User:Andrevan/Archive17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Thank you

A thanks for the support on my admin nomination. CG 18:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Arilou screenshot

Technically, if the game is open source, it has a free license, therefore it would not be fair use... --AllyUnion (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thanks for your support on my RfA...I'll try to be good Lectonar 10:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Image:Meles-face-1a.jpg
Thank you for supporting my RfA application! Much appreciated! The Singing Badger 16:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bmicomp's RfA

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you very kindly for your support of my nomination. I promise your trust hasn't been misplaced; I will only be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 21:25, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Android79's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. android79 22:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your support in my recent RFA! All those extra buttons might not be a big deal, but getting all this positive feedback sure is, please let me know if you have any problems or comments regarding how I use all these shiny new levers and cranks! Rx StrangeLove 00:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ==New admin seeking mentor==

Thanks for supporting me in the adminship process. Now I am hoping you will consider being a mentor to me as I learn to wield my new powers. I may need advice on how to do things and a sounding board to keep me honest. Any caveats you have, please feel free to post them my way. --Nv8200p (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mediation Comittee

Since you'd been up for consideration for a while and it seemed like the community generally supported you, I took the initiative in making you a mediator. Please visit the Mediation Committee page and list your email address. Andre (talk) 20:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I wont be able to concentrate on Wikipedia stuff for a few days, what with chaos in the RW, but will be able to involve myself with the committee within the next couple of weeks. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 08:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Am I crazy?

I've recorded some of my thoughts and ideas about problems within Wikipedia, and some possible solutions here. I'd like your thoughts, and whether or not you think I'm crazy. Thanks.--Scimitar parley 17:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How do you decide?

OK. So who decides, or what are the parameters to consider, when there is a contested ifd such as:

  • Image:Cosmopolitan August 2002.jpg, Image:E11 SarahMichelleGellar707.jpg(deleted), Image:SMG Buffy season 2.jpg, removed by others from article Sarah Michelle Gellar, all OR, Thuresson 15:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Because both of the current images on the article are unsourced, and the first and third that you listed for deletion are fair use cover scans, perhaps we should first check to see if the former can actually be used before the latter are deleted as unnecessary? No opinion on your second listing. Postdlf 06:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

So, if I want to clear this, what should I do? --Thanks Nv8200p (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks awfully

Ta for supporting my RfA, much appreciated. I'll endeavour to contribute more to those necessary tasks and hope to bring the benefit of years of experience of tactfully sorting out recalcitrant contractors to bear in the gentler arena of wikipedia....dave souza 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re RfA: Just one single question

I saw your vote here, and if you want to vote me out (and cryptically provide no reasons or justification to convince me or any bureaucrat to withdraw the nomination), that is your right, but I have just one question:

  • "Did you actually read the entire RfA page there -the version right before you posted -where I added some "bullet points" at the top of the page to clarify?"

