User talk:Ginkgo100

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been loved!
This user has been loved!
This user likes seeing orange boxes, and has placed one on top of her talk page. Click on it to leave a new message!
Please also sign your comments using four tildes like this: ~~~~
IF YOU HAVE A DISPUTE WITH ANOTHER USER that I have never been involved in, please start with Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
I will normally respond to you on the page where the conversation started, whether that is your talk page or mine. That way the conversation is easier to follow. If you leave me a message here, you might want to watchlist this page until you get my response. If you are responding to an archived thread, please create a new thread here.
/Archive01 February 2006 - June 2006
/Archive02 July 2006–September 2006
/Archive03 October 2006
/Archive04 November 2006
/Archive05 December 2006
/Archive06 January–February 2007
/Archive07 March-June 2007
/Archive08 July-September 2007

Contents

[edit] Hi, question

About the speedy delete criteria, why isn't this article not considered nonsense? There is no such place, it may be a gang thing...like a territory that a group made up. I don't understand the criteria, I guess. It's really not a hoax, per se, as it can be very real to the "gang" or "group" whose territory it is though. It is not a real town, so isn't that nonsense? I couldn't find another "criteria" that would match such a thing. Thanks if you can help me understand. :) Jeeny 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good question. "Patent nonsense" is a frequently misunderstood technical term on English Wikipedia. It means gibberish or an incomprehensible string of characters. I have started an essay that gives a few real examples at User:Ginkgo100/Speedy_deletions. (This essay is far from finished, by the way.) "Patent nonsense" does not refer to fiction, lies, misinformation, or hoaxes. Also, check the non-criteria for speedy deletion. Hoaxes are specifically listed as not eligible for speedy deletion. They must be deleted through either proposed deletion or, if that is contested, after a deletion discussion at WP:AFD. The reason is that there are cases when an editor believes incorrectly that an article is a hoax; Wikipedia gives other editors a chance to show the article is not a hoax. --Ginkgo100talk 01:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. What about non-notable? This system will be bogged down by taking this to AFD. I think this is like the {{db-band}} criteria. Don't you? It's not gibberish, nor is a hoax per se, like I said. With the tag there now, should I just leave the article alone, or nominate it for deletion? Which I really hate doing, because I'm lazy. :p Will it just stay there forever? Jeeny 01:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greenlight Letdown

I posted the reason on the talk page, im not trying to ignore the requests of being deleted, if you still find the artile to be worthless, I understand, and I will stop, just that every chance I tried to respond, it was deleted.

I saw the band on a list of requested articles on Wikipedia, but it could have been removed since then.

The article cites the references, and to me follows most of the Wikipedia Guidelines. I am the original author of the picture, i just might not have put that because of so many that i did. The articl like Greenlight Letdown contribue to help people find, and to read about the band and the music. —---Feversandmirrors

I just posted a comment on your talk page that should answer your questions. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk 01:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Man your fast, but yeah, I understand, thanks anyway.—-Feversandmirrors

I'm not that fast; we were typing messages to each other at the same time! --Ginkgo100talk 01:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For the informative info. on the user boxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielll (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Ginkgo100talk 17:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you blanked a good portion of my userbox page. You're no longer welcome. --Ginkgo100talk 22:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dsarokin

You removed my AIV report on Dsarokin with the comment, "rmv 1 (dispute, not throwaway spam account)". [1] Could you explain? Any recommendations for further action? Currently, ANI has been discussed as a good next step. --Ronz 20:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is not the appropriate place to report anything except simple vandalism and spamming from IPs and throwaway "vandalism-only" and "spam-only" accounts. I noticed there was discussion at the COI noticeboard, and ANI would indeed be appropriate if you are not getting anywhere there. --Ginkgo100talk 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a vandalism-only account, but definitely not a simple case. Thanks! --Ronz 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV for 207.177.4.87

Howdy -- I just wanted to ask about the removal of this user from AIV without a block. Did I report incorrectly? I didn't warn the user for the vandalism this morning, since I instead reported the user to AIV for vandalizing the same page yet again immediately after a block expired. Should I have done something differently? I'd appreciate any insight you could share. Thanks! Ashdog137 20:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops -- I see now that Caribbean instead blocked the user, and I just missed that in the interim. Sorry for the false alarm!  :) Ashdog137 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If I did remove it (I thought I had, or else I meant to), it was because it was inactive. It's a judgment call for admins; some will still block as Caribbean did. If I'm in a different mood sometimes I will. Meh. --Ginkgo100talk 20:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Papinsky

