User talk:Ral315/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Committed identity: 9ccf6eecff76a5219fb4dcae52304d74ce454eff is a SHA-1 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Contents

History Archives:

Dec. 04 to Feb. 06
Mar. 06 to Feb. 07
Feb. 07 to May. 08
Jun. 08 to Present

2004-2005:

01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05 · 06 · 07 · 08

2006:

09 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18

2007:

19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28

2008:

29 · 30 · 31

[edit] signpost user has announced they've left

Hi - User:Lcarsdata has announced on his/her user page (recently) that he/she has permanently left the project but did not unsubscribe to signpost autodeliveries. Do you have any guards against the deliveries just piling up in situations like this? I happened to notice this case (and could remove the user from the delivery list), but it seems like this might be worth a more general solution (like, stopping delivery if a user's last edit is more than [pick a number] weeks/months ago). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW - I have some shell code lying around (that I use for updating WP:LA) that you could run to find folks that haven't edited in a while. If you're interested let me know and I'll post it someplace. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rick, that sounds like useful code. We have some Beatles Newsletter subscribers that might be true for. Can do the check by hand as it is not that big a subscriber list... but... ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell?

Hey, screw off, man. I can edit my own damn page. Why the hell do you think you have the right to just do whatever you want? Someone asked me to remove the image, and I was going to. You have no right to just do something to someone's user page without asking or explaining yourself. — Chris53516 (Talk) 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answers

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
    I've been an admin since September 2005, and more recently part of the WP:OTRS team.
  2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
    I think we need a more robust arbcom, driven by common sense creating a healthy atmosphere for good users. Arbcom needs to have willingness to show the door to people who drive away useful users byt their problem editing. We need flexibility, and fewer delays. I believe I've enough common sense, experience, and versatility (and humility) to help here. I write well, so I'd be useful in constructing decisions - fred shouldn't have all the fun.
  3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
    Yes, many. I've rarely been a direct party - I prefer not to let disputes get to that stage. But I have helped to defend, I've researched diffs, I've presented cases and suggested findings. In more than one case, I've been instrumental in steering arbs from poor decisions.

--Docg 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost Profile

Hey Ral, just letting you know that my profile on the signpost has only the first edit for User:Improv -- my prior account, User:Pgunn's first edit was in Dec 2002. --Improv 16:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom answers from CSCWEM

Hi Ral315. Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this Signpost series.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

I've been an administrator since April 2006, and also work with unblock-en-l and OTRS issues.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

While I have worked with the Arbitration Committee in the past regarding several matters which required oversight and comparable attention, I have not been directly involved in any specific arbitration case.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

I'm running because I appreciate the important role that the Arbitration Committee plays in the well-being of this project, and believe that I possess the time, patience and experience the appointment can require of us.

If you have any other questions, you know where to find me.  :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transfered from the Signpost talk page - Image:Map factoid.jpg:

