User talk:After Midnight/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →

Contents

Images needing editor assistance

I think it's helpful to have them available until all of the images are out of them. Even though they partially duplicate other categories, there are two reasons to keep them. (1) Some users blank the "no source" tag, but leave the "uploader needs assistance" tag. If the category is just outright deleted, we miss those images. (2) In general, the images in this category are orphaned, either because the user never added them to an article or because OrphanBot removed them. So they are very well suited to rapid deletion - open 50 of them up in Firefox tabs, then rapidly go through them and check to see that they are orphaned and kill them. Other images in the "Images with unknown copyright status" are more likely to be user-tagged and used in articles, so they are less suited to the rapid fire deletion. I think making the default 20 would probably be useful ... although just restoring them as needed isn't that big of a deal. --BigDT 22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Something else I just thought of ... what if we were to change the tag - not just for this category, but for all of the dated categories so that after some arbitrarily long period of time (like 45 days, longer than the backlogs will hopefully ever be), it will add the speedy deletion tag to the image itself automatically just like it does for the category? That way, if somehow an image does fall through the cracks, it will fix itself. --BigDT 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Template parameters

Defiantly date= is the way to go. The templates can be made temporarily to support both, and I have a technique for seguing from one to the other. Historically there was a mish-mash and even I, at that time, working with them on a daily basis, couldn't always remember which was which. Also SmackBot a can add date= if I set it up properly. (It used to add or remove as appropriate - well I think there are still a few cases where it removes.) Rich Farmbrough, 13:43 1 June 2007 (GMT). P.S. I work by evolution, run the Bot and see what's not been fixed, sharpen up the reg-exes, and repeat (with the occaisional re-factor), so I will catch most things in time. Rich Farmbrough, 13:43 1 June 2007 (GMT).

Re: Aksibot

Hi. Thanks for blocking the bot. It was a bit late as the bot had already gone through the list. But still better to be safe than sorry. :) I am starting to clear up the mess, am thinking of the best way to approach it. Should I mark images with the tag uploaded after 1st Jan 2006 as speedy? I will remove the orphan tags of-course. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied here. --After Midnight 0001 13:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RFA qs

I have tried to answer the qs if you want to review. Thanks for asking Simply south 14:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Well, i suppose i should have been expecting the mandatory one (or was I?). Due to varying factors and no consensus, i decided to withdraw. Thank you for the comments. I will see how i can improve. Simply south 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AMbot BRFA

Your bot, AMbot, in which you requested bot approval for has been actioned by a BAG (Bot Approvals Group) member as Approved for trial. for 100 edits. Please, during this trial, only edit at around 3-5 edits per minute to not clog the recent changes page. After your trialling, could you please report back to the BRFA so a member of the BAG can determine whether your contributions are good or not, and give you a bot flag to run your bot at your requested edit speed (10EM). If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them at your bot's request for approval. E talk 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:People from Westphalia

Hello - you recently created this category to replace a category you deleted, Category:Natives of Westphalia, as part of the clear-up after my successful mass nomination of all remaining Category:Natives of Foo examples. However, I've noticed that the new category is uncategorized. Although I've not having had any real dealings with the mop side of WP:CFD after the discussion is over, I would have thought that a rename would not have necessarily caused the loss of the previous categorization, but I may be wrong. Can you have a look at this, please? I can't recategorize Category:People from Westphalia as it's outside my knowledge and I can't see the deleted page, of course. Just thought I'd mention it in case the same happens when the rest are done, which would cause some people some headaches, I suspect... Thanks, Bencherlite 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. This should not have happened. I made a copy/paste error, and I have now corrected it. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. --After Midnight 0001 00:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem, just thought you'd like to know about one of your rare (and very minor!) errors. I don't envy whoever has to do the mop and bucket work of renaming all those categories etc, and I'm grateful for your hard work in this field. Bencherlite 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If I can get my new bot up and running, that will make it easier.... --After Midnight 0001 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you PLEASE?!!