You just deleted the article Papinsky after I declined the speedy -- your comment was that it "definitely qualifies as nonsense". The definition of patent nonsense from WP:SPEEDY is "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases." Mind telling me how it meets this definition? The way I read the article, it fell under fiction or hoax, which is specifically excluded from patent nonsense. --Fabrictramp 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content," not a hoax. I base that opinion on the use of meaningless neologisms. It could be argued that it is a satire of a Wikipedia article, and was possible meant as an attack page, but regardless was obviously not meant to be taken seriously (as a hoax is) and contained no meaningful content. This is just one person's opinion; if you disagree you can get outside opinions at WP:DRV. I do agree that "patent nonsense" as a deletion reason is very overused, and I've changed a lot of speedy-tagged hoaxes to prod myself. --Ginkgo100talk 22:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it would be nice if they cleared up the phrase "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content". I see that as more like another page I recently deleted, where the "content" was "XDDXDXDDDXXXasdkas;ldfiwue". :) FWIW, I don't disagree with the need to delete that page (I was in the process of prodding it when you deleted it), I just wanted to find out why you deleted it after I declined the speedy. --Fabrictramp 22:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I like your essay at User:Ginkgo100/Speedy deletions.--Fabrictramp 22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it... although I need to get off my duff and finish it. --Ginkgo100talk 22:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Guarendi

Sorry to have stolen your thunder, but I did assemble a stub from publically available knowledge. If you have access to additional sources, the article is there. knoodelhed 20:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous! Thank you! --Ginkgo100talk 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletions

Please forgive me. When I see a virtually empty page, my initial reaction is to assume that if its author can't be bothered at least to assert notability or to put {under construction} on it, then it's a candidate for speedy deletion. Perhaps I've spent too much time lately doing NP Watch. My main concern is that apart from my contributions to Wikipedia, which hopefully will last for years even beyond my death, my other contributions in life will be forgotten. Sadly, even in a years time, I fear that nobody will be saying "Rodhullandemu - brilliant editor, and on the ball, but died alone, in poverty, and unloved". What a waste. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a short break from NP Watch might help you, as you sound very stressed. I myself was distressed to see the goodbye you placed on your user page. I hope after a short Wikibreak you will come back and continue your valuable contributions. --Ginkgo100talk 19:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The day of black sun(avatar the last airbender)

Hey. That page is nonsense, whether it was a story or not. Do you think you could actually follow the instructions in the db boxes and leave a {{holdon}} tag in future, please? Pyrope 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted that you are an admin anyway, oh dear. Pyrope 22:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, an admin who does a lot of speedy deletions. (Ironic; just the other day I was taken to task for being too quick to delete patent nonsense. Guess I must be doing something right.) I started an essay that might give you some more info on my approach at User:Ginkgo100/Speedy deletions. It's not finished yet. My outlook is that if you can make heads or tails of it, it's not "patent nonsense" which is a technical term on Wikipedia. "Gibberish" might be a better term. Of course the article is nonsense in a generic sense, but not (in my opinion) in the strict sense defined at WP:CSD. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk 03:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, you should note that any user who does not have a COI with the article in question (i.e. not the creator, etc.) can remove db tags with good reason. --Ginkgo100talk 03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anen Fikar

Hi Ginkgo100,

I hope you don't mind my stopping by, but I just had a question about your removal of the CSD template from Anen Fikar on the grounds that it's not nonesense. I strongly believe this page is a practical joke, and as such have resubmitted it under WP:PROD (my reasons for doing so are outlined on the top of the page in question). Since I'm always trying to fill in any gaps in my Wiki-knowledge, my question is whether this is the method I should have used from the start, or whether there is a more suitable CSD criteria I should have submitted it under. Thanks! --jonny-mt(t)(c) 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Practical jokes and hoaxes do not meet the definition of patent nonsense. "Patent nonsense" is a technical term used on Wikipedia for gibberish and garbage text. When the content of an article is an obvious joke, it can be tagged for speedy deletion as pure vandalism (WP:CSD#G3). When it is more subtle, it should be marked with WP:PROD or, if the tag is removed, sent to WP:AFD. I hope that clarifies things. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk 02:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It does indeed. Thank you kindly! --jonny-mt(t)(c) 03:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Admin Day

Wishing Ginkgo100 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! The Updater would like to talk to you! 12:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandal case

