User talk:Wknight94/Archive 3

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

ZEST

Hi there !!!! Thank you for the welcome and the directions towards becoming a productive member of Wikipedia. Yes, I am new here, and want to contribute in a most positive way. I am not the most swift with computers and code. However, I will try and figure it out. However, at this time, I ask for your assistance with this page; MariaDaines/Paul Killington [[1]] The information contained seems to require some attention. Your kind offer of discussion and help is greatly appreciated. Hopefully when I have the time, I will try and format the articles as prescribed in the Wikkipedia guide to layout and manual of style. {{wikify-date|July 2006}}{{uncat}}{{cleanup-date|July 2006}}

Truely, as a newcomer here, I find it overwhelming the amount of attention required to post information. I am positive that with your continued assistance, I shall become better at deciphering the messages I receive on pages that I encounter and want to contribute to. For now, please forgive the fact that I have very little time, but, I will try to make the time to try and figure this all out !!!!

Peace !!!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZEST (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for pointing out the manual of style on biographies after my improper edit on the Chris Woodward page. I'm glad such a thing exists, and I'd love to see it applied to baseball bios - a lot of which are in pretty bad shape right now. I am going to start working on cleaning up Mets player bios over the next few weeks, and my first baby step will be to get the first paragraph for each to conform with the manual of style. Gotta start somewhere! --Veronique 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dragonlance Novels

Thanks for the heads up on your change, I'll end up restoring the text to that one once I get a chance to update it too. I've already done the first one (Dragons of Autumn Twilight) and working on the second one now, so hopefully I'll get there later tonight. -- Maelwys 16:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bassists vs Bass Guitarists

I'm not really sure, actually; the distinction existed long before I was here. I'm not sure if it's an intended distinction or if it just happened by accident. The only potentially good reason I can think of is that "bassist" applies to all bass-players, including up-right basses, where as bass guitarist obviously only applies to people who play an actual bass-guitar. If you have any thoughts on the matter, it's probably worth a discussion on the project's talk page. B.Mearns*, KSC 02:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Albany Thachers

A confusing bunch . . . wanted to clarify with you before editing further but it looks like John Boyd the Elder is listed twice in the 1880s timeframe now:

John Boyd Thacher 1886-1888 John Boyd Thacher 1896-1897

Any idea which one is right? I've been trying to find a solid, dependable source for Mayoral info post-1800, but I keep finding a lot of conflicting info. F'rinstance, the Political Graveyard link shows J.B.T. as Mayor in 1926, then J.B.T. II in 1927, even though the elder one was dead by then, as best I can ascertain.--Gnhn 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:People from Albany, New York

I just checked the above category; its page is still up and running. JB82 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Image:Startegy.jpg

So thats what must have happened. I was tagging a few images in the morning when this occurred. I just brushed it off thinking it was some glitch. Thanks for clearing it up. --Nivus(talk) 11:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Drapetomania

Re: Category:Mental illness --> Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD.[2] Did Drapetomania ever make it into the DSM and ICD? I'd be surprised. -Will Beback 06:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I appologise if I seemd rude and I appologise again if I'm not supposed to put this here (I don't know how to reply, I'm new here). I just wanted to say that I would like to thank you for replying so quickly and clarifying the issue of my article to me.

Thanks again. -- Felixwells

Union College

I agree with the anon that the fraternity material was poorly organized. But to delete material because it isn't clear doesn't help the article. The college's website has a "history" page. Providing sources shouldn't be a problem if specific citations are sought. -Will Beback 21:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Mass Deletion

Wow, another self appointed WikiPoliceman. How could you delete ‎Katana Shogun Warriors? Just because YOU haven't heard of a film doesn't mean you should delete it. Looks like you have some kind of problem with metal and rock bands as well. Again, just because YOU haven't heard of them (or because their lyrics are Satanic) doesn't justify deletion. "I Shalt Become", "Abysmal Torment", and "Archgoat" are just a few of the dozens of valid bands that you have deleted. If Satanic lyrics make you uncomfortable, fine, don't listen to the music. But don't delete the bands bios either. I'm sure you will delete THIS as well, but at least perhaps you will think about what you're doing. Wikipedia is for the sharing of knowledge by everyone.

