User talk:Dreadstar/Archive03
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 03 from July 2007 to September 2007
You're welcome
You're welcome, and it's no problem if you want to remove the redirects, such an action is allowed under our WP:CSD policy, although all the times you've signed the old username will no longer point to your new user page (unless you manually go through and change all the links). You can ask an admin to delete them for you (I will do so if you wish), or use the {{db-userreq}} template. Andre (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Time. Flowing like a river, to the sea.
Well done
HI, Dreadstar. Really appreciate the work you did in making the What the Bleep article more neutral. Thanks for your dedication to Wikipedia. TimidGuy 11:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For expert Bleep OR removal, effective editing, and gracious collaboration with opposing editors. TimidGuy 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC) |
- Why thank you, kind sir! This kind of compliment really makes the effort even more worthwhile!! – Dreadstar † 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
re: Russification and the Holocaust article
Dear Dreadstar,
I'm offended, by the fact that you are simply ignoring the things i post up, and calling them vandalism. For example, in the Holocaust, if you are going to list the most numerous victims, you might as well, list Ukrainians, more of whom died than, let's say gay people, or even Polish Catholics. I am not saying anything anti-semtic. I do believe that there were 6 million Jewish victims. But you also have to look at the other side. The fact that I provide references could not be ignored. You're basically desecrating the memory of 10 million people- denying that they were exterminated and forced to do harsh labour.
Once again, in the russification article, the fact is, that I provided relevant information towards the topic. I'm just correcting the nonsense that the government attempts did not accomplish nothing. As I said in the article, large scale derussification is slowly taking place in Ukraine, starting with the youth in Luhansk, which came in its ernest with the famous Melnichuk lawsuit, going over to the now almost completely derussificated Kyiv, which is now mostly Ukrainian speaking, compared to the times of 10 years ago, when you would be physically harassed for speaking Ukrainian there. I have lots of sources, and I think that me providing a source to support something is already proving that it's not vandalism, but merely the editing of one nonsense, or a detailed contribution. I would appreciate if you restored my articles, which are far from vandalism, but are only enriching the informative world of wikipedia.
Thanks,
yours sincerely, Adolf23653 07:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)adolf23653
Vandal accusation
Regarding your accusation of vandalism, I'm afraid you are mistaken - there was no vandalism committed. The comment I removed was clearly an uncivil remark which violates WP:CIV. HanzoHattori's edit is one of the more serious examples of incivility: Taunting
My removal of the incivility is addressed by WP:TALK, which states:
I violated no Wikipedia policy nor guideline and it certainly was not vandalism:
I recommend that you be very cautious about accusing others of vandalism in the future. False allegations can lead to problems for the accuser. Vandal fighting tools such as TW are very powerful and need to be used carefully. I use VandalProof myself, and I know how easy it is to misconstrue another editor's edits when one doesn't see the full context of the issue. I recommend erring on the side of caution. The 'pretext' you found 'unconvincing' in your judgement of vandalism, is actually quite convincing when one is aware of the context. ;) Just be more careful in the future! And always remember to WP:AGF! – Dreadstar † 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree I should have used a deletion warning, not a vandalism warning, and apologise for that. However, I firmly reject the idea that [1] constitutes a personal attack, and I disagree with its removal under the applicable policy. Digwuren 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you very much for the apology! It's much appreciated! One small correction, I never said it was a personal attack, I identified it as an uncivil comment, specifically: Taunting. So, I firmly agree with you that it wasn't a PA...;) Oh, and you really shouldn't have been 'warning' me at all. My action, was well within guidelines - even tho that particular guideline is considered 'controversial'. – Dreadstar † 17:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Then, I express my explicit disapproval of removing such comments, including taunts, and caution you to err to the side of caution when judging comments in the future. Digwuren 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't generally even bother with uncivil remarks of that nature, but it was late..I was tired, and the other editor was edit-warring to keep his version in place; he did not have consensus for his changes, which were under dispute on the talk page; and he was making insulting remarks to all the other editors who disagreed with him, while he ignored comments about policy, and was pretty much well engaging in disrputive behavior. "Cautioning" me is fine, but context is everything. – Dreadstar † 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then, I express my explicit disapproval of removing such comments, including taunts, and caution you to err to the side of caution when judging comments in the future. Digwuren 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
Smile
Connell66 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.
Facinating tale with Mr. Smile
I was just going to thank the guy, too...– Dreadstar † 08:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Images in band articles
You have several choices in terms of images in existing band articles. One choice (which seems to be often forgotten) is to, well, not use one! Not every article must have an image, and one can always come later. Scanning the poster wouldn't work, since scanning, taking a photo, or even hand-drawing a copy of a work of art does not change that work's copyright, so your scanned image would still be copyrighted under the same terms as the poster itself (likely nonfree), and a nonfree image of an existing band is replaceable by a free one and may not be used.
If you happened to attend one of the band's concerts and snapped a shot of them that you don't mind releasing GFDL or public-domain, that is of course great. The other option, however, is simply to contact the band, and ask them if they're willing to release a shot under GFDL or CC-BY-SA. Quite often, they are, and then you have a freely-licensed image to use. You also may find that others on sites like Flickr have taken photos of the band, those people might also be willing to release a shot or two under CC-BY-SA (or even PD) if you ask nicely.
(Or you always could hide in a bush with an ultra zoom lens. But there really are better options.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
3RR
There are no hard and fast rules. A year is certainly too long. In your specific axample, the editor who is acting against the version approved by consensus and mediation would probably be viewed as disruptive, particularly if it can be demonstrated that they are knowingly reverting to a deprecated version. If it was clear from the page history that the editor is aware that they are reverting to a version from a few days ago, then I personally would count that as a revert. DrKiernan 07:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Skeptic
- "Content of the article must be in relation to the movie itself, so essentially, we need to find sources that mention the movie itself - which your link to eskeptic does! Excellent! Not sure if that site is a reliable source, but you're definitely on the right track! -Dreadstar-"
Pardon me for chuckling but if [2] Micheal Shermer's page isn't a reliable source, I don't know what would be. You could always ask our [3] boss ;) I imagine they've met. Prepare to be entertained. Kevinpedia 19:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW- I haven't requested permission to use that content. How do I do that. E-mail them and then does wiki need a verification its been ok'd? Kevinpedia 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent question! I would suggest reading WP:FIVE, WP:RS and WP:CITE and the main articles they link to. We want to avoid copyright violations and plagiarism, by using only acceptable portions of other works. Read over Wikipedia:Copyrights for information on images and other copyrighted items. There is a process for contacting a copyright holder and getting permission for use in Wikipeda.
- Let me know if you need more info or assistance! I'm always happy to help out! Dreadstar † 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic!
"Holy cannoli"? I actually laughed out loud when I read that! Haven't heard that phrase in years...I love it! You have a great sense of humor. I put in for an admin coach and saw that you edited the page, so out of curiosity I thought I'd drop by and check out your user pages. Lovely pictures and wonderful attitude. If you ever have a coachee slot available...I'd love to. It was the Holy Cannoli that got me...thanks for the smile! Dreadstar † 09:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be your coach, no problem! I have 2 coachees right now, but they're pretty much inactive, so I'm open for another. Create a coaching page and we can get started. :) --Fang Aili talk 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks! --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
AfD link
okay, thanks, i guess i understand tnow? Smith Jones
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dreadstar! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. ∆ 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the award
Thanks, Dreadstar, for the Barnstar. I really appreciate the recognition! TimidGuy 11:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow! A star! :D
- Dear Dreadstar, thank you so much for the star! What a wonderful surprise to wake up to, a bright, shiny star of my own to look at! (The first one I've received!) I just wanted to thank you, and I'm glad I can make people smile, while doing something to help the community. Ariel♥Gold 04:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Perera article
Can you not delete the Ananda Perera article, sure some people take advantage to scrutinize, humiliate and mock him but he is a great artist and I'm sure that many Australian/Sri Lankan people would appreciate it if you put it back on without all the silly comments. Much appreciated.
PS I do not know how to send you messages so I'm going to edit your page instead. Thanks in advance, Arthur.
PPS. Because you may not know how much Big Frank means to us, we, the Sri Lankan community here in Melbourne are going to start a petition, others are welcome to sign. Arthur Diaspora. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatofarmer123 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 July 2007
Thank you! :)
Re: Thanks!
No problem. That vandal is gonna be blocked soon if they continue. I love InuYasha series too, just wish the articles weren't so bad here. I fix them up a bit from time to time. Cheers! Lord Sesshomaru
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori
I thought you might be interested in knowing of this RfC, which centers mainly around disputes of the Battle of Washita River article, but perhaps you would want to add something. Best wishes. --Yksin 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting at HH's RfC. FYI, a related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Request for comment. We could really use statements from people outside the dispute. Thanks. --Yksin 02:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- See my response on my talk page (I like keeping conversations together when I can). I'm certainly willing to help get your needs at The Holocaust taken care of too through this process. --Yksin 20:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
paranormal
OK, I was a bit extreme in the edit tags of Sylvia Browne and Edgar Cayce. That I admit. I am sorry. I should always wait a few before doing such -- hey we all should. It's watching with horror at what New Agers submit.
However, I can't comprehend how either can be called a "psychic," when there is not the slightest jot of evidence that psychic phenomena exist. And solid evidence both are frauds. We call them "psychics?" This is where we are?
Maybe you can clue me on here. A personal question of which I am boggled. It is something many of us mathematical - scientific thinkers find near incomprehensible. Why in 2007 are we still believing in spirits? Psychic phenomena? Astrology? I have been horrified enough, watching what the Bush administration (Christian Right) has done to science and us atheists and freethinkers the last seven years. Now the "Spiritual Left" wants us to believe in a spirit world? In Tarot cards? Atlantis? The Bermuda Triangle? There is just no evidence.
Yes, I edited too fast & regret that. But that in 2007 we are still believing in such is beyond me.
dino 01:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Augusta FA
Well to be honest, I hardly made any edits to the Minneapolis article. Lord only knows why someone was kind enough to give me a barnstar when it reached FA status. That being said, I'll try to take a look at the Augusta article and stuff. Take care, --Miskwito 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Augusta, Georgia
Hi! Did you mean to remove Woody Merry from the list of notable Augustans? Just wondering.....Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez
Smile!
WarthogDemon 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.
-WarthogDemon 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
RfC
FYI, continuing my work now. Should be done today. --Yksin 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and BTW -- yes, I am female. ;) --Yksin 20:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wow you're right on top of things! Thanks for notifying Felix c. Re: the HH stuff, I got some more done last night, but then ran into an exhaustion wall so couldn't think any more. But I should finish my work today, & then can hand it over to you. --Yksin 16:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Done
Okay, all done, here you go: User:Yksin/quick&dirty2 -- do with as you wish. Let me know when you're done with it too, because this is a page I'm likely to blank & speedy delete when it's done with. Again, my suggestion has been to do a longer statement from outside observer that is used more or less to join the RfC we did with the stuff from The Holocaust. If you use the stuff I did as is, I would suggest making some initial comments about your own view of what happened there.
