User talk:Neutrality/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Blankfaze | Admin situation

  • First of all I'd like to offer my condolences for your failed nomination on RfA. As you know, I supported you, as I do and will continue to do with just about anyone Hcheney nominates. While I realise that you have made a few mistakes, such as blanking a talk page, I don't think any mistakes on your part were anything more than honest mistakes. And I think you'd make a fine admin. So don't get discouraged. Just take a month and go to work. Just do good work. Then in a month, someone can nominate you again, and hopefully, you'll make it that time. Good luck, my friend. blankfaze | (беседа!) 11:52, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I really appreciate your kind words. I'll continue editing, of course (currently I'm working on a Governor of Florida project). So thanks for supporting me, and better luck next time, I guess. ;) Neutrality 15:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mark | Adminship

  • Bad luck about missing out on adminship. I would have voted, but I was up for adminship at the same time, and I wasn't sure if I was allowed to vote while nominated myself. I'm confident you will be an admin some day soon. :) - Mark 12:02, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your kind words. They're appreciated. I'll be back on RfA before Sept. or Oct. is out. ;) Neutrality 15:55, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mike H | Adminship

  • I'm really sorry you didn't get it. I thought you were qualified and the time arguments were really reaching. This is what discourages me from accepting nominations, even three or four months down the road. Mike H 16:01, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Apparently some people think adminship should be unattainable... But I don't mind. I'm going back to what I've always been doing — contributing. Thanks for your support. I really do appreciate it. Neutrality 16:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mike H | Reverting

  • Thanks for reverting my user page. You are truly a doll. :-) Mike H 01:56, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cecropia | Admin

  • Hi Neutrality,
I'm sorry you seem to be taking rejection of your admin nomination so hard. A nomination at seven weeks was really aggressive. Almost everyone looks for three months--not so long a time; at the beginning of the year many people demanded six. I think those who nominate should not cause aggrevation for otherwise excellent editors by posting a nomination they should know will rub many the wrong way just because it's early.
The business about the blanking and all (which was not something I was aware of) was apparently taken as an indication that you were insufficiently aware of Wikipedia procedures, and Wikipedia procedures are something an admin is supposed to know.
I suggest you consider restoring your old user page, taking a more laid back attitude, and present a cheerful face in a month.
Sincerely, Cecropia | Talk 03:31, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I didn't expect to be nominated so early, and really wasn't dead-set on becoming an admin just yet, so I don't really know what you mean when you say I'm taking the rejection "so hard." I'm going back to normal contributing, which I enjoy immensly. Maybe in a few months, someone will nominate me again. I'm in no hurry! ;) Warm regards, Neutrality 03:36, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
P.S. My new userpage was made before I was rejected — I think my old one is formatted ugly (I'm not very good with HTML code). Neutrality 03:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Yup, nothing like a big cheery picture to make visitors happy~ ;-) Good luck Cecropia | Talk 03:54, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Best wishes, Neutrality 03:55, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ke4roh | Caption WikiProject

  • Hi, Neutrality, If you've got a minute, would you be so kind as to offer your feedback on Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions before I link to it from the Usual Places? (If you'd like to join, that'd be fantastic, too!) -- ke4roh 06:24, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've joined up! Neutrality 16:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Many thanks, and welcome! -- ke4roh 19:03, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Bishop | Fourth Crusade

Hi, I just wanted to let you know, the Fourth Crusade was not the "kings' crusade", that would be either the Second or the Third. There were plenty of people involved in the Fourth but none of them were kings. Adam Bishop 06:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    • Thanks for letting me know. Neutrality 16:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Emsworth | Papal election

  • I have employed British English in the article papal election. Might I ask why you have chosen to change it to American English (e.g. "colour" --> "color")? The article deals with neither the United Kingdom nor the United States; therefore, neither type of English is reqired. The rule in this case is, I believe, that the first major contributor's choice be retained. -- Emsworth 02:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah. My mistake — instinct taking over! Please revert. Thanks and apologies, Neutrality 02:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC).