Don't you ever care for me, understand? Bagong Buhay

Stwalkerbot comment

Thanks for that comment, i've replied: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Stwalkerbot Stwalkerster talk review 17:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Perhaps I am confused by the AIV process. The fact that he has a diff to show that he reported someone means that it was legitimately entered. Which at any point it is out of his hands. Perhaps a little AGF is in order here to say he could have checked his revision, and said "it's reported, time to move onto the next", as I would do. How can any single user here be expected to note an IP address they reported, and go back to AIV, with all the activity there, to make sure it was handled? "And yes, if you take the trouble to post something, you generally look to see what the result was." Since there is a diff, there is a high probability that he did go back to check, and saw that his post happened. So what's the problem here? Wikidan829 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A second look shows that the other guy blew his addition away a whole 3 minutes(!!) later. It's not like there was an edit bump and he didn't bother checking. Wikidan829 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your losing me a bit with your terminology. When you post to AIV, you should generally watch the edit summaries to see how your request is handled. But before we get hung up on this, please know that I am more bothered by his saying he uses the AIV page when it appears that he doesn't. On the matter of what happened with that one posting, we can probably agree to disagree. It's not something that I really want to argue about, but I would be happy to try to explain my rationale again if you are just looking for that. --After Midnight 0001 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I would personally rather someone move on to the next RC than worry about if the AIV posting worked properly or not. Of course people should check if it went in, but as far as someone else screwing up their post, how can they know? I think it's unrealistic to expect that of anyone.
As far as the actual posting of it, he said "periodically", which, by definition, is an ambiguous word:
  1. occurring or appearing at regular intervals: periodic visits of a mail steamer to an island.
  2. repeated at irregular intervals; intermittent: periodic outbreaks of the disease.
Can we assume that by "periodic" he meant "at regular intervals" or "once in a while"? I think it would be better to ask for clarification, than to assume one definition or another. I think it would be better to find out exactly what he meant, before indirectly accusing him of being deceitful. Wikidan829 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I really am not looking for someone to keep posting me to try to change my mind on this issue. If everyone else disagrees with me then it really won't matter to the outcome and if people do agree with me then it could be said that I made a valid point. Either way, I think that I am done on this topic unless some new postings appear on the page from others that pique my interest. --After Midnight 0001 00:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to change your mind. I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to clarify their postings when they say things, is it? RfA is broken. Wikidan829 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, well I've made 3 attempts at clarifying, and we obviously are not going to see eye-to-eye on this, so let's just move on. --After Midnight 0001 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Also, I would be happy to talk about the issue of deletion standards for userpages at any time. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The only other thing that I really wanted to mention was that I think that we should always put a prod notice on the user's talk page. Many users only log in for preferences and don't really check watchlists, etc. So it you prod their user page they might not notice. If they see the big orange bar, they are more likely to be able to raise an objection. --After Midnight 0001 02:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have started doing that. Since I have my userpage watchlisted, it didn't occur to me that someone might not even notice the {{prod}} tag. In any case, I generally no longer look for userpages to prod; unless a userpage is particularly problematic, I don't think there's much point to it. There must be hundreds of thousands of userpages of inactive users and I think time spent identifying and tagging them could be better spent working on articles. Thanks again for your support. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree about there being better things to focus on. I delete PROD'ed userpages when they hit 5 days in most cases, but I never tag them for deletion unless they are blatantly improper. As a side note, new editors may not even know what a watchlist is or how to put their userpage on it. --After Midnight 0001 21:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Restoring Rugball?

Hello. I would like to request that you restore the article entitled "rugball" that was deleted today. I think that it is a valid article, and further work will be done to improve it. Also, if you have any more specific suggestions for improvement, those would be welcomed.

