User talk:DarkFalls/Archive January 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2008
   

Contents

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks Riana :) Hope you have a wonderful year too! — DarkFalls talk 02:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hello DarkFalls, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and further nationalist conquests ;) All the best!.... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Happy New Year to you too, YellowMonkey :) Let the AusCabal live on! — DarkFalls talk 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA comment

I was not calling the user rubbish I was calling the RFA rubbish, for goodness sake an RFA for a user who had an RFA less than a week ago, in my opinion deserves to be called rubbish, I woudn't be offended if when I had just had an RFA and only 167 contributions and masses of opposes, someone called the RA a wast of time or Rubbish I would take in that that was probably true, maybe I should have not said that but the truth hurts sometimes. Harland1 (t/c) 10:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 20:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually to be honest I have no idea what Life on Mars is... I've only done one edit (a revert) to it; back in April of last year. Please do not excessively post this message to anyone who has edited the article, it may be viewed as disruption. — DarkFalls talk 00:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

invalid speedy

You seem to have speedied How to live with a senior dog? under "non notable..." It does not seem to fir under any of the categories in WP:CSD A7. Agreed, its not a good article, but just leaving it on Prod would have gotten rid of it soon enough. It seems a little quixotic to go to Deletion Review for such a low quality article, but I think we admins should follow the rules to avoid confusing newbies. DGG (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't assert any notability, which is under the criteria of A7. The main point of the article was to instruct people on how to care for a dog, it doesn't state why and how that has any sense of notability. — DarkFalls talk 00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
But A7 is limited to articles about people, companies, bands, organisations, and web content. Not to articles in general. Please re-read WP:CSD A7. It's a junky article, but we should get rid of it according to policy, not IAR. DGG (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my logic is flawed. It shouldn't be speedy deleted, but it seems to be pointless to restore it as it is, obviously, going to be deleted as a prod. — DarkFalls talk 05:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • whacks DGG over head with cluestick* --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • whacks Darkfalls over head with cluestick too.* CSD bad, mkay? In future, just PROD stuff. :-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

This article has now been locked since October, despite general agreement that there are still many faults in it. Would it be possible to unlock it? PRtalk 13:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected — DarkFalls talk 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XX - January 2008

The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 13:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Winston Churchill

I've made quite a few additions to the article but could do with some clarification per your talk comments on Stalin and the SU, specifically examples? Take a look at the talk page if you have time. Getting the article to FA will happen somewhen! Thank you! LordHarris 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DarkFalls, just a thank you for all the edits and responses you have made to Awadewits review. I will attempt to respond to some myself but she has raised a lot of concerns and your continued efforts to address her comments would be most honoured by me! Thank you! LordHarris 08:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice you are editing the article at the moment. I will go away for a while and come back later so as to avoid edit conflicts. LordHarris 09:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it... I'm currently editing only one section "relation with Soviet Union" and reading a 20 page source so it's not likely there'll be edit conflicts now... — DarkFalls talk 09:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks for posting my stuff but whats the point? It just gets reverted by people who dont care and dont read. its enough to make me wish I hadnt started. And the stupid part is nothing is lost, its all on my new page- which I intend to expand. Any suggestions on how to deal with this Backnumber1662 (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help with both the main article and with my attempts at the 1900-1939 sub article, you are right your title is much better. There are some problems though -see the talk page there. Backnumber1662 (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just fixing some formatting on the article now... — DarkFalls talk 08:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I originally posted this on the page where the discussion was taking place, but ran into an edit conflict.

I'm not sure if I can present some clarification here and if not I apologize. TTN has been vandal editing (see the 3RR rfc, ani, and I believe an rfar, cases against him), and because of this I have stepped back from many of the issues surrounding him. I went and read the rules pertaining to the privilege of this feature before I used the few times I had, and I want to state that I would not use it on an established editor. The TTN issue goes way back and probably requires more time than you all have to review it. However, if you all deem it necessary to revoke this privilege, I will (not because I have to) accept that. Please reconsider my edits overall and not just the issue of TTN. --Maniwar (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was fair to just base the decision on this one case. The issues surrounding TTN are vast, but again, I would not use it on him or another user. And my history will show that to be the case. I have made mistakes early on in my editing, but like any editor, I have grown and will continue to do so. Please reconsider if you will the decision. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been classifying his edits as vandalism and revert-warring with him a few hours before the request. I an unsure how you would behave with the rollback. Please submit your request in a few weeks, and it may be reconsidered. — DarkFalls talk 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! --Maniwar (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please undelete

You note your reason for deletion in the deletion log for WP:RFALITE is "(WP:POINT)".[1] Okay, couple of things... first, WP:POINT (better known as Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) is not a valid speedy deletion criteria. In case you were not aware, you can see a full list of valid speedy deletion criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Second, I wasn't disrupting anything when I made that redirect. I request that you undelete the page, so we don't have to escalate the issue as an abuse of the administrative tools. You could have gone to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if you felt that it should have been deleted. Mahalo nui loa, DarkFalls. --Ali'i 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware what the criteria for speedy deletion is, Ali'i, so please do not cite that to me. I do not appreciate being the subject of threats, so watch your language.(I request that you undelete the page, so we don't have to escalate the issue as an abuse of the administrative tools). For the point issue, the community should know that the rollback tools are not a so-called RFAlite and it is disruptive to create such a redirect without community consensus. I agree that speedy deletion does not apply here, but since when was Wikipedia a bureaucracy. Wikipedia is not a courtroom, nor is it a place where "law" or "rules" dictate its every moment. If you disagree with the deletion, take it to deletion review. — DarkFalls talk 23:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I endorse this deletion and would have done it myself had Darkfalls not got to it sooner. I realise this was likely created in good spirits/as a joke, but people have strong feelings about the process surrounding non-admin rollback, i.e. that it doesn't become RfA-lite. Such a redirect is only going mislead some people and aggravate others, neither of which Wikipedia really needs right now. Deletion review it if you want but I don't see it being revived. – Steel 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no threat, it was a note of reminder about abusing the tools (and what happens to those who do abuse them). But, okay. It was deleted out of process. I've listed at deletion review. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear DarkFalls, my sincere thanks for your participation in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which I withdrew with 5 support, 14 oppose, and 9 neutral. Thank you for your comments! Whether it was a support, oppose, or neutral, I likely got some good feedback from you. I will probably do another RfA in the future, but not until I work out the issues brought up.


Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you...
John Carter (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 3 14 January 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: A new weekly feature 
Special: 2007 in Review Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named 
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page 
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect" News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Qst's rollback

I've restored it per my rationale here - hoping that a week's cool-off is sufficient that he will not use the tool inappropriately in future. Just a heads-up, take care. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No complaints :) — DarkFalls talk 00:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Winston Churchill in politics: 1900-1939

I would appreciate your comments on the first two sections as they are now. Are they too long, are they unclear? Should I add something on how contemporaries saw Churchill at that stage (his early Liberal phase?)- there's heaps of material from the Webbs, Lady Asquith &c &c) I will get to the next sections (Admiralty, Dardanelles) shortly Backnumber1662 (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 4 21 January 2008 About the Signpost
Special: 2007 in Review, Part II New parser preprocessor to be introduced 
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" 
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

 Thanks for your support at my request for adminship, which passed today with 42/0/0!

I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, DarkFalls/Archive January 2008 and everyone else for their support and comments. I'll continue with contributing to the encyclopedia's content (hopefully writing an FA here and there :) and will help out with admin-related tasks which you just entrusted me with. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask!

Thanks again, —dima/talk/ 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

I can see why you want consistency and respect that. It's your opinion to do with as you wish. However, there is no way I can possibly show you I have not canvassed for an RfA...except by doing another RfA. I also explained my ALL CAPS comment pretty substantially in the last RfA with no response from you. As for the image, it was not uploaded recently as you asserted, but when I was a new user. I hereby renounce such actions and resolve to do everything in my power to not do so in the future. As for the location of IfDs, I simply asked because I couldn't remember the wikipedia shortcut to it (WP:IfD). I'm not against your opinion per se, but I would like clarification in order to improve either this or future RfAs. — BQZip01 — talk 03:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't opposing per my comment on your first Rfa, but rather other people's comments, such as Tinkleheimer's. — DarkFalls talk 04:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
So, you're opposing based on the last RfA? Tinkleheimer's question was answered in more depth on this one. Got me kinda confused here. — BQZip01 — talk 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I just saw your questions. I'll answer them later tonight or tomorrow. — BQZip01 — talk 05:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The page you have protected has been deleted

You might be interested to know that the page you have protected because of edit warring has been deleted within not even 6 hours since its nomination where the nominator himself had a conflict of interest and the only people voting delete were only able to justify their votes by personal insults and flaming attacks, even against the admins because they didn't vote for delete. Not a single admin voted for delete, in fact most of them voted keep or speedy keep due to bad faith nomination. The Deletion Review is taking place here. --TlatoSMD (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please try to keep your post neutral when posting your message. You're getting dangerously close to a violation of WP:CANVASS. — DarkFalls talk 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Because of one simple post and reporting that people have been uncivil? Don't kill the messenger for the bad news. --TlatoSMD (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
See [2] — DarkFalls talk 03:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As much as I know Squeak, he wasn't referring to this MfD but to another issue a few days ago where within pretty much the same minute he and one admin warned me for canvassing and reverted my notifications, then another admin referred to this admin's behavior as "very unusual" and restored all or most of my "canvassing". --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 5 28 January 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: New feature 
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III Signpost interview: John Broughton 
New parser preprocessor introduced Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness" 
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology 
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion of editor

Hello DarkFalls, previously in the past year you had blocked User:Thamarih for personal attacks, harrassment and unfounded accusations. It was the second time he was blocked for such accusations, which are quite anti-Baha'i in tone. He was inactive for a while, and while he has not been generally uncivil, his edits on both the article namespace and the talk page are generally unproductive. On one page (Subh-i-Azal) he has constantly placed a {{tl:POV}} tag. This tag, was originally placed sometime this past year, and was left there for four months. After he had made no comments about why it was POV, and no effort on his part to fix the problem, the tag was taken down. Since then he constantly places the tag back up. I've constantly asked for reasons for the tag, and after many many requests he indiciated six points, of which I've now addressed. But he has a hatred of Baha'is, and keeps placing the POV tag back up, and now with no additional reasons other than it's POV. The article is predominantly sourced from articles by Dennis MacEoin, who is a critic of the Baha'i Faith, and follows the organization of his articles on the subject of the article. The user has also deleted cited content on other pages, which users including myself, and others have reverted.

I was wondering if you have any guidance on how to proceed. It seems like he will never be interested in actually improving the article, but just placing the tag, and ranting on the talk page. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have the time currently (at least not for a few weeks) to look into this matter throughly. I strongly suggest you use the dispute resolution process if he continues to revert/add his favored addition of the article, or ask another administrator on this matter. Some helpful admins are located here if you wish to go for the latter option. Sorry if I'm not very helpful, but I am busy with personal issues lately. — DarkFalls talk 06:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The above archive is a past discussion. Please direct all new discussion to the current talk page. Thank you.