User talk:Bibliomaniac15/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bibliomaniac15. 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Hey, I called in AnonDiss to help out here too, but neither of us own the game. Do you? If yes, can you do us a big favour and write up the gameplay/multiplayer/campaign sections? I can ref them easily, but it's harder to write it without past experience. Enjoy! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 02:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Groovy. I've started on reception (omg - there's prose there now!), and AnonDiss has been researching a bit, so it'll look good when it all comes together. the_undertow is also pitching in (somehow) - and this is why you should get MSN xD Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I use teh realz angalis on MSn, yo dawg. Go get it! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup taskforce
I've added Star Trek Customizable Card Game to your desk because you experessed an interest in articles about games. Please look at it and accept, reject or let me know and I'll reassign it. (Also let me know if it is ready to be closed). Thank you. RJFJR 03:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp 14:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
As an administrator and a Wikiproject:Disney member, can you review Ride & Show Engineering, Inc. which has been nominated for WP:CSD#A7. Can you please chime in on your thoughts. Thanks. Tiggerjay 05:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input and removal of the csd. Tiggerjay 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
My Maniac!
Thank you so much, my dear Maniac :) As long as friends like you are by my side, I know that the Moon will shine on, beautiful and bright, even through the darkest of nights. Love you lots, Phaedriel - 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 01:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The article was protected since 03:03, 24 August 2007. Could you please remove its page protection. Regards. E104421 13:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Page protection
Thank you for reconsidering the semi-protection of Maki. It may not resolve the problem, since the vandal will probably move to other pages. But it will make it more difficult for him, and allow this article to be developed undisturbed for a while. RolandR 21:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a new administrator!
|
Thanks, Archive 6! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Dyoh
That is lots better. Neil ム 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- *grumbles* I acknowledge your protection, but I could really do with sysop rights now :p Editprotected request... — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Damn that was fast! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Expanding on my response here, just thought I'd let you know that "nowiki" tags aren't necessary when writing ''Age of Mythology'''s. Just thought you'd like to know, though you probably wouldn't care about something so trivial... *scolds himself for being pedantic again* · AndonicO Talk 01:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good old days? Do you mean that the nowiki was needed before? · AndonicO Talk 01:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I do that too. If you ever need any help getting noobier, I can teach you a few tricks. · AndonicO Talk 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You're fast!
|
The This-Cheetah-Thinks-You're-Fast Award | |
| I award you this for beating me to the punch twice on WP:AIV. Be afraid. Mwahaha. >:-) Húsönd 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
RfA thanks
|
With thanks! | |
| Thanks for participating in my RfA, which closed successfuly. I leave you with a picture of the real Blood Red Sandman! Note his 'mop' is slightly deadlier than mine! - - Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
!
Now that's crowded! Phgao 04:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Rush hour in Beijing without an accident would be bad enough. :) Phgao 05:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it does get annoying, as I don't find the current process broken at all. But in the end talk is good and we can't really concern ourselves with the server problems; I too have seen an increase in outages. Phgao 05:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Rush hour in Beijing without an accident would be bad enough. :) Phgao 05:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
FA
Since you did the GA review for Metroid Prime, I thought you could take a look at the article's FA candidacy (I'm lacking opinions and/or support...) igordebraga ≠ 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Did some work on what you asked, what else is needed? igordebraga ≠ 17:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
Dear Bibliomaniac15,
______ __ __ __
/\__ _\/\ \ /\ \ /\ \
\/_/\ \/\ \ \___ __ ___\ \ \/'\ __ __ ___ __ __\ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ _ `\ /'__`\ /' _ `\ \ , < /\ \/\ \ / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\
\ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\
\/_/ \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/ \/___/ \/_/
/\___/
\/__/
For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.
|
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry
i'm sorry that i lost my cool but after i took a chill pill i took it off and i sometimes do look at other pages.--FrosticeBlade 00:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey maybe you could help me out with something theres a games called Project H.a.m.m.e.r the release date was canceled put its not under list of wii games the game itself was not canceled how would i add it to the list?--FrosticeBlade 00:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Source question
Great. An unmanned Oerlikon GDF-005 just killed nine people in test use. I'd like to start an article on this - breaking news or not breaking news, this and other events of its ilk are a significant issue in IT ethics and only likely to grow. Quick: Do you think that the Wired Danger Room blog is a reliable and/or usable source on this? It's the best in coverage we have at the moment.
