User talk:Gracenotes/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Welcome to Gracenotes's talk page! Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

---

Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15

Mail

Just to let you know, you've got mail :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What about being an admin?

I'm first in line, read the comment above and make what you want of it! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay! --Iamunknown 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

/me prepares his co-nom :). Sean William 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Better make it snappy! Snowolf and Ryan beat ya to it ;) --Iamunknown 23:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your support. I accept, I guess. I have slight reservations about co-noms, but if you want to, go ahead. (Not like I've done anything hugely important!) Gracenotes^T § 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA nomination

Question for you, GN. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey man, in real life I've asked you if you wanted to be an admin, but you refused, you changed mind now? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a couple of months ago; I hadn't done all of the article work I would have wanted to do. Gracenotes^T § 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack

Your answer to Slim's question has incurred opposition, it's not too late to change it. I'd advise you to change to answers so other admins who come over will not oppose you again. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, changing one's mind is not always a sign of weakness. As of now, however, I remain true to the post's original meaning, not to the opposers' interpretation. Gracenotes^T § 20:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your rfa is certainly causing controversy, stay with it, SqueakBox 20:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

One man' "personal attack" is another man's exposing conflict of interest. I refuse to "vote" on admin polls but thought I'd chime in on the idiocy ongoing with RFA's of anyone who dare thinks on a case by case basis ;-) Piperdown 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Award

I hereby award Gracenotes the Samuel Alito Award for his controversial Adminship nomination. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you like it? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That my adminship has been compared to Samuel Alito is surely an insult to Samuel Alito :P Gracenotes^T § 01:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How so? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The nation was caught up in Alito's nomination: what were his merits, how would he vote, what are his agendas? I guess you could see mine as a microcosm, but the issues here are not as influential as those that are associated with a candidate for the Supreme Court ;) Gracenotes^T § 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, just take the award as a regular barnstar. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that'll come when you run for ArbCom. muwahahahaha - David Gerard 14:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

SMH

Why did you revert my edit to SMH. Have a look through the pages' history, loads of different people have wanted it as a redirect, as it originally was, but an ip from the hospital keeps trying to turn it into a disambiguation page that mentions that hospital. --144.132.216.253 01:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be noted that the 'loads of different people' have primarily been from one IP namespace - 144.132.*.* - and one of the others was a confirmed sockpuppeteer - user:Rugby 666. Dibo ^{T | C} 12:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that is fine with me. --144.132.216.253 13:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Adminship request

Hi. The most recent comment in opposition of your adminship request (#29) refers to the behaviour of an indefinitely blocked user, User:Dabljuh, and appears to use your interaction with that user as partial grounds for opposition. However, I haven't been able to find any such interaction – indeed, you had fewer than 60 edits at the time of Dablijuh's final block. I fear you may have yet again been confused with Grace Note and have left TShilo12 a message requesting clarification on this matter. If there is in fact some interaction between you and this user, let me know and I'll retract my comment, but it does seem odd (especially since the user was described as "antisemitic"). As you are aware, I'm sufficiently disgusted with the request itself that I no longer wish to make further comment there. Thanks – Gurch 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang in there, gracey. Making statements that you think practicality and logic should be applied, rather than sweeping blind actions, will win you more support's than oppose's. There's really no way to both be objective and completely appease victims. (That's why victims of crimes don't get to choose the punishment of criminals.) Bladestorm 19:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Typo in RFA

Where you said [2] "I'm not a fan of removing links with examining " I think you meant "without examining" instead of "with examining"

RfA - question 9

Hi. The purpose for my question, other than to qualify that you know how a diplomatic silence is sometimes a better option, was to draw the attention of the 'crat to the point that a lot of the oppose voters are using your GF responses to build a case "lack of adherence to policy". I think you have said enough to convice an unbiased reader one way or another. If you can leave it alone to run its course, unless there are any inaccuracies, and maintain a dignified distance.