The screencap was deleted w/out discussion and without due process. --Howard the Duck 07:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair use doesn't apply and it was an obvious copyright violation. Sue me. Ral315 (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Um... from {{Tv-screenshot}}: "For identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents." This is perhaps the fastest speedily deleted image in Wikipedia, probably news for the Signpost too. --Howard the Duck 09:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And that, of course, applies only to the main namespace, not talk or user pages. As well, the articles you added it to should not have had them added- one was a useless reference to this stupid argument (a violation of no self-references), and the other was just being used as a screencap, which added nothing to the article and didn't provide critical commentary on the piece, as is necessary. Please read fair-use guidelines carefully. Ral315 (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, while that may be the case by any reasonable interpretation of the relevant logic behind that fair use clause it would make just as much sense as being used in the Signpost. It is frankly very hard for me to see how Wikipedia making an internal report of someone else's use of our content without permission would not fall under fair use. JoshuaZ 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is two-fold: First, that we weren't making any sort of an internal report- the only use of it was to say "they used this picture", and discuss whether this was legal or not. Secondly, it also appeared on a user page in a gallery of images, which certainly doesn't fit fair use. Ral315 (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
First, it's a legit screencap. If you'd want fair use violations, take a look at List of Maging Sino Ka Man episodes where the list pushes the envelope with lots of screencaps, when even List of Lost episodes doesn't have one. If you'd want to have a field day of deleting images, do that there.
Second, then remove it from the user's gallery and merely relink it on talk pages, DO NOT DELETE it because it used in the mainspace as a legit screencap. I don't care anymore if this goes to the Signpost, all I want is this to be undeleted, because it is a legitmate screencap. It's fair use. There were even fair use rationales in the image page and it was bypassed. Wait for a week to let it sort out, this one obviously didn't have those "benefits".
Signpost is an internal report. Its a reasonable news report with the picture being an easy fair use justification. The exact same logic that makes our mainspace allow fair use would allow this. JoshuaZ 03:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
And just for the record, we really try to avoid fair use, even when it might be applicable. It's a gray area because it doesn't specifically help the encyclopedia. Ral315 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I know, have you noticed my Image: space edits? They were for tagging fair use images without proper tags. --Howard the Duck 07:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was referring to the Signpost in particular there (not Wikipedia). There's nothing particularly wrong with some fair use in Wikipedia; the only thing is that fair use should be relevant to the article. A screenshot of, say, the news anchors, or a reporter, or even the title card at the beginning of the broadcast, adds much more to the article than an image of their graphics package. This image is a good combination of graphics and anchor; a shot like that would be ideal. That having been said, if some critical commentary is attached to the image, I'm willing to restore it (so long as it stays in the main namespace only). Ral315 (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As for fair use guidelines, it illustrates how ABS-CBN conducts it's news coverages, in this case Manny Pacquiao's return to the country and his motorcade. --Howard the Duck 02:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Howard, please calm down and please note that two wrongs don't make a right. It is difficult to use fair use images anywhere but in mainspace as it should be. JoshuaZ 03:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The only reason why I'm like this is that I felt like the whole process was bypassed. It wasn't listed on IFD, PUI or anywhere else. All I'm asking is to follow the process. Remove all pics that aren't at the mainspace. That's not that hard to do, isn't it? After that, all of the uses of the images are fair use. --Howard the Duck 07:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
(Posting here since it was off-topic at the Signpost talk page). --Howard the Duck 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ArbCom question answers

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
    I currently hold no position within any Wikimedia-related community other than editor. I am formerly an administrator of the English Wikipedia, and have previously held checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia and the English Wiktionary, and oversight rights on the English Wikipedia. I have previously been a member of the Arbitration Committee, the Mediation Cabal, and the Foundation's Communication Committee. All such positions were resigned voluntarily. I've also been involved with OTRS, and still have access rights there, although I have not worked the queues in some time.
  2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
    As stated in my candidate statement, I am running because, in my evaluation, there are fewer candidates in the slate who are qualified to be arbitrators than there are open seats in the Committee. I therefore nominated myself in order to give the voters another choice and to decrease the chance that an unqualified candidate will be elected to the Committee.
  3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
    I have obviously been involved in a goodly number of arbitration cases as an arbitrator. I have also commented on several cases as a "friend of the Committee". I have been a named party in a small number of rejected cases, and in at least one accepted case, although that case occurred while I was not participating in Wikipedia and I did not participate in that case in any way. I think there is one other case from about a year ago where I was a named party, but I don't remember the details.

