User talk:Yanksox/archive11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NEDM?
I read something that referenced an internet meme called "NEDM" and I was VERY disappointed to see that it was deleted as a listing on Wikipedia. Is this the abridged version now? The way I see it... there isn't a single piece of knowledge that should be purposefully excluded from Wikipedia. Of course, there might be exceptions... but I am a huge fan and don't like to be let down.... especially since it is 'protected' and I don't have to opportunity to even see what it was previously!
[edit] why did you delete H Liqueur site?
why did you delete H Liqueur site?
[edit] You delete H Liqueur site, when there are plenty of similar small site that are still alive, why?
You delete H Liqueur site, when there are plenty of similar small site that are still alive, why? example? --Vodka 3
Thanks
[edit] My sig
Why don't you think my age should be there. I'm not giving out any other personal info except that I live in the US. It'll be pretty hard for someone to find me. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 12:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's for your own benefit. I don't think it's a very wise idea to reveal your age: A) people may look down upon you for it, B) I'm not entirely sure that it in line with WP:SIG, C) It's just something that you shouldn't be displaying in your signature. It's ok, I suppose, for your userspace to have it, but blatantly wave it around in your signature is not beneficial in any way whatsoever. Yanksox 18:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I should change my sig to list my weight. Oh, will that be fun! - crz crztalk 18:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that number would fit on a page, crz. :) Alphachimp 00:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you put your IQ in though, the single digit won't make your sig cumbersome :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 06:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that number would fit on a page, crz. :) Alphachimp 00:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I should change my sig to list my weight. Oh, will that be fun! - crz crztalk 18:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 30th.
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 44 | 30 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Funny vandalism
Here's funny vandalism to brighten up your day - crz crztalk 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- heh. Nice stuff. Yanksox 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- OOPS! Thanks for fixing my comment at the RfA :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] Thanks for your trust
Thanks for your comments and trust, even if you are completely wrong about the notability of shopping malls :) If tere are any projects that could use some more admin help, just holler over yonder. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Admin coaching - November 3 - Unassigned
Are you and your coaching partner ready for a new student? Please reply at my talk page, Highway Grammar Enforcer! 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder why. ;) I'll assign you someone new soon, Highway Grammar Enforcer! 22:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- You have been assigned Daveydweeb (talk • contribs) as a student. Once coaching begins please move your note in the coaching box to the Active section! Cheers, Highway Grammar Enforcer! 22:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It's okay. Harmonious coaching, *polishes giant S on chest and flies off again* Highway Grammar Enforcer! 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Azlea Antistia
"The result was Delete. Argument for deletion is much stronger than opinions in favor of closure."
Um, I think you may have meant something else? Aren't delete and closure more synonymous than antonymous compared to delete and keep? Or am I missing something?—Chidom talk 23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, I'm using closure in the sense of security for the article. It is confusing, and my fault. I'll use better wording. Yanksox 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please restore it! It is a violation of Wikipedia policy. --Haham hanuka 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? Are you joking or serious? I'm too tired to tell. Yanksox 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm serious. There is NO consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azlea Antistia (2nd nomination). You can't delete it just because you think that "Argument for deletion is much stronger than opinions in favor of closure". Please restore it. --Haham hanuka 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Uhh.... yes he can. The vast majority of the keep arguments were along the lines of "keep, real person", whereas the delete arguments referred to official guidlines, namely WP:PORNBIO. I believe that the deletion was correct. If you have a problem, you can take it to deletion review. It's not good practice to upturn an AfD on your own. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm serious. There is NO consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azlea Antistia (2nd nomination). You can't delete it just because you think that "Argument for deletion is much stronger than opinions in favor of closure". Please restore it. --Haham hanuka 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? Are you joking or serious? I'm too tired to tell. Yanksox 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gmail
Check it, por favor. I won't be online for a couple of hours, though. My fish is giving birth and I've got to make sure the breeding trap is working. >< Grazi. Srose (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Admin coach
Heya. I've created my admin coaching page here -- it's deliberately a user talk page, so changes to it are immediately highlighted as an orange box at the top of my screen. It saves having to check through my amazingly long watchlist all the time.
