User talk:Messedrocker/Archive04
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] RE:The Ultimate Encyclopedia
If you didn't see I have moved The Ultimate Encyclopedia to Wetpaint. - Patricknoddy 4:21pm, January 21, 2007
- I've moved it now to editthis.info. - Patricknoddy 2:51pm, January 22, 2007
- Well, because it look more like Wikipedia. - Patricknoddy 5:24pm, January 22, 2007
[edit] Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 4 | 22 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
| Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag | WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness" |
| News and notes: Talk page template, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hey!, some more news on the talk page etc.. REALLY important!.
Well, I've added a couple posts to talk:adolescent sexuality and Illuminatos new spin-offs because of his concerns over the article length. (See the talk page) Other than that... he has BLANKED HIS ENTIRE talk page. With NO explaanation whatsoever.... almost as soon as I posted a reply to him.
I was wondering if i'd be able to take this up with some wiki-thority over the possibility of censorship?, i've posted a complaint on his talk page and i REALLY do not know if he'll just go ahead and delete it.
Help is appreciated...
Nateland 20:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Believe me.. i've tried,
Believe me.. i've tried.
And while I can keep my cool, Illuminato has continuosly used every dirty tactic he can think of in my opinion to try and win this 'battle'.
He has been almost IMPOSSIBLE to work with the WHOLE WAY THROUGH. Using my age against me, refusing (Or delaying) to produce sources for his many 'experts'. his constant reverts even in the eye of scrutiny by more people than me. And multiple other things which are too many to name.
YES i shouldn't go around shouting like that, but i'm not asking for his full undulating cooperation, i'm simply asking him to stand down a bit, provide some backup for his 'evidence', not be so obssesive with reverting everything he considers 'bad', and that he not get another user to try and ban me if I report him for a 3RR violation after he has broken it AFTER many many proposal attempts and tries at discussion which have been next to fruitless.
I am fed up with the kid, (Kid as in his lack of acting honestly, civilly *he has done this many times under carefully fabricated umbrellas which are difficult to oppose without seeming 'unicivil' and 'pov'd my myself. And his overall negative number with respect to my opinions)
Good faith on his part towards me and the other opponents, seems unlikely, he HAS good faith in his views and the hope he can complete hwatever agenda for whatever cause he persues (I have my own agenda, I'm just trying to keep it watered down to allow more improvement THEN I'l negotiate including my POVS in the article or a article specially for pov's as I've asked be done so)
If I could, I would EXTRACT EVERY LAST BIT OF HIM FROM WIKIPEDIA AND CHUCK IT OUT INTO A DEADLY SPACE OF NOTHINGNESS!.
He's been no help whatsoever to the article, and his proposals for additions have ALWAYS included heavy POV lacing and thus transformed into unneeded spin-offs.
This my POV, and wikipedia editors ARE not expected to have a NPOV. But the articles are....
And that's final.
-Sweeping generalizations are easy to obtain and seem more pleasing than the truth at times. But cold hard evidence, and fact far outweight those sweeps and normally destroy them or minimize them unless in the face of enourmous opposition to the truth.
THAT is the problem, opposition. It abounds aplenty...
My own quote, thought up over psuedo-meditative thinking, part of my own in depth remnescencing over what I believe and what others believe to be true...
Nateland 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Thanks for the message! Best, Johntex\talk 02:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Remaining Editorial issues.
Well, mainly if the article is too POV'D. If it gives equal sunlight to all POVS. And whether it should be split into TWO articles.
One for the MAIN article on adolescence with GLOBALLY PERTAINING information. Which would essentially be the existing one with a definition of adolescent sexuality, different possible orientations, a little bit about contraception. Etc.
and another one for POV's on adolescent sexuality. With a brief explanation on the global controvesy over this topic and sections for each individual country, with major POV'S in each sectino which pertain to that particular country etc.
My idea is that this would GREATLY cut down on the ARGUMENTS and EDIT WARS. And although a few people oppose this, Me and others think it's a good idea.
Especially with cut&pasted pov's being taken out of
adolescent sexuality and put into.
sex education adolescence teen pregnancy and a few others. Mainly by the User:Illuminato. Anyways, this is my proposition. Once the controversy over AS article is created, i'll leave it alone. But with the current off-shoots made again by, user:Illuminato citing that the article is long enough to warrant spin-offs due to extreme length.
