Happy New Year. In a week or so I'm planning on removing those "sobriquets" that dont meet Verifiability. If you think this is not a good idea please let me know. SmithBlue 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a very good thing to expunge everything from the sobriquet article for which you can find no citation, even if the result leave us with little more than a stub. Ever-growing, ill-referenced lists of that ilk have little value and are one of my least favorite things on Wikipedia. Happy New Year. Contributions/BostonBostonBoston 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a category to Shambala (song). After writing an article like that, it always makes me smile to see someone besides a bot has paid a visit. But did you really have to act so horrified that I forgot to categorize it? If that's the worst thing you encountered on Wikipedia this weekend you aren't looking hard enough! Boston 11:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey mate sorry I didn't mean to sound harsh. Good article by the way its just I was surprised that it wasn't categorized. It may also be under Category:1973 singles you may want to check. Keep up the good work and happy editing. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No offense taken; I was just kidding with you. Can't you see the bright yellow smiley face? Boston 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Hey is that you at the top of the page. I swear you look exactly like some actor I can't think of his name. I am currently adding Argentine films to wikipedia seeCategory:Argentine films you'd never guess I'm still on A would you. I'm also compiling the List of Canadian films in chrono order. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's me. I think the actor you are thinking of is Danny DeVito (insert yellow smiley face here). Boston 13:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
lease remember to be civil in your disagreements, Boston. If you are having disagreements, it is much more productive to dicuss them poliety and try to understand the other person's point of view, rather than curing at each other and not making any progress. I'm posting this for User:Qrc2006, because doing this will help both of you. -- Natalya 13:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I spent the past half hour trying to fix the cut & paste move that was done to Ani. In the future, please look at Help:Renaming (moving) a page: you need to use the move tab, and not cut and paste. Cut and paste moves don't take the edit history with them and thus violate the GDFL copyright terms. Also, in some cases, when the move might be controversial, you might first want to discuss the move on the article's talk page. If a move is not possible because a page with the new name already exists, go to Wikipedia:Requested moves (or ask an admin to move the page for you). Thanks, Khoikhoi 22:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Per words to avoid do not insert the word "claim" in the article when a non POV term will do. I have seen several edits from you which have been very questionalable in light of Wikipedia's NPOV standards and would encourage you, as an administrator, to instead be an example of how things should be done here. Boston 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on my edit. I'll give it to you straight. Your "meticulously referenced article" was actually an amateurish piece of work, cobbled together from anything you could trawl from the internet. As you yourself admitted, you know nothing at all about Ani, and had never heard of the place until a month ago. Because of that, you do not have the background knowledge to distinguise truth from fiction, accepted facts from contentuous statements, essential information from worthless padding, etc. That is just in relation to the Ani material you found online. There is much more about Ani contained in the many books, articles, monographs, etc that have been written over the past 150 years - none of which you have ever set your eyes upon. I will rewrite the remaining parts of your "meticulously referenced article" in the coming days. Meowy 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I even touched the article was to bring order to what was chaos. Take a look at what was there before my involvement. If there was misinformation in the article, it was misinformation that a reader could see where it came from. Major revisions to an article should be done in your sandbox and presented with references when complete. What you did, instead, is throw down hundreds of words and left a message on the talk page that you would provide references "a.s.a.p.". That is about as amateurish as it gets. Please note the following:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. (source: WP:V)
You didn't even manage to put a comment at the right place on my talk page. You are a novice here and your ignorance of how Wikipedia works is obvious. Boston 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Why does a person think he can write a competent entry about a subject when he knows nothing about that subject? In your reply to an earlier question from me, you that you had heard about Ani for only two weeks before writing your contributions to the Wikipedia entry on Ani. I was aware of the lamentable state of the entry for Ani before you decided to add your material. Its earlier form certainly did not do Ani justice, but at the same time the entry was too small for it to contain any objectionable content. Your massively increased the size of the entry, but also massively increased the level of its inaccuracy. That is why I decided to rewrite it. Everything you placed in the entry you found only on the internet and, as I had explained earlier, you do not have the background knowledge abut Ani to distinguish truth from fiction, accepted facts from contentious statements, essential information from padding. Writing about Ani from a position of ignorance is rather like blundering into the middle of a mist-covered minefield without having a map. Your ignorance of Ani is proven by your continuing insistence on citations being provided for content that requires no citations. Citations are only needed for content that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Nothing I posted falls into those categories. Your contribution was full of unnecessary citations. I'm still at a loss to understand why you decided to contribute to an entry about Ani. It must have taken you a considerable time to do it (so I do understand you annoyance at someone coming and removing most of it). However, the basic problem with your contribution is that you don’t know the subject and because of that, you don’t know how amateurish and inaccurate your contribution was. There must plenty of entries on Wikipedia that need to be brought from "chaos into order" and that will be on subjects you do know about. BTW, nobody is stopping you moving this section to the bottom of your discussion page. Meowy 16:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed a fair use image from a couple pages in your user space. The use of fair use images outside of article namespace is not allowed. Please see WP:FUC for more info. Thank you.