As you may or may not know by now, Raul654 closed the FAC discussion as unsuccessful ... while I was in the middle of copyediting it thoroughly. (I've always thought I was a good copyeditor, but either Raul was unaware of my ongoing work or I'm not good enough at it for him.) I left a message on his talk page complaining about how premature the closure of the debate was. Since I don't expect him to reopen the debate, which is something that's done only in extreme cases if at all, how would you feel about sending it back to FAC once we're 100% sure it's all nice and polished up?
BTW: I haven't seen ST around in months. Do you think we should request unprotection? szyslak 00:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've given you rollback rights per your request. Use them well. Jehochman Talk 21:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree we should request re-protection only if it gets out of hand. I figure he's a little easier to deal with now that most of the possible titles for his "UCR mascot" article have been WP:SALTed. I also went ahead and got myself a rollback button, and I see you've done the same. szyslak 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping us try to find a consensus wording at AR. Unfortunately I had to change some of what you added back for factual and paragraph coherence reasons, but I tried to keep as much as possible. Again, thank you for mediating in this dispute. Awadewit | talk 00:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Re your message: That account has been blocked. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.-- MONGO 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
From my experience as a UCSC student, I found most people there don't care much about UCSC intercollegiate athletics. Up until the 80s or so, UCSC wasn't even part of the NCAA, and the "Banana Slugs vs. Sea Lions" debate only came up after intercollegiate play began. I think the main reason is that it's just not part of the culture. Upon its founding, UCSC rejected all that was thought to be wrong with higher education--grades, professors who cared little about undergraduate teaching, and competitive, big-money athletics. Personally, I'm proud that UCSC doesn't waste money on a Division I football or basketball team. Instead, they spend it on important things, like a $30,000 dog run. szyslak 05:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Amerique, Thanks for the feedback on UCR and the heads-up about the last part of the History section. I've been edging up to that but nibbling here and there in other sections as well. I tend to read through articles multiple times to get a sense of the whole. As I go, I often fix nit-picky stuff that I see that I might miss on a later pass. That reminds me, I ran the link checker that lives at [1] on University of California, Riverside, and it found several broken links. To get the article through FA, you'll need to fix those. Meanwhile, I'll keep plugging away. My best, Finetooth ( talk) 01:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've been editing UC pages recently and run into your name often. How does one join the Wikiproject to maintain the UC pages? Does one just sign one's name to the wikipage, or does someone coordinate the members? Vantelimus ( talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Marigold linton.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Great idea. Vantelimus ( talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the support. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[2]. szyslak ( t) 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice work on the edit of the Anti-Semetism controversy! Mysteryquest ( talk) 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Btw, that's the first barnstar I've ever given. Thanks for keeping the discussion at WT:V reality-based and research-based and making great arguments with few words. I could learn a thing or two from your example. Keep it up. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 20:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/ e 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Amerique. You're doing great work on the UCSC article. I feel a tug of guilt that I haven't found time lately to put a concerted effort into the thing alongside you. When I find a few solid hours, I'll have quite a bit to add. It'll be good to put aside the piecemeal contributions I've had to content myself with lately, and do some solid writing.
I noticed that you switched the image in {{ University of California}} to show a detail of Cal's Sather Gate. While the Sather Gate Fiat Lux starburst does work as a good symbol for UC, the rationale behind my original design choices was to make sure the template remained as campus-neutral as possible (campuses in alphabetical order; including only the campuses, the hospitals, and the big, University-wide research institutions; making sure the colors and embedded image couldn't be pinned down as belonging to any one site in UC, etc.).
By doing that, along with introducing a new, cleaner format, I hoped to avoid seeing a redux of the template's long, long period of unsatisfactory instability. With the image, especially, I felt it was important to not implicitly ask, "What feature on which campus should go here as the best possible symbol for the University of California?" The map made that question moot. (I used a similar approach on {{ University of Alaska System}} by using a photo of Mount McKinley from the same angle as it appears in their official seal, rather than a specific campus feature.) Plus, it was really neat to have a guide right on the template itself to where, geographically, everything on it is. It might have been the most unambiguously encyclopedic thing I've ever used in that style of template.
