User:Jni/Archive/4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your support at my RfA. I pledge to use the mop and bucket wisely. Still awaiting the bulldozer though. -R. fiend 17:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bancassurance

I've reverted to the original template, as you seem not to have noticed that you were editing a Protected page — it's thus not possible to follow the instructions on the template you added. It had to be protected because an anon keeps recreating the dictionary-definition article that was transwikified to Wiktionary. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

There was a discussion some time ago where it was decided that empty articles with {{wiktionary}} should be ideally avoided, or replaced by {{wi}}. Currently this is the only instance where that has not been done. The edit link in template does not matter to the least, anyone can ask this to be unprotected via the normal route for such requests. Besides, I don't see any traces of vandalism here, just a couple misguided anons. Do you really think this should be protected at all? Why not just revert it back to {{wi}} every time it gets re-created as a dict-def and block those who know better but mess with this on purpose? Protection should not be used against ignorance but only against clear vandalism IMHO. jni 12:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The first time I took it to be ignorance, but after the same text had been added four times (I think) I began to suspect something else. Rather than keep deleting it, I thought that protection was a more sensible route (especially as it seems clear that no-one has anything more to say than the sentence that keeps being added). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:List of Louisiana state forests

What is going on there? I noticed during SP-patrol that you have blanked this page and I can't see why. (Nor I can see any reason to ever blank a Wikipedia page...)

Huh? You sure? All I was trying to do was add a category and re-stub it!Ah well - I've fixed in now anyway. Sorry for the problem (not sure what happened there...) Grutness...wha? 05:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RPGe

Um, hi. I noticed you reverted the redirection at RPGe to emulation. I had accidentally left the page blank, but I changed it to point to the appropiate article (RPGe (translation group)). Hope you don't mind, since RPGe isn't an emulator... Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 17:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the new redirection is fine with me. I was mostly just concerned about the page being empty. Sometimes people think they can unilaterally "delete" pages by blanking them, and my recent activities include fixing those cases, including any accidental editing mishaps. Cheers, jni 07:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked???

Why have i been blocked so much recently? Since when did i do any vandalism? I would like to know what's going on...

Regards,

John

[edit] AIV

The IP you submitted at WP:AIV didn't have any non-deleted edits and had an empty talk-page. Did you mean 216.70.13.130? He's alerady been blocked. Hope that helps. --fvw* 20:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops, wrong talk page, sorry about that. --fvw* 20:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow! You're quite dedicated.

Nice "blitz deletion" of unneeded articles. You must be one of the most devoted administrators Wikipedia has ever seen. Good on 'ya!  Denelson83  07:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! I usually go through Special:Shortpages before my morning coffee. It takes typically 10-15 minutes with a tabbed browser to delete the junk uncatched by RC-patrollers that is accumulating there. I don't think I'm nearly as active with vandalism control as Fvw and RickK were at their prime. jni 07:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McKay Hall

Why did you revert it back to the original page? The information that was written is false and is just nonsense. If you have actually taken the time to read what the person wrote, its all bs and should be deleted. Read things carefully before you blame my wrong doing. YCCHAN 12:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you for any wrong doing. I was just routinely fixing blank articles when I saw you had reduced the article to just VfD tag without bothering to nominate it for deletion properly. jni 08:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. At least put back the vfd tag back on. YCCHAN 14:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fusionart design studio UK.

I notice you deleted Fusionart design studio UK without puttign any particualr reason in the delete log. This doesn't seem to fit any of the speedy delete criteria, nor to have been the subject of an AfD. I have therefore nominated it for undeletion on WP:DRV. Please delete only articles falling strictly within the CSD in future. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Avery Bryant

Thanks for taking care of the move. As for forwarding this to AfD, I am not a good judge as to the relative notability of many authors and will leave the call to you. --Allen3 ^talk 11:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel like submitting any non-trivial case to AfD today, I just put {{PotentialVanity}} there. Someone else can decide what to do. jni 11:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CBW RfA

Just wanted to thank you for voting on my RfA. If you have any concerns over my actions please let me know. CambridgeBayWeather 23:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual ecommerce

I noticed that you speedy deleted Virtual ecommerce with a comment of "spam". This is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. I'm not an admin and can't see the deleted article to see if it fell into one of the other categories. I do hate it when people spam WP, but I have nominated articles to AfD as advertisements in the past and one or two of them have been turned into useful articles when they drew community attention. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Çorlu

If you want your "reverting" of that redirect to stand, I expect you to provide a full explaination (which I will be interested to see) as to exactly how these two towns are the same place. Just because the article is not finished yet doesn't mean you need to revert an error. --DanielCD 15:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted you edit because blanking of articles is considered vandalism in Wikipedia. There is no valid reason for empty pages to appear in the main namespace and nobody has authorization to unilaterally delete material (except per CSD rules). Requests to delete redirects should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion if none of the 5 or so CSD criteria for redirects can be applied. jni 15:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The again perhaps you should look whats going on before you make a knee-jerk decision to "revert". I had to go looking for the proper redirect, and didn't have time to finish before you got to it. You can quote all the rules you want, but I knew well that it was wrong and it wouldn't stay that way. Perhaps I should have done both at the same time, but I didn't want to forget and leave it in it's incorrect state. As far as I'm concerned, putting in redirects to the wrong article is vandalism. --DanielCD 16:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be cross. I'll make sure in the future not to make deletions like that. --DanielCD 16:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a ton !!!

Hi, this may appear to be a joke, but it is not. I am here to thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page on 6 September 2005. Am sorry that the "thanking you" part slipped out of my mind then - I noticed it again today while going through the history and felt "better late than never" and so, here I am. Regards, --Gurubrahma 17:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FireFox RFA

Jni/Archive/4

---

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

FireFox 18:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Admiral Roo

I didn't request the deletion, Admiral Roo requested it through an anonymous IP address. I mistakenly reverted it as vandalism, then corrected my mistake after looking at the anonymous IP address's user page. Ben D. 01:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GraemeL's RFA

Hi Jni,

I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why was the page Nigel Lutchman labled as an attack page and deleted. Sadly, that is the truth about Nigel Lutchman, and yes, he is actually a professional hornerman. Is there anyway I can create the page so that it will not be labled as an attack page? He is well known in the west indian community in queens ny for being a hornerman, and knowing him personally, he was the best example that came to mind. Please let me know how I can go about doing this

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stookie (talk • contribs).

It was deleted because it read like a personal attack. It also was an article about a real person that did not assert that person's importance or significance. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for details on what articles can be speedily deleted. Being well known by few hundred people in a local community or subculture is not good enough for warranting an encyclopedia article. Given that Google does not seem to find him, I'd say forget it. jni 08:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jibblington vandal

Almost deserves some sort of award for weirdness. (Sorry about the double post, hit enter by mistake). --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

He did indeed manage to vandalize quite many articles before detected. I guess some of his edits looked plausible internal link additions until one saw that the target was gibberish. Blocked for 24 hours. jni 15:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blooferlady

Hi, Jni. I'm not sure if you were just informing me but you sounded just a bit accusatory, so I wanted to let you know that I haven't been encouraging her to delete her old article deletion discussion pages. I've been telling her all along that it's not going to happen. Thanks for moving the AFD page back where it belongs. —Cleared as filed. 13:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I never thought of that you might be a part of her chicanery. Apologies if I didn't make that clear enough. My message was mostly directed to Blooferlady (at least the accusatory part!) whilst at the same time informing others about my revert to the page move. I haven't read all related discussions about this yet but your talk page looked like a nexus that is read by all participants. Cheers, jni 13:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Understood, thanks! —Cleared as filed. 13:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NIMTO

I think that NIMTO should go back in, while it was only a small article it is about a real word which has been used by the IAEA. I think that NIMTOism is very real, but the NIMTO article was in a backwater where it did not get much attention. I susepct that was the reason why only 1 edit was ever made on it. I think that the history of science is littered with examples of something which is discovered and then left for many years before interest in that thing increases greatly. Please reply through my talk page. Cadmium 22:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted NIMTO because 5 words taking 20 bytes or so do not make an encyclopedia article. Besides, it looked like a dictionary definition. Feel free to write an article about this topic, if you think that is possible. jni 10:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a little more to NIMTO, I doubt if it will ever be a super large article but it is starting to come together. Thanks for the work which you have done on the page.

