User talk:Kotepho/Archive 02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

You're right

I used the wrong word. I'll be more careful in the future. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

CJBot

Sorry, simple bug. Computerjoe's talk 08:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Godzilla rulz

Everything is cool! Thanks for being so quick. Keep it up

Jack-McLangley 21:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No! MOTHRA rulz!

Right. How does the Med cabal work? Isn't that for people, not articles? Isn't there a waiting list? Doesn't it require all parties to agree to be bound by the result? I've never done either. Herostratus 00:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Afd debates

Ok, I'll keep that in mind! Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

list of songs...

I think you're confusing non-WP:OR with WP:V. Here's my take on it:

Consider WP:NOT, which says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That is: everything in Wikipedia should be interesting enough to be worth including in an encylopedia. It follows that the mere act of including XYZ in Wikipedia, is itself a tacit claim that XYZ is interesting. The NOR requirement says: that claim must actually be sourced, not merely asserted. Otherwise, for something like this, what we've got at best "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source", one of the definitions of OR. (The case favored by the editor is that the list of songs is interesting enough to not be an indiscriminate collection of information).

So, for the list of songs whose titles don't appear in their lyrics to be properly NOR, there has to be a verifiable cite that shows that the concept expressed is interesting. That's why the question of NOR keeps coming up in these list-related AFD's. Phr 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re WP:OR saying "and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims", my view is that an interpretive claim is being made (by including the list in the encylopedia, as explained above), namely that the list meets the standards of WP:NOT. That claim is quite hard to justify as far as I can tell. Phr 23:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, reasonable point. The list still seems OR to me just because the notion of some editor hearing a song one day and saying "hey, I just noticed that song's title isn't in its lyrics—I wonder if anyone's spotted that before—I think I'll try to find some more examples of songs like that" describes activity that's OR by its very nature. So I'd still have to go with "In some cases" in the section you quoted, and say that this isn't one of those cases. But that's a matter of interpretation, so OR in its own right ;-). Phr 00:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanx dude

Whoever you are... 68.39.174.238 02:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know about the deletion review on The Game (game), and I hope you stay! Take a week or two off. Good luck. Prodego talk 15:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the AfD pages. I tried, but I see that I may have botched things even more. Joyous | Talk 02:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gundam

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mobile Operation System is the project page devoted to these Gundam articles. I think they ought to be given a few days to transwiki this stuff if that is what others think should be done with it. I'm waiting to see what other editors think. I think this Gundam stuff is pretty obviously obscure fancruft, but I'll wait and see. If the Gundam people don't show up soon, I'll find a way to let them know these articles are coming up for deletion. I PRODed about seventy or eighty of them, though, and they were deprodded, so I think they're on to me. Brian G. Crawford 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

Can I redirect User:Kotepho to User talk:Kotepho, to make it one click easier to talk to you? You seem to be doing a lot of good work despite having left the project :) Ashibaka tock 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Can I do anything to make Wikipedia a better place for you? :-) --HappyCamper 08:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Only users who are administrators may close afd debates. They are the ones who are trusted by the community to judge whether concensus has been reached and they have the ability to delete articles. --maclean25 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an administrator here, and I see no problems with how this user closed some recent AfD debates. So long as no deletions are involved and they are not too controversial, there should be no problems with users who wish to use good common sense and judgement to help process a little bit. --HappyCamper 08:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see this now at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-Administrators closing discussions. I totally missed that. Sorry to bother you. --maclean25 08:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul Offer

Thank you for your decision on the article Paul Offer. It is excellent to see the system working for once! I hope you decide to come back to Wikipedia soon! 84.64.161.206 13:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow!

Now, that was quite something! All finished now. I was quite happy you gave me something to do :-) Thryduulf closed quite a few of them before I finished up the majority of the rest.

In all seriousness, I know we just met yesterday, but it really concerns me when I see users saying that they're leaving, perhaps due to administrators not adhering to process. I don't know if we are in the minority, but I know there is at least a tiny group of people behind the scenes who really do care. If anything, I hope this makes you feel better :-)

Before I go, I would like to invite you to the beloved reference desk - the pages are heavily visited, and it is the one place on Wikipedia that I know of which is steadfastly robust against wikipolitics and whatnot. The discussions there rarely degenerate into shouting matches, and even the vandals respect the pages! It is one of the least vandalised pages on Wikipedia, and in all, is a fun place to be. The collaborative nature on those pages is the quintessence of the Wiki, in my opinion. --HappyCamper 19:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock}} Read Talk:Wikitruth curps. Kotepho 06:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that was an autoblock seeing that you added that URL to a page (same has happened to me twice, see my block log). I'll get an admin. --Rory096 06:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Already unblocked, sorry about that. -- Curps 06:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem. :) --Rory096 06:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't live in Iran.

