User talk:BigDT/archive200702

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive. Please do not modify it. Leave new comments on my talk page.
Quick links: Main page • My Contributions • Talk to me • Jun 06 • Jul 06 • Aug 06 • Sep - Dec 06 • Jan 07 a • Jan 07 b • Feb 07 • Mar 07

Contents

[edit] Eagle Knot

I'm having trouble with the newer svg version of Image:EagleKnotPublicDomain.JPG. It shows up just fine on the image page, but when I include it is {{User Eagle Scout}} it does not show up. I have experimented and found that it will show up as a larger image. Any ideas on what the problem might be? --NThurston 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at it now ... there was a bunch of extra Adobe data in there. I'm guessing that the software that runs Wikipedia was having trouble rendering it in some cases. I removed the extra stuff and now it shows up everywhere for me. --BigDT 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad to know that I can do that. Next problem: I'm getting complaints that at 45px it's losing too much resolution and people can't tell what it is. I'm going to experiment with different backgrounds, outlines, etc. to see if I can make everyone happy. Wish me luck!! --NThurston 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been discussing with Rlevse a final version of the image and the template. We think we're done. Would you mind deleting all of the old versions of Image:BSAEagleKnot.svg? --NThurston 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Circle-question.svg

If you want to protect this page against creation, simply transcluding the image at a size of 1px would do the trick. I suspect, however, that it's unlikely that this particular (seemingly random) title will be targeted for the same vandalism again. —David Levy 18:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It was hit twice ... so I had assumed there was some significance to it in the show ... although I couldn't begin to guess what that significance is. --BigDT 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sosa Entertainment

Your message to Trejm just popped up in my watchlist. Sosa Entertainment has already been deleted before (same author) [1]. Under advertising/nn. Maybe a speedy delete is better? It's not as much advertising now as it was before, but Trejm is obviously Tre Jean-Marie, the founder, and it's still nn. RB972 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being speedied ... I usually don't speedy music-related things myself unless it's obvious that we're talking about high school kids that hope to make a CD if daddy will buy them a pack of CDs. I rely on others who are more familiar with our standards for bands than I am ... but I have no objection to it being speedied. --BigDT 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship request

Hi!

I tried to answere the issue that concerned you. I edited under other names and then I made this user name to be consistent with other Iranians. Then I understood that I can not move my previous works to this user name. Therefore I renamed my previous usernames as Sangak1,2 and 3. Its now 8 month that I am writing under Sangak about science and art. I also write about history of religion and contemporary history under pen name Sina as explained in my page. The range of articles I edit by these two names have almost no overlap. Unfortunately there is no way to merge my works to a single name. I consulted with admins last year and they said there exist no way for that. In summary 10% of my edits (~5000) were in talkpages. Thanks. Sangak 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But that has nothing to do with Wikipedia space participation (pages that start with Wikipedia:). Administrators have buttons that allow them to delete and protect pages and block users. So it is necessary, before supporting you, to know that you know when to use these buttons. If you participate in deletion discussions, that tells us that you know when to hit the delete button. If you report repeated vandals to WP:AIV, after they have vandalized after being warned with {{test4}}, that tells us that you know when to hit the block button. Discussing possible changes or updates to Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia talk pages shows that you understand policies. I, for one, don't really care that much what you do ... the whole point is to gain experience with and an understanding of Wikipedia policies and processes. --BigDT 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Notability in question: ghits"

Hi, BigDT,

I see that you are both a ScoutingWikiProject member and a WikiAdmins! Before I knew those things, you helped me a few days ago find relevant info to upload an image of the DESA on its neck ribbon (Image:DESA2007.jpg) and then remove my IP from the logs (I had forgotten to log in)...

Here's my dilemma, in stages (thanks for your patience!):

Once I set up that new image, as a DESA honoree, I decided to add my name to the list of notable Eagle Scouts (after reading the criteria, etc.). That got me to thinking that this listing would not have a link back to any article, as most of those listed do. (I began to "think more about Wikipedia"!)

To start this, I next created a page covering an national Mentoring Award I have established, and that page seems to have "survived" (McDonald Award for Excellence in Mentoring and Advising).

I then got to thinking about a page concerning myself, which took quite a few hours to research (for facts, images, references and links) and to type up in Wiki fashion. I uploaded that a few minutes ago as Capers McDonald -- only to see a message saying:

“ "It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:

Notability in question. ghits: [1]

If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days.{{{1}}} This template was added 2007-02-04; five days from then is 2007-02-09.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy."

 ”

The number of Google hits for "Capers McDonald" (as posted) combined with "Capers W. McDonald" and "Capers Walter McDonald" is approximately 800. If that count is simply insufficient, I guess those are the community rules.

However, I'm wondering if this is the case -- how about the number of searches that are done to those relevant sources? I know there are constantly students, Scouts, parents, business people, educators, government officials and others finding me through the Web and talking to me about common interests. Not to press this too far, but how about other metrics, such as being a Distinguished Eagle Scout, or having established the Mentoring Award (with its annually increasing honorees), or having won some national recognitions (such as an entrepreneur of the year, and ethical business person)?

So, my obvious question to you is: What should I be doing now? Is there something that's more productive than taking your valuable time to help me get oriented...

Thanks a lot, Wikipedalist 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... there are several questions/points here ... I'll try to address everything. ;)
  • When an article is nominated for deletion using a {{prod}} (as this one was), anyone (including the creator of the article), may remove the template to stop the deletion process. A {{prod}} is used for an uncontested deletion - so anyone is allowed to object and the means of objecting is simply to remove the template. In that case, if someone still wants to pursue deletion of the article, the issue would be taken to WP:AFD. So if you would like to stop the article from being deleted after the {{prod}} expires, simply remove the template.
  • There is no exact standard on "g-hits", or "google hits". Google is best used as a tool to confirm whether the subject of the article is real or fictional. There are plenty of people who are subjects of Wikipedia articles who will get very few Google hits. On the other hand, a company that is trying to launch an advertising campaign may get 50,000 Google hits, but be a very minor company which does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. There's no magic number of Google hits that makes a topic notable ...
  • We are strongly advised against writing about ourselves - see WP:AUTO and WP:COI. The thought is that we want Wikipedia to be a serious and neutral encyclopedia and most people will not write neutral articles about themselves.
  • Wikipedia's guidlines for notability of individual persons are given in WP:BIO, as well as WP:N. The biggest question is whether there are multiple non-trivial published works that provide information about a topic. Wikipedia's fundamental policies include that articles must consist of verifiable sources and must have a neutral point of view. So any topic that you could not write about while citing sourced independent of your own personal knowledge probably should not be on Wikipedia.
  • To answer your obvious question, there isn't anything more important for me to do than help new users - I'm always happy to help in any way I can. In general, I think taking a look at some of the Manual of Style pages and Notability guidelines is the biggest thing you can do to grow as an editor. There's a lot of background that you can learn from them.
  • With respect to this I think, in general, autobiographical articles are a bad thing. I think, probably the best thing to do with it is to "userfy" it. You have a user page that, within reason, you can use for whatever you want. My user page is User:BigDT ... your's is User:Wikipedalist. I would suggest just moving this article to your user page. It would not be considered a part of the encyclopedia, but you would be free to leave it there, unimpeded. --BigDT 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for this invaluable help!
  • You are a credit to the community (sincerely)!
  • I will be taking this all on board and updating things as soon as I can.
  • In the meantime, thanks for the page updates that you have rendered.
  • I am also still trying to figure out how to communicate with you and, eventually, others...
Wikipedalist 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to be of help. --BigDT 16:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Chsh

