User talk:Fvasconcellos/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit count · edit summary usage · blocks · deletions · moves · protections

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

← Archive 11 |

Archive 12

| Archive 13 →

Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)

Tapadh Leibh (Thank You)...

Pedido

Minha vez de fazer um pedido! Eu já tentei usurpar o atual Slade, mas os burocratas não permitiram... Como se passou mais de um ano desde a minha última tentativa, você poderia verificar se eu tenho alguma chance de sucesso agora? (a en: é a única wiki em que eu não posso usar o meu username original) Slade (The Joker) 13:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Pelo jeito terei que esperar pelo m:SUL... Mas obrigado por tentar! Outra coisa: bloqueei o Usuário:Jayjg na pt:; ele provavelmente é o mesmo vândalo que tanto incomodou você e as outras usuárias... Seria mais uma tentativa de impersonate? Slade (The Joker) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Avise sua amiga, e o vândalo agora está em UsurpadaZZZ. Sabe o que isto está me lembrando? Spider-Man! O Green Goblin está atacando todas as pessoas próximas do Pete! Take care dawg! —Slade (The Joker) 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A situação complicou... Pelo menos a Patrícia está nos ajudando, tanto que já renomeei todos os que ela listou, além de re-renomear a Kyoko. Acho que agora é um caso de CheckUser, mas onde fazemos o pedido? Aqui ou lá na pt:? Também reverti sua discussão e peço que preste atenção na nossa pt:Special:Ipblocklist, já achei o Cometstyles por lá... (só olhando por cima) Slade (The Joker) 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ATU: Cometstyles foi renomeado! Slade (The Joker) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ATU²: melhor você criar a conta para a Kyoko, o vândalo a recriou. Usa MSN Messenger? Assim posso renomeá-la quando você estiver online. Slade (The Joker) 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Co2(CO)8 image

Hey thanks for the note about the copyright thing on Co2(CO)8. but I updated several figures and think that we are okay. If not, I have the original. (PS I think a lot of us watch each others edits, etc which is helpful).--Smokefoot (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman

Thank you kindly for semi-proting the Harriet Tubman article. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoforest GA review

Hi, could you explain this edit to Talk:Pseudoforest in more detail, preferably on the same talk page? It is my understanding that this set of edits constitutes a pass for the Good Article review it was undergoing, but now you seem to be nullifying that and saying that there was no result from the review. Can you explain why? Additionally, if there was no result, can you explain why you left the GA rating in the math project header intact? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Following up to this reply:) So is it a Good Article or not? I don't consider Adam Cuerden's actions to be an actual review: he stated (very vaguely) some concerns with the article as nominated; several other editors did the same thing, which I consider part of the normal process of polishing an article that's been nominated with GA. Cuerden then placed a one-week hold on the GA nomination to provide time for his concerns to be addressed, but afterwards he ceased responding, neither removing his hold after a week nor answering my request that my hold be removed. The only thing I see that I would consider an actual review (e.g., the only one that followed step 3 of the GA review procedure, pasting in the GAReview template) is the pass by ScienceApologist. Your edit appears to remove the article's Good Article status, leaving it as only having some (nonexistent) "Math Project Good Article" quality status (the math project does review quality but not at the GA level) and effectively nullifying the whole Good Article nomination for procedural rather than quality reasons. Was this your intent? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. My understanding now is that your edit was only to clarify the review history of the article and didn't actually change its GA status. That seems completely unobjectionable. Thanks for explaining. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

e-mail

I've sent you an e-mail as you requested. I hope everything is going well for you. --Kyoko 16:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of that, and I confirm that I do want my own account there (trying to be cryptic yet understandable) and request usurpation. --Kyoko 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've responded. :) Acalamari 17:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. :) Acalamari 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! --Agüeybaná (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Thanks FV. You do know that you are among those "lots of people" I was referring to? <grin>--DO11.10 (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what we're here for :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For the birthday congratulations. :) Don't worry, I'll try (or, make sure, rather) to have a good birthday. :) Acalamari 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused

Hello, I'm confused. Were you going to create an account for me over there, or am I supposed to do that myself? Thanks for your help. Love, Kyoko 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please tell me when everything is sorted out over there? E-mail or talk page, doesn't matter. Thanks! --Kyoko 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lacosamide

Thanks for filling in the details on lacosamide! I didn't have the info when I created the article, but I'm glad you provided it quickly. It shows the beauty and the power of Wikipedia! --Animated Cascade ^talk 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! That's all I can say for your bold move to rename E. coli to its appropriate title: Escherichia coli. I found the previous title to be unprofessional and embarrassing! Kindest regards, AlphaEta 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation

I need you to confirm that you really left this message for me. --Christian 00:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I confirm that I left the above message at da:wikipedia as 201.6.243.32 3. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted things

I've also left my personal infos on the userpage of my main user. Is it also visible and restoreable? HelpMe114 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi there admin guru! I came across this while trolling through Copyright Violations. I have come across a number of these situations. Seems pretty obvious to me, but I would like your opinion. What would you do here? --DO11.10 (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I wasn't necessarily suggesting that it should be deleted, but there isn't a way to verify PD-old (no source and I have no idea who this is). I just wondered if there wasn't some rule about what to do with images that clearly have incorrect copyright tags that I had missed somewhere. I don't think there is. Hmm, maybe policy drafting is in my future after all. Thanks!--DO11.10 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

MSN

Eu tentei te adicionar, mas até agora você nunca ficou online... — me adicione, assim eu aceito e podemos discutir o conteúdo do email. Abraço, Slade (The Joker) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Hi there, your message isn't exactly veni, vidi, vici, but anyway, thanks for all your help! --Kyoko 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Great!

Your superb diagrams are, as ever, very welcome. Tim Vickers (talk)

Tadalafil changes

Hi Fvasconcellos, I had just asked User:Jfdwolff to look into those changes when you stepped in and reverted them. Thanks! Apart from being a copyright violation, isn't there a guideline or something about not dispensing medical advice? The information that was added would fall into that, I would think. --Kyoko 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought so. Thanks for the links. --Kyoko 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clindamycin

Just for info, I'm going to GA review this, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I will do a proper read through over the next couple of days, but a couple of things I picked up

some items are linked more than once, contra MoS - I fixed a couple, but havent checked through whole doc
The refs need to be in a reasonably consistent style - in particular, the last two refs have a different retrieval date style which stick out like a sore thumb. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor tweaks, can't see anything else, so done formal GA and passed it. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not as quick as this one! Jimfbleak (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fill me in?

That's a big bold headline; fill me in? I can't tell if you're joking... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

good gosh, I shouldn't be awake this early (big tree fell down, broke my fence, and woke me up); you scared me :-) I'm going back to bed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Bupropion: Beg to help

Fvasconcellos, may I beg you to get over your scruples and fix the messed up summary on the main page. I guess all the other admins are asleep or celebrating. My desperate messages and stupid guerilla actions still brought no response. Please, I beg you... Paul gene (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, never mind. The guerilla actions helped. Happy holidays! Paul gene (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Doctor's mess.jpg

Yes I think it was fun, only trouble was I was in bed with flu trying to sleep just next to the party, and the next day when I wanted to go watch the Simpsons I found the mess the party had left... some people are just terrible. Happy Xmas and 2008 to you! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.

But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.

I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.

But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.

Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all.

Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.

I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.

Larry Pieniazek

NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives