation for QAM is derived? I have not seen that before and would like to learn more about it. For M-ary QAM systems, the signal constellations I've seen are usually presented in a linear manner, so I was quite pleased to see it being displayed in a more symmetrical manner. I am also thinking of starting a WikiProject on digital communication systems. Do you think you would be interested in helping out? -- HappyCamper 01:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Splash, I can deliver some proof about items that are claimed on the Genseiryu site. Only I want them to be treated confidential. They are at the moment translated by an official translator from Japanese to English. I will sent them, after the translation is ready, to JeremyA who already tried to mediate in the conflict about the Genseiryu article. Best regards, TenChiJin
Regarding Tony Sidawy: User_talk:Theresa_knott#Prodigal_returns...
Hello Splash, I was wondering if you could take a look at the article London, Ontario. There is an anon user who keeps removing an entry under "Notable Londoners" Bill Brady. His reasoning for doing so is very weak and I have provided what I feel is adequite proof on that articles talk page to back up his notability. If you would kindly take a few minutes to intervene and perhaps leave a comment on that page? I will look here for a response so as to preserve continuity. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 21:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey Splash, you left a signature on that Bill Brady bullet in the article. I don't want to touch it till another few hours goes by! :-) Hamster Sandwich 23:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Re: Bill Brady, I was going to fill that article with as much hyperbole as I could muster, but decided to reign it in a lil bit. Thanks for the edit there! Hamster Sandwich 23:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Anon: Splash here is a potential compromise which maybe you'll have some success suggesting to HS: now that Brady has a his own entry he does not need to be listed under notable people for London, and his individual entry will be allowed to stay, free from interference or deletion.
Splash I'm feeling ganged up on here, there is one user HS which is intent on keeping him there, for what I'd say are reasons other than the merits of Brady being notable. There is you, who have sided with him, and there is one other user, Adam Bishop that has repeatedly stated he doesn't care either way but keeps reverting me anyways. My point is that this more or less is one person verus another, and I don't think that the "consenus" that's developed is really based on the facts. Brady simply isn't notable, he has been part of some organizations, but has not acheivement to speak of that's notable. AND THAT MATTERS! That's why someone gets listed as notable. Being a good person is not the same as being notable. To permit his entry is to waterdown the entire category.
<moved from top of section>
Whoa whoa whoa, Splash given the below conversation how can you claim to be impartial? This seems conspiritorial, had I approached you with my arguements first I think you would view the matter decidely different.
The version you last reverted is now the one permanently frozen. The person below uses ad homenim attacks against me, that's below the belt! I have no personal vendetta, I don't even know who Bradly is, which by the way is part of why he doesn't deserve to be there.
I think in future you have to be cautious about wading into something like this claiming to be impartial when you are having a dialoge with one of the parties but not the other. If this is not fair please explain.
Splash, upon investigating further it turns out that everyone that has weighed in on Bill Brady aside from myself was first approached by HS. I think this is basically between two people with one having done the rounds so to speak framing the issue and getting them involved. I understand you serve in some offical capacity here, is there a higher authority to appeal to?
Splash upon further reflection your suggestion that the list is too long generally is probably correct. Will you support the exclusion of Brady if it is part of a series of removals that take off the extraneous notables that are really pushing the envelope with their inclusion? As you state it will make for a stonger article that is more likely to become a featured article -consensusbuilder
Splash I am still getting the hang of the wiki, terminsousbandage is not me so I can't use that account. I will use this one Consensusbuilder for now, and once this Brady matter is resolved I am happy to change my name to whatever you'd prefer, in the meantime I will keep it just to keep things straight for purposes of communication if that's ok with you. Consensusbuilder
Hi Splash! I'm glad to see you taking an interest in this article. I have become very frustrated with the parties involved in this edit war as neither side shows any desire to compromise. I have received a lot of correspondence (mostly by email) from both sides of this argument as well as from admins at the Dutch wikipedia. I have considered attempting a rewrite of this article myself (I know nothing of karate or genseiryu). These last couple of weeks I had decided to step back, do other things, and give it another chance to resolve itself, which clearly hasn't happened. If you can find a solution I will be very pleased. Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you to re-consider your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A. F. Gotch. I've cleaned up the page, and added another of his books. If Wikipedia lists people only on the basis of how well their books were received, it seems to me that we're crossing a rather dangerous line into reviewing rather than building an encyclopedia. - Harmil 11:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I created that, and was really disappointed to see it speedy deleted before I could even comment... :( Voyager640 19:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/God's Learning Channel you mentioned its Alexa traffic rank. How do you find out the Alexa traffic rank of something? Cursive 00:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations indeed. Don't forget to go and delete Stikman and it's talk page, where you closed the VfD as a delete. - Splash 00:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi - Do you think it might be useful for us to talk about category titles off the "public" page a bit? I'm not suggesting I think there's a problem between us, but just want to make sure you agree (that we don't have a problem). I suspect we have a fairly fundmental disagreement (my inclination to "use what we have" vs. your "decide what we want and make it so") which I doubt we're going to be able to resolve but I don't think this means we have a problem. Anyway, if you think it might be useful to talk please let me know. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:26, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I just got back from a Las Vegas trip. I went to the Riviera and saw a show called Splash [1]. I was doing a Wikipedia search on Google (query: splash las vegas site:en.wikipedia.org), and I found your name in the Templetes for Deletion page (your name was on the Sexual Orientation template). Have you seen this show? Hbdragon88 04:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Does it matter what number of Vfd's a nominator has to deal with if it infringes on Wikipedia:Civility. What is wrong with taking into account that not everyone has their created articles watchlisted and may not be informed...then it's possibly gone without ever having the chance to make a vote or defend the article. A quick notice by the nominator to the original creator isn't asking very much. This, of course, needn't apply to speedy delete qualified items.-- MONGO 07:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your speedy response. I fully understand that it is just too cumbersome for every nominated article to also get a red flag warning sent to original or primary editors due to the reasons you cited. I wonder if in cases such as the recent nomination of WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency for deletion that since it was a project, and a very unusual nomination due to the project status, that some form of enforcement of WP:civ isn't required. I'll take your advice and toss it into the village pump, although I am sure you're right that it will get squashed. Thanks again for the clarification...have a good one.-- MONGO 07:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with this? I'm trying to create a table in latex that will look like this
Input Output Formula ------------------------- A 1 x = f(y) B 2 C 3 / D 4 <| E 5 \ F 6
(though with different stuff in the table). In particular, the main difficulty is getting a curly brace on the outside of the last three values, and also getting the inside to align well with the titles. I've tried all kinds of table nesting, but I can't work out how to do it.
Any help REALLY appreciate, thanks! Mary K 15:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you wanting to create this in ordinary LaTeX or in a mixture of Wikimarkup and LaTeX? If you want it in ordinary LaTeX, then this gets close enough, as long as you have remebered to \usepackage{} as appropriate:
If you don't want the vertical lines, just take them out of the curly braces on the line starting \begin{tabular}.
