User talk:Celarnor/Archive 2

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.

Contents

Question

Good night 208.120.178.66 (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Am i annoying you with this constant talking? lol. I realize this makes me seem like i have no social life -.- I like chatting with you <3 208.120.178.66 (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you guys keep track of things so well and stay so (relatively) organized with all this vandalism going on?208.120.178.66 (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We have applications that let us cycle through recent edits to the project and quickly revert them back to their original state, warn the user, ask for page protection from an admin, all with keyboard shortcuts. Celarnor Talk to me 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanna Cyber? 208.120.178.66 (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if want. Celarnor Talk to me 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Does doing this bore you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.178.66 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Wikiperdia is very lulz. It's like an MMO. Celarnor Talk to me 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you a member of the /b/rotherhood?

I herd u liek mudkipz. Celarnor Talk to me 03:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Omg i love you now

...thanks? <3 Celarnor Talk to me 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you hate Hal Turner?

Not really. Celarnor Talk to me 03:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

....What did I do? - The guy you warned

You made unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Also, please sign your comments by placing four tildes at the end. I revert lots of vandalism, I don't necessarily know who did what. Celarnor Talk to me 12:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks. 66.234.222.52 (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I had a question and don't know how to ask you. Why do I see a different version of the article about M. Jodi Rell than everyone else? The edits I made were not "unconstructive". According to the New York Times she was a homemaker. One cannot by law be a professional part-time legislator. It is not a profession and is not a career. Secondly, why is the link to an honorary degree not working. There is no way one can say that was an "unconstructive" edit. Give me a break. This makes me not want to contribute to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartfordct (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You see the same version of the article that everyone else sees. You can view the history of the article here. Regarding your edits, that "profession" field is the profession for which they are most well known. She is not known for being a housewife. She is known for being a legislator. You seem to figured out how to link to honorary degree, however, the way in which you're doing it is incorrect; the concept of an honorary degree is quite common, it doesn't need to be linked to in this case; what she got a degree IN is more important and relevant. ^_^ Celarnor Talk to me 02:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. The page I saw when I logged in was different than the page I saw before I was logged in. I wouldn't agree that one's profession is what he/she is most well-known for. If that was the case, Ms. Rell's profession would have been "governor" not "legislator" because she is much more well-known for being governor. I'm glad to see that this was resolved with stating her "profession" with "public official." I'm glad to see that the link to "honorary degree" was left as well as the link to law school. Thank you for your assistance.Hartfordct (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock

Can you tell me what a "sock" is? Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A sock is an account created by someone who already has an account and is used disruptively. They then use that account to make edits that seem like they're from someone else, which is useful at AfDs and for skirting around the 3 revert rule. It's very much not allowed and people who are caught doing it get blocks for varying lengths of time. More information can be found on WP:SOCK. Celarnor Talk to me 20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the people I've looked up that are supporting my article have a reasonable history of edits and have been using Wiki for a while? Wouldn't this be a clear indication that a "Sock" isn't the case? Maybe I'm missing something. Do you have any idea how long this AfD will go on before it's decided one way or another? Skyler Morgan (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That statement was probably a reference to the ipuser who made the last comment. Since he/she only has a few edits, they're implying that it may be you editing logged out or logged out and via a proxy. Celarnor Talk to me 21:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I have the 'authority' to delete that last keep then, but without it my article is still favored for 'keep' rather than 'delete.' I would be happy an unobjectioned to you removing the last 'keep' and would do it myself if I didn't think it would cause an uproar. I will not contest it. Thank you for deleting it if you are able. Skyler Morgan (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin will probably just ignore the vote anyway, since they don't have much of an edit history and may be a sock of someone else. Deleting it, however, would make the user feel left out, and if they aren't a sock, that's a good thing. This way, it doesn't really matter, but the person (assuming it's not you) still gets to feel included. Celarnor Talk to me 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. You're the boss... haha. No but it makes sense. I never thought of it that way. How long does it take before they close these AfD's and make a decision one way or another? Do you know? Skyler Morgan (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the boss. I'm just another editor.  :P AfDs go on for five days unless it's very, very obvious (see WP:SNOW) that it's going to go on way or the other. Celarnor Talk to me 09:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hockey

Hey, the speedy overturned was Djsasso via revert, as the original speedy was invalid. I requested the revert. DMighton (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This whole thing just seems ... sketchy. Celarnor Talk to me 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya Libnan