Mrody 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article per your request,but I have procedurally listed it for debate for deletion. You can get to the debate by clicking on the link in the colored box at the top of the article. Discussion will last about 5 days, so you should act quickly to improve the article to a point that you can convince the community that it is appropriate for inclusion. --After Midnight 0001 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: PRODs

OH CRAP!!! I double checked and you are right... To explain what happened, I used to have a JS script adding a tab when (and only when) the prod was expired to delete the page, but someone added a delete link to the {{dated prod}} template and I stopped using my script. I assumed the link only appeared after the expiration. Seems not. I was doing 2 things at the same time and I didn't notice that the big red text was not here... Of course prods are done without prejudice, so I'll restore the pages without question... but still... (gonna look at that stupid template later today) -- lucasbfr talk 06:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited the {{dated prod}} template to put the delete link near the "Expired prod,...." text. Both only show up when the 5 days have expired (and there was a bug on the template making the text appear sooner than intended). Hopefully that'll prevent someone from doing the same mistake :). -- lucasbfr talk 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Need Help With Proposed Delete

Hope all is well with you. I need a little help and I know you can help me with this issue. I submitted an article for Proposed Deletion. Created the log entry for it etc. But it did not create properly. Could you please help and tell me what went wrong?

The article is: Search Engine Marketing

Thanks!

Al --Akc9000 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you did the following (note, I'm only evaluating the facts here, I'm not offering my opinion on whether or not this should be deleted)
  • This tag was removed by another user who disputed it.
  • Put an AFD tag on the article - done correctly
  • Created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search engine marketing - done correctly
  • Placed the AFD discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 7 for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Engine Marketing - done almost correct - you didn't capitalize it the same, so it didn't show up for you. I have fixed this. :*Created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Engine Marketing - probably because of the above problem - this was unneeded once I fixed the above, so I've deleted it for you.
You came pretty close for your first try..... --After Midnight 0001 20:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh

Care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull. I just had to go through and remove tons of prods... and now this. I'm feeling extremely irritated and scratchy so I'm going to hold off for a wee while :P PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll comment on that later, and I see that there are more than one, which I feel should all be consolidated, IMO. Please do remember that you can most easily build the consensus that you wish by using lucid, factual arguments, and especially by not attacking the opposers. Don't get into commenting about them and their motives, just keep to the facts and you should draw more favorable comments than otherwise. --After Midnight 0001 02:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Dear After Midnight, thank you for you efforts to build consensus on my RfA. As you know, it was unsuccessful. I am not the type of editor to be disheartened by such a result, and have gained much experience.

I will run again, however I am concerned that I may see your name in the same place, for the same reasons. I would greatly appreciate knowing what I could do to earn your support next time.

If you have anything to contribute by way of improvements or comments, please don’t hesitate to tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg.msc 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sustainable development portal

Hi After Midnight. For some reason, I'm getting virtually no action at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sustainable development. Would you be willing to take a look and weigh in on the nomination? Thanks, RichardF 12:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Richard. I'm unfamiliar with the criteria for Featured Portal Status, and am quite busy in RL currently. If you can send me a link to the criteria, I will try to take a look next week. Regards. --After Midnight 0001 13:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, A.M. Here are the Featured portal criteria. Some other guys I asked who are familiar with the criteria already weighed in, so the need for reviewers is not so pressing anymore. Considering how busy you are, I'm more than willing to let you "off the hook." ;-) Regards, RichardF 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. RichardF 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

all that whitespace was bothering me

You are too easily bothered :) -- Cat chi? 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. The first step to fixing the problem, is my admission of it :D --After Midnight 0001 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dm2ortiz