Respectfully submitted, Kelly Martin (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Im editating

I have to get medatation Re: The wikiproject report. - Nathannoblet 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WIkipedia Signpost 2, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
I cannot say in words how fruitless, unnecessary and just plain stupid this mediation attempt was, so I'll just leave it at that. Ral315 (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WIkipedia Signpost 2.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/December 2006 ArbCom election

This template has 'elections underway' at December 11th, but according to the main page voting starts on December 4th. Is the date wrong, or is this intended to be an article written at the 'half way point', or something else I'm missing? --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The elections start on the 4th (hours away); the wording was bad. It was meant to imply that that would be the issue saying "the elections are half done, here's what happened." Ral315 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for rewording that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Council

I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding there. That page is not referring to WP:POST; it's referring to the internal project's newsletter, similar to how many WikiProjects do... Titoxd(?!?) 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, last time I checked, it was an internal page, so I'll put it back; however, I'll keep an eye on it. Looking at the content skeleton there, I don't think we should be getting into "Featured WikiProjects" and things like those, but it would certainly be nice if we could include some content there eventually. We certainly don't want it to be part of a Signpost-related dispute, so I'll ask the rest of the council as to what do they want to do with the page. Titoxd(?!?) 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It probably would be someone else writing it, don't worry about it. Titoxd(?!?) 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses from Golbez

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
    I'm currently an admin (since October 2004) and a member of the OTRS team (for about six months or so now, maybe less). I've been a Wikipedian since March 2004. I've also been an admin on Commons since December 2004.
  2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
    Because I want to help this project any way I can, through editing, administration, and hopefully through helping the arbitration process as well. I love Wikipedia and only want to make it better.
  3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
    I've made statements in a handful of cases, though I can't find any at the moment. I may well be confusing RFC with RFAr in that regard. So in any case, my direct involvement with arbitration, apart from some enforcement, has been minimal.

Thanks for the questions! --Golbez 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Elections tag in signature and discussing candidates

I just reached your ArbCom voting page, which said "You're likely here because I've linked this page from my votes/opinions in the ArbCom elections." - in fact, I reached it from your signature on a talk page. I don't think that linking in this way from signatures is helpful. If you want to advertise the elections, it would be better to just link to the election page. Actually, scrub that, I've just investigated a little further, and found this diff where you are cleaning up those sigs, so I guess this was a mistake/bug of some sort. The one I spotted was in a thread at User talk:Geogre. That thread was about people starting discussions on the voting pages. For what it is worth, I think all comments should be stripped from the voting page, but the discussion/talk page should be used for people to raise concerns about the candidates. Pile-on voting is less likely if people see only a list of names in the support/oppose column. If it is not too late, is it not possible to clamp down on discussion on the actual vote pages, and to activate/create the talk pages as discussion venues? I'd like to raise this over at the election talk pages (maybe it is already being discussed there), but wanted to see what at least one other person thought first. Carcharoth 10:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More sockpuppets of ForestH2

I recently found five possible sockpuppets of ForestH2. See my comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/ForestH2. Squirepants101 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last minute work

Not sure what you may be working on, but I can try to throw together a story on the one-millionth Commons file, one of the things that still needs to be covered. Hopefully won't take long to do. --Michael Snow 03:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BRION

I think Simetrical did have a tech report, it just wasn't listed. --Michael Snow 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just went ahead and threw it in, I figure it's close enough to simultaneous publication. We could drop a note in the next issue in case anybody missed it, though.
On another note, did you see the note on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost about running the WikiWorld illustrated articles? They look pretty good so far, and it would add some visual interest, maybe as their own "WikiWorld Cartoon" feature. We had two photos this week including the Commons milestone, but I've rarely been very good at digging up illustrations. --Michael Snow 06:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom page on Wikipedia Signpost

Hi, just doin' a litle public service and letting you know since you made the page..the 'vote' and 'questions' links for Will Beback on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Special/2006-12/All actually link to Alex Bakharev. Dragomiloff 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected template

Could you enter into Template:PMID as its decription is wrong. The template does not show the PubMed abstract number as is shown in the example.

