User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


Contents

Zodiac killer

I think I am correct here, but feel like a hard ass. Can you take a minute to read my comments and perhaps weigh in? I personally think if a living person is going to be accused of serial killing, we should add a source for that. Call me silly, but I think about libel lawsuits with those sorts of accusations. Jeffpw 05:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you on the need for sources for anything controversial here and support your comments. We can't have hearsay that people are suspected serial killers being listed on Wikipedia. There should be:
  1. a ref to confirm each person was a real suspect
  2. a ref to confirm any piece of evidence which puports to connect them
Hardcopy references should be just as good as web sources unless you have reason to doubt the person who is adding them (the fact readers have to go to a library to double check them shouldn't be an issue). Page numbers should be included though. By the way, my personal opinion is that the article is in a shocking state. Its full of OR and editorialising e.g. "Even if Kane is responsible for the disappearance of Donna Lass -- and it's possible she disappeared of her own free will -- that still does not make Kane the Zodiac" and "Finally, it should be noted that the SFPD has never sought to question Mr. X". Phrases like it should be noted are clealy against the MOS. If you're intending to take on tyding this one up- good luck! WjBscribe 05:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It will be a challenge indeed. The page was just unlocked after being fully protected for 2 weeks. There is a WP:OWN|ownership dispute, and these Zodiac ...err...enthusiasts take this page very seriously. I am starting on the refs, then will tackle the other (enormous) issues one by one. Thanks for having a look. Jeffpw 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, WJBscribe, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honored at the trust the community has placed in me and hope my conduct as an administrator will justify that trust. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 08:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Membership list

I have to agree with Satyr on this one: when you look through MILHIST's membership history, every other edit is Kirill Lokshin sorting out members who have put their names at the bottom. I also use it to update the inactive members list and the newsletter, which would be more difficult if I had to use the history. And besides, I get a kick out of being Member No.17 (I was when I joined). :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you're both against the idea, I'll let it drop. WjBscribe 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Link

Hey Buddy. K. I wanna use it on my User:Page. I want it to be a pic of a calculator that links to the page that shows my edit count. -- Cheers! Zazzer 18:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert at Ahmedabad

Hi. Can you tell me why you reverted my edits on Ahmedabad? [1]. I have reverted your revert. (I used rollback to save time - hope you don't mind :)) Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Maybe you should file a report at the village pump. There must be a bug or something. Anyways, not a big deal. Appreciate your efforts in keeping the article vandal-free. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086Talk 13:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets...

I believe them to be the same because that IP address is of the same range, and they are haggling over exactly the same edits as before. Gsd2000 11:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Compare this new one: 88.111.13.106 to the WHOIS entry that you were having problems with 88.111.50.59 Gsd2000 11:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in this... [2] Gsd2000 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

Neat. I didn't know they had an email. Thanks for the tip! Natalie 00:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists

Looks like Will Beback must have finished what he was doing. The few remaining comments are mostly notes that unsourced entries were deleted.

I can do a table, but since it's just a list of names now, it's going to become a big wall of blank fields that need to be filled in manually -- are you ready for that scope creep? —Celithemis 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK then, that's easy enough. —Celithemis 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Angelo Sepe

The present version of the article is very different from the one that was deleted as a copyvio. It appears to be fine. >Radiant< 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

List of...

Thanks for your help with the references. -Will Beback · † · 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently, everyone in the list is sourced so it isn't violating BLP. I think it'd be fair to make a file of all the sourced names that are removed and place it in Chidom's user space so that his previous work wouldn't be lost. -Will Beback · † · 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More Zodiac Killer crap

Can you take another look at this? I deleted whole sections (all suspects, since most have been eliminated, and no arrests have ever been made), and anticipate a lot of resistance to the changes. Maybe you can watchlist it, if you don't mind. There's a Zodiac movie coming out on Friday, and I expect it's going to be hell on this page. Jeffpw 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I suggest that on Friday you list it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard so everyone knows its likely to be problematic. WjBscribe 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with your deletions 100%. I was very uncomfortable with the coverage of suspects that article. I will watchlist it so that any attempt to readd them will have to comply with WP:BLP. By the way, how reliable a source is 'www.zodiackiller.com' anyway? WjBscribe 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been online for almost 10 years, and is the most comprehensive Zodiac killer site out there. 2 million hits a month. Featured on both TV and newspaper articles about the case. I think it's pretty reliable. [3]. By the way, I already put the article on that notice board. The film is having advance screenings, and there are also several TV shows in America this week. The traffic to the article is way up already. Thanks for your help. Jeffpw 08:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

open proxies

I've volunteered my comments on the issue you recently raised on my talk page, @ WP:ANI. I hope someone finds it helpful :)

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-27 08:32Z

Thanks, might be nice if someone actually un-indef blocks that IP as a result as well :-). WjBscribe 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What you wanted an actual logical outcome? Silly :x
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-27 10:49Z
*grumble* if I *wanted* a timestamp the bot would recognize, I would have added one. By updating the in-comment one, I dodged the problem without sacrificing the all-important aesthetics.
If you need me, I'll be color-coordinating your signature for you :P
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-27 11:08Z
Pardon my trying to help :-). I hadn't noticed the change to the in-comment one. By the way, one of Essjay's Bots archives this page too. Though there are plenty of my timestamps for it to go by in thread. What colour do you think my sig should be anyway... WjBscribe 11:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You know I'm kidding ;) I actually like the current shade, although you could always join me in my .sig rebellion and transclude the whole thing. *just got done explaining why it's not going to topple Wikipedia, for the 29th time ...* That's the problem when policy makers try to legislate solutions to nonexistent problems -- the technical aspects of the system (whether transclusion causes load {no, transclusions are rendered when changed rather than on-load}) are best left to developers. And under normal circumstances, you couldn't transclude your .sig even if you wanted to ... policy overlapping an existing technical solution.