I'm glad you'll be my coach, given your help at my RfA all those months ago. Seems fitting, really. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 00:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the first day of coaching -- as lame as my mistake with Mock Duck may have been, I'm glad you were able to explain exactly where I went wrong, and I hope I'll do better with uncertain CSDs in the future. I'm off to bed (eek, 1:24am..), but thanks again for the help! Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 14:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Intentional vandalism by Derex.
Derex has been consistently removing comments from the John Kerry Wikipedia article to reflect his own views. Comments from previous edits often have no justification and include:
- (nope)
- (oh, i've talked plenty. have you bothered to read?)
It started off as a blatant attempt to make the article POV (as evidenced by his willingness to place himself over the talks page), and now he keeps reverting any attempt to point out that Democrats have criticized Kerry as well, and that Kerry apologized in the name of "simplification".
Please, don't encourage the vandals. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's quite an accusation from someone who is now consistently deleting well-sourced material that you don't like. I, and most everyone else, on talk felt this should be at most a one-line section with a link to wikinews. You persisted in adding lengthy details. Ok, but you don't get to pick and choose which detail as it suits your point of view. I've added detail, such as the view of Republican Dick Armey to match your discussion of the view of Republican John McCain. You insert Harold Ford's call for an apology, but you delete his accepatance of Kerry's explanation. I've added sources, going to notability, that almost all pollsters think this amounts to almost nothing in the election. You have removed that as well. Trying to keep a very minor incident in the scope of a lifetime brief in accordance with undue weight provision of npov is not vandalism. Repeatedly selectively removing well-sourced and notable detail that disagrees with the POV you are trying to further is vandalism. Derex 01:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The article was NPOV before you started making your edits. For example, Kerry initially refused to apologize, and I linked to an article with confirmation of this fact. Repentance is important in politics, as what Kerry did could have amounted to career suicide; several times you deleted the statement that he even apologized at all. Another example is when you added that Democrats accepted Kerry's apology, yet failed to indicate that the White House and Republicans have as well; failure to mention this would only serve to create bias against Republicans when people read this and see that only one side accepted the apology. I've left in your comment that pollsters think that this will have no effect on the elections, though the statements by Dick Armey and the nonpartisan pollster serve to undermine the importance of what Kerry said, and turn attention away from Kerry, respectively. I attribute your refusal to participate in the discussion and continue to delete criticisms of Kerry by Democrats as vandalism because you're undermining the integrity of the article, and even calling me names in the comments and on your talks page. Way to be neutral. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Page blanking vandal
Good catch on that IP out of Texas. Thanks! -- Avi 14:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- No prob. Yanksox 01:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Block of User talk:66.226.79.49
What do you mean by contact me via e-mail if anything comes up?? in your block summary?? This is a school IP, that I'm on, and it's part of Internet for Learning. Be careful about blocking the IP address, as it is a shared one for an entire high school, well, two actually - Formby High School, and Range High School, over 300 + computers have this IP, so be careful about blocks, OK?? --Colbber 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- See user talk. Yanksox 01:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] U2 band member pages
"it's a detail about where the band is, not about the band"
They're they same thing. A detail about where the band is about the band - how can it not be? And anyway, how is it relevant to a biographical entry about a person? 86.17.246.29 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- See User talk. Yanksox 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 6th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 45 | 6 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clergy abuse article
Hi,
I meant to take a copy of the Clergy abuse article so that I could work on it in my userspace but somehow lost track of the fact that the AFD was about to close. Could you undelete it long enough to put a copy in my userspace under User:Richardshusr/Clergy abuse? I think you will agree that the AFD debate was not an obvious consensus (majority vote rather than overwhelming majority). I believe an NPOV article could be constructed from the latest revision. In fact, if you compare the edit history of the article against the votes, you will find that many of the Delete votes were cast before the article underwent substantial expansion and revision.