Hence mediawiki PMID 12345 gives PMID 12345 
but template of {{PMID|12345}} gives PubMed

So the templates description needs this code for the described outcome:

 Shows: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12345 PubMed]

Thank you David Ruben Talk 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks fine :-) David Ruben Talk 23:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cake prophets

Try reading it in the proper mindset. Andre (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not an accident. Not exactly sarcasm, either, but call it an ironic homage. Thanks for checking, though. Andre (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom withdrawal after IRC discussion

I noticed that you marked Freakofnuture as withdrawn from the ArbCom elections "following IRC discussions". I'm not quite sure of the best way to put this without causing offence, but is there any way that the candidate themselves can confirm this withdrawal? I notice the last contribution to date from Freakofnuture was on 3 December. Carcharoth 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections

Thanks for that. The bot actually overwrites the page every time, so it wouldn't stay, but I spotted it on my watchlist. I've made the change permanent now – Gurch 01:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And again, thanks. I was asleep at the time, but it's fixed now – Gurch 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DR

I have the right to do work for the Signpost.

I WILL implemt [[WP:DR].

I will take these steps.

  1. Talk to you
  2. Request a 3rd party
  3. Informal Medatation
  4. Formal Medatation
  5. ALL STEPS MENTIONED I CAN AGREE TO
  6. Arab. Comm.

I am also requesting a editior review to see where I Can help

Thank You

Nathannoblet 06:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You've talked to him. You want a third party? Fine, I'll be it. Stop bothering him, and stop wasting time and resources before you get blocked for disruption or something. – Chacor 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
After you refuse steps 1-5, step 6 has been activated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathannoblet (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Nathannoblet

Hi Ral315, Nathannoblet has brought this request for assistance to the Association of Members' Advocates' attention. Would you be willing to participate? Thanks, riana_dzasta 03:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I was at dinner. I'm reading your e-mail now. Cheers, riana_dzasta 12:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Times....

Have you seen your new rival? Written by none other than... noblet :) --Majorly 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to laugh at the situation, but I really have to... Apologies for not swatting this fly earlier :) -- Longhair\talk 09:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

Thanks for cleaning up those bad-faith AfDs. I wasn't going to get to those for at least a few hours. I appreciate the help! | Mr. Darcy talk 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various stuff

Was nosing around and saw this massive vote for the main page redesign (687). Is that the record for any single vote? I wonder what the total number voting in the various ArbCom elections has been, and how many voted in the various Wikimedia Foundation Board Elections (though that is not just en-wiki)? Oh, and I replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks for that. Carcharoth 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/FloNight

You have voted both in support of and in opposition to this candidate. Please remove (at least) one of these. —Cryptic 14:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: ArbCom tally

Ral315 wrote:

Bot has been down for a while. Ral315 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The bot was working fine, but the internet was off for several hours. Not sure why, probably some sort of maintenance as it affected the whole area. It's working again now – Gurch 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Come and vote

Hi,

I've just started an award, why not come and see what it is? Don't forget to vote!

CarrotMan 07:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anniversaries

I spotted the 100th Signpost anniversary thing, and was wondering if the Signpost will cover the sixth anniversary of Wikipedia in January? Carcharoth 13:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on the silly poll

Hi, Ral. IMO, polls like that are a bad idea and I don't vote in them. But, since it is going on, it has to be presumed to be the poll on the merits of the ArbCom decision, not on the merits of the case itself. As such, it's to my mind inappropriate for ArbCom members to vote in it - it's like admin candidates voting on their own RFAs, to use the closest analogy we have. I fear your vote may be perceived to be disrupting the poll, which isn't likely to do anybody any good. Zocky | picture popups 13:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I didn't confuse you with Raul. For some reason I did indeed think you were on ArbCom. Did you run last year, or did I get confused for no reason? Zocky | picture popups 01:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy to merge

Look, I am happy to merge only if I can somehow be involved with the signpost. I am not letting my newspaper collapsp just because you started a rouge merge.Anyway, I were never told of these requirements ever. You shold have told me so I could fix up my writing. I am very,very sorry and I think I have just wrecked my chance of getting on ArbCom next year. (sob bob). Sorry again -- Nathannoblet 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for a month see reasoning here --Trödel 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keeping an eye on it, thanks. Ral315 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth layer