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

[edit] Opinion requested

Would you be willing to offer your opinion on the fair use status of these images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_February_4#Image:.27.27Conflict_Onan.27.27_by_Anton_Brink.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_February_4#Image:Onan.jpeg

Thanks,

CyberAnth 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Speedy deletions

Please, if you tag something that might be transcluded somewhere else for speedy deletion, like Talk:American Foxhound/Comments, add <noinclude> around the speedy deletion tag. Otherwise, it can make it annoying to figure out where the speedy deletion tag is coming from, especially when CAT:CSD is filled up. Thanks. --BigDT 03:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I should have thought of that. Thanks for the reminder – Qxz 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA?

Thanks for your notes on my talk page about nominating myself for RFA.

I would be very interested in being nominated for adminship if you were willing to nominate me. As I indicated to someone else a while back, I would never self nominate myself - I have some fundimental issue with that. Same basic issue I have with asking someone else to nominate me.

My one weakness with a nomination would be the limited article creation I have done. Most of my work has been around the clean up of stuff. Any advise you could offer me would be greatly appreciated. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 20:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, I have now read over the various links provided. I have begun editing the nomination, accepted and answered question 1. Given night class and haveing to sleep I will continue with the other questions and will copy it over to the main nomination page later, likely not until tomorrow morning. Thanks again.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I have answered the three questions now and was going to add the nomination to the page. The final thing that I need to do is change the time; that is where my question comes in. It says to change the time to the current time, but at the top of the nomination the time shown is the closing time not the opening time. Any help getting this done correctly. Thanks.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually got it done. Thanks for the nomination. We will see how it goes.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from Louieais (talk • contribs)

BigDT, please chill out with the calling me a vandal. I was FIXING the page because of a minor misspell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Louieais (talk • contribs).

You changed Mariculture to Mari culture and Algaculture to Alga culture. I have no earthly idea what the correct term is ... but considering that Mariculture and Algaculture both have articles and your terms to not, it would seem to be preferable to leave both terms the way they were. --BigDT 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay then.

[edit] Waitara, New Zealand: Two images for deletion

Hi, I don't know why the two images at Waitara, New Zealand have been targeted for deletion. I have followed fully the procedure for uploading the images Waitara 1.jpg and Waitara 2.jpg. I obtained written permission from the copyright owner, forwarded this by email to the address given at the Wikipedia article on image copyright, noted on the talk page of the article that I had done this and attached what, to the best of my knowledge, was the correct tag on the image. I'm sorry, but the obscure shorthand of "(Not an orphan) tagged as GFDL and as all rights released, source website gives no indication of either BigDT 12:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)" is just insufficient explanation of what is lacking. Can you please explain what else is required to keep these two images at this page? Thank you. Grimhim 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What address did you forward the letter of permission to - "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org"? Can you do this? (1) On the image description page, copy/paste the text of the email you received granting permission for the images to be released (removing email addresses, names, other personal information) and (2) note in the discussion onWikipedia:Images and media for deletion that you have done so? This will allow us to look at the permission that you have received and determine that it meets Wikipedia's requirements.
Remember, it is important that the letter of permission say something like, "we release the image under the GFDL", not just, "you can use it on Wikipedia". Wikipedia can only use the image if it is released under a "free" license, meaning, one that allows anyone to use it for any purpose - simply allowing it to be used on Wikipedia is insufficient.
Also, please keep in mind that plenty of times, images are uploaded with false licensing information. Any image that was not created by the uploader that has only a source and a license tag with no explanation for the license is going to be looked at carefully.
I hope this helps ... if I can help you with any other image questions, please feel free to ask.--BigDT 22:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have checked the email address I forwarded the permission to: it is exactly as you mention, so I'm baffled at why these images have still been targeted for deletion. However I have copied the copyright owner's email to both image pages and also left a message on the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion page. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grimhim (talk • contribs) 00:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Well ... the reason I nominated the images for deletion is simple - until you let me know, I had no possible way of knowing that you had permission to distribute them under the GFDL. I'll strike the nomination. --BigDT 00:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the IFD tag from Image:Waitara 2.jpg now the copyright issues have been resolved. Will you be removing the tag from Waitara 1.jpg, which is covered by the same statement from the copyright owner? Cheers Grimhim 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought I had ... oversight ... I also removed the "All rights released" template since that's not technically the case. There are some rights reserved under the GFDL, so only the GFDL template should be there. --BigDT 02:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi BigDT,

Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam 22:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potentials

Yeah, the subpage is a good idea. Thanks for running with the ball on this, hopefully it will produce some good results :). Cheers, NoSeptember 02:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

You deleted an image that is currently being discussed. I made a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Green Bay Packers request for mediation on the issue. The user has uploaded new higher resolution versions of almost every NFL team and has taken the old one out. This seems to violate WP:FUC #3. Just confusing why the original small one was delete while it was being discussed. I'm trying to settle this dispute, so I hope you can help me out; I'm not quite sure if I'm doing this right. I'm trying to avoid an edit war and discussing the issue, while the other user hasn't said much, just how it looks nicer. Thank you.++aviper2k7++ 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was tagged as a redundant image, which is speedyable under CSD I1. I am not a party to this dispute so I had no idea that a discussion was going on ... I simply looked at the two images, saw them to be the same except for resolution, and deleted the smaller one. I have restored it per your request so the discussion can go on. I have no particular interest ... I was just going through CAT:CSD. ;) --BigDT 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BJBot/IFDBot

I'm working on finishing the preliminary code for an IFD bot, the current plan is to check all the images in Categories: Images and media for deletion and see if they have been listed in the last 20 days else relist them at the current IFD page. The first run is going to dump to a user sub page as to not flood IFD so an admin will have to go through them (aprox 300). I was looking for input you had and how often you think it should run. BJTalk 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess as often as is possible/feasible. I don't see any downside to having constantly updated data ... so as often as it can be run without putting a strain on resources would seem logical to me. --BigDT 23:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Setting up thumb images to print from articles

Hi, BigDT... Now I find that two of the thumb images in the Capers McDonald article are not printing (or showing on print preview, either). They appear to be formatted exactly as thumb images that print from other articles. Also, frustratingly, they show and print when in Editing Preview mode, but not when saved. They are the "MBA Fellows Program" and "BioAlliance visit" thumbs... Any quick ideas? Thanks, Wikipedalist 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as printing goes, try going to "Page setup" and changing it from portrait to landscape mode. It looks like portrait is just too narrow for whatever HTML Wikipedia is generating to fit everything on the page. As far as the image not showing up in the article, are you still having a problem with it? I looked at the article and the images look fine. If the problem is still occuring, what browser are you using? --BigDT 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting Barnstar

