User talk:Chairboy/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Spiritpresent

After accidentally marking his page Farm Sluts as an attack (since to me it did not appear to be a genuine page) and notifying him on his talk page, User:Spiritpresent has apprently felt it necessary to call me mentaly retarded. After I apologized and retracted my statement he apparetly felt the need to go an make my article Doll Graveyard marked as an attack page. Could someone tell him to cool down, as he probably doesn't want to listen to anything I say at this point. -WarthogDemon 23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry about the poor useage of pronouns. I meant "your" as in "it seems he went to my page and clicked on the article I started up," not as in, "my own property." Sorry for the language confusion there. And I'll speak neutral from now on. (Heck I consider all pages "everyone's page" - I love it when everyone contributes.) ^^; -WarthogDemon 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Main Page

I don't think these edits of mine should be reverted. --64.229.178.41 12:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored my edits there. Thanks. --64.229.178.41 12:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent and unending dispute with Mr Conradi

I am, apparently, a newbie at this kind of dispute resolution. I have no idea what to do, but ask you, since you have dealt with Mr Conradi before, to please see [1] and advise me what the correct procedure is. I have endeavoured to correct material errors in his edits, as well as to remove inappropriate references to myself, and he simply reverts every time. He is well over the three-reverts rule. I am probably also over the rule, but my reverts have in every case attempted to correct and improve the article, while his have simply been gainsaying. Please help. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 13:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subst:

Hi, I've been doing that since day one, but I'll take your word for it, as you've gotten more techno-savvy. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usernames w/o user:

Hey, thank you very much. I can't believe I missed that part. Khorshid 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritpresent

After accidentally marking his page Farm Sluts as an attack (since to me it did not appear to be a genuine page) and notifying him on his talk page, User:Spiritpresent has apprently felt it necessary to call me mentaly retarded. After I apologized and retracted my statement he apparetly felt the need to go an make my article Doll Graveyard marked as an attack page. Could someone tell him to cool down, as he probably doesn't want to listen to anything I say at this point. -WarthogDemon 23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry about the poor useage of pronouns. I meant "your" as in "it seems he went to my page and clicked on the article I started up," not as in, "my own property." Sorry for the language confusion there. And I'll speak neutral from now on. (Heck I consider all pages "everyone's page" - I love it when everyone contributes.) ^^; -WarthogDemon 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Main Page

I don't think these edits of mine should be reverted. --64.229.178.41 12:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored my edits there. Thanks. --64.229.178.41 12:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent and unending dispute with Mr Conradi

I am, apparently, a newbie at this kind of dispute resolution. I have no idea what to do, but ask you, since you have dealt with Mr Conradi before, to please see [2] and advise me what the correct procedure is. I have endeavoured to correct material errors in his edits, as well as to remove inappropriate references to myself, and he simply reverts every time. He is well over the three-reverts rule. I am probably also over the rule, but my reverts have in every case attempted to correct and improve the article, while his have simply been gainsaying. Please help. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 13:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subst:

Hi, I've been doing that since day one, but I'll take your word for it, as you've gotten more techno-savvy. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usernames w/o user:

Hey, thank you very much. I can't believe I missed that part. Khorshid 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I am leaving Wikipedia

Chair boy said : "Your snarky comment aside, the reason the HOTSOUP article was deleted was that it was being used to create notability for the site (it made no assertion of how HOTSOUP met WP:WEB), which is just not kosher. I protected it because the people making the article tried gaming DRV by "voting" a number of times and deleting other people's comments. If you're sure you'd like to align yourself with them, you're more than welcome to, but it will hurt your credibility." - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to be "snarky" (code word for unwanted criticism), I was expressing my newfound disgust with the entire Wikipedia project and I will admit that Wikipedia is not the place to do so. For that I apologize. As for my credibility, I would not want it aligned with anyone involved in this "wiki" project. I once thought that collaborative enterprises were a good idea but after being accused of vandalism by vandals, observing the most petty of personal politics, seeing information blocked for ideological reasons (there is still not even an article saying what HOTSOUP is in even 3 sentences - can a thee sentence article be corruptible? BTW how many articles have you deleted as opposed to edited? judging by the comments it is a lot.) and reading the most corrupted of articles I can honestly say that I have never seen an idea seem to have so much promise yet yield so much garbage. Goodbye Chairboy and goodbye Wikipedia. Apple Rancher 05:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

kthxbai - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brassiere measurements (deletion)

What happened there? Am I doing something wrong? I was trying to reduce the length of my article by starting a sub-articleMgoodyear 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to start articles with content. Use the preview button, an article should never be unable to stand on its own. All you had was a template. Do it all at once. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I was just copying over the content! - will try againMgoodyear 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peanut Butter Manifesto

Thanks for reviewing my article. I'm uncertain that the article fulfills the a1 requirements for speedy deletion. I'd be grateful for further explanation. Best regards - Ezratrumpet 00:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're writing an article about a memo about Yahoo.com supposedly written in 1972. Is there anything suspicious about that you'd like to revise? Looked like nonsense, considering the date. If there's a legit article in there, then please repost it with the proper info. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The article was written today - my birthday, in 1972. Force of habit. I'll revise it. Many thanks! Ezratrumpet 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Sxcbunni

Hi Chairboy - I read the username as "Sexy Bunny," which to me is a name that refers to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual preference including slang, innuendo, and double entendre. Of course, if you disagree pls unblock the user - I would recommend a name change though. Rama's arrow 17:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"MaverickFootball" is too closely associated with the NBA Mavericks team; although NBA, its quite close to the name of a sports organization. Please undo if you feel its unjustified. Rama's arrow 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The spirit of the policy is really more towards getting names like User:Hugecock and User:Gapingvagina. I'm concerned that overenthusiastic blocking of innocuous names is a form of WP:BITEing that will chase good contributors away and hurt our credibility as admins. I'm unblocking that user per your offer above. Regarding the Mavericks, admin consensus has been that it's more towards names like User:Dallas Cowboys, things that are clearly trademarked. 'Mavericks' is a popular name for school teams across the country, do a google search. I'll leave that block alone because I can see some merit, but I'd like to advise throttling back the username blocks a little. Ask yourself if it is CLEARLY offensive or CLEARLY infringing please. In the example of SxcBunni, is it text you might see in a Hallmark store? If so, then it's probably not offensive, unless, like me, you are offended by Hallmark in general. Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - its true, I'm a recently appointed admin and could use such practical tips - I'll unblock "MaverickFootball" to allow the user to clarify his intentions. Thanks for the advice, will definitely slow down. Rama's arrow 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No worries! Let me know if I can help in any way. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
A question - as you can see, I'm a "strict interpretationist" of policies. A 3RR block I recently made was also based on strict interpretation. But now twice there was some criticism of my decisions. What approach do you suggest I take over policy interpretation - for example, your advice above is of caution and slightly "loose interpretation." Rama's arrow 17:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I read up on that specific block, and I can see the trouble. 3RR is an important policy for preventing back-and-forth churn. Personally, I feel that the missing ingredient was any sort of warning. The edit didn't appear to be a revert, and I think the 3RR report itself from the other fellow may have been in error, but I tend to believe that leaving some sort of "Hold on here" chillout warning for the offending party and giving them one last chance before blocking is a good idea. That gives them an opportunity to say "Hold on a minute, I don't think this is a revert" or "Thanks, I didn't realize it" before getting hit with the hammer. If 4RR happens once in a while because you give them a chance to fix their hurtin' ways, nothing is gonna break. We are not nuclear control engineers and the Wikimedia servers will not go supercritical and kill thousands if we make an error, so I tend to err on the side of WP:AGF. Also, one thing that another admin said that I took to heart is that blocks are not punishment, they're designed to slow down/stop disruption. Don't think in terms of "punishing a user", think in terms of "put the brakes on X happening until things can be worked out". You'll live longer, your blood pressure will come down, and somewhere, a flower will bloom just a little brighter because of it. Hope this helps! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Although I feel the 3RR violation was valid, your advice is most sound and self-evident. I already maintain that blocks are not "punitive," but many thanks for helping me develop a better decision-making judgment. I am in your debt and at your service whenever u could use it, Rama's arrow 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPS/Angara

The edit in question was made before your original message. Your original message seemed to be mor informational than inquisitive, and therefore it seemed as if you were not expecting, or requesting a reply. I don't tend to reply to messages unless they ask a direct question or I require more information. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tags

If you're referring to the Apollo hoax page, at the time I assumed they were vandalism, like maybe that one user (starts with a 'C', I think, but I don't recall his name) had come back to haunt us. I see that Bubba73 has restored them. I defer to his and your good judgment. :) Wahkeenah 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • "Carfiend", it was. Gone but not quite forgotten. :) Wahkeenah 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert Warning

I'm not sure if noticed but I have only reverted the Space Warfare page twice today and only 3 times total. I am clearly not in violation of the policy. In any case I think that I explained my reasoning on the talk page. I hope work with you in future and by the way I definitly like your powerloader costume, if you haven't already you should take a look at the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual.Daniel J. Leivick 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Tutts

I have recreated the page and have proof under References. Please don't delete it again! --SilvaStorm

Okay, you really need to stop deleting the article as I have clearly stated it is a work in progress. --SilvaStorm

Yes, I would like to know why The Tutts section is banned. There is no reason to have a band's section on here deleted. Nick waters 01:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)nick waters

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Check out WP:MUSIC to see why it met WP:CSD A7. I salted the page because Mr. SilvaStorm kept recreating it without addressing the A7 problem. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Uhh, that was a pointless thing to do. It is like deleting the Britney Spears article before she became a huge star...just wait and see. --SilvaStorm
Besides, what did I miss out on? They're a band, I had proof of their existence, and the article had a sufficient amount of info on it... --SilvaStorm
If you'd like to change the applicable policy, post to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). If you disagree with my actions, feel free to post to WP:AN/I. I still think you haven't read any of those links I sent you which would answer your questions, so I can't really help you anymore. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand why this was deleted. They are a band, and a good band at that. They just are not that popular among the 'MTV' crowd yet. When they come out with their CD, they are going to be big. I recommend an unblock of this article.68.5.31.247 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nick Waters

[edit] Thanks for "Rotary Support"! :)

Image:Configure.png Thanks for your support at my RfA, which succeeded. Your support means a lot, and I was glad to see some references to my username! I'm curious -- are you a fellow rotary owner?