From a purely accademic position I would be interested to know if NIMTOism occurs in the communities which exist on the web. Do the people who manage these groups such as Wikipedia and Forums dread an event occuring during their tenure and then do their level best to avoid the event occuring. If you have any examples of such a web based example of NIMTOism then it might make a very good addition to the page.Cadmium 22:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but you must be careful to abide with NOR and avoid self-references policies, if you want to add your results to the article. I don't think NIMTOism exists in Wikipedia, at least I haven't observed much anything like it during my little over two years here. For one thing we do not have many official positions to begin with, maybe ArbCom or Wikimedia Board members have a heightened wiki-stress levels and could shead some light on this? jni 18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am unsure if it would be a good idea to consider the question of dose ‘’on line NITMOism’’ exist in the community of Wiki-ArbComs or related persons. I think that it might be a little too controversial. But I think it would be perfectly reasonable to consider the actions of other leaders of on-line communities. I have heard of a woman called foxy who ran a large forum on MSN back in 1999/2000, it was reported that she was rather dismayed at the rowdiness and heated disputes which broke out on a regular basis on her news community. The community may have started out as a news discussion board but it soon became a vigerous no holds barred debating chamber with some people who were permently at loggerheads. I think that to make an on-line NIMTO page or sub page we would need some people who have had the experience of moderating an online community to honestly discuss their aspirations and experiences.Cadmium 19:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Longevity claims

Thanks for moving the article, but the talk page wasn't moved together with it, so I just moved the contents of the "Claims" talk page to the one of the "claims", which was blank up to that point, and I marked the other one for quick deletion, so will you delete it too then, please, my dear friend? Bart Versieck 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently someone else deleted it, but could you, please, also delete Longevity Claims, which shouldn't be a redirect at all really, and definitely not with its talk page already having been deleted, as I just toly you, okay? Bart Versieck 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why should that be deleted? We usually do not delete mis-capitalized redirects because someone will soone or later re-create something under that title anyway. This one even has incoming links to it! jni 10:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood, but that link is definitely incorrect. Bart Versieck 13:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pupuhanska

Hei, mitä mieltä olet tästä? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pupuhanska — JIP | Talk 13:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jahbulon

thanks for that. My bad. Grye

[edit] [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sturmgrenadier]

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BD2412's RFA

Jni, thanks for supporting my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! BD2412 T 21:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purposedly defacing wiki

People are purposedly defacing articles subtely so you won't see the changes.

http://www.rebelgaa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3832&PN=1&TPN=1

[edit] Ashida Kim

The discussion page for Ashida Kim states that it may not be neutral. Besides,He s an enemy of Jimmy Wales. There were so many vandals,pretending to be Ashida Kim.

I have nothing against Sensei Ashida Kim,though I cannot believe that he has legimate roots with some Ninja clan.

Still,the article is biased Batzarro 11:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date standard format / Lucretia Mott

YYYY-MM-DD is a standard date format and my prefered format. See Manual of Style. — JonHarder 20:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the standard formats for dates (it didn't use to be, ISO 8601 has corrupted MoS  :D), just not for the first line of biographical entries. All the examples in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death and in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) use the written-out month format, as does nearly all of our biographies. I have read thousands of them and only yesterday saw one that had YYYY-MM-DD in it. It would be cool if they be kept formatted uniformly, at least for the opening line. Note that the YYYY-MM-DD format is ambiguous with YYYY-DD-MM, although not as commonly mixed than DD/MM/YYYY versus MM/DD/YYYY, which is a royal pain in the ass. However, I have seen newbies specifying dates in all possible variants of the European/American format and the automatic date linking magic then linking to wrong date page. Even without that error, I find it inconvenient to hover my mouse atop the link just to verify I parsed the date correctly in my head. jni 09:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LoPbN