[edit] WhisperToMe | Bobby Fischer Image

  • What's the copyright info on this? WhisperToMe 07:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Government document and public domain, I believe. 21:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gdr | Map for Operation Market Garden

Nice map. Where does it come from? Who owns the copyright? Please respond on Image talk:Operation Market Garden.jpg. Gdr 22:04, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)

[edit] Ed g2s | Image:Tubelogo.jpg

Where does it come from? Who owns the copyright etc... Ed g2s 02:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hcheney | Adminship nomination

People are objecting on ridiculous grounds:
"You blanked talk pages (because I didn't know any better, and 'blanking' isn't a very fair word to use)
"You were involved in an edit war" (one edit war, which I handled very well)
"The consensus is no, so I'm going to vote no"
Sorry you have to face this ridicule over you nomination of me. Sorry.
Neutrality 04:25, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You have absolutely nothing to be sorry about. The community should be sorry for not making you an admin, considering your dedication to cool-headed editing and ability to make difficult articles neutral (such as George W. Bush). I admire the way you conduct yourself, you are a model editor and community leader for all Wikipedians. I certainly hope that you will accept another nomination for adminship in the future, either from myself or a less controversial user, as our community needs calm and well-adjusted admins. --H. CHENEY 20:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. You're right. :) Neutrality 21:49, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] JamesMLane | Your offer to nominate me

  • Obviously, I'm very honored and flattered, but at this point I'll decline with thanks. To decline with no explanation would seem a churlish response to your kind offer, so: Your suggestion prompted me to get around to doing something I'd been intending for a while, viz., to get a better idea of the role of the admins. Hence, I've now read some of the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. My conclusion, just from the parts I've read, is that right now, with certain other things going on in my life, I'm not willing to make the time commitment of adminship. Heck, I'm not willing to make the time commitment to read the rest of that list.  :) &nbsp Maybe in a couple months. JamesMLane 05:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I understand. Thanks. ;) Neutrality 21:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merging into π

Can you attempt to explain why a simple proof that 22/7 exceeds pi should be "merged into" pi, instead of merely asserting that it should? Usually, when one speaks of "merging" two articles, one is speaking of two articles about the same topic; e.g., if two separate articles treated the general topic of π one could merge them. But I foresee that many articles will be about specific aspects of π rather than treating the topic generally, and that is as it should be. A mathematician who is ignorant of this particular argument should be able to read it without reading a full account, or even having to leaf through a full account, of everything he or she learned in kindergarten. Perhaps eventually, an article titled list of pi topics will list 100 or so of these, and be linked to from the main article about pi. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens within a year. Michael Hardy 19:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

... and now I see that the list of pi topics already exists; it's called list of topics related to pi. Would you "merge" all of those into the main article on π? Michael Hardy 19:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rex071404 and John Kerry

While I agree with your reversions of the edits by Rex071404 at the John Kerry article, it troubles me that only one of those reversions had any edit summary. It troubles me even more that you left the edit summary blank and marked a reversion as a minor edit. Rex's talk page makes it clear that several users have been reverting him, and the timestamps of his edits on this page make it clear that he is engaging in disruptive behavior. Still, it would be much appreciated if you would include appropriate edit summaries for reversions. Do it by the book and you can't go wrong. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 02:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Neutrality. I believe I already mentioned that making mass reverts are against policy. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:00, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, as you can see by the vandalism of my talk page, this user is problematic, and probably should be blocked. But you are correct. I will try to use the edit summary box more. Neutrality 03:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I also believe you should be much more selective in changing inserts. Some of them, such as Kerry's medals being controversial, are accurate. The response to a problem user is not to become a problem user yourself. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:14, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ouch. Problem user? Check the article now. I think I made a quite NPOV section about criticism of his first Purple Heart. ;) Neutrality 03:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Much better. You might also be amused by my comments on Vietnam medals at Kerry talk. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)