There are two paths forward: a Deletion Review or a re-write followed by re-creation. I am proposing the second if you will help me by restoring the deleted text to my userspace.
Thanx.
--Richard 16:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- So, wait: Are you bargining with me? I would have been happy to userfy it, but I feel that you are posing mild threats to me. AfD is based on strength of argument, not a head count. Yanksox 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
OK what happened there - I made multiple changes to the Brassiere article today, then my computer crashed and they have all gone. Although they can be found in my contributions - is that retrievable?
[edit] Massachusetts election
Yanksox, I am with the Healey campaign and we have not conceded. You can confirm this with an IP trace or by calling us at the CHQ (617-523-0844) and requesting to speak to me, Mary Joad. The current feed is at 48 percent. Articles should not be modified at this time.
see above - 10:31 PM
[edit] Inappropriate admin conduct
Yanksox,
You should understand that I was acting in accordance with the Healey campaign's request that the articles not be changed until the official count was completed or Ms. Healey conceded, which she did at about 10:40 PM.
It was not appropriate to issue a block in this case on the following grounds:
(1) You, yourself, violated 3RR as well. (2) It is Official Policy that an administrator who is involved in the dispute may not block. (3) In light of the fact that neither an official vote tally nor a concession had been made, any repeated statement that a new governor had been elected (or that the governor elect was now the governor) could be interpreted as vandalism. In response to the seconded issue taken by user:Rhobite on User talk:MJoad, the edits applied to Kerry Healey, Deval Patrick, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts up until 10:40 PM did not state that they represented projected results, but were inappropriately and repeatedly stated as fact.
I am requesting that you take the following action:
(1) Assess your role and possible violation of Official Policy in this dispute. (2) Confirm via an official retraction on my talk page that your actions in this case were in violation of Official Policy. (3) Engage in a continuing discussion with me regarding higher involvement e.g. sysops status for myself as an inappropriately blocked party as, I believe, I am at least as cognizant of the Official Policies and conduct codes as has been demonstrated towards me.
Thank you. -MJoad
>>11:32 PM>> I should add that I believe you were acting without abusive intent and therefore I do not believe arbitration is appropriate at this time. However, I do believe the blocking was an Official Policy violation and should be addressed. -MJoad
As a fellow administrator on Wikipedia, I can confirm that Yanksox was acting appropriately to Wikipedia's policies. I hope this helps alleviate any potential concerns and feel free to follow up if necessary hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)- Upon further review, it seems as if Yanksox actually did violate Wikipedia policies in terms of using the block feature while involved in the dispute and violated the 3RR given that the dispute appears to be a content dispute over legitimate sources and not vandalism. Apologies for my initial error in assessment hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- It probably would have been better for Yanksox to get an uninvolved admin to block you. However given the time-sensitive nature of the information and the speed at which you were reverting, the block was appropriate. It's good that you're concerned about the integrity of the information Wikipedia reports. In the future, please make more of an effort to discuss your edits on talk pages and come to an agreement instead of reverting articles. I'm sure you understand that if Wikipedia changed its articles based on the wishes of political campaigns, it would quickly lose its objectivity. And on a side note, according to the timestamps on news articles (as well as my own memory), Healey conceded around 10 PM, not 10:40 as you say. Rhobite 04:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
>>11:52 PM>> Thank you Rhobite for adding to this discussion. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on the desires of political campaigns. My reversions, however, are not a statement of campaign policy, but they are at the request of the campaign that the integrity of the articles in question be maintained until the election results were resolved.
With regard to Ms. Healey's concession, I requested a copy of the Letter of Concession which was sent by mail and hand delivered to Deval Patrick's CHQ, and those of our other opponents, and to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, signed at 10:33 PM.