EllisDee

WikiDrama

Hi there - thanks for keeping on top of things. To be honest, it is one of the more complicated and confusing situations I have encountered on Wikipedia. What is clear is that some more discussion regarding the article is necessary. I have left a note on the talk page making it clear that WP:AFD and WP:DRV would be the options which would make the most sense. Thanks again for your help :-) --HappyCamper 02:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

category needed

I really don't want to come off the wrong way, since I'm sure you have your reasons and you are absolutely not doing anything against policy, but mass adding of items to Category:Category needed essentially makes it impossible for me to deal with the backlog, as I'm the only person working on it right now. I can handle the 25-50 things a day that get added there naturally but 150+ a day is just going to happen.

Again, you're not doing anything wrong at all and I will understand if you want to continue... in a perfect world we'd have 50 people doing category sorting as well as stub sorting, but right now it's just me against the deluge :-) --W.marsh 13:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also a somewhat silly idea to take a list of articles which "need" categories and tag them with the category "category needed". If you have a list, let people who like to categorize articles work from that list. There's no need to tag the articles themselves. - 14:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nunh-huh (talk • contribs) .

I don't usually respond on my own talk page but, since it's 2 against 1...  :)
I have a couple complaints and disagreements that are causing me to do this
  • Special:Uncategorizedpages is almost never updated and is impossible to edit. It's currently like 85% done but if someone - like me - wants to go through that list attaching cats, it's very time-consuming finding the ones that are actually uncategorized!
  • Special:Uncategorizedpages only has 1,000 items on it - I guess that's a maximum? Since it barely gets into the B's, there are clearly thousands and thousands of uncategorized articles that no one can find. The only way I'm aware of to find more than what's on that list is to remove all the items from that list and then let whatever magical automated process run to find the next 1,000. Maybe that's an education issue on my part.
  • I completely disagree with the "silly idea" statement from Nunh-huh (talk • contribs). Tagging them puts them into a category which people can work from. If you make a list, someone has to maintain that list manually, unlike the Category Needed category which updates itself whenever the uncat tag is removed.
  • As far as the deluge, I'm not sure I understand. Isn't it better that more people in the community know just how many uncategorized articles there are? Wouldn't that be a better way to recruit more people to assist? I go through various lists categorizing articles all the time but I get frustrated when I don't know how big the problem is and feel like maybe I'm emptying a lake with a teaspoon. I'd like to at least know how deep the lake is!  :)
  • As far as I can tell, you're not the only one dealing with the backlog. I occasionally peruse my contributions list to see which have been edited since and found quite a few different people categorizing. This can be a nice reminder to people who originally authored the articles too.
Feel free to continue to talk me out of it but I still feel like I'm helping the community in general - if only by showing how big the backlog really is. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing. It simply looks like people respond to the Category Needed category better than the other lists. It seems like I've seen several articles that have been orphaned and uncategorized for months - if I slap an uncat tag on it, someone puts it in a legitimate category within an hour or so. Maybe that's my imagination though... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's usually a bad idea to let "complaints and disagreements" cause one to "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point". And even though you don't find it peculiar to have a category on an "uncategorized" article, I think it is self-evidently so. Even if some hypothetical person finds this "uncategory category" useful, there does not seem to be any reason to uglify these articles by placing a giant flashing template at the top announcing the article "needs" a category. I would suggest if you must add this "category" to articles, you simply do so without the flashing neon sign. - Nunh-huh 15:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow! When did legitimate cleanup tags become a violation of WP:POINT?! I'm simply going by the WP:CGZ guideline which says every article should be in a category so I'm not sure what the problem is. Should we abolish categories and cleanup in general since they uglify articles? How about just adding a category like authors are supposed to do in the first place? And I'm clearly not the only person who finds it peculiar to use the {{uncat}} tag since it - and the Category-needed category in general - were created long before I arrived. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The dogma that "every article belongs in a category" refers to useful categories - and that ought to mean useful to the readers, since they far outnumber the editors. People using Wikipedia have no need to read, before they get to any useful content, a paragraph about how the article "needs" a category. CGZ is in any case a guideline, not a policy, and I think it's one you're misinterpreting. 'Every article needs a category so I'll add a category that says "uncategorized"' is silly. And the intrusive tag at the top of the article in fact degrades the article's utility. Such editorial tags which serve no purpose to the users of Wikipedia do not belong on the article page: if needed at all, they belong on the talk page. - Nunh-huh 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph that you are unhappy with appears wherever the {{uncat}} template is inserted. It might be better if it were always positioned at the bottom of the article, where the category would normally be entered. To my mind adding an article to the uncat'ed category has the desirable effect of dynamically adding an article to what is a to-do list. It also will show as an edit to the article which may attract the attention of the author to the need to categorize. And finally it might act as a pointer for a newbie like myself to a potential way to contribute, when they may feel as I do, that they are unable to commit the time to write articles. I see the process of adding a category to an uncat article as analogous to putting an unclassified book on the shelf with associated topics, instead of leaving it sitting in a big heap. --Yendor1958 12:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well no, like I say you aren't doing anything wrong, I'm just hoping we can find a solution. I am not sure what consensus is on the purpose of category needed, but it would be nice if we could timely address all of the requests in under a week or so. --W.marsh 17:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was kind of my hope that it could be a place where new (and newly unearthed) articles can be categorized quickly. It was like that for about... a week, hehe. I guess that's not practical. --W.marsh 17:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think we should require a category and an incoming link for people to create an article. But that'd probably never fly. --W.marsh 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do bother with this kind of edit