_ _ I'm writing re yr bullet-group merger, tho i had already arrived at the point where i knew i had to say, tonite, how great your work on LoPbN is. I especially like your practice of scrubbing out the obsolete commas & adding data to its existing entries, when adding someone in a section. Your sustained effort in that is very impressive to me. (Are you finding them in Cats? That's something i've thot many times would be an efficient approach, tho i've always had other things higher on my priority list.)
_ _ As to the bullets, i was going to restore that part of your change, then decided that all your other changes were too numerous and valuable and intertwined for the effort of a selective reversion to be worthwhile. What i propose to you is this: i'll stop my piecemeal conversions to multi-level bulleting until you and i have had a chance to say clearly to ourselves what our respective standards are (i can't yet, tho getting close) and why (i'm fairly clear, but probably premature to verbalize), even if you're ready to do so. (It'll be easiest on me if you also forbear, but know there's nothing like taking a design concept for a spin to clarify its virtues and vices, so i absolutely don't want to cramp your style, and i certainly have given myself room do that without justifying it to anyone, over the last few months! I assume you've found the list of examples of "pilot pages", to look for a variety of test beds for your thots.) I'd like to get caught up a tad on my normal WP routine. (I spent a day at simple:, i.e. "Simple English" WP, proposing to rework that LoPbN, and trying out some old thots in the course of converting the 60-kB "A" page into, IIRC, 4 pages, as a concrete demonstration just in case anyone there is not familiar w/ the en: LoPbN.) And perhaps enter a little more at Wikipedia:List of people by name's biggest dependent page. And finish the tail end of the F portion of LoPbN GT. -- All of that will help put me in a calm state of mind, so you don't have to beat me into submission abt the bullets, if my submission turns out to be called for. (I of course expect that you just haven't thot it thru clearly, but, well, i have been wrong. At least once.) So can we discuss our respective takes on it, soon? And let's discuss whether to do so via our talk pages, or put it immediately on LoPbN talk on the chance of a wider early discussion. TIA. And again, thanks for making LoPbN a significant part of your work here.
--Jerzy•t 05:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! With LoPbN I'm mainly interested in adding entries to it, but I try to help with the formatting occasionally. As for my data source and algorithm for finding entries, well they are a bit unusual. I'm following an elusive anonymous editor who has been OCR:ing thousands of pages from the 1911 encyc. Britannica. Basically I'm traversing through contribs made by those listed in User:Jni/Anons, and for each biographical page they have touched, I try to follow all links and "what links here" that point to other bio. entries I haven't visited before. That is, I'm running a manual breadth-first search over the graph spanned by such wikilinks. I haven't bothered to automate any part of that procedure, and I don't mind making exceptions to my routine if I find something interesting, so the entries I find are somewhat randomly distributed over alphabetically sorted list. That means my access to LoPbN will resemble scatter-gather I/O, in contrast with your linear search LoPbN GT. I think I have few thousand entries more to add, and after done with that I intend to run a bot over all 1911 bio. pages from cat. to check they are referenced from LoPbN.

Re: bullets. I have tried not to touch the large-scale structure or even subpage structure of LoPbN. What I'm doing is to follow the principle of locality of reference; I try to adapt my changes to the local style of list subpage even if such styles differ from page to page, and someone else can make all global changes to list superstructure and style. I don't have any strong preference w/ the bullets. I sometimes need to adjust the headings because some of my names are quite odd and when I add a whole family there I might make a heading "People named X". Other than that I won't be transforming the structure.