I think that putting the POV'S, in another article would be a GREAT idea!! :-) Hell, i just want'a finish up this argument, repair this article to an acceptable state. And VOILA!, I can put my energies into other things on wikipedia instead of a senseless edit war over a topic such as THIS!. Nateland 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Followup on the bot
Not at all.
I started work on the bot ("wmbot," which stands for "where-messedrocker-bot") a few days ago and I feel that I am making good progress. I plan to make some modifications to your idea. First, I am using the database dumps to go through every single article rather than using Special:Random. This will put less stress on the servers and will make the bot run faster. Second, for the initial implementation of wmbot, I will leave the copyright violation detection mechanism unchanged from Wherebot. That being said, I definitely want to implement some or all of your ideas for copyvio detection once the first version is done.
wmbot also has no restrictions on how many search queries it can run within a given period of time. The downside is that if yahoo! makes certain changes to how it displays results, the bot will need to be modified.
Sorry once again that my lack of time prohibits be from progressing as rapidly as I would like. But I will get it done! -- Where 20:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is my eventual plan, yes. But with 1.5 million articles to check, checking every sentence may prove impractical. Maybe wmbot should check the beginning of each paragraph? -- Where 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 5 | 29 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Ceci n'est pas un escroc."
Ha! I love it! --Galaxiaad 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redirects for deletion
Something strange might be happening. A new user is tagging a lot of redirects which you created as R3. I'm not sure about the purpose of these redirects, but just wanted to give you a head's up. --Fang Aili talk 17:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
I know about the Counter-Vandalism Unit. One of my userboxes placed me in the member category. But thank you for telling me anyway!
HyperSonicBoom 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. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
HyperSonicBoom 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This is a automated to all bot operators
Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Happy birthday!
 |
The Wikipedia Birthday Committee wishes you a very happy birthday! Enjoy your special day. |
We wish you a day filled with your favorite things - with sunshine and laughter and lots of good cheer. Regards PeaceNT 02:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- ¡Feliz cumpleaños! Happy Birthday! Joyeux anniversaire! Parabéns pra você! --Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 |
Just a happy Birthday message to you, Messedrocker/Archive04, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
Thanks for the birthday wishes, and happy birthday to you, too! J. Finkelstein 06:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Happy birthday buddy!!!! Mike (T C) 
20:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the wishes. A belated happy birthday to you! - Aksi_great (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hey
Hello i was wondering if there can be such thing or a rule where admins can make, meaning on a certain article there is only a certain number of reverts has this ever come about? just wondering. Nareklm 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but i feel like Azerbaijani didn't deserve it he presented 8 sources and the user removed it, although it goes under the category of edit warring, he was following every other rule please review this, i feel bad when users get blocked for such and such rules since your the judge and we are the people we get to challenge it. The users we're removing 8 sources please see the diffs not there edit summaries that will trick you, [1], this just shows how edit warring starts instead of removing one link the users removes all of the references im just trying to sort out the feuds and show the right things from wrong, best regards. Nareklm 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit War
- I've been trying to find some documentation as to what it takes to get out of an edit war.
- Apparently, I was the straw that broke the camel's back on Mario Party 8.I presented my case on the talk page. I had no idea the topic was as heated as it was, and I admit that I was in the wrong. I stand by my decision, that had verifiable data, and the page was wrong and needed an edit. I just made more-obvious, wrong change. McKay 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your comment on ANI
Thanks for commenting in the ANI thread on Brian Peppers. I'll let the discussion play out over there, but just as a point of information, I think you meant that my comments were "conclusory" or "premature" rather than "conclusive." "Conclusive" would mean that the statement being discussed is clearly right, and I don't think that's what you had in mind to say (although I wish it were :) ). Signed, your friendly Newyorkbrad 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AFD problem
I tried to list the other articles on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames, Could you add them on? They are listed in the debate already. I tried, and the tags didn't work. The AFD is on the other articles already (and links to the AFD). RobJ1981 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as you contribute well to this Rfc about mini game lists, why don't you vote on the AfD? Henchman 2000 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Article Referencing Drive
Wikipedia:Article Referencing Drive is listed as inactive. I though it was a very good collaboration project but no one was participating in it. Do you want to restart it? Then we can show with edit versions how much it has improved. And change the duration to 1 month. Eh, or maybe just remove from your user page. --Parker007 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Automated message to bot owners
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:
Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.
Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 04:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
How are you doing?. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 11:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Barnstar
Thanks a lot, I appreciate your barnstar. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sequels are never as good as the original
As a frequent reader of, but infrequent contributor to, the most contentious debates on Wikipedia, I have to say your creation of "Messedrocker solution II" made me laugh. Sorry to see it did not catch on sir (not that I really have any opinion on the matter).
I had actually hoped to do the same thing with the Brian Peppers controversy... "IronGargoyle solution" or whatnot, but was sad to see that the debate was closed prematurely. I think there might have been more inclination to keep if Brian Pepper's photograph had been removed from the article. It makes sense with the strictest application of the fair use rules, and the removal of the photo eliminates many of the controvercial personal-attack elements. Best, IronGargoyle 21:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cliff
 |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| This is for your words of support on his talk page regarding what happened to him - the definition of what this barnstar means, "being nice without being asked". Thanks. Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Alexandru Nicolschi
Hello. Could you please take a second look at the protection status of this page, as a)users appear to be coming to a compromise, and b)we've found lots of new and useful information that will help clear up earlier disputes. Biruitorul 05:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] thnks
for your comment at indonesia language - the indonesia project needs all the help it can get - and every small bit counts, ta SatuSuro 23:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Theobromine
Hey there. I've reviewed Theobromine and placed it on hold for reasons I noted on its Talk page. I hope you don't mind it being reviewed by a fellow member of WP:PHARM :) By the way, do you think I should amend the project page to show it's been reviewed and is now on hold pending further work? Best, Fvasconcellos 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I'll be waiting :) Fvasconcellos 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] unprotection request
It's been several weeks now since [2] was protected. Could you unprotect it? --AdilBaguirov 06:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] user Azerbaijani's disruptions and reverts
also, see the last two edits of this page [3] User Azerbaijani has been removing verifiable and well-sourced information from the pages that don't suit his POV. I am tired of disruptive actions of User:Azerbaijani on the Atabeg page as well. I have warned him that will report him if he persists making his weird and unsubstantiated changes. If you look at the history of changes [4], you will see how many times did user Azerbaijani change the quote (yes, a quote!) from the Encyclopedia of World History. The quote states: "Shams al-Din Eldiguz (1137–1175), the Great Atabeg of the Seljuk sultan of Baghdad, established an independent dynastic state in Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran that lasted until 1225" (The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001. http://www.bartleby.com/67/302.html). User Azerbaijani for the first several weeks kept on modifying the quote "in Azerbaijan" with "in what is today Azerbaijan". Now, after perhaps realizing he cannot go on with such reverts and misquotation, he inserted "According to Amin Maalouf" to preceed the quote. The weird thing is that this Amin Maalouf has nothing to do with the quote, and in fact, is not even a historian, but some fiction writer. The quote is clearly cited and verifiable. User Azerbaijani is making similar disruptions on other pages too. --AdilBaguirov 06:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] YTMND
Do you think it is time for another peer review to get it back to Good Article status?
I thought maybe you should make screenshot of main page the same width as the infobox?--Empire Earth 23:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
like this one:
| Wikipedia | |
|---|---|
 |
|
 |
|
| URL | http://www.wikipedia.org/ |
| Commercial? | No |
| Type of site | Internet encyclopedia project |
| Registration | Optional |
| Owner | Wikimedia Foundation |
| Created by | Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger |
[edit] Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me
[edit] Was this fair?