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-27 11:30Z

I can see the problem where people transclude sigs and don't subst them. But not sure I see any issues beyond that. What does the 'z' stand for in your timestamp anyway? WjBscribe 11:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What baseline problems do you see with unsubst'ed sigs (such as yours truly's) ? :)
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-27 11:40Z
LOL. I'd always thought yours was substituted... Just seen I'm wrong. OK, I'm actually going to shut up now. You know a lot more about this than I do ;-) .... WjBscribe 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
PS. Do you like my (slightly desperate) appeal to WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY at Afd? WjBscribe 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to watch me slug the whole thing out yet again, you can check out this thread :x
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-27 11:52Z

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 9 26 February 2007 About the Signpost
Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk" News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Possible username prob

Hmm, fair enough. It's only come up once before (somebody wanted User:Diff), and we just settled it on WT:CHU/U. IIRC, we mentioned the discussion under the request itself; I don't recall if we linked it from WP:RFC/N. Not sure about the best course of action for resolving these -- I figure taking care of it on WT:CHU/U keeps a (longer-lasting) record the bcrats can easily find and take into consideration, linking it from WP:RFC/N encourages community input. Not sure how well it'll scale, but so long as we only run into these every so often, it seeeeeems like it might be the way to go? If you have any suggestions, feel free -- as I said, this would only be the second time it's come up. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of the CHU/U side, if you'll take RFC/N? :) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N64 Kid

I'm afraid I messed up big time. I confused this kid with the Star Wars Kid. Sorry. I've striked out my AFD comment. - Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob- easily done. I only came across this article because it mentioned in a post at WP:ANI. WjBscribe 12:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted it to ANI

But when are you gonna get the fuckin' shiny buttons, hon????? Jeffpw 13:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm home if you want to chit-chat. On IRC my name is Amsterdad, on Skype my name is KingCranky. Let me know if you A) have the time; B) have the inclination; and C)which chat format you want to use. Got some great news, by the way: my book project, which was stalled, is back on track after 4 months of trying and failing to track somebody down for a series of interviews. I have one book in me and it looks like it is going to emerge. Joy! Jeffpw 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm on undernet, not in any channel. With my username you can type directly to me. Alternatively, we can use gmail (you have that addy now) or yahoo (trex132). As to the ANI thing, I am going through contributions as we speak/type. Jeffpw 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gmail it is, then, Hit me up when you get the chance. I am working on my second article from that ANI page now. Jeffpw 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Hurdles

Hi, WjB - I've appreciated your comments over at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes. As you may have seen from my links on that page, I've been sort of shoved into taking point on getting the Copyeditor's Barnstar approved (as opposed to making changes to the current Editor's Barnstar). Have you gone through the barnstar approval process before? This is my first time and I'm actually rather unclear how much support we need to get a go for a new barnstar, or even for an Other-Related Award. The first run-through was rather abruptly (and, imho, inappropriately/prematurely) archived by Evrik, so we've re-proposed it. It's once again getting strong support, but I'm really unclear on how much is enough. Any thoughts or pointers? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Kathryn NicDhàna. WjBscribe 10:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, thank you! I'm not sure I'm seeing what you mean... ok, keeping the same angle between the quill and broom, but moving them up... how high? and reducing them in size? I'm willing to give it another go but am not sure I'm seeing it. At what spot on the star would the quill and broom cross each other? PS - How about if you propose the additional text about Wikilinks? I agree it's worth including, but would prefer it if you propose it so I don't lose anything in translation. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


LGBT WikiProject newsletter

Timestamp for Bot. 12:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Making Amends

Copyeditor's Award
This Copyeditor's Award is awarded for excellence in copyediting. --South Philly 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my post last night was angry. --South Philly 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You mean you didn't see my post on the Barnstar proposal page? --South Philly 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Having read both the RFC and your other comments I will say this ... At one point last year there was a lot of debate over how to administer the Barnstar proposal page. There were a lot of conflicts over the stuff that people want to make barnstars. It was agreed ... kind of ... that the wikiproject that started the barnstar pages in the first place. Evrik is the only one who is still around as everyone else has moved on. So, while he is not an admin, he does carry what little authority was given him when the pages were set up.
The problem is not Evrik, but the weak system that was set up in trying to administer the pages - and keep them from cluttering up the pages. Can you imagine the problems that would arise if every barnstar that was proposed just got put on the page?
Finally, without naming names, there is a small cabal of people with common interests who seem out to get him. If you want to see what I consider an accurate description of his actions, read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Evrik#Outside_view_by_Cobaltbluetony. --South Philly 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay

However you try to work round it, the fact is that Essjay, regardless of his efforts within Wikipedia, systematically lied about his identity and, far more importantly to me, used that to browbeat his opponents. If in a dispute, someone announced they were a professor in that particular subject and therefore knew what they were talking about, I would be much more likely to defer to them. Essjay has taken the principles of trust and good faith and taken advantage of them. Checkuser and oversight are privileges that are given out only to the most trusted users on Wikipedia: Essjay has established that he is willing to lie to his own advantage. It is inappropriate for him to have those tools. Essjay is undoubtedly a great contributor to the wiki, but apprently so is Giano, and no-one would give him oversight. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Essjay's fiction is not why I said he should resign. He used that fiction to sway other to agree with him, which is wrong. Taking advantage of someone's trust in you to be who you say you are is wrong and that is why I think it is not appropriate for him to hold roles that require absolute trust. If I were simply angry because he lied, I would be screaming for his bit and for Jimbo's head too. But I don't care about that, what I care about is that one of our highest ranking users has been proven to have abused the trust the community placed in him to his own advantage and that is wrong. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think even you must agree with me that the evidence being turned about Essjay's fraudalent use of credentials has gone way beyong knee jerk reaction. You said we had no evidence of his abusing Checkuser - until a month ago we had no evidence he was a twenty four year old from Kentucky. We all believed that Essjay was a theology professor; with that exposed as a lie, no-one knows what they can trust anymore - there are people questioning whether Essjay is anything he has ever claimed. There are doubts raised over whether he is gay, using a sockpuppet (his apparent boyfriend), or even if Ryan Jordan is his actual name. This is an incredibly worrying development, for all of us - Essjay's standing as an exemplary Wikipedian has made his fall only harder, and he's taking our credibility with him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I accept your apology. He's left now. I think this has done more to shake Wikipedians than any efforts by Brandt or Seigenthaler ever could. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


I just saw your message about the newsletter. I will datestamp the next one I send out. Thanks for letting me know! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Trembling before G-d

I have done some more work on Trembling before G-d, and I think your objections for GA are now covered. I said it did reasonably well at the box office in the inro because it says further down that it made $800,000 which is a reasonable sum. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Reasonably well' seems weaselly to me. Since the actual box-office take is cited, I suggest you let the reader decide if that is "reasonably well" or not. Jeffpw 08:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jeff. There seems no need to say "It did reasonably well at the box office" when you can say "It made $800,000 at the box office[ref]". I'll have a proper read through the article on Wed when I'm not struggling through with this damn dial-up connection. Opening mainspace articles is a tortuous affair- took me nearly 10 mins to revert some vandalism to Anesthesia last night...
Guess I'll also have to sort out the archiving of this page- I understand that a series of MiszaBots will be taking over from the EssjayBots. WjBscribe 12:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 15:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're famous! (sort of)

you made the New York Times, WJB!!!!! They quote you! Jeffpw 15:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I just came across the article and dashed over to note that. :) Congrats, wjb. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Usernames

I rejected 'Ebola' because it is certainly contrary to the username policy, more users had suggested it be disallowed than the contrary, and I find it a bit tasteless. I suppose the last is also true of 'Death', though it's not quite a breach of policy. In any case, the user formerly called 'Death666' (who was requesting the change) is now called Borameer; I don't know whether he is even still interested in the fulfilment of his request. I will gladly make another change for him if he wishes, but not, I think, to 'Death'. — Dan | talk 17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Usurpation and username probs

Yeah, things over there are most likely changing. Not sure in which direction or how much, but there's been some discussion (mainly pertaining to RfCU, so far, but it'll swing over to CHU over the next few days, most likely). Currently the talk is mostly off-wiki (or last I knew), but will probably move on-wiki soon. Whether the bcrats want clerks, who they want clerking, and how they want the clerking done, probably all going to be run over at some point. We'll see where that goes, neh? :p – Luna Santin (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 10 5 March 2007 About the Signpost
New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, WJBscribe. Just popping round to say thanks for your support at my RfA – getting round slowly, but surely, with one eye on the backlogs! Thanks again. Bubba hotep 21:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

essjay

Read the source from zdnet.com two sections above. The guy got an email from Jimbo saying he fired Essjay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have no idea why you are so passionate about both defending essjay and minimising the strength of accusations against him, but when the founder of Wikipedia says he fired essjay, that's what I want to quote. He's said "asked to resign" in the press because it looks kinder, but lets face it, if essjay had not gone willingly, he would have been forcibly removed from his job and his positions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Go ask Jimbo, he's the one who fired him! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I don't care about legal niceties, it's irrelevant. I've left a note on Jimbo's page asking him to clarify. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Community AfD

You may want to look at the current version of the article and consider revising your opinion since the current version has multiple reliable sources including a note about a notable award the community has recieved. Also note that nothing in WP:SELF prohibits an article on a Wikipedia related topic that is well sourced with verifiable content. That's how we can have Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales among other articles. Thanks JoshuaZ 02:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have commented further at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia community, however my opinion is unchanged. WjBscribe 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ta!

Gwen Gale 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't discuss on talk page because Gwen Gale keeps blanking it

I think the Essjay article should be deleted, but I'm open to discussing it however Gwen Gale keeps blanking. On your advice, you suggested that all revisions should be discussed on the talk page, however it's impossible to discuss if one person keeps blanking it. 64.236.245.243 15:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest you rephrase yourself in a less controversial manner that does not give rise to the appearance of trolling. Avoid personal attacks on other users of Wikipedia (including those who have now retired) and try not to hyperbolise. Whatever you may think of the actions of the person in question, they were certainly not criminal. You may also like to check out the previous deletion discussions in relation to this article- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy. Unless you have new points to make, there seems little point in revisiting those discussions. WjBscribe 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

automation

Are you going to automate the entire portal? It would be great to get back on track for FP. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Working on it. Starting with the quotes section and going from there! WjBscribe 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Kirill said that it was mostly the archiving that would hold us back, so we might conceivably get it FP this month! Kudos to you! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
All looks cool to me except the updating frequency. A month seems a bit too long. Maybe we can go to fortnightly instead, if there's an issue with pool size? Oh, and can we build a caveat in that if no-one votes the updater is welcome to just pick an article/biography? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Moore