Just confirming that if you're interested, you can write a Signpost article; I wasn't sure if you'd checked back at the Signpost pages. If you're going to do one this week, please get it in as soon as possible; it'll probably be later than 17:00 UTC this week, but I try to get it published ASAP. Ral315 (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I'll be able to make the deadline. I didn't have much of a chance to deal with it this weekend, hopefully I'll have it by next issue. -- Zanimum 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ral315/Features and admins

Are you going to include Husnock's emergency [and likely permanent] desysopping in this week's edition? – Chacor 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia assignments piece

Ral315, my article, User:Ragesoss/Wikipedia and academia, is as done as it's going to get, content-wise. If you're not going to publish it this week, let me know what I need to do to get it into publishable shape.--ragesoss 05:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whichever you prefer; if you've already published, I suppose waiting until next week is better, since it's not that time sensitive. I left a note after you moved it to the "for next week" section, but I guess it flew under the radar.--ragesoss 05:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I should have left a "done" message when it was done. That's obviously the standard procedure, I was just lazy. No apology necessary. Cheers--ragesoss 05:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITN

Sorry bout that - I didn't get home until 1 am fixing the comp issue and just woke up. I'll do the double issue next week. --Trödel 11:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:CamelCommodore

Hi, I saw you were the admin that upheld this person's permanent block. I was the "victim", where this user posted to my talk page pretending to be me. Since then, this has gotten very strange with Coolcat and I talking on e-mail. Coolcat claims to know the person and states he sent him to Wikipedia and helped him establish an account. Then he claims to not know him, then he claims to know him again. I also got two e-mails from the person themself (he gave me his real name and e-mail which I can't post here) swearing this was all a misunderstanding. I have to say, I believe him. I think this is someone who didnt understand our policies and got sucked up into a very intense situation with me in the middle of an arbcom. Anyway, in all fairness, this person was not a sockpuppet and appears to be a real person. He is practically begging to be let back on the site and has apologized twice for what he did. I don't think he wants any trouble and, with regards to me, is not even involved with the arbcom. I would hate to see someone banned from this site because of trying to help me. Can we unblock him? if anything negative happens, by all means ban him for good. But, I would suggest assuming good faith and giving him a second chance. Thanks for your time. -Husnock 15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POST and WP:MOS

Hi Ral315, on this: as the Signpost is fairly widely read in the community, it also sets de facto writing standards I'm certain some people follow. I therefore think it is important that the Signpost follow the applicable writing guidelines. Thanks, Mikker (...) 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... wouldn't it be a Good Thing for POST to follow Wikipedia guidelines? I realise you are not obliged to, but wouldn't it help solidify conventions? Or, at a minimum, wouldn't POST not following conventions (perhaps most egregiously, in italicising quotes) undermine the relevant conventions? I'd suggest following MOS etc. whenever possible. Mikker (...) 04:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello, I had a question in regards to a comment you made on WP:AN/I

:: Most major Wikipedia channels, including #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en-admins, allow logging for personal use only. Thus, keeping copies for one's own use would be fine, and, presumably, reading logs to generalize a situation and responses would be fine. Quoting logs, making logs public, or sharing logs without the permission of all participants in the discussion is prohibited. (It may be worth noting that even private logging is illegal in some jurisdictions, but that's another story.) Ral315 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw that comment, I immediately thought that you were violating WP:NLT, which probably wasn't the intention of your words(and it probably wouldn't matter since the rules around here don't seem to matter that much anyway), but I was curious as to the meaning of what you meant.

Just to clarify since things there seem to be heated, I wish no ill will to you or anybody else in that thread, i'm just wondering how such a thing would be illegal. Just H 18:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification there. I don't understand how it would be viewed as wiretapping unless access to the channels wasn't public (I was under the assumption that public discourse was open domain.) Do you have any links to legal or legislative precedent on this? I'd be interested to hear more, i'll go google around for more of what you're saying in any case.