User talk:RobJ1981#Bowsy and Henchman: an admin deleted my sockpuppet case against them, claiming it was "harassment". I simply think this is an abuse of power. I think a case needs to be made about them, they abuse AFD and RFC debates. It appears to be meatpuppetry to me. Also: I've created this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Henchman 2000 but it doesn't seem to be even doing anything. RobJ1981 06:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was fair. It was harassment and you have been told by 3 admins that we are not meatpuppets and have been given reliable evidence by Isotope 23. A case does not need to be made about us, we do not abuse AfDs and RfCs, we contribute to them, like all Wikipedians have the right to do. Stop harassing us or you will find yourself in a heap of trouble. Henchman 2000 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Soy protein article
As per our discussion, a new user has removed the Biological value table you inserted into the soy protein article stating that the "Table is dubious and contains unreliable, outdated references". The user is Prolancet, and even more confusing, is that the user has filed vandalism request agains me for reverting his blanking. [5]. Your input is appreciated. Thanks. Yankees76 18:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not blank. I removed unreliable refernces and replaced them with better and more current references. I appreciate it if you could remove the oudated information as soon as possible. I think this would be noteworthy to contact Daniel Brandt about this incident. We know what happened with Essjay recently. With your permission I would like to contact Daniel about unreliable references added by Messedrocker who is an administrator. This could make headline news like Essjay. --Prolancet 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- With your permission I want to contact weblogs, Daniel, and the media about an administrator adding unreliable references to please Yankees76. --Prolancet 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think you'll have a difficult time proving the source is unreliable. It's a textbook [6] called Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology, edited by two PHD's, with numerous contributors from the scientific community; and it is being used as source in a article about soy protein. The information is verifiable and reliable, it's on topic and is referenced properly. A casual glance at Prolancet's 'sources' includes an article/advertisement by Dorian Yates, a former pro-bodybuilder on a supplement company website, and in that article, he's sourcing a self-published East German text that no one seems to be able to find. Let's see, an actual scan of the pages from a published textbook, or an ad from a supplement company quoting an obscure communist book? What's more reliable? 00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I am no expert; I don't even have a high school diploma. I'm just a guy who sleuths the Internet for information, adds it to Wikipedia, and cites it. I do feel a bit dirty about citing a work from the 40s, but its authors were great authorities over the subject than some of the modern sources available. I also feel a bit dirty about citing of all interested parties the Egg Council. However, since then, I have gotten a subscription to a database of books which will allow me to do further research on the matter than before. I'll see what I can do about it. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Apparently the textbook excerpt is from the 70s, not the 40s, and while it's a bit old, it's cited from things ranging from Encyclopaedia Britannica to a patent. Though I am still concerned about citing the Egg Council for information, it's not like this is a company trying to sell a product. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 14:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please sign my autograph page
Please sign my autograph page. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Theobromine
Hi there, Messedrocker. I don't know if you're aware but the 7-day "on hold" period for theobromine's GAC ends today. Although you and Alison tackled nearly all the issues I raised on the GA review, I still think this article could use some expansion before it is listed as a GA. Sorry, but right now I'm failing the article; this way you can work on it, no pressure, and resubmit it on the Good article candidates page when you feel it's ready. If you'd like me to have a look before you resubmit, just leave me a message, and if you're pressed for time, don't worry: There is no deadline! :) Best, Fvasconcellos 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Age categories
Hi. I was wondering, rather than just inform people couldn't the bot migrate the categories itself? e.g. Born in 1967 to Born in the 1960s. --kingboyk 13:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:RFCU and clerks
Greetings! A recent change has been made in the clerking system at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are no longer any obstacles to editors who wish to help out in this areas, as the standby list has now been deprecated. You were listed as a volunteer on the standby list before it was deprecated. If you are still interested in helping out in this area, please:
- Consider adding yourself to the list of active clerks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks.
- In helping, please make sure you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures as it is very important to the process there to follow these instructions for smooth operation.
- Please remember "Trust between the clerks and the checkusers is essential. Clerks who persistently make problematic comments on requests or otherwise violate decorum may be asked by the checkusers to cease contributing here."
- Add Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard to your watchlist to stay up to do date on the latest communications happening regarding this role.
- "Be aware that this position is rather dull and carries no particular prestige; status-seeking will not be looked upon kindly."
I am not involved with the checkuser system. I am acting only to inform you of this change. Thank you. --Durin 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of a userbox category
I haven't been able to find the discussion page for the proposed deletion. The article links to Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Wikipedians_born_in_.28YEAR.29 but I don't see it there. Why is this category being considered for deletion? Since we have decade categories, why not make subsections under the decades for individual years? Banaticus 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Laigh Milton Viaduct
Hello,
I was working on my Laigh Milton Viaduct and you reverted it. Is their a problem? I was just about to add and edit details from the RCAHMS. A lot of photographs have been removed as well.
Rosser 10:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting it back - I was about to lose the will to live :-)
Rosser 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Message on behalf of User:James.Spudeman
I've just spoken to him on the phone and he's informed me that his account has been re-infiltrated again by whoever keeps using his laptop, most likely his son. He's been away for 3 days on a trip, so it's unlikely any of the things that were added were from him directly, and he wanted to explain also that he's looked at his page and will change it when he gets back.