The Scouting Barnstar
The Scouting Barnstar

-for getting us squared away on image tagging and all that goes with it. (talk Rlevse 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. --BigDT 23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vigil Sash - Fair Use issues

Just noticed that you have the vigil sash image on your user page. It has been correctly re-licensed to a fair use license under {{scoutlogo}}. I recommend Image:OAArrowVigil.svg as a replacement. --NThurston 14:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it ... thanks ... that image didn't used to be tagged as fair use ... and I never even noticed until now that it actually was the real sash. --BigDT 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need input

Dave-need input here- User_talk:Rlevse#Gold_Eagle_.26_Gilwell_Logo_images Rlevse 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your (mine) recent edits

Hi. I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but every edit you have made for months shows up as being marked minor. Please see Special:Contributions/Abu_badali. You may have accidentally turned on the "Mark all edits minor by default" feature on the "Editing" tab of "my preferences". In general, minor edit should only be used for things like fixing typos, formatting, or reverting vandalism. --BigDT 05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed turned on (since ages). I will fix that! Thanks and sorry for the mess. --Abu badali (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Marshall

I saw the block notice. Thanks for letting me know. Re. RFA: I've thought about it, but I have a tendency to bite possible vandals to quickly. Michaelbusch 06:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you ever are interested in going through it, please feel free to ask and I'd be happy to nominate. Wikipedia needs more admins. BigDT 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My unblock

I just wanted to personally thank you for you unblocking of my page, and I have read and will adhere to your message and the guidelines of Wikipedia. I appreciate everything that you have done and I hope that you and I will stay connected via Wiki. Thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soccerkidjp (talk • contribs).

You're welcome. I am glad that you are interested in contributing. --BigDT 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Welcome

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia!Evilclown93 15:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Suggestion for your bot

Great idea, already done so for the next run it will be on the top. BJTalk 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To close a BLPN incident

Would you mind providing more instructions on how to use the "To Close an Incident" templates provided at BLPN and as I request at this thread. Thanks. -- Jreferee 02:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Dravidian Map

Hi,

I have noticed that you have removed the pic used for the Template:WPDRAVCIV on 02:37, 11 February 2007. Could you please recommend what I should do? The map was taken from a book cover. So, should I reupload the pic and state that it was taken from a book, and then give the title and author of the book? Or should I draw up a map of my own? Your advice would be appreciated. Regards. Wiki Raja 04:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:FAIR#Policy #9. Non-free images can only be used in article space and then, only under an appropriate claim of fair use. We can use book covers to illustrate an article about the book, but not just because it has a picture that is helpful. The simple version of it is that you can use Bob's work for an article on Bob or an article on the work itself - you can't use Bob's work for an article on something else or somebody else. Also, please note that any manipulation of that map would merely be a derivative work - and thus, non-free. Really, the only solution is to find or create a free map. Wikimedia Commons has a number of free maps - see Commons:Category:Dravidian languages - maybe one of these images would work? I hope that helps. --BigDT 04:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Would I be able to change the colors? I really like the colors used in the map earlier removed. It stands out pretty good. Also, would I be able to make the free maps offered bigger? Wiki Raja 06:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA note from Wikipedier (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I read found out that I didn't do it correctly. I'm recommending the user that I nominated to nominates himself, if he still wants to, so that I can not be blamed for any more mistakes that I make. I was wrong to try this and I gravely regret it!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 05:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You weren't wrong to try it ... everyone messes something up once in a while. The important thing is to learn from it so that next time you want to nominate someone, you will know how to do it correctly. There's no particular reason that this nomination couldn't be used ... I doubt anyone would hold the candidate responsible for the nominator needing some help to set everything up. --BigDT 05:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please help me learn to do it correctly? The nomination will still be withdrawed, but I would like to learn for the next time, and I would like just use ProveIt as an example. I know that the instructions are atWikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. This is what I did.

1. I went to where it says To nominate someone else and took off Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME and replaced it with User:ProveIt.

2. After the nominee told me that he accepted the nomination, I created this page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProveIt. At the top of that page, I added a heading which said ProveIt. Then, right below it, I added, Voice your opinion. I did not add when it was scheduled to end, because I have no idea how to determine that. Finally, I wrote the name of my nominee like this ProveIt (talk • contribs) and after that, that I am nominating him to become an administrator and why. I signed my name. I realize that my first mistake was not waiting until the canadate confirmed that he accepted there, before added it to the main RfA page. I do believe I read that it would be ideal to have all of the questions be asked and answered there before adding it to the main RfA page. I know that no voting or comments are to be placed until the my canadate's RfA page is on the main RfA page.

Could you please tell me what I should do in addition to what I did that time, and what should be done differently? Could you please give me a sample of each step that should be done? I've read the instruction page.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your problem was with #1. Don't replace USERNAME with User:ProveIt. Rather, just replace it with ProveIt. --BigDT 20:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but how do I shedule the RfA page to end, or do I leave that up to someone else? And did you mean replace Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProveIt or just ProveIt on the white box. I know you said just to add ProveIt, I don't need User:ProveIt. It's a small detail, but I need to get it just right.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the things that the person nominated will do is set the ending time just before their nomination is listed. All you have to do is create the nomination page using this code:
{{subst:RfA|User=Nameofuserhere|Description=I nominate this user because he is a good user. ~~~~}}
That code will automatically expand into the full nomination and give the person you nominate a place to accept the nomination. I am pretty sure that the problem with your nomination was that you did this:
{{subst:RfA|User=User:Nameofuserhere|Description=I nominate this user because he is a good user. ~~~~}}
So by adding User:, that threw off the template and broke it. Does that help? If not, maybe I'm not understanding your question. --BigDT 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, BigDT. That clears a lot. What I did originally in that matter was this. {{subst:RfA=nom|User:Wikipedier|Wikipedier}}, because that's what I remember reading to put to nominate someone else. I was way off, but now I understand the correct code, but just to show you I understand, I'll add the example for my last canadate to see for sure if I understand. ===ProveIt=== Voice your opinion (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

ProveIt (talk • contribs) - I am nominating this canadate for his incredible amount of edits.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

  1. . I have just one more question. When the sub page is created, do I need to add the questions for the canadate or the Discussion, Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections below, or is that done for me as well?--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you probably got your answer. Notice above how the whole RFA was automatically created for you. The template does everything. Wikipedia is just cool like that. ;) --BigDT 20:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I re-created the sub page itself, but I only did this to experiment to make sure I knew what I was doing. I think I know what I am doing, now. Can you please delete the page now? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProveIt. Thank you so much for all of your help!!! Oh, I forgot to sign last time, sorry.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 23:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again BigDT. I need help with a another small detail. When the instructions say not to allow any voting or comments on the sub RfA page, does that noone should fill the spot where it says General Comments? And if someone could or should, who should do it, and what should the comment or comments be?--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which instruction you're talking about. The "General Comments" section is usually reserved for procedural things - like links to previous RFAs, links to edit counts, etc. It shouldn't be used for discussion - discussion beyond just voting or responding to a vote should be on the talk page. Does that answer your question? If not, could you copy/paste the particular statement you are referring to? --BigDT 03:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I think my canadate should be the only one to add those things, if it comes to that. Should my canadate wait until doing so after the sub page has been added to the main RfA page. If my canadate doesn't need to wait until then and can add something, like an edit count, should he and the administrators of Wikipedia be the only ones that I should allow to add modify the General Comments Section. I don't know how to copy and paste the section, but it's right above discussion and right below question 3. A, I'm pretty sure. When the sub page is added to the main RfA page, who should I allow and not allow to add General Comments then, not that I have any authoriy on Wikipedia, but I am responsible for doing all of these things right.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