I already noticed you had seen my edits (do you have everything LoPbN-related in your watch list?) and I have read all diffs of your edits you did after my edits and I try to learn and to adapt to your changes so eventually our LoPbN editing styles should converge automatically. What I suggest is we continue such friedly "stalking", me following the anon and you following my changes to pages before your current GT position (once GT advances from its current location it can fix the remaining of my scattered edits) and I'll check your changes over my changes. I must warn though that me adding extra data does not quarantee the subsection in question will be in any sense "complete", because my focus is on additions themselves and I'm not trying to do everything your GT editing step does. Think of me as a writing enduser of your project, in contrast against normal reading encyclopedia endusers. jni 11:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

_ _ I think we'd both prefer that i respond to yr questions where you asked them on my talk.
_ _ (Re yr breadth-first search, i'm trying to think of a adjective for a depth-first search, even restricted to bios, of WP! Terrifying thot. Hmm. Even moreso than breadth-first. Hmm. I think yr made of sterner stuff than i. And i must learn something abt scatter-gather I/O.)
_ _ I'm "sleeping on couches" today for Web access, so this will be written in two or three edits.
_ _ I'm curious whether you've considered writing your new entries in alpha order in a file or on a personal sandbox page, and adding a day's, week's or month's accumulation on "grand tour" of your own. That's what i imagine myself doing in similar situations, which i may someday put myself into. Perhaps you've ruled it out for reasons that are not obvious to me. (Maybe you prefer the rhythm of breaking up one task with the other over the efficiency of navigation that i fancy would be involved in the other.)
Jerzy•t 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I considered such graph flattening and sorting but I find it more interesting to navigate the wikilinks by hand. That way I can pause to actually read the articles if I see something interesting. Final scan by bot from cat. should catch all I'm skipping accidentally or due to laziness. Today, I have been adding Battlestar Galactica actors to LoPbN interspersed with old German theologians just because I like doing things in parallel. I probably compile a list of all the difficult cases "de La Rolley y Mendiez" etc. that I don't know how to index or that need to be put on several subpages for accessability, but other than that I don't intend to use any intermediate lists. jni 15:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, as well as of course a good reason. I recall perhaps the most exciting of my professors (who achieved that in spite of sounding like Elmer Fudd, so you know he had to be really sharp) said you should have at least two projects going at once. His reason was that you could go work on the other one when you needed to mull over something about the first.
Jerzy•t 17:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

_ _ It's a rare editor who tinkers with the structure even as much as you. I suspect that is inevitable, rather than just a sign of my bad human relations skills.

1. As you note, the need is rare (as long as someone is reasonably well keeping fairly up with, or even a bit ahead of the need for restructuring that comes with gradual growth).
2. There is really a need for someone to specialize in the structure. 95% of single-entry additions are inherantly straightforward, in the sense that the only plausible way to screw them up is to make a slip of the brain in alphabetizing, and the most important thing i do (and should do more rigorously) is looking for fresh bad alph, bcz each is a potential nucleation point for additional ones w/ entries that belong near where the preceding bad one belongs. (Once in a while you'll see this happen in a library!) But that other 5% is a matter of placements that have at least intuitively appealing approach that will have bad consequences in the long run. Various things in the existing structure are intended to ameliorate or discourage use of those approaches and/or to avoid LoPbN's "writing endusers" being discouraged from adding entries bcz they aren't sure where to place the addition. Ask wherever you're curious.
   