Anyway,thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 Image:Kgpg_edit.png

Congrats! I'm a big rotary fan, I'm building an airplane (Cozy Mk IV) which I plan on putting a turbo normalized 13B into. In the more immediate term, I'm thinking of buying an engine-less LongEZ and putting a N/A 13B on it. These engines are just about perfectly suited for aviation, not just your undoubtedly pretty RX8.  :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Stephencolbert

If we know that the User:Stephencolbert account is not really an account for Stephen Colbert then it should be possible to remove the statement "Block pending identity confirmation" from User talk:Stephencolbert. The basis for a checkuser evaluation in this case has never really been explained ("It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects"). If there was a request made to check the IP for the the User:Stephencolbert account then who made the request and on what basis? If the check was done, who did it and what was done with the checkuser information? Some people have claimed that User:Stephencolbert is a "vandalism only" account and so a checkuser evaluation should have been performed. I do not understand how we are supposed to uphold Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and still decide that the User:Stephencolbert account is a "vandalism only" account. I do not understand why Wikipedia needs to prevent discussions and remove discussion from an editor's talk page when members of the community want to discuss the editing that was done by that user. Members of the community should be able to ask honest questions about administrator and checkuser actions. "If you feel I've acted improperly...." <-- I think we are dealing with a unique situation that requires community discussion. My interest is in understanding what happened and making sure that Wikipedia's response to what happened is reasonable. When unanswered questions about what happened are simply deleted it only produces the appearance of a cover up. Why not help the community answer the questions that have been raised rather then erase the questions? --JWSchmidt 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the nature of your misunderstanding It isn't blocked because it's a vandalism only account, it was blocked because it's an impersonation account. As for "the community discussing the editing done by an editor", if you review the edit history you'll find that the vast majority of the edits are to the effect of "lolz you are so funny!!!1!!2!!! can I be on your show?". We discussed this as a community and came to the decision we did. I think it was on WP:AN or AN/I, can't remember off the top of my head. That's why I encourage you to bring it up there if you'd like. Tawker made the checkuser assertion, he was our designated contact with Comedy Central too, so feel to follow this up with him too. At this point, Colbert's word 'Truthiness' best describes the belief that it was actually him. We decided (as a community) after determining via technical means that it was not him, to put the page into its current state. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"I see the nature of your misunderstanding It isn't blocked because it's a vandalism only account" <-- This is not my misunderstanding.
"if you review the edit history you'll find that the vast majority of the edits are to the effect of 'lolz you are so funny!!!1!!2!!! can I be on your show?'." <-- It would be interesting to have a panel of objective judges and ask them to decide what fraction of the material you deleted can really be characterized in the way you suggest. In any case, each edit should be evaluated on its own merits. When there is an edit that does not contribute to constructive discussion the first step to take is to discuss the matter with the person who made the edit. If such an editor does not correct their behavior then harsher action can be taken. It is not right to delete dozens of edits from a talk page just because some of the edits are silly. If a discussion becomes old and stale it can be placed on an archive page.
"We discussed this as a community and came to the decision we did. I think it was on WP:AN or AN/I, can't remember off the top of my head." <-- I hope you realize the damage done to Wikipedia when project participants make claims such as, "we know things based on IRC discussions, but we cannot explain how we know," and "Admisinstraters do not have to answer questions about their actions and we can delete discussions and stop discussions because a bunch of us got together on some other page and decided to do so, but I do not remember when or where."
"Tawker made the checkuser assertion" <-- I had a chance to chat with him on IRC about the checkuser. The trail seems to go dead at that point in the chain of events. What we really need to know is who did the checkuser, on what basis was the checkuser performed, and what was done with the information obtained by the IP check.
"the belief that it was actually him" <-- This is really a minor issue. In my opinion, it is more important that we understand what happened on Wikipedia after the two small edits from the Stephencolbert account. "We decided (as a community) after determining via technical means that it was not him, to put the page into its current state." <-- Please provide the link to where this community decision was made. Please, explain the "technical means" that allow you to be sure who created the account; in particular, state who performed the checkuser action on the Stephencolbert account. --JWSchmidt 14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This really isn't worth fighting over, if you want to unprotect it and restore the content to its former glory, go ahead. I don't claim any ownership over the page, I was just the person who implemented the consensus. We probably did most of the discussion via IRC, and if that smacks of cabalism, <shrug>, that's not the intention, but it was the best tool at the time considering the nature of the issue. If you feel you've been wronged or that I've gone rouge, let's chat about this on AN or AN/I. I'm just a janitor and I'd hate to create the appearance of any impropriety. If formalizing the admin consensus here is needed, then by all means we should do it. If you'd like assistance in getting this done, I'd be happy to make the initial post for you. There is no conspiracy, there is no plot to 'kill teh colbert', we just did what we did because it was unnecessary disruption (not his original edits, the massive influx of 'loldongs! you rule!' posts). If your specific problem is with my protecting the page, chalk it up to "WP:IAR because it's the right thing to do" and RFC me if you feel its necessary. As far as villains go, I'm subpar at best. I don't even have any sort of good spandex costumes or anything, and my 'secret lair' is a modest house in a suburb in central Oregon, not the lava filled volcano caldera I might have wanted. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"isn't worth fighting over" <-- I have no interest in a fight. I agree that it was wise to do a checkuser on the Stephencolbert account, block the Stephencolbert account and since so much time has now passed it makes sense to strip the Stephencolbert talk page down to a simple request for identity confirmation.
"if you want to unprotect it and restore the content to its former glory, go ahead" <-- I think your action was a reasonable action; I'm not sure that you are the one who should have done it.
"We probably did most of the discussion via IRC, and if that smacks of cabalism, <shrug>, that's not the intention, but it was the best tool at the time" <-- I do not have a problem with making use of IRC in this way, but I know it bothers other Wikipedia participants. In my opinion, if Wikipedia participants are bothered by these sorts of things then it helps to let them discuss the situation. Since most people who were concerned seem to have lost interest, I'm basically satisfied with the window for discussion that was allowed.
"If you feel you've been wronged or that I've gone rouge" <-- I have no personal stake in this matter beyond a hope that Wikipedia as an institution can learn from what happened.
"I'd hate to create the appearance of any impropriety" <-- My questions about deleting discussions from the talk page and preventing discussions by protecting the page from editing arise from by belief that it does not hurt to let people talk. The more fundamental problem is that for myself and others it is not clear that existing checkuser policy provides an avenue for checking the IP for a user account such as the Stephencolbert account. I find it a bit strange that nobody within Wikipedia seems willing to discuss the matter....the consensus seems to be that it is wise to let this sleeping dog lie. I guess the key dynamic of the situation is that the checkuser policy is something that comes down to the community from the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation now has an "ombudsman commission" that can play a role in suggesting needed adjustments to checkuser policy. I'll just pass the matter on to the ombudsman commission. --JWSchmidt 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Refining checkuser policy for better guidance is a good thing, let me know if I can help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SETI

I have already discussed this with a moderator about the SETI, and as long as it is put as a conspiracy (not claimed as a fact, similar to a JFK conspiracy) it is acceptable. But how can I stop people from removing it (especially if they are not registered) without telling me why they want it removed? If a section this large is to be removed, I need to first talk to them as to why (debate maybe?). "We have confirmation - and I'm not going to give the name yet because we are trying to coax this guy out of the closet - but one of the senior most people in the SETI project" ... that is why the name cannot be given out (safety for the person's name). I don't understand why you will block this. For a guy to come out and make a statement like that, especially while at the same time bringing up Paul Allen's name. I don't think Paul Allen would approve of him doing so, yet I have heard of no denial at all from Paul Allen (he also brought up Carl Sagan name). For him to go public, in front of many people, and have his videos uploaded knowing well that he used Paul Allen's name is risky because of the wealth and influence Paul has (to use Paul's name within a lie would not do him any good), and for him to get away with it as a "lie" cannot work in this situation because Paul Allen has not stopped him. nima baghaei 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nima, first of all, there are no 'moderators' on Wikipedia. I'm a Wikipedia administrator, which might be what you're thinking of, and our job is to keep the project afloat by doing mop-work by preventing disruption. When I removed the section in SETI, it was as an editor. I removed it because, as I wrote on your user talk page, it does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This is not Art Bell. This is an encyclopedia, and the claim in its current state (without a published, reliable source) does not belong here. If you can provide a news article from a respected media outlet or something that otherwise meets the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then it can stay, but otherwise it will have to be removed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand why a "conspiracy" would need even more references! I have a video of a guy, coming out in public, using names most people would not use, bringing what should be considered a "conspiracy." I do not understand why a "conspiracy" need a Newsweek or New York Times for a reference! If I was to find a book written by the guy, and I referenced that, would that help? You see, I cannot tell how I can backup a "conspiracy" with a "respected media outlet." Conspiracies do not start sometimes with respected media outlets. If you do not find understanding with what I have said, I would like to speak with someone else on the board of administrator. If you remove this section, you must remove every conspiracy theory on Wikipedia, and if not, I will need to speak with someone else. nima baghaei 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No, other conspiracy theories written up on Wikipedia reference articles and books that were written that talk about them. It is not appropriate to "start" this using Wikipedia, as you seem to imply above. This is not a press release center, this is an encyclopedia. See WP:NOR for more information on why this is bad. If you'd like to contest this, then I suggest making your case on WP:AN/I. Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait, you need to clarify somethings. First of all, what is the "Wikipedia reference articles" because I would like to write one on the subject then. Second, what do you mean by "Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now."? Yes I am taking this to that board, and I will have them take a look at it. Please go and remove all other conspiracy sections now. Hope you hear from me soon. nima baghaei 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If I've been unclear above, I apologize, but I'll try again. I've provided two links that are immediately relevant to why I have removed this specific conspiracy section: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:NOR. When you see text like this underlined, it means that if you click on it, you can view the article. I'm not sure what "Hope you hear from me soon" means, but you sound upset. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You have not clarified anything new for me. I understand what the underlined text means, so is your assumption then I did not understand it? I would like to know once again how a person can have the right to remove a section without first informing the user who put up the section why it was removed. If you were the one who did it, I hope you will not do that for other users. You have to inform them or give them notice the moment you remove it. I do understand how to click on a link, thats how I was able to get to our short and continuous conversation page you are currently encoding in your memory. Would you like my to clarify what I have just said? You sound upset, believing that I am upset. Once again, what do you mean by "Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now."? nima baghaei 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Calm down. Please review the policies I've linked to above. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have. In regards to your last question, I've removed the section in question from SETI. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to go and search for more conspiracy sections to remove? There are many, you should have a look, strange SETI was high-priority. What do you mean by "Based on what you've written above", I need to know which part and what I said that could cause you to decide so quickly to remove the section, for it seems from the way you have spooken that the you would have given me a lot more time then you actually gave me. I have contacted the Disclosure Group, and I am asking them to send me references. You have no right to just remove what I put up because of "Based on what you've written above." nima baghaei 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You've given no indication that you've either read the links I provided nor the reason why the section was removed. Until you do, I don't see what we have to talk about as I have answered your questions more than once already. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