I reconsidered and decided the nominate ProveIt after all, because he said that he would still accept if someone else nominated him. He was just not going to nominate himself. I'm now watching the page(while I'm online) to make sure that the sub page is not added to the main RfA page until the canadate accepts and all the questions are answered. I'm also watching to the page to make sure there are no comments or votes on the sub RfA page.Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProveIt.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I see what you are talking about. It is saying that non-logged in users (meaning, users who edit from an IP address) should not case a vote in the support or oppose section, but, rather, should express their opinions in the "comments" section or on the talk page. I have added the edit count box and will place the edit count on the talk page, so you don't have to do anything there. --BigDT 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the edit count box, although I must admit that wasn't was I was thinking. I'm going to be logging out of my account now, so as of this time, I won't be able to watch the sub page, but I'll be back within 24 hours.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi BigDT, please forgive the unexpectedly soon return. I'm later than I thought I was, and it looks like the page is ready to be added to the main RfA page.Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProveIt. If that is so, I just add it above the canadate at the top, and I make it look just like this, right? {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProveIt}}. I won't change anything yet, just to ensure that everything continues to run a smoothly as they are. I have owed, and still do right now to you for that! Thank you!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, the candidate is supposed to add the voting page himself/herself. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else:. Step 3 is to set the ending time for the RFA (it has to end exactly one week after it is listed on the main page). Step 4 is to list it on the main page. Both of those are steps that the candidate takes - your job is done. All you have left to do is to cast your !vote sometime after the RFA is listed. --BigDT 12:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I can just wait for the results. Just to make sure I'll be prepared in the future, how did you add the edit count box on the sub RfA page and add the add the amount of edits on the talk page?--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For the note in the comments section, I just copied and pasted the box from someone else's RFA and changed the name to have ProveIt's name. On the talk page, see the link at the bottom. That link takes you to an edit counter. You can put anyone's name in there you want and it will show you how many edits they have. If you highlight that and hit copy, you can paste it onto the RFA talk page. --BigDT 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, ProveIt's RfA was successful, and he is now an administrator. Thank you for your support in the RfA! I see that he is helping quite well with deletions, and I'm sure Wikipedia will be glad to have him serve it with his new tools!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frater Xyyzz

No idea who that IP address was that reverted his talk page, but it wasn't me. And looking at what has happened overnight I'm clearly not the only person who feels that the information should remain on the page.ALR 08:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Firefoxmans RFA

Hi there, I have realised my comments about the edit counts per month were a little out of order on firefoxmans RfA and I will openly admit that I was wrong, I'd just like to thank you for bringing this to my attention. Thanks and if you have any other comments you may wish to contact me on my talk page or leave comments on my editor review.

Respectfully....TellyaddictEditor review! 10:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message from Ashpaa (talk • contribs)

Image:Urok-31-10-9.jpg why,i dont find answerAshpaa 17:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page --BigDT 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibbs High School

Hi BigDT! The speedy deletion of this article was overturned on DRV, but apparently the closing admin forgot to restore it. Would you care to finish the job and list it on AFD? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --BigDT 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism User talk:81.145.240.17

With regard to your decision to refuse to unblock the user on the 10th of Feb (31 Hour block). Regrettably as soon as the block expired he made 9 edits to 3 different articles entering false details. Could you please consider re-imposing the block for a further 30 days. Richard Harvey 00:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an AOL IP. I doubt it's static. The person who made those edits is likely not on that IP any more. --BigDT 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Hehe. thanks, I only noticed the autoblock when I went to say thanks on your talk page. It's 2:16am here, so I think I'll call it a night now anyway. I agree with your comments, that reverting isn't really the solution, and that discussion is the way forward. I'm sure the admins involved in the edit war are reasonable people, and that I simply haven't explained myself very well. I'm actually not religious myself, but it's interesting to see that they seem to have assumed I am based on the material I feel should be included in the article. I somehow feel this erronous inference may somehow be relevant to the situation, but I could be wrong... I'll sleep on it! Thanks again. --Rebroad 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wouldn't read too much into biases ... just be aware that people from different backgrounds may disagree. Take care. --BigDT 02:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Rebroad (talk • contribs)

(copied from my talk page; if you respond, please respond there)

FYI, I have unblocked Rebroad (talk • contribs) after he/she requested a review of the block. Please see [2] for my comments on it. Since this user was unaware of that aspect of the policy and has promised not to breach the policy in the future, I feel that an unblock is in order. Blocks are a preventative measure, not a punitive one. As with any administrative action I take, I consider it to be open to review and reversal if I am incorrect, but honestly, the more I thought about it, I could not see a non-punitive reason to leave the user blocked. --BigDT 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this user was unaware of that aspect of the policy...
Sadly, User:Rebroad had been explicitly warned at least twice about WP:3RR (once right [on my talk page] and once on their talk page which they immediately archived) and then went ahead to violate it anyway. They also went off and solicited another user to help with reversions. I won't contest your unblock, but the next time you encounter this user, you might want to keep this in mind.
Atlant 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garion96's RFA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship which closed successfully last night. Feel free to let me know if I can help you with something or if I have made a mistake. I would also like to encourage you to vote often (just in case you don't) on other candidates since we need more admins. Happy editing, Garion96 (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection of BDORT

I saw that you lifted the semiprotection on BDORT. I'm not questioning that, but please watchlist the article and be prepared to reprotect if necessary. If you're not familiar with it, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I didn't realize that there was an arbcom reason for it ... no mention of it was made in the protection summary - just that it was fully protected as a result of edit warring and that was dropped to s-protection. I'm not incredibly picky about it - we just don't generally permanently s-protect anything. If it is necessary, though, because of a banned user, I completely understand that. In any event, as the message at the top of the page that I stole from NoSeptember says, please feel free to reverse it. ;) --BigDT 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, at that time the ArbCom case was still in progress, so the banned user wasn't a banned user yet. If he abides by the outcome of the ArbCom decision which was a ban from this and related articles, and no one jumps in to take his place, there won't be a problem. Let's both just keep an eye on the page and see what happens. Newyorkbrad 04:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good ... it's watchlisted. --BigDT 04:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Funder

thanks for your note.Actually teh encyclopedia does cite a source-www.scientificmisconduct.com

