User talk:Nick/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Reversion on talk:Stanley Park 2 Don't Block User:216.138.113.179 3 Edits on Wikipedia: Icons 4 Wikipedia talk:Revised vandalism warning system 5 My RFA 6 Thanks for voting 7 Argo Tea 8 Image:Tony Robinson.jpg 9 TfD nomination of Template:Needimage 10 Thank You! 11 My RfA 12 Your edits to Shilpa Shetty 13 Warning! Process is now completely batshit insane. 14 Thanks 15 Hey 16 WP:AIV 17 NPA warning 18 Agathoclea's RfA 19 Malber 20 My Request for Adminship 21 Image tagging for Image:Heligoland RfA Voting.png 22 Apology 23 Your reversion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#BostonMA 24 Please Change Your Inappropriate Username 24.1 Discussion Closed 25 And now for something completely different 26 ArbCom cases 26.1 Requested information on the stalking allegations. 27 Admin coaching 28 Yikes! 29 Welcome to VandalProof! 30 Image:Hugh grant american dreamz 2.jpg 31 Thank you for your support 32 Cleanup using AWB 33 Thanks per instructions 34 Re: Donating some of my images 35 CiteBot 36 My RFA 37 re: WP:AbRep 38 Thanks 39 Spam statistics 40 Myspace blogs on blacklist 41 Speedy closure of AfDs

[edit] Reversion on talk:Stanley Park

I just noticed that you reverted a good faith talk edit I made on December 1, but you attributed the edit to someone else. In fact, it looks like the person you attributed my edit to didn't even edit the talk page. Anchoress 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a bug in VP2 as per the box at the top of this page. Sorry about that. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not an acceptable response, IMO. That edit went uncorrected for nine days. If you knew there was a bug, why the heck didn't you check the edits of the bot to determine if it was breaking WP rather than fixing it? And where is the 'investigation' mentioned in the 'box' at top? I would like to see evidence that more is being done than just apologising for erroneous warning templates; I want to see that there is action being taken to make sure that this bot hasn't got other uncorrected erroneous edits out there. Where is that investigation happening? Anchoress 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if you visit WP:VP2 you'll find details of the software and the small number of bug reports we've made. This is the first report of an error I've had on my talk page for a month too. I keep a close eye on all the edits I make manually and with software and I'm quite happy that this is a one off. It could be down to a number of issues, probably the bug as above, an edit conflict or a db error. I'd be happy to even credit it to a human error, but the differing edit summaries do somewhat exclude that possibility. Whatever the reason, it's something that doesn't happen now on anything other than an erratic and exceptionally rare basis. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but if you keep such a close eye on your edits then why didn't you catch mine? And since you didn't catch it, how confident can you be that there aren't more? Anchoress 19:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to continue using the software, and a whole month with just your comment coming back suggests the software is stable and reliable. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Block User:216.138.113.179

This IP belongs to a high school. Many constructive edits come from the school. Consider a soft block. Eclectek ^{C T} 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, you're not an admin and therefore can't block. Eclectek ^{C T} 19:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on Wikipedia: Icons

Why did you revert the edits below?

[1] --Mac Lover ^Talk_C 00:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure as it was several weeks back. Having a quick look, it'll most likely be spam, the website being in a foreign language or the website hosting confirmed or suspected copyright infringing material. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Revised vandalism warning system

Hi Heligoland, as a vandal-fighter I thought you might be interested in seeing this discussion. Regards, Accurizer 22:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

-

Hello Heligoland! I want to thank you for taking time to comment in my recent request for adminship. Though it didn't succeed, I value everyone's opinion, and hope to use the descriptions of the neutral and oppose votes to improve. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for voting

I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argo Tea

What does a withdrawn nomination get the same treatment of a no consensus or a keep judgement. I.E., will there be a template with a link to the debate on the talk page? TonyTheTiger 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, good point, and done. The page technically doesn't need an AfD box but with the need to now prevent a 3rd AfD and considering the strong support to Keep the article, the page warrants the information. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tony Robinson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tony Robinson.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 03:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image deleted along with another promo photo. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Needimage