I apologize for reverting that case. My mouse went haywire as I about to click on <-----Older Version, I ended up clicking on "Restore". Sorry, again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrod2 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a mistake since it was done with Twinkle... no worries! --Ginkgo100talk 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi, you have removed my vandalism report because you did not consider that edit vandalism but a content dispute.[2] Basically all users with Czech Republic on their watchlist would agree the edit in question is vandalism because it is an unexplained deletion, with an edit summary "who cares" or "nonsence" or without any edit summary. This edit is always made by an IP of the same range and is always reverted by any other user who happens to be around (just to give you examples from seven different editors: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). Several IPs of this range have already been blocked for vandalism (including this particular deletion at Czech Republic). I would like to ask you to block this vandal or to explain me in more detail why all other editors consider this edit repeated vandalism and you do not. Thank you in advance. Tankred 03:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is far too complicated for WP:AIV, which is for quick responses to obvious vandalism. That's why I recommended dispute resolution in my edit summary. If it is beyond that point, you can try WP:AIV. I did give the user a level-3 warning that he(?) will be blocked for continued incivility. --Ginkgo100talk 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johannes Paludan

Hello Ginko: I am still trying to figure out how Wikipedia works. This not a complaint, or a challenge; it is just a question. When you decided to reveri the SD I had put on Johannes Paludan, your edit summary stated that the article said he was influential in Denmark. I have read that page three times now, and can't find any assertion, except that he "left his stamp" on some building, which is, literally and figuratively, what every architect, everywhere does. The author does makes a claim for notability on the talk page, but without any references. I am not taking this any further, and I have nothing invested but a little time, but it would help speed up my learning curve if you could show me where I have gone astray. Thanks for you help. Bielle 03:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The standard for claiming notability for purposes of speedy deletion is very low. It does not need to stand up to hard scrutiny or to be referenced. The reason is that speedy deletion is done very fast, often immediately, with no chance for discussion or development of the article. The reason for the A7 criterion is to prevent every garage band and website from cluttering Wikipedia with unverifiable articles. For an article on a person, organization, etc. that is merely claimed to be notable, WP:AFD is more appropriate, because it give five days for discussion and improvements to the article. In other words, with a weak and unreferenced assertion of notability, an article can certainly be deleted, but only through WP:AFD, not through speedy deletion. I hope that helps. Deletion policy is a bit convoluted and can take a little while to get the hang of. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the time you have taken to explain this. I am staying away from AFD because it seems to take so much passion, and negative passion at that, to get things deleted, that it occupies a disproportionate amount of energy to its overall effect. I don't have that much to spare. :-) I will try to be more careful about my Speedies, however; picking out the wrong ones makes extra work for admins who are already too busy. Bielle 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I tend to stay away from AfD most of the time for the same reasons. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Midnight Murder Mania. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Anthøny 21:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, thanks, but I am an administrator who was looking at the reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. I decided it does not meet criterion A7 because there was a claim to notability for the band (and I even restored the band's page). These pages may be taken to AfD but don't meet speedy deletion criteria. --Ginkgo100talk 21:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that ;) Anthøny 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem! --Ginkgo100talk 21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Coaching

Would you consent to being my admin coach? Dreamy § 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not able to take on any "coachees" right now due to real life obligations. Thanks anyway for asking! --Ginkgo100talk 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Osborne

Please see Talk:David Osborne

65.83.116.10 16:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC) aka Fred Coulter

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 20 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adenovirus serotype 14, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy review

I see you were starting to think about reviewing pregnancy articles. I got the same idea and did some work on the childbirth piece. Now I think I am quite NPOV, but have little time for silliness. In fact have not much free time at all. But I can act as a scientific commentator, as a teaching OB with thirty years experience. The Wikipedia process is quite arcane but if you want to be the editor, i can at least kick in with some comment. Some subjects are too important to be relinquished to activists. JustAnMD (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. --Ginkgo100talk 05:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Speedy deletions

If you think it had some legitimacy, I don't mind you undoing the deletion. It just read like a complete joke to me. Spellcast (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem was not whether it was deletable or not. I think it is deletable, which is why I prodded it. But it does not qualify as patent nonsense which is actually a technical term. --Ginkgo100talk 05:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll be more wary when looking over those kind of pages in the future. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome... "patent nonsense" should really be called something else because it's very confusing. --Ginkgo100talk 05:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the userpage, I took your advice and protected it. I'll also keep your essay in mind when reviewing a "patent nonsense" page :) Cheers. Spellcast (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 5 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eradication of infectious diseases, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 7 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dakota (fossil), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your right-handed userbox

I'm not very good at sorting out userboxes. I suggest that the image is placed on the right hand side. It makes more sense. Jake the Editor Man (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The silly "stick" list.