I appreciate your concern, but clearly you have misunderstood who is at fault for continuing to vandalize the Ya Libnan wiki. The individual behind 70.80.188.30 has insisted on vandalizing the wiki on a daily basis by adding in lies and fabrications which have been clearly explained. 70.80.188.30 appears to have been banned for his trolling ways, yet he continues to be able to vandalize Ya Libnan. What can be done to rid us of this pest? 68.49.6.221 Talk 01:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it does not matter if his contributions are untrue or not. If the statements that he puts forth can be backed up with reliable sources, then they're fine to include. Simply because you don't like them or think they may be untrue does not matter. They are verifiable. One of the tenets of Wikipedia is that it is based on verifiability, not truth. You two shouldn't be fighting, you should have been trying to reach a neutral point of view with the article. As it stands now, the 'Media Coverage' and 'Criticism' sections are OBVIOUSLY written by two completely different people with opposing viewpoints, and this is not how Wikipedia articles are meant to look.
Also, you might want to note that the user was banned as a proxy, not for vandalism. Since it was an indidivudal modem, it could have been any one of a hundred users utilizing that ppol for their internet connection at the time of it being an open proxy; it wasn't necessarily THAT editor. Celarnor Talk to me 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Celarnor, I appreciate your independent eye, but the fact of the matter is that the person behind 70.80.188.30 has been warned for vandalism of Ya Libnan on many previous occasions. Just visit his talk page and look at the comments made in the past month regarding Ya Libnan vandalism. The validity of information does matter, and baseless fiction should not be allowed to be propagated at free will. I am not opposed to having a criticism section, and have tried to previously write it in a constructive and professional manner. Unfortunately the troll will not let any version stand except his own. I made constructive edits to the wiki, let's see how long before it gets defaced yet again. 68.49.6.221 Talk 13:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Diagonal intercept clipping

You stated "Apart from the paper being just plain wrong about more than a few things ..". Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks --Weedrat (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderland Online

Thanks for that - must have had a complete aberration when I did my checks. Sorry to have wasted your time on that AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I got those from google news; you could probably find a few press releases or something with ProQuest, which you can use at pretty much any library. Anyway, thanks for being civil about it; a lot of people just get rude and obstinate at AfD.  :P Celarnor Talk to me 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, what would be the point, when I was clearly wrong? :) I managed to miss the google news step of my usual search, and just stuck to the first page of Google. Thanks a lot Fritzpoll (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists

I noticed you edit here where you wrote "It is not a mechanism to assert notability of those included, as that must be done on the articles that are within the lists. This helps keeps references out of lists and in the articles where they belong. It's a list". Such things I've read before. You are saying that notability is inherited. Do you know what guideline(s) says that? I have searched and asked for it before, but not found it yet. ChessCreator (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying notability is inherited. I'm saying it's not inherited, and the assumption that anything that gets in this list is considered notable is probably the cause of trouble people have with these kinds of lists. Saying notability is inherited would be like saying anything that gets in the list is automatically notable. That's not true; the reverse seems to be consensus. That is, only notable New Zealand military people get in this list. Simply being someone from the New Zealand military doesn't automatically merit an entry. The subject has to be notable for something else. Usually, that means they have their own article. That is where the reference for "this person was in the New Zealand military goes, because that is the centralized repository of information on that person. In the case that they don't have their own article (yet) but consensus is that they're notable, then references should be supplied to demonstrate both their notability and their New Zealand military-ship-ness-whatever. Celarnor Talk to me 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I'm somewhat confused now. Where I said notability is inherited, I meant in the way that notability of the list is inherited from the military people that make up the list. Perhaps I am incorrect with that idea.
If there is no inheritance in some way then I don't understand your part "This helps keeps references out of lists". ChessCreator (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you meant notability is inherited FROM the list TO the articles like INHERITED. Yes, in a sense, you're right, but I don't think you quite understand it. Lists themselves aren't notable. There's no notability guidelines for lists because they're not an article like a biography, an article on a company, or a work of Shakespeare. Lists themselves are seldom if ever going to be the subject of discussion by reliable sources, just like categories won't be. You have to stop thinking of lists as articles and think of them as a navigational tool (see WP:CLN). They're a collection of notable information designed to make browsing Wikipedia easier. They're not "notable" or "not notable" because they aren't about any one thing. They just coalesce information available elsewhere in the articlespace. Obviously, some lists are simply ridiculous, but it's pretty much handled at AfD in a case by case basis. Celarnor Talk to me 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Now we are thinking the same. So is there something in WP:CLN that says in some way that a list doesn't have to meet WP:N? I see many lists nominated for deletion via Afd and the main reason is they are not notable to WP:N. ChessCreator (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
We have this, which serves as a guide. When someone decides that a given list is likely to include mostly non-notable material, that's usually when it gets put up for deletion. But, again, the key is to stop thinking about lists as articles and group them with notability issues and deal only with notability issues of the content linked to within the list. Celarnor Talk to me 01:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if everyone would think of lists differently. Thanks for your help and assistance in clearing up my thoughts on this. ChessCreator (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy I could help. Celarnor Talk to me 02:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the last part, the general practice of referencing in list only when necessary is for the benefit of the articles. Articles, as the primary focus of Wikipedia, should contain the reference that says "This person worked for this company", or "This person died in 1876". If it were the reverse, and references were supplied in the navigational system instead of the things they're designed to help people find, then we'd be left with references all over the articlespace but none on the article of the subject discussed. Celarnor Talk to me 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xlibris (2nd nomination)

The page on Xlibris has been totally rewritten. You might want to reconsider your !vote here, especially given that I've withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. ^_^ Celarnor Talk to me 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For great vandal fighting in the last month (and AfD participation as well).Tone 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD is not for forced cleanup

From your user page, "AfD is not for forced cleanup". What guideline says this please? SunCreator (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's derived from BEFORE and DEL. If something can be improved by editing, then it isn't a good candidate for deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I read it before but could NOT find it. Would appear to me that wording in WP:AFD could be changed slightly (see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Afd_failings), and then this problem would be reduced. SunCreator (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification at WT:AFD