_ _ Re bullets: Part of the documentation task i'm slowly working on (against the time when i get hit by a bus, or sent to Siberia for dissing our brilliant leader, or someone wants mull it without quizzing me) will include my rationale for the leaves having small numbers of siblings. I will point it out to you once i have a draft online, and if it suits your needs to comment on it, that will probably help me. And of course if it doesn't suit you, fine.
_ _ Virtually everything LoPbN related is on my watchlist, simply bcz i have editted virtually everything. But you edit too many LoPbN pages for me to stalk you beyond the Related changes of User:Jerzy/Links to Most Cleaned LoPbN Pages. At this point, my process is to ignore LoPbN on my watchlist unless unless i'm caught up on the various Related changes i'm following at the time. As to the file mentioned, i inspect everything on it by others than you and me, then inspect your changes on it. When that is done, i hide my own edits on my watchlist to reduce the volume, and get up to date reviewing LoPbN edits by IPs, red-lk'd users, and maybe unfamiliar blue-lk'd registered users. As i get pages done in the grand tour, or otherwise extinguish the non-bio lks on them, i add them to the page mentioned in this 'graph. So until i no longer keep a separate list for "most cleaned", i won't be thoroughly stalkin you.
Jerzy•t 17:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
_ _ My editing over your shoulder, of your changes & some of those in the same section, is much more thoro than what i do on the GT; that is partly bcz i want the GT to go much faster than it can if i stop to look at every entry beyond the kind of unconscious-level pattern matching that i do in looking for the vulture hyphens and non-bio lks. Trying to give the level of attention that i used to give yr edits (or even than more casual scrutiny i'm shifting to) would on some pages slow me down enough to possibly put completion of the GT by me at risk! Yr trying to generally adopt my approach -- something i could see as the fraction of yr edits that i edit has plummeted. (And hopefully you'll smack me up-side the head when i really blow it.)
_ _ As to completeness, it's like Olympia Dukakis says to Cher about the temporary wedding ring, "Eve'rything's temporary!" Nothing is complete, tho approaching completeness does IMO encourage orderly and thorough editing. My GT comma changes are dumb global substitutions, so i miss those where for instance there is an extra blank before the parens; IMO that's an example of duplicate effort that is not wasted. And if your bullet chgs had been in an "already done" portion, i wouldn't want to miss finding out if they might be a valuable critique of my thinking. It's not even that i want more bites at the apple re your work, but i wouldn't begrudge the effort even if i didn't need to divide the work in that way.
Jerzy•t 18:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vijaya

The current state of Vijaya is disappointing and has suffered due to the removal of Luckyj's conducive contributions. Shall we reinstate the lastest acceptable revision of 07:38, 3 January 2006 or must we honor the decision by Luckyj to reject his edits? It is quite a peculiar case. Usedbook 09:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good catch! I reverted it back to Luckyj's last non-blank edit and added {{unreferenced}} (just to warn readers content might not be entirely reliable). I must have been hurry the first time I saw this. Blanking articles is never acceptable in Wikipedia and so we do not need to "honor" it any way nor second guess the intentions of the blanker. Articles should be judged based on their own merits, not by wishes of their contributors when such wishes are not grounded on Wikipedia policies. Sometimes admins take blanking to mean speedy deletion per author request, but I don't think that should be the interpretation in this case since the text makes sense (at least to casual reader who is not an expert with the subject matter). If someone wants to delete this entry, he should take it to AfD, meanwhile normal cleanup should be done if anyone is interested. jni 09:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] username

There was an agreement with one of the administrators, Asbestos, to change references to the new username for consistency and to eliminate confusion. That guided the edit that you reverted. Why did you do that? Rananim 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Because Wikipedians usually have no business in modifying other's signed comments. We do not falsify our own history here and I prefer my archives to be in consistent state so that I can consult them without looking from history who modified what commment to say what. Quick look to User talk:Asbestos seems to indicate you have misunderstood the scope of your "agreement" and that other editors have already complained about your revisionism. Why not simply forget about it and move along? jni 18:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcoming users

Concerning your message to a brand new user at [1], who is unlikely to have any idea by what you mean by vanity: Just use {{welcome}} or a similar template. Zocky | picture popups 19:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You have not done much RC-patrolling, are you? Why should we welcome users who have only added nonsense to our project? {{test}} would be appropriate in this case, but I sometimes prefer to use my own wording. jni 19:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Test}} does not use hostile language, and, unlike your own wording, provides useful links. Just don't bite the newcomers. Zocky | picture popups 20:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks!

Okay, this is perhaps a bit overdue, but thank-you for your support in my recent RfA! I passed with a final vote count consensus of (82/1/0), which was a lot of support that I really appreciate. I'll try to live up to the expectations; and on that note, if there's ever something I do wrong (or don't do right), please spit in my general direction. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perl-assisted Cat-to-LoPbN extraction

Have you noticed Talk:List of people by name#Thoughts on semi-automated additions??
--Jerzy•t 05:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)