I am looking forward to welcoming you to the admin cabal in a few days. ;~) LessHeard vanU 11:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cancel my subscription! I wonder if the admin non-cabal is accepting any applicants... Gracenotes^T § 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that he (or is it she?) is. LessHeard vanU 22:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my user page. Rapigan 16:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Gracenotes^T § 16:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA...

is the most depressing thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's the first time that something has really shaken my faith about the project. You are being butchered for an opinion, not an action but an opinion, that you expressed in good faith. What's more, your opinion is being deliberately distorted by those making a political point. We've never crossed paths before, but I wanted to let you know that I, for one, am disgusted and disturbed. And as pointed out above, many more people support you than oppose. Wikipedia needs hundreds more editors just like you, and I'm deeply sorry, both for you and for the project, that they haven't materialized yet. --JayHenry 16:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Some javascript help, please

Hey, Gracie! Mind if I pick your brains for some help with a javascript function?

function nonfree()
{
   var desc = document.getElementById("wpUploadDescription");
   desc.value = '{{Non-free media rationale
|Description=
|Source=
|Portion=
|Resolution=
|Purpose=
|Replaceability=
|other_information=
}}';
}

This is supposed to add {{non-free media rationale}} to the description box on Special:Upload, but for some reason, it doesn't work, and I don't know why. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 23:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the ECMAScript interpreter doesn't know where the string ends; this is called an unterminated string literal. The code should be:

function nonfree()
{
   var desc = document.getElementById("wpUploadDescription");
   desc.value = '{{Non-free media rationale\n'+
'|Description=\n'+
'|Source=\n'+
'|Portion=\n'+
'|Resolution=\n'+
'|Purpose=\n'+
'|Replaceability=\n'+
'|other_information=\n'+
'}}';
}

Gracenotes^T § 01:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Thank you, it worked! Here's this starry little treasure for all the javascript tools you've written or helped written to improve the encyclopedia - I know I'm not the only one! Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 15:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Common.css

Are you good with CSS? I think I have heard that you are. There is a problem with the way Template:Infobox U.S. state dispays in certain IE browsers, lines with footnotes get screwed up. See InfoboxUS states display problems.jpg for an example screenshot. I have traced the problem to the .infobox.geography .mergedrow part of MediaWiki:Common.css. However neither I nor CMummert (who responded to my editprotected request) really know how to fix it. Could you either advise on the MediaWiki talkpage on how to fix it or on my talk page as to how to redo the template to get around this (or just edit the template yourself), this css may be used in other templates as well so a change to the css file would be best I think. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:(

:(

Re: Script

thread

diff

No comment...

Gracenotes^T § 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate to say I told you so. Anyway, suggestion: move the script to User:Gracenotes/a.js (leaving a redirect from the current name so as not to break existing summaries). That allows the names to be an extra seven characters longer without breaking. If that's still not enough, create a sockpuppet with a shorter username and put the script in their userspace – Gurch 12:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Add a search engine

Hi, I noticed you were the creator of the .js for the "enhanced search". Could you please add Exalead's Wikipedia search engine? http://www.exalead.com/wikipedia/results?q=

Exalead took care to do a search engine with specific features for Wikipedia, asking for feedback from the Wikipedia community (mainly fr: but not only) so I think we could acknowledge that effort. What do you think? David.Monniaux 12:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I shall suggest it to the community. Cheers, Gracenotes^T § 17:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

One week after, nobody protested... Thus I did it. David.Monniaux 15:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All right. Works great for me :) Gracenotes^T § 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

Sorry about that. In order to find where I wanted to put my comment, I needed to copy the text into a text editor, 'find' the section, and then copy it back in. I guess the process ditched something.
But, if you don't mind my asking, what is the actual difference between the two versions? In my browser, you appear to be changing a question mark into, um, a question mark. Is it some sort of foreign character? Bladestorm 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, your browser couldn't understand it. Sometimes, bots do that with special characters (and they have to blocked, or otherwise stopped/fixed). Maybe if you saved the text editor file, you did so in the wrong encoding... it could be a couple of things, I guess. Gracenotes^T § 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't save it. It's probably just that my browser didn't support the character (which meant there wasn't a valid character to 'copy'). Just wondering, what was the character anyways? Bladestorm 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a phone to me :) I can't find it anywhere on the Unicode charts, though... Gracenotes^T § 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT, this is "black telephone", in Miscellaneous Symbols, 0x260e in Unicode spec. HTH. PS. I agree with comment made above by JayHenry... Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Bladestorm 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I considered that, but I thought that the telephone on the chart looked a little less "filled in" than the one Chairboy et al. use. Nevermind, it's not that important :) Gracenotes^T § 01:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

A similar thing happened to me that is happening to you in my RfA a couple of months ago. Sorry for not adding a support vote to your RfA, but I wasn't aware of it until it was already closed. I hope that you won't be too upset by what happened with your RfA (if it doesn't succeed) and will continue helping out the project, knowing that many, including myself, aren't too pleased by a lot of the stuff going on in here. Cla68 02:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There's an allegation hidden among the comments that you've been active on Wikipedia Review. Nobody there seems to think this is true, and I'm now wondering whether I missed some statement of yours. Anyway, I think you're being treated dreadfully in this. Mangoe 14:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Five posts to the site mainly intended to correct them on errors of fact, presumably in the hope that they might actually produce some constructive criticism if they knew what they were talking about. Of course, that was swung round to "actively contributes to attack sites", which seems to be par for the course now. Ugh. – Gurch 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. Right now Jayjg is engaging in character assasination against me on the Wiki-en-l list because it is apparently obvious that by participating in WR and not denoucing their perfidy, I'm obviously filled to the brim with Evil Motives. Mangoe 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile

A yellow rose for Gracenotes.