--NMajdan•talk 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You uploaded Image:AdamBruce.jpg and added a {{GFDL}} tag for licensing. However, you did not give info about the source of the image. It currently is on the DYK next update page — but, I think it is important to have source info before it gets to the Main Page. Could you please add source info? (Should it be {{GFDL-self}}?) Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You are still a major topic of conversation on the Ani talk page. I thought you might like to know. Shaundakulbara 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeeze, I am afraid to look! I've been trying not to think about that article. Thanks for the message however. スキャンダルの家 (Boston) 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I left an answer there. As usual, I was way too wordy, but hopefully my message won't be drowned in the bulk of my epistle. Maybe it generate some goodwill. スキャンダルの家 (Boston) 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow. You were totally nice and got it thrown in your face. From what I have read on that page Eup., Meo., and Kho., are all fucking assholes. Don't waste your time even trying to talk sense to them. Shaundakulbara 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:IsabelWeldPerkins.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:IsabelWeldPerkins.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200ptalk 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading this image. However, you did not actually specify a licence for this file. Entering {{self}} by itself does really nothing unless you enter an actual parameter like {{self|GFDL}} or something like {{self|cc-by-2.5}}. Thanks. Zzyzx11(Talk) 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Boston. You left a question, citation and comment in DYK January 25 for my nomination of Jeannette Piccard. I replied but haven't heard back from you and am a little disappointed that Capt. Picard was a problem for you. There is a day or two left on my five days. Do you plan to reply there? If so could you please suggest text that you find agreeable? If I don't hear from you I have to go with the pet turtle hook which is cute but Picard is interesting to a lot of Wikipedians. Thanks in advance. -Susanlesch 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, The Capt. Picard hook is interesting. I heard way back when ST:TNG was on the air that Picard was named after the Piccards. My only suggestion is that unless we have a good written source saying that Picard was named after the Piccards, we should say "may be named after" rather than "is named after" or the equivilent. BTW, the current Star Trek-related hook on the main page (i.e. Leonard Crofoot) was authored by me. Boston 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK wonderful! I will rewrite this, and add a note that you and I discussed it. If you can possibly find a second to reply there in say an hour it would be great. Yes, we do have a good source (the one given in the articles, plus the two informal ones to support it that I added when you asked about Piccard.info which is unsourced and not right). Frankly I don't think there will ever be any better documentation than what is in DYK right now because the parties' memories are fading but of course it is always possible to be wrong. I'll look at the Crofoot article when I get done. Thanks very much. -Susanlesch 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Boston. I got a couple messages from you, one about "original research" (already discussed in DYK) and one saying it isn't important (I think it's very neat). I have found a second reliable source and will add it to both the Jean Piccard and Jeannette Piccard articles. Is there anything else you need? Hope this helps. -Susanlesch 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Boston, I received another reply from you, this time quoting a Web site that WHOIS says is registered to someone who Google finds no hits for any connection for the Piccards. I am really sorry, but I weeded this stuff out days ago. I have added the National Public Radio Talk of the Nation segment with Ira Flatow and will tweak the text of the articles to be more in line with what you are suggesting. There is value in decreasing rather than increasing speculation. Thank you for your interest. Sorry I am fresh out of time today. -Susanlesch 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey HOS. I wanted to notify you that per policy we may not display unfree media in any space other than (main). I noticed you have a number of fairuse images on your userpage to go with your wealth of excellent DYK contributions, and those unfortunately will have to be removed. Thanks. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 18:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi House. I'm sorry about the hard times you've been going through with Wikipedia in the last two weeks. I hope to see your cool looking userpage restored, and for you to be able to contribute to DYK in peace; I'm glad you're already active in article writing again. If you need any help with anything, feel free to ask. Picaroon 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That's very kind of you to say. But I'm not active in article writing again. I haven't written anything in over two weeks and I used to crank out about ten articles in that amount of time. After completely cutting myself off for a while, in these past days I've been participating in the debate to save an article I wrote (Adam4Adam) and I've been doing a little vandal fighting but not much else. In light of recent events, I don't think I will be contributing again any time soon. Thanks again for your kind words; I do deeply appreciate the sentiment.--Boston 09:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I left you an answer on my talk page. Can I assume my talk page is on your watch list and this notice is unneccessary? Shaundakulbara 02:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed original research on Alternative hip hop and Underground hip hop, and yet you remove it without discussing on the talk page. Before reverting again, can you please explain your reversions?--Urthogie 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi - there's a debate starting on Talk:Indie_hip_hop on the best approach to fixing this problem rather than redirecting the whole lot, wondered if you'd be able to contribute to the discussion? --Oscarthecat 22:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
With regards to your comments on User_talk:EEMeltonIV: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. It is all right to disagree with another editor, but comments such as "bossy prick" and "Bitches like you" are a flagrant violation of WP:NPA and you can face arbitration if you use them too often.