I tried visiting the site but could not.Howver I did ring Vice Chancellor of Monash Univesrity's office.Prof.Larkin's office admitted they were aware of thsi information as well as www.scientificmisconduct.com but despite my repeated prodding,did not call it inaccurate.I shall try visiting the source again but I felt given the facts were in the Vice Chancellor's knowledge and not contradicted it had to be true.I shall be of course guided by your advice but this anonymous user has been vanadalising so many other pages besides this-was blocked for three months in November and actually used 3 different ID's all relating to Monash University.I ahve a feeling it is Funder himself.I shall welcome your advice.(Vr 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

Well, anything that you discussed from your interview with the university would not be allowable either. That would be original research. The standard for Wikipedia isn't merely "truth" - it's verifiability. There are plenty of facts about famous people that are true, but if a reputable, reliable source doesn't mention it, neither do we. In order for this information to be added to the article, it would need to be covered by a reliable source. That could be a newspaper, a book by a respected author, an official publication of the school, an article in a journal, etc. It may very well be that there is no reliable source that discusses this issue. If that's the case, then it cannot be in the article ... but we err on the side of caution when it comes to biographies of living persons ... and any other article for that matter. --BigDT 06:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks again for your opinion.Actually I did not create the article-it was only when I discovered this user indulging in unbridled vandalism that I came across this problem.He had blenked teh netire page once-as he did to at least half a dozen pages in his chequered career which has seen him being blocked over and over again the last for 3 months in November.I was keeping an eye on the Sony page actually!I am sure this uuser is John Funder or some relative of his.I am a little unsure of teh reliable information bit and would value your guidance.Looking at the history of the page,I note that the person who put in this information had cited additional two references-www.scientificmisconduct.com and one from the Judicail gazette.The scientificmisconduct site is available n cached form-I do not know whether that woudl be accepotable,The Gazette appears to be a bit of a maze-I may have to work on it.But is teh cached article acceptable?In any case I woudl request you to look at the history of edits from this user!Regards(Vr 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] D'oh! - Smart***

As I have none of the above relationships I do not know if I would use Smart*** or not. Although I really do not see it as a profanity, I of course do see how it could be used as an insult. :) Cheers Lethaniol 16:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's a regional thing. In America, it's a profanity. --BigDT 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move request

Hi, can you help out. I've made a pig's ear of a page move. There was a concensus to move International Grandmaster to Grandmaster (chess) on the relevant talkpage. I thought it a simple matter of moving over a redirect. But accidentally moved it to Grandmaster (Chess). I tried to correct myself but Grandmaster (chess) has been nominated for WP:RFD by someone to make way for the move... grr. So I can't move onto it. The talk page is now at Talk:Grandmaster (chess) but the article is at Grandmaster (Chess). If you can fix so its all at Grandmaster (chess) I will be very grateful. Teaches me to try and be too clever by half. WjBscribe 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --BigDT 03:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks and you beat me to all the double (and tripple) redirects too :-). WjBscribe 03:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note about HawksbillTurtle2.JPG

Hi BigDT. Thanks again for your help on my RfA. Regarding that image, I just mistakenly left out the 'self' part of the template. Hopefully it's OK now. Thanks for pointing it out. Crum375 03:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I watchlisted it and noticed when you fixed the template ... I have removed the no source tag. That's an amazing bit of photography. It never ceases to amaze me some of the pictures I've seen on Wikipedia. --BigDT 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't me - it was the subject that was amazing ;^) Crum375 06:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VegaDark's Request for Adminship

BigDT/archive200702

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks for the unblock and reply

Thanks for helping me with the unblock. In response to your suggestion of RfA: I had one a couple of months ago which failed. There were some issues with some of my AfDs being percieved as in bad faith (they weren't, but I was testing a premise) and other ancient civility issues which had resolved themselves (they were with people who have since received community bans). Recently I've been involved in a polemic RfC about a popular administrator, so I don't think an RfA right now would be a good idea. Maybe in about six months I should try again. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The other user is User:Don't Rain on my Burrito. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA note

thanks, i retracted a vote i placd on an rfa. I read about how the site works, but i don't want to get into trouble because i started out by voting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KendrixTV (talk • contribs).

You're welcome. I think holding off on voting until you are experienced is probably a good idea anyway. FYI, any time you make a comment on a discussion page (like a voting page, article talk page, or a user's talk page), you should sign your note with four tildes (~~~~). That will automatically turn into a link to your user page and a timestamp so that others can quickly see who left the comment. --BigDT 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

E-mail for you, DT. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RfB experiment

Hi BigDT, I was experimenting again, only this time for creating a page for nominating someone to be a Bureaucrat. Can you please delete the page now?Wikipedia:Requests for Bureaucraticship/ProveIt.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was delayed in leaving you that message due to technical difficulties.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is deleted ... FYI, bureaucrats are traditionally by self-nomination only. Also, there are more than enough right now and the last two to be considered were rejected soley because there are already too many, even though both were outstanding candidates and trusted long-time admins. In other words, I would not suggest nominating anyone for bureaucrat. --BigDT 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for warning me about that. I thought that Wikipedia and Wikimedia have always looked to have as many Oversights, Stewards, Checkusers, etc. as possible, as long as they were good at the position and meeting all the requirements. Now I know that Bureaucrats should only by self-nominated and there are more than enough of them, and I therefore, won't nominate a user for Bureaucraticship. Would this be the case for sysops on Wikipedia?--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, everything other than admins and bureaucrats is done as needed at the discretion of the arbitration committee or the Wikimedia Foundation ... so there really is nothing that you or I can do to help there. If they need someone new, they will appoint someone. As for admins, there is a need for more. To some degree, I think that need has been answered with what has to be a record number of nominations recently. By all means, if you find someone who is a long-time editor, has no civility problems, and is trusted, definitely, consider nominating them. But also, it's important to be careful ... I was looking through old RFAs a week or so ago (see USER:BigDT/PRFA) and found a disturbing number of users who stopped editing after a failed RFA. That can be a source of great discouragement, particularly if the reason it failed was pro forma, meaning that the nomination was poorly written or the user had fewer than some random number of edits to some namespace. It's best to nominate someone you have experience with so that you can write a thorough nomination. --BigDT 20:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