In this edit, you said that "If they are hoaxes, then they should be speedily deleted." I was about to post the reply below but when I re-read your comment, I started to wonder if you'd simply omitted a word. Are you really advocating that hoaxes be speedied? Rossami (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

One clarification only. Hoaxes are not speedy-deletable except in extremely rare and patently obvious cases (at which point, you're really applying WP:IAR, not WP:CSD). Far too many pages are initially tagged as hoaxes but turned out to be poorly written stubs about real though obscure topics. The AFD process reduces our problem with false positives. See Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes#Dealing with hoaxes for more. Hoaxes definitely should be deleted, just not speedily. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to re-read CSD G1. Obvious hoaxes, such as adding a new 12th President of the United States or a new signer of the constitution, are speedy deletion material, and are constantly deleted as such. Other things, which may just be obscure (see the current AfD for Thetis Lake Monster for a good example), are not hoaxes, and should be dealt with in the normal manner. Forcing CSD G1 material to go through AfD is a waste of resources better spent improving articles about potentially real things nominated for deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 23:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read it. I was hear when we wrote it. You can find all the commentary about it in the Talk page archives. The problem of false positives is also quite well-documented. That clause is limited to only the most obvious and glaring examples and require some correlation such as a pattern of vandalism in the user's contribution history. The intent has always been very clear that even things like a new 12th President may be good-faith but incomplete entries (such as a notable fictional character which fails to properly note the in-universe context). But as long as you do feel that way, I'll go add the comment. That CSD criterion is frequently misused. It won't hurt to make the reminder more widely. Thanks for taking the time to answer. Rossami (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree -- most of the 'secondary' sources on the law are not very enlightening at all -- more to come! JeanLatore (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Userfying an article

I appreciate your comments on the discussion of the contest on the deletion of J3HaaD. Me, being the author, has strongly asked for its userfication but am facing stiff opposition. Could u please state the minimum requirements for userfication of an article? I have slim hopes of doing so but given a strong defence, I might "save" the article.--Sainik1 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

List_of_basic_tort_law_topics

Celanor, I see you are discussing "basic tort law concepts" with JeanLatore, and that you don't like the article, but want to improve it, and advocated against deleting it. Personally, I disagree that it should be kept. I think that as far as encyclopedia content, it duplicates Tort Law and all of the main articles therein referenced, in a manner informative only to law students. I mean, it's basically a mini-outline or glossary. WP policy is that wikipedia is not for law student guides. I don't think the article belongs in any way, and I don't see how it can be saved. I'm not gonna stop you from trying, but I think it's a waste of time. I think it should be renominated for deletion, and I'm curious if you'd reconsider your decision that it should be kept. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the process of rewriting the page very informative, and I'm a programmer. The "only law students would be interested statement" is essentially WHOCARES. You shouldn't think about this article like you probably are; this page isn't intended as an article like Tort law or Constitutional law. It's a list and is part of the List of law topics navigation system. I wouldn't consider changing my decision until either another navigation system is put into place that would render this list useless or until categories were improved to the degree where lists were no longer required. Celarnor Talk to me 06:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, you say that it is a mini-outline or glossary; it's good that you get that impression, because that's exactly the function that the list of basic topics lists perform; paper encyclopedias have indexes and glossaries. We have lists. Celarnor Talk to me 06:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Celarnor: Thank you for your reply. I have read your position. However, I would like to point out a few things: I wouldn't be so quick to whocares my argument. If you look at WP:MOS(legal), it is a relevant criterion. Also, I don't think articles that are just *lists* or glossaries fit the wikipedia MOS in general. I will not renominate the article at this time, but please be aware that I am still concerned about it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Changing my mind, actually. There are a lot of lists. I don't like them, and I don't think this is even a good example, but I'm taking it off my personal deletion watch. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So we have a disagreement; I think my version of the list is better. Is there any way to get some community comment on it? Like let's take it to the people, man. JeanLatore (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already happened. Your list was unlinked, improperly titled, and doesn't adhere to the manual of style guidelines for list of basic topics lists, nor did the content adhere to the Tort Law template. It was nominated for deletion as such, and I improved it enough so that it could be kept. You may want to review the manual of style for Wikipedia. If, after doing that, you still feel that the previous, deletion-prone version of the article was better, you can seek a third opinion. Celarnor Talk to me 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I think I am going to request a third opinion and perhaps file an "Requests for Comment" on your revisions. However, I do appreciate your interest, perhaps you could take a look at Concepts List of Common Law Property Topics and add some wiki-links and what not to my new list. Thanks in advance, JeanLatore (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide the sources that you're deriving this information from? I don't mind helping you to improve them, but it isn't easy when I don't know what you're basing these on. Celarnor Talk to me 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
His source? You don't want to know. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is things I have learned from various hornbooks and cases I have read in England and the USA. Thanks, b. JeanLatore (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You need sources. You can't be the source. Celarnor Talk to me 22:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the problem with trying to be a law student and edit wikipedia. Law student resources use the socratic method, which is helpful for teaching people to "think like lawyers," but not helpful to an encyclopedia. To turn what you learn as a law student into encyclopediac content, you could technically be adding O.R. I have been tempted, in many situations, to do just that, and sometimes I have. The important thing is the test of verifiability, which I sometimes rely on when my edits consist of "translations" of what I read from the legalese in which I read it, to encyclopedia-style - at least until I can find a non-socratic work that puts it out there directly. If it is not verifiable, I don't write it. However, this approach has its drawbacks. Jeanlatore, for example, prefers Posner to Prosser. However, Posner's view of the law is often not the accepted view (although it is usually a notable view). Prosser's view is the closest to a consensus position. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree -- most of the 'secondary' sources on the law are not very enlightening at all -- more to come! JeanLatore (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's not jump to conclusions. There are a lot of things out there that could be "secondary sources" out there. To me, it means restatements, practice guides, treatises, and articles. To someone else, it could mean casebooks, but that's not the way the term is used by lawyers in America. So I have to ask what you mean by "secondary sources?" Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Myrzakulov equations