Can you deal with the advertising that's appeared on the biography? I can't do it myself for obvious reasons. Ta, see you soon Chrislintott 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. WjBscribe 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CSK

A page may be speedily kept only if one or more of the following holds:

  • No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. I did not withdraw the nomination
  • The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it (since calling a nomination vandalistic does not make it so, and vandals can be correct). Examples of this include obviously frivolous nominations (Such as featured articles), nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (e.g., a userpage of a contestant in a heated edit war by their opponent(s) solely for harassment) and making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected. This does not apply, nomination was in good faith. I provided ample evidence that my view on the misuse of this link was shared by others
  • The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be tagged with {{db-ban}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. Obviously inapplicable
  • The page is a policy or guideline. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy. The page is a shortcut. It is not itself a policy or guideline

None of the above apply. --Random832 22:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. These are points you can raise at DRV, but reverting the close isn't the way to go about it... WjBscribe 23:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Thank you for bringing to my attention my error. Someone had replaced the entire article with graffiti and that is what I was attempting to revert. Apparently I goofed up. It certainly wasn't directed at you. Wjhonson 07:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Angry anon

Thanks. --evrik (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for supporting me on my Rfa which passed today. Regarding you comment on it, I promise you there will be no further copyright issues, it was an honest mistake on my behalf. Thanks also for supporting me on the talk page regarding the images question - I'm staying well away from them! Will we be seeing Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WJBscribe anytime soon?! Give me a shout if you want a nom Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rfd tagging

Hi. Make sure you remember to tag redirects with {{rfd}} when you list them at Rfd. --- RockMFR 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I noticed you've nom'd Sockpuppeteering even though it isn't a cnr. I'm going to go ahead and remove this. Relist it if you meant to nom it for another reason. --- RockMFR 04:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Replied at User talk:RockMFR. WjBscribe 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Gregor

No, I knew nothing about it. We need to change it back, because it's definitely POV to start splashing logos all over templates that go in the mainspace. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Heads Up

I would have never known that WerdnaBot wasn't on if you didn't tell me. I was the one who actually left Werdna the message that the summaries weren't working, but I though it was just minor and didn't think anything else was going wrong. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

free pics?

Where are you getting these free pics from? Do you just search Flickr and upload to the commons? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah, my two main sources are Flickr and US government websites (as all their photos are public domain). If you tick all of the boxes in Flickr's advanced search, the results are GDFL compatible. WjBscribe 00:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That was... disgustingly easy. Now I am posed with a dilemma, should I leave the current photo of Jake Gyllenhaal, sourced as it was with love and care from an Iheartjake fan who released into the public domain out of love for Jake, or do I callously replace it with this much better quality one? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Have both for now- its a big enough article.... WjBscribe 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speed

You beat me to it.  :P Navou banter / contribs 03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you were going to do it. Sorry. Often people who close RfAs (including the crats themselves) tend to forget to add the final tally so I tend to check... WjBscribe 03:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No need to be sorry, I was about to tally when I saw the page edit on recent changes. You saved me some counting. Cheers, Navou banter / contribs 03:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 11 12 March 2007 About the Signpost
Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons upload

Hi there WJB. :-) I was wondering if you'd terribly mind trying to upload this image one of Steve Sandvoss from flickr.com to Commons, seeing as you've got an account there. :-) We're trying to get the Latter Days article in es:Wiki to FAC status and we need a free image since Fair Use is not accepted. Cheers and thanks in advance for your time! Raystorm 16:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, interesting picture. And if we could believe that everyone who uploads to Flickr understands and tells the truth about copyright it would be fine. But it is obviously a professional photo and without a waiver of copyright from the photographer it does not meet the requirements of GDFL. Sorry, but it really isn't a free photo.... I think you'll have difficulty coming up with copyright free images for films, especially with lesser known actors who don't od a lot of premieres. WjBscribe 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Argh, I was afraid of that. :-( Thanks anyway. Raystorm 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

New portal

I've been thinking for a while now of setting up an LGBT Current Events Portal. With the LGBT Featured Portal status now in sight, I thought I'd ask you for your thoughts on it. We could transclude or update the news section on the regular portal from it, maybe eventually get some collaboration going on with whoever's writing the news for the Wikinews LGBT Portal. What do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea- if rather daunting. I'd be keen for us to finish getting the LGBT Portal up to scratch before moving on to a new project, but it seems like a good way to go next. Must check out the the Wikinews LGBT Portal more often though for news ideas... WjBscribe 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah, FP first, CE next. :) Go automate! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
When we have everything on random thingy, how often will we need to update it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Test Wikipedia

Dear Sir,

Thank you for giving me a link to the test Wikipedia. I have registered an account there, and will make sure to make myself completely familiar with how things work on Wikipedia before attempting other complicated edits or page moves.