Template:Needimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --32X 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎Template:Emot -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Nick/Archive5, thank you for participating in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. Whilst delighted by the result and a little daunted, I appreciate the various comments re lack of experience in some aspects and I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience and I should welcome your feedback about any Admin tasks I become involved with. Again, a whole 1/1 thanks for taking the time to consider my RfA and cast your views. Feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Shilpa Shetty

Thank you for your edits to Shilpa Shetty, I wasn't aware that the {{needimage}} tag was being deleted, but would like to know where you found {{reqphoto}}? I didn't come across this at WP:TEMP, thanks very much anyway. Is it proper practice to put the {{reqphoto}} tag on talk pages? Wouldn't it be better on the article page as it was, in keeping with other tags for improvement, etc.? Ekantik ^talk

The {{needimage}} template looks set to be deleted. There seems to be a growing trend to move improvement messages away from article space into article-talk space with a feed into a Category. The template isn't at WP:TEMP as the template has it's own category (Category:Image_request_templates). It's correct use is on the talk page, because it lists the article in Category:Wikipedia_requested_photographs so photographers and photo hunters can supply a photo. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your informative clarifications. I will keep those category pages on my watchlist for easy reference. Thanks again! :) Ekantik ^talk 00:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thank you so much, Heligoland, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning! Process is now completely batshit insane.

I wonder, now that they've desysopped MONGO, what happens next. I'm waiting for the point where "If you offend someone you get permabanned" stage next. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 06:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for the support! MONGO 09:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

You forgot to sign...here [2]. best, Kukini 02:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

I saw your report on WP:AIV. The vandal has neither been blocked before, nor has received more than a singular warning this day. The entry on the page has been removed by another admininstrator. Please report only those vandals who have gone beyond their last warnings, or have received more than two warnings (including a {{bv}}, {{test4im}}, {{test4}}) Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick - You might want to check why NawlinWiki didn't bother warning more than once despite 3 reverts. They beat me to a couple of reverts so I just dropped the IP addy onto WP:AIV.

Well, NawlinWiki is rather WP:ROUGE sometimes. ;) — Nearly Headless Nick 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pot, say hello to kettle. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA warning

I don't see the personal attack. I think this is a malicious application of the npa warning becuase you are involved in a talk page dispute with me. Please justify the applicataion of this warning or remove it. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's your last comment. Now doesn't the warning state Comment on content, not on contributors so your comment Pot, say hello to kettle qualifies as a personal attack, it's nowhere near the worst I've seen but it's a conversation that was of no concern to you. I really do not appreciate you following Nearly Headless Nick around and leaving collateral damage as you pass through my talk page. I don't care that I'm in a content dispute with you, I've not gone and started following you around and I've never once been uncivil in my discussions over you, it's simply not how I do things.--Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agathoclea's RfA

Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA despite your concerns. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 12:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malber

Hi there!

I'm not getting worked up over Malber (it's not worth that!) but I was merely giving a dramatic example of where his argument is flawed. I really don't understand why he continues to argue about a fallen cause, but ....

Anyway, thanks for supporting me and I hope we can win.

Cheers, Yuser31415 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure our rational discussion will overcome here ;-) --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! Template:Emot Yuser31415 02:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Request for Adminship

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Heligoland RfA Voting.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Heligoland RfA Voting.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I am apologizing for any uncivil comments I made in Matt's AFD. As it stands, I have removed the comments and hope to let you know I was allowing outside influences (like work) affect my judgement when posting. I wish you all the best this holiday season, and yes, you can count on my support for your next bid at Adminship. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 22:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology and I apologise if I said anything I shouldn't have. I hope you have a happy and peaceful 2007. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#BostonMA

Hello:

I noticed that you reverted the division of the RfA for BostonMA; while its may be true that the Tangobot and DragonFlight have problems with divided pages, Wikipedia isn't designed for the benefit of bots -- but for human editors. For some users, the issue of very long pages, such as at this RfA has become prohibits editing. The subject of division has recently been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Voting_pages_over_30_kilobytes, at which Doc Glasgow stated:

Bots? Tough. Most people using AfD don't refer to bots. We don't create pages for the benefit of bells and whistles. Splitting the support/oppose/neutral sections makes perfect sense. Let's do it. The bots can catch up when they can.--Doc^g 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Further, the author of Tangobot pointed out:

The code suggested above is pretty much what was come up with last time this was discussed (I think it was shortened slightly, but the same basic idea). The issue with bots is a non-issue, the programmers in question can simply alter the bots to understand the new format, as they've done in the past when changes have been made to the template. Oh, and that's not the right archive, try looking under July 2006 - that's when I made my sample page during the discussion. --Tango 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

--Leflyman^Talk 02:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Change Your Inappropriate Username

[edit] Discussion Closed

With the greatest of respect to SAJordan, this request is inappropriate at this time, it is directly related to an ongoing RfC on which I have commented. I'm not involved with the actions that resulted in the RfC and don't wish this situation to get out of hand. I have no intention of changing my username, I've had the username for 3 months, and it was checked and changed here [3] by a bureaucrat. I based my name on the island of Heligoland, first named in English 199 years ago. The band seems to be only moderately notable and precedent has shown that users name after a place but sharing their name with a pop group or TV show have not been asked to change their username. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 03:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This concerns your username and the Official Policy WP:USERNAME. Please do not cloud the issue with irrelevancies. Thank you. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 03:44, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

And as to your defense: were I a New Englander who'd moved to upstate New York, would I be allowed to describe myself by the quite fitting and generic username of "New York Yankee"? Quite clearly not. As quoted above, WP:USERNAME specifically addressed that example, and declared it inappropriate. That I might like the name would not give me a free pass. The existing (trademarked) group name precludes its being a Wikipedia username. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 04:02, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Courtesy notification of WP:RFC/NAME - Heligoland. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 08:34, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

This should have been brought to RFC before making such insistent demands on the user. This is far from a clear cut case. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:U, first one asks the user on his talk page; if this doesn't resolve the matter, second one discusses it at RFC (or the user's talk page, or a sub-page, with notice at RFC). This was cited and quoted above (in the blue section). – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:12, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

A request is fine, I was referring to the insistent demands. No worries though. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If this name were inappropriate, the bureaucrat would not have allowed Heligo to change to it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is supposing the 'crat knew about the band. That is a large supposition. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And now for something completely different

I hope this is different enough, your username has been found to be acceptable, sorry for the hassle. Here is a copy of the discussion just prior to it being closed: [4]. Happy editing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom cases

Hi Heligoland, I don't mind your oppose vote. An admin needs the respect of the community, and it is clear that there are some concerns that have been raised. Regarding your suggestions, my impression of myself is that the contributions that I can make to dispute resolution are much greater than the contributions that I can make to stub articles. My impressions could be wrong of course. However, given what I believe to be the case, I think I am far more likely to involve myself in mediation cases, and consequently arbcom cases, than I am to be expanding stub articles. With regard to stalking, what I did do was remove about 40 or 50 external links to a particular website on the advice of an admin. You may or may not agree with that action. However, it does not qualify as stalking as I understand WP:Harassment. Please have a good new year. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about what ArbCom might do than the fact your involved, they've made some bizarre decisions recently so I'd like to let things blow over for a couple of months. If your current RfA isn't successful, I'm certain your next one will be and that should only be a few weeks off, a couple of months at most, to get clear of the ArbCom case and to show evidence of your knowledge of WP:BITE. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That is certainly a reason to be concerned, and I certainly don't look to go to arbcom. The current case, someone asked if I would participate in the mediation, and although I wasn't keen on it, I agreed. Then at a certain point two of the editors had a go of it, one filed the arbcom case and the other "retired" from Wikipedia. Everyone listed in the mediation became a party to the arbcom case. That was that. However, someone has asked me to request mediation on another page. I understand there are risks, but what can be done? I guess that is mostly a rhetorical question, but if you have any thoughts, I welcome them. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested information on the stalking allegations.