Anyway, I'm going leave it in your court whether or not to roll back to the previous version, but we should definitely consider a more-neutral image choice. --Dynaflow babble 02:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I Amerique, I fear an edit war regarding the Dorje Shugden article. There came a group of new editors who made substantial changes without discussing any of it, omitting verified sources and including sources from anonymous web-pages. I like to ask you to have a look on it, to give your comment or to temporarily block the article until there is a discussion on the changes at the talk page. If you are not a suited person, please pass my request to an admin, who is capable or experienced in such issues and can help, mediate or offer advice. You can see from the history how the things developed, that the substantial and radical changes by Helen37 even were reverted by the WPRobot, and that no one of the new editors discussed on the subject matter to come to agreement. Thank you very much for your time and help, -- Kt66 ( talk) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That user has some very strange article moves. Usual thing with images but doesn't seem to be editing the same articles. Best to just watch for now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. The BADSITES drama was long ago, but taught me a great deal about how Wikipedia actually works; sadly, it still keeps popping up in various forms, but it seems not to be quite as virulent as it was in the past. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker ( talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a headset? dorftrottel ( talk) 17:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I know there's a chance it'll be merged in, and really, I don't want it to happen, because the likely outcome is a slap on the wrists if it is merged in. Sceptre ( talk) 02:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Re your message: Account blocked. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! It was quite unexpected and I am honored to receive it. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Amerique - I can only think from your edit summary that you didn't actually read what I said in the discussion. please do that, and then reconsider your actions.
the fact of the matter is that I feel that page is biased, and I can make very good arguments to to that effect, and point to a proper resolution to the problem. all I want is the opportunity to make those arguments and get a reasoned consensus rather than the obstinate power consensus that's there now. believe me, if someone can actually refute what I'm saying I'd be the first to give it up. but I would like to see that refutation, rather than just have my comments refactored away. -- Ludwigs2 22:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comment here, and maybe you now see how this place tests the patience of granite. But you don't know the half of it. I used to try editing Holocaust, and there will be editors who want to include in crap that the Holocaust didn't happen, that this ethnic group was treated worst than another one, and you just tire of it. I haven't edited Intelligent design in months, and though I read it now and again, it's the same arguments from the same and different editors every day. Look at Evolution or Alternative medicine. Interesting that you find the same editors pushing the same agenda in both. I'm trying to stay nice, but just look at the stuff written. It gets difficult every day. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may or may not know by now, Raul654 closed the FAC discussion as unsuccessful ... while I was in the middle of copyediting it thoroughly. (I've always thought I was a good copyeditor, but either Raul was unaware of my ongoing work or I'm not good enough at it for him.) I left a message on his talk page complaining about how premature the closure of the debate was. Since I don't expect him to reopen the debate, which is something that's done only in extreme cases if at all, how would you feel about sending it back to FAC once we're 100% sure it's all nice and polished up?
BTW: I haven't seen ST around in months. Do you think we should request unprotection? szyslak 00:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've given you rollback rights per your request. Use them well. Jehochman Talk 21:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree we should request re-protection only if it gets out of hand. I figure he's a little easier to deal with now that most of the possible titles for his "UCR mascot" article have been WP:SALTed. I also went ahead and got myself a rollback button, and I see you've done the same. szyslak 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping us try to find a consensus wording at AR. Unfortunately I had to change some of what you added back for factual and paragraph coherence reasons, but I tried to keep as much as possible. Again, thank you for mediating in this dispute. Awadewit | talk 00:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Re your message: That account has been blocked. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.-- MONGO 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
From my experience as a UCSC student, I found most people there don't care much about UCSC intercollegiate athletics. Up until the 80s or so, UCSC wasn't even part of the NCAA, and the "Banana Slugs vs. Sea Lions" debate only came up after intercollegiate play began. I think the main reason is that it's just not part of the culture. Upon its founding, UCSC rejected all that was thought to be wrong with higher education--grades, professors who cared little about undergraduate teaching, and competitive, big-money athletics. Personally, I'm proud that UCSC doesn't waste money on a Division I football or basketball team. Instead, they spend it on important things, like a $30,000 dog run. szyslak 05:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Amerique, Thanks for the feedback on UCR and the heads-up about the last part of the History section. I've been edging up to that but nibbling here and there in other sections as well. I tend to read through articles multiple times to get a sense of the whole. As I go, I often fix nit-picky stuff that I see that I might miss on a later pass. That reminds me, I ran the link checker that lives at [1] on University of California, Riverside, and it found several broken links. To get the article through FA, you'll need to fix those. Meanwhile, I'll keep plugging away. My best, Finetooth ( talk) 01:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've been editing UC pages recently and run into your name often. How does one join the Wikiproject to maintain the UC pages? Does one just sign one's name to the wikipage, or does someone coordinate the members? Vantelimus ( talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Marigold linton.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Great idea. Vantelimus ( talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the support. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[2]. szyslak ( t) 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice work on the edit of the Anti-Semetism controversy! Mysteryquest ( talk) 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Btw, that's the first barnstar I've ever given. Thanks for keeping the discussion at WT:V reality-based and research-based and making great arguments with few words. I could learn a thing or two from your example. Keep it up. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 20:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/ e 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Amerique. You're doing great work on the UCSC article. I feel a tug of guilt that I haven't found time lately to put a concerted effort into the thing alongside you. When I find a few solid hours, I'll have quite a bit to add. It'll be good to put aside the piecemeal contributions I've had to content myself with lately, and do some solid writing.