T-rex was the one welcome me to Wikipedia, and he helped me with my questions, such as telling me how he fixed the format to one of my edits. In January, I nominated T-rex to become an administrator and he said that he thought it would be best to decline then, but if I thought he was still qualified, he would be more than likely to accept in early March. I plan to ask him then if he is ready to accept the nomination. If he does and I create his RfA sub page, I would add this on my description.I am nominating T-rex to become an administrator because he helped me with questions I had of Wikipedia, such as the format fix the had made. T-rex is good at helping new users who are unfamillier with Wikipedia and it's poicies, as well as working well with other people and having more than 2,000 edits.. Would that be a thorough nomination?--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's good, but it should be expanded some. Take a look at some of the other nominations. This page - User:NoSeptember/RfA chronological - has a list of successful RFAs that you can look at for examples. I would think back to short essays in English class. Have a start, two or three main points, with supporting evidence for each, and a conclusion:
  • I am nominating User X
    • He/she has written articles A, B, and C
    • He/she is helpful to me personally
    • X did this other thing that really impressed me
  • So I think he/she would make a great admin.
You don't want to make it too terribly long or nobody is going to read it ... but just a short nomination that focuses on edit counts isn't going to help, particularly in a borderline case. --BigDT 00:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an essay writer, and probroly failed in school to do it. I now know I can't nominate someone for adminship for the future, though I think can still support canadates on their RfA's, right? The RfA prosses really looked simple in appearance. I didn't write a thorough nomination. Does this mean ProveIt's RfA will be closed. I guess it's up to the Bureucrats to determine. I know who I can ask. I guess this gos to show that the concept on the What adminship is not, essay that Adminship is not a game is a key one that every Wikipedian should know and demonstrate understanding of. The RfA process is serious and following all the requirements and standards are expected by the canadate and the nominator.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at ProveIt's RFA, it seems to be going fine - I wouldn't worry about that too much. An unquestionably qualified candidate is going to get selected no matter how bad the nomination is. But there are different people who have different views. Some will decide whether or not to support someone based on what percentage of their edits are in article space vs Wikipedia: space. Others will only support if the candidate appears to "need" to be an admin based on their answer to question #1. Other people have other criteria. But in the case of ProveIt, he is so obviously a good candidate that it didn't matter too much. But yes, there is a lot to understand about the process. There are other ways to contribute to Wikipedia other than just adminship-related things. Take a look at Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. There is a lot of vandalism and by patrolling the recent changes link (look to the left of your screen in the "navigation" box), you can help get rid of vandalism. Another place you can take a look at is Category:Wikipedia backlog. This has a list of articles that have been identified as having some kind of problem. Also, you can just pick an article that interests you and work on it! RFA can be a complicated and stressful process, but there are a ton of ways to contribute in other areas. --BigDT 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea that ProveIt was in such good standing.(Also, the reason I think you are a good administrator, is because you are helping me so well with the quesions I have. I saw your RfA recently succeeded in the new year. Here is a late Congratulations.) The reason why I tryed to nominate so many people for adminship is, because I noticed so many people that I thought were responsible enough to use the tools, but I also agree with the concept that Adminship is not a trophy, meaning that people are not administrators because they have more value than the standard user.(Anthere, for example, doesn't have more value to Wikipedia than the newest signed in user because of being a Steward and the chair of the Wikimedia, board of trustees.) Admins just have the requirements to help with extra maintence, like a form of community service, that could potentaly be abused. Every editor can help Wikipedia, and I'll look into those sections you told me. And, as a coincidence, I recently reverted an edit to Bill Gates, identified as vandalism.(PS:I wish I had more interests, but I don't have a wide range of interests. That won't prevent me from helping Wikipedia, to the best of my ability, though.)--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Personal Attacks on the Sandbox

Hi again, BigDT, I just wanted to let you know that I spotted offensive content on the sandbox here, and am asking you if I should revert edits like it, even if it's the sandbox. I know that the sandbox is the place to do basicly any experiments. I've done numberous experiments that were repetitive, and that many people would consider me wasting it. My concern on the recent revision that I saw is that it looks like a personal attack, like racist comments, death threats of a user, etc.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. By all means, personal attacks can be removed or reverted anywhere that you find them. Also, with the sandbox, there is a line that has to be there - it says {{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}}. Any time you notice that line removed, it's a good idea to add it back. It needs to be there to explain to new users how to use it. Thanks. --BigDT 03:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No problom. And for the record, I've dealth with users who make personal attacks or vandalize pages by leaving them a message on their talk page about what they did, and asking them not to do it again. I know I've read somewhere on Wikipedia not to feed the trolls, but they should be blocked, their edits should be reverted, and they should be ignored. Does this mean I shouldn't give the vandals or the people who troll on Wikipedia warnings about what they are doing, if noone else has warned them already. I don't think doing that is likely to feed the troll.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Warnings are necessary before blocking. Except in extreme cases, a user will not be blocked until they have been warned. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for a rationale and a list of templates to use. The essay you are referring to is WP:RBI. What that is talking about is not making pages memorializing vandalism. --BigDT 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi BigDT, I wanted to know if this revison was unacceptable on the sandbox. It seemed like the editor's intention was to get other people to disrupt the sandbox in a way that would harm Wikipedia, so I reverted it. Should this IP receive a warning, or is it an acceptable experiment to do?--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the user's other contributions since then - Special:Contributions/72.139.97.176. Whether posting that to the sandbox was bad or not, he/she posted it to articles ... and that's definitely bad. ;) --BigDT 23:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I now see that user is blocked for 31 hours because of vandalism.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Funder

I just noticed the edt war that took place leading you to intervene on the informtion I had inserted on thi page.Actually I had obtained the information from the book:

http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=%5EDB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0742516326

The information is on page 35-36.But as I felt the book could not be cited as it could not be accessed,I placed the link.Is there a way to use the book as a reference on the article?(Delhite 08:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

The template {{cite book}} can be used to cite a book. Just please make sure that the citation is accurate and that you follow WP:BLP, which requires that no unsourced or poorly sourced material be added to an article about a living person. Thanks. --BigDT 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Big DT

Thanks for your note.I have I see been threatend withh legal action.

I included the original references in addition to the book reference but do take your point.I do not have personal access to scanner but here is what the book says:

A partcularly curious case of racism came to light in a judicial review when John Funder of Melbourne and his doctorla student David Copolov were found to have accused a colleague of scientific misconduct in the absence of the most preliminary draft and then had this place din the legislative council to avoid libel.The judge dtermined that the report prepared by funder was unauthentic as he added several pages without consulting his colleagues on teh Committee assigend for the purpose and ruled that the primary motivation was in all probability racism.

I leave it to you to infer any copyright violation.(Delhite 06:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your advice.Perhaps I was in error using teh additional sources which I cam across during googling in conjunction with the book-and as teh book was not immediately accessible,I had not place dthat earlier.But my gratitude for your gudance.Because of teh very unpleasant and minatory undertone by this anonymous user,I was thinkung of leaving teh wiki.(Delhite 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] User:Rokin1

Autoblocked IP addresses originating from Google tend to be untagged Google Web Accelerator addresses. Please see Wikipedia:Google Web Accelerator and indefinitely block/tag these addresses.  Netsnipe  ►  03:43, February 19, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Thanks for the auto-unblock. I wish the people who I have to share my IP with would stop vandalizing. When they get blocked, I get autoblocked. Acalamari 22:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --BigDT 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand‎

Just to let you know I requested that this was closed a couple of hours ago as betacommand tried to explain his blocks. I just hope he can take advice from now and report to WP:RFCN. As I said in the RfC, his blocks were goof faith, just a bit trigger happy RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I followed a link from WP:RFCN ... I didn't notice the message up at the top of the page before leaving my comment. --BigDT 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I just thought I'd let you know before you made any massive edits to it! Cheers anyway for commenting and at the minute I would agree with you RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I see I should have closed the RfC more formally (although it could conceivably reopen should the concerns not resolve themselves, but I hope they will). So I'll know for next time, where do I find the templates you used to close it out? Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Category:Archival templates. Everything you need in life is there. ;) --BigDT 00:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. They should have included this in my New Admins Handbook last month. :) Newyorkbrad 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's included with the mind reading software. ;) --BigDT 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Second question, can this still be reopened if it needs to be? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know what the procedure is, but if nothing else, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand‎ 2 could be created. Honestly, though, there's no history with this one that matters, so I don't see any real reason to retire the number - as far as I'm concerned, just reuse the current page should the need arise. --BigDT 00:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA offer