Hi, at this AfD you said: "I think perhaps a tutorial for Ebsco and GScholar searches is in order." The point is - if you have a look at the talk page - I really cannot open this Web of Knowledge site. The link given by Proscience ([1]) just tells me I have no access. If I then want to open a session, I am again told I am not allowed. If you have access, can you verify whether the two Cracow publications are really not listed there? I mean:

  • - UNIVERSITATIS IAGELLONICAE ACTA MATHEMATICA
    +its Former Polish name: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace Matematyczne
    - OPUSCULA MATHEMATICA (also Cracow, but the poytechnic there)

I find it hard to believe, especially in the case of the first one, as it can be found at the University of Brussels, and it is mentioned here among scientific publications by the French CNRS: [2]. Opuscula is not however.

The author of that article, Lucjan Sapa, is probably fairly young, as a few years ago he was still on Usenet, asking questions about equations... --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, I have access courtesy of RIT; No publications by those names are listed. Celarnor Talk to me 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was planning to ask at the Polish portal about these publications, but now I think the author should settle for a re-name. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Giovanni di Stefano

You wrote "What is special about this case that makes protection and/or a dropbox an acceptable solution for the problems of insertion of unverifiable material like it does in other BLP cases?" I'm confused. Are you saying that protection+dropbox has been used in the past and found acceptable or that it has not? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a typo; sorry. What I meant was what makes it an unacceptable solution, since that has worked in other BLP cases. Celarnor Talk to me 01:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh it was hard protected 11 February 2008. In people's eagerness to avoid the article becomeing too negative they go way too far.Geni 23:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Why was it removed? The edit warring seemed to stop, and there wasn't any unsourcable material added. Celarnor Talk to me 23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Article hasn't had a problem with unsourced materal for ages.Geni 00:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor-- You've been a big help on the AFD for this, do you mind if I ask you to take a look at the RFAR tomorrow before I submit it? You seem more experienced than me, and I think you could help me out. Thanks, - ђαίгснгм таιќ 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it, but the other editors are at least a little right, even if they are a little misguided; ArbCom is a method for dispute resolution, and if the subject doesn't want to participate in that resolution process, then there isn't much that can be done; all they can do is reinforce the keep decision established at the AfD if the subject is unwilling to cooperate. Celarnor Talk to me 06:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


email user

Any particular reason why you don't have an email set up?Geni 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. I didn't know it wasn't enabled by default. Celarnor Talk to me 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Redandnater.com

Thank you greatly for your advice. I am brand new here, and the site was quickly attacked, and even after I made edits, it seemed as if it could disappear at any moment. I still don't know how the process of deletion works, or if I am still in jeopardy, but thanks for calming me down at least! --Joe Forkeybolo (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Powder Ridge AfD

Don't know if you're watching the AfD but I wanted to point out my comment, the articles you found suffered from same name syndrome. This is about Minnesota, you found Connecticut. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Image:WikiThanks.png Thank you. Renata (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. When I get some time later tonight, I'll insert them into the article so the immediasts there will have a reason to keep it as well if they haven't been inserted yet. Celarnor Talk to me 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I took the Vilnius letter to AfD after looking for verifiable sources, including asking others who have edited the article in the past. I am an Inclusionist by nature and I did what I thought was reasonable to validate the article. It was my hope that the AfD would trigger someone to come forward with references, and it worked. In a matter of hours, there are now several valid references. Mission accomplished. All we need do now is wait for the AfD to go its course. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You could withdraw your nomination. Celarnor Talk to me 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that someone who attends my alma mater (my EE degree cost me a lot!) doesn't just add the additional references. Then there would be no argument. BTW, feel free to join [[Category:Wikipedians in Rochester, New York]] which was created by one of your fellow CompSci students. Truthanado (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ebaumsworld meatpuppets

Hey, I have a feeling this is just the start, would you like me to protect your userpage for you before it gets worse? Tiptoety talk 03:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That'd be good, thanks. Celarnor Talk to me 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of indefinite . Once you are ready to have it unprotected you can just let me know or file a request at WP:RFPP. I will let you decide if you want to add the lock symbol to your page or not. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikify

Instead of simply slapping a "wikify" tag on the article, why dont you help me out wikifying it? I'm working on it and I would appreciate your help, not your obvious criticism. Thank you and have a good day sir.JeanLatore (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of busy right now; adding the wikify tag puts it in a category that lets other people know that it needs some help. Celarnor Talk to me 22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying the same thing.