Thanks. I think the reverts coming from an uninvolved editor may help. I don't know if you care, but you've made a small typo in your message: "fail" for "faith". Unless of course you want to describe my edits as failures :-) Cheers --Pak21 14:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

mediation

are you willing to mediate for Pak21 and myself? Dm2ortiz 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I must apologize. I did not see this message promptly, and therefore neglected to respond in time. It appears that you have since been blocked. As indicated on your talk page by the admin, you can have your block lifted by making a statement on your talk page retracting that threat as well as posting an unblock request. Once you do that, I am willing to try to mediate if you would still like for me to do that. --After Midnight 0001 01:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on closing RfAs

I've got no problem with anyone explaining what factors they would have taken into consideration when closing an RfA; such speculation is only natural, and when (as with your comments) it also proves pretty accurate, it's actually quite helpful. Thanks for your note, Warofdreams talk 15:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Deleted environment and intelligence

The article was deleted. The article improved. It does not mention the Mozart effect now. It mentions many other stuff. THE DELETION TAG WAS OUTDATED!!! THE ARTICLE IS IMPROVED. SHIT, I FORGOT TO REMOVE THE DELETION TAG.

Skunke 02:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking me to restore the article. I can do that quite easily as prod deletions are restored on demand, though someone else may ask for them to go through the AFD process. If you want it undeleted, just ask here to confirm that is what you want; there is no need to shout. Also, note, you were allowed to remove the prod tag if you wanted to. --After Midnight 0001 02:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Undelete it.

Skunke 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have done so. --After Midnight 0001 22:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Monarchist Wikipedians

I take it all political categories pertaining to userspace are being deleted? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe so. The reason for deletion on June 4 was stated as "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose". The deletions were endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 4. It may take some time to go through them all, but no one is being "singled out" to my knowledge. --After Midnight 0001 10:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I kind of expected that since I looked around first and noticed that other such categories were being deleted. I just hadn't seen the discussion.
It now appears that the deletions are contested, and the category has been restored. I'll not add it back to the userbox unless consensus is reached to keep it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review Kari Schull et al

You participated in the AfD for Kari Schull where the nominator is attempting to overturn the "keep" decision at [deletion review Kari Schull]. This discussion is linked to 3 others the previous day, where the author of the articles is attempting to use the "keep" at Kari Schull to overturn the rejection of his other similar articles. Interesting potential precedents for the applicatrion of BIO, or for the reform of special case notability criteria --Kevin Murray 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon[omg plz] 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking Policy

Thank you for your comments on my proposal. You raised a number of valid points, and helped us understand a different perspective. I did make an edit to the policy, but the edit was simply a clarification of existing policy, and did not need to go so far as I had proposed, based on the points you raised. Please feel free to challenge me any time, any place. Thoughtful criticism is constructive and welcomed. Jehochman Talk 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to come here and say that. Is is truly appreciated. --After Midnight 0001 18:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if my comment went over as surly. If it helps any to give some background, I've specialized in complex investigations for a long time. When I was a new administrator I handled the lion's share of the traffic at WP:PAIN and WP:RFI for six weeks until some of the cases went into arbitration and I got too swamped to keep up. Rather than pitch in to keep the boards operational the community dismantled them both, with most of the deletion voices coming from people who didn't do this sort of volunteer work. From my perspective on the ground floor it looked like irrelevant memes carried a lot of currency. That's when I made it a priority to coach more people into Wikisleuthing. We've got a loyal core of volunteers now, but not nearly enough, and often that's not enough to carry weight on the policy and process side. It wasn't my intention to insinuate anything negative about you - I suppose a bit of oh no, not again crept into the tone of my post. My bad. DurovaCharge! 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks to you as well for your note. --After Midnight 0001 20:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Userbox category

Thank you so much for fixing the dead link to the female category in user:hmwith/fem. It saved me some effort, and I'm glad someone noticed it. Cheers!  hmwith  talk 21:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem; happy to oblige. --After Midnight 0001 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Untagged images

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll use {{nld}} from now on. Regards, Cool Bluetalk to me 00:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous

Regarding Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_by_parenthood, which you closed as Delete.... I was preparing to empty the category and didn't know if you meant delete the parent only, or also the children listed in the nom (Delete All). You only posted the parent at the working page which makes me think only that one. However, you did not delete the template from the top of the others to indicate a keep decision, so maybe you meant to delete them also and just didn't list them on the page. If you let me know (either by responding here or by changing the working page), I'll take care of it. --After Midnight 0001 10:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Yes, it meant all of them. I'll be glad to clarify the closure, and you're welcome to "take care of" the rest, if you're so willing : )
Thank you for letting me know : ) - jc37 10:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I'll get on them either today or tonight. --After Midnight 0001 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who visit countries

This one: WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians_who_visit_countries, looks like a delete. Did you mean to make it a "parent cat"? Also, I'm not sure if the intent was to keep or delete the children. --After Midnight 0001 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The "children" weren't tagged. So even though the parent resulted in delete, they remain. SO I deleted the "members" of the parent, and just left it, thus, essentially, deleting the Wikipedian category, and recreating it as a solely parent category. I just skipped the deletion/recreation step. If you can think of a better way to deal with it, I'm all ears : )
That includes nominating the "children", I suppose.
And btw, thank you for the questions. Please always feel free to let me know if something needs clarifying, or whatever. I'm usually more than happy to help : ) - jc37 07:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I guess those children probably should get nominated though. It might be different if only one of the children was not tagged, but in this case, since none were tagged, they should probably go up. I could always blame the nominator for not tagging the children.... (just kidding). Thanks for your responses. --After Midnight 0001 10:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Want to hear something funny? I had to look to see who nominated the category : )
Anyway, please feel free to nominate the children. Due to current events, I don't think I'll be nominating anything for a bit. I hope you understand. - jc37 11:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - happy to oblige! --After Midnight 0001 15:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

About James and Tom Martin

hello there I have noticed that you have made a contribution to the first article I have written for Wikipedia.I'm still having difficulty understanding how it works and what is happening with my article.I'm not sure I understand what all the codes Wikipedians use stand for esecially those used on my edit this article page, so if you could exlain to me what the code used for your contribution means I would be grateful. I also dont understand why its been put up for deletion again and what is happening to it now as it was saved already after discussion.Any help or insight into this matter will be helful to me although I dont think i'll contribute anything else after this article as I feel there are so many criteria to be met before an article is passed that I fear anything I write will not be deemed good enough Looking forward to hearing from you soon I hope --Purplepickledonions 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK for starters, I do not think that the article is currently up for deletion. The article was up for deletion in April, but the decision of that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James and Tom Martin (typically called an [[WP:AFD|AFD) was to keep the article. After that, it appears that some other editors made some changes to the article. 2-3 weeks ago, another editor suggested that it be deleted using the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (aka PROD) process. Per the process, I was reviewing articles, like yours, which were nearing or had passed the 5 day waiting period. The PROD process clearly states that it is not to be used in this type of situation (i.e. when a AFD has already been held), so I rejected the prod with a suggestion that if someone wanted to have it deleted they needed to follow the process and do an AFD again, which hasn't happened, so the article continues to exist. By the way, removing that tag is my only edit to the article. I hope that clears up the situation and how you got here. As far as codes go.... if you tell me which ones you are inquiring about I would be happy to help you. In general, if someone uses a code like AFD, you can type WP:AFD in the search box and you have a good chance of finding it. Also, many people provide links to the codes when they use them, so you can try to follow those links. Feel free to post another question here at any time. --After Midnight 0001 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for youre speedy reply to my question and yes it helps me understand things a little better although it will take me a while to figure everything I need to know about Wikipedia out so I might have to take you up on your offer of answering more questions in the future. thanks for your help its much appreciated --Purplepickledonions 11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help -- but could you spare some more?