(please let me know if this is too long or complex to put in the RfA)

Should I add this as a statement in the RfA? --BostonMA ^talk 00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --BostonMA ^talk 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To explain these alegations, I need to present some background information. It is not my intent, when presenting this background information suggest that user rosencomet deserves blame in this matter. Relatively speaking, rosencomet is not a heavily experienced user, and in my opinion has overcome a number of earlier mistakes, and I do not have a quarrel with him. (see recent contributions by rosencomet).

User:rosencomet had on a previous occassion identified himself as the executive director of Association for Consciousness Exploration.

A number of pages with external links to the Association for Consciousness Exploration external website have been deleted. As a result, they do not show up in my contributions list or in the contributions list for User:rosencomet.

On 00:34, 26 Oct 2006 I posted this comment to user rosencomet requesting that he read WP:Vanity prior to adding new links.

I then removed a number of links in articles to the Association for Consciousness Exploration external website. Only 4 of those articles show in my contributions list, but I believe there was more.

I believe, but again, lack the diffs, that rosencomet added new links to articles, which prompted me at 00:49 to leave this spam warning on rosencomet's talk page. I left a note on an admin's talk page as well.

Paying more attention, I discovered that there was a discussion at AN/I (which can be viewed in the next link) in which User:Timmy12 was accused of stalking rosencomet by deleting links of the sort in question. I added this comment on the AN/I in which I explained that as an RC patroller, it was my practice to examine the contributions history of editors of those I reverted to determine whether other edits also require reversion.

Over the next few days, the situation repeated itself, with the accusations of stalking extending to other editors who had become involved in reverting the links. At various points I asked for advice, such as this request. The response which I received suggest that I nuke all of the links.

Although no evidence in the arbcom case has been presented in support of the allegation that I was stalking, I believe the allegations can only refer to the above events. My understanding of WP:Harassment is that my actions were not stalking. I am of course, willing to be corrected on the matter and behave accordingly.

Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching

Hi Heligoland!

On the recent Esperanza MFD (which was deleted successfully, BTW), you !voted delete, with the comment "Delete - Especially admin coaching". Admin coaching was one of the few programs which was not deleted.

Because I am an active admin coach, and because I would like to see this program be successful, I'm requesting feedback from you on ways in which Admin Coaching might improve. Your above comment indicates you believe admin coaching isn't worthwhile.

Could you possibly take a look at some admin coaching sessions and point out potential problems that could be avoided in the future? For example, if there was something you specifically objected to, or something you felt should be added, we could address that, and improve the program. Here are some examples of Admin coaching sessions which I have participated in: My admin coaching page (June '06) Ginkgo100's coaching page (Oct '06), Exir's coaching page (Oct '06), Fabrib's coaching page (current). (Feel free to seek out others yourself; each admin coach has different techniques or ideas, and this may not be a representative sample).

Feel free to leave comments on my talk page or on the Admin coaching talk page. Best wishes and happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose it matters much now EA is no more - we don't need to worry about the vote stacking that used to go on, where EA members used to receive fanatical levels of support from fellow EA members. I still am not happy with this idea of preparing candidates for adminship, it's unfair on regular users who are either as capable as those undergoing admin coaching, or more qualified for the tools but due to actually editing Wikipedia in a normal way rather than the often well rehearsed way those being coached for adminship do. Sadly, those really interested in building an encyclopedia tend to piss people right off and can't pick up enough votes to pass an RfA, rather, it's those who have worked out their editing patterns around passing an RfA that are more likely to pass, contrast your RfA with someone like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BostonMA who is borderline here. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Heligoland,

Thanks for the response! It's really appreciated. I agree that vote stacking at RFA is problematic, but personally only saw one example of this which was related to Esperanza (though I've heard people say the problem was bigger than that). As you say, now that EA is gone, perhaps that aspect won't flare up again.