I re-deleted. if you'd checked my talkpage just above your comment you'd have seen my acknowledgement I slipped when deleting it before and selected the wrong code. Given that recreating solely in order to change a message isn't sensible I left it as was. --AlisonW (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AllisonW's new criteria for deletion was that it was patent nonsense, but it clearly doesn't meet that criteria either. So far AlisonW has reverted the decisions of two admins and is unwilling to discuss the matter beyond specifying two clearly non-applicable criteria for deletion. They have simply called the discussion 'silly,' which to me suggests, addressed none of what was said, which makes think that they should simply take a break from this and leave it to another admin. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree that it is patent nonsense. I would suggest taking it to deletion review if you feel strongly about it. --Ginkgo100talk 00:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Good Idea, I'll probably do that over the next few day. As I said before, I'm not married to the article, but I do think it is a valid article to have and that admins behaving poorly shouldn't simply get away with the behavior because they are more "loud" than others. I think what AlisonW did was rather rude and dishonest, as admins are supposed to set a good example, and unfortunately in this case, they were closed to discussion, called those who disagree silly and insisted on what they likely knew weren't valid deletion criteria. I understand though that you probably won't comment on their behavior, to avoid future conflict.-Nathan J. Yoder (talk)
I am choosing not to wheel war. I considered opening a DRV myself but decided not to go that far, considering I actually endorse deletion and think the problem is with the process. However, I will comment in a deletion review if someone else opens it. --Ginkgo100talk 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How about just a redirect to stick, which I know is a disambiguation. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary; it's an unlikely typo (heh) and nothing links to it. --Ginkgo100talk 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jinx.com

You prodded this article a while back, but I removed the prod. I have just nominated it for deletion via AfD- comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jinx.com if you are interested. J Milburn (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hip hop music

Protected since December '06, might wanna try see how it goes unprotected. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your protection, btw. Some kind of response would be nice. IPs get pretty sick of being ignored on admin talk pages while others get replied to. This one does anyhow. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

IPs can always create an account and be free from semi-protection restrictions after four days. And any user, be they anonymous, registered, or admin, can be annoyed by rudeness. (Check my contribs: I've hardly had time to be active lately, and that's the reason you were "ignored".) Still, I'll take a look at it. :P --Ginkgo100talk 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Why, do you admin on the basis of your perception of editors' tones? I certainly didn't mean to be rude, i just saw you had replied to others, and have had the experience of being ignored before. I wish I could leave without saying that the (perennial, in these cases) suggestion that a solitary IP signing up solves issues about IP editing raised by that IP is facile, disappointing, vaguely insulting and based on fundamental misconceptions about the project, but I can't. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Edit

Happy First Edit Day, Ginkgo100, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!
  • FROM YOUR FRIEND:

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Thank you! --Ginkgo100talk 00:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I'm just here doing my job. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE

Wishing Ginkgo100 a very Happy First Edit Day!

Have a fantastic day!

From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

--Nadir D Steinmetz 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your edit at Wiper (DAB)

Thanks for the MOSDAB edit. What was doing was hoping that some project member would start filling in content in the redirection page...however, going forward, we're not going to create a redirection page from a DAB link, we'll wait til we have a couple of good sources and then make a stub out of it. Thanks for catching this. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Card

My RFA →→→

[edit] Reply

Hello, Ginkgo100. You have new messages at Chetblong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] Rollback rights request

Greetings. You recently administrated an AIV for me so I figured you might be the best person to ask. I've been on Wikipedia since 2006, and fairly active since January of this year. I'm presently using Twinkle for rolling back, but then I noticed that it can tend to place a strain on WP's servers. I should mention that I was involved in an edit dispute with respect to List of Xbox 360 games but before it went too far, I sought the advice of the VG WikiProject. I am aware that WP's rollback should only be used for clear-cut cases of vandalism and proper edit summaries should be used in non-vandalism cases. Thank you for your time and consideration. xenocidic (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not edit war in the List of Xbox 360 games dispute, so I saw no reason not to grant your request. It has been done. (Took me a while to figure out how; I'd never done it before!) --Ginkgo100talk 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Glad to be your first granting! =) xenocidic (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Rollback Request

Hello. I wonder if you would look at my contributions and consider whether to grant me rollback rights. I have been using TW but it is a little slow at times. Thanks! Gillyweed (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to look at your contribs; I recognize you from many vandalism reversions to pregnancy-related pages on my watchlist. Consider it done! --Ginkgo100talk 23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Too kind! I thought that we had met before! Gillyweed (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you very much for your very strong support for my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). I hope I can continue to justify the confidence that you have placed in me. If there is any way that I can help out more, or if you have any handy tips for a freshly-hatched admin, please drop me a line. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Permission to copy one of your Userboxes

It has recently come to my attention that I should ask permission before copying a Userbox from a Userpage to use on my own Userpage. In checking my Userboxes, I found one that I must have copied from you at some time called User:Ginkgo100/Userboxes/User non-smoker. I apologize, but may I continue to use it? Thanks. Thomprod (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. They are there for you to use. Not sure who told you that you should ask for permission, as I am hosting them in my user space for the sole purpose of making them available per the German Userbox Solution. --Ginkgo100talk 01:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] can i has rullback?

