From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive #2 starting January 2, 2008

[edit] Thanks for your help at Elise Primavera

Refs are tough to format sometimes... Bellwether BC (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC) ;)

I'll do a bit of work on them over the weekend, it will be good to have it in top-notch condition for your students. Teacher accounts sound like an excellent idea! Risker (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I saw your name in the history, and I thought that's what you'd done already. Sorry for the confusion. As for teacher accounts, I've been thinking of opening one for quite awhile. Wikipedia has great content [ ; ) ], and I have some students who love to read, and were greatly excited about the prospect of contributing to the juvenile literature (and other book-related) articles on Wikipedia. Bellwether BC (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was *going* to do it then but I kept getting edit-conflicted so I figured I'd wait until the excitement died down a bit. My internet connection is slightly unstable right now for weather reasons - nothing worse than crashing in the middle of a complex edit - so I'm going to hold off until tomorrow. Risker (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, okay. Yeah, Alice really is getting after it on the article! I appreciate all the help! Bellwether BC (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's no problem. I've been pretty busy lately, getting things ready for second semester of school, so I haven't been on here as much as I might have. I'll try to do a quick CE of your Blunt article, and I really appreciate your taking a look at the refs. Someone already templated them in some way, which makes copy-editing a bit of a chore (working around the templates and all), so there might not be as much work left to do now. Thanks again for your help. Bellwether BC 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't stress about the Primavera thing. It's no big deal at all. And I'm going to take a quick peek at Blunt, but probably no more for now. I've woke up in the middle of the night (morning, really) and want to get back to sleep soon! ;) Bellwether ^B_C 08:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks so much! I appreciate all your help. I'm pretty sure it was Alice who put that huge block of text in the quote. I'm not quite sure why, as ellipses could have worked well. I'll take a look at it, and put ellipses where appropriate. Thanks again for your help with the refs. They look very good! Bellwether ^B_C 02:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving to other page?

My recent edit to Social engineering you said you moved to other page. Social engineerinr edit by User:Igorberger Moving to othe page does not say much. Can you tell me where you moved it and why you moved it there? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format error?

Hi. Per your revert, what sort of error(s) are you referring to? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no problem on not explaining. I was wondering what errors you were seeing since it looked fine on my browser. But now I notice that the references look different on Internet Explorer version 6 vs. Internet Explorer 7. Maybe we're having browser incompatibility issues. I'll leave it alone just in case. You're right that it's a fantastic article and I don't want to risk breakage. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Queluz National Palace

Wow! Thanks for telling me, Risker. :-) I had been thinking about suggesting it for TFA, and I'm thrilled that it will actually become a TFA so much sooner than I thought. Best regards, Húsönd 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Queluz National Palace

Hi. Thanks for your message. I admit that the Queluz article is, in my mind, exemplary, but, alas, I have had no input (to my knowledge) whatsoever. I wish I could claim to, though... Is the talkpage where your message should mostly go even open? athinaios (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd forgotten about that single apostrophe I added. Seriously, I'm honoured. athinaios (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blunt merge

I can do the Blunt merge for you. Get the article up to final shape and let me know. It looks like the pre-December history of your subpage should not be merged, those edits can be deleted unless you want to save them somewhere. NoSeptember 11:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All done. NoSeptember 14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your question

For obvious reasons I hesitate to respond, but you say no one else has.[1] So please assume good faith and consider the content rather than the contributor. The approach I would suggest for this type of situation would be:

1. Edit.
2. After getting reverted, take the matter to the talk page.
3. If no consensus emerges, open a content RFC.
4. Possibly announce the RFC on the community noticeboard to draw wider attention.
5. If that doesn't resolve things, write a user space essay and link to it from the page.
6. Concurrent with any of the above, contact the channel ops and/or owners.
7. If none of that succeeds, open RFAR.

If Giano had followed those steps then the matter might have gotten resolved without arbitration, and if it did go to arbitration there wouldn't be the same level of concern about his conduct. Durova^Charge! 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-incidentally, I made almost the exact same suggestion (with the exception of the channel ops, since I don't know what they are). I don't see this is a huge leap of imagination (no offense, Durova!). Its the same process one would advise any editor to pursue over any Wikipedia related concern. Rockpocket 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Durova and Rockpocket, I appreciate your having responded. As I was soundly informed it was inappropriate to have taken conversations relating to this RFAR off to someone's user page earlier in the process, I have elected to respond strictly within the RFAR itself; please note that I personally have no problem with either of you posting here, but I do not want to do something that someone has "warned" me about. I know it doesn't occur to either of you the tenuous position we non-admins professing non-mainstream philosophies feel we are in; that feeling is quite real, and is one of the main reasons that so few people have the courage to speak against the prevailing opinion. Risker (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you link me to that warning? I'm very surprised to see you say that. You explicitly have permission to post to my user page in response to this, and if anyone causes a fuss I'll poke them in the ribs with a crochet hook. ;) Durova^Charge! 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the Wiki

SilkTork, I'm sure you're feeling a little beat up right now; Giano's work is held in high esteem by a lot of people, and your focus on articles he has been lead collaborator on has come at a very sensitive time. It does not appear you've done a lot of work with the Featured Article crew before, and they take things extremely seriously. If it is an area where you want to spend more focused wiki-time, you might want to start out following a few of the FACs to see what the entire process is from nomination, through critique, improvement and finally acceptance. Help out with copy editing. Open the window in edit mode to see how references are done at that level. Those sorts of things. Not everyone is cut out to be a feature article writer; I'm more a copy editor myself, my writing is certainly more pedestrian though I think I will be able to pull off some GAs in the near future.