for a start, my revert wasn't improper as you failed to provide a description and i believed the original version valid - secondly, right here, right now: i am willing to go into an edit war about this - consistency is of far more value to wikipedia than reliability --Danlibbo 11:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you enter an edit war, you will be blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
oh god no! please don't threaten me with blocking what ever will i do? oh that's right, for a start you need warnings, then i can get the argument moderated and if i am still blocked i can create a new account - watch me shake with fear --Danlibbo 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
see here--Danlibbo 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please review the applicable policies which I've drawn to your attention above, they should help resolve your confusion. If they do not, let me know and I'll try to help out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
don't you wuss out by just being patronising - i know what you're arguing but i've shown how it doesn't apply - the conspiracy exists, mention should be made of it - it's that bloody simple - if you can't follow an argument's line don't get involved --Danlibbo 07:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
if you fail to make a reasoned argument against the mention of the conspiracy (you have failed to do so as yet) i will restore the section and we can continue the debate on the talk page --Danlibbo 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to recheck the thread at WP:AN/I. As I have said (and I suggest you be WP:CIVIL), the conspiracy theory isn't the problem, it's the quality of the source that asserts it. You have both promised to edit war and have made statements about coming back as socks if you don't get things your way. Both of these reflect an attitude that might be better exercised elsewhere. If you cannot edit Wikipedia in accordance with the principles established by its founder and supported by the community, then perhaps you should not edit Wikipedia at all. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • i've attempted civility and you've failed to answer the argument (since i identified to you the flaws in your argument and tried to redirect your efforts you haven't contributed and have only tried to evade your responsibility - if you get involved, either stay involved or get out) - now it's up to you and nima to propose rewrites to the section
  • re the quality of the source - wtf? the source is the mention of the conspiracy theory - it's existence is the evidence - you still seem stuck on the fact that i'm trying to argue the validity of the theory (which is just stupid - why would i know what SETI's been up to, let alone the NSA or NRO?)
  • if you disagree that mention of the conspiracy theory should be included on the page, provide a suitable argument and we can discuss it - but stay on point
--Danlibbo 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"If you cannot edit Wikipedia in accordance with the principles established by its founder and supported by the community, then perhaps you should not edit Wikipedia at all." - if you can't argue a point, then perhaps you should not get involved in the argument --Danlibbo 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've answered your questions, and I cannot control whether you act on the information I have provided. If you feel you have been wronged, I encourage you to request administrator assistance on WP:AN/I again or begin a WP:RFC about my actions. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

btw - i think you may have missed this --Danlibbo 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't miss it at all, you changed horses midstream. On the 27th, you and I are in agreement. Sometime after that, you seem to have switched to a viewpoint where the request for a source that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources is somehow offensive and warrants you threatening to edit war, come back as sock puppets to disrupt, and so on. I am constant as the northern star, my position on this has been quite stable. My suggestion to you: Read the applicable policies and re-acquaint yourself with the 5 pillars. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
oh ffs - for the last time, i'm damn well aware of the policies and the bloody pillars - you argued that the video wasn't a sufficient citation and seriously misinterpreted my argument and i argued that it was the only possible reference and tried to clarify my point and all you could do was evade the debate
my suggestion to you: stop being so patronising and try to understand the difference between taking a viewpoint and acknowledging that a viewpoint exists
--Danlibbo 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with anyone being patronizing. This is about a Youtube link not being an adequete reference for an extraordinary claim. If you want to add a paragraph about the conspiracy, then please provide a reference that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That's all that's needed. Let's go over a quick summary: You restored the section improperly, explicitly threatened to edit war, told me that if you were blocked you'd come back and disrupt as much as needed to prove your point, asked for someone to help on WP:AN/I and had my actions upheld, then you ended up restoring a subset of the section anyhow despite this, and through all of this, you feel somehow that I've been the troublemaker here? The facts do not seem to support your assertions. Your edit warring, threats, and incivility are all inappropriate. I don't know what's wrong on your side of the keyboard, but please fix it before editing again. One last thing, if a Youtube video is the "only possible reference" (which you assert above), then the text does _not_ _belong_ _on_ _Wikipedia_. I really can only point you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources so many times before I begin to assume that you're not operating in good faith. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
jesus christ! for a start i have never made any post on WP:AN/I and my original restore wasn't improper as you provided no argument - but the point is that I am not - repeat NOT - making any assumption to the validity of the claim in the video - but the existence of the video is surely not in doubt
just ask yourself: "has someone claimed that there is a conspiracy?"
the answer is of course yes - for a start there's the guy in the youtube clip, then there's also nima and i'm guessing plenty more
that's the end of it - the argument is over - a conspiracy theory exists
i'm arguing a theory exists (regardless of it's truth) & it should be mentioned on the page
you're arguing that a reliable source needs to be found before the theory can be true or not - I TOTALLY AGREE! the arguments are exclusive
--Danlibbo 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
and it's 'adequate'
I better understand the nature of your misunderstanding. The reference is not needed to prove whether it is TRUE or not, there needs to be a quality reference that makes the assertion notable. If I record myself saying "I think that John Lennon conspired with the CIA to create music that could duplicate the effects of LSD so they could use radio to control the Soviets", that doesn't mean that my conspiracy theory should be mentioned on John Lennon, CIA, or USSR. ANYONE can claim a conspiracy, but not ALL conspiracies should be mentioned, only the ones that have met the bare minimum of notabilitity via Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Does this clear things up? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
that's what i've argued for days now - it's good to see you've caught up - now (finally) the argument as to whether to include it or not: here --Danlibbo 02:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, then how many of my "You tube does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources" statements did you miss above? Also, I notice that when you re-added the text back to the article again, you once again did so with the Youtube link, not the news article. Finally, there's still the matter of your unacceptable threats to edit war and sock-puppet. Your conduct during this has not been appropriate, and I once again encourage you to re-acquaint yourself with the 5 pillars and review the relevant policy. We're all volunteers here, and this is not a battlefield, it's an encyclopedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought you got it - wtf man? Menial stuff out of the way: I know my threats were "inappropriate" - I was attempting to be "inappropriate" - I wasn't abandoning reason, I was letting you know the parameters of the argument so you could still pull out (obviously I should have made the core of the argument more clear). Now:
If Air Force One crashed in a field and someone put a video of it on YouTube, that's clear proof, and a reliable source.
If Prince Charles announced his desire to abdicated on TV and someone put it on YouTube, that would be proof, and a reliable source.
If someone put a video of themselves, saying that Air Force One had crashed, on YouTube, that would not be anywhere near reliable.
Thus because the video is the event itself it is far, far better than the Register article.
It's not just black-and-white 'don't cite YouTube' - if the video is commentary, it's inappropriate, however if it's the event itself it's the best kind of a reliable and verifiable source. If you want the register link then ADD IT. You are an editor: you are allowed to edit as well as plainly delete. So do you get it yet (it's pretty simple logic)?
--Danlibbo 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not report the news. If this is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the encyclopedia, then someone will write an article (that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources no less) about the claim. Otherwise we're giving Wikipedia:Undue weight to non-notable sources. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
And that would be a different argument--Danlibbo 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, attempting to be 'inappropriate' to make some sort of WP:POINT is bad chess. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
¿Que? I don't play chess...I kept beating all my friends, and I like an argument where I know the limits --Danlibbo 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask you to comment at the talk page, but last time I thought you knew what you were talking about you lost it pretty quickly. Care to summarise my argument in your own words? --Danlibbo 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Be civil. I've explained why the link in the form you re-added twice was inappropriate. If you feel you can add the section back with references that meet the criteria that we have repeatedly addressed, then go for it. If you repost it with nothing but the youtube link, then it's disruption to prove some sort of point, and I expect better of you. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pixel