In doing all this, it seems to me that biggest problem other editors were having with what HH was doing was that he was making massive edits without explaining what he was doing. He almost never uses edit summaries to explain his edits, so a lot of the time people don't know what his intent is. He mixes copyediting with more subtantive changes. With the huge edits, he does all kinds of things all in one go, & so people who might agree with part of his changes but not with others have no choice but to revert the whole thing or pick through the whole thing bit by bit. Earlier today I saw a great explanation to a newbie of just such a problem [4] -- "hi, I reverted your edits. Although many of your minor edits are fine they are bundled with deleting content and refs which isn't fine and introducing new content which seems wonky.... As a suggestion do the minor grammar fixes first as no one will be bothered on those. Then introduce new material, then look to deleting material. I'm sorry I reversed them all as you did some good work in there - I just couldn't separate it from the not so good edits." This is exactly (yet another type of) advice that HanzoHattori needs (though he probably won't listen). But I'm going to weigh in on The Holocaust's talk page to say so. After I run downstairs the loo, that is.
Anyway, I am also wondering if an RfC might be good there, or bringing the content dispute back to the main article page. The sandbox link is now buried deep within it, I'm not so sure that all editors there are completely aware of it anymore. An RfC might bring things up front & center again. And while there are content issues with HH at that article, I think the biggest issue is actually his "no edit summaries or other explanation" and his "massive amounts of edits all in one go" style of editing, which makes it difficult for other editors to evaluate or keep up, or to pick between the edits they can go with versus the ones they've disagree with.
Hope this all helps. I really really do. --Yksin 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Tobacco comments
Thanks for your kind comments about my adding on Islam to Tobacco smoking. If you have a chance, perhaps you can explain to me about how reverts work. Is it possible to revert sections of an article, not the whole article, using the prior history? Can undo be delimited to a section? Well, you don't have to bother with this... . HG | Talk 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind response and your questions! I'm always happy to help, it's never a bother! Yes it is possible to undo or revert specific edits, or a series of edits in an article. The new 'undo' button next to each edit in the 'history' tab of an article, can be used to try and undo that specific edit, it's success is dependent on there not being any conflicting intermediate edits between that particular edit and the current version of the article. One can also go back to a previous version, by going to the article's history, and editing an old revision of the page. If you do this, any changes made since that revision will be removed.
- Here are some links with more detail on this subject: Help:Reverting, WP:VANDAL, WP:Vandalproof. Hope this helps! – Dreadstar † 18:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Aquatraveler
I don't have the power to check for sure, but I would also assume based on the contributions that Aquatraveler is the same vandal as the IP that I blocked. If he makes another bad edit I will block it. Academic Challenger 00:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I went away for a while. I blocked Aquatraveler for 31 hours after he falsely claimed that something was unreferenced, and that was after the troubles you mentioned. I see that you took this to other administrators as well. Hopefully they will agree with me, I took a month-long break from fighting vandalism so I need to get back in shape! Thanks for all your help. Academic Challenger 05:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
question from jagejamesh
Thanks for your tip about adding content (re: Dennis Gallagher). I'm confused though; what I wrote is not biased, controversial.....it is fact based on media reports and factual events that have taken place. Should I add a source? Is that what you are implying that I should do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagejamesh (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 August 2007
- Thanks for the great question, Jagejamesh! Yes you definintely need to supply sources for content in Wikipedia, especially when presenting negative information about a WP:BLP. Another editor did that very thing: [5], so the content can stay. Without a reference, it appears that Wikipedia is saying that about the person, and if it's incorrect info...they could sue Wikipedia. We just need to be careful! Also, try not to add too much content on that one issue, we don't want it to become an attack article..so read through WP:UNDUE.
- Read through all of these articles, they are cornerstones for content in Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Chopra quotes
HI, Dreadstar. I did a quick search on the first quote and found that it was from Quantum Healing. Then used Amazon's "inside the book" search to find the page number. Do you think these quotes merit being in the article? If so, I may add one or more back in with citations. But it does seem sort of unusual encyclopedia style. Thanks. TimidGuy 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my User Talk page! - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Dang, lol
I'm wondering if I'm able to navigate this to respond to the "wasssuuup?", or if that is a set greeting, lol I wanted to chat with you about my contributions to the "Psychic" page, as you stated that they needed a source and shouldn't be included in the source page. I believe that informing people who use the term "psychic" as a noun should be aware they are doing so inaccurately, even if it is common. I would be glad with any placement on the page you find for it, as long as it is there. It is my sole purpose on Wikipedia to ensure that as many accurate, factual facets of a concept or thing are accessible and paper/dictionary 'true'!Thanks for your reply! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicalloy (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 August 2007
Vistas High School
I am progressively undoing the moves and merges that you carried out - the AfD result was no consensus defaulting to keep not delete. TerriersFan 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is no "Vistas High School', so thanks for allowing the name to be changed to Vistas High School Program. – Dreadstar † 23:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Vistas HS program
Hi. Thanks for the alert, you are quite kind. But I oppose the merger. Bearian 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks from me, too. I will say that your merge was one of the most complete that I have seen following a no-consensus AfD and I appreciate the extra effort you took to do it right. -- DS1953 talk 23:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
2001: A Space Odyssey synopsis
Hello! Anonymous editor 172.190.32.51 has reverted back to a several months-old version of the 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) synopsis which is full of irrelevant detail, Original Research, and editorial interpretation. I have reverted his/her changes twice, and in response the editor has now violated the 3RR policy (and attacked me on my talk page as being "facist"). I myself don't wish to violate the policy, but his/her changes are so damaging to the overall quality of the article that I think a full-scale revert should be done. I have addressed the issue on the talk page. Since your recent edit summaries indicate that you may agree the section needs to be reduced in size, I would like to invite you to help us discuss/resolve the problem before it gets out of hand. If you have the time, please provide your two-cents worth. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 02:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! I appreciate your assistance. I believe 172.190.32.51's edits may have truly been in good faith, but its hard to tell. Creating an adequate plot synopsis for such a complex film as 2001, while still keeping it within the required limits, is a tricky thing. I appreciate all the assistance various editors, including yourself, have made to improve the article.-Hal Raglan 02:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Just in case you didn't notice: He/she reverted again. And has now accused you of starting an edit war. I take back my comment about the possibility that his/her edits may have been done in good faith.-Hal Raglan 02:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Murali
Hi there! My restoration of red links on that dab page was done in accordance with WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks, which states that "[l]inks to non-existent articles ('redlinks') may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject." Being the person who added the red links on these two locations in the first place, I am very confident that encyclopedia articles can be written about them. Furthermore, the links are a part of a large project dealing with Russian geographic locations. While they are red at the moment, they produce backlinks which are heavily relied upon when sorting and categorizing the places with identical names (there are quite a few such places in Russia). I would thus kindly ask you to re-instate the links due to them being useful. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding your comment in this Murali edit summary. You should review WP:DAB, especially the relevant statement: "In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title". The dab page is not the appropriate place for redlinks, if you want to list redlinks, you should create an index page for your entries. If you're going to write articles, then great! Dreadstar † 21:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Dreadstar, I am sorry, but I find your interpretation of MOSDAB rather curious. Let me illustrate by going step by step through your edit of Murali. I will, of course, gladly hear out any counter-arguments you might have, preferrably backed up with references to appropriate sections of DAB and MOSDAB. I prefer dealing with straight facts instead of someone's opinion. Hopefully, this analysis will correct either your or my misunderstanding of certain MOSDAB points. So.
- Before you or me started cleaning up Murali, the page contained five sections (HINDI, Cricketers, Actors, Other people, and Places), with the Actors section being the only one containing more than two items. Let's now see what you did:
- removed "nethra" dictdef. Done in full accordance with MOSDAB, which advises to put a link to Wiktionary for any dictionary definitions. Since Wiktionary does not contain an entry for either "murali" or "nethra", the entry was simply excluded. No argument here.
- removed red-linked actors from the Actors section, deleted Other people section and Places section. This, I believe, was a part of your efforts to get the dab page rid of red links in accordance to your understanding of disambiguation page guidelines. I'll comment on this later below.
- unpiped the remaining entries. Done in full accordance with MOSDAB; no argument.
- At this point the page was reduced to just three sections. In my view, however, the job was still not done well. So, what I did (and I am not looking at the red links issue yet) was to organize the page in a more logical manner, by grouping all people into the People section, all places into the Places section, and everything else into the Other section. This way when someone writes an article on, say Vladimir Murali, mayor of one of the Russian towns, the entry would be added to the People section instead of fragmenting the dab even further and creating a Mayors section with one entry. Why you reverted that particular improvement in organization of mine is beyond me, so I would, naturally, appreciate an explanation. Same goes for the HINDI section—why do you think it should remain there under this loosely applicable name and in all caps? Then, "Murali (tamil actor)" is in fact a redirect to "Murali (actor)"—something I corrected and you, again, reverted. I can believe that a redirect for some reason unknown to me would be preferrable here, but "tamil" is simply an incorrect spelling (the word should be capitalized)! All this, and I have not even mentioned that human names are subject to a MOSDAB section of their own (WP:MOSDAB#Given names or surnames), according to which neither of us formatted the names on the Murali disambiguation page correctly! Per MOSDAB, "[f]or short lists of [persons who happen to have the same surname or given name], new sections of Persons with the surname Title and Persons with the given name Title can be added below the main disambiguation list".
- Now, let's return to the issue of red links. From what I understood from your comments above, your stance on them is simple: no red links at all are allowed on disambiguation pages and if such links are needed, then a set index article should be created. To back that up, you quoted the WP:DAB provision, which states that "...disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title" (underlining is mine). That's correct, of course, but I am afraid you are taking this too literally. That particular sentence describes the general intent and purpose of disambiguation pages but it does not cover exceptions, yet alone explicitly prohibits red links altogether. Suffice it to say, if red links were indeed prohibited from disambiguation pages, then this section of MOSDAB would have not even existed! Note that the section in question deals directly with disambiguation pages, and with disambiguation pages alone (the section is, after all, located in the disambiguation pages manual of style, in the section dealing with individual entries of disambiguation pages, in the subsection dealing with specific entries types of disambiguation pages); it does not even mention set index articles, which are only mentioned several sections below... in the Exceptions section. In other words, just like the Redlinks sections says, redlinks are absolutely fine on disambiguation pages as long as an article will be written on the subject. On my part, I assure you that I would never add a red link to a disambiguation page just to have it sit there. All of the placenames added by me are there for a reason and I fully intend to write articles on each and every one of them (unless, of course, someone beats me to it). Note, however, that with 160,000+ places in Russia and very few people working on the topic, it takes time to get to some of the entries. They are still immensely useful in that they help organize the project workflow and avoid unnecessary cleanup and maintenance later.
