User talk:Pschemp/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] D'oh!

Sorry about removing your RFC/U comment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm over it. :) pschemp | talk 06:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFC/NAME

I have attempted to calm the situation there. I hope I've helped. --sunstar nettalk 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Question

Thank you for your comments regarding the image on the page: New_Nationalist_Party I can certainly get the originating permission to you if you can tell me how ?? ...The Wiki system is not very clear to newcomers how contact with Wiki Admin can be made.I have to say, the limited page facilities for graphics, produces a rather boring result for visitors. A bit more color would improve things considerably.

best wishes,

Graham

W4evw 13:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mactabbed using IPs for ban evasion

Hello Pschemp, could you put a block on User:71.114.62.228 and also block anon-account creation? If you review this IPs contributions you'll be sure to see Mactabbed's pattern. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Next, Forthegood1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). (→Netscott) 18:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Handled by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). See you. (→Netscott) 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That's because he's cool. :) pschemp | talk 19:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well the IP block's expired and so Mactabbed's back... what to do? (→Netscott) 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for a month. pschemp | talk 00:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Pschemp, would you kindly deleted Golden Boy (film) per CSD:G5, Mactabbed made created this article as User:Pugno de dollari and now he's going about establishing wikilinks to it. Please note the brand new user: Filmforlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) making this edit. (→Netscott) 03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Toasted. pschemp | talk 03:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, there's one other user CloneGuard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I messaged Jayjg about this editor as being a Mactabbed sockpuppet but unfortunately it appears that Jayjg is offline.. If you review this editor's contributions you'll find a decent level of incivility towards me surrounding the Michael Richards article (as ever a Mactabbed favorite) (and now harassment on my talk page). If you review the message I left Jayjg I think you'll agree that we've got ourselves a sock here. If you'd prefer to wait Jayjg's call, I'd be fine with that but if you've got a minute you might just review his edits. Cheers. (→Netscott) 03:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I blocked him right before you posted. Obvious sock. pschemp | talk 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers again... one last thing... perhaps a revert and {{sprotected}} for William Holden, it seems he's conscripted meatpuppets (likely through a video game chat system). (→Netscott) 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And possibly the same for Talk:Michael Richards as an IP is now supporting CloneGuard there. (→Netscott) 03:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Its generally frowned on to semi a talk page. I protected William Holden and blocked the IP's though. pschemp | talk 03:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine... I understand that about the talk page... cheers again. (→Netscott) 03:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Next, Bigcliff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ... just created and picking up with User:CloneGuard left off. Do review before blocking. ;-) (→Netscott) 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well now I'm being threatened by Mactabbed's latest sock. Would you kindly indef. block Guizteh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? Thanks. (→Netscott) 12:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
El C (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) took care of this threatening one. See you. (→Netscott) 13:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Persistence = Asetgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). (→Netscott) 13:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Excuse me - you blocked me as I was in the middle of editing something - Apparently for being a sock puppet of "light-current" - which I am not. Perhaps you could read this edit history [[1]] - all the edits are mine (up to 19:53, 8 February 2007), and then tell me why you blocked me.

Also 'assume good faith' seems to be in order here - given that I have stated that I am not the blocked user.

Perhaps you would also like to compare my edits with those of the blocked user (who I am aware of since he/she also posts on the reference desk) - and see if you can see any similarity in style.

I would appreciate a response - thank you.87.102.9.208 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of similarites in style. Plus an knowledge of how the ref desk and wikipedia works that aren't typical of first day users. pschemp | talk 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments removed. I already looked at your contributions. I have not changed my mind. pschemp | talk 21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the revert on my page! MetsFan76 01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ChrAdministration

Why was this account blocked? I am an admin on the Cherokee Wikipedia and the account is solely for checkuser requests from the Cherokee Wikipedia for detecting IP/English Wikipedia accounts that perform cross wiki vandalism. 67.186.225.37 03:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

From our username policy WP:U: Prohibited username components include, but are not limited to words resembling the following:
  • Names that imply an official role or a position with access to additional tools not available to a standard user, such as "Administrator", "Admin", "System operator", "Sysop", or "Moderator".
Please choose a different name. No one is allowed to have a name with admin or administrator in it. pschemp | talk 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Please go ahead and delete the pages associated with the user account (user and talk pages -- delete them do not just blank them) and I will create another account without using these improper names. I would prefer to not have these pages exist if the account is improper and has been blocked. Thanks for the help in advance. 67.186.225.37 04:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Oh and I'm sure you've figured this out, but don't use the word checkuser in the new name :)
I did not. here is the new name. CherokeeWiki 05:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. Enjoy. pschemp | talk 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 87.102.37.185 unblocked

Hi pschemp. I unblocked 87.102.37.185; sorry for doing this without talking to you, but you didn't seem to be online. Light current uses a large ISP, and this other user with the same ISP who comments anonymously on the reference desk was actually already known to me. See my comments on ANI as well; given the size of the ISP, I think we can only block IP's that either read like Lc stylistically or are disruptive. -- SCZenz 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I trust your judegement. pschemp | talk 17:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. -- SCZenz 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for reverting vandalism to my user page. Odd how people that vandalize my page are almost never people that I've blocked or warned... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tityboy