In terms of article integrity, the statements that anybody had become governor-elect, much less governor, before that was actually the case is detrimental to the integrity of the affected articles. Per your point specifically, it would not have been such a detriment to state that news organizations had projected the victor. -MJoad
- I stand by by block since you were editing with an agenda and because it was 15 minutes. I know my way around the Healey camp, say hi to Athena for me while you're there. This is very agitating, and to be honest, Mary you should be ashamed. Ashamed that you were trying to push and stretch out the election as long as you could, on Wikipedia of all things. I probably violated a rule or two, but I did it for the general overall interest and won't back down. Take it up for a review if you want. Yanksox 10:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I just want to note that your request to be sysoped is outrageous and humorous. Yanksox 14:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, the irony. >< Poor Yank. Srose (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- For those keeping score this is on Wikipedia Review. Yanksox 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, the irony. >< Poor Yank. Srose (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I just want to note that your request to be sysoped is outrageous and humorous. Yanksox 14:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your question
I've answered your question at my RfA. Please let me know if you have any more quesitons and I'll be glad to answer them. - Mike | Talk 00:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] E-mail
By the way, I sent you an email (although it's not urgent material, so carry on for now). -- tariqabjotu 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I responded. Yanksox 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ah... you must have been thinking of the one I sent last night (unless my e-mail server is taking awhile). -- tariqabjotu 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Obsessing over adminship
I couldn't have put it better myself. He really is obsessing over this admin schooling stuff. Compare his overall contribs with his mainspace contribs. A grand total of one mainspace edit in the last 9 days. -- Steel 01:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Help
Can you please take out vote of recently blocked User:Akaneon from Third holiest site article. Please see his comments while voting, in case you think that his vote should remain there. Thanking you in anticipation. --- ابراهيم 12:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of people from Pittsburgh
Hi, can you explain why you removed Congressmen Geoff Davis and Mike Doyle from the entry? Thanks, DB13
- See User talk. Yanksox 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Akaneon
Thank you for indef blocking this guy. I was very suprised that the first two bans were only for hours and not days considering the level of his disruption. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Eh -- I always try to assume good faith. I just assumed that a 1 hour cool down period would end the difficulties. Wow was that wrong, but one can only hope. Alphachimp 15:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think is a good that you tried to salvage that editor, suprise does not mean disagreement(for me atleast). It was very possible that the short block could have cooled down the user. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of my opinion of the user, thanks for the block. Robovski 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kappa
Would you like some help in submitting everything to AfD that Kappa unprodded on his psychotic deprodding episode? His actions fill this deletionist user with Wikistress. --Shrieking Harpy 
Talk|Count 19:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would like help, not for stuff to get deleted, but for the sake of consensus. Yanksox 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ERM
How would it be causing trouble?
Suicidal tendancies 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please dont waste my time. Suicidal tendancies 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
just dont.
[edit] why
erm... no it isnt... why are you wasting my time just leave me alone. Suicidal tendancies 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My new account
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOT ONLY HAVE I HAD TO CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF YOU, I HAVE LOST ALL OF MY CREDIBILITY. formerly suicidal tendancies.
Ring modulator 14:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Look at the bright side, atleast your record of incivility has been removed. Perhaps you can keep this account incivility free. Sorry about the name problem. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Two Dickinson Street Co-op
your deletion was uncalled for. it is a new article, thus its content has not had time to develop. please visit the discussion page for that article, and make your reasons clear. 2D is a vibrant subculture of Princeton that helps define the larger social dynamics of the place.
remaining evidence of page that I can find is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Two_Dickinson_Street_Co-op
Aaron.michels 22:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - the page will develop more soon.Aaron.michels 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] rouge or rogue?
I've been really rouge lately, so don't worry.
er, are you rogue or rouge? what do you mean?
- It's a joke. Yanksox 22:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- You took less time to go rouge then I did. I've only recently gone rouge. I think I'd better add myself into the category. Or perhaps just block everyone for no reason, let them know that way. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- hehehehe, yeah, I don't think I snapped or anything, it's just a weird thing that happens. Yanksox 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- You took less time to go rouge then I did. I've only recently gone rouge. I think I'd better add myself into the category. Or perhaps just block everyone for no reason, let them know that way. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cute 1 4 u
Regarding your protection on Cute 1 4 u's page. Can you please unprotect it? We really need to hear what she has to say.Tennislover 02:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Cute 1 4 u is blocked on Wikipedia, unprotecting her page negates the whole purpose of protecting the page. She would troll on her talk page and that was all she did. There is no need to unprotect it. Yanksox 03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not like she did anything really bad on her talk page.Tennislover 03:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- You have to understand she is blocked, and she was using her talk page to troll. It's important not to feed the attention span of such a user. I'm such you can talk off wikipedia. Yanksox 05:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Muchos gracias!