Why? — some attempt to build edit counts? Add some content! FrankB 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand your answer. I was asking why bother with replacing &+mdash+; with some graphic equivilent. The computer deals with that kind of thing millions of times faster than a million of editors ever could. There is no return on investment. I care as it junks up the history with unecessary changes. With all content issues herein that need addressed (e.g. stub sorting, categories, requested articles, et. al.) this seems like a low level priority. Fair enough?

  • re: Second, why would we want a link to a dab page like Democratic Party? Link to the right pages and then I can spend time adding content. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I Inherited (Stole) that link -- the same change will be necessary in 1938-1940 individual chronological pages. That whole thing was an outline to peg down what might be put into that nascent article. I shouldn't have created it in article space, but that's a whole nightmare story. I was trying to show off the speech, but didn't know about wikisource. So the whole shebang is now far from my intent. Besides, being Republican, I don't care if they ever get their shit together! <G>

Ahhhhh, Sorry if you took that as an attack... I guess the bit on content was a tad over the top. I was vexed at someone else at the time, and your 'diff' in the history kind of got in the way. That matter is on the link directly above or below your posts, so you got off easy in comparison!

  • I didn't see the lower change. So my Bad. I plead 'distraction', your honor! Truth is I was ready to do violence about the npov edit.
  • You have to admit changing an mdash to a mdash is a bit trivial by itself.

Best regards, FrankB 02:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Bob MacDonald had a redirect....

The reason why I'm reticent to delete the redir is on the off-off chance that there are external links to this article somewhere out there on the internet, it'd lead to a dead page. Redirects are cheap in terms of server load and file space, so it doesn't really hurt anything to keep it around, IMO. JDoorjam Talk 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball franchise post-season droughts

You asked "What is the standard?" It looks to me, from your corrections, that you've got it figured out. The author's intent was to show how many years NOT winning. You can't count 2006 yet, of course, because the outcome is unknown. So the World Series drought for the White Sox is necessarily ZERO, for the Red Sox it's 1 (just 2005), for the Marlins it's 2 (2004-2005), for the Angels it's 3 (2003-2005), for the Diamondbacks it's 4 (2002-2005), for the Yankees it's 5 (2001-2005) and so on. The longest, of course, is the Cubs at 97 (1909-2005). I can see your confusion and that of others who have attempted to deal with this page. The more intuitive usage is "it has been 98 years since the Cubs last won it" rather than "they haven't won it for 97 seasons." Like you would say "it has been 1 year since the White Sox won it", not 0. Most if not all sources would word it that way. Arguably, if this page continues to be a source of confusion (which it has been for awhile), it should either be written in the more intuitive way, or else zapped (at least that portion of the article; the rest is conventional). Wahkeenah 12:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Wow, I hadn't even thought about the 1904 and 1994 situations, which frankly throws a spanner into the entire bloody concept. That's why it makes much more sense to simply say that a team "has not won since..." whatever year. Consider the cancelled 2004-2005 NHL season. Using this article's approach, the most recent Stanley Cup winner started the 2005-2006 season arguably with a 1-year drought, even though they hadn't played a game since having won the cup. That just doesn't seem right. If anyone else gets into the article and tinkers with it further, I might just take the initiative to change the approach to "number of years since last win" and "number of years between wins", which seems more intuitive. Wahkeenah 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Having just heavily edited this page, I agree that the current system is good. Even for 1904 and 1994, the city's fans had to endure a year without a pennant or a championship, so I'd call it part of a drought. Anyway, I hope my revamping wasn't too radical. --Tisco 21:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects

Thanks for the explanation, it concurs with my understanding. The problem with the double redirect on John A. Ferguson High School (Florida) is that after I fixed all the redirects to this, some other kind soul has moved the page to John A. Ferguson High School (Miami) ho-hum --Yendor1958 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man.. perhaps you can help me?

Thanks very much for the grats on my Gilnahirk article, and cleaning it up a bit. I'm still really new to Wiki, and I kind of don't really know what I'm doing. Guess I'm learning the hard way.. you wouldn't be able to give me a hand and a few pointers in the right direction? Hit me up on msn (please edit this email out once you've added me.. thanks)

  • edited out*

2 questions

First the boring one, how do you use AWB on special: pages? That's what it seems like you're doing as you at the catneeded tag to pages from special:uncategorized, but I can't figure out how to get AWB to generate a list from special: pages.

Second, wanna be an admin? Or want to be nominated at least. I've looked through your contribs and you seem like a fine candidate. I'll do a more thorough look if you are interested... but I'm 95% sure I'd like to nominate you. You seem like a solid maintainer and contributer, and adminship shouldn't really be a big deal for people like us. --W.marsh 02:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Aw I figured it would take something like that... sounds a bit too tedius for me though. I was told support for special: pages is on the todo list for the program... so maybe that will happen.
As for adminship, I'm sorry to hear that... it's really (in my opinion) not a big deal, just some extra tools that responsible, productive people should have so they can be more effective. It's not like you're going to be thrust into situations where you're mediating big conflicts or running projects... you do as much or as little as you feel like as an admin. Let me know if you ever change your mind :-) --W.marsh 13:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Studio JFISH fixes?

I went and edited most of the content on my article, I realized after citation that it was a little too boast-full/personal. I tried to aquire the help of the suggested articles for citation and such and I don't understand what else I can do for keeping my article in the system. Do I have to become much more popular to the general public before I can be within Wikipedia? I would like to be a part of this so please let me know what I can do.

Thanks, User:Studio JFISH 13:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

(mimiced from Studio JFISH user talk)

Does it help at all that I am on the website for Alternative Press Expo exhibitors? I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the big picture of what's required in staying on. Do I basically need more people talking about me, such as independent reviewers talking about my book, or interviews online, things to that extent? Does it take someone else starting a Wikipedia entry about Studio JFISH because I have now reached such popularity and noteriaty? I think I got it figured out with all that. If I were to get a review from someone more notable within the next couple of days would that be enough to stay on? --Studio JFISH 04:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Beatrice Models

Try typing Beatrice Models to google, not model. It's afterall one of the most notable agencies in Milan. I agree that it's a stub, but I was hoping someone could expand it. Let me know what you think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emustonen (talk • contribs) .

Where did you find all those articles?

I am envious of you for finding so many articles needing attention. I am working stub-sorting duty tonight, and the vast majority of the articles in Cat:stubs now are yours. How did you manage finding so many? Thanks for sharing. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. I myself like to work with Cat:Wikipedia articles that need their importance to be explained, WP:DEP and Cat:stubs, both of which contain a large percentage of crap. But I also lose heart sometimes... it's funny, you stated my sentiment precisely. Thanks for all your hard work. See you around. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Arrondissement of Vouziers

Hi, There's a project to deal with these redlinks which you might be interested in - see Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes. Dlyons493 Talk 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Starting a line with an asterisk

Thanks! --Tisco 21:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

The reason for the stub template is because some needed stub temps dont exist. --Domthedude001 17:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit

Plus, I delete them after and replace them with a real stub template.