Once again though, thank you for helping clear things up. Just H 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

awesome. Thanks for the link. Just H 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Boo

Real life, it sucks, and I hate it. Especially the holiday crap. :( --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 10:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom signpost

Ive done the ArbCom signpost story. -- Punk Boi 8 08:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No offence meant, but it's probably not Signpost standard. – Chacor 08:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked Punk Boi 8 for violating the instructions to not edit Wikipedia namespace and rolled back the edits. --Trödel 15:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ral, and best of luck! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible ArbCom column

Ral, I was considering trying to write an opinion column on cases before the arbcom, in addition and seperate to the ROLL, just giving my opinion and comment. Would you be interested in seeing a pilot, or do you think it's a complete non-starter? David Mestel(Talk) 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please be honest. I won't be offended. David Mestel(Talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent

Sorry if I'm being an idiot, but isn't Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent meant to cover the current, former, and coming year, which would be from 01-01-2006 to 31-12-2008 - but you've just changed it to be 01-01-2007 to 31-12-2009, and I'm confused. :-)

James F. (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I meant that for 2007 shouldn't the years covered be 2006, '7, and '8, as you yourself wrote originally when making the template? Or have you changed your mind? :-)
James F. (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
*shrugs*
I just imagined that something about tenures in two years isn't that interesting, whereas "who is this fool who seems to know a lot about Arbitration? Oh!" is. :-)
Still, it seems silly to care one way or t'other. Will just leave it as-is.
James F. (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Film

Shouldn't there be a section in the infobox for awards? For example, the The Treasure of the Sierra Madre article has in its infobox, the following:

| awards = Oscars: Best Director John Huston
Best Writing, Screenplay, John Huston
Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Walter Huston

But it does not display because the infobox does not support an awards section. Infoboxes for actors have an awards section, shouldn't films?Fistful of Questions 15:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Post to add a timestamp, for bot archival purposes. Ral315 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I see, good call. I'll use Million_Dollar_Baby#Awards_and_nominations to mimic. Fistful of Questions 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've undone an admin action of yours

User talk:KindWordsNotHeard

Protection of the talk page of a blocked editor should be saved for cases where it's actually required. This guy wasn't cursing, pasing in pictures of penisesus, he wasn't even using the "unblock" template. He made one comment, and a fairly mild one at that. I've lifted the protection. - brenneman 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. It's just a sockpuppet of Karmafist, being an ass. Ral315 (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well... on the balance of probabilities, yes. But ther is little harm in saying "go write some articles or else you'll be blocked." The fact is that we almost always over-react to this sort of stuff. Rather than the whole song-and-dance on the user's talk page, or the extended sophistry on ANI/AIV if we just said, straight out, "Look, however right you are unless you make some contributions to the real encyclopedia no one will care. Go do some of that and then come back, or you might end up blocked for disruption." Anyway, I'll wait and see if And... err, the person replies, and I'm not about to undo a block without more consultation. Cheers,
brenneman 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Before you unblock, I'd talk to Dmcdevit; I seem to remember he ran a checkuser in this case. Ral315 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm in no rush to unblock, but thanks for that. If/when it comes around I'll be sure to ask him first. If that had been presented on the talk page I'd have kept my nose out anyway. - brenneman 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Right; no problem. Ral315 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R.O.L.L.

I won't be able to write the ROLL next Saturday, Sunday or Monday, as I'm going away. I'll most probably write a report on Thursday or Friday, and it would be great if you or someone else could update it to reflect any developments. David Mestel(Talk) 21:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, since I returned slightly earlier than expected, I'll be able to update it myself. Sorry for the inconvenience... David Mestel(Talk) 15:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:HouseCharacter

Template:HouseCharacter has been nominated for deletion for similar reasons for The Bill episode template (for which you voted delete). You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. The JPStalk to me 13:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you help save this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:US_State_Related_Ships

Can you help save over 14 hours of work? It started with the WV page. I'm about to leave Wiki again, it gets old when you bust your ass. No wonder they don't have they money the need, people what give when you screw with them all the time. --71Demon 01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)