I noticed that you switched the image in {{ University of California}} to show a detail of Cal's Sather Gate. While the Sather Gate Fiat Lux starburst does work as a good symbol for UC, the rationale behind my original design choices was to make sure the template remained as campus-neutral as possible (campuses in alphabetical order; including only the campuses, the hospitals, and the big, University-wide research institutions; making sure the colors and embedded image couldn't be pinned down as belonging to any one site in UC, etc.).
By doing that, along with introducing a new, cleaner format, I hoped to avoid seeing a redux of the template's long, long period of unsatisfactory instability. With the image, especially, I felt it was important to not implicitly ask, "What feature on which campus should go here as the best possible symbol for the University of California?" The map made that question moot. (I used a similar approach on {{ University of Alaska System}} by using a photo of Mount McKinley from the same angle as it appears in their official seal, rather than a specific campus feature.) Plus, it was really neat to have a guide right on the template itself to where, geographically, everything on it is. It might have been the most unambiguously encyclopedic thing I've ever used in that style of template.
Anyway, I'm going leave it in your court whether or not to roll back to the previous version, but we should definitely consider a more-neutral image choice. --Dynaflow babble 02:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I Amerique, I fear an edit war regarding the Dorje Shugden article. There came a group of new editors who made substantial changes without discussing any of it, omitting verified sources and including sources from anonymous web-pages. I like to ask you to have a look on it, to give your comment or to temporarily block the article until there is a discussion on the changes at the talk page. If you are not a suited person, please pass my request to an admin, who is capable or experienced in such issues and can help, mediate or offer advice. You can see from the history how the things developed, that the substantial and radical changes by Helen37 even were reverted by the WPRobot, and that no one of the new editors discussed on the subject matter to come to agreement. Thank you very much for your time and help, -- Kt66 ( talk) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That user has some very strange article moves. Usual thing with images but doesn't seem to be editing the same articles. Best to just watch for now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. The BADSITES drama was long ago, but taught me a great deal about how Wikipedia actually works; sadly, it still keeps popping up in various forms, but it seems not to be quite as virulent as it was in the past. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker ( talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a headset? dorftrottel ( talk) 17:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I know there's a chance it'll be merged in, and really, I don't want it to happen, because the likely outcome is a slap on the wrists if it is merged in. Sceptre ( talk) 02:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Re your message: Account blocked. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! It was quite unexpected and I am honored to receive it. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Amerique - I can only think from your edit summary that you didn't actually read what I said in the discussion. please do that, and then reconsider your actions.
the fact of the matter is that I feel that page is biased, and I can make very good arguments to to that effect, and point to a proper resolution to the problem. all I want is the opportunity to make those arguments and get a reasoned consensus rather than the obstinate power consensus that's there now. believe me, if someone can actually refute what I'm saying I'd be the first to give it up. but I would like to see that refutation, rather than just have my comments refactored away. -- Ludwigs2 22:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comment here, and maybe you now see how this place tests the patience of granite. But you don't know the half of it. I used to try editing Holocaust, and there will be editors who want to include in crap that the Holocaust didn't happen, that this ethnic group was treated worst than another one, and you just tire of it. I haven't edited Intelligent design in months, and though I read it now and again, it's the same arguments from the same and different editors every day. Look at Evolution or Alternative medicine. Interesting that you find the same editors pushing the same agenda in both. I'm trying to stay nice, but just look at the stuff written. It gets difficult every day. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)