This won't work in the restricted version of LaTeX available in MediaWiki (doesn't LaTeX tables for a start), so if that's what you're after give me a prod on my talk page. - Splash 19:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I've just put together a Proposed poll question? since discussion dried up a bit. I hope that's not too presumptuous and that I covered all the points. Steve block talk 20:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
To an extent, yes. However, wherever an electrical current flows there will be both an electric field and a magnetic field, so you can't have electricity without electromagnetism. Technical, irrelevant point, I know. -Splash 06:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Please join me in celebrating my 1000th edit at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource! Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash! Sure, I'll take a look at PSK. Let's try and get it featured on the front page! -- HappyCamper 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Wanna good laugh? Talk:Bill Brady. Hamster Sandwich 00:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on my RFA. I'm not going to bore you with an attempt to proof my knowledge of WP policy. But I would like to address some of the other points you raised: The reason I mentioned the VfD was not a "debate which didn't go the 'right' way "; at the time, I was upset that the article was deleted despite the fact that the debate had gone the 'right' way. – Your point about appearing pro-active is well taken. I don't like to make specific promises I may not be able to keep, my area of interest in WP has changed quite a few times. Are there other criteria you use for determining whether someone is pro-active? Rl 09:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks for your detailed explanation. To answer your question: I used to do RC patrol early on and switched to NP patrol later. At the time, I was also very active on VfD pages. For a while, I was the major contributor to WP:CP (on some days roughly half the entries were by me); I also tried to mitigate the copyvio problem with a proposed change (see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#More_visible_warning.3F, MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning#Proposed_change). I've been involved with quite a few discussions on MoS pages. I also spend quite a bit of time talking to people who make newbie mistakes (cut'n'paste page moves and UTF-8 breakage, for instance). Unfortunately, with close to 4000 pages on my watch list, vandals and link spammers keep me busy most of the time (you can easily verify that by checking my contributions). My watchlist has become the subset of pages that I'm doing RC patrol for, and following the trails of vandals and spammers makes the list grow further. Rl 23:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This listing has had a (vfd) for Vanity or Ad type status and placed on comment for delete by you. I am the webmaster for this television station, and have today modified the listing to be in line with similar listings for Christian TV such as Day Star and TBN. Just to note, what was listed before I made the changes today was NOT what was submitted by our chief engineer. Thank you. (UTC)
You said, "Delete per precedent (and observe we should collect our CfD precdents up somewhere....like Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions). -Splash 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)" - excellent idea. Want to help me plod through the CFD logs and see what salvageable precedents there are? R adiant _>|< 12:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Splash 22:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Probably either to one of the internet trolling articles, or the adequacy.org article. Trollderella 22:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash! I requested the unprotection of this article. The previous month-long protection did nothing to difuse this edit war. I therefore think that it is better to block users who blindly revert or engage in abusive behaviour, and try to foster discussion on the relevant talk pages. JeremyA (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to solicit your support but would you mind commenting at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Coug It? View Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Coug it first. Thanks, Redwolf24 05:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
That's nice. Maybe that should be put somewhere on a subpage of Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles? Unless he'd prefer not to, of course. R adiant _>|< 13:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I undertand completely. So far Consensusbuilder has been merely an irritation, so no need for an RfC concerning his conduct. As far as the content dispute, well he'll have to file on his own behalf. I feel my opinion has been expressed fully, and has support of every editor who weighed in the issue, with the exception of Terminousbandage, and quite frankly, an editor who creates an account with a singular agenda of supporting (or critisizing) an issue, and who has made no other edits, smells of socks, or various meats, as the case may be. Onto a new issue...it seems as though someone is going around vandalizing pages with the name Hamster Sandwich. and please notice the period at the end of the name. Its not me and I've cleaned up a couple of other users accounts this morning as his work pops up on my watched pages screen. Any advice how to deal with this? Hamster Sandwich 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
VFD Bot is now automatically scheduled to update WP:VFD/Old -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Something definitely fishy is going on...I don't really trust those waveforms depicted in that paper yet. Have you noticed that in figure 2, each dibit boundary is entirely filled with a pure sinusoid? Same with the other example. This should not be. Neither of the in-phase or quadrature phases should be zero (unless they're using some other basis functions that we aren't using) - For these reasons, I think you're right.
I have to think more about it...right now, sleep is a priority, but I still think you're right :-) -- HappyCamper 05:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash! My patience is wearing thin and I am close to re-protecting the Genseiryu and WGKF articles. However, I am unwilling to just let them sit for a month only for the edit war to restart when someone unprotects them. Although I think both sides in this war are reluctant to compromise it seems to me that one side is being particularly arrogant and stubborn and has gone beyond the point where reasoning or mediation will get through to him.
So, my question is do you have any suggestions for what to do next? I'm tempted to file either article-based or user-based RfCs (or perhaps both), but I'm not sure that either would do any good. Is it time to take the article/users to arbitration?
I've tried everything else that I can think of here (moving through: friendly informal mediation, offering formal mediation, suggesting RfCs, blocking of those that try to prolong the war), so I'd welcome some suggestions as to what to do next.
Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Rather than trying to understand the Dutch wikipedia (I tried that once with limited success) maybe I can get some of the admins from there to come and contribute to the RfC. In the past I have been in email contact with User:Effeietsanders and I think another admin whose email escapes me at the moment. JeremyA (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Very strange indeed! I have no clue to what the user is referring about "religion". — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-25 20:33
Hi Splash! I've never filed an RfC before, but I'm back from work now and willing to help. JeremyA (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the great work on the RfC... you have been very thorough. Unfortunately my email at home is broken so I have to use a webmail client which it appears hasn't saved copies of my out going mail. So I have no record of my emails regarding this issue, just the replies. I have however, added some more evidence to the RfC and I will continue to go through the history to add more. Thanks again, JeremyA (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether email exchanges can be included in an RfC. However, my most recent communications with Mario have given me cause to believe that he is now interested in working towards articles that are acceptable to all (I hope that he doesn't mind me relaying some of the details of these private conversations).
For example I wrote:
To which he replied:
As Peter is no longer logging in to his account I will also inform him of the RfC by email. I am also going to inform the people from the Dutch wikipedia that I have talked to, hopefully they will add some useful comments to the RfC. JeremyA (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The GKIF article, although initially involved in the edit war, has never needed protection. I think that early on a Dutch wikipedian (who edits at en.wikipedia under the user name User:Londenp) gave Mario advice on writing a NPOV article. Following this advice Mario decided to create seperate articles for the WGKF and GKIF so that each could express their own point of view in their own respective article (this was the reason for the hidden messages). I have explained to Mario that it is my opinion that this is not NPOV in action and that there is no ownership of articles by any individual or organisation. However, the plus side is that, for the most part Mario has not edited the GKIF article (he thinks of it as their article) so there has not been much of a dispute at this page.
BTW, in terms of evidence did you include this diff at the RfC (I don't see it, but there are a lot of diffs). Here Peter Lee lays into a totally innocent RC patroller whose only crime was to revert one of his edits. JeremyA (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
What to do next? I'm not 100% sure of how to follow up on the RfC. It looks to me that Mario has responded well and promised not to repeat past mistakes. I think that so long as he keeps that promise no further action is needed, although it might be useful if we could get him to agree to not edit genseiryu-related articles (at least for a period of time, may be a few months). Peter Lee, on the other hand, seems to have decided to be as big a pain as he can be. Whether he is doing it personally or by proxy, having multiple IPs constantly reverting these articles is something that is difficult to control without the potential to affect innocent users. I know for sure that Peter Lee has used the IP 212.10.33.148 ( talk • contribs • block) because when I blocked it he emailed me a long rant (15 times). All of the other IPs in the range 212.10.3x.xxx that have edited the genseiryu article trace to the same ISP as this IP (stofanet.dk), but there are some IPs outside of this range that I have had difficulty tracing (I think that these might be open proxies, used to evade blocks). So far blocking the various 212.10.3x.xxx IPs for 24 hours at a time has not caused any legitimate users problems—at least, none that anyone has contacted me about it. As Peter Lee has refused to openly participate in wikipedia any more I am not sure that arbitration can do anything, except perhaps give blessing on the use of range blocks to tackle the IP edits.
Maybe you are right that we should quietly unprotect the articles and hope for the best. If the reverting returns then we could try an escalating process of range blocking. Block for a few hours at first, if no one complains and the reverts return go for a 24 hour block, going up to 48 hours, a week, etc.. Of course, this would mean that I will have to learn how to do range blocks, but maybe another admin will help me. If we are agreed to go for unprotecting then I will do it ASAP. JeremyA (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, it took a little over 24 hours but he's back! See the edits by 212.10.33.138 ( talk • contribs • block)—he could at least have come up with a new edit summary. JeremyA (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I've seen you around enough to know that you wouldn't do anything to out of bad faith. Based on the evidence you and Jeremy have presented, I know that it is a serious case. I don't have enough experience with RfC to whether it is okay to file against one case against two separate people. Per WP:IAR, it's fine. The reason I posted that comment was because on Rainbowwarrior1977's RfC, RW1977 viewed that same sentence and "dismissed" the RfC as it involved multiple disputes, instead of one, which it is supposed to be about. Those who filed the RfC granted him his wish and upgraded to arbitration. If Peter Lee and Mario Roering are refusing mediation and intervention, arbitration might be a good idea for this case as well. Acetic Acid 07:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your strong support. IT goes without saying that if you have any qualm about my actions, irregardless of whether I become an administrator, please let me know. All the best. -- Scimitar parley 14:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I have received an email relating to the RfC that I would like to forward to you. Please email me (using the 'Email this user' link on my userpage) so that I can send it to you. Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the above article, there's also a poet by the name, although if he's any more notable I don't know, but have a look and change your vote if you so wish. Steve block talk 21:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Just saw you're note. But I don't really know how to fix it. I've unprotected it for the time being so you can edit it. :) Dmcdevit· t 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. I believe I've fixed the matter by moving today's VFD page to PFD (of course leaving a redir). Please let me know if it helps. R adiant _>|< 08:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Splash! Now I have read the page again, I think I kind of misunderstood the part of " response". I probably took the term "response by Mario Roering" literally and thought I was allowed to write my opinion here. Wasn't I supposed to??? Could you please move it to the proper position, which would probably be just above the lines of "Response by..." and below the header of "Response"... I could do it myself too of course, but I am afraid that I might move it to the wrong place (again)... Thanks! -- MarioR 19:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi - I don't mean for my latest proposal to be a step backwards but rather a giant step forward. Various folks seem to be chomping at the bit to skip ahead to the finish line (Steve posted something and deleted it, Radiant seems to be kind of impatient with the whole thing, etc.). My guess is that coming up with a consensus proposal for the community at large that settles all the names will take at least as long as we've spent on this already and I really think we don't have the collective patience for it. As far as I can tell, the only thing we've agreed on is to not rename the "man-made objects in foo" categories (and I'm not sure everyone agrees to renaming the sports venues that I found lately). Rather than painfully and slowly proceed to a subgroup consensus that the community at large may overrule, this is my atempt at a compromise that skips us to the finish line. I'll post some more thoughts on this on the Wikipedia_talk:Category_titles page, but thought I'd try to explain directly to you as well. I'm sorry if this seems like a step backward that ignores the work to date - that's not my intent. -- Rick Block ( talk) 23:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Clowns is horrible! Their coffee! They take cold stale coffee, and infuse it with hot water and charge you a pound. Is there wifi in Clowns now, though? Well!
