User talk:Narsil/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 2006
2 2007

[edit] 2006

[edit] "Fire drill" as abbreviation for "Chinese fire drill"

Could you provide a written citation (for instance, a Web site) showing your use of "fire drill" as a shortened version of "Chinese fire drill"? I'm interested to see if your term has more widespread use than your office. Such would also justify its continued inclusion in the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure! I've done a little quick googling, and the term seems to be out there, at least in the software world. For example, here's a company's press release that uses the term that way:

As Primary Response eliminates the risk associated with application vulnerabilities, it also provides a foundation for a security vulnerability management process to be implemented as an alternative to the patching fire drill that is becoming increasingly commonplace. (http://www.sanasecurity.com/press/pressreleases/102203.php)

Or here's another, from a company's official marketing material:

Troubleshooting in a complex, rapidly changing distributed environment is not a trivial exercise – 90% of application recovery time is spent on isolating the problem and only 10% spent on the actual repair. And when application downtime or poor performance manifests itself, it's the IT organization's most qualified staff that must drop what they are doing to perform troubleshooting-triage. Productivity is dramatically reduced as everyone engages in the fire drill. (http://www.cendura.com/solutions/solutions_problem_management.htm)

Given that they use the term in official publications, they seem to be taking for granted (as I did) that everyone would be familiar with the term.

In my company, I hear the term a lot in conversation. In fact, we just rolled out a big promotional poster for a service with the slogan "More fireworks, less firedrills". (Should be fewer firedrills, of course...) It's generally used to mean "a period of frantic activity with a lot of wasted effort"--not precisely the same thing as the older "Chinese fire drill", but pretty close. And I'm fairly sure the derivation was as I said--that it's un-PC to say "Chinese", so they just say "fire drill". Narsil 19:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ledeen Doctrine

Thanks for the email ! I think your solution is a good one, and I left a note at the article talk page. I removed the {{prod}} tag so there's no rush ! Thanks again, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Come fly with us

THE WIKIPEDA IRC SPAM PROJECT IS RECRUITING NOW

WHY ME
Your recent request to use VandalProof software has been refused as you have too few edits to the English Wikipedia.
We need editors to look through recently edited pages and decide whether the links are spam or not.
If the link qualifies as spam, you will need to revert the page to remove the link and warn the 'spammer'.
This will increase your edit count and allow the VandalProof team to approve you in future !
In fact, the Wikipedia IRC Spam Project shares many VandalProof administrators and users.
HOW TO JOIN

1. Install an IRC client.
(ChatZilla, IceChat and X-Chat are free. X-Chat works on all platforms) - a full list is available here.
2. Visit irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam
This channel lists, in real time, all external links added to Wikipedia.
Around 50% of the links listed are suspicious and need to be checked.
We flag especially suspicious links in RED.
3. Begin Checking Links
Click on any diff (the Wikipedia URL) listed in the IRC channel to begin checking and reverting as necessary.
If you revert, remember to place a spam warning {{subst:spam1}} → {{subst:spam4}}
We need to be able to block persistent spammers just as we do persistent vandals.
Remember - If you need help or admin intervention visit irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam-t

POLICY Before you begin, please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. These polices are the basis of spam fighting.

Best Wishes - The Wikipedia IRC Spam Project Team

—— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much! But actually, I think I'll be approved for VandalProof next time I ask (I was borderline, and they said to reapply after a few more edits--I think I'm over the line now). So I'll probably have enough vandal-action to keep me busy.

Thanks much, though! -- Narsil 23:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Narsil! 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007

[edit] Orkney

thanks for the rewrite. I also added a crossref to the legal definition of pledge, which (after revealing what bailment meant) makes much more sense. MatthewEHarbowy 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So it goes.

My edit on the Vonnegut page was not meant as a joke in anyway shape or form. There is obviously some dispute about whether it is appropriate, but it was not a joke or a tribute. It simply feels as though it belongs. Ugnut 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting addition on MY user talk page

Maybe you can point me to where it says I can't remove additions to my own user talk page. See [1] where it reads: "Editing others' comments (except on your own user talk page) is generally not allowed." Make a note of the part in parentheses.

That you actually reverted an addition I removed makes you seem, IMO: petulant, inappropriate, obnoxious, and squirrely.

Moreover, I think you're a punk. Don't touch my user page anymore. Shiggity 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I was going to leave a warning on your page regarding your repeated and frivolous modifications to the Kurt Vonnegut page, but I saw that a warning had already been put there, and you removed it. I was under the impression--mistaken, as you point out--that people weren't supposed to remove warnings from their own pages. In retrospect, instead of reverting the warning you deleted, I should have posted a brand new one, bumping it up a level, and referring to the previously deleted warning, instead of restoring it. Again, my apologies. -- Narsil 22:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In any event, the fact that I deleted it should have suggested to you that I either: (1) read it and took heed (which was the case), or (2) deleted it without either taking heed or reading it at all. In either case, I fail to see how adding the same or a similar warning would accomplish anything. All the warnings I've gotten are viewable from my history. Shiggity 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Expanded on this discussion here. · AndonicO ^Talk 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! -- Narsil (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truth for Life

A tag has been placed on Truth for Life, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I created this page solely as a redirect page, pointing people to the article on Alistair Begg (whose show this is). I think that's more than sufficient under the circumstances. I'd recommend turning this back into a redirect page. -- Narsil 23:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little context in Advent Fast

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Advent Fast, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Advent Fast is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Advent Fast, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant to make that page a redirect to Nativity Fast, but I coded it wrong--I fixed that. I also took out the "speedy delete" template, since I never meant that to be an article anyway--I hope that's okay! -- Narsil (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

The other guy from Wham! = A++

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Thanks! A little frivolous, maybe, but... well, tht actually was the search string I used to track down his name! -- Narsil 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)