  1. {{AutoReplaceable fair use}}=WP:CREEP--Pixel ;-) 17:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patto1ro "Editing other peoples comments"

Actually, he was editing his own comment there. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I replied on my talk page

With additional questions. Please reply there? Thanks! · XP · 18:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a soapbox (reference desk comment)

Thank you for reminding me that the reference desk is not a soapbox when I commented on how using drugs was, at least in my eyes, a "bad idea". Yes, I considered not making that comment, but should wikipedia really be giving out advice that could ruin its reputation, or perhaps even kill the person asking the question? I don't mean to disobey any rules about commenting on questions, but I do recall seeing a rule about wikipedia that said something like 'If a rule prevents an improvement from being made, break it.' or something like that. Similarly, I'm sure that many people who help run the reference desk would not like a question such as this one on their conscience. I didn't mean to be posting my opinion, but answers to questions like "are there any easily made narcotics" could really screw up someone's life and/or Wikipedia's reputation. That is why I said that giving an answer to a question such as this one is generally a bad idea. The issue here really is, "should Wikipedia really be giving out that sort of advice?". Thank you for reminding me, though. Ilikefood 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have good intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that you're asserting some sort of moral supremecy over anyone else who answers. You can choose not to answer the question because of your beliefs, that's fine, but that's not what happened here. Instead, you tried to stop other people from answering. If something like this happened again, you might instead say "Please be careful, narcotics can be dangerous. Also, you may wish to review this article to see what some of the possible legal consequences of doing this are. - ~~~~". That's a way of sharing your concern and "covering Wikipedia's reputation" without imposing your POV. A reference desk librarian gives answers, not moral counsel. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point on the way that I answered it. I shouldn't have said it the way that I had. You are completely right that I should have said that maybe he/she should review Drug-related crime instead of me telling him/her that it was wrong. Sorry. I just got a bit over-excited. Thank you for the advice. Ilikefood 01:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock info

Hi Chairboy; I'd be interested to see the evidence linking XP to Rootology, if you could email it to me. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 04:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Chairboy, I don't need to see the evidence. However, before taking any further action on this or responding to requests for the data, I'd appreciate it if you contact me privately. Thank you. --Durin 12:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indef Block of User:XP

What was your rationale for determining User:XP to be a sockpuppet of User:Rootology? User:XP had a multi-month long edit history [3], and denied being User:Rootology when asked. [4] Abe Froman 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The identity was determined through a combination of technical and other means. Any administrators who would like to know more can contact me. The history of the user in question requires certain protections be taken, but the identity is not in doubt, and this is not a theory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry evidence isn't always made public, as that would teach the puppeteer how not to get caught next time. In the past, I've circulated evidence to the arbcom members and to some uninvolved administrators, but I haven't posted such evidence publicly. Personally, I'm satisfied in this case. AnnH ♫ 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am concerned a legitimate user with a divergent opinion [5] from the majority of admins commenting on the Request for Arbitration in question has been blocked. No rationale for why this user was determined to be a User:Rootology has yet been given. How were these two users determined to be the same? Given that User:XP was expressing opinions anathema to dozens of Admins following the Request for Arbitration [6], I hope you understand why I am concerned an Admin simply silenced him. Abe Froman 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern and I support your inquiry. Indefinite blocks should not be casually used, and the integrity of Wikipedia admins must paramount. Please note that I was not involved in the discussion you mention and am a neutral party. The evidence used to make the decision, furthermore, was unambiguous. I would rather a hundred vandalsocks go unblocked than ban a single innocent user, so the quality of evidence in this had to, by definition, be neutronium (as a measure of solid). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for being open to review. Abe Froman 19:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Per the ANI thread Abe is agreeable to having me review the evidence. Can you email thatcher131 at gmail dot com? Thanks. Thatcher131 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher131 reviewed the data and I am satisfied with his review. Thanks for being open to it. Abe Froman 00:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure, and thank you for keeping an eye out for fellow editors. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJ Holsten Article

Why was this deleted? I gave ample reason for it to stay up. Maddox 00:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maddox rools (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not for stuff you just made up. This is an encyclopedia. Perhaps Myspace is the website you're looking for? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
This was not made up in school one day. Me and a bunch of other people actually sat down and said, "Is it actually possible that RJ did create God?" when he stated that he had. We then did some tests and confirmed that it was possible that RJ Holsten created God. This wasn't through random facts either, actual things that happened in his life point to him having created God. Maddox 00:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The other policy you may wish to familiarize yourself with is WP:NOR. What you describe is, at best, original research and is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nanking film 2007

(You said) Hello, just a heads up about the above article. You used the fact that another similar article had been on Wikipedia longer as a criteria for speedy delete. That's not a valid WP:CSD, but your later addition of the copyvio claim was, and I have deleted the article. In the future, please use care in choosing which criteria will be used to delete an article. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't sure which took precedence. So many templates to choose from for CSD,.... I appreciate the tip, every day I learn something is a Good Day. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

why was the Billy Wright article deleted? the notability page describes that persons who have been also NON self-published then are notable and worthy of an encycolpedia article. he has appeared in numerous poetry and literary magazines and has authored a few books...

[edit] scheme implementations

Hi Chairboy, you deleted my stub about the Larceny scheme implementation. Of course technically your reason for deletion is valid, but this is not a bogus article. Please reconsider. Thank you. --MarSch 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not correct. Though there is little content, there is enough context I think. --MarSch 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"""Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub."""--MarSch 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The entire article was "Larceny is a Scheme implementation." I understand your frustration, but the article needs more than that to stay, otherwise it may as well just be an entry on a list. Expand it, describe what makes it different from other programming schemes, etc. The one sentence above, however, meets the criteria I applied when deleting it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I was using that as a template for creating some articles. It includes formatting/linking and an external link. Could you undelete it so I can expand it a bit? --MarSch 19:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Chairboy. I've written a new article. Hope you like it. --MarSch 11:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedist

Yeah, I noticed that after putting up the notice. Some banned users have notices on their talk pages as well, I wish we'd be consistent about that. Thanks for letting me know. —Chowbok ☠ 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're chucking a hissy fit, you know

"It appears as if you're not getting the response you anticipated, but I encourage you to pause for a moment, see that consensus already exists, and accept it"

I'm more than a little bit dissapointed at the tone you've taken on several occasions through out this Cydebot deletions micro-drama. I'm assured that everyone involved in bot-land gives tacit approval, no objections raised, etc etc etc. What I'm not clear on is why you (and Cyde) have taken such a hostile and confrontational tone. From where I sit, it's quite straightforward:

  1. The policy page says "Bots do exactly what they say on the tin or else."
    I'm fully aware that policy and guidelines are descriptive not proscriptive, but they should actually be descriptive. If you mob are doing lots of other things than what's written down, write something else down. Which would require consensus just like any other policy change does. If there is anything in this statement that you can possibly disagree with, I don't know what.
  2. Cyde was running a fully-fledged unsupervised bot under his admin account using admin functions.
    God only knows that Curps bot did yoeman's work, but it was also controversial. This work is hardly as time-critical or critical full-stop as the work it did. If there is anything in this statement that you can possibly disagree with, I don't know what.

Statements 1 and 2 don't match up, not by a long shot. When I asked about it, I got the polite three fingers and "Go write an article or something." Sweet. Admins and bit-runners should respond fully and civily when questions are asked, and in this case he was both and neither, in that order.

If someone says again that Cyde should be thanked for all this, I'll spew. It wouldn't have killed him, or any of you, do consider that you're a tiny percentage of wikipedia adminstrators and that everyone might not have agreed with the whole "tacit approval for unsupervised admin bots" thing. Now it may turn out that they do, although I have to say that the sample on Pump right now is a slightly biased one. But whatever the outcome, I don't see why I have to continue to be pilloried by you for intruding into the bot fiefdom and simply asking the question.

brenneman 04:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, though I'm not sure that 'hissy fit' is an accurate description. To be frank, I was unaware of the situation until you brought it light today, which was a good thing. I read up on it, considered what it was doing and the work it was saving, then I began pushing the BAG to formalize the bots status. If you review the message I left for Betacommand on Cyde's page, you'll see that I feel that the BAG should be taking the heat for this, not Cyde. They've apparently all agreed in everything except a formal statement that Cyde is 'doing gods work' or somesuch equivalent. The tone you take with me in the text above doesn't seem to match the situation. I have no connection with Cyde, I haven't told you to 'go write an article', and I don't believe I've been incivil (which you imply). If you disagree with any of these statements, I request some diffs and explanation, otherwise I feel you should retract or reword them appropriately. We're all volunteers on this project, Mr. Brenneman. I'm not being paid, you're not, Cyde isn't, I don't know anyone outside of the foundation who is. This is something that stays the same across the project and the administrators. But there's something that does change every day: The growing backlog of work. _Something_ has to be done, and Cyde has decided to assert creativity in a method that the relevant parties have decided is ok (albeit after the fact). The BAG group, while failing to meet their responsibility by making a direct formal statement on the matter, _have_ made individual statements in support of Cyde's automation. I challenged your assertion that this wasn't the case, and I did so in a clear, civil manner. I would ask that you respond in same. If you disagree with what I am saying, then let us discuss it on the merits of the argument. Please don't interpret my disagreement with poor manners, and you definately shouldn't lash out at people with whom you have a difference.
We're all volunteers here. This is not a ren-faire where admins pay to come and churn butter by hand, we are a loose conglomeration of human janitors trying to keep the project in focus. AWB or a related solution would be great if there wasn't 1. something better and 2. a person willing to volunteer his time and effort to do it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Goodness, we've both churned a lot of words out in the last couple of minutes! Starting from my use of "hissy" which I'd have considered fairly harmless and working backwards to your "Nyet", I am able to re-read your Pump comments in a different light. I could explain carefully how I'd taken each mis-step in interpreting them, but I'll just skip to the end: I thought you were giving it to me good, and I was wrong. I didn't intend for you to feel I "lashed out" at you, no more than you intended to me to feel that you had. Hip-hip, cheerio, and all that?
brenneman 05:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you mind if I removed the duplicate comments from my talk, I'm happy to have it all be here.
No worries, sometimes it's hard to convey meaning through text, and it's certainly easy to misinterpret tone. Let's agree to an intellectual disagreement over procedure and leave the hate rays for where they belong: Our spouses. Shake hands? (ps, feel free to clear the chat from your talk page, I'm in the habit of copying conversations texto intacto, but it's not a big deal and it all gets archived eventually anyhow.) Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • <shake> My spouse says she can feel your hate rays and that you'd better keep them above her neckline if you know what's good for you. </shake> brenneman 09:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do your homework