It has been noted that you are saying the same thing. It has been noted that you are saying the same thing. It has been noted that you are saying the same thing. --Lemmey talk 04:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your issues have been addressed. --Lemmey talk 05:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Why thank you. I try to do my best. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing at List of Anglo-Indians

This is not a valid source for Engelbert Humperdinck being Anglo-Indian. Can you check to see if you have made any other errors like this, rather than me doing it? Thanks, --John (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. As a member of the race, from what I've seen so far, he's a sort of cultural/racial icon. Celarnor Talk to me 06:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Not from that source though. Can you provide a better one, that actually makes the assertion you are trying to prove? If not, it'll have to go I'm afraid. --John (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is another open source. Apart from the cultural stuff, there's some scholarly material (particularly "The Hansel and Gretel Syndrome: Survivorship Fantasies and Parental Desertion") on his works that give information on his heritage, but you'll need some kind of scholarly subscription database to see those (Ebsco/Infotrac), as you can't get the full text from any open databases. Celarnor Talk to me 07:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You might at this point want to read WP:V and WP:RS. --John (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with them; I'm inclined to respond with the same. Celarnor Talk to me 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
In recognition of your activity in Articles for Deletion, I award you The Original Barnstar. Your reponses are articulate and well reasoned. Nice work. WilliamH (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been quoted

This is a courtesy notification that you have been quoted on a process talk page: Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Contacting the closing/deleting admin Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD: List of fictional characters etc etc

I respect your opinion that the lists I nominated for deletion are WP-worthy, but I wanted to ask about your WP:CRUFTCRUFT reference. Everything in the cruftcruft essay seems to refer to AfD's made in bad faith. Do you feel that this is the case with my nomination? If so, let me emphasize that I acted in good faith. I had (and have) doubts that these lists are aligned with WP's standards. If consensus is against me, then I am wrong, and that's fine. If you feel that I am "too busy deleting articles to engage in any meaningful discussion" (from the cruftcruft essay), you may have misjudged me. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you had time to engage in a meaningful discussion, then you wouldn't have taken the vulgar shortcut of accusing something of being cruft. It has a strong negative connotation and should be as heavily avoided as possible, and is entirely subjective anyway. If your issues with the list are sufficient to warrant to deletion, it'll get deleted. If not, then it won't. There's no need to throw around such vulgarities. Celarnor Talk to me 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed a merger of the articles for the three middle schools of the Palo Alto Unified School District into the main article for the district. Discussion is here. I'm notifying everyone who was involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Threading

Your talk page threading is making it somewhat difficult to tell who wrote what. Would you please not insert your comments within others' text? - jc37 05:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh ... I think that out-of-paragraph threading makes it difficult to read. It makes it difficult to tell what's being talked about in a given bit of text, makes it hard for others to join in on a specific part of the discussion without derailing the indentation and format of the rest of it, and makes for a quickly indented, outdented and indented again mess of ugliness. But if it really bothers you, I'll do it a different way. Celarnor Talk to me 05:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I wholly agree with you (and have had similar thoughts myself). However, if it confuses the reader as to who is author of what, then it should be fixed.
One way to do it is to paste his final signature after each section that you're splitting up. - jc37 05:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'll keep that in mind. Celarnor Talk to me 05:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Willage Policy Pumpe

Yeah man I just wanted you to know that I'm not being harsh on you or anything for putting some tags and what not on my articles. anyway, did you take a look at my latest article Handlebars (song)? How can we improve that Plus I liked your comment you left at the Policy Pump discussion. I'm high as hell right now, actually! JeanLatore (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than saying it could use some more references dealing with the content of the song if you're going to write about it, I don't really know that much about how we handle music articles. You may want to take a look at MUSIC and the Music Portal. Celarnor Talk to me 01:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the help formatting my page bro, and for that cannabis sticker. JeanLatore (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: WikiProject on closed proxies

Hi, I've just signed up for WP:WikiProject on closed proxies as was wondering whether is project is still active and whether you are still an active member, also, does the proxy that you host recieve much activity, user signups etc?  Atyndall93 | talk  02:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thus far, I haven't received a single sign-up. It's kind of depressing. Celarnor Talk to me 03:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 :-(, we need to advertise the service more to users we see that complain about being behind a firewall in china, and talk to people using Tor possibly. I'm actually opening my own proxy for the service (it hopefully comes online Tuesday) with the help of a friend's server.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been through the Tor discussion with other people. That's pretty unlikely to ever happen; there are always people who think that stopping vandals is more important than keeping the project open to editing. Celarnor Talk to me 19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Atheist userbox