If you see this message a hour or more after it's left, please disregard. Thanks. --Kizor 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
Thanks for your support in my recent RfA. It was a success, and I look forward to spending the weekend figuring out all these new buttons. Hiberniantears 17:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Pics
No my neighbor he gave them to me.Sparrowman980 05:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Also at school i am going to take some more pics of the fire there.Sparrowman980 07:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup Taskforce
Please feel free to assign yourself tasks from the list of unassigned tasks at Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. Arranging assignments is too much work for me to do by myself. We have a large backlog of unassigned tasks and there is probably something in there that will interest you. RJFJR 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
"awaiting moderator decision"
[1] - "Now it is time for the moderators here to draw a conclusion, one that I will respect, whatever their decision and I feel you should do the same" ([2]). Good luck, and enjoy :P Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Aah, the perks of adminship :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Nintendo Page Redesign
A new page design is being considered for the WikiProject Nintendo page. A rough draft can be viewed here. Please add all comments and thoughts to the discussion. From the automated, Anibot 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
Hi. I'd like to accept your offer to admin coach me. I've had two unsuccessful RFAs, most opposers reasoning was because I hadn't been an active editor long enough and/or because of a couple errors I made involving CSD out of the 1000 or so that I have tagged for speedy deletion. However, I have gone over the criteria of speedy deletion a few more times to make sure I got a better handle on it. I would like some more pointers on how to improve for my next RFA, so let's do this. P.S. - I forgot to mention, thanks in advance for your help. Useight 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure which method was better (e-mail or subpage), because I haven't been involved in admin coaching before, but it looks like, according to WP:ADMINCOACH, that subpages are typically used, so I think that'd be better. You can also shoot me an e-mail, but I check Wikipedia more often than I check my e-mail, so I can be reached faster here. Useight 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
My recent RfA
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Although the voting ended at 36/22/5, there was no consensus to promote, and the RfA was unsuccessful. I would like the thank you nonetheless for supporting me during the RfA, and hope that any future RfA’s proceed better than this one did. Again, I thank you for your support. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
coaching for later RfA?
Hi there, I am looking for an admin with suitable time and energy to assist me in coaching for possible future application as admin. Can you help? docboat 13:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the reply! I will get on it docboat 00:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi again! Many thanks for offering to help if time available - I have since been able to convince FayssalF to coach me - In the meantime I will continue to work on your suggestions, look forward to seeing more of you, and thank you for your offer again! docboat 07:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove my WP:AIV posting? Corvus cornix 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, no problem. :) Corvus cornix 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for swatting that vandal for me just now. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
my username
Yeah, I know, a shocker, huh? In short, I got tired of people misconstruing the reference and thinking I was a communist / classist / fan of violence / Hispanic ... none of which I am. I'd had vandalism to my userpages a couple of times, plus an oppose at my (unsuccessful) RfA with the rationale "Too few edits. Objectionable username." Figured it wasn't really worth the trouble anymore.
Ah well. I can take comfort in the fact that, for anyone who catches this reference, there are some subversive overtones.
Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 11:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
GlassCobra's RfA
|
|
My RFA | |
| Hey Bibliomaniac! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you ever need any backup or second opinions! GlassCobra 01:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC) |
The Admins T-shirt
I saw this, and so, here is your T-shirt! :) Acalamari 22:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome! It was Extraordinary Machine who came up with the "Admins T-shirt" idea (by uploading the image), and it's a fun thing to give to new admins, but I suppose that admins who aren't new can also get them. :) Acalamari 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Jesus.
You're providing an invitation to disaster by providing a link and an invitation to that anon. I've tried rather hard to show him that neither the Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon nor the Catholic Encyclopedia support his pet theory in any manner whatsoever. He is completely ignorant in terms of language; he confuses genitives with simple patronymics and the like. He is a case of an individual who reads his conclusions in sources, rather than reading sources into conclusions.