I will be sending out my "thank-you's" to all the people who voted for my RfA, but I wanted to first drop by and thank you for all your help! If you ever need anything, just let me know. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LOL!
You don't deserve civility, i should submit a request for your de adminship. Ring modulator 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfA thanks
 |
Hi Yanksox, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as a expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] RfA Thanks
 |
Mike's RfA Thanks | |
| Yanksox: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/4. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] A couple of questions for you
Heya. Just thought I should draw your attention to a couple of questions I had recently, here. I'd be grateful to hear what you think of them. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 00:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shiny new buttons
 |
Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.
|
 |
[edit] Signpost updated for November 13th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 46 | 13 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] [Statement of gratitude]
 |
[Your username name, not subst:ed properly], [statement of gratitude] for [your specific vote] in [link to request for adminship], which passed with a final tally of [final tally][percent in parentheses (optional)]. I plan to [statement of intentions regarding admin tools] and [statement acknowledging oppose votes as helpful]. If you [type of desire for help] or want to provide any [type of feedback], feel free to [link to talk page or e-mail]. [Statement of gratitude, again (optional)] [signature of new admin] |
Because people often complain that RfA thank-you messages are impersonal, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to create your own. -- tariqabjotu 04:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
OK I have been handed a NPOV for my edits on Brassiere. Perhaps not surprising given the subject matter. What happens now? Does that stay on the article for ever. I can try and respond to the criticisms, but I can't lie! And others disagree with the critic. Mgoodyear 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway now it has become a warzone Mgoodyear 20:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 20th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 47 | 20 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good point...
There is an ancient Vulcan proverb: "Only Nixon could go to China." youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. Just wanted to inform you that my article was edited to include information pertaining to the artists participation in a nationwide song writing competition, in which he placed in the top 10. According the the criterion, that qualifies the article as a legitimate addition to the website. If any other further editing is needed, feel free to let me know. Thanks in advance and have a wonderful day.
[edit] MLB All-Stars categories
Hello YankSox. Thanks for let me know about you. I'm sorry to say that some people thinks that all American and National Leagues All-Stars should be deleted and merged into their parents. I would favour keeping both categories. I find categories useful for browsing related articles and exploring people with something in common. You know what? Finally, all Dates in Baseball articles were deleted because some wiki users don't see baseball history by date as notable or useful. I think is a shame to just threw away all this hard work. Now, is the turn for the All-Stars cats. It could be a bad precedent for future projects. In any event, could you have a look at MLB All-Stars categories for deletion? Please think about this and let me know what you think. Thanks. MusiCitizen 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yanksox. The proposal is not to delete the American and National League All-Start categories, it is to delete the subcategories by year and merge the contents into the two parent categories. The team rosters should be listed in individual articles about each all star game. This is happening in articles such as 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. Listing this in an article adds the possibility of annotating the information with positions and other stats. Making categories out of this information clutters up articles such as Hank Aaron. If the information is in articles, it would MORE useful for browsing related articles and exploring people with something in common. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 03:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
My concern with this is that categories are becoming the only way that people think they can create lists to browse through articles. In the case of a team roster, it seems an article does a much better job of listing the roster than a category. In the article about each player it can say "Bob Smith was chosen for the National League All Star time in 1960, 1963 and 1964". Each year could link to the articles about the game from that year (my example here is not so linked because many of these articles have not yet been written). Here are the advantages of removing the by year categories as I see it:
- It would get rid of quite a bit of category clutter
- The games would be linked to the teams when it the subject comes up in the article
- The articles would have information about all the players in the articles about each game
- The merged category would include All-Star players from every team.