Learn some manners, and do your research before returning again to my page. Giano 22:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request

Chairboy, could I ask you please to consider unblocking Giano? The block will only make things worse, and he was arguably provoked by an editor he's been in conflict with leaving a warning template on his talk page, which was guaranteed to heighten tensions. It would go a long way to quietening things down if you were to unblock him yourself. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slimvirgin, I'm not familiar with the provocation you're talking about, but I don't see any connection between it and the reason I chose to block him. Please review the diffs, including the message he left for me immediately above yours, his calling me childish when I asked him to be nice, etc. I'm an uninvolved third party, and he's being disruptive and incivil. Unblocking him would be absolutely improper. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Giano is saying this was planned on IRC. If you were part of that, and I have no idea whether you were, please unblock him and allow a completely uninvolved admin to look at the chain of events. If you weren't involved in any IRC discussion, then of course I apologize for the implication. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The incident Slim refers to was hours ago. I know, because I've spent the day trying to defuse it and get parties to back off. I'm not sure how/if it is related to this. We were getting a certain outbreak of peace on ANI, but Giano seemed quite keen for further conflict. He was baiting someone into blocking him. Whilst I'd unhesitatingly say the block was well merited. The effect is not good. it is only likely to heighten tensions.--Docg 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
There was absolutely no plotting on IRC. It is an unsubstantiated claim. If he uses logs to make a case, I hope that he provides accurate and complete logs (and does so out of public of course) because they will show quite clearly that any claim of conspiracy is inaccurate, misdirected, and completely off base. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elaborate Halloween Costumes

In the film 'To Kill A Mocking Bird', Scout dresses up as a ham for a school play and subsequently rolls around in her costume as she and her brother are attacked. How would you go about making such a costume? --Username132 (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Neat costume idea! Hmmm.... large garbage bag filled with crushed newspaper, then spray painted to look like a ham, then a piece of cardboard as the open sliced end (where it's been cut into) with some cloth 'slices' partially folded open, also painted? I was thinking of a ham like this. At some point, stick a person into it so it's as if they're wearing a large ham. Sounds like a fun project, however you do it. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cane-do page

apologies, just at the time I believed it needed deleting but I'm sure we can come to an agreement. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Regards.......TellyaddictTalk 19:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Frank Beuselinck

You deleted my page on Frank Beuselinck who is one of the Captains of Industry of Belgium. The page was created less than an hour ago and marked as a stub to indicate that it needs further work. Pvosta 19:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! It was tagged for deletion under Wikipedia speedy deletion criteria Articles, item 7. There was no assertion of notability in the article. If you can meet the WP:NOTABLE criteria for the subject of the article, I encourage you to rewrite it appropriately so that it doesn't get deleted again. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G-Star

Article was not "blatant advertising"; it was a stub. Are you familiar with the fashion industry? The company is certainly notable. Anyway, whatever. Merry Christmas. Perle 09:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your message on my talk page

I used "illegal" in terms of the clearly stated rules at Fair Use. So why don't you chill out and stop threatening me? Tony 11:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm unaware of any fair-use images on my user page, and it's unnecessary to point out the rule concerning that. Please specify which one, rather than making non-specific allegations. Tony 11:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Apologies: posted on the wrong user talk page. Tony 11:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yogani Article Deletion

Hi Chairboy,

Just wondering why you went ahead and deleted my article after I had contested it and was writing an extremely detailed explanation of why the article had been previously deleted and why it should have a home on Wikipedia. Please let me know. Thanks and have a great day. Mdyogi 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! Please see WP:CSD General criteria, article 4. The community had decided to delete it via the deletion process and it had been removed. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Chairboy,
I'm going to copy the explanation here that I had written after contesting the deletion. I hope it helps to clear things up a bit:
I realize this article has been deleted before. What had happened was that the article had been originally deleted due to Yogani writing the article himself, without realizing that it was against the rules. Following the deletion of that article, I took it upon myself to create a new article on the subject which lasted until a few weeks ago, when it was deleted based on the discussion of the original article. What I'm getting at here is that I believe there has been a mix up leading to the deletion of the recent article, which I was the author of. It is understandable that the article would be deleted due to the author being the subject, but why would subsequent articles written by others be deleted automatically on the same grounds? By going back and reading the discussion surrounding the article, you can clearly see that this is the case. If for some reason the article was deleted for "notability" reasons, I can offer the following on the subject.
Yogani is the author of the Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP) websites and corresponding books. The free instructional websites of Advanced Yoga Practices have received over 100K unique visitors over the past three years (verifiable). The six books he has written so far are selling consistently (and often significantly) within the 100K rank level on Amazon in the USA, Canada and Europe (http://www.aypsite.com/books), and are in the process of being published in India as well. Yogani was interviewed on national radio in November and December (archived recordings and schedule can be found at http://www.aypsite.com/audio) and is scheduled for additional national radio appearances in January and beyond. I would hope that a subject who is currently redefining the way that spiritual practices are taught and utilized is extremely notable, if only for this reason alone. This is the main focus of the article, as it is what makes the subject stand apart from the many others in this field.
On the topic of advertisement, there is only one link to the website (in the links section), which would be certainly relevant to the article as it is the location of the subject's main body of work. Also, the website is 100% free, so there really isn't much to be gained from any kind of advertisement. If you'd like, I can create a list of many spiritual teachers with articles on Wikipedia containing a link to their website.
I hope we can get this sorted out, as this article should certainly have a home on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and have a great day. Mdyogi 20:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the article and for your note in the discussion. Your time and help is greatly appreciated. Best wishes and Namaste.  :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdyogi (talk • contribs) 23:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] My Request for Adminship

Thanks for contributing to my RfA! Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Oh, as you neglected to include a storm joke you may wish to view my favourite which is viewable at tinyurl dot com slash ygpje9 ;) Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need help or want to discuss something with me. And I'd like to give you an apology too: One of my first admin acts was to undo one of yours at Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, you G12'ed it and I restored as the source site is in the PD. Seeing as we were both on IRC at the time, I should have poked you first, but oh well.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

[edit] SETI

Reverting evidence that SETI may wish to start looking closer to home first. What a great edit summary! Thanks for making my day brighter! ✤ JonHarder talk 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VPP and Hruodlandus

Just FYI: not having seen you post at WP:VPP recently, I don't know whether you saw my comments/links there in your thread on username blocks, about the block of Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis praefectus (the Latin name of the historical Roland), now lifted by the blocking admin. -- Ben 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Not-censored" box

Not meaning to "stalk" but rather to learn by example from your contribs, I saw your recent exchange on an article talk page where there'd been repeated requests to censor text, pictures, or the entire article. Thinking, perhaps naively, that one clear statement up front might help reduce the repetition, I came up with the following box, and added it at the top of that talk page. If you'd find it helpful, please use or adapt wherever you deem suitable. -- Ben 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.
An interesting idea. Let's see how it's received by others. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did mention it at the project talk page. So far no-one's complained, though the week is young.

I have now turned the above box into Template:Notcensored.

Also, someone else had created a longer block of text, with a stop-sign, that specifically fits (and is on) the talk pages of articles with images of nudity or sexual anatomy. I've adapted this into Template:Notcensored2, with two minor changes from the original text: 1) removed a blank line from top, 2) used BASEPAGENAME to provide the article name automagically, so that doesn't have to be typed in every time.

It's probably better to "subst" these -- {{subst:notcensored}} or {{subst:notcensored2}} -- rather than make the poor computers transclude them each load. That also reduces the risk of being affected by template vandalism.