Admittedly, as an American used to nice filtered coffee I am biased -- only Starbucks serves it in Cambridge (and they even stop serving it after 7 pm!) My favourite cafes in Cambridge were definitely Indigo's, which is wonderful, and CB2, which has a higher weirdo quotient, but makes up for it with the books. Sdedeo 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi- not really about Wikipedia. Ok, not at all about Wikipedia- but I was just following links and I somehow ended up on your page, and I saw you go to Bristol. I'm applying for the 2006 admissions to study Maths and/or Philosophy and I haven't actually ever spoken to anyone who goes there (other than reading the glowing comments from the people in the prospectus ;)). I was really just curious as if you are enjoying yourself, no need for a long answer but if you are hating every minute of it then let me know ;) Also- what are you studying? - sars 14:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments from the RfC request, and for also reverting the comments folks have made in the talk page. -- Paul Laudanski 21:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Greetings! I've restored it. I looked at it when it was new and hesitated (especially since it was created by a registered user), and was looking for a "move to Wiktionary" template when I saw the request for a speedy and deleted it, as perhaps I shouldn't have. I was looking for the creating user's talk page to ask them about it when I got your message. Since the speedy criterion seemed iffy to me in the first place (as you say), I have no qualms about reviving it. Fire Star 00:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
With regard to your query about the VfD, I counted three keeps against six deletes. That's right on the edge, so considering the fact that the article had been improved, some users had reservations about deleting it and one of the people who voted delete is relatively new, I decided that there was no consensus to delete. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 01:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Good catch on All about Networking! It certainly read like a copyvio, but I didn't know the source. I figured it was worth speedying just based on the inappropriate contents. Owen× ☎ 01:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
your right it should be VFD not FPC, I undeleted all the edit revisions so that it can go to vfd. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I have to get to work, so may not be on VfD for awhile. I give you, however, the ultimate weapon of mass annoyance, to be deployed only in severe cases (such as articles on submerged rocks): Public Payphones (New York City, 58th St. and Third Avenue). Sdedeo 04:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I am looking at resolving this particular item on TFD (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Ludwig_van_Beethoven). Rather than render non-admin summary jugement and interpret the commentary as it stands, I was wondering whether you would like to revise your input or leave it as it stands considering the comments made by User:EldKatt which appear to have been convincing for a couple of other people providing input and were made after you had provided your own input. Thanks for revisiting the TFD entry and considering the finality of your decision. Courtland 05:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Probably. There's some revert warring on the VFD templates. I've got them watchlisted, please notify me or Uncle G or both whenever something else is messing up. R adiant _>|< 10:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Ohkay, sooo, I reverted a contested and undiscussed policy change on WP:NOT, and you unreverted it back to the contested version. Um, you realize that that actually does break several suggested guidelines, including the very template you quoted, as well as for instance WP:HEC ? (Both are guidelines btw). You have to be very careful in applying guidelines, in that you don't actually break them yourself. It's a very fine line sometimes ^^;;
In the mean time, I've fixed the template so that people are more likely to get things right, and less likely to get themselves into trouble again.
Finally: I won't undo your change: I'll leave that to someone else now. Do consider fixing it yourself! :)
Kim Bruning 15:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello Splash! I haven't had much of a chance for correspondance lately, getting ready for the start of the new semester and all that, but I've been wondering what your ideas are concerning the London, Ontario page? I'm going to write notes to all the principals so far in the Brady discussion, get a concensus, and post the results at the talk page there. Or perhaps you feel the RfC is more appropriate. I look to the other editors for guidance. As a sidebar, you have been and I am sure will continue to be, a voice of reason and moderation at WP:Votes for deletion. Hamster Sandwich 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Yup, should have wikilinked to modulation. I couldn't help but insert that word there! :-) (Check above for some other note I added about the PSK transmitter...) -- HappyCamper 00:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Can I just remind you to subst: the VfD tag? It's especially important at the moment as the templates are being changed fairly often and not-substing means the links break when the template is changes. Thanks. - Splash 22:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, ok. You evidently don't like subst: for some reason. But lately redlinks in VfD tags have resulted in split VfD debates and confusion among newbies over why they are looking at either a redirect for editing or a blank page. Since the templates seem to have stabilised, I suppose the problem has largely gone away. Although I suppose you must have been subst:ing vfd2 and vfd3 (or not using them) since otherwise the VfDs wouldn't have been editable by non-admins. - Splash 13:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, it was a mistake and premature to redirect KPBA to KBPA. There is a radio station called KPBA and another called KBPA (aka The Bob, for which the article was written). It would be better to create a stub for KPBA rather than have a redirect, since it confuses the callsigns and introduces an error, which is why the title was nominated for deletion to begine with. Therefore, I'll just create the stubs for those.... FYI Roodog2k 14:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Roodog2k 14:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Roodog2k 14:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I posted this on my user talk page and repeat it here
In light of the recent CFD debate about fictional emperors and empresses, I decided that the issue was way overdue for a more global discussion. Thus, please join the talk at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. R adiant _>|< 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed on Rick's talk page a comment from you regarding my usage of the term filibustering, and feel compelled to apologise as it appears my comment regarding filibustering caused you offence. I was attempting to describe what I saw as a tendancy amongst all of us to talk across each other rather than the issue at hand. However, it was clumsy and I hope you can now accept I regret making it. Steve block talk 08:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Your comment was moved by Uncle G from WP:RM to the talk page of VFD. Discussions always take place on the talk page of pages to be moved listed on WP:RM. At that time there was no clear place for your opinion to be placed in opposition to the move so he placed in in a general section. Currently there is a section where you can register your opposition, so you might like to move your text into that section which is called "Requested move". The section has been deleted a couple of times and it may be delete again, so it it is not there when you look please wait until it reappears. Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Your 3 months are up. So, I nominated you for an adminship. Go accept (or decline) the nomination, and of course, good luck. The Literate Engineer 06:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, not copyvio. Read the history of the article. My fault though. I should have explained in the AfD text. -- GraemeL (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Why not? Do you think the subject has any merit whatsoever? A direct answer would be appreciated. — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:01, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
Fragmented discussion merged from User talk:Xiong -- please avoid fragmented discussions. — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:15, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
What's your real objection, Sir? Cross-namespace redirects?? This can be fixed, and you know it. What is it about editors that make them reach for the rollback so goddamn fast!? Why don't you try improving the solution, instead of trashing it and putting us back where we started -- with blatant SPAM on a user page.
I don't disagree with the fine point you raise. Sofixit. What do you like? A dummy user? Done. User:Zapped User page now exists as a target for zapped userspace redirects. You could have done that yourself, or spoken to me politely and asked. I'm very open to discussion -- but I don't like to do work just so others can crap on it.
Whose side are you on? Do you defend the bone of contention? I might even tolerate it if it were mixed in with something else, or the user had done some other editing -- I'm very tolerant. But not as what it is. Are you defending this page?
Zapping is not an alternative to AfD. It's not a policy proposal. It's a direct, simple, straightforward way of dealing with objectionable content. You're still free to follow around behind the elephant with a broom and work to delete the whole thing -- redirects, history, talk page. I don't agree that's a good idea, but I don't stand in your way.