Goingplant 21:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Koh Tral

Creating two separate articles for the same entity is not how Wikipedia works. If we can do that, we wouldn't have problems with the Sea of Japan/East Sea, Dokdo/Takeshima, Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf issues. This is precisely what redirects are for. DHN 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The current article at Phu Quoc sounds like a travel brochure, but that shouldn't stop contributors from adding information about its history and Cambodian claims. But they shouldn't be allowed to create a new article about the exact same entity. (Imagine having an article titled Dokdo that describes it as Korean territory and another one named Takeshima describing it as Japanese territory. It will just confuse the reader.) DHN 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Search Google for "Koh Tral". Almost all references to it are from Cambodian sources regarding its current status as Vietnamese territory, and put the Phu Quoc name in parentheses. The reason that references to Phu Quoc rarely mention the Cambodian name is because most people who know it as Phu Quoc are unaware of the Cambodian name. One authoritative link is [4] (p. 30), describing the island's history. Also see Talk:Cambodia#Koh Tral. DHN 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. However, as far as I know the Cambodian government no longer makes any claims regarding the island after a treaty with Vietnam in 1982. All "disputes" are from non-official sources. DHN 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sex

WP:BOLD, and perhaps more importantly WP:IAR. I've been here since October 2001 (it says so on my userpage, so of course it must be true ;-p), I certainly don't need an education on the basics of policy. I did not expect the move to be controversial in the least, it had never been done before (only moves of sex before had been obvious vandalism), and as far as I could tell it had never been discussed in the past so I was bold and moved the page.

If you have a problem with the page move, that's one thing and I invite you to discuss it at the appropriate article talkpages; if you want to chastise me for something that was perfectly in line with policy, done in good faith and using careful judgement, that is quite another matter entirely and is something I would not appreciate if that had been your intention, although I am assuming that was not your intention. --Node 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Node ue. WjBscribe 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images in Cricket World Cup

can you please revert your own edit, we shouldn't remove the pictures without finishing the discussions and because those "weak" points are being followed with stronger ones. At least give it a day for the discussion! Plust the trophy picture is FREE! i know because i found it on flickr! Also just to let you know you cant take FA back for at least 3 months from now...--Thugchildz 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This fair use paranoia is out of control. Why don't the wiki-nannies focus on retaining the quality of the content instead of obsessing over fears about copyrights? With IP addresses free to do any bloody thing they want to, diverting thousands of hours of editors' time to reversions instead of actual editing, wikipedia doesn't have enough credibility for any copyright owner even to care about wikipedia. Wahkeenah 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You are entitled to your opinion. However Wikipedia aims to (a) follow the law and (b) provide reusable free content to thrid parties. WP:FAIR is designed to give effect to this. Recently this matter has moved beyond Wikipedia policy however and the Wikimedia Board has indicated a firm line is to be taken on copyright. If you object to the policy, I suggest you get in touch with them. WjBscribe 01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It's a waste of time. Mr. Wales is firmly committed to a policy that lets any idiot edit wikipedia. I've become convinced that he's conducting a large-scale social experiment. Keep in mind this is a guy who also runs a soft-porn website, which tells you something about his priorities. Wahkeenah 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The I guess WP:FAIR is here to stay and we can all get on with the task of ensuring copyright policy is followed. Thank you for your input. WjBscribe 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Let me put it another way: IP addresses and red-link editors are constantly posting stuff that, if it stayed, could potentially get wikipedia sued for libel. So why isn't Wales worried about that issue? And has anyone ever actually sued wikipedia for copyright violation? Not likely. Any more than they're likely to get sued for libel. Because wikipedia is nothing more than a pretentious weblog, and everyone knows it. Wahkeenah 01:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess its so we cankeep saying "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit". Which is the point of Wikipedia. Vandalism by IPs and new users is mostly reverted very quickly and is in my opinion a small price to pay for the openness of the project. Many valued contributers started of as IPs and some admins still have redlinks instead of userpage :-).
Oh, and if the tone of our conversation is to be determined by comments like "this is a guy who also runs a soft-porn website, which tells you something about his priorities" and "Because wikipedia is nothing more than a pretentious weblog, and everyone knows it" I'd rather we stopped talking. Cheers, WjBscribe 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • What I stated is true. And the fact that vandalism might be reverted quickly (and I've seen some that's been not been discovered until days or weeks later) is the lame argument I've heard by many others, and no matter how often I hear it, it doesn't make wikipedia sound any more credible. As an example, a couple of minutes ago an IP address changed "Major League Baseball" to "Nigger League Baseball". Just imagine if someone were to run across that at the wrong time. Yeh, that would really enhance wikipedia's credibility. And you don't have to respond any more and I won't come back to your page. However, I insist that this photo paranoia is the wrong focus, misguided energy. The focus should be on quality. Currently, it isn't. Wahkeenah 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Which, by the way, is why I now spend very little time reverting. I focus on the pages I care about the most, and one of the other Wales lemmings can do the reverting. If Wales doesn't care, why should I? Wahkeenah 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well I think (and OK I'm a lawyer so these things matter to me) that part of quality is respecting image copyright. As to misguided energy, I quite agree. I would much rather spend my time doing other things than having to sort image copyright and fair use problems. So if other users could stop creating them, I'd be very grateful. WjBscribe 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Except you don't "have to" do anything of the sort. You're choosing to. And if wikipedia gets sued for copyright (highly unlikely) there is no loss to you personally. Just like I'm choosing to edit, giving freely of my time, despite this little voice that keeps telling me it's a collosal waste, that it's not worth it. I just haven't got quite fed up enough to quit yet. Wahkeenah 01:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Whether you quit or not is your choice and staying away from things that annoy you is probably a good idea- as for me, I find vandal reverting quite relaxing actually. Also, I am easily distracted :-). When I see a problem, I am not happy moving on until I have done my bit to resolve it. In the same way that if the mainpage FA has been replaced by a giant penis, I feel obliged to revert it, if I see a photo that WP:FAIR does not justify being in an article I feel I must argue for its removal... WjBscribe 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, if you enjoy reverting, then you're probably better suited for this site than I am. And if you really like reverting, add lots of pages to your watch list... or better yet, monitor all changes as they go by. Focus on the redlinks and especially the IP addresses. You'll find that about 90 percent of what IP addresses post is either poorly-written junk or outright maliciousness. Wahkeenah 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I do a fair amount of watching recent changes. Sometimes anon and newbie edits are vandalism but often (and I would say more often than not) they remove vandalism, correct spelling mistakes and add relevant content. Sometimes those edits need to be copyedited, verified for accuracy or adjusted for NPOV but I think Wikipedia would be poorer if we lost all of their contributions. And that would mean the vandals would have won. I've written articles that have been improved by passing users who didn't register an account before correcting the odd spelling mistake. I think valuing IP and new editors less than others is a mistake. WjBscribe 02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I must be watching the wrong pages. :( Wahkeenah 02:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • LOL. Maybe so. Still I'd have thought in 19353 edits you might have stumbled across at least one valuable anon contrib! Shame you seem to be so down on the project- you've obviously invested a lot of time in it... WjBscribe 02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yikes. That's a lot of edits. And too many of them are reverts. I will agree that the occasional IP address makes a positive contribution, which makes me say, "Oh!" but ironically there is no way to thank them directly. Anyway, I haven't given up yet. I need to stay focused on what I care about. FYI, I do try to stick within the photo rules. Wahkeenah 02:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, and thanks for sticking with me long enough that I calmed down a tad. :) Wahkeenah 02:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        •  :-) I don't think I've suggested the contrary. And I have not gone back and removed the fair use photos from Cricket World Cup again because (a) revert warring is bad and (b) life's too short. I've said my bit (both here on Wikipedia and in the Commons deletion discussion). We'll see if Ed g2s wishes to take the issue up again when he's next online- either by removing the photos or nominating the article for FA review.
        • That's all right, I've enjoyed talking to you- wasn't sure I would at first but I definitely have... I mean well, honest. Friends? WjBscribe 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • We're good. :) Wahkeenah 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi WJBscribe. Thank you for supporting my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 13:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