But would you please protect these two templates anyway? -- Ben 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If they aren't transcluded onto the main page, they don't need to be protected, this _is_ a wiki after all, heh. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:India - re

FYI. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] congratulazioni


You have won the "Name Giano's Bird Competiton", and are herby awarded a Spumoni of your own. Giano 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
So what are you going to name yours? Paul August ☎ 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, an interesting quandary. These animated birds eat twice their weight in controversy every day I hear, so I'll have to wait and see. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I had been thinking of Woody for mine or Max, I had a toucan called Max when I was little - but he was a little vicious, so how about Woody afeter Woody the Woodpecker. Giano 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Woody it is! There may be those who would protest that a hummingbird's diet precludes the types of grubs a woodpecker enjoys, but that would be a failure of imagination on their part. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad to help, Woody always sounds cute, while poor old Max had that great big frightening mouth. Be careful though they breed very fast. Giano 23:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Karmafist

Chairboy, I don't think that Karmafist's devotion to this project can be denied, right up to his demise. I don't think anyone ever tried to engage in debate with him and/or his supporters. So Wikipedia chugged right along without making any of the changes recommended by Karmafist, when in fact considering these changes could have been beneficial to the encyclopedia. Did we follow the rules in blocking him? Yeah. But I think it was detrimental to the project. Juppiter 01:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you characterize his fleet of sock puppets? BTW, thank you for your thoughtful reply. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It was irresponsible, but I think that he was absolutely pushed into a corner. In addition, these sock puppets were created to block the ascension of user:Carnildo to adminship, which has been more harmful than anything Karmafist ever did. As a matter of fact, Karmafist made me aware of the sockpuppets before the Wikipedia community discovered them, and I was more offended by the witchhunt against the anti-Carnildo crowd that ultimately uncovered the socks than I was by the existence of the socks. It was good that the socks were uncovered, but that every single oppose vote in Carnildo's most recent RFA was inspected with such scrutiny was a travesty to me. Juppiter 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam4Adam

It appears you deleted the article Adam4Adam. The article had verifiable references that established notability. Adam4Adam has been discussed in newspapers across the United States and, given the opportnity, I can produce an avalanche of evidence of this. I had nothing to do with previous versions of the article; I didn't even know they existed until yesterday. There was a hold on the speedy delete and I didn't get a chance to respond. Put the article back and allow me the advocate for the article per Wikipedia policy. I am an earnest and guideline-abiding Wikipedia contributor and I don't appreciate this abuse of authority. House of Scandal 15:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First, there is no 'hold' on deletion. If someone puts a {{hangon}} template somewhere, it's a tag to draw someones attention to the talk page where they make an argument for why it shouldn't be deleted. If you couldn't be bothered to do that as you imply above, then the use of the template is meaningless. Second, I would have gladly undeleted the article at your first request, and was ready to do so (as I have any number of other times when people have asked), but then I read your immediate accusation of "abuse of authority". That's uncalled for, and while you're welcome to your opinion, I now invite you to find another admin to restore it for you. Like everyone else, I'm a volunteer here, and I'm under no obligation to put up with abuse. I suggest you reconsider how you interact with people on the project going forwards. Assume Good Faith is a vital foundation of Wikipedia, and you've chosen to ignore it. I don't know why you felt your first reaction must immediately be hostile, but it was unwarranted, inappropriate, and out of line for working here. I hope you won't mistake my choice of inaction as another "abuse of authority", but I can't control your perceptions. I can only ask you to use more consideration when speaking to fellow editors in the future. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I checked it out again, and I'd like to clear up a misconception. I didn't speedy-delete it because of unverifiable content of because it was a repost, please note that I provided the following delete explanation: "WP:CSD Articles, subsection 7 - No assertion of notability is made by this person, music group, or organization" It fails to meet WP:WEB, and Wikipedia is not a web directory. Feel free to have a 2nd admin review this for you or bring it to WP:DRV. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
There was a "hangon" which you choose to ignore. You not liking my tone is no exuse for you abusing your power, covering up your errors, or whatever. You wrongly deleted the article and you have violated policy. We're not done. House of Scandal 17:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey all, for some reason I have Chairboy's talk on my watch list, and I noticed this and I thought I'd chime in. While it is true that it might have been "nice" if Chairboy waited a little longer for the explanation from you, HouseOfScandal, there isn't, in fact, any reason why it is necessary to wait if the article clearly satisfies the criteria for speedy deletion, and I agree with Chairboy's assessment that it doesn't meet WP:WEB. If, however, this was the first or second deletion of the article I might be inclined to undelete it myself and send it to AfD. However, this is the sixth deletion of the article (one of which was reversed), and the ground was actually salted for a couple months, so it was clearly understood that it shouldn't be recreated. Your behaviour doesn't add to my desire to undelete either, HouseOfScandal. So if you want a second admin opinion, I give you one: Keep it deleted. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know about previous version of the article. The article had WP:V and WP:N. Even spammy, unWikified crap goes to AfD. To just press a button an eliminate a substantial article that someone had obviously created in good faith is very, very wrong. It was undeleted yesterday because, as the admin stated, it was undeleted in error without looking at it. What is the "hangon" template for if it can just be ignored? No different that either of you, I am a volunteer here. I work very hard fighting vandalism, creating and editing articles, and improving Wikipedia. If in my place, How would you like it? House of Scandal 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)-

From the {{hangon}} template itself: "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon." I understand your frustration, but casually ascribing malice to things you disagree with isn't a good way to get things done. If you still disagree with the speedy delete criteria used, I encourage you to use deletion review to pursue this. If you feel my actions have been in any way improper (which your text suggests), I encourage you to request external review at either WP:AN, WP:AN/I or via the request for comment procedure. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway you look at it, Chairboy, your decision was made without checking to see if it truly failed WP:WEB. I realize you're as busy as the rest of us, but it is clearly a notable site. The New York Times wrote an article about it a few months ago, after a site user was murdered through an assignation arranged there. A truly interestingWiki article could be written about it. I, for one, would like to see the article, evaluate it, and perhaps improve it. Jeffpw 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback, but your claim that I made no effort to see if it failed WP:WEB is inaccurate. I see that you're a member of "Category:Wikipedians against notability", and while you're entitled to your own opinion, I'd ask that you keep in mind that the notability policies are still in force, and if you'd like to change them, a better place for that would be via WP:VPP instead of my talk page. BTW, Alexa ranks it at over 7,000, and the articles cited appeared to mention it only in passing. If it's a notable site, then DRV will reflect this. Have faith in the process. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You in no position to lecture me or anyone on civiliity or Wikipedia guidelines. There is more to civility than avoiding cusswords, sir. Being an admin doesn't make you any smarter or more worthy of courtesy than a brilliant contributor. HoS has something like 40 or 50 articles on DYK in months and the disrespect you have shown him, and by extention the whole Wikipedida community, is unworthy of your mop and keys. If you had "faith for the process" you would have proposed that article for deletion. The actions for which you seem so proud are shameful. Shaundakulbara 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Shaundakulbara, those kind of messages aren't helpful. As Chairboy said to me above, have faith in the process. I am confident the article will pass DRV. Let's relax a bit for the moment. Jeffpw 23:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:PopeofPeru

Regarding this edit, c'mon. What are your goals vis a vis Wikipedia? Please have some consideration for the folks working on it with you, and refrain from this type of attack. We're all in this together, and comments like that do nothing to further the goals of the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I realized it needed a bit of qualification and so I added a thing to it to further explain my rational... And while you are right, that comments like that do nothing to further wikipedia, neither does deleting user's user pages without asking them or offering to bring it back if they didn't want it to be deleted. Like I said in my additions to that comment, plenty of wikipedia admins have barnstars on their pages, to me at least, this is just like that, and does not qualify to be called "myspace material". -- itistoday (Talk) 16:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:GymLeader_Dalton

I turned this guy over to an admin. He should be blocked soon. Thanks for your help. :) Wahkeenah 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May I ?

US troops shortly before the landing in Normandy in 1942
US troops shortly before the landing in Normandy in 1942

I received your message. May I go ahead and put this picture in a Second World War related article with a caption like, "US troops shortly before the landing in Normandy?". At one time, Turkish army uniforms had double row of buttons, but not during the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). If someone comes up and says, "Hey! Those uniforms are not that war!", it's a valid argument. Cretanforever 13:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand. That's not a Speedy delete criteria. The proper thing to do is to fix the caption. If you're still unclear about this, then do this: Read WP:CSD. You nominated the image for Speedy deletion, and I've told you that "I think the caption of the image is wrong" is not a valid speedy delete criteria. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the user who uploaded it should be made to understand that editing in an encyclopedia is a rather conservative exercise, and in the specific case of wikipedia, there are rules to respect as you cite yourself. It's amazing that the image is around since months. I am not the fixer or the headmaster of Kalamata primary school. I will proceed differently. Cheers. Cretanforever 16:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is not a tool for "teaching someone a lesson". Please use care in the future, and use the correct methods for fixing problems - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to User:PopeofPeru

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- itistoday (Talk) 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't see anything ironic about your message to this user? You were just defending PopeofPeru's right to blank pages two days ago. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I never said he was right to blank the Reality page, instead I was trying to show that his action required special treatment from admins and that this was not to be treated like a case of ordinary vandalism, which BTW was exactly the case with that anon who blanked his page. -- itistoday (Talk) 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove Puppets from deletion?

Their indefenetly banned, their one-time puppets used only for vandalism, whats the point of keeping their pages? Roxanne Edits 00:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? Which article/users are you referring to? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dscwp, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xachna, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evicorator666, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nueroqhyer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nuerephyre, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bearcatz
These users are puppets who werwe permenently banned. i just don't see the point of keeping his/ her pages. Roxanne Edits 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:CSD, the criteria for what constitutes a speedy are pretty clear, and don't cover this situation. In fact, there's every reason to keep the pages, as their existence makes it easier for someone to detect the recurrence of the banned users at some point in the future. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


If im not mistaken #5 says "Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned. This does not apply retroactively; contributions of banned users before they were banned should not be deleted under this criterion."

Can't this be interpeted liberaly. Roxanne Edits 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But that explicitly contradicts what you're asking for, unless I don't understand something you're saying...  ? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, have a good one. Roxanne Edits 20:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KKE Architects, Inc.

Chairboy: First off, I am FOB (fresh off the boat) to wikiland and I apologize for giving the speedy deleted KKE Architects, Inc. page the appearance of an advertisement (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=KKE+Architects%2C+Inc.).

I am guilty of my own ignorance, but would appreciate the opportunity to revise the page to eliminate any notion of company self-promotion and display an accurate encyclopedic format.

My intention is to list the company information in a non-gratuitory manner, list the company history, and notable projects (similar to the "Skidmore, Owings and Merrill" page)

Unfortunately, I did not save my word format edit file, and you have deleted the only version of the page. I would appreciate it if you would email me the text (if you cannot temporarily reinstate the page on wiki).

Please feel free to reply on my talk page. Thanks!