It's true that his first and only edit was vandalism. It's also true that a warning was posted on his talk page, after which he hadn't made any further edits. Have I misunderstood something about the warnings escalation, or were there other issues (besides the RFC/NAME), of which I'm unaware? -- Ben 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Four warnings aren't required anywhere. If Tityboy communicates that he'd like to be unblocked and has reformed, we'll talk about it then. pschemp | talk 03:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock caused by username block of Fatudorx (talk · contribs)

FYI, I have unblocked 134.134.136.2 (talk · contribs). This IP seems to have been autoblocked as a result of the above username block. Please feel free to review this action and modify or reverse it as you feel appropriate. Thank you. --BigDT 07:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. pschemp | talk 14:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

It goes to show what a little negotiation can do, happy editing. BuickCenturyDriver 02:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

requesting a revert of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington i need it for research on a project on ottawa street names, but a vandal has gotten to it. ONX 19:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC) note: my IP is NOT A SOCKPUPPET: GOT IT? I AM FROM OTTAWA. MY IP IS NOTHING LIKE THE OTHER USER. UNBAN IT. the ip was 209.217.66.150. un ban it. i am angry

You can revert it yourself. I'm sorry, I don't respond to people who yell. pschemp | talk 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Grah, i'm jsut slightly angry that my ip was banned. i have anger problems. ignore them. ONX 19:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC) asperger's syndrome second. it was YOU that blocked me mistakenly, for sockpuppetry, so do something about it. i get angry easily for a reason you know.

I don't respond to threats either. If you had actually check though, you would have found that I unblocked the IP 5 minutes ago. Not that that stopped you from editing anyway. pschemp | talk 19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

eh.... thanks? and it wasn't really a threat, because i really can't do anything about it.

My aren't you pleasant. pschemp | talk 19:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah... well.... whatever. time to get to the project. thanks for reverting. ONX 19:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usernames and Sigs

I've posted on the Wikipedia talk:Signatures that I'm going to provisionally go along with your proposal, and am willing to edit both pages to match.

Here's some caveats:

  • My main concern is if the agreement were to make the default signatures provided by mediawiki invalid. This would be strange and incredibly unfair. "We are blocking you because the software provided you with an invalid signature". That would be too ... wrong.
  • If adding latin characters to a username is optional, rather than required, this is not a problem.
  • Other solutions might also work. I'm open to suggestions.
  • I would like to stress in the strongest possible terms that any kind of script is permissable for usernames. I have a list of 255 suspected cases where the guideline has been misread and people have been blocked incorrectly. I would like to prevent more such errors. Simply clarifying the policy should do that.

--Kim Bruning 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that list. A bunch of them were vandalism, and nearly all were banned when That was our policy. To call them improperly banned is a POV label to say the least. pschemp | talk 21:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I had 3 points total.
On the third point: They were improperly banned by current standards. I suppose "current standards" does count as a Point Of View, albeit a very important one. We do seem to have agreed that it's currently ok to have non-latin usernames.
There's some issues with the text at Wikipedia:Signatures that are still open, which are pretty much obvious. We need to rewrite the text to match your current position, basically.
Thank you for your time today. --Kim Bruning 22:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, its nice to be able to argue with someone and still consider them a friend. :) pschemp | talk 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That's how it's supposed to work, right? :-) --Kim Bruning 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ut oh. I should mention on WP:BRD that sometimes you can fall into the cycle by accident. So while I'm happy at Wikipedia:Username, that doesn't automatically mean you're done yet. There might be other people who you still need to talk with :-) --Kim Bruning 09:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) goes off to update WP:BRD

[edit] Kdbuffalo socks

Hello, Pschemp! User:Robert Stevens found a couple of Kdbuffalo socks being used to disrupt articles. link. Just thought I'd let you know. :) –- kungming·2 (Talk) 08:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a while. pschemp | talk 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O RLY?