- In addition, you do not seem to have read (not carefully, anyway) even the section on set index articles itself. What you are suggesting is that since the entries I added belong to one category (places), then a separate set index article should be created (something along the lines of "Places called Murali" or somesuch, I assume). While it might be a possible solution in theory, there are numerous problems with Murali in particular:
- there are only two entries, so, if nothing else, creating a separate index article for them is just silly;
- I am not aware of any other cases where places with identical names are grouped into a set index article (if you can enlighten me on this point, by all means do so). In fact, the mere existence of {{geodis}} tag suggests that places are a part of disambiguation structure;
- creating a set index article in this case violates the provision of MOSDAB#Set index articles stating that "...the set index article exception was designed to be narrow: for pages that contains links to articles about different topics, please follow this style guide for disambiguation pages" (underlining is mine). Murali is a page about different topics—it covers people, places, and one other concept, so it must follow the MOSDAB, which, again, returns us to that style guide's "Redlinks" section. No matter how you look at it, red links are fine.
- Finally, regarding your note that I "added piped links to the dab page, which is clearly against WP:DAB". I assume you refer to the [[Tatarstan|Republic of Tatarstan]] part (which, at any rate, is one piped link, not links). If you kindly take time to familiarize yourself with WP:MOSDAB#Piping, you'd see that the "do not pipe the name" rule only refers to the links of "articles being listed". Were I to use something like [[Murali, Kaybitsky District, Republic of Tatarstan|Murali]], that would have been incorrect. What I did, however, was to pipe one blue link in the definition. Why? You probably do not know, but Russia is divided into several types of federal subjects, which include republics, oblasts, krais, and a few other types. The names of all federal subjects usually contain the qualifier of what type that subject is (e.g., Primorsky Krai is a krai), but republics officially have a long name and a short name. In case with Tatarstan, "Tatarstan" is the short name, while the "Republic of Tatarstan" is the full name. When it comes to disambiguation pages, it is not uncommon when a place called "XXX" exists in several federal subjects (say, in Tatarstan and in Primorsky Krai). So, in such cases republics are usually listed by their long names for consistency purposes (because doing otherwise would be a bit confusing for an uninformed reader—if "Primorsky Krai" is a krai, then what is "Tatarstan"?). Granted, it makes very little difference on the Murali page because both entries are for Tatarstan, but it is often rather important in other cases. In my view, this is a great example of WP:MOSDAB#Break rules, although whether the rule is even broken in this case is a subject of interpretation.
- I think this about covers it. I apologize if my comments sounded a bit harsh: my intent is to either have you review your practices (since I see so much wrong with them) or to have my understanding of the rules corrected. Either outcome furthers the improvement of Wikipedia, so there can be no losers :) Please take your time when composing your response. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem, take all the time you need. There was, however, no need to abandon Murali completely—it was not my intention to scare you off with a page-long discussions of disambiguation practices :) And you are, of course, completely correct about me putting this much effort into my response. From my prior experience, however, I found that editors who have an opinion about how exactly dab pages should be formatted (sometimes correct, sometimes not) are best dealt with as soon as problems start to arise. I could have, of course, simply written two marginal sub-stubs on both locations and closed the issue, but that would not have resolved anything if you continued with the rest of the dab pages in the same manner. As I said above, there are 160,000 inhabited localities in Russia, quite a bit with identical names, and while I never add entries to dab pages unless I need them for cross-linking and/or reference somewhere else, there are still quite a few that are added. I much prefer to work systematically, and having write mini-stubs just to put a fire on a particular dab page is very distracting and reduces the efficiency of the workflow. So, instead of writing mini-stubs (which I sincerely hate) to plug a hole, I prefer discussions of policies and guidelines in general. It does save time in the long run, even if I have to spend an hour to write a response such as one above :)
Now, to address your concern regarding the number of links in the Places section which I re-added. The first one (Murali in Arsky District) is formatted in full accordance with MOSDAB (the main entry is red, so one blue link is added in the description). The second one (Murali in Kaybitsky District) is indeed in violation, but I did format it that way on purpose, not because of my unfamiliarity with the basic MOSDAB principles. The reasons for that seemingly strange approach are logic and logistics. Since the first entry links to the district, it is logical that the second entry should link to the district as well. However, since the district article does not yet exist, the MOSDAB requirement stating that every dab entry must have one blue link is not fulfilled. So, the next item in the hierarchy (the Republic of Tatarstan) is wikilinked. From the logistics point of view, it is easier to redlink the district and bluelink the republic, instead of just bluelinking the republic and unlinking the district. When the article about the district is written, it would be so much easier for me or for cleanup patrol to spot two blue links in the definition and remove the extra one as opposed to noticing that the district should have been linked to instead of the republic. I believe this convenience is something that can be justified by the "break rules" clause of MOSDAB, but I certainly would not press this point too hard if someone took offense with this practice of mine. This, as opposed to removing red links altogether, is not a big deal at all. If you feel I pushed the dab conventions too far with this, feel free to unlink the district.
Anyway, I'll stop here for now. As a sign of good faith on my part, I will not edit Murali until I hear your response and we have a chance to come to mutual understanding. My intention is not to push my point of view regarding a particular disambiguation practice (no matter how right I feel I am) on you or anyone else, or to drive people away from the dab pages I work with (I don't own them), but to discuss it with disagreeing parties and hopefully come to a solution which suits both sides, hopefully learning something new in the process. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I know that I said I'd give you as much time as you want, so please don't see this edit as if I tried to sneakily revert to "my" version :) I created an (extremely minimal) stub on one of the geo-locations so at least the style issues are now addressed on the dab page. I'll still be happy to return to this discussion any time you feel like doing so. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Jellybean
I've added a quote from that journal article on licorice, that says anise oil is often used in "licorice" candies. I assume you challenged it for one of two reasons; the article was primarily about licorice root and perhaps you missed the small piece about anise that was tucked in the middle of the article, or you're claiming that I made an inference joining "Licorice candies are really anise" with "Jellybeans are a candy" to get "Licorice jellybeans are really anise", which I'll dispute on a few different points:
I never wrote in the article that licorice "jellybeans" are anise-flavored. I added an informational note to a table cell about "licorice" flavoring, that "Many "licorice" candies are actually flavored with anise oil", and provided a citation. So, there is no inference, and there is no WP:OR. Squidfryerchef 22:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- It absolutely is original research. If you believe I'm being disruptive, then take it to WP:ANI, but quit edit warring to add your OR to the article. You are inferring that Licorice jellybeans are flacored with anise, but you have no source for that. It's clearly OR. Ask on the WP:NOR talk page, if you like, or get a WP:3O. Dreadstar † 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Your Note II
No problem. I'll keep an eye on the page for a bit, then think about adding a comment onto the relevant RfC. Best, bfigura 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Response to your message
No problem. I have also had the problem of trying to fix vandalism quickly but not getting it all done, and its frustrating. I should be continuing to revert vandalism for a while, so let me know if you need someone to be blocked, or any other help. Academic Challenger 08:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Boris Johnson
Johnson is the MP for a nearby constituency. I don't much care for his line of politics myself, but he's certainly rarely out of the news. With respect to the description of him in the article to the effect that he plays the part of a bumbling clown, this is very much an image that Johnson does not reject, but positively cultivates. Regards, — BillC talk 14:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Fairfield
Sorry for being confusing with the 2RR: it was a way for me to remind myself not to revert much more, rather than a warning that I'd do it one more time. Nyttend 22:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
re: fat albert
But you know it was funny :D --frotht 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
tag vandalism
Generally no I agree, but in this users case, it is. He's just tag bombing and stripping the article bare in order to get it merged. It's trolling and vandalism, and the less he's fed the better. ornis (t) 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was refering to True-believer syndrome. ornis (t) 05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The royal "We"
Don't you know, "we" is the term that is only used by royalty? This must certainly, therefore, be a person of royal heritage, and thus we should not "deign" to remove the comments, yes?
I crack myself up... Ariel♥Gold 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- We curtsy to your Royal Highness, M'Lord, and we just must say your ascot is most fetching! We are exceedingly pleased. I therefore, hereby award you the title of "Lord Dreadstar, Master of my domain, Earl of Fashion. And should you need any assistance, at any time, we would be most honored if we could assist you. Lady♥Ariel 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. We are well aware of the Royal We. Henceforths, ye shall call me by mine rightful name...Lord Dreadstar, master of my domain...I was also thinking of them being the 'toddler' wee...wee wee wee, all the way home...;) You crack me up too...:-D Dreadstar † 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thou art most gracious, M'Lady Ariel. I most happily accept the title thou hast bestowed upon my humble self. Thine heart is truly placed in the most appropriate position, at the very core of thine name, for all to behold! Mine ascot is most pleased to have been the focus of your divine attention, and mine sword is most jealous...!
-
-
-
- I am yours to command, shouldest thou have need of mine prowess with the edit summary of justice...! - Lord Dreadstar, Master of My Doman and Earl of Fashion 04:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'm sorry, lol, I just have to get out of the whole "in voice" thing for a second to just tell you that I rarely truly laugh in RL when reading anything online, or watching TV or what have you, but honestly, your last reply made me literally and figuratively, laugh out loud.
-
-
-
-
-
- I simply could not be more amused! And seriously, I meant it, although I doubt there's anything you'd ever need silly little insignificant me for, I'm more than happy to assist in any way you need, and I'll certainly take you up on your offer of assistance should I ever run into a wall that is only permeable by the Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice. Your most humble servant, Lady♥Ariel 05:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Why thank you, Ariel♥Gold! That is one of the finest compliments I've received..it made me laugh out loud with delight! It's actually kinda rare that I can use my sense of humor on Wikipedia, in RL I'm known for my prowess with the dagger of delight and the lance of laughter...;) Methinks I have the comedian bug.
- I must admit that most of mine "thee's and thou's" are from The Mighty Thor- god of thunder, and Sir Mandorallan- the mightiest knight on life! And thou certainly are not silly nor insignificant, my sweet golden one..thou art a pleasure to hammer-down the vandals with!
- Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice. 06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- .......(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!).....
- Thou doth maketh Ariel Laugheth! Lady Ariel♥Humble servant 06:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
....I'm not saying I'd like to build a summer home here, but the trees are actually quite lovely.
SineBot had the audacity to warn Lady Ariel for not signing the above "comment"! Ariel♥Gold 07:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed! And upon our keen observation of Sinebot’s most perfidious behavior, Lord Dreadstar sorely chastised him by excising, with his most powerful sword of Light and Justice, the bot’s most repugnant and dog-like exclamations about M’Lady’s kind and warm remarks upon mine own pageth. Had we spied his vile notice on M'Lady's page, we would have gently removed it from thy most divine view, so thou wouldest not have been alarmed and concerned! Let the Dreaded One wipe the tears from thy cheeks, so thy golden smile will shine upon the earth once again!
Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice, Banisher of Sinebot. 08:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hee hee, poor SineBot! Lady Ariel wonders if The Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice, Banisher of Sinebot. receives any more titles, would he be flogged for "spamming"! Lady Ariel♥Humble servant 08:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I shall take it upon myself to come up with a suitable "short title" for His Royal Mightyness.Lady Ariel♥Humble servant 08:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- "..would he be flogged for "spamming"", wouldeth that be a promise? ;) If LD gets any more titles, it'll crash the 'pedia servers...lol..! Dreadstar † 08:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I shall take it upon myself to come up with a suitable "short title" for His Royal Mightyness.Lady Ariel♥Humble servant 08:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Good insights
Hello Dreadstar. Thank you for your invitation to collaborate at P-Surgery. I see that you have good insights, do you want to visit WP:TIMETRACE and see if there is something you feel for helping with? Librarian2 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Protected pages
"Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute." Admittedly I should in theory mention the edit on the talk page, but it would really be a waste of everybody's time in this case. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35 23 August 2007 (GMT).
Syzygy Darklock
I wanted to let you know why I'm reverting your change, since you explained your reason for the change so well. I agree it might seem redundant to mention the the word "fictional" so many times, but that is the standard that the Comic Book Project uses. I believe the reason behind it is to help stress that the subject is fictional. Too many articles portray their fictional subject as a real person, leading to confusion to the casual reader (just check out the majority of the Star Wars character articles).
BTW, I gather by your screen name that you might be a Dreadstar fan. Do you happen to have any knowledge of what issue Syzygy was first introduced? I tried hunting for that info on the internet, but came up snake eyes. Thanks for your help! Konczewski 13:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is a bit redundant. I may move towards not using fictional in the first sentence of the article (after all, aren't just about all comic book characters fictional?) and save it for the heading. I just like that phrase, "Fictional character biography." Oh, I made some changes on the Vanth Dreadstar article. Let me know what you think. Konczewski 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- To be honest, I haven't read much of the discussion. I just looked at some sample Feature Articles and Good Articles and did what they did. Konczewski 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Batman and Plastic Man are both good examples. They use the redundant phrasing, but they can probably get away with it because the articles are so long. Konczewski 19:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't want to be responsible for a Wikideath. Please change it if you like. Thanks for the pleasant conversation. Konczewski 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
The Price (graphic novel)
Pretty good. I made a few changes, nothing that affects the body of work. I'm not sure need the See also section if you have wikilinks within the body of the article. Do you have publication dates? That should be a section, and should cover both the original appearance and the date of the trade paperback. And I think you can use the comic book title infobox at the top; I checked some other graphic novel entries, and that's what they do. Konczewski 00:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Impressive work, but I do have a few comments. The summary probably needs to be shorter, not longer; I wouldn't be surprised if some dilligent Wikipedian doesn't slap a "over long summary" tag on it soon. Second, yes, that is a run on sentence. It should be split into two; one about the b/w vs color, and a second about the plot summary. Lastly, it really needs a section on publication history. All that would be is details on the original Epic Illustrated run (issue nos. and dates) and then info on the graphic novel publication. That's probably the best place to mention the details on when it was in b/w and when it was in color. On the "See Also" section--are Willow and Dreadstar in this story? From your summary it sounds like a Syzygy standalone story. That should be made explicit in the article, probably in the intro paragraph.
- I encourage you to consider improving the "Metamorphosis Odyssey" article, but it definitely needs to get away from the "fannish" tone I see currently, and should really include issue citations.
- A Wikipedian I've found useful to consult is User:Tenebrae; he's very active in the comics project, and probably wouldn't mind giving your articles the once over. If I can help with anything else, please let me know. Konczewski 01:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Wilson
I reverted Wilson because frankly he probably belongs on a list of American illustrators. I've never heard of him and he isn't well known as an American painter or sculptor. I'm leaving him there for now. Why do you have him being born in 1928? Modernist 22:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Check out 1919 or 1918 Modernist 22:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Check this list out: List of illustrators, he might belong there. Modernist 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I stand corrected, we'll let him be on both lists. You know he sounds like he is well known in certain circles, thats interesting to me...Thanks, Modernist 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It would benefit from an example or two of his work, under fair use, or better still if GFDL release could be obtained. Tyrenius 23:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- You know I am truly amazed that the director of the Met and people at the Smithsonian told you all that about Wilson. Very impressive. Modernist 23:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see you have a new name, actually I like it better then the old name. I googled Wilson, he seems to be a solid Oklahoma Cowboy artist. I like hearing about new people, I might've missed. Modernist 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- You know I am truly amazed that the director of the Met and people at the Smithsonian told you all that about Wilson. Very impressive. Modernist 23:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you, and glad I could help. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the excellent work on What the Bleep page. 61.68.149.210 07:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Gahhh
Actually I (initially) screwed up the post on his talkpage pretty badly, referring to the report below his and saying another editor had filed it - it's late/early where I am so I'm tired. I am not an administrator right now, but after having to wait several days to get a response to a 3RR report I filed I'm thinking there needs to be someone who actively deals with the backlog so maybe I'll self-nominate. Regards, Perspicacite 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Miss New Jersey's Outstanding Teen
Just to let you know that I've dealt with this situation: the content belonged in the Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants article and I have moved it there. Btw the pageant is associated with Miss New Jersey and not Miss New Jersey USA. I have prodded the NJ Outstanding Teen article because it is no longer needed, and explained this to the article's author. PageantUpdater 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hey thanks for addressing that merge! I knew it should probably go elsewhere...and just took the queue for the destination from the teen page. I'm a pageant-newbie, so excuse my misdirection on that puppy! Thanks much! Dreadstar † 02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be better to redirect Miss New Jersey's Outstanding Teen, rather than deleting it? Dreadstar † 02:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. Will do so myself. In fact, it may be worth redirecting the rest of them as well. Good teamwork sorting this one out... hadn't thought of redirecting :) Btw the State Pageants article itself is up for afd but judging from the discussion it's fairly likely to be kept... should be closing in the next couple of days. PageantUpdater 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be better to redirect Miss New Jersey's Outstanding Teen, rather than deleting it? Dreadstar † 02:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Your note
You're welcome, and thank you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Bleep
Thanks for the nod of approval on my edit - I noticed there seems to have been a lot of recent controversy over at that article. I just finished watching the extended "Quantum Edition", and wanted to add a few things, but I also don't want to stir the pot... maybe I'll hold off for a bit. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 08:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Dreadstar!
Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road; Every life must have its burden, every heart its load. Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet; Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet. Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves; O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves. Have a beautiful day, dear friend! ;) Love, Phaedriel 10:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC) |
Ananda Perera
Done. Thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
For turning lemons into lemonade
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
Nice job on Alpha Mom Jddphd 22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
I did it because you spent a lot of time on a little piece of crap article that looked to be little more than an ad and made it actually something that was encyclopedic. In this case it wasn't the quantity or even the quality of the work (not that it wasn't good), but just the simple idea that you were bothered enough to turn something bad into something good. Rock on. Jddphd 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Twelve-step program and Dr. Bob articles
On second thought, you're probably right that the section as it stands now doesn't add much to the article and seems more like it serves to promote the Dick B. books. I will remove it. Thanks. -- Craigtalbert 09:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia as a source?
Hi. I wonder if you could help me out with something: here, I'm being asked for evidence that Wikipedia should not be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles. Of course this seems self-evident, but apparently it's not for some. Could you please weigh in there? Also, for that matter, perhaps an explicit line could be added to this effect in here. Thank you for your help. Biruitorul 13:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Source idea
I've completed a first draft regarding the first/second class distinction idea. Take a look over it and leave some thoughts if you would. Make adjustments or tweak it, if you have some ideas. Cheers! Vassyana 08:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've made some significant revisions. Let me know what you think. Vassyana 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let me know what you think of the most recent revision. Vassyana 19:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Question
Hey dude, didn't know if you saw my question. --Yksin 23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Pair o' normals....
... not us. Heh. But that reminds me of the one that I promised to do a bit of research on. Oh well, spiffing up the homespace for my partner arriving tonight takes precedence. --Yksin 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Not yet another fully protected article! Are you collecting 'em? --Yksin 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you very much for the welcome... My favorite kind of editing - no arguments needed .... I hope!(olive 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
Proxy puppets
I tried answering your query on the talk page at WP:SOCK, and found someone else having the same problem, so I tossed this out for consideration. If you would like to comment or critique, please do so there. -- Lisasmall | Talk 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments
but I can hardly take credit for the idea of the "free beer" explanation. It was the standard explanation of the free culture movement when it was first explained to me. I don't even know where it started myself. It is a very effective explanation and therefore quite popular. It is funny though how often people lose sight of (or never fully grasped) the big picture of what is being accomplished here. At the size the english Wikipedia is now, people just jump in and contribute for some diverse reasons without really looking into what the goal truly is. And some of those reasons are opposed, or irrelevant, to the actual goals of Wikipedia. Usually people with strong objections the principles of a policy, misunderstand the goal of the project.--BirgitteSB 20:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The royal "We"
Don't you know, "we" is the term that is only used by royalty? This must certainly, therefore, be a person of royal heritage, and thus we should not "deign" to remove the comments, yes?
I crack myself up... Ariel♥Gold 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. We are well aware of the Royal We. Henceforths, ye shall call me by mine rightful name...Lord Dreadstar, master of my domain...I was also thinking of them being the 'toddler' wee...wee wee wee, all the way home...;) You crack me up too...:-D Dreadstar † 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- We curtsy to your Royal Highness, M'Lord, and we just must say your ascot is most fetching! We are exceedingly pleased. I therefore, hereby award you the title of "Lord Dreadstar, Master of my domain, Earl of Fashion. And should you need any assistance, at any time, we would be most honored if we could assist you. Lady♥Ariel 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Lady Ariel is most pleased with your approval! Ariel♥Gold 04:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thou art most gracious, M'Lady Ariel. I most happily accept the title thou hast bestowed upon my humble self. Thine heart is truly placed in the most appropriate position, at the very core of thine name, for all to behold! Mine ascot is most pleased to have been the focus of your divine attention, and mine sword is most jealous...!
-
-
-
- I am yours to command, shouldest thou have need of mine prowess with the edit summary of justice...! - Lord Dreadstar, Master of My Doman and Earl of Fashion 04:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'm sorry, lol, I just have to get out of the whole "in voice" thing for a second to just tell you that I rarely truly laugh in RL when reading anything online, or watching TV or what have you, but honestly, your last reply made me literally and figuratively, laugh out loud.