Jisher 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure, I've userfied it to User:Jisher/KKE Architects, Inc.. Take a gander at WP:CORP before reposting it, please, the wiki is very sensitive to things that look like advertisements at the moment. Best regards, and welcome to Wikipedia! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of William Cox

Hi there, just a reminder to please check the history of articles before deleting or tagging for deleting. This article existed as a valid article for over two years, was vandalised on 28 January, and was tagged for speedy deletion less than a minute later. -- Chuq 09:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your administrative decisions

I've created an entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy which I hope will generate some useful suggestions for you to consider. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here to give you a heads up this had been posted, but I see the filing party has already done so. At the moment, the RfC is completely without links or context, and I've asked the filer to provide links to what he's talking about, as right now the claims are impossible to evaluate. Having just read this page, it seems implausible that you are "unfamilar with deletion criteria" as alleged, but we'll see what specific instances he's complaining about. Newyorkbrad 05:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I left out the link in one of my preparatory edits. My error, sorry. Will fix. PS, I am a she. Shaundakulbara 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go check it out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In my view this RfC is totally unnecessary. I think you expressed a valid concerns at WT:LGBT. In response to them, in a later discussion I clarified what sort of conduct I felt was permitted by WP:CANVAS and what is not. Appeals to Projects to save articles from being deleted do seem to cross the border of what is valid, whereas asking projects to lend their expertise to finding reliable sources to confirm notability is probably all right. I can see why you were concerned by the post that was made at WT:LGBT and in any event an RfC is hardly needed to question one speedy deletion. I doubt a other editors will certify the basis of the dispute. If they do, I will state that I believe your conduct was appropriate in the circumstances. Maybe it is time for WP:CANVAS to include a statement as to the extent and manner in which it is appropriate to inform projects of XfD discussions? WJBscribe 22:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse the above. You have not only acted completely within Wikipedia rules, you have been unfailingly friendly and helpful in the face of determined pressure - down as far as helping the (misinformed) complainant by answering a horrifically badly-structured RfC. You have my admiration for your coolness under fire <tips hat in appreciation> 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, fulfilling the trust the community has in me is vital. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The article which you speedy deleted 3 days after becoming an admin has since passed AfD debate. I hope the opinions regarding your performance received in the RfC forum will help you to follow guidelines and avoid conflicts in the future. Best wishes. Shaundakulbara 01:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
A note, the article that passed AfD was significantly better sourced than the one I properly deleted under A7. I wish to also draw your attention to the community consensus regarding both my actions and your behavior. I will continue to exercise the WP:CSD as I have before, in line with the policies set down by the community and the Wikimedia foundation. No change appears to be necessary, but I thank you for your efforts. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Douglas Genn

Hi. I see you moved Robert Douglas Genn to User:Rgenn, but User:Rgenn seems to have moved it back. Just thought I'd let you know. -- Robert See Hear Speak 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] aXXo revisited

Over one million google hits seems to be a fair indicator of notability, by my standards (summary: if it surpasses Bajoran wormhole which gets 44 thousand, it is notable). I know it's a fairly arbitrary standard, but think about it -- people are more than twice as interested in aXXo than in one of our oldest and most stable articles. I'm not stumping for reinstatement of this article, but I went to it to edit it, and found it nonexistent and salted, with you at the helm, so to speak, and just thought you might find it suitable to change your opinion on notability of aXXo... or at least keep abreast of the increase in notability of this entity. If there's no article, I certainly won't edit it, and I'll leave it alone, but I think this article will be written eventually. How's the weather up there in the Willamette valley? I used to live in Walton, just below Richardson Bridge on the Siuslaw. I love the area and the people, and plan to move back eventually. Nice meeting you, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. User:Pedant 00:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutions Afterschool Program

Is there a way you can revert the Evolutions Afterschool Program deletion you made. There are several independant publications concerning the organization: Here are a few: http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/15340 http://www.museumpods.com/id39.html Thank you. Please let me know if you can revert it. Ketan 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored a copy to your user area at User:Ketanof92/Evolutions afterschool program. Please update it appropriately before moving it back to the Wikipedia. Remember, it must meet notability requirements currently best described in the WP:SCHOOLS proposed guideline to avoid another deletion under A7. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks a lot Ketan 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question re Copyvio deletions

Hi, glad to see you dispatched those two Mike Gravel articles. But I'm puzzled. I also tagged a third article -- Tom Vilsack presidential campaign‎ -- that was created by the same user, Nick37, and for some reason it hasn't been deleted. I figured they'd all go together. Just an oversight?

Also, for future reference, what's the best way to learn the disposition of a Request for speedy deletion? Cgingold 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! When working C:CSD, I'll usually load up a series of articles that are next to each other alphabetically and work through them one by one checking them out and deleting as necessary. I don't cluster my deletions by a specific editor or tagger, with the very rare exception of cleaning up after some sort of mess. Keep in mind, the speedy tagged articles are, like everything else here, worked on by volunteers, so it can get backlogged a bit now and then. Also, there are fewer admins per capita now than ever before, and consequently, there's an increasing workload for each of us, but we're trying not to get too far behind the curve. In regards to keeping track of things you've tagged for speedy, since they disappear from your watchlist upon deletion, it's really hard to keep an eye on them. If you really wanted to, you could make a page in your user space that has links to the articles you've tagged. Then a quick glance at that page would show you if they had been recreated or not by the color of the link. It's a pain, but it's an idea. It's easier for an admin to watch the things they've deleted, because there are delete logs (I have a link to the one for my actions on User:Chairboy, for instance, under 'das blocken lights'), but then again, keep in mind that there are plenty of times when a junk article is speedied, and eventually replaced by a good one later, so there shouldn't be a speedy stigma attached. Just because something was deleted previously doesn't mean that it must always be deleted on sight. Anyhow, hope my rambling has been of assistance. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment regards Gsd2000 conduct

Are you saying this link example does not show on your browser? It links to the edit history showing Gsd2000 removing another of my previous edits after he seems to have decided to attack.58.107.15.245 07:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm saying that you listed an RfC on WP:RFC/UC, but it linked to a non-existent RFC. There's more to the Request for Comment process than listing a complaint on that top level page, you need to write up a formal RFC document. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Is he intending to trace me all the way back to 2001 and delete articles like Kangaroo just because I started them? Where would it end, will he track back my sister's edits and delete all those as well? I would appreciate your help if you are willing to give some time by reviewing my edits he has been removing from the History of colonialism article. I do not understand, my edit is based on the US Dept. of State own records about US actions in 1962.

If there is no option but to continue with getting others to sanction his ongoing behaviour, which frankly is attempted intimidation of people he thinks are less experienced than himself; will you assist with that? - And THanks for response:).58.107.15.245 07:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) - I'll be busy for an hour or so, am running awful late preparing the dinner tonight.58.107.15.245 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I can't help you with this issue, I have no experience with the user or articles you mention, but if you post a description of the problem and a request for assistance at WP:AN/I, you may find someone. I was simply removing a malformed RFC from the page. If you look at the other items listed there, you'll see that they go to a document describing the nature of the conflict and or the issue where comment is being requested. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
"I have no experience with the user or articles you mention" - this is precisely what people said three years ago when Wik and two of his friends took offense at articles which mentioned some black people had been working together since the 1930s, and had elected a national government in 1961; even though the three people conducting the edit-war admitted they knew nothing about the country or its history; they insisted independence is a western idea and the 'stone-age' primitives could not possibly have coordinated their efforts or voted a government in. Later I discovered the three people were also involved in edit wars on the Jerusalem article.

There was only one other Wikipedia editor who knew anyting about the subject and was trying to help. But Wikipedia 3-revert rule means 3 people automatically can control any article with two or less active editors. No-one would help because they didn't know anything about the subject -- yet they would allow three apparent racist impose their fixated beliefs. I do not want to waste my life dealing with Gsd2000, I refused to get into a edit-war with him and now he's taking his anger out on Wikipedia articles. If you don't help Wikipedia, who will?58.107.15.245 09:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC by 58.107.15.245

I feel I'm being harassed by 58.107.15.245 - he's filed an RfC on me and not even bothered to either read the requirements for an RfC, or even how to write one up. All I did was revert two of his edits that I thought were POV (and explained why on the talk page). What can I do? Gsd2000 13:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

ps when you removed the malformed RFC, you only removed half of it... Gsd2000 13:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh? Where's the other part? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
He removed RfC himself, seems an odd Wikipedia proceedure. Anyway, I am glad to see Gsd2000 did decide to remove the above claim that I undid Chairboy's edit of the RfC. I'm willing to admit I make mistakes sometimes, I hope Gsd2000 will relax and stop trying to prove he is 100% right all the time.
It would be a relief if I knew I didn't have to worry about someone trying to wipe out every contribution I've made to Wikipedia over the years because of a mistaken believe that I am the devil child or a equally wicked editor. Wikipedia generally seems to be under using suitable Article discussion pages, hope the History of colonialism page will get some constructive use.58.107.15.245 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I made a mistake and failed to remove the entire link to the RfC, his actions were appropriate in taking out the rest. It wasn't an actual RFC anyhow, as there was no actual RFC created, just a redlink. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I wasn't very keen on making official or public complaints, but I did want someone to say something to him along the lines of "Hey, have another read of the edit before you delete it again.".58.107.15.245 16:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If that's what you're looking for, then you should create an actual RFC. Please understand, there's more to doing this than simply adding a link to WP:RFC/U, you actually have to create the document that outlines your complaint. As it stands, no action is likely to be taken by anyone because you never bothered to actually write the RFC. Also, have you considered creating a user account? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Tar, As I mentioned earlier I have been writing/editing Wikipedia articles since 2001, but after protracted abuse by Wik and two of his friends - I was nearly sick to the stomach at times. Wikipedia has its problems, but that doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile endeavour; I just don't want to be sucked into another round of pointless 'discussion' with editors who will not change their public declarations no matter what is said or pointed out to them. There is no level of 'proof' that will ever satisfy them regarding what they view as the 'opposing' view - but they will instantly claim complete validation by the most trivial argument. My life has more value to me than wasting it trying to talk to such people. I hope Gsd2000 is not such a person.58.107.15.245 17:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If you've been editing since 2001, then why didn't you know that an RFC is more than just creating a link on WP:RFC/U? If you _did_ know, then I'm boggled at why you'd do it in the first place. I just don't get it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please wait for the author to respond before deletion of a page

I wrote a page that was marked for speedy deletion only seconds after it was created. There were already some twenty links to the page, that's why I wrote it. It took a minute to understand what had happened, and to act accordingly. So I inserted ((hangon)) in the article, and wrote an explanation on the talk page.