I just take care of the problem. Can't you work with me, and not against me? Zapped User page 23:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Please update your autovfd script; it's still leaving redlinks to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/whatever as the summaries on the afd daily logs. The appropriate line is
document.editform.wpSummary.value = ' Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/' + target + '';
in function autovfd()
; it needs to change to
document.editform.wpSummary.value = ' Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/' + target + '';
Thank you. — Cryptic (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Splash. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I appreciate your feedback and I will try my best to keep your criticisms and suggestions in mind in the future. Andre ( talk) 05:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Hi again, Beland. There's several cats reaching into the several hundreds of edits at the bottom of CfD at the moment. I think Whobot has had some Hurricane Katrina problems lately, so I was wondering if Pearle could be pressed into service?- Splash 18:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Pre-emptive congrats on the RfA, by the way!
Check your User page, I got you a table that's ever so nice ;) R e dwolf24 ( talk) 08:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash:
Thanks for support in my recent RFB nomination. And yes, I intend keeping my promises. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) Regards,
=Nichalp
«Talk»= 19:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash! Would you give me your opinion of Nathan Bedford Forrest? I'm going to try to get it to featured article, and get one of those cool looking badges. I'll look here for any response you want to make. Thanks! See ya 'round! Hamster Sandwich 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, the consensus was to not keep it. A redirect never hurts, and it sure looks to me like it's worthy of a redirect. It was a little bit of WP:IAR. -- Phroziac ( talk) 01:58, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Tony, I'm sorry if you thought I was needling you. I genuinely wasn't at all. I left a reply at the CSD talk page; I'd personally prefer not to just make the change while there's still a discussion going on and, probably, not at all if you would be unhappy with such a change. Although I also replied slightly further up the page to you too, re the difference between undeletion and recreation. - Splash 02:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello. Maybe you will be interested to vote on the CFD for that "Oceanic trenches by depth (km)" category. Just go here. - Darwinek 12:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
D8mn. Thanks, I'll fix it. :( Zoe 20:20, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
What did you mean by "Maltese funniness going on today.." in the afd site. 212.56.128.186 19:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Hehe, thanks for the fix, I can't believe it's been that way all this time. But, in my favor, I did it quickly (sorry excuse). :) ∞ Who ?¿? 01:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | Talk 05:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
RC patrols should be a breeze now. :) Owen× ☎ 05:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey Splash, am mightily pleased with your sysophood! Awesome work.— encephalon έγκέφαλος 09:43:47, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
Indeed, congratulations! -- Canderson 7 14:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! -- Merovingian (t) (c) 14:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! Good luck with the mop&bucket! Hamster Sandwich 17:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Congrats, K1Bond007 19:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hah, "we"... Yeah, congrats as well. Now go fix WP:CP! :) About the break, thanks for your concern (actually I'm glad more people haven't asked). I could give a long answer but basically it's both that I can't realy keep up with WP and schoolwork, and also I've become really dissatisfied with all the voting and trolling going on lately. I'm back for today at least as I've got some free weekend time. Anyway, if you want my advice it's to always think before you block. A common admin mantra, and one I like to use, is that almost everything you'll do as an admin is reversible. With a block, most of the damage is done in the first fifteen seconds though, when they first try to edit and that error message pops up. Even if they are unblocked an hour later, that felling can't be taken back. That doesn't mean I'm saying "use blocks sparingly", but that that you should think about what they will accomplish. Have a specific action in mind you need to stop. A block is never punishment for past deeds, just a temporary measure (in most cases). Nearly every controversy I've been involved in as an admin has involved a block. Sheesh, tht wasn't very cheery. Well, if you ever have any questions about your new tools, I'll gladly help. Happy admin-ning Dmcdevit· t 21:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hey Splash, thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, your support was appreciated! :D And congratulations on becoming an admin as well :) -- Joolz 11:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash,
Thanks for your response! Ah yes, those categories speedied relating to list of battles were all marked by a single Wikipedian. I don't remember much of the details of them anymore, but I recall checking their histories and seeing that most of them were never populated with anything. Either 2 or 3 edits to them at most, one for creating, and one for the speedy. There was also a talk page about getting rid of them somewhere, either on a template, or something else. Anyway, I'll wait 24 hours before deleting categories in the future.
Well, I guess it was "patent nonsense" for me based on some of my research background in quantum mechanics. My colleagues had quite a laugh when they read Flux qubit. Maybe I should recover it and place it in WP:-)? If you are into that sort of humour, take a look at it. I guess I'll send articles like it to AfD next time.
Here is my interpretation of your last sentence:
*nudge nudge* - draw the receiver structure for QPSK! :-)
Yes, yes I know... ^^ - Anyway, thanks for your message. That was nice to read.
Last but not least, congrats on your well deserved adminship! -- HappyCamper 15:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
All the best for your new role as an administrator. -- Bhadani 16:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Splash/Archive3/monobook.js:
// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>'); popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts popupAdminLinks=true; // optional: enable admin links
There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! L upin 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. And thanks. I'll watch you, but I'm still pretty new with this too. ;) -- Phroziac ( talk) 00:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Splash, thank you for the thank you
. It is truly refreshing that you would actually put some thought into your thank-yous instead of copying and pasting the same message over and over again (including an incorrect username) to everyone who supported your RfA, unlike some others. I thank you for your comments, and by you writing an individualized response, I feel much more appreciated in my voting. The fact that your RfA was one of the highest ranked astonishes me on how you were able to write personalized notes to each and every one who voted. It is true that I do not spend as much time on VfD as I once did (many things contributed to that fact), and I'm glad you like my new sig. (I keep trying to type in
Word using wikisyntax [yes, I'm a wikipediaholic], and the idea just stuck.) I was wondering however, if it were possible to
kern the characters of the sig. I want to have my contribs and talk part be kerned over the date and time, and wondered if there was a script that would allow me to do that. Thanks much, [[
User:Mysekurity|
Mysekurity]] [[
additions |
e-mail]]
03:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Those pages are a mess...I think I'm going to block someone soon...very very very very trick vandalism! -- HappyCamper 03:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so here's a new mop-bearer. I do appreciate the comment, both about your RfA and my edits. It was pleasing to see your RfA succeed in such a large manner, and I have no doubt that you'll be a fine admin. Of course, I'll keep an eye on you; we wouldn't want a rogue admin now, would we? ;). Just don't forget that image deletions are the only non-revertable admin action!! Cheers, Bratsche talk | Esperanza 03:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
...was a comment you made at WP:BIO. I very much agree but when I attempted to amend it (based on what appeared to be decent talk consensus) it was reverted by Kappa. I have just placed a [ poll] at RfC and wondered if I might get your input. Thanks, Marskell 14:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you heard about this: Wikipedia:Meetup/London? -- HappyCamper 16:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'll help you make those changes :-) I'll start now. -- HappyCamper 16:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Well firstly, congratulations your Adminship Sir, 77/1/0 is enviable. Next, may I ask that you review this TfD in light of the rationale of your fellow admin with his vote. I'm pretty confident that the template will be deleted anyway but I'm asking for speedy to prevent anyone from using this redirect and to allow me to make a new and more appropriate shortcut redirect. Thanks, hydnjo talk 18:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea how to watch logs, but I'm sure you will do fine. The category stuff got moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) where I think Rick is trying to drum up support/debate. I think it's pretty much flogged to death on my end to be honest, although I think it was a useful exercise and I hope something conmstructive comes out of it. Towards the end I felt we almost hit it and then it seemed to disintegrate. I think we all pulled at different speeds in the same direction, near as damnit. Anyway, good luck as an admin. Steve block talk 19:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that it's only a proposed standard. I usually remember, but forgot in my haste to get to the pub. ;-) -- GraemeL (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again). — Phil Welch 23:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I tried to revert the IP vandal, but you are too quick on the draw for me pardner! Next time I'll get him! :-D Hamster Sandwich 00:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, not sure if you seen my comment above about congrats, but wanted to say it again to be sure. Also, I hope you understand that I would have voted support if I would have known about your RFA and was able to get online to do so.
Other than that, I would love to have you on CFd as I mentioned on Kdbank71's talk page, and I actually request your assistance on a category titles related Cfd. Can you take a look at this Cfd and see if it conforms to the new standards. I believe I spoke to you before about why I couldn't keep up with the whole discussion, and especially being w/o power/net for the past few weeks, I haven't been able to check. I would appreciate it greatly, you can close it if you want, or just msg me back and I will do it later tonite or tomorrow. Thanks. ∞ Who ?¿? 00:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005
Hey, Splash. Are you an adm. If not, I'd be glad to nominate you - so long as it doesn't end up like the last one I nominated. Take care,
D. J. Bracey
(talk)
20:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
May I ask how the circular presentation of the signal constellation for QAM is derived? I have not seen that before and would like to learn more about it. For M-ary QAM systems, the signal constellations I've seen are usually presented in a linear manner, so I was quite pleased to see it being displayed in a more symmetrical manner. I am also thinking of starting a WikiProject on digital communication systems. Do you think you would be interested in helping out? -- HappyCamper 01:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Splash, I can deliver some proof about items that are claimed on the Genseiryu site. Only I want them to be treated confidential. They are at the moment translated by an official translator from Japanese to English. I will sent them, after the translation is ready, to JeremyA who already tried to mediate in the conflict about the Genseiryu article. Best regards, TenChiJin
Regarding Tony Sidawy: User_talk:Theresa_knott#Prodigal_returns...
Hello Splash, I was wondering if you could take a look at the article London, Ontario. There is an anon user who keeps removing an entry under "Notable Londoners" Bill Brady. His reasoning for doing so is very weak and I have provided what I feel is adequite proof on that articles talk page to back up his notability. If you would kindly take a few minutes to intervene and perhaps leave a comment on that page? I will look here for a response so as to preserve continuity. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 21:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey Splash, you left a signature on that Bill Brady bullet in the article. I don't want to touch it till another few hours goes by! :-) Hamster Sandwich 23:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Re: Bill Brady, I was going to fill that article with as much hyperbole as I could muster, but decided to reign it in a lil bit. Thanks for the edit there! Hamster Sandwich 23:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Anon: Splash here is a potential compromise which maybe you'll have some success suggesting to HS: now that Brady has a his own entry he does not need to be listed under notable people for London, and his individual entry will be allowed to stay, free from interference or deletion.
Splash I'm feeling ganged up on here, there is one user HS which is intent on keeping him there, for what I'd say are reasons other than the merits of Brady being notable. There is you, who have sided with him, and there is one other user, Adam Bishop that has repeatedly stated he doesn't care either way but keeps reverting me anyways. My point is that this more or less is one person verus another, and I don't think that the "consenus" that's developed is really based on the facts. Brady simply isn't notable, he has been part of some organizations, but has not acheivement to speak of that's notable. AND THAT MATTERS! That's why someone gets listed as notable. Being a good person is not the same as being notable. To permit his entry is to waterdown the entire category.
<moved from top of section>
Whoa whoa whoa, Splash given the below conversation how can you claim to be impartial? This seems conspiritorial, had I approached you with my arguements first I think you would view the matter decidely different.
The version you last reverted is now the one permanently frozen. The person below uses ad homenim attacks against me, that's below the belt! I have no personal vendetta, I don't even know who Bradly is, which by the way is part of why he doesn't deserve to be there.
I think in future you have to be cautious about wading into something like this claiming to be impartial when you are having a dialoge with one of the parties but not the other. If this is not fair please explain.
Splash, upon investigating further it turns out that everyone that has weighed in on Bill Brady aside from myself was first approached by HS. I think this is basically between two people with one having done the rounds so to speak framing the issue and getting them involved. I understand you serve in some offical capacity here, is there a higher authority to appeal to?
Splash upon further reflection your suggestion that the list is too long generally is probably correct. Will you support the exclusion of Brady if it is part of a series of removals that take off the extraneous notables that are really pushing the envelope with their inclusion? As you state it will make for a stonger article that is more likely to become a featured article -consensusbuilder
Splash I am still getting the hang of the wiki, terminsousbandage is not me so I can't use that account. I will use this one Consensusbuilder for now, and once this Brady matter is resolved I am happy to change my name to whatever you'd prefer, in the meantime I will keep it just to keep things straight for purposes of communication if that's ok with you. Consensusbuilder
Hi Splash! I'm glad to see you taking an interest in this article. I have become very frustrated with the parties involved in this edit war as neither side shows any desire to compromise. I have received a lot of correspondence (mostly by email) from both sides of this argument as well as from admins at the Dutch wikipedia. I have considered attempting a rewrite of this article myself (I know nothing of karate or genseiryu). These last couple of weeks I had decided to step back, do other things, and give it another chance to resolve itself, which clearly hasn't happened. If you can find a solution I will be very pleased. Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you to re-consider your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A. F. Gotch. I've cleaned up the page, and added another of his books. If Wikipedia lists people only on the basis of how well their books were received, it seems to me that we're crossing a rather dangerous line into reviewing rather than building an encyclopedia. - Harmil 11:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I created that, and was really disappointed to see it speedy deleted before I could even comment... :( Voyager640 19:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/God's Learning Channel you mentioned its Alexa traffic rank. How do you find out the Alexa traffic rank of something? Cursive 00:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations indeed. Don't forget to go and delete Stikman and it's talk page, where you closed the VfD as a delete. - Splash 00:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi - Do you think it might be useful for us to talk about category titles off the "public" page a bit? I'm not suggesting I think there's a problem between us, but just want to make sure you agree (that we don't have a problem). I suspect we have a fairly fundmental disagreement (my inclination to "use what we have" vs. your "decide what we want and make it so") which I doubt we're going to be able to resolve but I don't think this means we have a problem. Anyway, if you think it might be useful to talk please let me know. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:26, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I just got back from a Las Vegas trip. I went to the Riviera and saw a show called Splash [1]. I was doing a Wikipedia search on Google (query: splash las vegas site:en.wikipedia.org), and I found your name in the Templetes for Deletion page (your name was on the Sexual Orientation template). Have you seen this show? Hbdragon88 04:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Does it matter what number of Vfd's a nominator has to deal with if it infringes on Wikipedia:Civility. What is wrong with taking into account that not everyone has their created articles watchlisted and may not be informed...then it's possibly gone without ever having the chance to make a vote or defend the article. A quick notice by the nominator to the original creator isn't asking very much. This, of course, needn't apply to speedy delete qualified items.-- MONGO 07:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your speedy response. I fully understand that it is just too cumbersome for every nominated article to also get a red flag warning sent to original or primary editors due to the reasons you cited. I wonder if in cases such as the recent nomination of WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency for deletion that since it was a project, and a very unusual nomination due to the project status, that some form of enforcement of WP:civ isn't required. I'll take your advice and toss it into the village pump, although I am sure you're right that it will get squashed. Thanks again for the clarification...have a good one.-- MONGO 07:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with this? I'm trying to create a table in latex that will look like this
Input Output Formula ------------------------- A 1 x = f(y) B 2 C 3 / D 4 <| E 5 \ F 6
(though with different stuff in the table). In particular, the main difficulty is getting a curly brace on the outside of the last three values, and also getting the inside to align well with the titles. I've tried all kinds of table nesting, but I can't work out how to do it.
Any help REALLY appreciate, thanks! Mary K 15:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you wanting to create this in ordinary LaTeX or in a mixture of Wikimarkup and LaTeX? If you want it in ordinary LaTeX, then this gets close enough, as long as you have remebered to \usepackage{} as appropriate:
If you don't want the vertical lines, just take them out of the curly braces on the line starting \begin{tabular}.
