Jump to content

User talk:Sole Soul/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About segregate-refs.js

[edit]

I noticed that you are using my references segregator script (segregate-refs.js) and want to give you the heads up that I will no longer (at least for now) support the Internet Explorer web browser as I will shortly update the script with some bug fixes and a new feature. If you, by chance, are using Internet Explorer (and therefore the button for this script disappears), I recommend switching to another browser if you want to continue using the script. If you are not using IE, please disregard this message. Thank you. PleaseStand (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Fortunately, I use FF. Sole Soul (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

[edit]

3RR

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheeri Cabral page

[edit]

Thank you for your questions on the talk page for this BLP: Sheeri Cabral. I agree with your conclusion - that this page is currently borderline for notability but clear of COI. I think that this article can be improved, given time. Paul (User:Lpgeffen) (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holligan

[edit]

Hi. I have reluctantly, and narrowly, declined your A7 speedy on this; a "hangon" was placed, and it could be argued that significance is asserted. We may as well let the AfD finish it off, so that the author doesn't think he is being persecuted by a lone "trigger happy mod" (useful phrase from my morning's mail). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

[edit]

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

[edit]
Delivered: 21:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

[edit]

Article renaming discussion notification

[edit]

You commented earlier on Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident concerning a proposal to move the article to a neutral compromise title. A formal move request has now been filed. Please feel free to add your view to the discussion at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Requested move. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

[edit]

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

[edit]
Delivered: 15:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

AfD nomination of Vanity 800 Numbers

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vanity 800 Numbers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanity 800 Numbers. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

[edit]

Jesse Ventura

[edit]

I reverted your addition to the talk page, not because your analysis was incorrect but because the RFC you were commenting on was already a week stale and the editors in question found sources for the information they wished to include. The article space is no longer in contention so perhaps any comment on the editors behaviour would be best directed to their talkpage. Basically I didn't want to set things off there again since we managed to solve that situation with discussion already. I hope you understand. Weakopedia (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

[edit]

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

[edit]
Delivered: 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Harold Rhode

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Harold Rhode requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

In response to your removed remark, I think the answer is, Because they want to save those people from themselves. Who are these Village Pump Developmentalists to decide they want a new village pump to discuss their ideas in? What gave them the impetuous audacity to vote with their feet for a different way of incubating new proposals, rather than continuing to have 90+% of their proposals get shot down immediately at WP:VPPR? Let us burn the whole thing down and salt the earth so that they become demoralized to the point of never trying such a crazy stunt again. Tisane (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is because this new place is denying some people from saying their favourite phrase: Strong oppose. Sole Soul (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kontras

[edit]

Thank you so much for your support in the argument for my latest article for deletion. Wikipedia has been a valuable resource for the establishment of my career, and has led to interviews and some notoriety. Once again, I thank you so much for your support. Adam kontras (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

[edit]

What's the status of the special bot for troublesome IPs?

[edit]

Hi,

Back when folks were discussing the soft block for troublesome IPs, I remember reading your proposal for a specially vigilant bot and it sounded to me like the best solution. Then I just stumbled on your follow-up, so I'm wondering what came of it? Is it true that Cluebot can just be programmed to be extra vigilant over troublesome IPs?

PS I blocked myself out of my account during finals, so if you could respond at user talk:Agradman that would be great.

Peace,

160.39.221.164 (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

[edit]

Format Fix

[edit]

Hello Sole Soul, I put a new Headline above your comment since it wasn't directly related to my one. I Hope this is OK with you. Kind regards from Bavaria.--Nemissimo (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was my mistake. Sole Soul (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

[edit]

After deadline

[edit]

Done. Thank you! Tony (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

[edit]

The Gore Effect AfD

[edit]

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect (2nd nomination). A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

[edit]

Reviewer granted

[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 18:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, I just granted this out of force-of-habit of granting users I recognize who have other userrights, but I see you've already been intimately involved commenting on the reviewer userright but I suppose intentionally did not request it. If you want me to remove it, just let me know. –xenotalk 18:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Xeno. I didn't request it simply because I did not expect to use it, especially in the first few days where only handful of pages are protected. Thank you again. Sole Soul (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, right now it's a race to review revisions. But you can use it on the test beds =) –xenotalk 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I bet you half of the edits in those pages are by reviewers logging off, making the edits, and then logging on and reviewing their own edits. Sole Soul (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
heh. –xenotalk 20:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

[edit]

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America

[edit]

The article List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America has been submitted to the Articles for deletion process.