- It sends the message that team rosters by year is not a good practice. Imagine if people start categorizing every major league team by their roster each year!
What is the advantage of having this information in a category? The only one I can think of is that the software will automatically alphabetize the roster. It might be slightly easier to browse to the category list than to find the roster in an article, but in some ways it is more difficult because they are not together in the same place. Also, the ease of browsing some categories has to be weighed against the difficulty of browsing all the other categories because there are so many of them. I'd like to understand your thinking on this better. --Samuel Wantman 07:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Disheartening Issue
User "Pjacobi" has marked all of my contributions for "deletion debate". I have no issue conducting a debate on whether an article should be deleted or not, but there are no rational nor constructive arguments for the deletion of any of my article contributions. If a user has an issue with my additions they should change the sentence structure, or add information to the article, not mark it for deletion. Frankly I don't think he can understand my complex writing style, for if he did he would realize that my sentences convey rational and verifiable information.
I am an autohority on the subjects that I have contributed to. I have been involved for years on a College level and have recently unconvered that Wikipedia had pages on the subject matter. I was soo disheartened with the state of the pages that I felt in necessary to contribute, and what do I get, irrational attacks by unproficient users.
I guess what I am asking for is a little special attention to my contributions, and especially the deletion debates on various articles. I feel that all attacks agains me, and my contributions are irrational and unsubstantial. Everything I add is straight forward and logical. Thank you for your attention. Noah Seidman 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An Oath of Sincerity
If my article contributions are decided to be kept on the Wikipedia network, yes it will make disgruntled people angrier, but it will be providing an invaluable resource that has hitherto been lacked by internet 3'rd party sources. The quality of the material that I have added to Wikipedia is outstanding, and the lack of proficiency by users demanding deletion is not a substantial reason to delete the information. There will always be users tha have a problem, or want to discredit controversial information, but if the information in question is retained a great step will be taken to squash unsubstantial stereotpes about a technology that is extremely straight forward, consistent with the laws of electrolysis, and definetly consistent with the laws of physics. The blatent arrogance that users have to discredit such rationally written information should not impact the availability of information to users that actually have interest or care about the subject at hand. The attacks against my contributions are out of malance, and I don't even think they actually read the articles. I strong urge that before deletion the entire article be read in depth by either yourself or a coexisting administrator. If the article is read in depth it will prove clear as to why the material should remain on the Wikipedia network. Noah Seidman 22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikibreak
Oh, hey, it's no problem about the Wikibreak -- I'm happy to see you back, though, and thanks for the comments at the admin coaching page. I've still been active while you were away, but I didn't come up with any particular questions to ask you, and (AFAIK) there have been no more incidents to ask for help with. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Im at the point
Frankly I'm at the point where I don't care whether my articles remain on Wikipedia. There are too many crackpot conspiracy theorists throwing around unsubstantial accusations. If the Brown's Gas article is indeed removed, so be it. There should be no article created in its place and Wikipedia should not allow an article about Brown's Gas in the future. If false accusations are made in a future article, such as "fraud" or "hoax", I do believe "defamation" is an appropriate terminology that most lawyers are familiar with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nseidm1 (talk • contribs).