My first vandalism/attack :) I was just figuring out what to do about it, but you took care of it - thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Resourceful, isn't s/he? :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on both accounts. I've left a line at the image talk, I think the issue is pretty clear right? About the Prime Minister of Spain...well, it's a debate that simply makes my skin crawl. You read the lead and the first paragraph and it perfectly explains the name of the office, but people just don't care, why let exactitude get in the way? Argh. I'll raise the issue there in a month or so, but I'm not letting it creep into SSM in Spain if I can help it! :-) Just a few more hours until the article is off the main page and the madness stops... Thanks for keeping an eye on it btw. ;-) Raystorm 19:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some madness will linger a little I'm afraid- it'll still be linked from the mainpage as "recently featured" for three more days! Still everyone seems to be on top of reverting the damage. To be honest I thought it would be a lot worse- video game articles on the main page seem to average several vandalism edits a minute. I thought a controversial topic would be on a par with that but it actually hasn't been that bad (Cricket World Cup was more vandalised yesterday- people are strange)... WjBscribe 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
@_@ It could have been worse? *Shudder* Raystorm 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 :-) I always watchlist the main page FA to help out with reverting. People who've brought it up to FA standard tend to get a little upset by the collateral damage (even if it is fixed quickly)- understandable really, I guess it must feel a bit like watching your child being bullied at school. WjBscribe 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: XNRs

No, Special:Random will only give you an article so clicking on it won't result in a XNR. There is an equivalent Special:Randomredirect, but most people probably don't know about that and you would have to intentionally use it as it's not linked from the navigation box like Special:Random. I'm not sure what happens with broken redirects (doubles, db-redirnone, or redirects to special pages). I doubt Special:Random would return them as Wikipedia should still think they are redirects, but a developer would have to answer that for certain. -- JLaTondre 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Park Place Tower

It's definately the tallest building in the area. I have a friend that lives there. They have nice condos. I don't know if it's particularlly notable or worth having an article. I would say not. I don't know if any Chicago Cubs live there.--Twintone 19:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

vandal whacking stick

Thanks! This reminds me of my favorite quote: "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Natalie 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Darnitdarnitdarnit! You beat me again![5] — coelacan — 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 :-) WjBscribe 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! Did you get lemonpartied? — coelacan — 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And reverted and warned by a Bot! Not impressed... WjBscribe 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. Have you looked at the cricket pic deletion discussion lately? Seen the screaming? I wonder if we should let that fellow know about the big tag. Wouldn't want him to be deprived of the tools he needs to make his point. — coelacan — 04:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I give up. As if the AGF of flickr uploaders argument wasn't bad enough, he's revert warring with Ed g2s over the fair use images at Cricket World Cup as well. He can't see why if he mentions cricket organisations, including their logos isn't fair use. And if he says X team won in year Y, using a copyright pic to illustrate them celebrating is obviously essential. Obviously otherwise a good contributor- would be a shame if he gets blocked over this... WjBscribe 04:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If it gets the message across and saves other editors from having to clean up mess after mess, then it won't be such a shame. 24 hours isn't too long but if it stops him from continuing that then it's both necessary and preventative. Have any admins been notified? — coelacan — 04:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not as far as I know. I guess Ed g2s will check the page when he comes online. I've decided to watch this one from a distance for a bit... WjBscribe 04:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you like rubbernecking at auto accidents