Hello! I have returned for a long wikibreak and i saw the improvements on Wikipedia! Wow! I'll get straight to the point, can i request rollback? --Lolipod (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do IT Smarter

Hello I am trying to figure out why our page keeps getting deleted? It is a company but we are there in reference to the business model that we created? One of our main competitors Ingram Micro has a page and this one does not get deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanesher (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your article is written in the style of an advertisement, and can be speedily deleted under criterion #11 under "General criteria". If the article were re-written to have a neutral tone ("just the facts, ma'am") like the article Ingram Micro, it would still have to make a mention of why the company is notable enough to merit an article. --Ginkgo100talk 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Neumeister

Thanks for removing the speedy delete tag. For some editors google is the primary source of information , which unfortunately has very little info on non-english world. --STTW (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. A new article should not be tagged for notability deletion that quickly anyway. --Ginkgo100talk 02:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

Hi Ginkgo. I have a big problem, which is that I have the same IP than crackpot User:Damifb, who is a coworker of mine (we both edit Wikipedia at workplace). He's been blocked from two Wikis now, but because of him they blocked also my account in the Spanish Wikipedia. How can I be sure that no one is gonna find out that we share IP and block me in the near future in the English wiki also? I'll appreciate any advise. Thanks. --Miotroyo (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If your IP is blocked because of your co-worker, just ask the blocking admin to undo the auto-block. Use the {{unblock}} template on your user talk page. --Ginkgo100talk 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

A message from WarthogDemon.

-WarthogDemon 00:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hello Ginkgo100. How are you? Thank you for your contributions to the article Robert Oxnam. I really appreciate your contributions. And, thanks for creating Category:People with dissociative identity disorder. It is a very userful category. It will help me to do research on people with dissociative identity disorder. And, one more thing: I like your user name. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just recently finished his autobiography, A Fractured Mind. --Ginkgo100talk 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Having just written one for the Tao Te Ching how do I set up this userbox thing? Hope you dont mind but you presumably know? If you visit my Userbox subpage you will see I am having trouble finding how to activate a name for each box. Don't seem to be able to find Wiki instructions, on the matter to show how !Jagra (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks From me

Thanks for your assistance. Lots42 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

This edit summary does not assume good faith on the part of User:Lots42. In fact, Lots42 is correct in this case, as all information in Wikipedia articles must by verifiable -- which means "fanon speculation" is not appropriate. Please review this content policy, and remain civil in your edit summaries. Thank you. --Ginkgo100talk 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Lots42 is a participant in a group cyber-bullying which has been ongoing since 2003. There is no assumption on my part involved -- I know with certainty that regardless of the text he is not acting in good faith, but is extending the bullying from LiveJournal to Wikipedia.
I agree that the assumption of good faith in an edit is the normal response to be expected, but this case is different -- this is stalking on his part. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot comment on what may have happened on some other site, but in this interaction on Wikipedia, there is no sign of bullying. If it is bullying, it is probably preferable to use a neutral edit summary, then follow the steps in the dispute resolution process. --Ginkgo100talk 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Ablative brain surgery

Updated DYK query On 6 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ablative brain surgery, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 10:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Ginkgo, I would like to request The Rollback Power. Up to now, I've resisted any movement towards becoming an admin, but I think this would a helpful tool for me. (I tend to avoid any kind of leadership roles; I guess it's just my personality. There's a reason for the cliche, "Power corrupts.") My editing practices are quite simple: I pick a few pet articles and focus on them. I occassionally go through Recent Changes, when I'm bored and have a couple of minutes to kill. I've been an editor for over a year, since Feb. 07, and have over 2300 edits. Thanks for your consideration. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9 Years

Everybody wish Gingko100 a happy anniversary... it's been 9 years!!! Love ya, Balloonman (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Duh, Wikipedia wasn't around nine years ago. How could I have been an editor that long? --Ginkgo100talk 19:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thankyou

For giving me so much help with the Userboxes. I really appreciate it. Gabriel —Preceding comment was added at 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes subpage vandalized?

You might want to look at User:Ginkgo100/Userboxes/; I'm not sure what's OK and what's vandalized. --Joe Sewell (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure what User:Gabrielll is doing, but he(?) has done it before. --Ginkgo100talk 16:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)