Hello,

I find your atheist userbox with "GOD" crossed out offensive and feel you should re-word it. Userboxes should not be a place to attack other people's beliefs (as "myths" and "superstitions"), IMO. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find "myths" and "superstitions" offensive; I certainly don't. Mythological systems, from the earliest Pagan systems to the parable-dense Greco-Roman system, to the modern Islamo-Judeo-Christian system have been some of mankinds best creations, and belittling them like that isn't a very nice thing to do. In any case, it has just been through MfD a few weeks ago, and consensus is that it isn't offensive. If you want to have another go at it in a couple of months, you're welcome to. Alternatively, if you can show me a way in which "myth" and "superstition" are denotatively negative, I'll remove it. Celarnor Talk to me 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the link to the MfD. It was kept as no one could demonstrate how it was offensive; all the arguments were based around individuals finding the words "myth" and "superstition" attached to religious systems offensive. Celarnor Talk to me 19:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the image. Is this still offensive in your eyes? Celarnor Talk to me 23:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose not, although if people think the picture is Jesus, they might be pretty pissed off too. That said, I think you're being a little disingenuous with your line of reasoning above, which you also used in the MfD discussion. Either you meant "myths" and "superstitions" to be insults, or you're quite oblivious to how religious people would take those comments. Surely you know that "myths" and "superstitions" are words with a decidedly negative connotation to most people in modern-day English. I personally was not affected too dearly by your userbox -- I've been called far worse things than a believer in myths. But I think you needed to understand that offending people's religious beliefs is really, really inconsistent with building the warm, friendly community that Wikipedia needs to function.
Taking contextual meanings into something like that is a pretty dangerous idea; I don't see anything offensive about it, because I know that it isn't a negative thing, it's just a statement of fact. "This user doesn't believe in any deities, doesn't subscribe to any mythological systems, and is not a practitioner of superstitions." I can see where those users are coming from, but the place that they're coming from is a mistaken view of what myth is. Celarnor Talk to me 03:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this ties in with the porn discussion because you should understand that in Wikipedia, we have to consider the feelings of others. The project as a whole aims to welcome as many users as possible -- not to alienate them. To say, "We're going to do things according to our dogma, even if that means people can't use Wikipedia at work or school, even if people get fired, even if it jeopardizes the whole Wikipedia project" -- I don't believe that's in the spirit of Wikipedia. I'm against censorship, but we are here to serve the reader. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we would jeporadize more users who depend on us being not censored than we would get new users who would use us because we would then be censored. I could be wrong, though. Information wants to be free; if you don't want specific information, then you should take steps to ensure that you don't get that information, not cut the source of information off at the source. Celarnor Talk to me 03:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should censor any information; I don't think there's any topic that's too sensitive for Wikipedia. I've got nothing against a fluffer article provided there's enough independent, unbiased information out there on the topic to serve as sources for an article. However, when it comes to NSFW images, I think we ought to try to avoid situations in which people see something they weren't expecting to see and could get them in trouble. It's just courtesy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If someone's bothered by content, then they should find a way to not view it. An easy solution is disabling images. A better solution would be a 'bad images' filter that people could load into their monobook.js file. You might even be able to get enough people to agree with you to have it enabled by a checkbox in preferences/gadgets or something. Even though it goes against everything I believe in, I'll help write it over the summer if you can find a few other people. But disclaimers in articles are not the solution. It creates too many problems, especially when we already have a general one. Celarnor Talk to me 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to try to see things another way. The advantage I see to the page-by-page disclaimer thing, despite the well-known objections to disclaimers in articles, is that Wikipedia doesn't decide what images are "good" or "bad." Editors simply tag what someone might possibly object to and leave it to the reader on a case-by-case basis to decide if he/she wants to see the content. An image blacklist in effect puts the decision into Wikipedia's hands and forces the community to rate an image as "good" or "bad." There's also the possibility that someone who doesn't think he needs an image filter (because he's unaware of the intensity of the images on Wikipedia or because he doesn't think he'll be visiting an NSFW page) could wind up with an unexpected shocking image. (I keep thinking of the time I clicked on the buggery link in the Oscar Wilde article, not knowing what it was, and wound up at anal sex -- at work.) If we do go ahead with an image filter, I'd think we ought to give readers the chance to override on a case-by-case basis, sort of the opposite of what I had above. "This image blocked by Wikipedia Image Filter. If you wish to see the image with the article, click here." If you haven't already, you might want to suggest your proposal at WP:VP/M or Wikipedia talk:Image content guidelines‎. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying people should actually implement it at Wikipedia. Outside of using Category:Bad Images as a filter-list, I don't think there's anything that Wikipedia should be doing to promote censorship; even if we ourselves would only be including disclaimers, people (namely academic filters) could take advantage of that with filtering much better than regular expressions ever could, and that's something I can't support by any means. Filtering Wikipedia without blocking it entirely should be as difficult as possible, and your idea would essentially kill all the headway that's been made. What I was saying is that if there's someone that wants to be able to browse in completely safety, considering that Wikipedia offers no guarantee of worksafe content at any article regardless of name, then they could write such a script and upload it to their monobook.js file, rather than disabling images, which is a much safer solution. Celarnor Talk to me 04:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

small change on one of your comments

Hello, I made a small format change to one of your comments[3] so it would be a clickable link. Sorry if you already know how to make a lickable to a template and you intended to make it non-clickable on purpose. Notice that I use {{tl}}" for normal templates and {{tlu}} for templates on userspace (page name starting with "User:" or "User_talk:"). There is also {{tlx}} which is for templates that need multiple parameters --Enric Naval (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's neat. I didn't know there was a template wrapper that that wouldn't actually transclude the template. Celarnor Talk to me 01:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, yeah, that's a neat detail. Btw, I added your infobox to Category:Atheist_Wikipedians --Enric Naval (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