As such, he is an impossible task to deal with, and several other people have pointed out this user's lack of rationality. He finds fool's gold in the form of Clement and Cyril, and establishes false connections in the matter. Unfortunately, he misses the point, apparent in the CE article, that both these fathers were making a mistaken, though understandable, connection between the names. Hopefully, he will cease arguing on Wikipedia entirely, as I see no possibilities for positive contributions by this editor.--C.Logan 03:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
GA review of Yellow clown goby
Thank you for your very specific and constructive review comments. I will most certainly use them to improve this article. And, yep, I'll keep trying! ;-) Have a wiki day! Mmoyer 06:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OhanaUnited's RfA
Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which I have withdrawn. The result is at (7/8/2). Have a great day. NHRHS2010 talk 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Dearest Bibliomaniac15,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days... excessive and abusive???
On Nov. 8, you protected Diego Rivera for the whopping 20 days after User:24.8.104.191 had vandalized it six (6) times in one day almost in a row. Why you did not blocked the vandal instead of making access to Diego Rivera impossible for others - innocent editors, please? Don't you think that your action was abusive since Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection clearly states to use protection ONLY, when Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, and blocking just User:24.8.104.191 definitely has been an option, but you chose not to follow it, please? Did other - relative sporadic and typical for that article - instances of vandalism justify the whopping 20 day protection blocking access for others - innocent editors, please?
- Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is in fact an article that has been subjected to multiple attempts at vandalism and has been protected previously. I see nothing improper in what Bibliomaniac15 has done here and as it is only for 20 days, it seems to me to be no big deal. Sincerely. --Malcolmxl5 02:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This article (and Frida Kahlo) has been subject to constant vandalism at a higher rate than other articles, and protecting it does not cure sources of it. I've noticed that in addition to a typical, random (prank) vandalism it is also subject to vandalism provoked by errors and low quality of content, similarly as Frida Kahlo. The problem with improving the content is that both articles are sort of hijacked by a group of registered editors (in violation of WP:OWN), who - on one hand - cannot edit too well, and - on the other - remove edits by others they do not like justifying by personal opinions, e.g. "we (I) don't like it", and not by required valid reason(s), which personal opinions are not. That way they effectively rule the editing process on a low level by: or demanding editing the way they want it, or removing disliked edits without giving valid reason(s) (against WP:VAN). When a conflict arises with a particular editor, they have a majority and advantage of knowing better Wikipedia procedures, and they prevail, because editors do not know, how to prove sneaky vandalism of personal opinion justification - though in violation of WP:VAN, but often not obvious. Then it is necessary to establish, if the removed without valid reason edit was detrimental, which can be subjective, and they - having a majority - outvote anyone else, and inform sysops that the removed without valid reason edit was in fact detrimental even, if it wasn't, but since they have a majority, the sysop has no choice, but to believe them, unless he is an expert, which is not a case. So, often such defeated and frustrated inexperienced editors resort to the unfortunate protest of vandalism, and then you - the sysops - are called to protect both articles. So, protecting them serves the interest of those hijacking editors and not the articles themselves. So, please, end the protection of Diego Rivera ASAP, and do block only User:24.8.104.191 instead.
- Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- May I ask if you can provide any diffs for your statement of ownership? If you would like to edit the article, I suggest you get an account. If you'd like to request unprotection at WP:RPP, go ahead, but I feel that in this case, protection was justified. Again, I can lower the protection time if you'd like. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do would like you to lower the protection, please. It looks fair without requested diffs, so I do not like to use WP:RPP, and I think that you act in good faith, but I do not want to get an account until the issue of sneaky vandalism by registered users is addressed at least somehow. Such vandalism is described with requested diffs at:
- Talk:Diego Rivera#Sysops, repeated Blanking as vandalism (corrected)? in strong examples;
- Talk:Diego_Rivera#Vandalism? in an not so obvious example, but still as vandalism, because the edit was a detrimental and without valid reason(s) qualifying for the warning <{subst:uw-vandalism1|PageName}> (unintentional vandalism/test), but because made by experienced editor, so qualifying rather for the warning <{subst:uw-vandalism2|PageName}> (suitable for nonsense) per WP:VAN#Warnings (for reference see also Talk:Diego Rivera#A La Gauguin);
- Talk:Frida_Kahlo#Sysops, repeated Blanking as vandalism (corrected)? in very strong examples including malicious one described in Sec. I.
- Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do would like you to lower the protection, please. It looks fair without requested diffs, so I do not like to use WP:RPP, and I think that you act in good faith, but I do not want to get an account until the issue of sneaky vandalism by registered users is addressed at least somehow. Such vandalism is described with requested diffs at:
From what I've seen, Modernist was not being malicious or a vandal. I really don't see how WP:OWN is playing into all of this. Granted, maybe the removal of the citations was a bit iffy, but I have not seen any thing that is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." You are misunderstanding the concept of malicious blanking and vandalism. And really, your past conduct on Talk:Frida Kahlo was unacceptable. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have never denied PAST mistakes on Talk:Frida Kahlo. They were caused by frustration of not knowing Wikipedia procedures to fend off blanking of my edits - a possible cause of some Wikipedia vandalism at large by inexperienced editors, whose some contributions may be invaluable as the best in the field, and who just do not want to register. But, my past mistakes do not excuse vandalism by others, and - so - are irrelevant to the raised issue. How "the removal of the citations" without valid reason(s) can be just "iffy" and not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", please? Integrity means soundness, hence more citations (references) means more soundness. So, how fewer citations does not mean less soundness, which means exactly compromise of soundness, which means compromise of integrity, please? Then WP:VANDALISM is half-fake, and there is almost no protection of edits! Thanks for your time and attention. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to have a third opinion about this issue, since I perceive that we are having differing views about WP:OWNership of the articles and it would be a waste of time to try to argue each other's positions out. I believe you asked User:Newyorkbrad about this issue. See if he has any comments to make. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 05:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, it is pointless, though your position seems to be typical and to the best of your understanding of the policies, but - I think - not very strict partially due to the present definition of vandalism, which - as I argued in Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort" - seems to be incomplete allowing for vandalism with impunity, or - as you call it - "iffy" edits. My objective is that sneaky vandalism is better recognized and the vandals are blocked, instead of (over)protecting articles for 3 weeks, so User:Newyorkbrad is not needed to be bothered, when I intend improve Diego Rivera's lead, and added references by myself will not be "iffily" blanked with impunity, like the last time. I am outnumbered, and explaining every phrase and sentence to everyone can be very tedious especially to those having high school graduation ahead, but I have learnt my lesson, and I do not intend to repeat my past mistakes from Talk:Frida Kahlo. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- PS.: Or - maybe - explaining every phrase and sentence to everyone asking is the desired way to go. -70.18.5.219 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've lessened the protection to expire on the 20th of November. Personally, I think the vandalism policy is already clear enough in its present version, but I'd like to get back to research and not argue about policy interpretations. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I agree 100 %; the vandalism policy - if problematic for some - is way over our heads, but I made a contribution to its discussion in case there is room for improvement. Thanks a lot again. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 03:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey biblo
ya im back but its because what other things can i do except editing lol. wwell schools been a drag because they banned wikipedia using x-stop....bu i managed to get throu lol. well im passing to say hi :)Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky Talk
This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's
Thankspam
Thank you again and, best regards,
Neranei
This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.
GAR help
Hey, could you take a look at WP:GAR#Call_of_Duty_2 - the main thing needed is a development section, but I really don't have the time/enthusiasm (exams etc.) to go and do all that research :( Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that...the main thing missing still isn't there, but AndonicO (talk · contribs) promised me he'll have a go at it tomorrow. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Edits
Ah, don't feel bad. :) After all, there are many users who have far more edits than I do. :) Anyway, you're still a great editor, so don't worry. :) Acalamari 02:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers
I replied on my talk page. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Lists of basic topics WikiProject status report
I've just created List of basic human anatomy topics. It's not complete. Please look it over to see if there is anything you can fill in.
Also, we've got a pretty long wish list of basic topics lists that don't yet exist. Please adopt a topic from the list and create a basic list for it -- the {{BLT}} template is for creating basic topic lists, and is used like this: {{subst:BLT|topic|Topic}} (where "topic" is the name of the topic being covered). Instructions are included on the template. Once the page is created with the heading skeleton, fill it in to the best of your ability. Post a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists of basic topics to let the whole team know what you are working on.
The Transhumanist 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Invisible Barnstar | |
| For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/C 05:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Animal List
I'm one person, I don't care either way but if you take it from one you should remove them all in my eyes, but not many people will like it and quite a few will oppose removing it from the articles, as for the screen shot you asked me to take I have posted it on the articles page, feel free to move it where ever you feel it needs to goTriceratops9 (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1). As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki. I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me. Gratefully, EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
Moved from user page
why delete my actual article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniopinheiro (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 November 2007
RFA:
Woah, that's very flattering (In fact, about 3 people have asked recently!), but I'm not planning to be available for the next month or so. I just want to make sure that all my previous problems are left faaaar behind me. So again, thank you very much for the offer, but for the time being, I'll have to decline. Maybe in a month or two. :\ Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and great to hear from you again! I've picked up a couple more FAs, as well as a FL and FP since we last talked if I remember correctly... Hope to see you around a bit more - I've been a bit dormant the last few days (I've run out of steam on a particular article I'm getting ready for FAC with another editor, so have been doing other things until I regain interest). Well have a great day. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
If you hate RfA thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you in retaliation for deleting it ;-)
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Komodo Dragon vs. Komodo dragon
Hi! Thanks for your note on the common names. There is no hard and fast rule for most animals, but it has been the common convention with bird names for many years to capitalise the first letter of each major part of the common name - hence Bald Eagle, Common Crow, Black Swan. See, for example, the notes at: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Animals and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:BIRD#Bird_names_and_article_titles. This general rule - for some reason - has not always been applied to other orders of animals - I am not sure why.
However, the capitalising of common English names is becoming much more widely used, and so you will frequently see names written like: "Sign-bearing Froglet" (rather than "Sign-bearing froglet") and "Ornate Soil-crevice Skink" (rather than "Ornate Soil-crevice skink"), Alpine Cool-skink (rather than Alpine cool-skink) or Curl Snake (rather than Curl snake). None of these forms is "incorrect", but it is certainly becoming more standard to capitalise.
There are good reasons for this. First it clearly shows that the last part of the name is seperate from the first and to some degree classificatory - thus, Froglet, Snake, Monitor, etc. In the case of the Komodo Dragon I think it usefully emphasises that we are not talking about some other sort of "dragon" (perhaps raising thoughts of dragons in mythology), and that it is a shortened form of the name of a real animal. Thus, I think it especially important to refer to them as Dragons rather than dragons when the first name (Komodo) is dropped - as was the case in the article. Finally, I think it is best to stick with one convention to improve consistancy and prevent confusion and I don't see why the convention should be limited to birds.
