This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Thanks for uploading File:ByxnetLogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse ( talk) 07:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ External link}} was not a valid CSD G4 as it was not the same template which was deleted on November 29, 2008 as I created that metatemplate from scratch while working with others on a way to standardise our external link templates. Please restore this template. Thanks. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 04:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind if we collapse the discussion on the Talk:Comparison_of_S.M.A.R.T._tools, it appears to be causing hostility among the other users. Cheers. -- Hm2k ( talk) 15:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Taelus ( Talk) 16:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if the post on my talk page and my edit summary sounded rude. Right now, I'm dealing with POV pushers on a certain article and a member who wants to keep an article just based on Google hits. Joe Chill ( talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The template was initially intended as a short term alert so editors could be aware of likely vandalism. It was not intended to remain on a page for ever. It now marks an historical incident that belongs in the archives. SilkTork * YES! 16:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
|page=
parameter, which will allow for more flexibility for the template to be placed on a page and link to a different page, but for now that does not work. --
Tothwolf (
talk)
09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I had a look to see if there was any prior discussion on the issue of templates on talkpages that might provide some guidance. The two most useful I found are: Wikipedia:Talk page layout and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, though neither address our concerns of when (or if) to move a template to the archives. That we are in disagreement and are unable to find a solution might suggest that others may also be unclear on what to do. I will start a general discussion on archiving templates on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, with a link from Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout. SilkTork * YES! 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Tothwolf. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked me to revisit the outcome of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/Bash.org. Four months have elapsed since the MfD and six months since the article was userfied, and the article has remained virtually unchanged—by extension, the reason for which the article was deleted at AfD remains unaddressed.
Do you think that you will be able to improve the article in the near future in order to address the original reasons for deletion? If you no longer intend to work on the article, or if the sources simply aren't there, then please indicate this so that the draft does not needlessly remain as an archive of deleted material. If you do not intend or lack the time to work on it now but would like to revisit it in the future, then I urge you to consider saving it off-wiki. If the same MfD had taken place now (6 months post-userfication, instead of 2 months), there would have been clear consensus to delete.
I am contacting you in the hope that you can clarify whether and how you intend(ed) to use the draft. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
One of the most popular IRC quotes web sites is http://www.bash.org, which contains thousands of manually approved funny quotes.-- Tothwolf ( talk) 18:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
On that note:
Uncle G ( talk) 15:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
[14] Miami33139 ( talk) 06:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Kellerman ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You may wish to note that motions have been proposed that involve yourself on that page. NW ( Talk) 18:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Resolved by
motion at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:
1)
Tothwolf (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs),
Miami33139 (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs) and
JBsupreme (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs) are banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed. This includes things like not editing each other's userspace, not becoming involved directly with each other in discussions, and not nominating articles for deletion which another one has started. This does not prohibit commenting in the same discussion without directly interacting or editing the same articles so long as they are not directly in conflict. They may request enforcement of this restriction at the
Arbitration Enforcement board or by email to the Arbitration mailing list; they may not request enforcement or action against each other for any other reason or at any other venue. Attempts to game this restriction should be treated as a violation of the restriction.
2) Miami33139 ( talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or disruptive to deletion discussions, Miami33139 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement portion of the case. The six months starts from the day this motion passes.
3) Remedy 2 (already updated once) is changed to " JBsupreme ( talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or disruptive to deletion discussions, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months is reset to start from the day this motion passes.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 15:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you the developer Tothwolf mentioned here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/packages/irc/eggdrop/UPDATES/1.5/UPDATES1.5.4 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRWolfie- ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(links copied from Talk:Eggdrop and User talk:IRWolfie-):
-- Tothwolf ( talk) 03:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Tothwolf, saw your request about COI on Jehochman's talk page, so I thought I'd drop by and spell it out as I see it. I'm writing this as though it were confirmed you were an Eggdrop developer, although I understand (and point out to any talk page lurkers) that you haven't actually confirmed that at this time.