how is my edit unconstructive ??????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.67.166 (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You changed data contradicting the source in the article without first discussing it on the talk page without even presenting a new source to validate your additions. Celarnor Talk to me 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

this is so silly on the page of india it says 2 trillion but on this 4 trillion and gdp per capita is 2700 on the india page not 3700 your confusing readers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.67.166 (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There's more than one country in Asia. Celarnor Talk to me 14:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

you dont mke anysense dude what has that got anything to do i dont think your fit to be a moderator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.67.166 (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, I'm just another editor. Please review our policy on verifiability and reliable sources. Maybe once you do that you'll realize you can't add whatever you want to articles without sources. Celarnor Talk to me 14:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You may want to look at this. The values are more realistic there. Feel free to change them to those and source it. Celarnor Talk to me 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Parole

Because it is state specific. Now please stop stalking my edits. Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You could have put that on the talk page. I watch a lot of people's edits; there's absolutely nothing disruptive about it, and its not uncommon. I'm just trying to help you out and make sure that you don't make any unnecessary mistakes. Celarnor Talk to me 04:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, man. Have a good night! JeanLatore (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Jimbo Wales' talk page: Encryption

Hi there. I have posted a reply to a section in which you have contributed to on Jimbo Wales's talk page. Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales#board privacy resolution and encryption for the discussion. Thank you and happy editing! — E ↗TCB 08:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Where Magneto (band) Got Their Band Name

Where did Magneto get their name from? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Try someone who knows something about music, perhaps the music WikiProject. Celarnor Talk to me 21:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Village pump

Ok, I made some bad jokes. I did that because it was clear there were some other people making sarcastic comments. Like I said early on, I was a little irrritated with the hostility to the suggestion and further disappointed with the lack of constructive comments. I certainly do not know anything about how such a system would work nor did I ever claim to. I think edits, cosmetic or otherwise, are fine. Maybe I am a drama monger as Mr.Z-man put it. I had an ordeal with a puppetmaster recently and I was shocked at what he was trying to do. It was more than just him making socks to avoid discussion and consensus. It also went beyond him allowing me to make grammar and spelling corrections. This guy was attempting character assassination and tried desperately to get me blocked. For every one of his socks blocked he makes five more. Anyway enough of that. The suggestion was turned down. I am sorry to have upset you or anybody else. Hopefully there will be a solution soon. Libro0 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting feedback here: Wikipedia:Editor_review/JeanLatore. Thank yu. JeanLatore (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Role accounts

It's a longstanding prohibition of WP:SOCK going back (I think) to 2003. The problems are that it can be confusing to deal with multiple people in the same account, as each person you speak to might not be familiar with the situation, and it also makes it very hard to sustain accountability as it's impossible to sanction a particular person (blocks, bans and other sanctions are handed out on a per person and not on a per account basis). Hut 8.5 18:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review Oscar Dahlene

You made an entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Dahlene, and since that time the article in question has been improved to include significant facts. I ask you to review the page and determine if your have anything to add, remove, or modify.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Marina Verenikina AfD

Hi, I see that you nominated Marina Verenikina with reservations and voted keep. I found quite a few references this evening, none by themselves compelling, but I think that they accumulate to clear evidence of notability. Perhaps this is a good case for a speedy keep or withdrawl of nomination. I've had no prior invlolvement with the topic, but from time to time research promising articles I see at AfD as time permits. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Kevin, my sweet, I cannot understand why you think she is any more notable than THOUSANDS of other unsigned artists, none of whom would merit inclusion in Wikipedia. She has reviews from little niche music media and small college papers, including a business wire-for-hire service, none from major national publications, same as most unsigned music types. She performs at various little coffeehouses in the nation and gets write-ups along the way, same as most unsigned music types. The only true test of any musician's notability would be her presence in bricks&mortar retailers (she has none), her sales rank on the internet (Amazon has her CD's selling around 500,000-600,000 position), her level of YouTube interest (her music videos average a mere 500 hits). She does have thousands of MySpace friends, but prior to MySpace instituting recent password requirements, an unsigned artist could hire computer bot services to generate thousands of friends almost overnight. She seems to be "off the radar screen" completely. Seems to me if you keep her, you should consider adding at least another 10,000 unsigned artists to Wikipedia over the next several days. I know a few hundred of them, if you need my help. :) !MusicBizLady (talk)

I have requested a reinstatement review on the basis that it sets a negative precedent. So the discussion is now officially re-opened and I would appreciate your not omitting my comments, or if you feel they are inappropriately located, then move them where you feel they should be, but do NOT omit them, as follows:

Wikipedia has eliminated THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of unsigned artists whose qualifications equal or surpass Marina V for true notablility. For example, recently Justin Lanning was removed from Wikipedia, yet he had CD's selling throughout retail bricks&mortar chains, a billboard on Sunset Boulevard, far more youtube videos and hits per video, higher sales ranking on Amazon by far, airplay on mainstream radio stations, whereas Marina V only has internet radio airplay. How can you claim Marina V notability exceeds somebody like Justin Lanning? I am not making a case that Justin Lanning be reinstated because I agree with his removal from Wikipedia, he was more notable, not sufficiently notable. I am simply saying that you must be consistent in Wikipedia decisions and Marina V fails notability in virtually every aspect. Let me restate one last time: super low Amazon sales, ultra low youtube hits, no FM radio play, only internet radio play, limited local/college media coverage (that's NOT notable, most unsigned artists obtain niche coverage like her), only coffeehouse performances, no concert halls, no national media coverage. She is no different (and no worse) than the typical relatively anonymous unsigned artist, most of whom will be throwing in the towel by age 30, but Wikipedia has removed so many unsigned artists who are at her level or better, so it begs the question whether or not she has a special relationship with a wiki editor who is somehow keeping her listed even while so many others are removed? I argue for Wiki consistency and your decision undermines that consistency entirely. Your decision would require reinstatement of HUNDREDS of unsigned artists who were deleted over the past few years.

!MusicBizLady

Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You don't reinstate an AfD. It's over. Consensus was established in the AfD that the subject is notable. If you disagree with the consensus, you're free to open up another AfD in a few months or so. Alternatively, if you don't believe that DEL was followed during the process of the AfD, you can open up a deletion review of the AfD saying why or why not it followed the AfD rules; however, that was a model AfD in line with every rule we have with AfDs; it even ran for the full five days. Celarnor Talk to me 03:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion at RfA

I noticed at your user page that you have the inclusionist user box displayed. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fordmadoxfraud is an example where nominee is being labasted for describing his inclusionist philosophy in his candidate description. This bothers me, and seems unfair. What do you think? --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

AMG and reliability

Can you direct me to this longstanding consensus? This is particularly unusual considering that many of AMG's articles were published in a biographical dictionary of jazz, and that entry in particular is written by a respected jazz critic (one of many AMG contributors who, in fact, have their own articles). Chubbles (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Disruption at AfD for Asset voting

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asset_voting

You apparently noticed the edits from the IP editor who uses 87.112-87.115. This is User:Fredrick day, an editor blocked for vandalism and gross incivility. He follows me around and does what he can to harass. In any case, I have to go to a meeting and would appreciate it if you could take his block-evading disruption of the AfD to WP:AN/I. I'll check later and support if needed. Administrator User:Sarcasticidealist is quite familiar with this block-evader.

The nominator of the AfD is an SPA going back to 2006, dedicated to AfDing articles on voting systems and related topics. He doesn't contribute to articles. From his first edits, it's obvious that he was an experienced user, but I've never identified the puppet master, if there is one. (I did file an SSP report on him at one point, and it was considered a reasonable SSP report, the report came back with no confirmation.) He's been blocked once, for canvassing oppose votes for my RfA. (Which had about no effect, I got about 50% support, which was surprising to me because I was way short on edit count from what most want, and most oppose votes were basically, try again in a few months, I'll probably support.)

These guys think I'm attached to having these articles.... I'm not, it really makes little difference at this time. But the encylopedia is better for them, in my opinion. --Abd (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ernie Dingo COmment : Deletion

Fuck off that mate u gotta durry is a perfect comment for an ernie dingo article.

why did you delete it?

You didn't provide a reference for his birthname, which is required by our verifiability policy, and we don't caption comments with "Hey mate you gotta durry???". Captions are meant to be descriptive of what is going on in the picture, not what the subject is saying at the time of the photograph. You can find more information about this kind of thing in themanual of style. Celarnor Talk to me 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Ahh you elitist wikinazi slag

It is most likely what he was saying it's one of his famous catch phrases.

suck a schlong bitch you think you know about Ernie Dingo I know everything about him.

fuck!

i'm going to Encyclopedia Dramatica at least the editors aren't wankers!!

how about you reply rather than just deleting it or i'll report you

you can't just delete stuff for no reason _____ M86ichael (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)yeah!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sine Qua Non (Battlestar Galactica)

I've replied there. dorftrottel (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ziggy_Sawdust#Support

Support. Nothing to indicate that this user wouldn't be a better vandal fighter with the tools. Celarnor Talk to me 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Did you put this in the wrong section? ffm 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No. Going through the editor in question's recent edits, I didn't see anything to indicate that the tools would have a negative effect on what he did most. Thus, support. Celarnor Talk to me 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I misread, I thought that you were saying the opposite. ffm 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Celarnor, I wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. You raised concern about my CSD tagging - I assure you that I am most definitely here to build an encyclopedia. I've taken steps to address your concern in a detailed analysis of my RFA here. Your further comments are welcome. some templated thank spam has also been left below. happy editing, xenocidic (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

email check

Re:preventing socks- Isn't it possible to check for duplicate emails when people register. Libro0 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You would have to write new software, but yes. The problem with that is that we don't require an email address to register for an account; it is entirely optional. Even if we were to do that, however, it would only be of limited usefulness unless we took extremely draconian steps (i.e, requiring an ISP email address, which I wouldn't be able to go along with for a multitude of reasons). People could simply create a number of gmail/yahoo/msn accounts and use those. Celarnor Talk to me 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)