The very definition of Schadenfreude. Jeffpw 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, he couldn't really have made it worse... WjBscribe 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely going on my list of Wiki accomplishments:-). In other news, I have been quite busy with my interviews (John Rechy, Dennis Cooper, Michael Silverblatt and The Angry Samoans, to name a few of the more notable. This project is really on track now. Hope you're well, and as usual, your comments on the "fun thread" above were thoughtful and well reasoned. I have no fears your candidacy would be similarly derailed. Jeffpw 09:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Usurpation question

GAH. I totally missed that message. x.x Um, I would agree that requests should generally be archived unless we have some fairly pressing reason not to. Not sure how big of a deal it is, though -- say, checkuser requests need a searchable archive, not as sure about declined username changes (how often do people look at the archives, anyway, eh? ;) -- but as I said, not sure). Hm. I guess we could restore it and let the bcrats tag as not done. Or we could just add it to the archive by hand. Those seem the two ways to go. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to entail the least fuss and embarassment for all involved. Clerknote sounds a good way to do it, just a quick explanation. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Good, thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Large pathetic galaxy

I'd welcome thoughts on what to do now that the AfD was closed, despite noone arguing to save the article.Chrislintott 08:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question (I suppose I should've put a rationale there), "no consensus" doesn't mean "someone wanted to keep it", it means "there wasn't a clear consensus as to what people wanted done." Granted, no one seems to wants an article there, but there were arguments (not votes, remember!) that the location would serve better as a redirect then a redlink (with or without a merge), which seemed to be well-argued. The decision to redirect or delete can certainly be hashed out on its talk page, if the decision is redirect, that can be done without AFD, else it can be sent back with the comment that those who wished to redirect now agree to delete (and of course, those confirming it). If you'd like to DRV, you're welcome to do so, though-I don't take offense at things like that, I make errors sometimes like anyone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The close was already several days overdue, I didn't get the idea that relisting would get anywhere productive. If you disagree, though, please go ahead and relist-hopefully you're right, and a second one will achieve consensus. There's nothing against doing a relist on a no-consensus AFD, and hopefully a wider slice of people will comment this time around. (If you'd prefer, I'll refrain from closing the next one around.) I don't like closing anything no consensus (it tends to cause exactly this), but if that's how I read it, that's how it gets closed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you were right! Next time I run across one like that, I'll go ahead and relist it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WOW Number 1s: 31 of the Greatest Christian Music Hits Ever

Whoa, are you following me? =P — coelacan — 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just working my way through todays AfDs and spotted a name I recognised :-). WjBscribe 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Awww, pooh. Say, tell me, do you think I'm working from a faulty assumption here? That's a bit old, commons deletions take forever to close, but it's been bugging me. — coelacan — 04:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmm. My understanding was that although Federal works were PD, State works and below were not (there was a huge fuss about the official photo of George W Bush when he was governor of Texas I seem to remember- that was decided not to be PD). The State of Florida does not seem to regard its works as PD (see [6] for example). So absent any specific information about the City of Largo's policy on copyright to the contrary (and their website clearly says, "© 2007 City of Largo. All rights reserved"), I am inclined to think that NYC JD is correct and that the person who emailed was mistaken as to the image's copyright status.
Now whether or not she, acting as an agent of City of Largo, had authority (or apparent authority) to waive copyright is another matter- and one that requires specialist knowledge of Florida law to answer, though my suspicion is not. In any event such a waiver could only be as regards your using the photo- it would not be valid for downstream users to whom she had not made the representation. WjBscribe 04:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, if you have a sec when you read this could you swing by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Large pathetic galaxy (second nomination) and offer an opinion? Its been difficult getting enough people to comment to get to concensus. Would be grateful for your input. WjBscribe 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Took a snack break and then did some amateur astronomy. ;-) As regards Largo, I see what you're saying and I've got no reason to doubt your judgment. If you feel it amounts to a delete !vote, do make that clear over on commons. And thanks for looking into it! — coelacan — 07:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not comment on Commons as I'd prefer not to express legal opinions in actual debates unless really necessary. And I don't know enough about Florida law to be sure. NYC JD has made the point already so I think I'll just let that one run its course. WjBscribe 07:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Right then. If it gets deleted I'll just get on the uploader's case about photographing Stanton in person. Mikereichold lives in Largo but is probably sick of me bugging him by now. — coelacan — 07:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I appreciate your support during my recent RfA. It was successful, and I hope to put the tools to good use. Shimeru 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infernal death (band)

Hi, there's no need to remove speedy tags from articles that are also at AfD. It speeds up the process if those articles are also listed at CAT:CSD (hence why I tagged it as well as commenting in the AfD). WjBscribe 02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If the speedy process already ran its course without resolution, then the AfD should clear it up. If it did not have a chance to run its course, then the AfD was premature. The excessive taggage is unpleasant to readers. The encyclopedia IS for readers. Read User:Shanes/Why tags are evil Jerry 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Already replied at User talk:Jerry. WjBscribe 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see latest thread at User talk:Jerry. Jerry 16:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I regret that you state I did not present our discussion neutrally. My comments on his essay talk were twofold in purpose: to ask him if his essay applies to what we talked about, and to begin a dialogue about future content for his essay. For that reason, additional context was added intentionally. I did provide a link to our actual discussion, and asked him to read it, so I did not feel it was necessary to recreate a faithful duplication of it on his page. I was not asking him to decide which of us was "right", just asking him if stacking of templates associated with wikipedia deletion procedures and maintenance tagging was also among the things he was describing in his essay. Jerry 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)

I needed the moral support more than you can know :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad to have helped- I'd vaguely noticed the discussion on my watchlist but it was only when I visited your page that I realised what an unnecessary number of posts there had been on the topic. Don't worry about it- you're doing a great job mate ... WjBscribe 04:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association

Good afternoon (GMT time); thank you for your input regarding my reading of consensus at the above MfD. Further to your comments, I've revised my decision, and the "Archives" of Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association have been speedily deleted. Further details are given at the discussion page.