- (edit conflict, typo was correct)"I do not think that word means what you think it means", deformation is what happens when an old vinyl LP gets left in the sun. You probably meant defamation which is a term that most lawyers are familiar with. Which brings me to my next point...you can use words like "fuck" and not provoke as much response as you can with words like "defamation", please consider carefully the tone and content of comments that contain legal terms, many wikipedians (including myself) are allergic to them :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My Two Cents
F*cuking "shit", the shitty shit, the shit who shits wont shit forver. Sorry, just getting out all of my inner feelings. I understand why the page was removed. I wasnt the starter of the page. All I ask is that when some fool tries to start the page again, that it be moderated with some extra attention. Only a court of law can conclude that something is a fraud and Wikipedia is not a place designed to perpetuate stereotypes that are not founded on prior legislation. I guess in the end its best that the page dousn't exist at all because of all the ranting back and forth. There will never be common ground on the topic until more mainstream research is conducted, and I hope this will be the case in the near future. Best regard to a tidy Wikipedia. Sincerely Noah Seidman 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um...no, a court of law isn't the only thing that decides if something is a hoax. I should know from personal experience...Wikipedia deals with Wikipedia, and this is on Wikipedia so you need to play "the game." Yanksox 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfA offer
Heya,
Spawn Man recently offered to nominate me for adminship and created the page for it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daveydweeb. Since you're my admin coach, I'd be grateful to hear your opinion on this before I accept. :)
Thanks in advance! -- Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 02:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Heya, thanks for your support! Sorry to have jumped the
sharkgun and accepted before your response, but with two nominators I wanted to get it over with. I'm glad to have your approval. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 12:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 104 home runs of thanks
I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 27th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 48 | 27 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Favor
Can you please check out E tac (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for me and block if you think it's warranted? He has a long history of blocks and warnings, but it's been a while. Recently he has been edit warring on Alex Lifeson and made a personal attack on me after I warned him not to continue being disruptive. I don't want to block since I was sort of involved in the Lifeson article. Thanks :) --Ars Scriptor 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Let me say at first I was sort of baffled and was trying to remember who you were. But no matter, now I know. Anyways, I blocked the user for 48 hours for a nonsense 3RR, I think a stern lecture about their role on Wikipedia is needed. Yanksox 12:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA
 |
Oh, the humanity!
I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Satisficing
Hi Yanksox,
Can you help me understand why you deleted my update to "satisficing" today?
I added this paragraph, which you deleted:
"Simon once attempted to explain satisficing to a group of his students by describing a mouse searching for cheese in a maze. The mouse might be searching for a piece of Gouda, but unable to find any would be "satisfied" and could "suffice" with a any piece of cheese, such as American."
This is a good example from Herb Simon that further illustrates the example before it as well as where the term came from. This example helps to further explain the paragraph before, including a notion that is missing: satisficing isn't always immediate; people might start a search for some time looking for something specific and then decide to satisfice. The example, as I said, also actually explains where the term satisficing comes from, which isn't explained anywhere in this article (combination of satisfy and sufficing). Including as example from Simon, who put this term into economics and decision making is relevant.
What about the paragraph doesn't fit?
Craig.borchardt 29 November 2006
Your reply
Maybe you should work on how it rolls out. It doesn't quite fit in as smoothly as it can. Yanksox 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
My reply
Hi yanksox,
I've added the paragraph back with a small transition, but the content is correct and relevant, and I think it should be in the article. I welcome the feedback, though.
I think there are at least two things that going on here: one, the entire article needs some type of revision. The article should open when a description of the term, which it doesn't, where it came from, who coined it, and then talk about how it is applied in different fields. Right now, the current article makes it look as though several different disciplines came up with the same term differently, but these are really rooted in the same place because Simon was a cognitive psychologist who worked in areas such as decision making, economics (won the Nobel Prize for economics), and artificial intelligence. The article doesn't have that sense; it reads as though cobbled together.
Secondly, there are issues in the overall structure of the section which literally reads:
factoid/example, factoid/example.
It actually says "example:"
To me, this style of written is something that I think you as an admin should have been focusing on instead. I'm not attacking you. I'm still not clear what about the paragraph that I added doesn't fit. If you mean that I didn't write "example:" before it, then I agree that it doesn't fit, but that's a problem with the article, and I'm not in a postition to revise it. More feedback rather than your deletion would be useful since the content is correct and relevant.
[edit] Oratory Prep
I don't believe this edit was warranted at all. Can you state your reasoning please?--dannycas 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I stand by that edit. The information was too promotional and is not necessary for the overall comprehension of the school. Yanksox 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
 |
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which succeeded. I have a lot to learn but your words of support mean a lot! Any advice is welcome as I learn to use the new tools. Thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |  |
[edit] About you
You're not a very good admin are you? 1B6 13:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