He also informed me that his previous account, User:J.Spudeman was similarly infiltrated and the password and email changed so he was unable to recover it. Regardless, i'll see him on saturday morning and speak to him then, but i just wanted to give you the "heads up". Cheers, 
J O R D A N [talk ] 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Essjay controversy
I request unprotection of this article. The edit war was not sufficient to locking down the article. This is not the type of article where 100% consensus is likely to emerge 100% of the time. Some reverts are going to happen. To my knowledge, no one even broke WP:3RR. As a matter of fact, there was already discussion happening on the talk page even in parallel with the revers. Please consider unprotecting the article. Thanks, Johntex\talk 07:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Please unprotect this article. I know you protected it in good faith. I think it can be opened back up to semi-protection now. Thanks. Gwen Gale 14:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that I felt I had to "oppose" and that things did not go better. We haven't really interacted much but I do get the feeling that you are a good person and a good admin. I hope you will try again in the not-to-distant future. Good luck, Johntex\talk 18:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- That is very kind of you. I was somewhat worried that I was more like the cloud in your day as opposed to the ray of sunshine. I know I've already said this, but I really feel like I can't say it enough: Hang in there - you are doing really good work. It's just that being a 'crat is a pretty big deal. You got unlucky with some bad timing. That's all. Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance. Johntex\talk 18:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- RfA is a strange little process to be sure. On the one hand, it seems odd to vote on "strangers". After all, if you don't know someone, then how can you know how they will do? On the other hand, one can't really be objective if you do know someone. You are too likely to be too blinded by that one time that they helped you, or by that one time that they yelled at you.
- I could go into plenty more observations about how strange it is. If I could come up with some idea for a better process I would suggest it, but nothing better has ever come to my mind.
- I hope you enjoy the early start to the weekend. If you need some things to keep you busy, I have plenty of articles that I have writen that need some copyeditting if you are into that sort of thing. :-) What kind of articles do you like to work on? Johntex\talk 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfB
Also, can you explain what you mean by "insufficient standing with your fellow editors"? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, there's a notion that bureaucrats ought to be users who are widely known and admired. Kinda like Essjay :) You're a fine sysop. Don't worry about it. That was a poor choice of words. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Page Protection for Attachment disorder
It seems that the problems have been created by User:FCYTravis. Before he entered the picture, there were no problems. His approach to the disagreement on content is to merely blank large sections of the article, despite other editors willing to build consensus by collaborating to improve the article. He has a history of this on this subject (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FCYTravis ) for example. DPetersontalk 20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RFA consensus
Now that your RFB is over, I wanted to explain why I had a problem with your description of how RFAs are closed. Current practice, demonstrated by both statistics and the comments of active Bcrats, is that everything with greater than 75% support passes except possibly if there is a good reason to do otherwise. In the last year, only 2 RFAs were failed while having greater than 75% support at the time of closing. (And both candidates passed subsequent RFAs, so it probably made little difference in the long run). Similarly, in the last year only 3 RFAs have passed while have less than 75% support (and every time it stirred considerable controversy). One of these, Carnildo, was passed with a wholly unprecedented 61% support. The concept of Bureaucrat discretion as being decisions made when there is 75-80% support, is consistent with past discussion, but doesn't really reflect current practice. The outcome of ~99% of RFAs can be understood as a simple up/down vote with a 75% cutoff, with rare exceptions occuring in both directions (but most dramaticly by passing those with lower totals). Dragons flight 00:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Lisa Nowak
"Bad idea" you say? I was somewhat surprised at noticing the deletion of this userbox, especially since it had undergone some previous scrutiny before being okayed. I suppose if I had a slightly more specific explanation regarding your decision, the situation would be less of a surprise.
I will keep the userbox in mothballs for the time being, but if I am not made aware of any massive objections, I will consider remaking it, perhaps in an altered fashion. I made the box with the intention of jest, nothing further.
Regards, Doublediapason 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, very well. I can see that this is a topic that's too hot to touch for the forseeable future. Though this is a battle that I believe I could win (not really, but still...) I won't take it up.