However, as I said above, your method of naming is certainly not "wrong" (there are not really rigid rules for common names - as for scientific names) - I just think that capitalisation is not only becoming more commonplace, I believe it is preferable. Over to you. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
RFA thanks
|
Dear Bibliomaniac15,
Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence and perceptiveness. |
My RFA
I'm putting it on the main page right now. Useight 04:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
User *bj*
In regards to in-progress vandalism with repeat warnings, is a user allowed to remove those warnings while they continue to vandalize? (i.e. does WP:DRC apply in this case?) such as this ++Arx Fortis 04:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow...that seems to make it very difficult to maintain Wikipedia against vandals...and rather hard to know how many warnings a user has received without backtracking through the edit history of their talk page. It also, seems very counter to common sense. A user who continuously vandalizes should, as a result, lose their right to remove warnings from their talk page...at least for a time. Are there any ongoing discussions about this or is the issue pretty much closed? ++Arx Fortis 04:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Coaching
Certainly - thanks for the offer! What's the first step? JavaTenor 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've taken a first pass at answering the questions. JavaTenor 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded to the checklist questions. (Would you prefer I not post updates on your talk page? I don't want to be a pest) JavaTenor 05:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
re: [3]
Ah, thank you very much. I knew there was a page somewhere, I just didn't know where I had come across it. I will bookmark that and use it next time. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
FAC
I did some change in the Bonuses of Metroid Prime at your FAC requests, so see if you can support now or more things need to be done. igordebraga ≠ 13:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Template for trolls
I made it using your code - just type Trollshere in between the { brackets. Tourskin (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The article The Death of Hyacinthos says that the painting is in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Poitiers, but the "disambiguation" page at Musée des Beaux-Arts doesn't mention that there is one in Poitiers. Is the Musée des Beaux-Arts page wrong? Corvus cornixtalk 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll just add Poitiers to the list. :) Corvus cornixtalk 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Request for page protection
Thanks for semi-protecting Ian Eagle. There's only so much I can revert! Took me ages to work out how to request protection, glad I did it successfully. Although I forgot to add the type of protection being requested - now I know for next time :) Somno (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're not willing to protect this page despite the ridiculously high amounts of vandalism for an image, then perhaps you'll be willing to watchlist it and revert, especially if I'm not around. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
JavaTenor
I was looking over your admin coaching page with JavaTenor and found a spot where you asked him if he had ever "Requested a vandal at AIV", which I found hilarious. Like he's hiring a hitman or something. Thanks for brightening my morning. Useight (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Copyright issues
I think there might be a mistake that may have been pinned on me. I have NOT uploaded ANY images recently, much less any copyrighted ones. Second, I put an image on the Katherine Heigl article that was in the Izzie Stevens article. Honestly, I just assume that the image was ok. Not really my fault that it wasn't. --Charleenmerced Talk 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- What image are you talking about? Cause I have not put any fair image rationale in any Katherine Heigl picture. --Charleenmerced Talk 02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, but I did not upload that picture, did not put any tags on it, or licensing tags or anything on it. I just used it on the Katherine H article cause I thought it was ok since it was on teh Izzie Stevens article. --Charleenmerced Talk 02:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Protection conflict
Looks like we conflicted. :) Acalamari 04:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey, thanks for everything. I'm going to do a run through New Admin School and then hope to get started on admin tasks. Your help has been greatly appreciated. Useight (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wampas...
Have a frickin sense of humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.142.218 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- "There are places for a sense of humor, but vandalizing an article is unacceptable. If you'd like to spread your humor, go to Uncyclopedia instead."
No thanks, I prefer Encyclopidia Dramatica... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.142.218 (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hannah Montana
Hmm... upon closer inspection, perhaps that was not vandalism. I don't really see why the running gags section should be in the article either. As for the trivia blurb, that is a rather interesting tidbit. I'll see if I can work that into the article more gracefully. Xizer (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
I would like to thank you for wanting to Merge my information, it helps a lot.--DarkFierceDeityLink 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Rob Bell article
Thank you for locking the Rob Bell article! Users have been abusing their revert abilities to play admin by censoring ANY critical content. For a current summary of the dispute, I would look here: [4]
Thanks! -- Gump (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Admin coaching?
I saw that you were listed on Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status, and was wondering if you had enough time to coach me. I could understand if you were too busy. Thanks! Malinaccier (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for accepting! I don't know what you have in mind, but I'm willing to start whenever you can. (this is my sock to use on Public computers) •Malinaccier Public• T/C 13:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
RE: well done...
Thanks! JERRY talk contribs 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to let you know I goofed in my report on AIV, the first 3 vandalisms were before the 24-hr block, I misread the times. But the last 2 vandalisms were after the block expired, so it still was a good report. You blocked him before I could fix my report. Just an FYI in case it ever comes back to bite anyone. Regards.--12 Noon 2¢ 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bibliomaniac,
As you are aware, I've submitted Massospondylus for FAC. Because you were the reviewer during the article's GA candidacy, I want to make sure that your concerns for the article have been properly addressed. It has been specifically requested that I ask the folks who have been involved in the review process to possibly weigh in on what they think the article still needs, or what additional improvements can be made. In your case, you asked that the Greek lettering for Masson be included, that more info linking Plateosaurus and Massospondylus be added, and that the Paleoecology section should be expanded. Have your concerns been addressed, or do you feel there is still something missing or potentially actionable? I want the process to be as open as possible, and want to be open to ideas for improvement. As you've already edited the FAC discussion page, you clearly know where the discussion page is, so I won't insult your intelligence by providing a link to a page you've clearly already seen. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Death of Hyacinthos
Question regarding this translation request, I see that this character from Greek mythology is also referred to as Hyacinth (Hyacinth (mythology) and also Hyacinthus; are you sure about the name of the painting being Hyacinthos? Regards, Vrac (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The translation is finished, one last thing: you seem to do some work in the area of mythology so maybe you can help, there are a couple of references to names and places for which I could not find equivalents in English:
In this phrase there is a reference to Permesse and Hypocrène, which appear to be bodies of water: "at times he lives with them on Mount Parnassus, or Mount Helicon, or Mount Pieris, or on the banks of the Permesse and the Hypocrène;" Could not find equivalents for Permesse, Hypocrène.
And the French text has a reference to Clymène as being one of Apollos's lovers, I couldn't find any reference to her in English so I think the French text may be referring to Cyrene (but Clymene would not normally translate to Cyrene so I'm not sure...) Here is the sentence: "He alternately burns with desire for Daphne, Clytia, Coronis, and Cyrene."
Obviously not terribly important but they are details that could be cleaned up. Vrac (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA?
I think you've grown a lot since a year and a half ago. If you'd like to take it up again, just give me a line and I'll be happy to start your nom page. bibliomaniac15 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks a lot, on both counts.
- I think that would be lovely. I wasn't going to actively go for it myself for a while yet, but your message seems to indicate that at least somebody doesn't see a great need for me to wait.
- Thanks again, and see you around.
- Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 18:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've created it. Tell me if you'd like something to be changed in my nom statement. Please answer the questions if you'd like, then transclude it onto the RFA page (you've done this before, just making sure). bibliomaniac15 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've accepted the nomination and transcluded. Thanks once again for your kind words. - Revolving Bugbear 21:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi there! Just a quick note to say "thanks very much" for your comments on my recent RfA, which was successful. I'll be doing my best to use the tools carefully and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Thanks again! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to alert you about the response I have made to your concerns in this FAC and the problems that have been addressed. As for "maybe passable GA", surely that's a bit harsh? Anywho, I hope you can help me further in addressing problems with the article. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
religion?
wat religion r u?--Dlo2012 (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
well i was thinking a little more specifically, what kind of christian r u? and no its not related to the question on the reference desk.--Dlo2012 (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The account
Ha ha, thanks for spotting that one. :) I blocked Ae seeae ellae emmae are eye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Em eye ess zeeae thirteen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the other day. There seems to be someone going around at the moment creating usernames that spell out the usernames of administrators that have blocked them. Can we expect a spell-out of Bibliomaniac15 soon? :) My own spoofer list is getting bigger. Thanks again. Acalamari 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Already been done several times unfortunately. The user either uses a different IP, or just waits until the account creation block and the autoblock wear off. Acalamari 18:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
An Administrator is I!
Hey, bibliomaniac -- a sincere thanks for your thoughtful nomination for adminship. The overwhelming support in my RfA (37/0/2) was exciting and flattering. And your kind and encouraging words set it all in motion. So, without further ado, here it is: Wikipedia's (probably) first ever KoL-themed RfA thanks:
.svg)
Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!
Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.
I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.
Thanks again.
An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear 22:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with, today it's the turn of the "B"s and "C"s! I'm hoping at least one of you chaps will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm....
[5]. Acalamari 18:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like it! :) Acalamari 19:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: China
Hey Bibliomaniac, I would just like to say that IMO, I should have been informed about the unprotection of this article. Obviously, you do not need me to approve any actions you have or will take, but I like to be kept informed about high risk articles that I have protected, especially when the sockmaster is still up to his games (his last attack on my talk page was about 4 days ago). nat.utoronto 07:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 21:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)