This won't work in the restricted version of LaTeX available in MediaWiki (doesn't LaTeX tables for a start), so if that's what you're after give me a prod on my talk page. - Splash 19:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I've just put together a Proposed poll question? since discussion dried up a bit. I hope that's not too presumptuous and that I covered all the points. Steve block talk 20:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
To an extent, yes. However, wherever an electrical current flows there will be both an electric field and a magnetic field, so you can't have electricity without electromagnetism. Technical, irrelevant point, I know. -Splash 06:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Please join me in celebrating my 1000th edit at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource! Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash! Sure, I'll take a look at PSK. Let's try and get it featured on the front page! -- HappyCamper 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Wanna good laugh? Talk:Bill Brady. Hamster Sandwich 00:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on my RFA. I'm not going to bore you with an attempt to proof my knowledge of WP policy. But I would like to address some of the other points you raised: The reason I mentioned the VfD was not a "debate which didn't go the 'right' way "; at the time, I was upset that the article was deleted despite the fact that the debate had gone the 'right' way. – Your point about appearing pro-active is well taken. I don't like to make specific promises I may not be able to keep, my area of interest in WP has changed quite a few times. Are there other criteria you use for determining whether someone is pro-active? Rl 09:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks for your detailed explanation. To answer your question: I used to do RC patrol early on and switched to NP patrol later. At the time, I was also very active on VfD pages. For a while, I was the major contributor to WP:CP (on some days roughly half the entries were by me); I also tried to mitigate the copyvio problem with a proposed change (see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#More_visible_warning.3F, MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning#Proposed_change). I've been involved with quite a few discussions on MoS pages. I also spend quite a bit of time talking to people who make newbie mistakes (cut'n'paste page moves and UTF-8 breakage, for instance). Unfortunately, with close to 4000 pages on my watch list, vandals and link spammers keep me busy most of the time (you can easily verify that by checking my contributions). My watchlist has become the subset of pages that I'm doing RC patrol for, and following the trails of vandals and spammers makes the list grow further. Rl 23:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This listing has had a (vfd) for Vanity or Ad type status and placed on comment for delete by you. I am the webmaster for this television station, and have today modified the listing to be in line with similar listings for Christian TV such as Day Star and TBN. Just to note, what was listed before I made the changes today was NOT what was submitted by our chief engineer. Thank you. (UTC)
You said, "Delete per precedent (and observe we should collect our CfD precdents up somewhere....like Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions). -Splash 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)" - excellent idea. Want to help me plod through the CFD logs and see what salvageable precedents there are? R adiant _>|< 12:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Splash 22:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Probably either to one of the internet trolling articles, or the adequacy.org article. Trollderella 22:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash! I requested the unprotection of this article. The previous month-long protection did nothing to difuse this edit war. I therefore think that it is better to block users who blindly revert or engage in abusive behaviour, and try to foster discussion on the relevant talk pages. JeremyA (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to solicit your support but would you mind commenting at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Coug It? View Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Coug it first. Thanks, Redwolf24 05:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
That's nice. Maybe that should be put somewhere on a subpage of Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles? Unless he'd prefer not to, of course. R adiant _>|< 13:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I undertand completely. So far Consensusbuilder has been merely an irritation, so no need for an RfC concerning his conduct. As far as the content dispute, well he'll have to file on his own behalf. I feel my opinion has been expressed fully, and has support of every editor who weighed in the issue, with the exception of Terminousbandage, and quite frankly, an editor who creates an account with a singular agenda of supporting (or critisizing) an issue, and who has made no other edits, smells of socks, or various meats, as the case may be. Onto a new issue...it seems as though someone is going around vandalizing pages with the name Hamster Sandwich. and please notice the period at the end of the name. Its not me and I've cleaned up a couple of other users accounts this morning as his work pops up on my watched pages screen. Any advice how to deal with this? Hamster Sandwich 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
VFD Bot is now automatically scheduled to update WP:VFD/Old -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Something definitely fishy is going on...I don't really trust those waveforms depicted in that paper yet. Have you noticed that in figure 2, each dibit boundary is entirely filled with a pure sinusoid? Same with the other example. This should not be. Neither of the in-phase or quadrature phases should be zero (unless they're using some other basis functions that we aren't using) - For these reasons, I think you're right.
I have to think more about it...right now, sleep is a priority, but I still think you're right :-) -- HappyCamper 05:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash! My patience is wearing thin and I am close to re-protecting the Genseiryu and WGKF articles. However, I am unwilling to just let them sit for a month only for the edit war to restart when someone unprotects them. Although I think both sides in this war are reluctant to compromise it seems to me that one side is being particularly arrogant and stubborn and has gone beyond the point where reasoning or mediation will get through to him.
So, my question is do you have any suggestions for what to do next? I'm tempted to file either article-based or user-based RfCs (or perhaps both), but I'm not sure that either would do any good. Is it time to take the article/users to arbitration?
I've tried everything else that I can think of here (moving through: friendly informal mediation, offering formal mediation, suggesting RfCs, blocking of those that try to prolong the war), so I'd welcome some suggestions as to what to do next.
Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Rather than trying to understand the Dutch wikipedia (I tried that once with limited success) maybe I can get some of the admins from there to come and contribute to the RfC. In the past I have been in email contact with User:Effeietsanders and I think another admin whose email escapes me at the moment. JeremyA (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Very strange indeed! I have no clue to what the user is referring about "religion". — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-25 20:33
Hi Splash! I've never filed an RfC before, but I'm back from work now and willing to help. JeremyA (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the great work on the RfC... you have been very thorough. Unfortunately my email at home is broken so I have to use a webmail client which it appears hasn't saved copies of my out going mail. So I have no record of my emails regarding this issue, just the replies. I have however, added some more evidence to the RfC and I will continue to go through the history to add more. Thanks again, JeremyA (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether email exchanges can be included in an RfC. However, my most recent communications with Mario have given me cause to believe that he is now interested in working towards articles that are acceptable to all (I hope that he doesn't mind me relaying some of the details of these private conversations).
For example I wrote:
To which he replied:
As Peter is no longer logging in to his account I will also inform him of the RfC by email. I am also going to inform the people from the Dutch wikipedia that I have talked to, hopefully they will add some useful comments to the RfC. JeremyA (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The GKIF article, although initially involved in the edit war, has never needed protection. I think that early on a Dutch wikipedian (who edits at en.wikipedia under the user name User:Londenp) gave Mario advice on writing a NPOV article. Following this advice Mario decided to create seperate articles for the WGKF and GKIF so that each could express their own point of view in their own respective article (this was the reason for the hidden messages). I have explained to Mario that it is my opinion that this is not NPOV in action and that there is no ownership of articles by any individual or organisation. However, the plus side is that, for the most part Mario has not edited the GKIF article (he thinks of it as their article) so there has not been much of a dispute at this page.
BTW, in terms of evidence did you include this diff at the RfC (I don't see it, but there are a lot of diffs). Here Peter Lee lays into a totally innocent RC patroller whose only crime was to revert one of his edits. JeremyA (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
What to do next? I'm not 100% sure of how to follow up on the RfC. It looks to me that Mario has responded well and promised not to repeat past mistakes. I think that so long as he keeps that promise no further action is needed, although it might be useful if we could get him to agree to not edit genseiryu-related articles (at least for a period of time, may be a few months). Peter Lee, on the other hand, seems to have decided to be as big a pain as he can be. Whether he is doing it personally or by proxy, having multiple IPs constantly reverting these articles is something that is difficult to control without the potential to affect innocent users. I know for sure that Peter Lee has used the IP 212.10.33.148 ( talk • contribs • block) because when I blocked it he emailed me a long rant (15 times). All of the other IPs in the range 212.10.3x.xxx that have edited the genseiryu article trace to the same ISP as this IP (stofanet.dk), but there are some IPs outside of this range that I have had difficulty tracing (I think that these might be open proxies, used to evade blocks). So far blocking the various 212.10.3x.xxx IPs for 24 hours at a time has not caused any legitimate users problems—at least, none that anyone has contacted me about it. As Peter Lee has refused to openly participate in wikipedia any more I am not sure that arbitration can do anything, except perhaps give blessing on the use of range blocks to tackle the IP edits.
Maybe you are right that we should quietly unprotect the articles and hope for the best. If the reverting returns then we could try an escalating process of range blocking. Block for a few hours at first, if no one complains and the reverts return go for a 24 hour block, going up to 48 hours, a week, etc.. Of course, this would mean that I will have to learn how to do range blocks, but maybe another admin will help me. If we are agreed to go for unprotecting then I will do it ASAP. JeremyA (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, it took a little over 24 hours but he's back! See the edits by 212.10.33.138 ( talk • contribs • block)—he could at least have come up with a new edit summary. JeremyA (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I've seen you around enough to know that you wouldn't do anything to out of bad faith. Based on the evidence you and Jeremy have presented, I know that it is a serious case. I don't have enough experience with RfC to whether it is okay to file against one case against two separate people. Per WP:IAR, it's fine. The reason I posted that comment was because on Rainbowwarrior1977's RfC, RW1977 viewed that same sentence and "dismissed" the RfC as it involved multiple disputes, instead of one, which it is supposed to be about. Those who filed the RfC granted him his wish and upgraded to arbitration. If Peter Lee and Mario Roering are refusing mediation and intervention, arbitration might be a good idea for this case as well. Acetic Acid 07:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your strong support. IT goes without saying that if you have any qualm about my actions, irregardless of whether I become an administrator, please let me know. All the best. -- Scimitar parley 14:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I have received an email relating to the RfC that I would like to forward to you. Please email me (using the 'Email this user' link on my userpage) so that I can send it to you. Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the above article, there's also a poet by the name, although if he's any more notable I don't know, but have a look and change your vote if you so wish. Steve block talk 21:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Just saw you're note. But I don't really know how to fix it. I've unprotected it for the time being so you can edit it. :) Dmcdevit· t 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. I believe I've fixed the matter by moving today's VFD page to PFD (of course leaving a redir). Please let me know if it helps. R adiant _>|< 08:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Splash! Now I have read the page again, I think I kind of misunderstood the part of " response". I probably took the term "response by Mario Roering" literally and thought I was allowed to write my opinion here. Wasn't I supposed to??? Could you please move it to the proper position, which would probably be just above the lines of "Response by..." and below the header of "Response"... I could do it myself too of course, but I am afraid that I might move it to the wrong place (again)... Thanks! -- MarioR 19:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi - I don't mean for my latest proposal to be a step backwards but rather a giant step forward. Various folks seem to be chomping at the bit to skip ahead to the finish line (Steve posted something and deleted it, Radiant seems to be kind of impatient with the whole thing, etc.). My guess is that coming up with a consensus proposal for the community at large that settles all the names will take at least as long as we've spent on this already and I really think we don't have the collective patience for it. As far as I can tell, the only thing we've agreed on is to not rename the "man-made objects in foo" categories (and I'm not sure everyone agrees to renaming the sports venues that I found lately). Rather than painfully and slowly proceed to a subgroup consensus that the community at large may overrule, this is my atempt at a compromise that skips us to the finish line. I'll post some more thoughts on this on the Wikipedia_talk:Category_titles page, but thought I'd try to explain directly to you as well. I'm sorry if this seems like a step backward that ignores the work to date - that's not my intent. -- Rick Block ( talk) 23:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Clowns is horrible! Their coffee! They take cold stale coffee, and infuse it with hot water and charge you a pound. Is there wifi in Clowns now, though? Well!