That is an interesting observation. Are you aware that I frequently post to the village pump and the admin noticeboard to ask feedback about guidelines and such, and am a frequent poster on many policy-related talk pages? For instance, [2], [3], [4], [5]. I have been instrumental in writing several guidelines recently (most notably WP:OCAT and WP:PNSD); it should be obvious from their talk pages that they have had extensive community input. I am not aware of having "systematically changed" essays to guidelines, or guidelines to policy; which ones did you have in mind? >Radiant< 09:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiant was involved in the creation of the whole blasted policy/essay/guideline division and is actively involved in tag maintenance. No one is ever quite happy with how different pages are tagged. As long as we accept that the tags exist ((but speak for yourself here, I don't :-P)), I don't think we can then actually blame Radiant for applying them to the best of his abilities. --Kim Bruning 12:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add balance, I guess badlydrawnjeff is also doing the best that he can. Like also stated on RFAr, these two folks need to get together and have a nice cool beer or a steaming cup of coffee.(depending on weather) --Kim Bruning 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah yup. I really don't care who wrote what essay. Its up to the community to determine if they should be policies or guidelines or whatever. Writing it doesn't give you a free pass to be nasty. Neither does disagreeing with it of course. pschemp | talk 14:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I think in part Radiant, and badlydrawnjeff disagree about the process. (And I'd prefer to see the whole mess gone, would save me lots of mediation and stuff in the project namespace :-P) --Kim Bruning 14:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be sure, note that I sometimes have an odd sense of humor and sense of irony. I hope I didn't lay it on too thick. --Kim Bruning 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. Obviously the community decides what is policy. But, regardless of what Kim said, I was wondering why you believe that I don't ask for feedback on policy or guidelines (see diffs above) and was wondering which essays or guidelines I have, in your opinion, "systematically" changed to something else. I do a lot of work on p/g/e pages, and I suspect your statement is an overstatement. >Radiant< 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That's for the arbitration committee to decide. I don't think further comments by me here will help the situation. I added a link to one incident on the arb page. pschemp | talk 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm simply trying to clear up the confusion. You say I make changes without discussing them, and as evidence of that point to a discussion I started about such changes. Unless I'm missing something here, that sounds like a contradiction. Apparently I'm giving some people the impression I'm not discussing things even when I believe I am. What is going on here? >Radiant< 11:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Radiant, I'm not going to continue this conversation, period. My talk page is not the arb case, and that's where your objections belong, and where you've already voiced them. pschemp | talk 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It is unfortunate that you are unwilling to discuss your apparent dispute with me, but never mind. >Radiant< 10:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

While I was here, I noticed your talk page is semi-protected. That's unusual, and there's no notice. Why's that? o_O --Kim Bruning 12:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

malicious IP sockpuppet attacks by mactabbed. Its only temporary of course. pschemp | talk 14:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Gottit. :-) --Kim Bruning 14:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Macedonia's user page

After yesterday's discussion: please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Macedonia. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:DYKbox

Hi. From the history of the DYKbox template, it appears that you locked Template:DYKbox in December 2006. I proposed a change to the template here and was wondering whether you could review my proposed change and make the change if you agree with it. Thanks. -- Jreferee 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals Trying to Prevent a Nonsense Page from Being Deleted

Hello Pschemp, may I ask for your assistance in deleting this nonsense. The creator is repeatedly trying to remove the speedy tag and is being reported at AIV. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I salted it. That should help for a while. pschemp | talk 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hope I did not offend you. You did make a valid point and it needs discussing, so the talkpage was the most logical choice. Your deleting it saves me trying to untangle the redirect on the talkpage. Agathoclea 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think it needs discussing. AIV is always backlogged, and anyone who wants to can join the IRC vandalism channel, where the exact same thing betacommand was reporting comes from. Feeding it here is duplication of effort. pschemp | talk 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Betacommand

Hey! Thank you for interveneing in the recent situation with betacommand, and reporting to WP:RFCN. While I feel that betacomand was continuing the reporting to WP:RFCN to make a point, i humble feel that an indef block is a bit much? It is just my personal opinion on the situation, and I, as well as other administrators often feel the pressure that I am sure beta was under. While his actions were not acceptable, I feel that the length of block may have been a bit long. However, this is just my personal opnion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I replied on his page. Please keep the discussion there. pschemp | talk 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you :). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tacopimp

Thanks, I wasn't aware. Do you want me to do it? Khoikhoi 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

yes please. pschemp | talk 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Why can't a username have the word Pimp in it? It's not misogynistic, it implies pimping tacos out with stuff like cheese and sour cream. I'm sure someone has the screen name "PimpMyRide" on here. I'm not being smart, just saying I didn't know that some names were unacceptable even if they weren't obscene. 70.149.185.107 08:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Pimp *is* offensive, and refers to prostitution. It is offensive to many people, and it is incredibly misogynistic. The username criteria doesn't require anything to be obscene to be blocked. It requires it to be potentially offensive. I'm personally offended so that's beyond potentially offensive already. pschemp | talk 08:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, then. The intention wasn't to be offensive, I guess it doesn't matter now anyway. My new name will be inoffensive, soon as KhoiKhoi goes to sleep I'll create an account with something friendly. Adios 70.149.185.107 08:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

How have you been, haven't seen you in a while. Looking at your userpage, I see you're a softball player. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Softball? Look again :) pschemp | talk 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the month

You voted for Carbon and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse work 16:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay

Hello Pschemp, I agree in principle with the comments you've just left on Essjay's talk page. The only issue I see is this letter. It's one thing to create one's self on the Wiki in a certain way but it is a bit different when we're contacting official/semi-official folks off the wiki with that same self when doing so would be deceptive. In this whole story that letter is the only significant sticking point that I see based upon what we know from the New Yorker article and what Essjay has said so far himself. (→Netscott) 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I have removed the Cholla cactus picture at your request. However, I feel that a few editors are picture hogs and dominate the article by what you think are appropriate pics.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staplegunther (talk • contribs)

Change the consensus then. That's how Wikipedia works. (And there is more than one way to do that.)pschemp | talk 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I can heartily recommend participating in WP:FPC. It will give you a lot of inspiration for your photography - good pictures are always welcome! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thank you, Pschemp, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicO Talk

 Image:Admin mop.PNG

[edit] Trying to do some messing

Just going to mess your page up a bit too. You never know, I might get attacked by your conjoined twin :P --Ali K 08:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'd know that. pschemp | talk 14:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Why the indef username block for this account? CherokeeWiki 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pschemp. Don't be swayed by that vile web page Mr. Gaiser posted on the main discussion pages -- he fabricated most of it himself. I am not upset at you or anything, just do not believe everything you see on the internet. Some of those particular trolls are quite mean spirited, does not mean the rest of us have to be, or anyone should listen to them. The best thing to do is ignore these trolls. CherokeeWiki 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse work 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

I've unblocked Jeff per the discussion at Wp:an#Jeff_Merkey_wishes_to_return_to_en:wp. I was going to leave a note here first but forgot - my apologies. --Duk 05:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. pschemp | talk 13:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Pschemp's day!