Because I'm here on your talk page to learn your objections so I'll know what not to do as an admin coach, I don't want to appear in any way to debate anything you've said above. I don't want to badger you. At the same time, I don't understand your objection to preparing candidates for adminship as "it's unfair on regular users who are [...] as capable as those undergoing admin coaching"; as I understand it, Admin coaching was always open to anyone who signed up on the Coaching page, Esperanzan or not. For example, user:CFIF is currently undergoing coaching, while as far as I know not ever having been a member of Esperanza. So it would seem to me it's only unfair in the sense that those who signed up for advice and coaching get it, while those who did not, do not. Please please please don't take this as a rebuttal of your opinion; I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from so that I can help work other ideas into the program.

I agree that users who have had many editing conflicts have difficulty passing an RFA; in the case you linked to above, with the user applying speedy templates moments after the article has been created, it seems to be a clear example of BITE. I also don't exactly understand your point about working out editing patterns. In my admin coaching, I've always stressed the importance of remaining civil, as that's a core principle of Wikipedia anyway, and I will never support a candidate who can't stay civil. Is that an editing pattern? What constitutes an editing pattern? How does an admin coach offer suggestions and ideas for improvement without falling into that editing pattern trap? (You may not even have answers to these questions, but if you do, I definitely don't mind hearing them).

Once again, thanks for your time. :)

Firsfron of Ronchester 02:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, my thoughts on the issue have always been a little contentious. I tend to think admin coaching fails to prepare the candidate properly for being an admin but makes them appealing and attractive come RfA time. I feel it's more about making a good looking admin rather than making a good admin. I know how to pass an RfA tomorrow, vote on plenty of AfDs, a moderate amount of vandalism patrols (always warning of course), not tagging stuff for speedy deletion too quickly, the usual being civil and assuming good faith and generally not doing anything of any importance where your going to upset other editors/vandals/socks etc. There seems to be no preparing the candidates for the masses of upset and disgruntled users who will come and comment on the talk page. It's also quite unfair as it can't accommodate all the people who would like to be on the program. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Heligoland. It's been my experience that "masses of disgruntled users" are really only limited to a few *FDs, like the recent Esperanza deletion. In nearly all the *FDs I have participated in, there's been nothing like "masses" of disgruntled users. I think, though, that preparing admin candidates for the possibility of disgruntled users is a good idea, and would like to use that in my admin coaching sessions.

You are correct in that Admin Coaching cannot accommodate everyone who would like to be in the program; we're slowly rectifying that, but it takes time. The people on the list have got to have a little patience, anyway, if they're to become admins, right? At least, that my philosophy.

You are right in that there is a difference between a "good looking admin" and a "good admin". But as each user's opinion on what makes a "good admin" varies anyway, it stands to reason that a user's opinion on what a "good looking admin" is will also vary, reflected in RFA. Anyway, thanks for your responses. I appreciate your time, and I think (or hope!) I've come away from this with a bit of a different perspective; ideas and thoughts that I hope to incorporate somehow into the program. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yikes!

I just reread my comment, and see that there is an omission that could make a difference in how it is viewed. I mentioned that in the first round there were 4 articles (in my contributions list) that I removed links from. However, in the following days, I removed 20 or more (would need to look that up.) I hope that you did not base your support decision in whole or in part on the assumption that only 4 articles were involved. If so, I am terribly terribly sorry if I misled you. Please let me know. I will be changing the text on the RfA page momentarily. --BostonMA ^talk 00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's even more clear cut. And there's plenty of backup evidence on the user's talk page where they've been warned by other users. Why on Earth didn't you supply this information before. It's really beneficial to being an admin, and if your into removing extraneous external links, you could do worse than visiting irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam where we deal with spammers automatically through a couple of IRC bots. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. My thought was that I shouldn't be argumentative toward those who raised criticisms of me.  :-(. --BostonMA ^talk 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Heligoland! 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. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hugh grant american dreamz 2.jpg