When I had submitted the talk page, the article was already deleted by Chairboy. Why? Did you have time to read the article? Or did you have a list of "forbidden topics", so that were sure that a bot could make a proper decision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.237.142.11 (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello! The {{hangon}} template isn't binding, and the page met the speedy deletion criteria and was removed accordingly. The best way to avoid speedy deletion is to write pages that do no meet the WP:CSD criteria. There's no list of "forbidden topics", speedy deletion is a maintenance task performed by volunteers and on an individual basis. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How did you manage to mark the article for speedy deletion within a minute after I wrote it? Apparently, there was an article with the same subject deleted in January; at that time, the given reason for deletion was "blatant advertising". That's not the case with my article. So, what was the reason? Why did the deletion have to be speedy? Was the decision based on the subject (Propellerhead Software), or on the article contents? Disclaimer: I don't even use any software from Propellerhead Software, and I have no relations to the whatsoever. I'm just interested in the field of music software. See also: may talk page. --HelgeStenstrom 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you close a merge proposal?

Could I ask you a favor? I'm looking for someone "neutral" to close the merge proposal that is being discussed on the talk page of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Given the edit warring and personal attacks that have been taking place on that page, I think it would be best if I were to stay out of making the final decission. Thanks... Lunokhod 20:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the related pages in the past, to avoid the impression of any possible impropriety, I'd suggest finding an admin who hasn't even touched them, especially considering the editing history of some of the folks involved. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why "Speedy Deletion" of Flipside_(webcomic)?

How did the Flipside webcomic meet the criteria for speedy deletion?

Kial vi rapide malkreis Flipside?

It's one of the best webcomics out there, and it sure is noteable, so why did you speed-delete it?

If there's no really fitting reason, please undelete it, because the Flipside community is already very upset about your vandalism (that's how your deletion got perceived).

Wishes, Draketo 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! The article was tagged for speedy deletion because it failed to assert any notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of links or a web directory, the only web comics and websites here must assert an accurate notability that meets WP:WEB. It's unfortunate that my deletion is being perceived as vandalism, but that may be due to a misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia policies regarding websites and webcomics. If you would like the content of the article copied to your userspace, I'd be happy to oblige, but I'd have to insist that the article was modified appropriately to meet WP:WEB (if possible) before it was reposted to the project. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you then please copy it to my userspace, so the flipside community can edit it to meet WP:WEB? Draketo 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I have moved it to User:ArneBab/Flipside (webcomic). Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lauren Goodnight

The user (User:Hurpaderp) who requested the speedy on the Lauren Goodnight article has no prior edits. There may be a case of oblique personal attacks being perpetrated by sock puppets here. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 10:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NWA Virginia Alpha Title page

Why the quick delete??? It's the secondary heavyweight title for NWA Championship Wrestling from Virginia.JeffCapo 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] csdhelper GreaseMonkey script

I stumbled across your script while reading the thread on WP:AN about automated deletion. Interesting code. I cobbled together something similar last month. One difference I notice is that you put the HTML tags in yourself while I build up the HTML from an array of CSD reasons. I thought that it would be easier to edit the array than edit the HTML. Anyways, if you're curious, you can take a look at my monobook.js for the code. It's at the bottom. I haven't released it as a separate tool as I wasn't sure that anybody would find it all that interesting. -- Gogo Dodo 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misformatted RFC

Thanks, I've e-mailed User:Jmax- to assist me with this since he is a friend. Thanks for your offer to help with this! Aftli 05:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Gravitor

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Gravitor (talk • contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gravitor. -- Lunokhod 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usernames

Hi Chairboy. I note the logic of your recent comments arguing for "allow". However, I think your final comment on the "Developer Dan" case is a little harsh and could be taken badly by the proposer, as well as any of those who've said to "Disallow". Feel free to disagree. Hope you don't mind me posting in this way - it's meant with the best possible intentions. Cheers, --Dweller 14:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dweller, I appreciate your note. I've considered your message and re-read my comments, and I feel that they accurately reflect my views on the matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while I'm sure the folks who proposed the block and those who agreed with him/her mean well, their actions are reflecting poorly on the project and are making things worse. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. It's your call. Presumably, you use the term "block" loosely, as (so far as I know), no-one is suggesting blocking the user. --Dweller 14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Am Clueless - Please Advise

Chairboy - I have no idea how to do Wikipedia. I am not qualified to be the editor of this page. I was simply trying to establish that the band does meet the notability requirements. Can you communicate with who ever did the page in the first place and remove me as the editor as I have no idea how to do this. I was just trying to provide information to have the page restored. I do not know the lingo or the process. I am just a fan and see that their credentials more than qualify. Thanks Avidbandfan 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I Set Up An Account

Just letting you know that I set up an account like you recommended. It is avidbandfan Just let me know what is next. Thank you for your offer of help. I hope this means you will restore the site. I am not a writer - just want to give you the facts that establish that the band meets a good number of the notability criteria of Wikipedia. Thanks again. Avidbandfan 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper Deletion of The Wedding (band)

You deleted The Wedding (band)in error. Please restore. According to Wikipedia the following are some of the "criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given group or individual musician:"

  1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.  The Wedding had two number one hits on the national radio christian rock charts (Radio and Records).  Right now they currently have 2 hits in the top 30 if you will look at Radio and Records charts this week (March 2, 2007) at http://www.radioandrecords.com/Formats/Charts/Christ_Rock_Chart.asp  The songs are "Morning Air" from their first album, and "Say Your Prayers" from the upcoming album which has only been released to radio stations. This chart is the authority used in the music industry to monitor national radio airplay.

    3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources. The Wedding has been on national tours - You can verify one of the national tours with well known bands at the following website www.seespotrock.com   This tour alone included 14 states and Canada.

  4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).  The Wedding is issuing it's second album on April 17, 2007. The first album had 2 number one radio hits (Radio and Records) as stated above.  The label executives also signed and produced notable performers Michael W. Smith, Amy Grant, Relient K.



 10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.  The Wedding's "Say Your Prayers" and "Morning Air" are in rotation nationally right now.  In fact, "Say Your Prayers" placed first with the most adds by radio stations according to Radio and Records for the past 2 weeks.  Again, here is the URL to the chart for you to verify http://www.radioandrecords.com/Formats/Charts/Christ_Rock_Chart.asp   You can also verify on the Effect Radio Network of radio stations - they have over 51 stations from east and west coasts + Hawaii.  That is only one of the networks airing and that add alone has over 50 stations.  You can see others that have on the Radio and Records site.  Here is an actual current playlist that will show The Wedding's songs being played 9 times in 24 hours.  The URL is http://www.christianrock.net/playlist.asp?userid=0&more=yes&bwDate=2/18/2007

The song Say Your Prayers is also on Radio U's Ten Most Wanted. The URL is http://tvulive.com/radiou/tmw


 11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.  The band has already had one appearance and just recorded another for "The Logan Show" which is aired on the nationally.  According to the Logan show's website it is broadcast to over 225 million homes nationally and internationally on a growing list of networks including JC-TV, FamilyNet, The Inspiration Network (INSP), iLifetv, TCT Network, Victory Television Network (VTN), God TV, Alpha Omega Broadcasting, Good Life Broadcasting and DirectTV through World Harvest Television. The audio version can be heard on Sirius Satellite Radio, channel 159., this is where it airs. The April 28, 2006 appearance can be verified at the show's website at the following URL http://loganshow.com/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=70&NEW_SUBSEC_PAGES=1,0

The show just recorded will be aired in April just before the release of the band's new album.

I will check back on this page to see your response of if more information can be provided to you. Thanks.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.178.172.57 (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC). Avidbandfan 15:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restored User_talk:Bodavis

Just for info, I have restored this page which you deleted since the reason you gave (talk page of article which didn't exist) didn't apply to user talk pages for a user with contributions: hope that's ok. If its any consolation the original cock-up was mine since I put a malformed reference to a speedy on another article on the talk page which resulted in it being listed at WP:CSD --BozMo talk 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Am Clueless - Please Advise

Chairboy - I have no idea how to do Wikipedia. I am not qualified to be the editor of this page. I was simply trying to establish that the band does meet the notability requirements. Can you communicate with who ever did the page in the first place and remove me as the editor as I have no idea how to do this. I was just trying to provide information to have the page restored. I do not know the lingo or the process. I am just a fan and see that their credentials more than qualify. Thanks Avidbandfan 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good job

I think your creation of WP:HONESTY was a good and welcome response to recent events. I wouldn't mind seeing it evolve into a quideline or policy.Thanks. Paul August ☎ 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. what happened to Spimoni II (aka Woody)? DId he fly away?

Thanks for the feedback! I'm not sure how it could be a policy, but I hope that it serves a useful purpose in describing what the community expects. Regarding little Spumoni II, I'm not sure where he went. I'm worried that Werdnabot may have eaten him. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Young Electric Sign Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Vegaswikian 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/User_talk%7EChairboy_Archive2_5518.html"