Barnstar

The Barnstar of High Culture
Awarded for your work in getting Red vs Blue up to featured article status.

Ron Darling

Regarding my source for my addition to the article: Ron Darling is a TV commentator for the Mets. I'm watching tonight's (June 17, 2006) broadcast of the Mets-Orioles game, and Darling said that he never pitched (except on very rare occasions) until his sophomore year at Yale. He was converted because the team only had one starting pitcher. So my source is Darling's words on the TV broadcast. Unfortunately, it's not something in print or online. --JamesAM 01:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mention tonight's game was on WPIX (a.k.a. WB11). So I changed the cite to reflect that. Although I guess in a sense it's a SNY production simply broadcast on WPIX. --JamesAM 02:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the games are on SportsNet New York. Just like in previous years, WPIX does a few games. They don't refer to SportsNet New York as the source of broadcasts on WPIX, but it's the exact same broadcast team: Darling, Gary Cohen (who used to do the radio broadcast), and sometimes Keith Hernandez. So technically it's not an SNY game, but perhaps the only thing that changes is the channel and the decals on their microphones. --JamesAM 03:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ron Darling edits are vandalism?

My apology. I just reviewed my edit, the anon edits proably isn't vandalism, please feel free to revert my edit. I probably have slipped my eye during recent change patrol. --WinHunter (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kinston Indians

I didn't know about the other ones. Yes, please, go ahead and AfD them. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball franchise post-season droughts

I think we tried to revert that one guy's screwup at the same time, and ending up double-reverting. Sorry. d:) Wahkeenah 01:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Near as I could tell, he was mostly misinterpreting the concept and changing all the years, i.e. adding 1 to them. He was doing some other inane stuff too, as I recall. If he tries it again, we'll have to set him straight. The "drought" is kind of a non-standard concept, and some of the readers misunderstand and try to "fix" it. Wahkeenah 02:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

World Series

The extraneous stuff in the first paragraph, which you have now deleted, was added by a user who got somewhat bent out of shape over the fact that this is not a "true" world's championship. If you've got some time to kill, please see the extended and pretty much inane dialogue I had with him and others over this subject, on that page's talk page. I thought it was sufficient to explain where the term came from. I think you might have rubbed out that explanation. Maybe putting back some of it would simplify matters. Truth to tell, however, I doubt very many outside the USA even care about the baseball World Series unless they already care about Major League Baseball, in which case they already probably understand anyway, so it does seem like overkill. As was this. d:) Wahkeenah 10:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • You're right. I missed it somehow. Sorry. And you're also right that it's generous to place it so high. As long as it fits with the general flow of the article in explaining the origin of the Series, hopefully everyone will be happy, even users from the Netherlands. d:) Wahkeenah 11:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Running Man Barnstar
For creating excellent baseball articles on rather unknown players like Tim Foli and John Stearns, I Jaranda give you the Running Man Barnstar for all your hard work. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you should be an admin as I seen your excellent work around here, if you want me to nominate you, reply on my talk page. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wknight94 Done, accept, fix time and place it on the RFA page, you would make a great admin Jaranda wat's sup 23:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I placed it in the top of the RFA page, advise you should expand some of your answers to your questions especially one and three as they are rather short and you can get opposed for that. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Awww!

Aww, dear Wk, thanks so much for the kind comments... you actually make me wanna move to Florida and try my luck there! ;) Unfortunately, that's not a possibility right now, but I swear, I'll keep that in mind if I ever consider the idea of leaving my beloved Sooner state. Still, if there's any way I can help you with CSS webpage designs (now that's what I call keen eye!) just whistle my way, and I'll try my best to assist you, k? Big hugs, and allow me to congratulate you in advance for your well deserved adminship! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for being a little testy in my edit comments. No excuse really, so I hope this mends things. I've done some additional work on the page, so it should be more up to snuff. Feel free to improve it if you would like or provide suggestions. Thanks. Masonpatriot 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry about screwing up the previous reference in the article (#2) -- I knew I had the syntax right, but I couldn't figure out why it was malforming at the bottom -- the line break in there eluded me.