As you were involved in the previous deletion discussion for this article, I thought I would inform you of the new discussion;

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

[edit]

Filter 279

[edit]

Thanks, but that condition is already in the filter (more or less) and it doesn't help. I'll give you more details by email if you're interested (it's a private filter and one of the most watchworthy ones in my opinion). I'm thinking that at least some false positives could be ameliorated if the warning messages were clearer, which is something I planned to do once I was promoted to admin, but haven't gotten around to yet. —Soap— 10:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw some users with no contributions affected by this filter, I assumed that that condition was not in the filter; now I realize that these users had deleted contributions. Yes I'm interested, and I assure you that I will not discuss anything you send me on-wiki. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did get your email, but have been busy lately and just got to reading it now. My presence on Wikipedia is really going to be minimal until September because Im spending more than 50 hours a week at work, so I wonder if it might be good to bring up a suggestion like this on the Edit filter talk page (ideally without revealing the code of the filter as it is today). personally I think your idea is too lenient, but Im out of ideas for what else can be done, so I would not object if no one else did. I'll be back to large scale editing in a few months. —Soap— 10:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your work here has been great, good luck for you in your real life. I would like to examine the log of this filter more before making any suggestion. Without going into specifics, we can say this filter worked as it supposed to, if it prevented an action that otherwise would not have been prevented. My theory which I would like to test is that: most of the bad edits prevented by this filter are prevented by other filters anyway, and hence the FPs of this filter outweigh its benefits. Sole Soul (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

[edit]

AN/I notice

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (specifically regarding IP 92.82.0.102) elektrikSHOOS 01:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

[edit]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Sole Soul. You have new messages at Od Mishehu's talk page.
Message added 09:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

[edit]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

[edit]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

[edit]

Evolution of policies

[edit]

I found it interesting what you mentioned on User talk:Jimbo Wales about the history of IAR. I was wondering if you were interested (or even had the time) in setting up an informal wikiproject to do a study on how policies/guidelines have evolved; both through time in the English version but also across the different language versions, two examples- How does Russian or French Wikipedia differ from each other; and 2- how has consensus changed policies across two Wikipedia's where one was a language "spin-off" of another, a case study could be done with Norwegian Wikipedia which has two different Wikipedia's each based on a distinct dialect. Did the two Wikipedia's evolve over the last 6 years in the same direction with the same policies or are there some distinct differences that can be pointed to based on the same issue being resolved with a different consensus in each? Just as DNA drifts in evolution of plants and animals at a specific period that can be measured I am curious to find out if such a scientific approach could be done to Wikipedia. Could future generations without knowing when the two Norwegian Wikipedia's diverged be able to use a scientifically based look at the differences in policies and say "they diverged in 2004", similar to DNA tests on two animal groups can tell roughly when they diverged from a parent group. That might not be a realistic goal, but I am still curious in the differences of Wikipedias from a psychological perspective on group-relations.Camelbinky (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I interested? very, do I have the time? I doubt it. I think an informal project that document the history of Wikipedia in general is a great idea. I would be interested in reading (and hopefully participating in) a page that lists policies and links to pages where they where first proposed/discussed. Sole Soul (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

Requested edit filter

[edit]

Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Small_addition_consist_of_obscenities. I tried creating it, and you can see my comments. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you be interested in simply, you know, having edit filter priveledges? You've certainly demonstrated yourself competent (more competent than me, anyway), and I'd be happy to put you on as long as no one objects at WT:AF. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the offer. Yes, I'm interested. I will collect some links, and, hopefully, in the next day or two I will ask for the tool at WT:AF. But even I got it, don't expect me to stop visiting your talk page to ask you something about it :) Sole Soul (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]

Vlastimil Bubník

[edit]

Vlastimil Bubník made an interview on 2008-11-28, so he can't died in 2002. --Gampe (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sole_Soul/Archive_2&oldid=1140548683"