Call me Jameson, and I'll get my flyswatter Doublediapason 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
| WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arabella Kennedy
Regarding your posting on my user talk page, yes, if an article is substantially different, then DRV is not appropriate. However, in this case, the issue was notability - of a stillborn child. Although the latest version of the article was twice as long as the deleted version (but still a stub), there were no (new or otherwise) claims of notability. So the rationale behind the original deletion still held, in my opinion.
Second, while you're correct that non-admins can close an AfD, the policy is that only admins should close AfDs where the result is a "delete", as was the case here.
Third, and perhaps most important, although I didn't mention it in my posting at Talk:1ne, is that there was substantial discussion of this matter at Talk:Arabella Kennedy, but 1NE didn't post there to make an argument about increased length, demonstrated notability, or anything else. Rather, he/she simply asserted (in his/her edit summary) that consensus for deletion had not occurred, and that reestablishing the article was therefore okay. If there had been a discussion on the talk page, and there seemed to be some reasonable arguments for keeping the (expanded) article, I would have either acquiesced or taken the article to AfD (depending on how good I thought the arguments were). But that wasn't the case. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contest
I don't know... I just didn't want to work with that article for some strange reason. Social Studiously 10:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad to judge. Will the judging/analysis be on-wiki or elsewhere? +sj + 02:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Creating an account
What is Wikipedia like, and what are the advantages to creating an account? I've used a wiki before - in fact, I own one, which is why I know some of the markup stuff, like bolding words and making templates. I'm intrigued by this place! 75.86.234.49 03:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- When I become a user, how long is it until I am able to create new articles and do things like that? 75.86.234.49 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you :)
I'm not really back. Call me more .... no longer spiteful and hateful. I just will edit from time to time for things that are necessary, but I won't be a major contributer. I like sleeping and seeing people too much now! :) Páll (Die pienk olifant) 03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Royal Brunei is being nominated for GA
Social Studiously My Editor Review! - 11:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for clarification
I would like to inquire what are your justifications for blocking User:On Wheezier Plot. He has not received any warnings this year at all, and none of his recent edits appear to have been disruptive. Am I missing something out? CounterFX 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The evidence you gave me dates back to July 2006 at latest. Do you realise that, on WP:AIV, the majority of administrators dismiss any reports of vandalism which are older than 24 hours? In the absence of more recent activity, it appears that your block was punitive, not preventive, in is thus in violation of the blocking policy. I am thereby asking you to kindly reconsider your decision. CounterFX 21:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for consenting. Cheers. CounterFX 23:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleting my comments
Why did you delete my comments here? SqueakBox 18:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Done it already thanx. You should get the bot who sends you the Signpost to close their <small> code, SqueakBox 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trading Spaces Program …using wikEd
Hello, Messedrocker, and thank you for signing up to participate in the trading spaces program. As you requested to have your user page renovated by another user, Andrew Hampe will be renovating your userpage. Please contact Andrew Hampe on their talk page about the renovating. The renovating will be listed at Trading Spaces: Undergoing Renovation, please feel free to update the status as it changes. Enjoy! --~~~~
P.S. I will be doing it at my Workshop. --Andrew Hampe Talk 16:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)
♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Danny, etc.
I have explained myself to the Wikipedia community, and the fine people of Wikipedia Review can read my comments on the subject as well as any Wikipedian. I have placed my reply to AmiDaniel's query in full view on my user talk page, rather than replying just on his, so that anyone who wishes to ask the same question may be spared the trouble. I have no interest in trying to please people who, by their unwillingness to discover this readily available information, have announced their own determination that they will not under any circumstances be pleased. Thanks for the 'kudos'. — Dan | talk 06:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:MFD/RFC/NAME
Good thinking, I think your solution is the best one possible ^_^ I didn't actually get in the mfd, butI was hoping RFC/NAME would pull through, as it really is pretty entertaining. Milto LOL pia 01:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] La Mon restaurant bombing
Please see my comments here, protecting at the page at this stage serves no purpose. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 02:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. As a further note, User:Tyrenius has just blocked User:W. Frank indefinitely as a sockpuppet anyway, and the sockpuppeter for two weeks. One Night In Hackney303 02:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your 'New Look' Userpage
Hello Messedrocker, I saw your request for an overhauled userpage. Have a look at it. Please message me with your thoughts. Thanks Harrison-HB4026 12:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, did you like it? Could you please tell me if you did because it wasn't easy to do. Harrison-HB4026 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. I was just wondering what you thought of it. ThanksHarrison-HB4026 23:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