Sorry to burst your ignorant bubble. SZadeh 06:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Doh!

This is why I need a chemistry book. :)

Thanx again dude...

...you seem to have this thing for uploading my images ;D! 68.39.174.238 19:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist

From the village pump:

I do it for the watchlist mostly

Yup. And ever since I discovered how to do a watchlist without login (hint) I hardly touch my account. -Dan 08:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for getting my sig to subst all the way. Wow, I must say, i spent hours trying to get it to do that, but I couldn't subst the switches. "also reduced by my fully subst'd version, but still non-trival" - that is awesome. Many thanks :). I'll change it to that pronto. – Xolatron 22:31, 6 Telona 2006 (7 May)

WP:3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering I have never undone someone else's edits more than once, I fail to see how this warning template applies at all. First edit Second edit (minor) Third edit I'll let you judge for yourself. Kotepho 01:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My Signature

Dear Kotepho, I have changed my sig to make it only 3 lines. Can you change your vote at Wikipedia:Signature Poll/GeorgeMoney to oppose?

Below is a box that shows how my poll is doing:

{{sigpollshow}}.

Thanks, --GeorgeMoneyTalk Contribs 02:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

The Game DRV part deus

Could you explicitly state if you want the article undeleted/restored/kept or deleted? Just "endorse closure" is ambigious, even if I think the rest of your comment shows which way you want. Kotepho 03:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't realise at the time, sorry about that. Luckily it went the right way anyway, thanks for bringing it to my attention. --W(t) 11:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thank you for your vote in my RfA! The nom failed to gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted it! - Amgine 17:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Blacklist foobar

I'm sorry I didn't get to this yesterday... Let me see if I can fix it now. - Amgine 15:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

<hmm> What is currently broken? Do you have access to IRC? otherwise, if you could take a moment and use http://68.213.57.225/irc.cgi to contact me in #wikinews-en then I can fix this in realtime? - Amgine 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Substing creationist template

Please don't put the category in too. That needs to go as well. --Cyde Weys 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

* Thanks for fixing the template... don't worry, I don't yell at people on their talk pages. ;-) -- User:Dirgni1986
I wasn't gonna yell either. Thanks for your work! --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 18:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Afd-privacy}}

I meant that it should be that when substed, so you have to do {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}} otherwise it substs when you edit and it puts the template name in. Sorry for not being explicit--going by the timestamp I'm going to blame it on lack of sleep. Kotepho 01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's fixed now. I'm probably not the best person to edit WP:HRTs anyway. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thunder bolt and lightning, very very frightning

Looks like you got hit by the lightning! User:Valento

Joel Leyden

Thank you for investigating the matter and attempting to understand why he was banned and why the page was removed. Once you figure it out, we can talk again. Danny 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about Wikitruth 'Important Note'

In the Wikitruth article, when you archived, you created an "important notes" section which had, among other things, "Do not link to Wikipedia pages outside of normal articles with internal links. Use single []s and the full URL (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_Actions WP:OFFICE])." I must admit, I just am not parsing what you're trying to say there. For instance, in the example you gave, why wouldn't [[WP:OFFICE]] be perfectly acceptable for creating a link to WP:OFFICE? Is this a reference to some Wikipedia policy I've yet to read? This isn't meant as an antagonistic statement — I just flat out don't understand whatever you were trying to say there, and am thus curious. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • replies) 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

MfD

Kotepho, thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism 101/Strategy page. You comment, "No vote for me." is a little unclear--or I am misreading it. Do you mean to say "No" as in don not delete or "I am not voting on this matter." I am pretty sure you mean the second, but I just want to be sure you are counted if you do intend to vote. Thanks, --Vaquero100 13:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The above note was left on your userpage. Based on your past requests, I moved it here and I deleted your userpage again as a "presumed user request", which of course can be reversed if you want. NoSeptember talk 15:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Clarified on the MFD and thanks NoSeptember. Kotepho 15:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Darn, I try my best to be an admin ignoring process and all I get is thanked for it ;-). NoSeptember talk 15:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD

Sorry; I didn't think that was possible. I expected to get the edit conflict screen if I overrode. Septentrionalis 23:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Note to self

Don't bother trying to defend a juvenile CS clan as they will work their hardest to prove other's points for them. Kotepho 06:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

would you?

would you explain what you have done on my talk page?Felisberto15May2006(UTC)

Note

I've done as you suggested: Wikipedia:Mackensen's Proposal. Mackensen (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Looks like you're back! Are you still on semi-Wikibreak, or is that notice out of date? Also, if you left because of disgust at the userbox deletions (or not), don't you think WP:MACK and related are great? So much better than the endless debates at WP:DRVU! Anyway, happy editing, and I'll see you around. TheJabberwʘck 04:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still on partial wikibreak as I'm undecided if I will stay. I really don't care about userboxes. I don't really understand why either side has such strong feelings about them. I just wish the whole thing would go away--so in that sense I support MACK.
My wikibreak really isn't related to userboxes at all. It has to do with how wikipedia is run: the bureaucracy, the rouge admins, those that introduce bias intentionally, etc. The userbox issue is just one of many that shows how wikipedia is broken. Kotepho 04:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is broken, I'd have to blame those who have left. We have too many martyrs and not enough advocates. If conflicts involving rouge admins always result in the person in the right leaving, eventually the rouge admins will be the only ones left. So I would urge you to stay here and fight, rather than leave. That said, if your reason for leaving is that you are so disgusted you feel you can no longer work on the encyclopedia (like User:Karmafist), it would be useless to stick around here getting in fights. Wikibreaks are always good for thinking it over and deciding which of these categories you fit into. Hopefully it'll be the first. TheJabberwʘck 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Well, Cyde recreated, you deleted, I tried to help, George stepped in, Cyde stepped in... happy circle. :) You should probably use {{db-owner}} in this case, though. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 05:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

HI

AirforceguyScramble! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Copper John orig.

I'd include it as it's a different one (Made of wood, was replaced, etc), however I'm not going to insist if it doesn't meet PD and isn't worth FUIing. 68.39.174.238 03:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

since when is boing boing a reliable source?

I was in the process of trying to figure that out. Being even-handed and all. - brenneman {L} 10:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is no sourced assertion of notability, than it is a speedy deletion candidate. But removing a source and then saying that is a slippery slope. - brenneman {L} 10:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Eh I don't care either way. If he wants it gone I'm sure he can delete it himself, but I don't really consider anything sourced from a blog to be an assertion of notability. Kotepho 10:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Philip Sandifer

I think it's a good idea to get rid of the whole smelly situation in the most expeditious manner possible. What do you propose? Kim Bruning 12:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The notability of this article happens to be irrelevant in this case, that's why drv and afd might not be the most appropriate venue here. If you've been following the discussion, you'll know that people have been trying to drive this person off of wikipedia. see also User talk:Theresa knott. Kim Bruning 12:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Alright. Well, same request to you as to Theresa knott then. Can you try to keep deletion review and articles for deletion patrolled, to make sure silly things don't happen? With a little luck my gut feeling is wrong, and nothing will happen, but you never know. Thanks! Kim Bruning 12:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

newspaper article about WP Newport News, James city Virginia

A reporter and photographer from the Daily Press newspaper in Newport News, Virginia came to our home near Williamsburg yesterday afternoon, and interviewed me, and photographed me and Mom for a story on Wikipedia and my work.

The reporter considers me something of a historian on local history and transportation subjects. I explained off the record that my bus company situation is still in litigation, and I didn't want it included in story. (It went belly up in 2004).

Story set to run Monday, May 22 in Spotlight section. Keep your fingers crossed story is complimentary and reasonably accurate. I dont know if this feature is opart of the paper which they publsih online, but I will try to scan the article of it isn't. Hopefully, good press for WP. Thought you would want to know.

Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia, Vaoverland 22:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

News story. Kotepho 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This was a great article! Congrats! --Jimbo Wales 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Copied to the guy that the article was actually about's page. I'm just a guy that happens to live nearby :s Kotepho 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/o/t/User_talk%7EKotepho_Archive_02_55f8.html"