Hey. You removed my image Hugh grant american dreamz 2.jpg from Hugh Grant because it was an "incorrectly used fair use image". I'm curious as to what a correct use of that image would be. I'm not all that attached to it, but I uploaded it for the Grant article because people kept sticking his mugshot in and I thought it was crass to have that be the only picture of him in his wiki article. Kolindigo 00:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, your unable to use a Fair Use image to illustrate a living person as a free to use image can easily be created. The mugshot shouldn't be used either to simply illustrate the Grant, but to refer to the prostitute incident. Fair Use to identify a person can only be invoked when it's impossible (such as death) to create a new, freely licensed image. It might seem trivial and pedantic (and there's probably a debate somewhere over the policy on Wikipedia now) but the use of fair use images in the article prevent it from being used in any Wikipedia project to redistribute the encyclopedia on a DVD to raise funds for the foundation. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I am especially grateful for your willingness to explain your initial oppose vote, and your suggestion that I respond to allegations raised in the ArbCom case. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup using AWB

Hi. Just a note. Per WP:AWB#Rules_of_use, one should not use AWB for tiny edits like this and this. They don't add much value, and pop up on people's watchlists, potentially obscuring vandalism and distracting from other things.

I would suggest you check each edit you make before submitting it, and cancel edits which simply add a space, remove an underscore, or something equally small. Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Also note that this edit was not appropriate, there was a space after pipe for a reason. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If the edit wasn't appropriate and there was a reason for the space after the pipe, please mention this on the page in future, either as a comment or in the actual text of the page (though a comment would be more appropriate). --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We could also use your help over at irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam - We could use a few extras sysops. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 05:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the page indeed the space should be there, but there are many pages like that (all mathematics and mathematicians lists). I can also suggest another approach. If you see an entire page formatted in a strange manner, but that formatting is very consistent, then you can ask yourself if that strange formatting is an accident, or perhaps it is meant to be that way and be left alone. :)

But that was not the main reason I wrote to you. I am primarily concerned with people using AWB for small edits. I hope we reached some kind of agreement on that. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks per instructions

Thank you for reverting my talk page "per instructions" during my recent wikibreak :). NoSeptember 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Donating some of my images

Hi, I recently added some external links on cell biology pages that deal with the cell nucleus and transport mechanisms. You mentioned I might want to directly donate my images to wikipedia. I did create those images, and I do have the copyright. Some have been published, but the publishers generally allowed me to keep my copyright. I am looking into this further to make sure there are no issues with posting them on wikipedia. I will be moving into other fields of work in the near future (few months) and anticipate being able to post the images directly to wikipedia at that time. Thanks for you comments! Posterlogo 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CiteBot

Okay, understood. Let me know when it's ready. DS 01:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

[edit] re: WP:AbRep

Hi, I noticed you have one again reverted my edits to the Abuse Report page and in doing so, claimed "for something that you just made up?" - I resent the implication that I made anything up. If you look at the history of the page you'll see I and 2 other editors have reverted your edits. In case your not aware, Abuse Reports are not officially sanctioned by the Foundation, my comments were that we cannot ban any IP address or range as that falls outwith Abuse Report and indeed any administrators remit. This was changed to "block" which is going to be outwith the remit of Abuse Reports, as reports requiring immediate administrator attention should be made to WP:AIV, WP:AN orWP:ANI. There is nothing in the blocking policy which supports blocking IP addresses on AbRep unless they are actively vandalism at the time of being reported, and for effectiveness, the report for the IP address or range should be made to any of the previously mentioned areas, ideally with an Abuse Report then being filled by the blocking admin, if necessary. When it comes to banning users, there's no single administrator who can place a ban, and certainly not sufficient numbers of Abuse Report volunteers to be able to ask for a community ban, which leaves us needing to ask the arbitration committee, Jimbo or the foundation. I hope you'll realise why I'm trying to ensure users who are thinking about using the Abuse Report system know exactly what it does. Perhaps it should be renamed to "Long Term Abuse Reports" so as to make it clearer, and in any case it must be made clear that asking for blocks and especially asking for bans is outwith the remit of the remit of the volunteers on AbRep. --Kind Regards - Heligoland ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I apologise for snapping at you in my edit summary, but you did, in fact, claim that there was a consensus for something that hadn't even been discussed, hence the comment. You simply cannot claim a consensus for something that hasn't been discussed. You hadn't even posted your talk page comment when you made that claim.