Your stated goal is to improve referencing of articles. Ones that have already been through the mill once, and ones which are primarily sourced to off-line information, are probably the ones of lowest concern. You might want to try Special:Lonelypages, articles that need wikifying and (often) referencing; or ask SuggestBot to give you a list of articles that need work. This is a big place, and there are a lot of really awful articles that can use your attention. If you want to take up a new subject, I know that the professional wrestling articles desperately need help in cleaning up BLP violations and properly sourcing information. Best, Risker (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly hand, and the suggestions. I do appreciate it, especially as we crossed horns a little. I don't have an interest in FAs as such - it's the topic that tends to interest me, rather than the notion of acclaim or stars. And the topics that interest me will at times appear to be random, but often spring from what I am doing. I go to see I Am Legend, so I look up the info on Wiki (my primary reference source) and feel that I can help improve the info, so I do some work on I Am Legend and I Am Legend (film) - my intention is not to get stars for those articles, but simply to improve the information there within my limited ability and motivation so that others visiting those articles will find clear, reliable and helpful information. I visit Amsterdam, or I go to Hampstead Heath, so I set about making those articles more helpful. I am visiting Brussels and Prague, etc. I go to see The Pogues, etc. I do have an ongoing interest in beer, roads, railways, etc, so you'll find me playing around with those as well. I am not short of topics and articles that I may find need some assistance. And you'll usually find me in the backwaters of Wiki where the articles really do benefit from ANY kind of assistance, even from people whose writing is mainly concerned with banal facts! ;-) I rarely (if ever?) get involved in FAs, and my route to Robert Lawson (architect) is as I explained to Lars - User_talk:Lar#Featured_article_comment - incidental, and not part of any campaign against Giano or the FA process; though if the FA process is not taking firm enough account of Wiki policy as regards OR, POV and attribution, and prefers to focus on readability, then I might do as you suggest and look at the process and add my view. I do feel it is important to get a range of views to take into account all sorts of users of Wiki. Not to say that I want to insist on my views taking priority, merely that I like to have my say - and when I do have my say I like for people to not be dismissive, even when I may have got it wrong. It is as easy to say - "We have a consensual policy on that issue, here it is", as it is to say "You're talking rubbish - - I've been here longer than you, and me and my friends know what we're talking about." Though I appreciate that human nature being what it is, we all too often get the latter approach, especially when we feel attacked. I am not completely innocent - I am loose with my comments at times - and I have experienced the blood rush which leads to reaction rather than clear thinking. Because I have been there and done that, I never harbour grudges. I enjoying working WITH people rather than against them, and I forgive everything. I also know that I am sometimes misunderstood, and I must work harder at making my meaning clearer! Again, thank you for getting in touch, I really do appreciate it, and you have gained my respect for that. Regards SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 14:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

I'm sorry to be slow to respond to your message. I got tied up in the Jim62sch arbitration.

I looked at that diff you provided and thought it was pretty odd; I don't award patrolmanships -- I had merely invited him to check out WikiProject Spam.

I wasn't sure how to deal with the RfArb, but then he left a message for me so I responded, trying to explain things. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

I hate vandals, and you're one of the good guys on this project, so... anyways, thank you for the kind notes you left my students in the sandbox of the articles they're trying to create. They appreciated them, though none of them were brave enough to leave an experienced Wikipedian like you a message back. Feel free to comment to any of their talkpages, as you see fit. User:Wildchild48 made a few edits she's proud of today, to Deenie, I believe it was, a book she loves. And User:Tom Mouse $ edited one of the Hardy Boys book articles, which he thought was pretty cool as well. Thanks again for all your help, Risker! Bellwether ^B_C 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A page for you to check out

I have started another new article (Capitol Offense (band)), that you might like to take a look at. It's the rock band of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and I've found a lot of good refs already, but haven't expanded it as much as I would like to yet. As you did such a great job on the rewrite of James Blunt, I'd love to have you take a look at both the article proper, and the refs I placed on the talkpage and in the article. Bellwether ^B_C 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In use

I switched it to "under construction" (at least I thought I did), as I'll be working on it quite a bit over the next couple of days. Bellwether ^B_C 12:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No problem at all

I'm sure you would do the same with the Primavera article, or the Capitol Offense article, if I was as out of pocket as you are now. Stay safe! Bellwether ^B_C 13:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another new article

I started another new article, on a band based in Dallas (where I used to live), that I'd appreciate your input on. The article is Sorta, and the refs are a mess, if you have a chance to work on them when you return from your trip. Best, -- Bellwether ^B_C 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just to explain further