-
-
-
-
-
- I simply could not be more amused! And seriously, I meant it, although I doubt there's anything you'd ever need silly little insignificant me for, I'm more than happy to assist in any way you need, and I'll certainly take you up on your offer of assistance should I ever run into a wall that is only permeable by the Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice. Your most humble servant, Lady♥Ariel 05:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Why thank you, Ariel♥Gold! That is one of the finest compliments I've received..it made me laugh out loud with delight! It's actually kinda rare that I can use my sense of humor on Wikipedia, in RL I'm known for my prowess with the dagger of delight and the lance of laughter...;) Methinks I have the comedian bug.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I must admit that most of mine "thee's and thou's" are from The Mighty Thor- god of thunder, and Sir Mandorallan- the mightiest knight on life! And thou certainly are not silly nor insignificant, my sweet golden one..thou art a pleasure to hammer-down the vandals with!
- Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice. 06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- .......(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!).....
- Thou doth maketh Ariel Laugheth! Lady Ariel♥Humble servant 06:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I must admit that most of mine "thee's and thou's" are from The Mighty Thor- god of thunder, and Sir Mandorallan- the mightiest knight on life! And thou certainly are not silly nor insignificant, my sweet golden one..thou art a pleasure to hammer-down the vandals with!
-
-
-
-
SineBot had the audacity to warn Lady Ariel for not signing the above "comment"! Ariel♥Gold 07:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed! And upon our keen observation of Sinebot’s most perfidious behavior, Lord Dreadstar sorely chastised him by excising, with his most powerful sword of Light and Justice, the bot’s most repugnant and dog-like exclamations about M’Lady’s kind and warm remarks upon mine own pageth. Had we spied his vile notice on M'Lady's page, we would have gently removed it from thy most divine view, so thou wouldest not have been alarmed and concerned! Let the Dreaded One wipe the tears from thy cheeks, so thy golden smile will shine upon the earth once again!
- Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice, Banisher of Sinebot. 08:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hee hee, poor SineBot! Lady Ariel wonders if The Mighty and Powerful Lord Dreadstar, Master of my Domain, Earl of Fashion, Keeper of the Keys of Justice, Banisher of Sinebot. receives any more titles, would he be flogged for "spamming"! Lady Ariel♥Humble servant 08:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I shall take it upon myself to come up with a suitable "short title" for His Royal Mightyness.Lady Ariel♥Humble servant 08:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
I guess... there is nothing that can be done now anyway, except for me to learn from it and move on, I just guess I'm discouraged slightly. ~*sigh*~ Ariel♥Gold 08:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Lordy Lordy
I see We has been busy. -- the plebian Yksin 19:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
It's always good to see you also. Let me know if you need any help, and actually as part of my anti-vandal patrol I look through your contributions when you're around to see if any of your vandals have returned or need blocking. Academic Challenger 05:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandal Fighting
Between you and Cluebot, I almost never have to revert anything. Patrolling RC still makes for some interesting reading though, so I'll always be one step behind you. Please don't back up too quickly or you might smush me against a wall. ;) spazure (contribs) (review) 09:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
PSurgery
Sorry about the late reply, I was not around. I go to the article to see that JennyLen 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
PSIsurgery
While I don't think that the content of the psurgory page needs changing all that much (mostly it nly needs neatening up and the references straightening out, and so on),the page can't be taken seriously with its current layout. All of the history, context and etymology needs to go before the debate else it, as per the norm for laying out any topic, controversial or not. Right now it looks like it was written by a junior high schooler who wrote things down in the order that they occurred to them.
I'd appreciate any support that you can give in this front.
perfectblue 12:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Good insights
Hello Dreadstar. Thank you for your invitation to collaborate at P-Surgery. I see that you have good insights, do you want to visit WP:TIMETRACE and see if there is something you feel for helping with? Librarian2 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me an opinion?
Would you mind taking a look at this, particularly the lengthy statement I talk about there, & tell me what you think? Am I offbase? or not? --Yksin 04:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your response
Thank you for your response about the reversion of my edits on Protestantism and Episcopal Church in the United States of America. I am puzzled by your comment that there was an issue with the lack of source references in my edits. In fact, my edits on the ECUSA article contained four references with links to sources and my edits in Protestantism contained two references with links to sources. --71.127.159.171 05:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- <copy>
- Generally when citing offline sources, it's best practice to not only name the publication but to put the date, page numbers, and even paragraph numbers. The main one I noticed was this one, which had only this: :<ref> Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia</ref>
- I addition to that, I saw that you then reverted another editor who's edit summary clearly stated: "This is being discussed, consenus has not been reached yet"
- WP:3RR, " Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it"
- You should have discussed on the talk page instead of reverting back to your own version. That sort of revert warring and vague citation style by an anonymous editor is very suspicious looking and is likely to get reverted as pure vandalism.
- Users can edit under an IP address without creating an account, but it is highly advisable to follow Wikipedia:Why create an account?, specifically reputation and privacy, which states:
-
- "While we welcome anonymous contributions, logging in under a pseudonym lets you build trust and respect through a history of good edits. It is also easier to communicate and collaborate with an editor if we know who you are (at least, who you are on Wikipedia). It is also easier for veteran users to assume good faith from new users who take the effort to create an account (and you may well become a veteran user yourself some day!). You may well be afforded a great deal less leeway if you do not go to the trouble of making up a username."
- As for details in adding offline sources:
- WP:CITE#Full_citations, which includes: "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used. Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers."
- Wikipedia:Citation templates for citation templates
- I would suggest creating an account, but if you continue on under an anon ip address, I would strongly recommend that you provide clear and convincing citations for everything you add. Some of your edits were very well sourced, but one of the early ones I saw was the one I described above...which included edit warring:
- When editors are on vandal patrol, they can sometimes be quick to pull the trigger, so just assume good faith and do what you did, ask nice questions!
-
- Thanks again, this time for your advice. --71.127.159.171 06:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Question..
When vandal-fighting, I sometimes run into issues such as this diff, where I go to a user's talk page and they've been warned a lot, but a lot of time has gone by, so it doesn't qualify to report to WP:AIV. Is there any recourse for persistant vandal IPs that vandalize over long periods of time like this, or do we simply have to keep warning them with empty threats per the current policy? --spazure (contribs) (review) 08:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Glad you enjoyed it !
Nice of you to pay me visit, glad you enjoyed it Vanished user 12:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Re.:History Of Women In The Military: Country
Col. Kadaffi of Libya, has a bodyguard of women that he calls "The Amazonian Guard" that are not only heavily armed, they're also lethal martial artists. This is a military unit, NOT vandalisim. In fact, Libya may be the only Islamic nation to have women in the military. Your bot needs some reprogramming. 65.173.104.223 01:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
NOR
Thanks! Many years ago I put a lot of work into that policy (of course with many others) and I believe that like NPOV it really makes a simplke point some editors really resist - yet is central to this project! I don't always pay attention to the discussion, I wish the policy were clear enough to avoid such confusion. I am glad to see that there is a lively discussion of its importance though, best, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Blanking
Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you that most of the material in this section has little or nothing to do with the editing of the main article. The section, however, does provide other WP editors with data for assessing how carefully sourced and verifiable some possible future edits to the main page might be. Best, Mathsci 06:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Code changes today?
It's hard to tell, because many code changes tend to be stored up and then applied all at once. There was a new group of code changes applied recently (although not being a dev I'm not sure exactly when), but I've looked through all the changes back to version r25200 of the software (r25569 is the current version), and I don't think there's anything that could be causing the bug (although I'm not sure; I don't know how VP works, but I don't think there were any relevant changes to either the API code or the recent-changes or history code, the three places that I think it's most likely to look to find which user made a change). If you're interested, the log of changes that were made and are scheduled to be made is at svn: (warning: it's a large page, don't try to load it if you have a slow connection; I haven't looked through the whole thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it contains the log entry for every change made to the software ever), so if someone with more of an idea of how VP works looks through there it might help. (One other thing: there's a new release of MediaWiki coming out very soon, and just before a new release developers tend to hold off on major changes, making it seem less likely that a software bug is causing the problems you mention.) --ais523 15:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Good morning m'lord Dreadstar
Ariel♥Gold gives you a huge smile, just because it is almost the weekend! I hereby issue the following Royal Command: Lord Dreadstar must take some time to have fun this weekend! ~*Gong... Gong... Gong...*~ So it shall be.
Smiles promote WikiLove, and hopefully hers has made your day better! ({{subst:smile}}) |
Jody Byrne
I'm not sure this is the place to reply, but here it goes. I had never heard of Jody Byrne before, but my expertise is more in literary than in technical translation, which seems to be his speciality. It appears (from my own web search) that Byrne is in the process of getting a PhD, which doesn't make him a prominent theorist (yet). I don't think Byrne's article is bad, but I don't think it is as important as eurominuteman makes it out to be. I also don't think legal ramifications of selling translation services are pertinent to any other sections of the translation article besides one possibly named "laws governing translation services". (I second the good morning) maxsch 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, Byrne has a PhD and is a practicing translator and professor of translation. But I bet he would be surprised at his new popularity.maxsch 02:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Varoujan Garabedian
Can you please, take a look at this page again, another user is trying to get rid of the category without any discussion and despite the references and clear connection [6]. Same thing at ASALA. Thanks. Atabek 07:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Will look forward to hear from you on this issue. Best. Atabek 09:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Twin!
A while back you told me we began with Wiki on the same day. I always wanted a twin... So... thought you might like to see (or use) this. I don't know how to edit userbox templates, or I'd change this one to "as of" instead of "on":
2 | This Wikipedian joined Wikipedia 2 years, 5 months, and 22 days ago as of June 13, 2008. |
-- LisaSmall T/C 17:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism of Queer Theory
I stopped by 65.115.176.50's user talk page and put a note about their apparent failure to understand the NPOV Policy. Voyager640 16:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
VP problem...
See this diff. Except that's not what it did, it reverted to me, which is what it should have done. Is something up with VP? Gscshoyru 18:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Hugh_Lockwood.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hugh_Lockwood.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Question
When vandal-fighting, I sometimes run into issues such as this diff, where I go to a user's talk page and they've been warned a lot, but a lot of time has gone by, so it doesn't qualify to report to WP:AIV. Is there any recourse for persistant vandal IPs that vandalize over long periods of time like this, or do we simply have to keep warning them with empty threats per the current policy? --spazure (contribs) (review) 08:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
NOR
Thanks! Many years ago I put a lot of work into that policy (of course with many others) and I believe that like NPOV it really makes a simplke point some editors really resist - yet is central to this project! I don't always pay attention to the discussion, I wish the policy were clear enough to avoid such confusion. I am glad to see that there is a lively discussion of its importance though, best, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the welcome and advice Dreadstar. I have to admit that I don't normally contribute directly to an article - except in a discussion. I am thus something of a WIKI "virgin".