Look at the stars...look how they shine for you...and everything you do... - "Yellow" - Coldplay Real96 10:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I missed your rfa, which I'm a little miffed about, I would have liked to have gone in either as a co-nom or a strong supporter. Hope it all works out. Steve block Talk 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently I mixed you up with Grace Note, which is somewhat embarrasing. Still, it happens. Steve block Talk 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No harm done. Happy editing, Gracenotes^T § 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And what of the user who opposed you with a meaningless rationale based on the fact that you were Grace Note, and the undetermined but almost certainly non-zero number of other users who supported/opposed without checking this? Quite a lot of harm done, I'd say – Gurch 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of the chance you take when you select a user name that's similar to someone else's. But hardly any harm done, except to your own reputation, Gurch. I think he probably gained a couple and lost a couple. Grace Note 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry your RfA has turned into such a mess, Gracenotes. If it is reopened, could I urge you to reconsider your position on linking to attack sites, and to make a strong statement that you do not support it? I don't like blanket bans or policies on this kind of thing, but I don't think we should even give a hint of supporting the "outing" of our fellow editors, nor of supporting the kind of stuff some on the site that must not be mentioned post. I'm not particularly convinced by those who suggest there's a useful purpose in linking to them because it's not an encyclopaedic purpose, merely an aid to internal politics. I don't think it's worth the hurt it causes some editors to support links for that purpose. I'm not saying you do support the links, of course, only that given the plain upset it causes some that you seem to be more considerate of those who want to link out to it than of those who are hurt by it, you might consider a strong statement that you do not support linking to sites that do not have an encyclopaedic purpose. Grace Note 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest another possible approach. there is nothing it being an admin that would necessarily involve you in BLP issues more than any editor is; & that you will have to more power to delete & undelete than any of the other 1200 have, who are already covering the entire spectrum of views. I suggest a simple statement that you would never act against consensus here or elsewhere., as there is no way this issue can be discussed which is not going to be divisive. I read the current b'crat discussions as a effort not to add to the problem themselves.DGG 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made such a statement here, and no one has responded to it (also see this further thought on the matter). I have also made such a statement here. I do intend on following consensus, but no one has responded to statements indicating this. Gracenotes^T § 00:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA (Again)

Gracenotes, I'm considering reopening this. I have the firm support of one very long-term bureaucrat and the acquiescence of several others. Because of the circumstances of the nomination, I am hard pressed to determine whether or not consensus has been reached. The nearest analog I can think was the 2004 nomination of User:Quadell[3]. His nomination had been proceeding normally when he was accused of damaging Wikipedia by an action he had taken and the oppositions began piling on. Since the accusations were based on an assumption that may or may not have been true, I contacted User:Jimbo for his take on the situation. Jimbo's response satisfied most of the critics and Quadell went on to become a highly-valued contributor and admin. Please let me know if you're open to either (1) a "new" nomination for seven days as I had earlier suggested or (2) an "extension" of perhaps three days with the votes in place but new information added to clarify your stance. My own opinion is that the latter might be somewhat messy because of all the verbiage. Either way I would strongly urge you to prepare a new, coherent, RfA statement outlining exactly how you would approach the disputed issue, as well as any other information as to what kind of admin you would be. Please let me know when you have come to a decision. -- Cecropia 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this, I really can't see the need for a candidate that has over 74% support from the community (over 200 people) with the opposing parties merely saying per this and per that when in fact the things that they were opposing for would have no effect on Gracenotes as an administrator to run through RfA again. This is a complete mess, we've got a vote going on at WT:RFA looking at peoples hurt feelings if it doesn't go their way, what's this for? The side with the most hurt feelings wins? BN has turned into a shambles with the current 'crats not even willing to make a descision on what to do about it let alone whether or not to promote. The community has explicitly rejected the thought of a re-run - no one can unserdtand why we need we can't get a consensus from the current RfA. That said, if you do decide on the above option, let me know and I'll write out a new nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too much pressure on them, but I feel that the crats should reach some sort of decision. If they refuse, perhaps I shall run again in several weeks, approximately modeled after Cecropia's suggestion at the noticeboard. I don't need adminship, let alone exigently :) Gracenotes^T § 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes, I understand that you do not want this reopened right away. I will open a chat with the Bureaucrats to see whether we can come to a decision. I see your willingness to possibly run again in several weeks. -- Cecropia 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; best of luck in arriving at some decision. Gracenotes^T § 16:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I admire the desire to run again, but why want to bother with administrative maintenance tasks when people seem to disregard or misunderstand what you actually do? –Pomte 06:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It ain't over till the fat lady sings