I accept your RFA offer. Thanks for having faith in me. Rlevse 02:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I already did it. Pls look over in case I goofed. Were my answers detailed enough?Rlevse 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I added some articles to 2 and the ref specialty people have asked for help with. I can't think of a good policy example.Rlevse 02:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)...Let me know if you have other suggestions.Rlevse 02:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. I wouldn't worry about it too much. --BigDT 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plymouth Brethren

Thanks for pointing that out re: Plymouth Brethren citations - I've added them:) Malick78 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to help. --BigDT 12:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trebor Rowntree

Thank you for validating my initial doubts about the allegation made last night on this RfA. It was good to know that another editor also found the alleged sockpuppetry unlikely before I pursued matters further. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can'tnapWillyonWheelswillmoveme

This isn't really to wikipedia related, but the endorsement by User:Can'tnapWillyonWheelswillmoveme on WP:RFCN is officially the funniest thing I've seen on wikipedia - "Seams fine to me" - Classic! RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, User:Zbl has been autoblocked because he apparently shares a wireless network with Can'tnapWillyonWheelswillmoveme. Do you think a checkuser is in order? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CBDrunkerson. I assumed based on last night's silliness that this person was Can't sleep, Zordon will teleport me (talk • contribs), who is a confirmed sock of CBDrunkerson. You may want to compare contributions as it could be that Zbl is unfortunate enough to use the same dial-up internet provider. --BigDT 01:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Why did you end the new Can'trest... with no consensus? Also, should we BJAODN Can'tnap's comment? Zbl 21:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Trolling usernames are blocked. As for BJAODN, I'm not sure which comment you are talking about, but listing on that page is an editorial decision that does not require administrative intervention. (In other words, if there is something that isn't defammatory that you feel should be added, just do it - you don't need anyone's permission.) --BigDT 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the one with Willy on Wheels was trolling, but the shoe one? That's the one I meant. Zbl 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is going to come up with that name without it being a play on CSCWEM's name. Because of all of the anti-vandalism work he does, he consistently picks up trolling usernames like this. See [3]. This is a serious encyclopedia, not a contest to come up with joking usernames. --BigDT 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It may be a takeoff, but to block with no edits? He may have been username-inspired. Zbl 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Funder

Could you please review the edit history of John Funder? An IP user is threatening legal action, but can't spell "libel" properly. --Eastmain 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, three of the sources are the same worthless sources as before. I'm in agreement with the IP in removing it ... I'd like to see the exact text of the book that is being used to source this passage. The IP obviously needs to learn about WP:NLT, though. --BigDT 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burt Reynolds

i tried what you said in the awards /achievement section and looks like this (2003 Atlanta IMAGE Film and Video Award [1] However when you click the 1 it does not do anything Rogue_Gremlin Feb 21,2007

Take a look now. I have added a "Notes" section that includes the "<references />" tag. Every reference you make will automatically show up there. Please see User:BigDT/sandbox for a simple demo and feel free to play around or conduct experiments there. (Or, optionally, you can make your own sandbox at User:Rogue Gremlin/sandbox.) There's one other thing I notice, by the way - your signature is wrong. It is linking to an article Rogue Gremlin, rather than to your user page, User:Rogue Gremlin. If you just use four tildes - ~~~~, your signature will be added automatically. --BigDT 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rlevse_2 RfA

You say:

Adminship ought to be easy come easy go. I will support the RFA of almost anyone who will list themselves at Administrators open to recall. Similarly, if there is any question whatsoever, I may oppose anyone who refuses to be listed.

I can't see any mention of recall on the RfA. Is there some disconnect here? Albatross2147 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone asked him if he is willing to be listed? I haven't seen him refuse to be listed anywhere. --BigDT 03:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I asked him and you can make what you will of his reply. I thought it was equivocal but may be that's just me. BTW I notice he gives you a barnstar, you nominate him for Admin (after a failed on a while back), somebody else gets their tummy rubbed, and it all goes on in a circular, chummily good ole boy kind of way - if I was a conspiracy theorist I'd be smelling a rat here... Albatross2147 05:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The hierarchy of Fundamentalism

I noticed you ask "what fundamentalism?", well, we now have a whole hierarchy of fundamentalisms that you can pick from. :) I just wonder how useful something like Category:Fundamental theism can possibly be. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia:Categories because it doesn't normally interest me; but this case seems to have NPOV problems. --Merzul 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Fundamental theism" looks like it is more of a "meta-category", or, a "category of categories" ... and that's fine for what it is. But the one I was objecting to was Category:Criticisms of Fundamentalism, which really doesn't make much sense as a meta-category or as a regular category. --BigDT 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question from Ryand8686 (talk • contribs)

I was wondering why specifically the article "The Black Market Skate Shop" was deleted. I have removed the paragraph on "products" and can not think of anything else constituting "blatant advertising". If you could tell me specifically what I need to do to make the article work It would be very much appreciated. I understand you are probably very busy, so ill leave it at that.

Thank You Ryand8686 05:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Is your RfA invitation still open? I can't guarantee how active I will be, but I would like access to the Admin anti-vandal tools. There have been a lot of cases recently where they would have been very useful. Michaelbusch 21:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I will wait. Thanks for the advice. Michaelbusch

[edit] Username block

....why did u ban someone for simply having his name as Hoops4jesus.... man your power hungry, get a life.

The user is not banned. The account is blocked, but it is done without autoblock, so you are free to create a new account. Please see our username policy which does not permit usernames that contain the names of religious figures. Thank you. --BigDT 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Usernames of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs. Usernames partly comprised of these terms are not always necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review."....subject to review, his name was hardly offensvie though was it??!

In other words, we aren't going to block an account just because someone's last name is Godwin. If the user name is obviously referring tot he name of a religious figure, it isn't allowed on Wikipedia. There was actually an RFC on this particular username - [4]. --BigDT 13:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

laaaaame

You are welcome to your opinion. I don't make the rules. If you believe that the policy should be changed, WP:UN has a talk page. Please remember, though, to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). It makes things much more readable that way. --BigDT 13:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scouting.wikia.com

Hi BigDT,

I saw your website scouting.wikia.com (well... at least I assume it is yours). Would you like to cooperate with other scoutwiki's in different languages? Currently the finnish, german, french and dutch scoutwiki's have created http://www.scoutwiki.org. We are currently looking for an English scoutwiki in addition to the present languages, because this could serve as some kind of intermediate between the different wiki-languages. Would you like to take a look at the forum and cooperate in the discussions?