Until I get a clear answer about this, I will not feel comfortable discussing the merits, because a lot of people now-days have been going around and voting on stuff where that admit they don't know all the facts. Scary. I await your answer to my "single and sole" question. Thx!--GordonWatts 03:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy answer: I got your post on my page ("Sir, when I do not list a reason on RFA oppose votes, it is only in one of the following two cases: a) I do not wish to offend, but feel I cannot help but do so. (I am trying to eliminate this after a number of editors I respect expressed their disapproval of it.) b) The reasons for opposing are obvious and already explained by other voters. Your RFA falls squarely into the b) column. I did not have to read the entire RFA page to oppose your request; I merely had to read your interaction with the excellent contributor & admin Ral315, as well as your comment about a "4-3 consensus," to know that you should certainly not be an admin, by any means. Andre (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)") --and would like to point out that, agree or disagree, I did address that point, but in case you missed it, let me assure you that a 4-3 vote on a small paragraph in any article means seven editors hashed it out, and while normally we want more users, let me assure you that you can't always get 20-30 editors to weigh in on every point, and seven was pretty good -considering it was one small (but important) part of a very large article, so I won that vote, and later changes by those on the losing side should have (to be fair) met with the same disapproval as do any votes, such as RfA's when one side loses. Period. Unlike the RfA, the standard is not 70-80% --with only two versions of the paragraph discussed on that page, it is 50% plus one, and I won, and that should have been the end of it. Now, I have noticed a FUNNY pattern: The three voters who "supported" me ALL knew me very well, and the 17-19 or so who didn't did not know me at all, except from looking at like one or two posts. ONE QUESTION: If I were so unqualified, then why did those who knew me VERY WELL over many months here in Wikipedia support me? (One example: Uncle Ed, a respected wikipedia, and former chair of the Arbitration committee, was the Schiavo mediator for several months -he knew me longer than all y'all combined.) You see like a reasonable person. SECOND QUESTION: If I'm not qualified, then why not change the rules from where they presently are "to grand adminship to known and trusted members of the community" -- "no big deal" as Jimbo says (I'm in good standing, as evidenced by my clean block logs here in my old name, only blocked to change and here in my current user name.) -- If I'm not qualified, then why not change the rules from where they presently are --to the "current practice" of looking at all the edit pattern? Why not change it -if your method is more correct? (Please note that while I've "concentrated" on Schiavo pages, I've still edited 233 distinct and unique pages and have 2,720 edits. Only about 5-10 pages tops are Schiavo-related, so I'm not so "concentrated on Schiavo issues" -as shown by the large 233 figure.) --but, back to my 2nd question: If all these things are so important, then why not change the policy to fit your needs -if you're so sure that you are right on what the admin requirements are?--GordonWatts 02:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I came across your comment about me on the RfA talk page and I must say that I agree whole heartedly with you. I've read a significant amount of policy documents in the wikipedia namespace in my month here, but I still come across new (to me) information every day. If I was nominated for admin in the near future, I would decline. --GraemeL (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help trying to nominat someone

originally on the nominate an admin on my i.p i nominated mrmattkatt but it got erased because i can't nominate someone on my i.p. but then i registerd tryed nominating again and it still gave my i.p adress instead of my user name how come?

[edit] How should I address a possibly disputable move?

Right now, I want to move Nightwork. I want to post the following reasoning somewhere:

Proposition: Move this page to Nightwork: Sexuality, Pleasure, and Corporate Masculinity in a Tokyo Hostess Club.
Reason: "Nightwork" refers to more than one item. It also refers to a book on hacking at MIT, as well as an album from the Diabolical Masquerade project by guitarist Blackheim. Also, "nightwork" isn't a term generally accepted to have a specific meaning, and therefore there is no predominating item that should have an article with this name. ~GMH talk to me 23:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Should I post this on the Talk:Nightwork page or a requested moves page? I can currently move pages, but I don't think it's right for me to jump to a move without consensus in this case (unlike my earlier case with Tail Gator and Tail 'Gator, which was my misspelling).

Also, how long should I wait (in terms of time or number of responses) before I decide that I've found consensus either way?

Thanks in advance for your help. ~GMH talk to me 23:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images and texts added

What do you think about [Damacy] now? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Harassment : Good edits or wiki-stalking?

At Wikipedia talk:Harassment I left the following: (under the title: Good edits or wiki-stalking? )

From [1] "# 16:15, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Pornography in Japan (-verify tag) (top)

  1. 16:10, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) m European pornography (top)
  2. 16:09, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) m Freedom of speech in the United States (Reverted edits by WAS 4.250 to last version by DESiegel) (top)
  3. 16:09, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) m Atatürk Dam (Reverted edits by WAS 4.250 to last version by Darwinek) (top)
  4. 16:07, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:WAS 4.250 (Genetics) (top)
  5. 16:04, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) m Transcription (genetics) (Reverted edits by WAS 4.250 to last version by 62.209.237.4) (top)
  6. 16:02, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) m Operon (Reverted edits by WAS 4.250 to last version by FlaBot) (top)"

Each edit is removing a verify (reference) flag I placed there. This follows his spamming my talk page (I spammed him back) after he deleted a contribution I made that removed part of a contribution by FeloniousMonk to Fine-tuned universe. FeloniousMonk and I have had differences. (See the page where people voted to make FeloniousMonk an admin.) WAS 4.250 21:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

(Actually, it turns out, I thought I was on the talk page and someone was kind enough to move it to the talk page for me. Anyway, if you care to investigate or bring this up to anyone who cares, I would be grateful. Thanks.) WAS 4.250 22:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)