As all Wikipedians should be, I am striving to implement advice given to me by other editors - this area of closing deletion debates is new to me, and your input was greatly appreciated. Hopefully future edits of this sort should be of a higher standard, and more in line with your advice and the par the community expects from Wikipedians who undertake these essential duties.

Don't hesitate to drop me a message at my talk page if you've got any more comments, suggestions or advice. Otherwise, Happy Editing!

Kind regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 15:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My next interview

This should be interesting. Jeffpw 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Does sound interesting... WjBscribe 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to WJBscribe for beating me to the rollback button. :D Kaori Mogami 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
How kind. Thank you. WjBscribe 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WJBscribe

I know you've thought about it. I'm willing to write it. :-) Grandmasterka 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And if Grandmasterka writes it, I'd like to co-nom, if that'd be alright. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow thank you both very much for the show of support. I'm very touched. And I no longer can see any good reason to put off asking the community to support my RfA. However, if I can ask you to indulge me a little. I would very much like to ask the first user who expressed a willingness to nominate me for adminiship if he is still willing to do so and take it from there. Thanks again- I've been quite lost for words for a while... WjBscribe 03:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked for it ;o) Go here when you're ready, follow the instructions and we're away. Stay cool and don't let the process stress you (I barely slept during mine). RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen you around and thought you were already an admin. If you need a conominator, just drop me a line. Cheers, --Asteriontalk 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. Also very much appreciated. Redvers has done a very thorough job though. If anyone has anything significant to add you're very welcome- and do comment on the RfA one way or the other.... WjBscribe 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Two CNRs

Hi WJB, could you just look over these two CNRs:

Do you think either of these be deleted if consensus was to do so due to their edit histories? I just wanted another opinion before (re–)nominating them for deletion. Thanks, mattbr 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the dogs list was used as a list of uncategorised articles which were eventually categorised and the pages effectively blanked before the redirect. I'm not quite sure what happened with the other. The history ends in 2003, and the histories of Current events and Portal:Current events don't start until 2006. As far as I can tell the content wasn't incorporated, but the page was redirected about three years before the target (Current events) appears to have existed?! mattbr 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers :) mattbr 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template skills request

(quoted from User talk:Ben#Template skills request)

Hi Ben, wanted to ask a favour as you're a wiz with templates. Have a look at Uranium, which is the main page FA at the moment. We had a bit of a problem when one of the templates used in it was vandalised tracking down which the problem. As you can see it uses over 40 templates to create the infobox. Do you think you (or someone else who's good with templates) could create a single (or a few) template (s) with multiple parameters to do the same job? That number of templates just to create an infobox seems ridiculous. Would appreciate your input. WjBscribe 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look.... -- Ben TALK/HIST 18:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, it's a beautiful modular design: {{Elementbox_header}} starts the infobox format, then subsequent subtemplates get slotted in as they're invoked, and finally {{Elementbox_footer}} closes the infobox. This makes any single template fairly simple by comparison, and thus easy to maintain. Considering the total amount of information conveyed, and the opt-in feature (the subtemplates are only invoked if, and in the sequence, you choose to invoke them), it's the most efficient and flexible design I can imagine.

There actually are single templates available already -- {{Element}} and {{Elementbox}} -- which do take multiple parameters as you suggest. Not being modular, such a template is much less flexible in terms of what it lists and where, but if you want to put all your eggs in one basket ("and then watch that basket!", as Mark Twain wrote), try that.

Either way, you'll want to protect anything transcluded into the Main Page, and cascading protection should work as well on the infobox subtemplates as on a single {{Element}} or {{Elementbox}} template; conversely, leaving either method unprotected is still an opportunity for vandals. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

About my edit summary on the Final Fantasy VII page...

When I said "rvv", I meant to revert Grossout's vandalism, I didn't mean revert vandalism by you (which there was none of). Sorry if the edit summary offended you. What makes it even worse is that I hit "mark edit as minor" by accident before hitting "Save Changes", so it makes it look like I perposely reverted something by you. Sorry about this. --LuigiManiac | Talk 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No offence taken- there's a lot of activity going on to revert vandalism on that page and wires are likely to get crossed. Don't worry about it... WjBscribe 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks.

The revert on my user page. :) Acalamari 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

^demon's RfA

All right, thanks for reporting it. Fixed ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi, best of luck on your RfA. I think you are overdue for the tools.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comment- and your support. WjBscribe 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 12 20 March 2007 About the Signpost
WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell that was fast.

What are you doing, refreshing my contribs or what?! :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It does seem bizarre. I wonder which user will take on his job. We're running out of unemployed Wikipedians... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/j/b/User_talk%7EWJBscribe_Archive_4_c8aa.html"