WP:ABUSE is a centralised forum for reporting vandalising IP addresses to their ISPs. This violates no policy. IP addresses reported within this system are often blocked for one of two reasons: one, they're vandals, and may be blocked under the blocking policy, or two, the block is requested by the school or ISP and is blocked for that reason, as a community ban and under the vandal blocking policy. We would, in this case, allow for account creation and block as IP address only (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive35#Blocking on request?, and note that the issue of good contributors not being able to edit from there has been resolved).

There is no issue with IP addresses being blocked within this system. It follows the blocking policy and the precedents set elsewhere, and your contention that administrators cannot block the IPs listed is false. The entire point of ISP reporting is to cut down on vandalism; naturally, that will involve blocking. Snoutwood 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking isn't what I was concerned about, and looking through the history of that page, I notice someone changed the text I had entered regarding bans and changed it to blocks, which wasn't what I wanted to add to the page at all. Since the project lacks a reasonable number of admins (though hopefully more look in from time to time) it's unreasonable to use AbRep as a dumping groud for requests for blocks, AbRep isn't covered in any policy as a place where requests for a block can be made, but that clearly wouldn't prevent an administrator blocking in accordance with blocking policy. What I was trying to convey is that we're not authorised by the foundation to ban any IP address from editing Wikipedia, nor can Abuse Report really justify recommending or blocking an IP address or range of IP addresses based solely on past behaviour as it would be out of line with the blocking policy. --Kind Regards - Heligoland ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the advice, I will take care to be more explicit with my grievences next time. All the best! SERSeanCrane 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam statistics

Hi - saw the statistics on your user page, was curious - what's the source of the data? (In short, how does one distinguish between an external link added and a spam link added?) Thanks. John Broughton | ♫ 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Eagle_101 designed an IRC bot which looks for external links being added through every edit to Wikipedia mainspace. I had a spare server and host the bot (have done for the past few months) and we log the output. Spam isn't really the correct term, but it's quicker than typing external links, the IRC channels are irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam and irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam-t. We know that at present, around 20% of links being added are to resources that satisfy WP:RS without the need to check, so stuff like Reuters, BBC News, Associated Press, London Times. We've also got a blacklist, around 1% of links added to the site are stuff that is to be added to the meta blacklist, or things like photobucket, example.com and Shadowbot automatically reverts. In between there's uncategorised links, around 60% and redlist (19%), stuff that sometimes qualifies as a reliable source or which sometimes has questionable copyright status but should be checked rather than removed automatically. The bot provides a summary every 2 minutes and the information is dumped into Excel and turned into pretty graphs, as well as being used to forecast growth of external links. This year, we're already seeing a growth, this week we've seen a 2.9% growth over last week and we're looking at ~8800 links being added each day already. --Kind Regards - Heligoland ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that very informative and detailed response. John Broughton | ♫♫ 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myspace blogs on blacklist

Could you provide a link to Jimbo's request that it be added to the blacklist? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spam_blacklist&diff=509436&oldid=509204 Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your new signature is more horribler. *snort* — Nearly Headless Nick 11:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy closure of AfDs

I noticed that you closed a couple of the current AfDs on today's AfD log. I have no qualms about a non-admin closing AfD discussions; after all, I do so myself. However, I do have a couple of comments. First, and most importantly, you should read non-administrators closing discussions, which states:

"Non-administrators may not "speedy-close" deletion discussions. They must either express their view that the debate should be "speedy-closed" in the normal procedure, or wait until the discussion has run the full AfD period to close it as a "keep" if there is a consensus to do so."

I point this out to you because I know you ran for adminship in December, and suspect you'll want to try again. When that time comes you'll want to be able to demonstrate you adhere to the policies as they exist at the time.

Of lesser importance, I noted you used the