I shall monitor the article and discuss changes with the editors - and hopefully seek their help to improve my contributions. Crowleys Aunt 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem :)
Ahh, it's just another typical vandal. ;) Some vandal a while back replaced my userpage with creative and original userboxes, and I only discovered yesterday that that had happened! :) This IP attacking your page will get tired of what he's doing sooner or later. –sebi 06:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nice to meet you to! :) And yay, he's calmed down! :) –sebi 09:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, he was attacking his talk page with "141.157.199.156 has won the award for best wikipedian" or something like that, but now he's finally got tired of disrupting our precious encyclopedia. :) –sebi 06:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well then, uh, we must defend the magical encyclopedia, by placing many protection charms... ahh I give up, my imagination is running out. Your turn! :) –sebi 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, no I haven't seen that movie ;) –sebi 06:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well then, uh, we must defend the magical encyclopedia, by placing many protection charms... ahh I give up, my imagination is running out. Your turn! :) –sebi 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, he was attacking his talk page with "141.157.199.156 has won the award for best wikipedian" or something like that, but now he's finally got tired of disrupting our precious encyclopedia. :) –sebi 06:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
NOR
Obviously I have expressed my general views at length. But there is a lot of talk and I do not know what specifically started the dispute - could you tell me? In any event, the next step would be a Request for Comment and an attempt to get more administrators and seasoned editors to comment - policy is not like other articles. There should be NO change to the content - the actual specifics of the policy - without clear community consensus. If the dispute is over style wording, not the substance of the policy itself, that is another matter and the threshold for changes is lower. But policy is different from an article and cannot be changed (I mean the principles, not the specific wording but the substance) because five or ten of even twenty editors feel strongly - the substance of a policy really requires a huge announcement and very public discussion by hundreds of veteran Wikipedians. if you are unsure where to draw the line, an RFC is a start. If you do an RFC frame it initially not as who in the dispute is right, but is this a superficial dispute (which calls for just more opinions and discussion)or a major dispute (which calls for a whole other scale of involvement and seriousness) Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Slrubenstein | Talk
It's been a long time since I worked on the main policy page. When I look at the edit differences you singled out, I have to say I am not mad about either version. Frankly, I prefer the version I last worked on: [7] - this is an edit change but just look at the section under Sources - I tried to be precise and keep it simple. It may be that my style is just out of sync with others. But I think all the more recent versions, in tryng to explain things, just provide vague or unclear examples that muddy the waters. Now, to address specifics:
- I believe it is important to state that Wikipedia requires source based research
- I don't think we need any statement encouraging use of secondary sources or discouraging primary sources in the abstract. Vaguely encouaging someting is not a polich
- I think all we need to say is that primary sources may be used only if they meet two conditions ...
- I think all we need to say is that any generalization, or analytic, synthetic, intepretive, or explanatiory claim can be included in an article only if it is made explicitly in a verifiable source.
These princples pretty much cover it for me. I think the simpler and more straightforward the policy, the better. My sense is that some of these conflicts come from others in the past having added examples and explanations that are vague or sloppy and invite confusion and dissent. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandal Proof
Hi, I noticed that you use VP as your anti-vandal tool, I do as well but have recently moved back to twinkle because of bugs on VP. Have you been having problems with VP as well, like script errors? Tiptoety 04:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well then you are lucky, every time i click on a link it gives me 3 script errors which i have to answer "yes" to. I moved from TW to VP because i heard it had stronger anti-vandal ability's, but i really think that i like TW better, faster and laid out better, VP just has a few more things it can do. Tiptoety 04:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That seemed to work great! Thanks for all your help, see you around wikipedia! Tiptoety 05:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
NOR B
I am glad you liked my version and agre with my principles. I am not very sympathetic to the proposed rewrite of the policy for two reasons. First, as i explained, I think it is better for our policies to be proscriptive rather than prescriptive, as they leave people with more freedom of action. Second, a policy on sources seems simply to duplicate a policy, Verifiability, and a guideline, Reliable Sources, that already exist - anyone interested in a new policy on sources, I would advise them to work on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines and improve it. But I would never get rid of or replace or totally rewrite NOR.
At this point I have left several comments on the NOR page. Honestly, since I have not otherwise been very active, I think you and like-minded editors need to coordinate your defense of the policy and your vision of what it should look like and keep debating on the talk page until a consensus emerges. If you feel after another week it is going nowhere, or someone wants to unprotect the page and edit war, do an RFC and seek to draw in many other people. I'll keep an eye on it, but if there really is a deadlock, I won't make a difference. Try to work out a consensus, or file a an RFC and seek to bring in LOTS more editors. Leave notices on the talk pages of V and NPOV summarizing the issue in two or three sentences and asking editors there to participte in your discussions. Also, the talk page for NPOV has many threads that people are writing in simultaneously - that is not going to make building a consensus easy. Can you start a new thread, or two or three threads each dedicated to one major point of contention, and then try to limit all discussion to those threads - i.e., try to work through one or a small set of specific issues out before moving on to other issues? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I just want to make sure I have things clear: is it primarily a conflict between you and Cassyana on one side, and Cogden on the other? Can you summarize who is on whose side, or is it more complicated than that? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. If you are right, I recommend two tactics: first, keep pushing - very politely - any editor who you think is fundamentally opposed to NOR to clarify their position and suggest how they would improve the wording. If they cannot propose an improvement to the wording, you can ask point-blank: are you opposed to the policy? Anyone who admits to being opposed to the policy should simply be ignored. You need to get anyone who supports the policy to agree to ignore, i.e. never respond to, anyone who admits they are opposed to the policy. Second, follow Birgitta's lead in turning anyone else's complaint into a question of how to word a policy. In some cases the result may be rewording or adding text; in other cases, it may be deleting text. One thing I admire about the Constitution of the US is it is so short. People are left to interpret it, and anyone who can argue that their interpretation is consistent with the wording of the constitution has some legitimacy. I feel the same way about our policies: be clear, precise, and concise, and understand that there will always be cases where the polity needs to be interpreted to fit the situation - but that does not mean that an interpretion demanded by one situation should then be incorporated into the text of the policy itself. No policy can be so complete that it never needs to be interpreted, it is an impossible dream and to try to cover every possible situation in the hopes that it will never need to be interpreted will just make it more confusing. What is needed is clarity about the essential principles, and precise definition of terms. When you and all the people who agree that there should be an NOR policy agree, you can claim consensus, unprotect it, with an agreement (among all of you who agree there should be a policy) to revert without discussion any change unless all of you who believe there should be a policy agree with it. people who do not accept the policy in principle simply do not count. If they want a debate on abolishing the policy, the talk page of the policy is not the appropriate place to do it - talk pages are for discussing improvements only (that's a policy too!). Anyone who opposes the policy in principle has a right to express themselves, but not on the talk page but rather perhaps on proposeals for deletion page. You - and it can't be you alone - have to ensure that discussion against the policy itself stays off the talk page. If someone resists, create a new page, call it "proposal to delete NOR policy" and just move any talk related to this to that page. Needless to say, any talk that is critical of the wording, but not the policy as such, has to stay on the policy talk page. If any of these suggestions make sense with you, share them with Birgitte, Vassyana, and others who you know have to agree for any stable consensus to emerge and see what they thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
AfD
Hi, I wonder if you can know about an information I cannot find. Looking at the deletion policies, I see that there is nothing about outdated articles, this means that if an article is outdated (obsolete), totally I mean, not that just needs to be updated but is really obsolete like say : "elections 1992, what we can expect" or "Rhodesia". I don't see anything in deletion policy about that, how and to whom must be called the attention about that miss ? ℒibrarian2 14:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation and the link, I don't have an article in mind, it just called my attention that missing in the reasons for deletion, that's all. Thanks :) ℒibrarian2 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
NOR "discussion"
Hi. Like you, I "think" it could be managed a bit more easily, but as the last week or two have shown, it's ripe for abuse again also. One of the propblem areas is the way it's currenty laid out, if someone like me has a question about something dealing with NOR, there's no place to readily put it except on the discussion page, and that quickly gets buried among the other sections that get added. I have several questions/problems with NOR as it is, for relative newbie's like myself, I'd prefer to have all the t's crossed and all of the i's dotted, so it can only be interpreted one way, not 3 or 4 different ways. Another "confusing" point for me at least, is the NOR as a "policy" really kills the way many editors work on articles, and is even acknowledged as (more or less) the current state of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:About#Using Wikipedia as a research tool. That section (actually several spots on that page) describe the current state of affairs on Wikipedia, and also how many articles progress through their lifetime. The NOR "policy" seems to be abused by some as a reason to challenge everything at any time, and it seems that if NOR was a "guideline" (perhaps even with the condition that all FA and A-Class articles adhered to it), instead of a "policy", then it would be less contentious? I don't know, as I said, I'm still fairly new, mainly working on Military History stuff, and people there seem more forgiving and understanding, as I assume they've had to create articles the same way. wbfergus 18:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Policies
NO!!! (I am responding to the edit to which you called attention) This is almost trolling. Policies are NOT descriptive, and they can only be changed with MASSIVE community support. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There is legitimate room for a range of views: start here - WP:Policies and surf the links. However, i think my view is shared by the most experienced editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've significantly revised my proposal, in an attempt to reflect legitimate concerns raised on all sides on the policy talk page. A major change is dropping the language discussing primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I try to rely on the "reliable third-party publications" distinction made by Wikipedia:Verifiability that has a clear and exceedingly broad consensus. Please take a look over the new draft and let me know your thoughts (User:Vassyana/Sources proposal). I'm interested in soliciting some feedback before submitting the revised proposal. Thanks! Vassyana 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Boo!
My first barnstar!
Thanks bunches, that made my wiki-week! spazure (contribs) (review) 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I need an experienced pair of eyes..
Take a look at the ongoing edit war at Greater Grace World Outreach. At first I thought one was clearly vandalism, but now it's starting to look like both sides are just POV pushing. I'm not much of a writer, so I'm having a tough time trying to come up with an article that might make them both happy. I'm not asking you to rewrite the article yourself, of course, just some tips on how to mantain neutrality and defuse the situation. spazure (contribs) (review) 06:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Adminship
Hey - have you considered this option? I feel you are very experienced, and are a great vandal fighter. Please get back to me on this. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you already have an admin coach, then it is probably best they nominate, but I would be happy to make a co-nomination. Let me know when you are ready, and I will be happy to make the co-nom. Cheers! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh ok. Thanks for your support then! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
A new day at NOR Talk
As you see, I archived a good deal of the talk in an atempt to focus the discussion in order to resolve some issues one at a time. I hope you agree this is a constructive move. COGDEN recently restored over 180,000 bytes of talk I had archived. Even having archived, the talk page is rapidly reaching the optimum length for a talk page prior to archiving! I believe COGDEN restored archived talk in order to prevent a resolution of any conflict, because it would enable him to dominate the talk without actually reaching any agreement. I believe there are a few editors who have made it clear they simply do not support the policy. If they restore archived talk as a way of avoiding addressing the issues, I will rearchive it. If you object I would appreciate knowing. if you think this is reasonable, I would appreciate your keeping an eye on the matter too. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! But I am about to go offline, so please, if someone unarchives, please rearchive. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Of potential interest
Due to Slrubenstein's feedback and suggestions, I realized I was making a somewhat novel distinction for reliable sources, even if such an analysis is firmly rooted in extant policy. I've raised those concerns about distinction at the appropriate place. I'm still separating out my thoughts about reliability and NOR, so I may take a bit to express an exact opinion on the standing issues at NOR. Hope this finds you well! Vassyana 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Good work with fighting vandalism. You've beaten me to the last few reverts! ~ Wikihermit 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
NOR favor
Hi. I have created a new page, Wikipedia: Proposal to replace No Original Research. Can you go over the talk on the now too long talk page for NOR and identify any talk you think belongs with this nascent proposal, and move it to its' talk page? I will ask BirgitteSB and Jossi to do the same. I have already done a fair amount of refactoring at the talk page, and given that I just created this new proposal page, I would rather trust someone else's judgement as to what talk, specifically, to move. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Another great night of vandal hunting!