One Irishman to another - there was no need to go on like that on EEMeltonIV's talk page. I've dealt with him before and can't agree with what you've said about him. Either way, you're entitled to your opinion; you're not entitled to express it like that. Would you not consider an apology and sort whatever problems you have out like grown ups. Rmkf1982 | Talk 18:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to laugh. After I wrote that message and hit the save button, I got the Wikipedia Server Error message. I didn’t make a second attempt to save and decided to forget about it. But what’s said was said with reason. My breach of decorum, no doubt more egregious because I obviously know better, is an off-the-cuff protest against a very strong and detestable current in Wikipedia culture. This is the sort of editor/admin who can most easily be described as super-civil assholes. They drive me nuts. They are bossy, controlling, condescending, inflexible, very slow to admit to being wrong, quick to interpret ever rule to their favor and every opponents disfavor – but WOW are they civil. An intelligent, well-meaning and civil editor is still a detriment to the machine when that editor is devoid of the spirit of compromise, lacking genuine diplomacy and unwilling to approach situations not only as a teacher but also as a student. The worst dicks on Wikipedia are civil, always. As for the specific issue from which prompted my message? There’s no point in discussing it. From past experience I know that right or wrong, he doesn’t budge. I, on the other hand, while once very interested in thoughtful give-and-take, no longer give a damn for reasons which I hope I’ve made apparent.--Boston 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC) PS - I saw he had a little fun with my message on his talk page, and that’s cool. I thought my vitriol had a little wit in it and I am glad it prompted wit in return.
You are still a major topic of conversation on the Ani talk page. I thought you might like to know. Shaundakulbara 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeeze, I am afraid to look! I've been trying not to think about that article. Thanks for the message however. スキャンダルの家 (Boston) 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I left an answer there. As usual, I was way too wordy, but hopefully my message won't be drowned in the bulk of my epistle. Maybe it generate some goodwill. スキャンダルの家 (Boston) 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow. You were totally nice and got it thrown in your face. Don't waste your time even trying to talk sense to them. Shaundakulbara 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Boston. Why do you ask me the question? I don't know about ska ... so I heard the word for the first time. I think, japanese ska musics are not called "J-ska" in Japan. The least the word is not known to the public.(Tokyo Ska Paradise Orchestra is famous, but a music category 'Ska' is not.) Probably, I think, it is written "J-スカ" or "Jスカ".(ska = スカ) If you write the word by only katakanas, it is written "ジェイスカ". Sorry, I can't write English well... --Iceheron 23:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words on Adam Bruce. I'm also glad you've weighed in on the subject of the Vice Great Seneschalcy, which has bothered me for some time. The references there about appointing a deputy obviously refer to non-hereditary deputies. This, as I understand it, was what Shrewsbury did (the author of the Evening Standard article, or perhaps Shrewsbury, has not been entirely clear about the matter): by virtue of his great office of state, he is entitled to create deputies to the office, just as the Earl Marshal has frequently appointed deputies to carry out his duties. Of course, Shrewsbury has no duties to speak of, and the whole proceeding is in rather bad taste, indeed.