Pschemp has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Pschemp's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Pschemp!

Love,
Phaedriel
00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Dear P, I'm utterly sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I still owe you a long, really long email, which I fail to write every time I try. So here's but a token of how a feel about you, despite the time that passed since we last talked, and the promise that I'll drop by your mailbox as soon as I can find the appropriate words. You are so very, incredible, immensely special, girl. Love, Phaedriel - 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kudos on being an awesome Wikipedian! bibliomaniac15 00:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! pschemp | talk 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Judgingsams.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Judgingsams.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Iconone.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Iconone.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. A.J. 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

... and all of your icons as well. A.J. 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Look you nutter, I've already had this discussion with you on commons. I OWN THE COPYRIGHT BECAUSE I OWN THE PAINTING AND IN THE US THAT MEANS I AM AUTHORISED TO MAKE A REPRODUCTION. Can you stop harassing me? pschemp | talk 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
As soon as you give legal base for your copyright ownership claims. A.J. 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I already have. More than once. I comissioned the paintings, I own them, they hang in my home, I have receipts from their purchase. They are original works, not public domain to begin with, so Bridgeman vs. Corel does not apply. pschemp | talk 22:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
US copyright law: (b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. pschemp | talk 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not so nasty, just copyright-paranoid sometimes. I can show you receipts for my latest DVD purchases, but they won't do any good if I digitize them and put on BitTorrent, you know :). To finnaly resolve this unpleasent misunderstanding, please delete local en: copies and write email to OTRS people (details on your talk page on Commons). A.J. 22:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) PS. BvsC is about all reproductions: the court ruled that they don't create addidtional copyright, that is: they are not derivative works.

Jesus Christ, I AM an OTRS person. And and admin. And have a long contirbution history on commons. I'm really insulted about being treated like a freaking criminal. You need to be more careful. pschemp | talk 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
AJ, the distinction would be that you did not pay to have the movie on the DVD made for you, you just bought a copy. Works made for hire vs. works purchased. (H) 15:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note of interest

Issued addressed, but just letting you know you were discussed on AN/I. --Spike Wilbury 15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. pschemp | talk 15:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
ZOMG you were hacked!!1!!1! :) KOS | talk 00:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
In your dreams punk. ;) pschemp | talk 01:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That'd be a nightmare lol. KOS | talk 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
hehe--Ali K 02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm in ur nightmare, hackin' ur lols. pschemp | talk 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Harty har har. KOS | talk 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
He got angry at me per something at alfies page.--Ali K 04:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Now don't go dragging my page into this, it's got enough troubles of its own.--Alf melmac 06:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
But but but... /me runs off crying --Ali K 11:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You got three butts? Now that is unusual, even for aliens :p --Alf melmac 11:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
omg, do I have to go tell mum on you? pschemp | talk 14:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No no no - I'll behave, promise.--Alf melmac 14:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Alf hopes no-one notices him crossing his fingers behind his back as he says it
But FATHER is always watching! KOS | talk 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC) KOS silently applauds Alfies humorous misdeeds.
Does that mean we can have a spanking? pschemp | talk 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Pschemp blinks innocently.
Alf remembers Galahad and thinks he might enjoy that a bit too much
Mr Folly announces "And now for something completely different, a man with three buttocks".
Pschemp wonders if that's even better to spank.
KOS will not be the one to spank the man with three asses.
Pschemp wonders why not, and thinks KOS is afraid one of the man's three donkeys will bite him
Alf falls off his chair and starts rolling around the floor, eventually he realises that it's nearly home time and runs to get his coat off the lower peg
KOS tells of his Gymnophobia and how he couldn't bare to spank 3 naked alien asses.
Pschemp wonders who puts clothes on their donkeys anyway?
KOS supposes, besides everyone knows him, that he is the exact opposite of Gymnophobia!
Pschemp wonders what will happen when the ::::::: run out.
Ali does too. Lets find out! Ali has a feeling that Pschemp likes to walk around naked. Ali puts her hand over KOS's eyes.
Pschemp looks at Ali funnily. Pschemp thinks this was *never* about her being naked, in fact she's pretty sure of that!
Alf just snickers
Ali shrugs. Naked is normal. I mean, we all know Alf never wears any clothes, we can always see his sexy body hair. Mmmmm
KOS wonders how in the world this thread went from Pschemp being hacked to this?!?!?!
Ali giggles: You know you like it
Pschemp whines, Ali hacked my clothes and now I'm nekkid! :(
Ali is shocked! It wasnt me, why would I want you nekkid!? It was HS, he's the one who wants you nekkid, my'love.
Pschemp knows Haughty Steve and knows he has more class than that. At least he'd better.
Yeah true. Maybe. Quite Possibly. Ali wonders if you want your clothes back? I washed and ironed them for you *innocent sweet smile*. What? I learnt that from Joanne.
Pschemp would, thank you! 'Tis true, Joanne knows best.
No! Ali taught herself how to wash and iron. 'twas Joanne who taught me how to smile innocently ;)
And you do it so well!