I was able to stop the overlap problem before you checked, but what I would really like is to figure out how to make the boxes move where I want them to, so it looks neat and organized. I like the way your userpage looks, but every time I try to replicate things that I see in other userpages, it always turns out looking weird in mine. PStrait 00:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's not that I don't have the time, I'm just not particularly good at what you are asking. I can tell you that you might have more luck if you take a look at WP:UPH. HTH --After Midnight 0001 00:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll check it outPStrait 03:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

George Soros

Just wanted to thank you for your prompt editprotect fix to the George Soros article. Thanks! --Milton 21:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, anytime. --After Midnight 0001 21:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

good faith?

Personally, I consider any sentence that starts with "I would like to AGF, but... " to be a passive-aggressive accusation of bad faith. Would you care to explain how that bug report was done in bad faith? Perhaps I have a vested financial interest in the failure of AWB? Maybe a vendetta against one of the devs? Or could it be that I'm a new breed of troll that gets his kicks from filing spurious bug reports?

As a fellow administrator, you should know better than to inject such comments into a constructive discussion.

Hesperian 02:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It should have been obvious from the position of my comment that I was not saying that your bug report was in bad faith. My issue was with your comment that "you seem to be saying that since there is no solution, there must not be a problem either", which I took as snippy and dismissive of the devs. I found this comment "less than constructive", because I believe your statemenmt characcterizes a difference of opinion as a lack of desire to find a solution. If I misinterpreted your tone or characterization, please accept my apology, but please consider that the devs may also have taken it the way that I did and IMHO they have put too much into the tool to be subjected to (what I believed to be) an attack. As a fellow administrator, you should also consider how your words may be received, as will I. --After Midnight 0001 03:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect to your interpretation of my comment, you are mostly right. I think that MaxSem immediately recognised that there can be no fix to this bug, and therefore set himself to deny its existence.
So let's complete the trifecta by acknowledging that MaxSem's response to my bug report was snippy and dismissive, that my response to him was snippy and dismissive, and that in your response to me you momentarily forgot the difference between "snippy and dismissive" and "in bad faith", which really are completely different concepts.
I cannot allow to pass unchallenged your suggestion that "You seem to be saying that since there is no solution, there must not be a problem either." is an attack. It most certainly is not.
But that aside, I accept what you're saying here, and acknowledge that I was a part of the problem. If you have anything else to add, I'm listening. Otherwise, thanks for the chat, and see you round the 'pedia.
Hesperian 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your rationale. I agree that "good/bad faith" around here really has a stronger connotation than what I would use in real life. Please accept my apology in that regard. I think that we all leave this a bit better for the experience and look forward to future collaboration. --After Midnight 0001 03:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I've apologised to MaxSem in case he felt about my comment the way you did. Apologies also to you for misunderstanding your AGF comment. See you round. Hesperian 03:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Huztlazgreed

this has already been deleted and restored - suggest MFD or contact of prior admin

You might try actually reading the actual deletion log. Hint: "deleted to make way for move" doesn't mean what you suggest it means. But if process-wonking in support of obvious spam is your thing, have at it. --Calton | Talk 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To start, please note that "6. Do not assume I'm stupid, .... I do not respond well to having my intelligence insulted." also applies to persons other than yourself.'
I didn't. I merely noted the thoughtless nature of your actions: any conclusions are your own.
I think it is reasonable to ask that admin "why" before I would delete it now as a courtesy that we admins have towards each other.
Which, hmmm, you didn't. Nor notify me. Or anyone else. Does your "courtesy notification service" imply the use of psychic powers, perhaps? --Calton | Talk 11:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I did notify you, through the use of my edit summary.

A strange new meaning of "notify" I was previously unaware of. So psychic powers ARE involved?

Please not that it is not incumbent upon the admin (or any user) to notify the nominator when a PROD tag is removed.

So the talk above about courtesy, asking, etc. is merely empty? Since you are aware of item 6 on my list, you should pay greater attention. Find one rationale and stick to, it's far less trouble and at least intellectually defensible.