Woodshed 20:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on the adminship, BTW. By chance, are you a member of the CPF?
"citation needed" — it's like a challenge. Woodshed 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: More spelling

Thank you for the notification. I think the K is probably borken because im using a different computer right now and sometimes keys don't work, cheers Minun (Spiderman) 08:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has
closed successfully and you are now an administrator!

Useful Links:
• Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide •
• Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR •
Your admin logs:
• blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk) 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, congratulations!!! Alphachimp talk 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Yay, congrats, dear Wk! :) Of course, I'll steal that blue-over-pink idea, if you don't mind ;) Take good care, and grats again! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Good evening, Mostly Rainy. Thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (67/0/0)! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions or requests - either of an admin nature or otherwise! :) Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) 23:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Have fun with the tools, please be careful with blocking, and try doing it only as a last resort. Mostly Rainy 00:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Conguratulations. !!!! *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Congrats and best wishes! I know you're going to do a great job - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well done! You must be really pleased with your result. Best wishes with the admin tools, I'm sure that you'll do well!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! I'm sure you'll do a great job! Michael 05:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your promotion! It was a pleasure to vote for you.  :) --Merovingian (T, C, @) 07:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Congrats, if you need any help using your new powers, let me know, I would be glad to help. Happy editing! Prodego talk 12:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done

Well done for managing to become an admin, I wish you good luck with your new administrator priviledges, cheers Minun (Spiderman) 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 01:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations - you deserve it. -- I@n ≡ talk 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For being so nice to other users, I, Minun, award you this barnstar. And again, congratulations on your adminship —Minun (Spiderman) 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Michael 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 page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Michael 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

First, I want to say congratulations on your admin promotion. I know you'll use the tools wisely.

Second, I want to say thank you for your message regarding my user page. I cannot tell you how much better I felt after reading it. I really appreciate the links too, because I get so focused on the major things (RC patrol, AFD, etc) that I forget we have all those maintence pages and there's a whole bunch of work to be done on them as well. Looks like I'll have stuff to busy myself with after all :).

Again, thank you, and congrats! Robert 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

All the best! --Bhadani 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

World Series Edit?

It's a bit late, but this is in regards to your edit of mine on the World Series. A casual viewer won't know what a wild card team is, but they WILL know what the "Curse of the Bambino" is? I feel that the first Wild Card team to win is a fairly important highlight, since a majority of teams in recent years to win the Series have been wildcard's. Gonk 00:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio

The article must be renamed. There cannot be any opposition. The reaosn is that Arutz Sheva Radio lost its broadcasting permit years ago because of its extreme-right Zionist position (defending Yigal Amir and Baruch Goldstein, for example). The only way their radio programs are broadcast is online. Arutz Sheva has three websites: www.israelnn.com (Arutz Sheva Israel National News) and www.israelnationalradio.com (Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio) and www.israelnationaltv.com (Arutz Sheva Israel National TV). Bottom line is: the Radio department is only one of three departments. Both the video and radio are only broadcast online. The name of the overall organization behind all three websites is Arutz Sheva, which is now a redirect to Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio. *That* is incorrect. Arutz Sheva started as a radio station. When they were forbidden and the internet existed, they switched to internet-only. Therefore, the article Arutz Sheva should contain the content currently on Arutz Sheva Israel International News. I hope you understand now. I do not see how one doubtful comment from an Australian can prevent this move from being carried out. If need be, I will carry it out myself with the consequences this carries regarding the article history etc (ie, simple copy-paste). The current situation is incorrect and should not continue to exist. It is not factual, false, misleading, incorrect. I apologize for any confusion and hope you will immediately move the page to Arutz Sheva. --Daniel575 17:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It was obviously only someone who had found the discussion by accident and isn't involved in the issue (if you check his userpage), with no connection to Israel, Zionism or Judaism. And he didn't oppose it, he merely doubted it. I find that a very weak reason not to move this article, when the facts obviously do indicate a move. Your idea is entirely correct. The article Arutz Sheva should be about the entire institution. If anybody wants to write articles specifically about the internet, internet-radio and internet-tv divisions of A7, then they are free to do so. However, the current radio article is about the general history of all of Arutz Sheva, which started out as radio-only, as you can read there. The article totally ignores the fact that the radio-division is no longer the main thing of A7; the website is. --Daniel575 21:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilnessaslove (talk • contribs) .

"Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion." That is out of the link that you sent to me. Therefore applying an image that is appropriate for expansion is appropriate for the page. Thank you Lilnessaslove 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)lilnessaslove


Go ahead and give me another warning. I'll just make another account, you think I care? I read the rules and they state that they show there is nothing wrong with placing images that are not deragatory. Lilnessaslove 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)lilnessaslove

Re: CSD A8

These copyright violations may be deleted by any administrator under the WP:Copyright problems process (see also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins), and so qualify for deletion as housekeeping. I will try to make this more clear in my tagging. (The criteria under A8 are all for ensuring that a page is not hastily deleted when there is possibility that it is not an infringement or that the page history may be redeemed. The 7-day period and process at WP:CP is for ensuring this is not the case. In particular, A8 requires that it be tagged within 48 hours so that the page on Wikipedia is not mis-identified as a copyright violation being found on a mirror of Wikipedia, when in fact the mirror copied it from Wikipedia.) —Centrx→talk • 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Some have been 2 or 3 weeks old, perhaps not the ones I most recently tagged. Category:Possible copyright violations has an endless backlog made worse because its entries are not dated, so that old copyvios sit there in the long list, unknown and undeleted. If you find that this is somewhat less the case at the moment, it is in large part because I have tagged on the order of 100 of these for deletion. A couple of weeks ago, there were about 500 items in the copyvio category; it appears that many administrators do not monitor this category and, even if they did, it would be difficult to clear it: unlike CAT:CSD, its backlog cannot be brought down to 0; unlike CAT:PROD, old items are mixed with newer ones. I have asked about having dated categories at WP:AN and Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems but, having yet received no response and thinking it a proposal to which I cannot think of an objection, I shall soon be bold and try to figure it out myself. Regardless and until then, I do not see any reason why the old copyvios that I come across should not be brought to the attention of administrators for deletion. If they are not tagged 7 days after, they will likely not be deleted until 3 weeks after; if they are not tagged 3 weeks after, they may not be deleted until 5 weeks or longer. These deletions are not "controversial" under G6, Housekeeping. Their deletion is specifically a result of the process at Wikipedia:Copyright problems cited by Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ, under which they are pages that "Wikipedia administrators may delete" "'on sight' without further debate". —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Lentils in your socks

Can we get checkuser to find the source, or do we have to play whack-a-mole all night? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

They are gone now. Lets see what happens.Mr. Starchy 03:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a fairly low-level admin myself, and haven't applied for checkuser either. I'm tempted just to block all the socks indefinitely, but I'm not quite sure that's kosher. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you want to do the checkuser, or shall I? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT USE CHECKUSER!! I ALREADY TOLD YOU THE RANGES!!Mr. Starchy 04:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Mr. Starchy, but you must understand that with your contribution list we can't take your word as gospel. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, WP:RCU says, "Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser." Shall we just block them all now? (You've got the list of 17 — I'm just operating from the Lentil AfD, so may miss a few.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll put the request up, but looking at the rules at WP:RCU I'm not optimistic that they'll bother; it's pretty obvious even without checkuser that they're all the same guy. But I'll give it a shot anyway. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You might also want to look at the vandalism on Lentil itself when Mr Starchy first showed up, including The m'm (talk • contribs), which hasn't shown up tonight. Fan-1967 04:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The request is up at WP:RCU, including the Lentil vandals and a handful of the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp vandals to boot. I sincerely doubt we've got them all, but it's a start. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about turning the user pages blue; I was tagging the pages so they'd all be in the category, but wasn't sure whether the tag belonged on the user page or the user talk page. Hope it didn't complicate things too much. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

CSD G8

Sorry, forgot about the exception. I'll be more careful with those. --Brian G 16:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Lepe

Don't worry ;) --Emijrp 19:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: AIV

His last blank was 15 minutes ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vala_Mal_Doran&diff=prev&oldid=65263374 Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

He was also warned numerous times in 24 hours. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/k/n/User_talk%7EWknight94_Archive_3_aa9c.html"