A claim to a hereditary deputyship is something entirely different, of course. He did supply one reference, "Registry of Deeds, Dublin, Book 12, referring to Grant of 17 July 1442," which I presume to be a reference to the Dublin Grant Books. Is there any way to check that reference on this side of the pond? I share your deep skepticism towards this claim, but I want to make sure it's handled all in order. Choess 02:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ach. You know what? I'm 99% certain that the 1442 is a typo. It should almost certainly be 1446, because it was on the 17th July 1446 that the Earl of Shrewsbury was created Earl of Waterford and Great Seneschal/Lord High Steward of Ireland. In that case, the references just prove that there was a Seneschalcy and that the Seneschal could create deputies, but say nothing about a hereditary deputyship, Tyrconnel, etc. In Ardfert, heavily edited by the author of the article, we see that "An O'Donnell from Tyrconnell remained behind in stewardship to hold [Ardfert], according to "The Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell, Prince of Tyrconnell" written by Lughaidh O'Cléirigh, circa 1603 in Gaelic." I suspect that if there's anything to the idea of an O'Donnell seneschalcy, this is it. I will put the article up for AfD this evening explaining the whole matter; unless more documentation is unexpectedly forthcoming, that will presumably be the end of it. Choess 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That was very thoughtful of you! But you gotta go fix the license tag on the image or someone might want to delete it, right now it has no license at all, as far as I can tell... I assume it's a photoshop of some other pic of a medicine bottle.. watch out that the underlying image isn't copyrighted. If you got it from commons or somewhere free, though, that would do the trick... just describe what you did and pick a good license. Thanks again! ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You should probably start by reverting it and telling them to take it to Articles for deletion if they really feel it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic. A single editor should not have the authority to blank pages no matter what their personal feelings about the subject matter are. That would have been the proper procedure for them to use. Unfortunately I don't think the article will stand up well at AfD. I don't know of any admins personally who have fought hard for Futurama in the past but you might ask around over at the Futurama Wikiproject. If you check over there you'll see that my personal opinion is that it should be merged with Amphibios 9. Sorry I can't be of more help. Stardust8212 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I did revert. And if it goes to AfD I'll go through the process appropriately. A merger wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Thanks. Boston 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I checked my talk page first and saw you'd already taken those steps after I replied. If it comes up at Afd I'll definitely push for no less than a merge. There is more info on this group than the Cygnoids and they have an article though personally I think it should all be at Amphibios 9 since we aren't sure that they are "really" called Amphibiosans, I mean, we're not Earthans. *winkwink, nudgenudge*Stardust8212 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. Thanks for correcting my edit about the Yokohama catalog not actually being a mail-order catalog. I completely defer to your expertise on that topic. I guess it makes complete sense that one wouldn't order carefully-crafted living trees by mail, right? Anyway, can I suggest eliminating the catalog wikilinks entirely, since all you get on the dab page is a dictionary definition and a list of largely irrelevant options for further understanding? Planetneutral 02:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe the dab page needs a change. I'll look into it. Thanks. Boston 02:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The reaon I want to use a smaller picture size is that on a high resolution monitor (right now I'm at 1600x1200) the pics extend far below the end of the text and it really looks rather odd. At 300 px the text ends somewhere around the pic of Kif scaring off predators and there is still another picture below that. At 200px it looks somewhat less disproportionate. Stardust8212 17:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I sympathize with you alot. Go do something nice for yourself. Civility and fairness are indeed in short supply in Wikiworld. Shaundakulbara 19:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. I was neither uncivil nor unfair. You have asked for another person to weigh in on her inclusion - and in due course another person will - perhaps Nishkid or Yomangani. But adding to next update was premature - so I removed it. That is all. I'll go email a couple of people to come and break the impasse. Nothing to get depressed over. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't even. I let you have your way and like I told Shaundakulbara I really don't want to pursue this further. Contention has drained away most of the enjoyment I once took from Wikipedia. Boston 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Too late - I emailed Samir and Blgnuyen. As for "having my way", notice how she is still a viable nomination out there, waiting to be approved by somebody else and included into next update - it's not like I deleted her, or anything. You need a barnstar though, clearly:
The Working Man's Barnstar
Awarded to Boston for his extraordinary articular-contributorial prowess. His DYK achievements are truly something else. On behalf of the project, thank you for all your hard work. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