[edit] Tuatara

Hi, I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for helping to beat things into shape at tuatara. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And thank you for the same! I'm not done yet, will be working as time allows. pschemp | talk 19:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse work 19:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurd/Samsara

Pschemp - Of course it's not about me. This is precisely why I found Samsara's comment (edit summary: re kzollman) a little unnerving. I was wishing a friend well and thanking him for his contributions. Samsara, responds to me suggesting that my comment didn't do something. Apparently, he found it necessary to suggest to me that more needed to be done. The implication, of course, was that I needed to do it. I find it equally frustrating, for precisely the same reasons, that you chose to jump into the conversation and suggested the same thing, that something needs to be done. If you think that {{sofixit}}, don't tell me. Besides, I disagree that every departure means something needs to be done.

People leave because disagreements cause tension and sometimes that tension is more than people want to endure from their hobby. Pete probably needed to leave, and no amount of more/less process, more/less bureaucracy, easier/harder blocking rules, etc. would have stopped it. In a few months, once things have calmed down I will speak to him about it. (And, then, and only then, will I attempt to decide if there was something that might have stopped Pete from leaving.) So, rather than causing more conflict, which might cause more people to leave, I opted to just wish my friend well. Instead of addressing this, both you and Samsara, suggested that something must be done. A suggestion which, I think, will only result in more conflict, and more departures.

People will leave this project. Some of them will return, others will not. We need to be welcoming when they come and wish them well when they leave. But, as you suggest, when I have the additional five months of experience you do, I may see things differently. (sorry, needlessly prickish. my apologies.) That is, if I haven't left the project ;) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

meh. If you truly thought it was needless you'd have removed it, not stricken it. There's a bigger picture here. pschemp | talk 15:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought you may have already read it and responded. I didn't want to render your response meaningless, if you so chose. I'm sorry. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Hi Pschemp, I was wondering if you might be able to clarify something for me. In his answer to Q.7 on his RfA, AKMask claims that an old IRC ban was by Essjay, but an earlier post in this regard suggests it was you who took exception to his conduct: [6]. Now on the one hand, this is all pretty old stuff (presumably at least a year old), but on the other I don't like the way he blames the matter on Essjay who is no longer around to defend himself. I was wondering if you were in a position to shed light on the matter? Thanks, WjBscribe 03:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. As I remember, I banned him but Essjay filled out the log. He was being immature and uncivil on the channel to many people, I remember that. I suppose he might have matured a bit since then, but I find that people with issues like that tend to suppress them just long enough to become an admin, then when they get the buttons, let loose and cause drama. I suppose that's up to each commenter to decide. At any rate, I did the actually banning, as I was quite offended at the time. Blaming Essjay is pretty pitiful, there were and still are many other ops on that channel who would have objected if the ban was capricious. pschemp | talk 03:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for that. The accusations leveled towards Essjay bother me a lot more than the original ban. Had he puts his hands up and said "yeah, I was wrong and I regret that" I prob would have let it go - but pointing the finger at someone who can no longer respond isn't the right sort of response... WjBscribe 03:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mess!

I got your clean talk page dirty ;) --Ali K 06:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fresh from the lake, Alf walks in and shakes himself dry - all over pschemp's nice clean page and the bystanding Ali K.
:( Ali is now all wet. Typical Loch Ness Alfie. Ali feeds Alfie a belgian donut.
Alf now regrets his shameful dousing of the generous Ali K and pops her on top of the still warm oven for ten minutes, to dry out.
Ali cries as her bottom is being burnt. Ali will be leaving in 15 min, and wants to go home at normal temperature.

[edit] A big thank you

Hi Pschemp, I have first to place a special note of appreciation for your support. I almost had a deathwish to see myself rejected to prove to myself that wikipedia was unworthy of my time and effort. But now I am dragged in. Hope I can just go on and edit as before ! Thanks again for your wonderful supportiveness. Shyamal 13:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You're more than worthy. If you ever have a question abou the tools, feel free to email me. pschemp | talk 14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Commas or parentheses for scientific name in opening sentence and elsewhere

(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I actually have three questions for you. Two are related to the erotic depictions article, since you seem to be an important editor there:

  • What's the deal with the section about Bob Mizer? There are two sentences there that simply don't make sense.
  • Am I mistaken or is that Shunga picture a man having sex with another man?