"If you want to move the page, you are going to have to request it at requested moves; if that's too officious, I'll request the move for you." If you wouldn't mind… seems a no-brainer. thx 131.252.230.164 20:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

Haha. I was just making some adjustments(I just use my user page to hold my recent changes list), I just noticed this. Thanks for the laugh :P Wikidan829 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Script

Thanks for the note. I didn't know why it wasn't working, and good luck getting it back in operation! Sacratomato 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Also thanks for welcome. I'm not new though, I just forgot my password and started with a newSacratomato 21:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Need input from you

Gracenotes, the bureaucrat consensus appears to be that we will want to reopen your RfA at 0/0/0 with links to the first RfA. You can participate to whatever extent you wish, but at the least I think a new, cohesive, statement of your approach to the issue brought up by SlimVirgin and Musical Linguist would be useful, as well as whatever else you care to write. The bureaucrats will try to keep it on track. This is important to Wikipedia because it has the potential to be a first step in restoring some of the consensus-seeking and sense of collegiality that once were more common in the "Admin Corps."

Please tell me, either here, on my talk or, if you prefer, at the Bureaucrat Chat Talk. If you don't wish to do this now, would you be ready in time for next weekend? If you don't want to do this at all, the current proposal would close the RfA as undecided and I'm sure the same or a similar issue will pop up again. Feel free to ask me any questions, or you can ask all the bureaucrats watching this at your RfA Chat Talk. Cheers, Cecropia 16:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Blume mit Schmetterling und Biene – "Flowers with butterfly and bee"

Gracenotes, I hope you are doing well on your tests! I see you are up to no good again ;), and am amazed (as always) at your programming skills. Keep strong (hey, you made it to WP:200!); I hope you will enjoy this tableau of flowers and let it brighten your day! Cheers, Iamunknown 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Pretty flowers; how boldly they grace my user talk page. I am excited about the code (although it has a couple of rather idiotic bugs that need fixing, not impairing function, but not elegant either), and hope to use it someday. Gracenotes^T § 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like them! BTW, when did you start learning Java? I'm learning C++ at this point, but it is a bit more difficult to interface with HTML servers, seeing as how there aren't standard classes to call as in Java ;) I hope to make something useful at some point, but first I will need to learn object-oriented programming rather than procedural programming. *sigh* --Iamunknown 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I forgot to mention to you that I opened an RfC on myself because of some concerns raised during my RfA. Some of the concerns may be similar to some raised during your RfA so I invite to review the RfC and I welcome any comments or questions you might have. CLA 03:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please?

Gracenotes, we will need to do one of the following:

1. Restart your RfA with your consent now.
2. Restart your RfA with your consent in the near future.
3. Close the RfA

Please choose one. Thanks, Cecropia 13:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

4.  ???

5.  Profit!

– Gurch 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes 2

I've created a new nomination for adminship as it looks like the current one is heading for a re-run, I think it may be best to take this option now, as it's been in limbo long enough, hopefully it's somethink that everyone can agree with. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, think it may be best to decline, and I am unsure why Cecropia thinks he can force this upon you simply by asking again and again until you accept. The bureaucrats are clearly not going to "determine consensus" (frankly I think they wouldn't recognize a consensus if it arrived by taxi) and to be honest, we might as well just leave it at that – Gurch 16:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If I run again (meh), I will make a self-nom (if not a long one), mainly to avoid redundancy. I sincerely hope that this will not be too much of a problem. Ryan, thank you very much for your advocacy and your encouragement. Cheers, Gracenotes^T § 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And....... it's gone! I really hope you do decide to run again - you should have been promoted this time round - I still can't get over how much the 'crats have messed this one up - it's taken a week to get a handfull of them to comment. Oh well, best of luck with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:-( I hope you do run again. --Iamunknown 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It was an honour to have supported you and will be a pleasure to do so again... as and when. LessHeard vanU 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You will have my support as before, and I'm sure you will decide that it is better not to stop now. DGG 01:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)