Hi Dreadstar, I hope you are having a great weekend, and thanks for helping me with the vandal-hunting. There's really a lot tonight! Academic Challenger 07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Labor Day weekend is part of it, but our Australian friends are giving us a hard time as well. I just blocked one from there who was vandalizing schools. I also blocked the IP that was giving you trouble on Serena Williams. Academic Challenger 07:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I don't know if that site was useful at all, but anyone editing that fast is up to no good. Do you think you could finish reverting those edits while I look for more vandals? Academic Challenger 07:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Don't worry, I have gone back and finished the reverting. I should probably go to bed now, but I may or may not. Academic Challenger 07:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
-
favor
Since others are taking stabs at rewriting this policy, I have decided to try my own. Before I share it with a wider group, could you go over it and make such edits as you see fit? Thanks [8] Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It was just a mistake! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Me neither! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for the welcome, to be honest I was kind of hoping you would do it, because I want to ask if I could consult you with my suggestions for the pages on the Belgariad. While new I think I would be wise to consult a distinguished and established user. Lady Brise 05:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked German Wikipedia user
Hi Dreadstar, when I wrote that the anon editor was "blocked" I was unintentionally overstating the case, actually as far as I have seen it was only one IP that was blocked, and only for about 10 minutes. However, the German "Translation" page ("Übersetzung (Sprache)") has been protected against editing by unregistered users (reason given: "constant IP mischief"; this has been in effect for a couple of weeks now, I think. On 3rd September anon wrote some more of the same kind of stuff on the talk page for ("Übersetzung (Sprache)", which has apparently been ignored so far.
I should probably help more, but I`m on vacation right now and I also have some privacy issues. Send me an e-mail if you like - I do have one registered on my account. Jbhood 20:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Correction, the German "Übersetzung (Sprache)" page was only protected on 28th August, and the talk page on 30th August (the latter has been unprotected last I looked). Seems like weeks and weeks, though.... --Jbhood 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Correction correction, that page *has been semi-protected since* 28th Aug, *and remains semi-protected at this very moment. --Jbhood 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, as of today, Eurominuteman has been blocked indefinitely on the German Wikipedia for "undesirable entries", failure to observe WP:EL and guidelines for articles, and unwillingness to change. --Jbhood 20:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Two questions
- Why are you not an admin?
- I can't log in to VP, what gives?
Dreamy \*/!$! 23:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- It just sits there and doesn't do anything. I can't login. I can press the login button and nothing happens. Dreamy \*/!$! 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
So I leave the browser up, and then login? Dreamy \*/!$! 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
RFA
I have made a co-nom. It is quite short; I just didn't have much to add to what others had already stated. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- My dear Lord Dreadstar, I sincerely hope that when this is a fait accomplis, ye shall not forsake one of your most humble admirers, and will not be too busy to attend to the trivial concerns of the peasant, when your assistance is required, or your company is needed. Additionally, The page "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dreadstar" has been added to Ariel's watchlist, which will list edits to the page and its associated talk page. Ariel♥Gold 06:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- M'Lord and Mighty Defender, thank you for assuaging my fears regarding your continued availability to those humble servants of little consequence, such as Lady Ariel. I am eagerly awaiting the proper moment at which to spew forth what has become known throughout these parts as "Ariel Verbosity" in heartfelt support of your impending knighthood. However, do not fear if this event does not come to pass quickly, as with all things, due diligence is required, and although I am admittedly partial, I still feel compelled to follow your past footsteps, which will arm me with the proper knowledge necessary to make my verbosity valid. I shall be close at hand, never more than a shout away! Ariel♥Gold 06:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- So when will you be kicking the nom off/transcluding? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- M'Lord and Mighty Defender, thank you for assuaging my fears regarding your continued availability to those humble servants of little consequence, such as Lady Ariel. I am eagerly awaiting the proper moment at which to spew forth what has become known throughout these parts as "Ariel Verbosity" in heartfelt support of your impending knighthood. However, do not fear if this event does not come to pass quickly, as with all things, due diligence is required, and although I am admittedly partial, I still feel compelled to follow your past footsteps, which will arm me with the proper knowledge necessary to make my verbosity valid. I shall be close at hand, never more than a shout away! Ariel♥Gold 06:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
NOR and NPOV
People who are fundamentally opposed to our policies and want to use Wikipedia to self-publish fundamentally misunderstand the rule that is at the heart of both NOR and NPOV: editors do not express their own views. That is the essence. Whenever you have a question about an interpretation or application of the policy, just ask yourself: is the editor trying to make his or her own argument and have it included in the article? If so, it violates our policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Khalitun
I just filed on against User:Salom_Khalitun here. Feel free to comment in one of the appropriate sections, perhaps here. Having tried to resolve the conflict, you are an appropriate person to certify it, if you think the complaint is valid. (the RFC depends onhaving another person certify it, see this) Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Since it is always possible that another Admin may decide to unblock him, I think your sig. and if you are up for it comment would still be very important. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
My dear nominee!
Dear Dreadstar, how could I possibly be anything but truthful by saying what I did at your nomination? Don't thank "me" for stating your many virtues, my friend; it is us who should thank you for being a beacon of inspiration to us all. Now, if you excuse me, I must fulfill my duty as your co-nominator... and support you! :) Lots of xoxox, Phaedriel - 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
RfA
Check out your RfA, there is anothr question, and about 12 votes right now. (All are in support.) Dreamy \*/!$! 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
VP
To log in I type my Username in then my password, hit login to wikipedia, and then I get about 15 new windows saying that there has been a script error. After they go away, the Verify authorization button is ready, so I click it, then nothing happens. Whats up? Dreamy \*/!$! 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
RfA Humour (Sorry, I'm English, you don't mind if I spell it like that?)
No worries, my friend, always a pleasure. Unfortunatly, I am not related, although I am a big Science-Fiction fan generally. I used to watch Farscape when it was on. Are you sci-fi follower yourself, buddy? ScarianTalk 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe, that wouldn't actually be such a bad idea - An American Embassy on my talk page...? Wow, sounds like a plan that I will one day probably not carry out.
- Good taste in sci-fi! I'm a big Star Wars and X-Files fan myself, but Sci-Fi is practically all the same... Especially governmental conspiracies! Monty Python occurred a few years before my time and I've only seen short clips. Does American television show a lot of British TV? ScarianTalk 23:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Boink!
Guess what? The mailman's knocking at your door! :) Love, Phaedriel - 10:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Teach me bot?
Hey there, twin. I see you are a big anti-vandalism guy, so maybe you can teach me something about bots. I have never used a bot. However, a bot visited my own usertalk page and very nicely added in a sig where someone forgot. (Take a look at the Babe entry at the bottom of the page.) This would be wonderfully helpful on talkpages I've visited where half or more of the comments are unsigned. Can you teach me how to invoke the bot for a particular page? Do you have any idea why it visited my talkpage? -- LisaSmall T/C 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
New RFA question from Wikidudeman
I left a new RFA question for you. You previously stated that you would add yourself to admins open to recall, I asked the question in more detail to get your position on it since I'm holding you up to that. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
can you comment ...
... on this? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! I would seriously like it to replace "what is excluded." But there has been practically no discussion! If there is no opposition I would just make the change - except I have been rebuked for making changes to the article when I protected it. Also, I really was hoping people would edit it for style and clarity before adding it. If there was consensus against it I would withdraw it, but so far, there just has been no discussion. Would you mind if I left it to you to monitor the situation and move it to the article, or poll people about moving it, when you think it appropriate? thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Ring finger reply
Maybe.I'll have to think about it.Coolgirly88 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
O.K,Here's the picture.Go to Ring finger to see it.: )Coolgirly88 11:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Beer
It's now 18:44 UTC, & you deserve a beer, just to brace you for a possible last minute disaster. --Yksin 18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It's now 18:45 UTC, & you deserve another beer in early congratulations. --Yksin 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Now it's 19:07 & you deserve another beer just cuz. I deserve one too, but I always do. --Yksin 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Party is still going on over here. --Yksin 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Next day...
Here's for your hangover. :) -- Yksin 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
...Ho ho, time to party again. But this time because of happy news for me. --Yksin 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Timeline tracers
Hi! Nice to hear from you :) And glad that you joined ! ℒibrarian2 19:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Your RfA was successful
Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talky) 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Here's another beer & also a mop & bucket. But wait until all this beer wears off before brandishing that mop too vigorously -- it can be dangerous to drink & mop! -- Yksin 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Congrats from me as well! :) -WarthogDemon 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to say my pleasure but I must admit that real life things made me forget to vote on your rfa. (Which is weird; I thought I had.) :( Well, it would've been support anyways. :) Happy editing! -WarthogDemon 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Congrats Dreadstar! Use the tools wisely, and get to work!!! :) Jmlk17 21:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Congratulations.... and very well deserved.(olive 00:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC))
Congratulations! :)
You have waited for this moment You have longed for this occasion Jill Eisnaugle With all my heart, congratulations, dear Dreadstar! :) |
Don't forget...
to add your name to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. The stipulations are archived in your RFA so all you need to do is add your name to that list. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Congrats!
I am soooo proud of you!!! Congratulations my dear Lord Dreadstar!!
|
Ariel♥Gold 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations
I'm delighted that your RfA was a success. I enjoyed our conversations and I think you'll do well. Modernist 04:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations on passing! I think you missed me on the thank you message brigade, though :P Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. I was actually surprised to see comments stating (my paraphrase) "too many edits, doesn't show trust." And equally surprise to see those comments defended. Keep fighting for the little guy (somehow)! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, now stop mooching around and get to work. You are lucky to have a couple of cracking sponsors/mentors, but if you ever need any help don't hesitate to ask. All the best Khukri 07:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Great work on getting admin! You'll do a great job! Phgao 07:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
American English, Attitude and Accent [Just imagine]: Buddy, thanks for the thankya. But no worries on this "side of the pond" - I'm sure "y'all" make a great "custodian". Now let's go out and celbrate [sic] by voting for George Dubya Boosh.