And finally-- I assume you intentionally have your user page redirected to an article called "Exploding animals"? If so-- interesting choice. Cheers, Jlaramee 16:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My error

Thanks for hardblocking that username. I went and solfblocked the user when they should have been hardblocked (I've only been an administrator for over a day; sorry about it). Thank you for that. Acalamari 01:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

I replied to your vote. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrat

Thanks for your comments. I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to keep your concerns in mind as I perform my duties. Andre (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erotic images

Greetings. In various articles, you have removed the free images that I inserted. In each case, I feel that the added image was relevant to the subject matter and important in the article, so I put them back in. I don't want this to become an edit war -- it wouldn't look good for two seasoned Wikipedians to get into it. :-) So I've initiated discussion on each talk page, hoping that we can discuss the issue and try to get consensus. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm sure articles about eroticism are prone to vandalism, so I respect your willingness to watch those articles and keep them encyclopedic.

[edit] Lampworking

Hi - do you have anything to add to Talk:Lampworking#Third Opinion before I consider my third opinion? – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on a total rewrite of the article, however, my internet is on the fritz so I can't guarantee I can connect or get it done before you do whatever the heck it is you want to do. Personally I don't think a third opinion is even necessary here, since the steps in dispute resolution haven't been followed, and I haven't had a chance to submit what I think the article should look like, so there is nothing for you to give an opinion on yet, as far as I'm concerned. pschemp | talk 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is why I'm asking for your opinion before submitting mine. I can base it on this version if you like, then you can adapt the article based on my suggestions. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the changes I've made to this page, but I'd welcome some feedback, as this is my first time offering a third opinion. For example, I don't know if you were expecting me to actually make changes or just offer suggestions. Also, should I have come up with a compromise as I did, or just arbitrate and say "A is right and B is wrong". As I said on the article's talk page, you'll probably disagree with some of the changes I made, but I'd be interested in hearing your opinions all the same. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eh?

And what's an encyclopaedophiliac anyway?

[edit] Bulbasaur

Please view Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon for the various discussions of merging all of them. Then view this for the keep discussion. You'll see that only a couple people even mentioned them, and one was WP:ILIKEIT. If the general discussion really wasn't enough, that should close it. TTN 21:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I did and found no consensus to merge existed. Additionally, no discussion was carried out on the article talk page. If that discussion were judged by xfd standards, the result would be no consensus. If you want the article merged, start a discussion in the proper place and get consensus. pschemp | talk 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you completely miss the part about merging all of the articles unless something is brought up? That is the point of the keep discussion. TTN 21:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That's nice. Something was brought up, by celestianpower on the list talk page, and another person in that discussion said specifically don't merge it. I'm sorry you've been ignoring that, but the comments are there. Thus your default merge has been rendered void. Additionally, no matter what kind of power you think a wikiproject has, merges are done with talk page consesnsus, not an edict from you. pschemp | talk 21:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Merges can be done any way that we would like. There is no automatically correct procedure or anything like that. The normal way is to use the tags, but with close to 500 articles, that is a little annoying to do. That is why there is centralized discussion on project pages. It was decided most were going to be merged for many, many months, and a large number of people have been aware of this. Two "I like it"s and a misinformed revert shouldn't break that. TTN 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And if someone objects to a merge, you need to get consensus period. Which you haven't. pschemp | talk 21:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And tough cookies if that's annoying. You are the one who wants to do the work. pschemp | talk 21:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
How exactly are the ten or so people that frequent the project page not a consensus? We don't need to count votes to have a consensus like we do in AfDs. The fact that everybody is aware, and has not spoken up is enough. It isn't annoying as it is wrong and pointless. TTN 21:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Those ten or so people have not weighed in on that particular discussion. Besides, wikiprojects don't WP:OWN articles period. People aren't aware because you didn't notify anyone on the article talk page, and people have spoken up, you just didn't like their arguments. Objections have been raised. Just because they aren't on the wikiproject page doesn't mean they aren't valid. Get consensus before you merge. Your personal opinion does not override WP:CONSENSUS. pschemp | talk 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the people frequenting WP:POKE most definitely do not signify consensus to merge any articles other than WP:POKE. This needs to be discussed on an individual basis, which involves putting messages on each of the individual articles and talk pages. By all means direct them to the Wikiproject, but you certainly need a note on each article. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Have Read The Project Page

Should I stop with the revert merges as well and take this to WP:DISPUTE or something? I want to follow the project but I'd rather avoid any problems or trouble. -WarthogDemon 02:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Find A Grave

Could you point me to the deletion discussion for the Find A Grave template? I have used this in a lot of articles and would like to see the justification cited for deletion. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a clear and blatant attempt at advertising, created by the owner of that website. There are few articles where a link is appropriate, and in those cases, it should go in the external links. The template is pure spam. IF an article has a link ithe external links, no template is needed. No discussion needed for blatant spam either. That's reason G11 for the code freaks. pschemp | talk 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I object. We have a long-established Wikiproject (Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people) that uses Find-A-Grave data, and acknowledging our sources is an established Wikipolicy. We have templates for IMDB data - that's where I got the idea to start encouraging use of the template. I've restored the template for now - let's have a discussion rather than unilateral action. --Alvestrand 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse work 12:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Driver

Hi - In an edit on the bridge collapse you said identifying a person as the driver of the semi-trailer was "non-specific and trivial." Here's my rationale: The semi-trailer was identified a few paragraphs above as it was very visible and several news reports discussed it being on fire next to the school bus. I think it somewhat relevant. Canuckle 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

follow-up: fyi - I did the easy thing and put his name next to the mention of the truck. Canuckle 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English/Scottish/etc.