It looks like you took all those pictures, loaded them into commons and are using them in articles.

Yes, and thank you -- no thanks for phrasing it in such a, well, interesting way, though. --Calton | Talk 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User pages

Please stop vandalising my user page. Every time I come to Wikipedia to do some editing I find yet another bot or administrator has been changing the one small piece of personal space users are allowed: the user page. I see absolutely no logical reason why you would have a problem with there being red links on a personal user page. Each time this happens I have to go away from Wikipedia for a while to do anger management. Please leave the user page alone. --wayland 14:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that a bot running through hundreds of user pages and removing deleted categories from them is not considered vandalism. This is often done as a result of a template change or deletion discussion that impacts a large number of users and you are not being singled out. Nevertheless, if you choose to restore them to your page, I won't make personal edits to re-delete them from your page alone. --After Midnight 0001 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My talk page is not a dumping ground

If you want to leave me a message that is a repeat of something 13 times (exact number guessed), it would be just better if you would have left one message with the bulleted list of where the things happened. Not to mention the images in question were uploaded and cited prior to the latest developments of fair use and other images sourcing. I just don't appreciate that now I have to archive all that into some condensed form. As a gardener and a sysop of other media wiki's my mantra is not to make more work for someone else nor repeat myself over and over. I am not mad, I just think you could have contacted me in a better, more productive way. Just a thought.  immunity  talk  04:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I could have been more thoughtful and I have tried to clean it up for you. It looked to me like all the images were uploaded after the cut-off date, but if I tagged some incorrectly, let me know and I will correct myself on those. --After Midnight 0001 04:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed my sig on here is not working correctly -need to troubleshoot that. So I apologize for the extra code in this message. When was the cut-off date? Maybe I missed it, but this article is about a year old and so are most of the images. So coming to deal with this now, a year later is just another thing I guess I have to expect, when rules change on wikipedia and then trying to keep up with them. It helps when there is a big user base as the English Wikipedia, but sheesh, I sometimes its enough to make your head spin ;)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Immunity (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Typically seven days are provided, but sometimes, with a backlog it will take a bit longer. --After Midnight 0001 10:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Prod

TrishyBEAR (talk · contribs) only has five contributions, three of which are two her user page, and only on 12 April. I prodded it on 1 June. I think that's a long enough break... hbdragon88 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you still want it deleted you are free to pursue MFD. --After Midnight 0001 10:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, I never liked MFD, it seems a bit over-the-top to MFD a single user page. hbdragon88 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Please rest assured that many userpages do end up there. If you take a look know, you will probably find several. --After Midnight 0001 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, then. I shall do it...after midnight. HA HA *shoots self* [1] hbdragon88 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That never gets old.... --After Midnight 0001 01:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Images: Jenny Galt Article

Thanks for the message on the talk page for this article. I wrote to Jenny Galt asking her to provide (or point to) some images for the article, under a Creative Commons licence, probably an Attribution ShareAlike licence.

We will see what she provides. It will be good to have some newer pictures. The ones in the article at present are older ones, now getting a bit outdated.

User:JD_Fan 28 June 07

I glad you appreciated my message. Thanks for your attitude towards the situation. I realize that the image policies can be frustrating sometimes and its good to work with someone who can stay cool through the process. Let me know if I can help with anything. --After Midnight 0001 00:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tracy Ip page

After Midnight, I did paste and copy the Tracy Ip Chui Chui page. I did that because Tracy Ip is her English name and Tracy Ip Chui Chui is a English translation of over real English name (Tracy Ip). I could erase all the page of Tracy Ip Chui Chui and then redirect it to the Tracy Ip page. Please post your opinion and whether should I do it on this post or on my discussion page.

Sam72991 14:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

replied on user's talk page where thread started here. --After Midnight 0001 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

AfterMidnight, I don't think there is a need to fix the problem. There's no problem with the history. It did not split.

Sam72991 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)