Regards, SietskeEN 15:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (from scoutpedia.nl)

I took a look at scoutwiki.org. I will add a link to those wikis from the Scouting wikia. Is there a particular discussion you would like for me to participate in? I looked and there doesn't seem to be any English discussion. --BigDT 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What is currently running is that we tried to set up [promising practice about ScoutWiki] for the WOSM, so that the WOSM can decide if the scoutwiki's are interesting enough to receive some kind of "official status" from the World Organisation. If you like the idea, you can take a look and see if you think that it is already "promising" enough. At the moment we are implementing the language links. Only the Dutch wiki does not yet have them, because of an old server which can not handle the new MediaWiki-version. How to implement it yourself in a way that we all use a standard way just like wikipedia does, you can find at http://wiki.partio.net/PartioWiki:Interwiki. When you like to cooperate in this project, this means that an extra interwiki code for your wiki has to be implemented in the interwiki-code that we already use, but I think that is not a problem. As soon as you have implemented interwiki-codes, you get a search field from the main page at www.scoutpedia.org.
I hope you understand what I mean with the above. I can understand the English language quite well but it is hard to explain things in a language which is not your mother tongue. That is another reason for being glad when an English language scoutwiki is involved, so that we all get less "lost in translation"... :-) I hope you like to cooperate! Regards, SietskeEN 12:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if we have the ability to implement interwiki codes or not. This wiki is hosted by Wikia - a for-profit Wiki host. It had been created by someone else over a year ago. I will ask, but I would assume that they have a vested interest in not allowing such things. It might be better, then, to find a new hosting company. --BigDT 13:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well... if you could ask? It might be a start! SietskeEN 15:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I sent an email to Essjay (talk • contribs), who is the community manager for Wikia. I'll let you know what he says. --BigDT 15:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! SietskeEN 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boards

I love your boards! This is one from 10 years ago from when I taught College of Scouting. Image:ChrisScoutboard2.jpg :) Your brother in Scouting, Chris 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:UsernameBlocked-vandal on WP:RFC/NAME

BigDT, I hope not to seem unfriendly or argumentative, but I'm concerned about the addition to WP:RFC/NAME of the line:

New - Optionally, if you block a name that is clearly vandalism or trolling, you can use {{subst:UsernameBlocked-vandal}}.

Could we discuss that concern here?

In this context, vandalism would refer to "usernames that contain deliberately offensive or disruptive terms".

Since, as the WP:RFC/NAME instructions say, "Grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate usernames should be reported at WP:AIV instead", this template might be usefully mentioned at WP:AIV, or in the warnings-to-blocks escalation system, where its proper targets should be reported.

However, such clear-cut and indisputable violations should not be brought to RFC/NAME in the first place, because they don't need the discussion and consensus-building process of an RFC to determine whether they meet policy or not. The whole point of "gross, blatant, and obvious" is that there's no debate about it: admin sees it, admin blocks it, done.

I worry that putting instructions about how to handle such cases on RFC/NAME -- other than to take them away to WP:AIV -- might give people the impression that RFC/NAME is the right page for reporting them after all. I'd much rather that not happen, as those are not our proper topic: we shouldn't have to run "gross, blatant, and obvious" cases through the RFC process, along with all the genuinely debatable cases.

The verdict of vandalism, with its tone of certainty about "deliberate" bad faith, also doesn't fit well on an RFC page where we "try to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers, if possible: allow for the possibility of innocent error or other reasonable explanation." The change of tone comes off a bit like dumping a truckload of ice into an occupied hot tub.

I strongly feel that RFC/NAME is not the right page for that template, just as it would not be the right page for a user-conduct-RFC template or an article-content-dispute-RFC template -- I've written both those kinds of templates myself, but I would never have put them on the username RFC page.

So I hope you'll agree to move that line elsewhere.

I'd appreciate learning your own views, understanding your reasoning, and discussing what alternatives might avoid raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

Let me reassure you that I appreciate the effort you've invested in this template, and that your motive was to meet a perceived need of the community. This is just a case where our opinions may differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus -- either here, or on WT:RFC, or in an RFC. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued company on WP:RFC/NAME. Thanks! -- Ben 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief ... if you don't think it belongs there, be WP:BOLD and move/remove it. This is a wiki. Dispute resolution??? The singular thing that I care about is that in some fashion, people who are obviously sockpuppets of banned users, individuals creating trolling usernames, etc, don't receive the standard {{usernameblock}} message that invites them to create a new account. Whether the template is named unbv, uw-name4, whatever, and where the template is listed, I am really not picky one bit. --BigDT 03:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
With that encouragement, for which I thank you, I have removed it from WP:RFCN. However, I have mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_user warnings, and encourage you to participate there. (See also the overview of standardized templates at WP:UTM.) I was aware of my option to "revert-then-discuss", but I felt you and your work deserved the courtesy of discussing-first. Thanks again! -- Ben 07:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Also mentioned at WT:AIV, probably the best place to find your "target audience". -- Ben 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
See the dark green box up top. It applies whether an admin button is used or not. --BigDT 13:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting.wikia

Hi !

I saw you created http://scouting.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page, and I heard from a member that you would be interested in joining the ScoutWiki project. We would really appreciate that, because for the moment, there is no english-speaking scout wiki in the project, and we think it is necessary to promote it.

Don't hesitate ton contact us on the ScoutWiki forum to discuss about that.

Cedsib 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC), from Scoutopedia

[edit] Rlevse Rfa

Thanks for nominating me. You know, about a day before you did so, I wondered if you would remember and actually do it. I needed that time from the first Rfa nom I turned down. Thanks for supporting me and the sound advice.Rlevse 03:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Userpage

I'll take care of wikipedia's rules. But for now leave my pictures alone please.Master Cheif 001 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, leaving them alone isn't really an option ... they cannot be displayed on a user page. You can link to them ... but they cannot be transcluded. --BigDT 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but you have a photo gallery like me and they were uploaded by me too.Master Cheif 001 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In order to use a photo on your user page, it must be released by the copyright holder under a free license - meaning, in plain English, that they allow anyone to use it for any purpose. The photos on my user page are all ones that I took with my own camera and have released to Wikipedia under a free license. --BigDT 03:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telewarper etc

Thanks for the tip. Did you see my email question on afd times and procedures? Thanks again for all the help. I'm trying to be careful and check policy before I do a new admin task, I err on side of caution, but will probably still make errors. I indef blocked a user name as it was reported to aiv, the reporter and I thought it was sexually suggestive. THere's an ANI entry on your Master Cheif 001 too. Rlevse 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:at}} and {{subst:ab}} are the templates to use for AFD ... hold on and I'll find the instruction page. --BigDT 03:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators has the general guide for deletion. Wikipedia:Deletion process tells you the actual steps to follow when closing a xFD discussion. --BigDT 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
THANKS!Rlevse 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • check this out--not sure what to do...Image:MRBLUE Ripley's Cartoon.jpgRlevse 03:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." That's incomatible with Wikipedia's license requirements. At any rate, there's another copy of it here - Image:MRBLUE CARTOON.PNG - that I have brought to IFD. --BigDT 04:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/g/User_talk%7EBigDT_archive200702_4346.html"