A lot of the COI policy is about living persons, which for this case is irrelevant. In fact, in all the COI policy, the only sections that could be relevant are "Promotional article production on behalf of clients" and "Close relationships".
As far as I can tell, the whole COI meme started when Miami33139 and JBsupreme brought it against you in deletion discussions, suggesting that your keep votes were invalid because you were too closely involved with the product and thus not capable of being neutral. There are circumstances where that claim might have had some substance, but since Miami and JB were both into "Deletion by any means" style deletionism, and eventually got sanctioned by arbcom for being disruptive in their deletion argument, I think suppose most people will agree that their claims have little weight.
So, promotional writing? Well, I've seen nothing egregiously promotional, and there are multiple eyes on the article to clean up anything that might slip through. And close association? I see no criticism section on Eggdrop for you to whitewash/censor/suppress, the article has been declared notable by a comfortable margin, and all your edits are reliably sourced. The COI policy itself says An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse. However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject, which I think is relevant here.
Also relevant is in the lede where it says Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline, which certain other entities might choose to take note of. Seth Kellerman ( talk) 15:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
My general feeling is that the personal attacks and behavioural issues that came to light during the last AN/I discussion and subsequent ArbCom case amendment request may have had a larger role in the amendment decisions. I still think it was rather unfortunate that the similar behaviour from Theserialcomma was not addressed at the time [15] as that seems to have been taken by Theserialcomma as carte blanche to continue on with the disruptive behaviour and personal attacks. [16]
I don't think Eggdrop would ever really need any outside promotion and I addressed this very subject in part of a reply I made to Theserialcomma during the ArbCom case in which I said: "I have no interests in using Wikipedia to promote Eggdrop or any other projects which I've contributed to. Quite frankly, none of those projects even need any sort of outside promotion and as a simple Google search clearly shows, [17] the meager Wikipedia article isn't even the top search result and doesn't really even get that many daily hits [18] either." [19] I was also surprised just how much coverage could be seen from a simple Google Books search [20] (which doesn't even include some of the better books about IRC, such as The Book of IRC by Alex Charalabidis ISBN 1886411298).
I tried to address the rest of Theserialcomma's COI claims in the larger reply, although I have no idea if it was read by any arbitrators at the time because it was moved to the talk page by one of the case clerks. I know Theserialcomma at least read it, based on subsequent personal attacks made right on the case pages. [21]
I would actually like to work on expanding the Eggdrop article at some point, including adding some criticism. I pretty much had to stop working on it back in May 2009 when the wikihounding/wikistalking began, which also prevented me from working on other complex tasks such as the mergers of many smaller articles into Modular connector and Registered jack (where I'm currently reading over BSP [Bell System Practice] standards documents in preparation for using them as references and citations). Hopefully I can find some time to get back to work on {{ Cite IETF}} and a number of other projects before long too.
I suppose one good thing did come from the latest round of wikihounding by Theserialcomma on Eggdrop, and that is I was made aware of a book named Bots: The Origin of New Species by Andrew Leonard ( ISBN 1888869054 and ISBN 0140275665) which appears to cover some of Eggdrop's early history, and may possibly even include details and other small facts which have been lost or forgotten about over the last 16-17 years since Eggdrop was first created. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 05:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Since you have recently commented on the type/color of one or more "expand" templates, could you express your opinion in the centralized RfC on this issue? The discussion is currently fragmented between various template and TfD pages, which makes a consensus on this issue difficult to form. Thank you, Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have read a little about your experiences here and must say that I dislike what I saw and how you were treated. There seem to be many issues within the project that really must be dealt with. Who knows, maybe in time things will change. If ever there comes such a time, count on my vote. Maybe I watch too many movies, but I remember a cute quote from one;
Just curious — have you ever seen the expand template used for its actual purpose? Literally 100% of the time that I've seen it, it's just been a drive-by tagging with the tagger never explaining what needs expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 03:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've posted a question for you at Template talk:Delrev. Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Please remember to notify users who you discuss at ANI by using {{subst:ANI-notice}} . Thank you, Dusti *poke* 18:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! As Template:Expand has been deleted, is there any reason to keep User:Tothwolf/Expand testcases? Would you protest a deletion? Hey Mid ( contribs) 20:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we work together to actually write down the explicit inclusion criteria per WP:LIST#Lead section or paragraph for items, as mentioned in my comment responding to you? -- Lexein ( talk) 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for removing that vandalism from my userpage ;) -- œ ™ 19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thanks for posting there. what should i do next? wait until the committee emails me back? how long will that take? Decora ( talk) 04:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if we are reading the same policies. WP:V doesn't say "you can add anything to the article as soon as you can find a source for it, even if it's just the programmer's comments in the source code of the program". And have you actually read WP:SPS? Please actually read this text before claiming againg that WP:SPS allows you to use any and all self-published source for anything: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.". -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Email received. I'm not willing to reply by email to you, so per WP:EMAIL, I'm just going to post a very general reply here. I'm going to simply discuss the only part that really seems to need a reply: your concern about involvement. I've never kept my residence especially secret; my contribs and several off-wiki sites make it pretty clear. Living in a place does not make you involved on all content issues related to it, only the ones you choose to edit. So no, I didn't forget WP:INVOLVED. It just doesn't apply here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I have an essay in development ( Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique) intended to describe ways to keep well-sourced specialized and/or local content. Would you mind to have a look at it and share your opinion? (Most of the ideas are at the talk page). Diego Moya ( talk) 11:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I gather that you have received an email claiming that I am a sockpuppet of Claritas. I just want to make it clear that this is completely untrue. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 06:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
— Farix ( t | c) 11:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Dude, quit edit warring, ok? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You removed the replaceable fair use warning tag I placed on this image without providing a rationale as to how this image is not replaceable. Disagreeing isn't sufficient. Please explain yourself? Please understand that whether a free image is available right now or not is not a criteria. The criteria, as noted in WP:NFCC #1, is could one be created? Since this is a item that exists and is apparently in use in many locations, there's no reason why a wikipedia editor could not take a picture of it and release it under a free license. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Thanks for uploading File:ByxnetLogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse ( talk) 07:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ External link}} was not a valid CSD G4 as it was not the same template which was deleted on November 29, 2008 as I created that metatemplate from scratch while working with others on a way to standardise our external link templates. Please restore this template. Thanks. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 04:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind if we collapse the discussion on the Talk:Comparison_of_S.M.A.R.T._tools, it appears to be causing hostility among the other users. Cheers. -- Hm2k ( talk) 15:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Taelus ( Talk) 16:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if the post on my talk page and my edit summary sounded rude. Right now, I'm dealing with POV pushers on a certain article and a member who wants to keep an article just based on Google hits. Joe Chill ( talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The template was initially intended as a short term alert so editors could be aware of likely vandalism. It was not intended to remain on a page for ever. It now marks an historical incident that belongs in the archives. SilkTork * YES! 16:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
|page=
parameter, which will allow for more flexibility for the template to be placed on a page and link to a different page, but for now that does not work. --
Tothwolf (
talk)
09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I had a look to see if there was any prior discussion on the issue of templates on talkpages that might provide some guidance. The two most useful I found are: Wikipedia:Talk page layout and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, though neither address our concerns of when (or if) to move a template to the archives. That we are in disagreement and are unable to find a solution might suggest that others may also be unclear on what to do. I will start a general discussion on archiving templates on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, with a link from Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout. SilkTork * YES! 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Tothwolf. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked me to revisit the outcome of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/Bash.org. Four months have elapsed since the MfD and six months since the article was userfied, and the article has remained virtually unchanged—by extension, the reason for which the article was deleted at AfD remains unaddressed.
Do you think that you will be able to improve the article in the near future in order to address the original reasons for deletion? If you no longer intend to work on the article, or if the sources simply aren't there, then please indicate this so that the draft does not needlessly remain as an archive of deleted material. If you do not intend or lack the time to work on it now but would like to revisit it in the future, then I urge you to consider saving it off-wiki. If the same MfD had taken place now (6 months post-userfication, instead of 2 months), there would have been clear consensus to delete.