Admittedly, as an American used to nice filtered coffee I am biased -- only Starbucks serves it in Cambridge (and they even stop serving it after 7 pm!) My favourite cafes in Cambridge were definitely Indigo's, which is wonderful, and CB2, which has a higher weirdo quotient, but makes up for it with the books. Sdedeo 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi- not really about Wikipedia. Ok, not at all about Wikipedia- but I was just following links and I somehow ended up on your page, and I saw you go to Bristol. I'm applying for the 2006 admissions to study Maths and/or Philosophy and I haven't actually ever spoken to anyone who goes there (other than reading the glowing comments from the people in the prospectus ;)). I was really just curious as if you are enjoying yourself, no need for a long answer but if you are hating every minute of it then let me know ;) Also- what are you studying? - sars 14:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments from the RfC request, and for also reverting the comments folks have made in the talk page. -- Paul Laudanski 21:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Greetings! I've restored it. I looked at it when it was new and hesitated (especially since it was created by a registered user), and was looking for a "move to Wiktionary" template when I saw the request for a speedy and deleted it, as perhaps I shouldn't have. I was looking for the creating user's talk page to ask them about it when I got your message. Since the speedy criterion seemed iffy to me in the first place (as you say), I have no qualms about reviving it. Fire Star 00:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
With regard to your query about the VfD, I counted three keeps against six deletes. That's right on the edge, so considering the fact that the article had been improved, some users had reservations about deleting it and one of the people who voted delete is relatively new, I decided that there was no consensus to delete. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 01:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Good catch on All about Networking! It certainly read like a copyvio, but I didn't know the source. I figured it was worth speedying just based on the inappropriate contents. Owen× ☎ 01:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
your right it should be VFD not FPC, I undeleted all the edit revisions so that it can go to vfd. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I have to get to work, so may not be on VfD for awhile. I give you, however, the ultimate weapon of mass annoyance, to be deployed only in severe cases (such as articles on submerged rocks): Public Payphones (New York City, 58th St. and Third Avenue). Sdedeo 04:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I am looking at resolving this particular item on TFD (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Ludwig_van_Beethoven). Rather than render non-admin summary jugement and interpret the commentary as it stands, I was wondering whether you would like to revise your input or leave it as it stands considering the comments made by User:EldKatt which appear to have been convincing for a couple of other people providing input and were made after you had provided your own input. Thanks for revisiting the TFD entry and considering the finality of your decision. Courtland 05:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Probably. There's some revert warring on the VFD templates. I've got them watchlisted, please notify me or Uncle G or both whenever something else is messing up. R adiant _>|< 10:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Ohkay, sooo, I reverted a contested and undiscussed policy change on WP:NOT, and you unreverted it back to the contested version. Um, you realize that that actually does break several suggested guidelines, including the very template you quoted, as well as for instance WP:HEC ? (Both are guidelines btw). You have to be very careful in applying guidelines, in that you don't actually break them yourself. It's a very fine line sometimes ^^;;
In the mean time, I've fixed the template so that people are more likely to get things right, and less likely to get themselves into trouble again.
Finally: I won't undo your change: I'll leave that to someone else now. Do consider fixing it yourself! :)
Kim Bruning 15:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello Splash! I haven't had much of a chance for correspondance lately, getting ready for the start of the new semester and all that, but I've been wondering what your ideas are concerning the London, Ontario page? I'm going to write notes to all the principals so far in the Brady discussion, get a concensus, and post the results at the talk page there. Or perhaps you feel the RfC is more appropriate. I look to the other editors for guidance. As a sidebar, you have been and I am sure will continue to be, a voice of reason and moderation at WP:Votes for deletion. Hamster Sandwich 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Yup, should have wikilinked to modulation. I couldn't help but insert that word there! :-) (Check above for some other note I added about the PSK transmitter...) -- HappyCamper 00:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Can I just remind you to subst: the VfD tag? It's especially important at the moment as the templates are being changed fairly often and not-substing means the links break when the template is changes. Thanks. - Splash 22:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, ok. You evidently don't like subst: for some reason. But lately redlinks in VfD tags have resulted in split VfD debates and confusion among newbies over why they are looking at either a redirect for editing or a blank page. Since the templates seem to have stabilised, I suppose the problem has largely gone away. Although I suppose you must have been subst:ing vfd2 and vfd3 (or not using them) since otherwise the VfDs wouldn't have been editable by non-admins. - Splash 13:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, it was a mistake and premature to redirect KPBA to KBPA. There is a radio station called KPBA and another called KBPA (aka The Bob, for which the article was written). It would be better to create a stub for KPBA rather than have a redirect, since it confuses the callsigns and introduces an error, which is why the title was nominated for deletion to begine with. Therefore, I'll just create the stubs for those.... FYI Roodog2k 14:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Roodog2k 14:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Roodog2k 14:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I posted this on my user talk page and repeat it here
In light of the recent CFD debate about fictional emperors and empresses, I decided that the issue was way overdue for a more global discussion. Thus, please join the talk at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. R adiant _>|< 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed on Rick's talk page a comment from you regarding my usage of the term filibustering, and feel compelled to apologise as it appears my comment regarding filibustering caused you offence. I was attempting to describe what I saw as a tendancy amongst all of us to talk across each other rather than the issue at hand. However, it was clumsy and I hope you can now accept I regret making it. Steve block talk 08:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Your comment was moved by Uncle G from WP:RM to the talk page of VFD. Discussions always take place on the talk page of pages to be moved listed on WP:RM. At that time there was no clear place for your opinion to be placed in opposition to the move so he placed in in a general section. Currently there is a section where you can register your opposition, so you might like to move your text into that section which is called "Requested move". The section has been deleted a couple of times and it may be delete again, so it it is not there when you look please wait until it reappears. Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Your 3 months are up. So, I nominated you for an adminship. Go accept (or decline) the nomination, and of course, good luck. The Literate Engineer 06:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, not copyvio. Read the history of the article. My fault though. I should have explained in the AfD text. -- GraemeL (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Why not? Do you think the subject has any merit whatsoever? A direct answer would be appreciated. — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:01, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
Fragmented discussion merged from User talk:Xiong -- please avoid fragmented discussions. — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:15, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
What's your real objection, Sir? Cross-namespace redirects?? This can be fixed, and you know it. What is it about editors that make them reach for the rollback so goddamn fast!? Why don't you try improving the solution, instead of trashing it and putting us back where we started -- with blatant SPAM on a user page.
I don't disagree with the fine point you raise. Sofixit. What do you like? A dummy user? Done. User:Zapped User page now exists as a target for zapped userspace redirects. You could have done that yourself, or spoken to me politely and asked. I'm very open to discussion -- but I don't like to do work just so others can crap on it.
Whose side are you on? Do you defend the bone of contention? I might even tolerate it if it were mixed in with something else, or the user had done some other editing -- I'm very tolerant. But not as what it is. Are you defending this page?
Zapping is not an alternative to AfD. It's not a policy proposal. It's a direct, simple, straightforward way of dealing with objectionable content. You're still free to follow around behind the elephant with a broom and work to delete the whole thing -- redirects, history, talk page. I don't agree that's a good idea, but I don't stand in your way.