Back to standard English now, heh. Congrat's Dread I'm incredibly happy for you and I'm sure you'll be an awe-awe-awesome admin. But please be prepared for me to constantly ask you questions :-D Hooah! Take care! ScarianTalk 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, fellow graduate, and congratulations to you, too! I'm so relieved the week is over. :) --Moonriddengirl 11:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Celebration issue
Folks. Not to spoil your celebration here, But Adminship really shouldn't be something to be thought of as a "triumph" or some sort of "victory". Becoming an admin is purely a utilitarian process. You should be glad that it's now easier to protect articles without requesting them be protected, Block obvious vandals, etc. However it's not a big deal and certainly isn't an event that should cause you to euphamistically dance around and drink champaign. Best wishes. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I fail to understand you... Putting yourself up there [RfA] leaving yourself open to the, sometimes, merciless opinion of millions of other editors can be a daunting experience and people can feel free to express it anyway they wish. It's your opinion that "adminship really shouldn't be something to be thought of as a "triumph" or some sort of "victory"..." - Everyone else here just wants to congratulate Dreadstar on what what he has acheived. Perplexing. ScarianTalk 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think people should put themselves up for editor review frequently, RFA or not. When people start thinking of Adminship as some sort of "victory" then that opens the door to thoughts of exclusivity. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's all a matter of how you look at it, I reckon. If I got a job with additional responsibilities after a really arduous interview process, I'd sure want to celebrate, & hope to have friends to celebrate with me. Even though the next day the candidate who got through that process has more work to do. But there's joy too in a task taken up willingly, no matter how utilitarian; & since Dreadstar took it up willingly, I wish him continuing joy of it, & satisfaction in doing the added work he's taken on in full view of the rest of Wikipedia with competence, responsibility, & integrity. And an occasional beer (or three). --Yksin 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Technically non-admins have more work to do. Take two individuals, one is an admin and one is not. Both dedicate their time to vandal fighting, improving pages, resolving disputes, etc. The non-admin must go through various processes to get things done such as protecting pages or blocking obvious vandals. Administrators (with the right scripts) can do it in one single click. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Depends on the style of work they want to to, I expect. A lot of users don't do anything about vandalism at all, & avoid disputes as much as they can. Admins make a commitment (& one hopes they fulfill it) to being very active about it, & to helping other users who come to them with questions & problems, not to mention dealing with users who are angry because they've been blocked or the article they're edit warring got protected in "the wrong version" or they can't understand why they aren't allowed to call some other user nasty names because "obviously their edits are stupid," or whatever. I am so glad that my talk page isn't generally full of the kind of contentious crap that admins are subjected to routinely, & every moment of it having to be very conscious of their own behavior, that they don't respond in kind to personal attacks & incivility. I am so glad that I can mainly just focus on working on articles I'm interested in, w without feeling an obligation to go take care of the speedy delete backlog, or ARV reports, or investigate the diffs in someone's AIV complaint, like admins have to do. Frankly, that's a matter of celebration for me too. Better Dreadstar & Moonriddengirl & Number 57 than me! -- but I'm glad for people like them, who are willing to take that on, & that they were regarded by the community as being capable to actually do it. --Yksin 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Technically non-admins have more work to do. Take two individuals, one is an admin and one is not. Both dedicate their time to vandal fighting, improving pages, resolving disputes, etc. The non-admin must go through various processes to get things done such as protecting pages or blocking obvious vandals. Administrators (with the right scripts) can do it in one single click. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's all a matter of how you look at it, I reckon. If I got a job with additional responsibilities after a really arduous interview process, I'd sure want to celebrate, & hope to have friends to celebrate with me. Even though the next day the candidate who got through that process has more work to do. But there's joy too in a task taken up willingly, no matter how utilitarian; & since Dreadstar took it up willingly, I wish him continuing joy of it, & satisfaction in doing the added work he's taken on in full view of the rest of Wikipedia with competence, responsibility, & integrity. And an occasional beer (or three). --Yksin 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think people should put themselves up for editor review frequently, RFA or not. When people start thinking of Adminship as some sort of "victory" then that opens the door to thoughts of exclusivity. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- It depends on how much you involve yourself. If you're an admin who isn't very involved in much of wikipedia then you won't ever be busy and your talk page will be empty. If you're a non-admin and involve yourself in a lot of projects and articles and vandal fighting then you will always be busy and will always have a filled talk page. It's not good to 'avoid disputes', it's only good not to make disputes worse. Involving yourself in disputes in an attempt to resolve them is the best thing. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Involving yourself in disputes in an attempt to resolve them is the best thing. -- Oh, I agree completely with that. Which isn't to say I'm going to get involved in every dispute I become aware of -- I have so much time in the day. As for If you're an admin who isn't very involved in much of wikipedia then you won't ever be busy and your talk page will be empty. -- I imagine there are such admins, but I doubt a user who is currently that uninvolved would have an easy time getting through RfA. --Yksin 18:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- It depends on how much you involve yourself. If you're an admin who isn't very involved in much of wikipedia then you won't ever be busy and your talk page will be empty. If you're a non-admin and involve yourself in a lot of projects and articles and vandal fighting then you will always be busy and will always have a filled talk page. It's not good to 'avoid disputes', it's only good not to make disputes worse. Involving yourself in disputes in an attempt to resolve them is the best thing. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Picking up the points brought by Wikidudeman regarding the "celebration" and "victory", I can't help but to feel alluded, because of the poem I gifted Dreadstar above; and therefore, I believe it's my duty to address this matter briefly. I'm somewhat saddened that an evident (at least for me) allegory of a happy moment where an editor feels appreciated and recognized by his peers, is taken so literally. In the last week, Dreadstar has gone through a lot; not only he has been questioned for different issues (and let it be noted that some of those who opposed him are people I highly trust and call my friends), but he has also gone through a delicate personal situation. When both one's online and offline lives seem to go bad, an ocassion like this is the best way to let an editor know he's appreciated. With my poem, I wished to allude these very specific facts. Dreadstar's victory doesn't come from "beating other editors"; but a victory of his character and personal stregth over the circumstances that he's suffered lately. Nothing more, nothing else; and I still feel every editor deserves to feel as the star of the day when the community lets them know we have faith in them. Nothing will change that. Love, Phaedriel - 18:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, Dreadstar- you just graduated from college. Be SAD!!! Now you don't get to party any more, you'll probably get married and have some snot-nosed kids, then you'll be laid off and lose your retirement and your wife will leave you. You'll have been so grouchy to your kids that they'll let you live on the street and eat cat food, then come and get power of attorney and dump you in a nursing home where a male orderly who makes $5 and hour will put salt in the bandages on your bed sores. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- hahahaaahaaaa! Luckily for Dreadstar, he's just a volunteer college graduate. --Yksin 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks !
If I haven't yet thanked you for participating in my RfA, it's only because I had to go to bed before I fell asleep at the keyboard...;) Take this temporary thank you, until I awaken refreshed and ready to continue thanking on the morrow...thank you! Dreadstar † 10:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I'm glad you did it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
congrats! B
On your RFA. Take care, Bigglovetalk 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
First block?
Was that your first block? If so congrats! You're well on your way. Phgao 08:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Let me see, do you count (03:40, 19 September 2007 Dreadstar (Talk | contribs) blocked "75.71.124.174 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite) infinite/indefinite blocks as longer than a year. ;) Phgao 08:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah I see you are blocking the ips I am sending to AIV! I only send ips as I've filtered out new users. Phgao 08:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let me see, do you count (03:40, 19 September 2007 Dreadstar (Talk | contribs) blocked "75.71.124.174 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite) infinite/indefinite blocks as longer than a year. ;) Phgao 08:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok that was a tad slow of me, I didn't twig to what you were saying at first! As since you added it to the bottom of the RfA thanks, I thought it was another one of those mass messages :D Phgao 08:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- And I'll add, it's nice when things work out. Phgao 08:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm that could have two meanings... Get some sleep! ^_^ Phgao 08:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Help format Electronic voice phenomena article's refs
Hey, I was wondering if you could help format the Electronic voice phenomena article's references. The references are formated improperly. You can use this tool to do it. Here is a brief explanation of how it's done:
- 1. Get this tool.
- 2. Depending on the type of link, pick which one it is.
- 3. I'm going to use ref #64 as an example. this link
- 4.Put the info in the tool including authors name, publication, date, etc.
- 5. This is the result. diff (ignoring the fixes).
If you have time to help, Please do. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also remember not to link to authors who don't have wikipedia pages as it shows up in a redlink. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Good step!
It is not only good that you can feel recognized by all your work done until now, but also that this step allows you to have firmer grounds in your future contributions. I am really very happy for you, enjoy the new roads to travel! JennyLen☤ 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, and some advice
Hello, you're welcome for my support in your RfA, and thanks for the comment about my user page too! :) By the way, I noticed you blocked this IP indefinitely, and you should unblock it. Just so you know, IPs are only blocked indefinitely in certain cases, such as if they're an open proxy. I suggest you unblock any IPs you may have blocked indefinitely. If necessary, see Wikipedia: Blocking IP addresses. I thought you should know. :) Acalamari 23:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cool! Thanks! Dreadstar † 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. :) Do you remember which administrator that was? I'd better inform them if they blocked an IP indefinitely. Acalamari 23:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It's okay, I was extremely cautious when I first became an administrator (still am extremely cautious!), and it does take some time to get familiar with everything. Also, I suggest looking at Wikipedia: New admin school, it's highly useful; I wish I had it, that page and its subpages didn't exist when I became an admin over two months ago! :) Acalamari 23:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is somewhat hard at first. It's was a shock when the bureaucrat changed my rights too; one minute, no extra buttons, I refresh a page, and they appear! Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it all soon enough. :) Acalamari 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Eurominuteman 3RR
Don't want to weigh in on the dispute, but you might get people to pay more attention if you reformat the report to include the diffs, not the old versions.Kww 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was thinking of making that change, but since I didn't make the initial report, thought I'd leave it as is. Perhaps I'll suggest that to the editor who made the report. Thanks for the notice! Dreadstar † 23:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Re;RfA
Hi Dreadstar, thank you for card, it was my pleasure to support your well deserved RfA. Also great to hear that your health is well now. I hope that everything goes well for you in here and in life, take care, Kudret abiTalk 04:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Re Ney
Hi Dreadstar Sorry but i didn't adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to Jean-Paul Ney'article. All controversial biographical content I gave are referenced
All documents HE added are falses...
Check my links .. Check with Wikipedia.fr admin why they suspend the french page ?.. Check if you could find any independant information or work about his NGO.
Ney is famous in France only for being the first guy condamned in France for harrasing a webmaster. Check with the webmaster of Kitetoa.com
It doesnt' seem strange to you that, I'm sure he complain and threating Wikipedia of law suitarguing that controversial biographical are defamatory .. but did nothing against the webmaster of a french website who publish a copy of the judgment against him !
Leaving this kind of hagiography on Wiki is OMHO the highway to lose the credibily of Wiki Funny to see that wiki biography look like Wiki' hagiography"