HoS, I took a look at the article, and it definitely qualifies for DYK per the expansion-from-stub guideline. It was 1.4 KB prior to expansion, and it now is 6.4KB, so it's fine. I'm moving it to Next Update now. Nishkid64 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you much. Boston 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
House - I have been talking to the people at the middle east and they sent me a list of bands that have played there since 2000 - We set down a rule that if they are not notable then they should not be on the middle east band list - Sould we consider notable any band that is already in wikipedia or do want to scale it down more than that? Markco1 03:17, 31 January 2007
Being article-worthy is, for real, the minium qualification as far as I'm concerned. Lists are generally a bad ideal and run against the current of what Wikiepdia is. I think about 40 artists is an ideal number (it also fits neatly into 4 of colums of ten each.) But I really don't know how one would select forty artists out of 100 or 1000 or whatever. Sorry I have no concrete recommendations.Boston 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears you deleted the article Adam4Adam. The article had verifiable references that established notability. Adam4Adam has been discussed in newspapers across the United States and, given the opportnity, I can produce an avalanche of evidence of this. I had nothing to do with previous versions of the article; I didn't even know they existed until yesterday. There was a hold on the speedy delete and I didn't get a chance to respond. Put the article back and allow me the advocate for the article per Wikipedia policy. I am an earnest and guideline-abiding Wikipedia contributor and I don't appreciate this abuse of authority. Boston 15:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
First, there is no 'hold' on deletion. If someone puts a {{hangon}} template somewhere, it's a tag to draw someones attention to the talk page where they make an argument for why it shouldn't be deleted. If you couldn't be bothered to do that as you imply above, then the use of the template is meaningless. Second, I would have gladly undeleted the article at your first request, and was ready to do so (as I have any number of other times when people have asked), but then I read your immediate accusation of "abuse of authority". That's uncalled for, and while you're welcome to your opinion, I now invite you to find another admin to restore it for you. Like everyone else, I'm a volunteer here, and I'm under no obligation to put up with abuse. I suggest you reconsider how you interact with people on the project going forwards. Assume Good Faith is a vital foundation of Wikipedia, and you've chosen to ignore it. I don't know why you felt your first reaction must immediately be hostile, but it was unwarranted, inappropriate, and out of line for working here. I hope you won't mistake my choice of inaction as another "abuse of authority", but I can't control your perceptions. I can only ask you to use more consideration when speaking to fellow editors in the future. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I checked it out again, and I'd like to clear up a misconception. I didn't speedy-delete it because of unverifiable content of because it was a repost, please note that I provided the following delete explanation: "WP:CSD Articles, subsection 7 - No assertion of notability is made by this person, music group, or organization" It fails to meet WP:WEB, and Wikipedia is not a web directory. Feel free to have a 2nd admin review this for you or bring it to WP:DRV. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow HoS. You can't catch a breath this week, can you? As soon as one thing goes right another thing goes wrong! Sticking my nose in yesterday seems to have had good results. Do you mind if I do again? Shaundakulbara 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I dropped a note at the Undelete discussion. Shaundakulbara 19:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Graci, Shaunda. Boston 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
OUTCOME: 15 people agreed with me that Chairboy's decision to Speedy Delete was improper. 3 people disagreed. It went to AfD debate where (no surprise) it passed by a considerable margin. --Boston 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I put the banjee hook on next update and am campaiging for the photo you took be used. I think Adam4Adam is going to pass the Deletion Review. The guy who deleted it on you is abusing his privlidges. I hope you aren't gone from Wikipedia for good. You are one of my favorite editors. Shaundakulbara 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hiya. Just wanted to let you know that I am going to place the Imperial Court System article as the LGBT Portal Featured Article in approximately two weeks. The Portal guidelines suggest only using FA or GA articles, but I really like it, think it's well written, and appreciate the time you took with the references. However, the references need to be expanded per WP:CITE. If you don't know how to do this, or haven't the time to do it alone, I will happily assist you. I could do it alone, but thought it would be fun to collaborate. Please let me know your thoughts about this, either here or on my talk page. Cheers, Jeffpw 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the Barnstar, HoS! That was really kind of you. If I can ever be of assistance, please don't hesitate to call on me. Jeffpw 15:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I emailed the photo you want for the Ball culture article. I am not to upload it for some reason. I hope you can. Fotografico 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I am reading the article for the first time and it is very good. I made link in IICS article as I saw none. If there was already link reverse it okay? Fotografico 01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey - bring back that really pretty page! I haven't gotten to drool over it enough :(
Please?
:) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well sir, when your banjee article was in the DYK section of the front page yesterday it was vandalized by no less than EIGHT different little bastards before Circeus placed a lock on it. Someone else was trying to get your pics deleted because they were "potentially libelous". I raised the question "Would this be an issue if these photos accompanied an article about men who dress a certain way and have sex with women?" and I am guessing now no one is eager to touch this issue with a ten foot pole! Hehe. I've also been trying to prevent vandalism and silly edits on some of the pages you made and it has been no fun. I have checked in on only a fraction of them because I simply don't have the time to do more. The Deletion Review about Adam4Adam has been harrowing but I think the "vote" is something like 12 to 3 in its favour. I have tried to improve the article in My Sandbox and if you return to the Wikiworld in time you certainly have my permission to make edits there. I even made a Adam4Adam account so I could take a screenshot (they never asked my gender so I didn't have to lie!) I hope whatever you are doing with your free time these days is more rewarding and less frustrating for you that Wikipedia was before your disappearance. Hope to hear from you soon. Ciao. -- Shaundakulbara 01:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
File:Order of Smile.png Thanks for the award, sir! I didn't much like your tone though...it doesn't sound like you'll be returning to our ranks anytime soon. I really hope I'm wrong, but the again, you shouldn't be writing for free anyways! I'll try to respect your wishes in regards to the point you mentioned. Keep the faith. - Shaundakulbara 11:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, HoS! I really appreciate it. I'm sorry to see you go, though. =( You will definitely be missed at T:DYKT. I hope you come back real soon! Nishkid64 20:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think two people have to "sign" beneath the initial statement (mine) or it gets tossed out in 48 hrs. If you agree with my comments and don't think they went too far, please add your "signature" to the RFC now or whenever you get back online. Thanks! Shaundakulbara 23:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Your comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chairboy, I too was disheartened to see Chairboy refuse to take responsibility for what was a fairly minor error in handling WP:CSD, but you must realize that when people are feeling attacked, the natural response is to act defensive. I can't look down at him for digging his heels in when being subjected to a barrage of insults. —Dgiestc 23:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we are all expected to be civil and follow guidelines, each thing independent of the other, both of these at all times. I have no sympathy for someone who demonstrates no proclivity for cutting anyone else the tiniest slack. Conversely, I'm not bitter either, as since I walked away from Wikipedia a few days ago I've spent most of my time getting laid. If forced to opine in this matter, I'd have to say I don't give a fuck. Thanks for your level-headed comments. Best wishes. Boston 08:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You're a dog! Shaundakulbara 10:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Shauna, don't forget that unless there's a consensus to delete, an article stays. It behooves you not to say more than is needed. In this matter, I doubt there is anyone besides those that already agree with you and those that will never agree with you. If the A4A people actually email you info, you can take it into consideration but remember such a missive is neither a verifiable source nor an independent one. Peace. Boston 08:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
File:Order of Smile.png What a civil way of telling me to shut the hell up! It's good advise though and I'll try to follow it. Shaundakulbara 08:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't try. Do! Best wishes, Boston 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I notice you had some more words for the AfD debate and the RFC debate. Please, please, please don't comment any more at the AfD debate. I won't go so far as to say you've earned yourself the animosity of a clique, but certainly everything you say at this point is being taken in the worst possible way. No, you're not crazy. Yes, you are right. But being right doesn't mean your going to win. Go see a movie or something. Boston 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I read your words at the RFC discussion. As usual, your words contain more articulate wisdom than mine but we're not too far apart in our thinking. I also would be willing to drop the other two issues if we could focus on the original cause for all this bother. I am going to spend some time with my mother as she does her shopping for Chinese New Year and that may develop into a mini-Wikibreak for me too. Shaundakulbara 02:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
WTF? I can hardly believe that one guy is still breaking your beans about the AfD debate. I mean, I get his point, but it's painfully obvious by its content and gazillion references that this is not the sort of article any guideline was designed to exclude. I don't know if the tail is wagging the dog or what the deal is! -Shaundakulbara 13:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Je reste silencieux.--Boston 13:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I just discovered your "Seria Ludo" essay (or whatever you call it) and it was alot of laughs. I enjoyed its "edgy" humor.-Shaundakulbara 13:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to revert an anon IP vandalization on another recent change and accidently clicked on your article page. Ronbo76 05:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