You may be interested to know that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles) has now been created and there is a discussion taking place on the talk page. Readro 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Street names

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Violation_of_Protection_policy. -- Avi 19:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I believe the violation is technically only a move AFTER a protect, not the converse. Secondly, you know, you actually had a decent point in your discussion about the differences between Gaelic and German; it seems to be somewhat the the shame that you seem to be unable to make them without delivering accusations or with a disticnt absence of politeness. Thirdly, at this point, as I said, I am rethinking the interpretation of the MoS, partially due to the strength of your arguments which I have separated from any hostility that you may have clothed them within, and funnily enough, NOW it may be improper for me to move it back as I am currently leaning towards using the esszet. I would request that if it means so very much to you to have the page moved before a consensus is worked out on the page, that you enlist another admin's help, as I am really uncertain now if I can perform that move under policy, as NOW the page is locked, and at this point, due to some of the arguments shown, I have become more a participant than an admin.
As some unasked for advice, I would like to tell you that you seem to be both intelligent as well as capable of formulating cogent arguments (in the forensic sense) for your position. I think you would get much more accomplished if you were able to post your thoughts absent of personal rancor or frustration (that we all feel from time to time, of course). Most people, in general, respond well to valid and well-presented arguments, but the best of arguments is often ignored when the reader feels attacked. Feel free to ignore me about this one image:smile.png -- Avi 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect. The policy applies specifically applies to moves directly prior to a protection. Moving back would merely be fixing your mistake. I am very serious here about your policy violation. Since you don't seem to understand it was one, I will be taking the matter to arbcom. The issue of your conduct and the naming dispute are two entirely separate matters, which you also seem to have failed to grasp. I apologize if you interpret my plain speech as lacking in politeness. pschemp | talk 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom strikes me as being quite premature at this point, especially if the issue is only a single disputed move rather than a pattern of them. I strongly suggest that if there is an ongoing dispute here, that earlier steps in the dispute resolution process be explored first. Newyorkbrad 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm willing to discuss further. pschemp | talk 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
For Avraham, I will add that I think Pschemp is right that the rule against an admin protecting his or her own preferred version of the page (with some narrow exceptions that I don't think apply here) is equally applicable whether the protection is applied just before or just after the move, as otherwise it would be far too easy to evade, and the policy considerations are the same in both cases. Newyorkbrad 00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) As I posted on WP:ANI, having looked into the matter further, I actually now consider myself a participant, and am sort-of torn about how reverting would be, being that I think I favor the esszet now too. If you would, Brad, would you please take care of it as I think it best now that I no longer approach the page as an admin until a consensus is reached? -- Avi 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you as well. I'm glad that was able to be worked out without any appearances of impropriety image:smile.png. -- Avi 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Guy

I saw what happened at Guy's page, and I'm a bit concerned for him. Can you give me any information? Cheers, Dfrg.msc 07:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I haven't a clue. He deleted his page and left I guess. pschemp | talk 12:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That really, really sucks. Dfrg.msc 07:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Beagle. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You made me smile

Regardless of how things sort out with the ß stuff, I gotta tell you, I loved your citation police cartoon. Absolutely hilarious! Unschool 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Marmotboy

Hi. That user was usernameblocked by you in 2006, and now requests unblock. I really can't tell what's supposed to be offensive or otherwise blockable about this username. Would you like to comment on his unblock request? Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to be fairly inactive at the moment, I've taken the liberty to unblock this account. He appears to have used the French account by the same name. A Marmot is just a little furry animal so I couldn't fathom why Marmotboy would be so offensive as to warrant a usernameblock. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that was because of a string of vandals with similar names. Please stop assuming the worst about my blocks, that's really offensive. And my intelligence. I know what a freaking Marmot is. Nor am I inactive, but I do sleep sometimes, you could wait more than three hours for a response before assuming the worst. I did edit merely 3 hours before this request. 3 + 3 = 6 hours of a good nights sleep. pschemp | talk 14:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop assuming I didn't do any research along that avenue before I unblocked. I did scan through your block log and that of Curps (talk · contribs) around the time Marmotboy was blocked. As you can see here and here, there are no other blocks around that time by Curps of accounts with "boy" in them, and the most recent block of yours with "boy" was Jewboy68 from weeks earlier. The three blocks you made on June 3, 2006 had no similarity to "Marmotboy" and I don't see any other blocks in the time frame of either block log with small furry animal names. With all that said, given the choice between unblocking on the spot and letting some poor guy who has successfully edited on another Wikipedia wait another hour or three or another day or three for you to return, I will choose the former every time. I apologize if that offends you but it seems like a clear decision to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not contesting the unblocking nor am I assuming you didn't look into it, I'm offended that you assumed that I blocked it because it was offensive, just because the reason isn't obvious to you, doesn't mean that you can cast aside assumptions of good faith, not wait for me to do the unblocking and assuming I'm an idiot. Your condescension is highly offensive, and your lack of faith in other admins is poisonous. I would have unblocked the minute I awoke, and instead of just saying you unblocked it to save time, you went and left a message that treats me like an imbecile. Additionally, there was no evidence you would have had to wait a day for me to return, as I had edited just 3 hours beforehand. This is called treating your fellow man with common courtesy, and the lack of it around here is the cause of a lot of issues. Or perhaps you think AGF doesn't apply to you? pschemp | talk 15:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poke.