I am contacting you in the hope that you can clarify whether and how you intend(ed) to use the draft. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
One of the most popular IRC quotes web sites is http://www.bash.org, which contains thousands of manually approved funny quotes.-- Tothwolf ( talk) 18:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
On that note:
Uncle G ( talk) 15:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
[14] Miami33139 ( talk) 06:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Kellerman ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You may wish to note that motions have been proposed that involve yourself on that page. NW ( Talk) 18:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Resolved by
motion at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:
1)
Tothwolf (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs),
Miami33139 (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs) and
JBsupreme (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs) are banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed. This includes things like not editing each other's userspace, not becoming involved directly with each other in discussions, and not nominating articles for deletion which another one has started. This does not prohibit commenting in the same discussion without directly interacting or editing the same articles so long as they are not directly in conflict. They may request enforcement of this restriction at the
Arbitration Enforcement board or by email to the Arbitration mailing list; they may not request enforcement or action against each other for any other reason or at any other venue. Attempts to game this restriction should be treated as a violation of the restriction.
2) Miami33139 ( talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or disruptive to deletion discussions, Miami33139 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement portion of the case. The six months starts from the day this motion passes.
3) Remedy 2 (already updated once) is changed to " JBsupreme ( talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or disruptive to deletion discussions, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months is reset to start from the day this motion passes.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 15:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you the developer Tothwolf mentioned here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/packages/irc/eggdrop/UPDATES/1.5/UPDATES1.5.4 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRWolfie- ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(links copied from Talk:Eggdrop and User talk:IRWolfie-):
-- Tothwolf ( talk) 03:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Tothwolf, saw your request about COI on Jehochman's talk page, so I thought I'd drop by and spell it out as I see it. I'm writing this as though it were confirmed you were an Eggdrop developer, although I understand (and point out to any talk page lurkers) that you haven't actually confirmed that at this time.
A lot of the COI policy is about living persons, which for this case is irrelevant. In fact, in all the COI policy, the only sections that could be relevant are "Promotional article production on behalf of clients" and "Close relationships".
As far as I can tell, the whole COI meme started when Miami33139 and JBsupreme brought it against you in deletion discussions, suggesting that your keep votes were invalid because you were too closely involved with the product and thus not capable of being neutral. There are circumstances where that claim might have had some substance, but since Miami and JB were both into "Deletion by any means" style deletionism, and eventually got sanctioned by arbcom for being disruptive in their deletion argument, I think suppose most people will agree that their claims have little weight.
So, promotional writing? Well, I've seen nothing egregiously promotional, and there are multiple eyes on the article to clean up anything that might slip through. And close association? I see no criticism section on Eggdrop for you to whitewash/censor/suppress, the article has been declared notable by a comfortable margin, and all your edits are reliably sourced. The COI policy itself says An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse. However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject, which I think is relevant here.
Also relevant is in the lede where it says Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline, which certain other entities might choose to take note of. Seth Kellerman ( talk) 15:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
My general feeling is that the personal attacks and behavioural issues that came to light during the last AN/I discussion and subsequent ArbCom case amendment request may have had a larger role in the amendment decisions. I still think it was rather unfortunate that the similar behaviour from Theserialcomma was not addressed at the time [15] as that seems to have been taken by Theserialcomma as carte blanche to continue on with the disruptive behaviour and personal attacks. [16]
I don't think Eggdrop would ever really need any outside promotion and I addressed this very subject in part of a reply I made to Theserialcomma during the ArbCom case in which I said: "I have no interests in using Wikipedia to promote Eggdrop or any other projects which I've contributed to. Quite frankly, none of those projects even need any sort of outside promotion and as a simple Google search clearly shows, [17] the meager Wikipedia article isn't even the top search result and doesn't really even get that many daily hits [18] either." [19] I was also surprised just how much coverage could be seen from a simple Google Books search [20] (which doesn't even include some of the better books about IRC, such as The Book of IRC by Alex Charalabidis ISBN 1886411298).