I just take care of the problem. Can't you work with me, and not against me? Zapped User page 23:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Please update your autovfd script; it's still leaving redlinks to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/whatever as the summaries on the afd daily logs. The appropriate line is
document.editform.wpSummary.value = ' Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/' + target + '';
in function autovfd()
; it needs to change to
document.editform.wpSummary.value = ' Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/' + target + '';
Thank you. — Cryptic (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Splash. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I appreciate your feedback and I will try my best to keep your criticisms and suggestions in mind in the future. Andre ( talk) 05:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Hi again, Beland. There's several cats reaching into the several hundreds of edits at the bottom of CfD at the moment. I think Whobot has had some Hurricane Katrina problems lately, so I was wondering if Pearle could be pressed into service?- Splash 18:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Pre-emptive congrats on the RfA, by the way!
Check your User page, I got you a table that's ever so nice ;) R e dwolf24 ( talk) 08:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash:
Thanks for support in my recent RFB nomination. And yes, I intend keeping my promises. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) Regards,
=Nichalp
«Talk»= 19:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash! Would you give me your opinion of Nathan Bedford Forrest? I'm going to try to get it to featured article, and get one of those cool looking badges. I'll look here for any response you want to make. Thanks! See ya 'round! Hamster Sandwich 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, the consensus was to not keep it. A redirect never hurts, and it sure looks to me like it's worthy of a redirect. It was a little bit of WP:IAR. -- Phroziac ( talk) 01:58, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Tony, I'm sorry if you thought I was needling you. I genuinely wasn't at all. I left a reply at the CSD talk page; I'd personally prefer not to just make the change while there's still a discussion going on and, probably, not at all if you would be unhappy with such a change. Although I also replied slightly further up the page to you too, re the difference between undeletion and recreation. - Splash 02:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello. Maybe you will be interested to vote on the CFD for that "Oceanic trenches by depth (km)" category. Just go here. - Darwinek 12:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
D8mn. Thanks, I'll fix it. :( Zoe 20:20, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
What did you mean by "Maltese funniness going on today.." in the afd site. 212.56.128.186 19:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Hehe, thanks for the fix, I can't believe it's been that way all this time. But, in my favor, I did it quickly (sorry excuse). :) ∞ Who ?¿? 01:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | Talk 05:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
RC patrols should be a breeze now. :) Owen× ☎ 05:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey Splash, am mightily pleased with your sysophood! Awesome work.— encephalon έγκέφαλος 09:43:47, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
Indeed, congratulations! -- Canderson 7 14:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! -- Merovingian (t) (c) 14:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! Good luck with the mop&bucket! Hamster Sandwich 17:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Congrats, K1Bond007 19:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hah, "we"... Yeah, congrats as well. Now go fix WP:CP! :) About the break, thanks for your concern (actually I'm glad more people haven't asked). I could give a long answer but basically it's both that I can't realy keep up with WP and schoolwork, and also I've become really dissatisfied with all the voting and trolling going on lately. I'm back for today at least as I've got some free weekend time. Anyway, if you want my advice it's to always think before you block. A common admin mantra, and one I like to use, is that almost everything you'll do as an admin is reversible. With a block, most of the damage is done in the first fifteen seconds though, when they first try to edit and that error message pops up. Even if they are unblocked an hour later, that felling can't be taken back. That doesn't mean I'm saying "use blocks sparingly", but that that you should think about what they will accomplish. Have a specific action in mind you need to stop. A block is never punishment for past deeds, just a temporary measure (in most cases). Nearly every controversy I've been involved in as an admin has involved a block. Sheesh, tht wasn't very cheery. Well, if you ever have any questions about your new tools, I'll gladly help. Happy admin-ning Dmcdevit· t 21:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hey Splash, thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, your support was appreciated! :D And congratulations on becoming an admin as well :) -- Joolz 11:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash,
Thanks for your response! Ah yes, those categories speedied relating to list of battles were all marked by a single Wikipedian. I don't remember much of the details of them anymore, but I recall checking their histories and seeing that most of them were never populated with anything. Either 2 or 3 edits to them at most, one for creating, and one for the speedy. There was also a talk page about getting rid of them somewhere, either on a template, or something else. Anyway, I'll wait 24 hours before deleting categories in the future.
Well, I guess it was "patent nonsense" for me based on some of my research background in quantum mechanics. My colleagues had quite a laugh when they read Flux qubit. Maybe I should recover it and place it in WP:-)? If you are into that sort of humour, take a look at it. I guess I'll send articles like it to AfD next time.
Here is my interpretation of your last sentence:
*nudge nudge* - draw the receiver structure for QPSK! :-)
Yes, yes I know... ^^ - Anyway, thanks for your message. That was nice to read.
Last but not least, congrats on your well deserved adminship! -- HappyCamper 15:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
All the best for your new role as an administrator. -- Bhadani 16:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Splash/Archive3/monobook.js:
// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>'); popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts popupAdminLinks=true; // optional: enable admin links
There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! L upin 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. And thanks. I'll watch you, but I'm still pretty new with this too. ;) -- Phroziac ( talk) 00:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Splash, thank you for the thank you
. It is truly refreshing that you would actually put some thought into your thank-yous instead of copying and pasting the same message over and over again (including an incorrect username) to everyone who supported your RfA, unlike some others. I thank you for your comments, and by you writing an individualized response, I feel much more appreciated in my voting. The fact that your RfA was one of the highest ranked astonishes me on how you were able to write personalized notes to each and every one who voted. It is true that I do not spend as much time on VfD as I once did (many things contributed to that fact), and I'm glad you like my new sig. (I keep trying to type in
Word using wikisyntax [yes, I'm a wikipediaholic], and the idea just stuck.) I was wondering however, if it were possible to
kern the characters of the sig. I want to have my contribs and talk part be kerned over the date and time, and wondered if there was a script that would allow me to do that. Thanks much, [[
User:Mysekurity|
Mysekurity]] [[
additions |
e-mail]]
03:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Those pages are a mess...I think I'm going to block someone soon...very very very very trick vandalism! -- HappyCamper 03:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so here's a new mop-bearer. I do appreciate the comment, both about your RfA and my edits. It was pleasing to see your RfA succeed in such a large manner, and I have no doubt that you'll be a fine admin. Of course, I'll keep an eye on you; we wouldn't want a rogue admin now, would we? ;). Just don't forget that image deletions are the only non-revertable admin action!! Cheers, Bratsche talk | Esperanza 03:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
...was a comment you made at WP:BIO. I very much agree but when I attempted to amend it (based on what appeared to be decent talk consensus) it was reverted by Kappa. I have just placed a [ poll] at RfC and wondered if I might get your input. Thanks, Marskell 14:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you heard about this: Wikipedia:Meetup/London? -- HappyCamper 16:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'll help you make those changes :-) I'll start now. -- HappyCamper 16:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Well firstly, congratulations your Adminship Sir, 77/1/0 is enviable. Next, may I ask that you review this TfD in light of the rationale of your fellow admin with his vote. I'm pretty confident that the template will be deleted anyway but I'm asking for speedy to prevent anyone from using this redirect and to allow me to make a new and more appropriate shortcut redirect. Thanks, hydnjo talk 18:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea how to watch logs, but I'm sure you will do fine. The category stuff got moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) where I think Rick is trying to drum up support/debate. I think it's pretty much flogged to death on my end to be honest, although I think it was a useful exercise and I hope something conmstructive comes out of it. Towards the end I felt we almost hit it and then it seemed to disintegrate. I think we all pulled at different speeds in the same direction, near as damnit. Anyway, good luck as an admin. Steve block talk 19:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that it's only a proposed standard. I usually remember, but forgot in my haste to get to the pub. ;-) -- GraemeL (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again). — Phil Welch 23:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I tried to revert the IP vandal, but you are too quick on the draw for me pardner! Next time I'll get him! :-D Hamster Sandwich 00:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, not sure if you seen my comment above about congrats, but wanted to say it again to be sure. Also, I hope you understand that I would have voted support if I would have known about your RFA and was able to get online to do so.
Other than that, I would love to have you on CFd as I mentioned on Kdbank71's talk page, and I actually request your assistance on a category titles related Cfd. Can you take a look at this Cfd and see if it conforms to the new standards. I believe I spoke to you before about why I couldn't keep up with the whole discussion, and especially being w/o power/net for the past few weeks, I haven't been able to check. I would appreciate it greatly, you can close it if you want, or just msg me back and I will do it later tonite or tomorrow. Thanks. ∞ Who ?¿? 00:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)