'n poke van die pragtige dorp van stellenbosch :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ok D. Thanks :) pschemp | talk 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse work 07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maine Coon

Maine Coon has received some heavy editing recently. Would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse work 06:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuremberg

I see you removed some (German) templates from the Nuremberg article with the comment "rm templates doing nothing". I think they were meant to indicate that the preceding Wikilinks pointed to articles written in German. Just wondered if you had noticed. --Boson 23:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I did but, the template doesn't produce an icon, and it's fairly obvious that that is German. IF the template was functioning I could see the point, but it isn't. pschemp | talk 12:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of British and United States military ranks compared

An article that you have been involved in editing, British and United States military ranks compared, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and United States military ranks compared. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escarbot

I've blocked it this time for scrambled interwiki date links from pi: I was wondering if you recall which links it was screwing up when you blocked it in August 2006? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old blocks

Please see here: User_talk:Emir214 and answer question I left, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I turned it down based on evidence shown by Chaser. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse work 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's the big meal day

Have a good one! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse work 13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible non-notable fencers?

I suspect self-promotion by the following user and his peers: Special:Contributions/LemonRapture

Should these articles be prodded and optionally AfD'd? Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

I just noticed that there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Laos blocked in 2006 asking for unblock about a block you made in 2006. I thought that you may want to comment. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit annoyed that nobody had left you a message. If you hadn't been here for a couple of months then I might have figured that you had left. If you want to repost on WP:ANI and point out the rationale and the other blocks I would be happy to support. As to you saying that you "...find wikipedia to be quite hostile these days..." I tend to agree with you. I was looking at WP:BITE earlier and thinking that it should really be Wikipedia:Please do not bite other editors. Some of the sarcasm and not just the attacks from established editors on other established editors is astounding. Hope you had a good holiday. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse work 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR of History of erotic depictions

History of erotic depictions has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Zantastik talk 09:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Otters

Pschemp,

I moved my reply to your talk page as it doesn't have anything to do with the article anymore. Could you please tell me how I assumed bad faith? I agree with you that Clayquot does not own the article and that anyone can nominate it. However, as I stated, I do not believe that it is courteous to nominate an article at FAC without asking an editor who has worked on it for a month first. Because of this, there is now an article at FAC that is not finished and the contributor is asking for it to go on hold so (s)he can finish it. Before posting my response under the Marskell comment, I checked both talk pages to make sure that it was not discussed beforehand. Seeing no evidence in addition to Clayquot's surprise and request for time, I didn't see much of a point to confirm it with Samsara. I'm sure it was an honest oversight by Samsara; in fact, I've done the same thing myself. I nominated Catullus 2 at GAC when I was a noob without even looking to see who the editor was because I did not see what could be added. WillowW about doubled the article's size during the process and the article still failed. From my viewpoint at least, I did not personally attack anyone at the Sea Otter FAC. If I did so, I apologize. Anyways, to get off my ramble and back to my point, what would you have done differently if you wanted to express my point at the FAC? This is not meant as a facetious challenge; I'm honestly curious on how I could have handled it better. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I felt that by pointing out where Clayquot hadn't been notified you again were pointing out faults, and defending Marskell's actions. That is why I said what I did. You did call the actions unthoughtful too, which implies rudeness. Since I know the nom was not made with the intention of being rude (as I'm sure your's wasn't), the choice of words bothered me. SO basically, I thought you were supporting Marskell's behaviour, which I find deplorable enough to really upset me. IF I interpreted that wrong, I'm sorry. pschemp | talk 01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi pschemp. Just to be clear, there was no private communication. I just thought it extremely poor form when I noticed. I have explained in further detail why on the nomination page. I apologize for being gruff and dramatic. Marskell (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Gruff? How about downright mean? You need to apologize to Samsara, not to me. I see he's properly pissed off, and no wonder. pschemp | talk 05:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Sussexman

Please could your attention be drawn to the unblock request posted here. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wild Boar
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Wild Boar Habbitat 3.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. 26 January 2008

[edit] TOR block of 154.5.66.241

Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 154.5.66.241, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQLQuery me! 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked. Thanks for letting me know. pschemp | talk 23:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting style

Hi Pschemp,
Please do not modify my votes - if you have an issue with them the FPC talkpage is where to put it. The voting style is not officially used by anyone is free to vote in the style they choose. However it really should become the official style as it makes a lot more sense. I recently decided to see how the FPC in other languages operated - what kind of images they've got the styles etc and was really pleased to see I could see what was happening with regards to the voting thanks to the accompanying graphics. --Fir0002 10:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I beleive it unfairly highlights your vote. Additionally, it has been decided in other places (like RFA) that these should not be used on the English wikipedia. Other langugae wikis don't apply. pschemp | talk 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)