I tried to address the rest of Theserialcomma's COI claims in the larger reply, although I have no idea if it was read by any arbitrators at the time because it was moved to the talk page by one of the case clerks. I know Theserialcomma at least read it, based on subsequent personal attacks made right on the case pages. [21]
I would actually like to work on expanding the Eggdrop article at some point, including adding some criticism. I pretty much had to stop working on it back in May 2009 when the wikihounding/wikistalking began, which also prevented me from working on other complex tasks such as the mergers of many smaller articles into Modular connector and Registered jack (where I'm currently reading over BSP [Bell System Practice] standards documents in preparation for using them as references and citations). Hopefully I can find some time to get back to work on {{ Cite IETF}} and a number of other projects before long too.
I suppose one good thing did come from the latest round of wikihounding by Theserialcomma on Eggdrop, and that is I was made aware of a book named Bots: The Origin of New Species by Andrew Leonard ( ISBN 1888869054 and ISBN 0140275665) which appears to cover some of Eggdrop's early history, and may possibly even include details and other small facts which have been lost or forgotten about over the last 16-17 years since Eggdrop was first created. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 05:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Since you have recently commented on the type/color of one or more "expand" templates, could you express your opinion in the centralized RfC on this issue? The discussion is currently fragmented between various template and TfD pages, which makes a consensus on this issue difficult to form. Thank you, Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have read a little about your experiences here and must say that I dislike what I saw and how you were treated. There seem to be many issues within the project that really must be dealt with. Who knows, maybe in time things will change. If ever there comes such a time, count on my vote. Maybe I watch too many movies, but I remember a cute quote from one;
Just curious — have you ever seen the expand template used for its actual purpose? Literally 100% of the time that I've seen it, it's just been a drive-by tagging with the tagger never explaining what needs expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 03:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've posted a question for you at Template talk:Delrev. Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Please remember to notify users who you discuss at ANI by using {{subst:ANI-notice}} . Thank you, Dusti *poke* 18:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! As Template:Expand has been deleted, is there any reason to keep User:Tothwolf/Expand testcases? Would you protest a deletion? Hey Mid ( contribs) 20:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we work together to actually write down the explicit inclusion criteria per WP:LIST#Lead section or paragraph for items, as mentioned in my comment responding to you? -- Lexein ( talk) 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for removing that vandalism from my userpage ;) -- œ ™ 19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thanks for posting there. what should i do next? wait until the committee emails me back? how long will that take? Decora ( talk) 04:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if we are reading the same policies. WP:V doesn't say "you can add anything to the article as soon as you can find a source for it, even if it's just the programmer's comments in the source code of the program". And have you actually read WP:SPS? Please actually read this text before claiming againg that WP:SPS allows you to use any and all self-published source for anything: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.". -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Email received. I'm not willing to reply by email to you, so per WP:EMAIL, I'm just going to post a very general reply here. I'm going to simply discuss the only part that really seems to need a reply: your concern about involvement. I've never kept my residence especially secret; my contribs and several off-wiki sites make it pretty clear. Living in a place does not make you involved on all content issues related to it, only the ones you choose to edit. So no, I didn't forget WP:INVOLVED. It just doesn't apply here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I have an essay in development ( Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique) intended to describe ways to keep well-sourced specialized and/or local content. Would you mind to have a look at it and share your opinion? (Most of the ideas are at the talk page). Diego Moya ( talk) 11:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I gather that you have received an email claiming that I am a sockpuppet of Claritas. I just want to make it clear that this is completely untrue. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 06:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
— Farix ( t | c) 11:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Dude, quit edit warring, ok? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You removed the replaceable fair use warning tag I placed on this image without providing a rationale as to how this image is not replaceable. Disagreeing isn't sufficient. Please explain yourself? Please understand that whether a free image is available right now or not is not a criteria. The criteria, as noted in WP:NFCC #1, is could one be created? Since this is a item that exists and is apparently in use in many locations, there's no reason why a wikipedia editor could not take a picture of it and release it under a free license. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)