I'm not endorsing Jimbo's statement - far from it. If you'll check the ArbCom's query to the community for input from a year ago, my own opinion was vote with your feet which meant I enouraged the soft demise of the administrator channel through attrition. You can check with Bishonen or Jehochman or David Gerard: I never went there. In fact I felt so strongly about the matter that I boycotted IRC entirely, and still do. Durova^Charge! 07:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some Wikipedian "Sherry" for you, my friend. ;)

Here's a list of articles I've created (well, one I simply expanded a LOT) in the last couple of weeks. Would you mind taking a look and telling me what you think? Feel free to either intersperse your thoughts on these within the text below, or respond at my talk. I thought this might be a useful distraction from some other WP things that might be on your mind right now. -- Bellwether ^B_C 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In order:

• Elise Primavera (You've already worked with the refs, but I'd like your general impression of the "state of the article" if you don't mind.)
• Capitol Offense (band)
• Victoriatown
• Sorta.

[edit] If you pick only one article

Let it be Sorta. My favorite non-famous band, in which a friendly aquaintance of mine (Danny Balis) plays. They're astoundingly awesome, and I really want to see that one at FA as soon as possible. Thanks for being a great wiki-friend, and I hope you enjoy your "Sherry"! -- Bellwether ^B_C 07:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! And your idea about checking into V'town while you're in Montreal sounds good too. There have to be some print sources available that I just can't find. As for Expo 67, don't get me started. They razed a damn town to make it happen. It's cool that you were there, though. I was still seven years in coming into the world, as my mom had just turned 11 then! ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist!) -- Bellwether ^B_C 07:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gee, I Am Nonplussed Obviously

I had no idea that anyone was checking up my contrib history! LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume that many people watch Giano's page - there is much that is good and thought provoking on it - but I was simply responding to the recent comments there and it was for that "audience" only that I wrote... but your recognition is very much appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Craig McKenzie

I am intending to reply to Risker about an article written titled Craig McKenzie. To answer your question only one person is using this account and we certainly are not a company. I was referring to my wife who was researching this matter with me. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bournei7 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buckingham Palace

Hi; as I said to your friend, I really don't want to get into an editing war on this, but I felt his reasoning was invalid & he clearly, from his comments, had not examined my work in detail.

I'll try & keep this concise, & stick to WP, rather than an involved debate: you haven't cited any WP policy re the appropriateness of the links; you have admitted that you can't be bothered checking or considering them on their merits individually and are just going to revert because you feel like it, which is certainly a violation of WP as well as common courtesy; & you are clearly entering the discussion merely to back up your friend, adding nothing of substance to the matter, simply spreading around the use of the "undo" function a bit, which is questionable behavior under relevant WP @ best.

I will also note that the changes in question are purely a matter of copy-editing & do not in any way alter the information content of the article; the article in question has much room for improvement & if i were to make a full effort on it, there is a great deal of repetetive content that could be cut.

Also, you might want to check the quality & relevance of some of the links in the version you two keep reverting it to, before you question my choices.

I don't mean this to seem unfriendly, but I don't enjoy how you & your friend are treating me, & I feel your behavior is at best not in the spirit of true wiki-courtesy.

If you would like to discuss the matter further, I am available —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An aside

I don't want to sabatoge you redirection of that thread by replying there. However I imagine my evaluation of ‘’any’’ arbcom case, would find unacceptable actions on all sides. Clearcut cases are generally handled by other methods of dispute resolution. Situations that do become arbcom cases tend to be marked by complicity on at least two fronts.--BirgitteSB 16:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re Your comment to Giano at his talkpage

Most particularly the very last sentence; I presume that you are not talking about hamster fur? ;~D LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Gack!!! Ewww!!! Yuck!!! For some reason, when in the editing screen I mentally interpret the [[___]] as meaning "the article on (given subject)" and I really have to break that habit. That article has been on my watchlist so long I can't even remember what brought me to the page in the first place. I had Gerbilling on my watchlist for a long time too. One more reason to edit under a pseudonym. Risker (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I used to have it watchlisted, too. Me and another editor tried to argue that the Times advertisment paid by Gere/Crawford established the notability of some French magazines claims about their marriage... We failed. Twas a long time ago, so much so I got the domesticated rodent wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Favour to ask

I was reading this thread, and was wondering if I could possibly ask you to post a link to my on-wiki summary? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Summary. I've also asked Stevage, so don't worry if he does this first. I really must subscribe... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused now. You seem to be saying it is OK for me to post something you wrote? I'm saying I don't have an account set up to post yet, so I'm asking if you could post the above link for me. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resplit WP:COFF

FYI. I've re-split out what I believe to be more-or-less your rewrite[2] of the private correspondence proposal. I don't use email, so I can't advertise this on the mailing list. But I nevertheless feel this is the only way forward and appreciate any support. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Blunt discography

The article was starting to look like a complete mess and it was bothering me. :P Good luck on bring the article up to GA status! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, Risker. RL things have come up just now. Not sure when I'll be able to get to the graf you were wanting help with. Will try before tomorrow night, but as I said, RL stuff is cropping up on me. Best, Bellwether ^B_C 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll have some time here in about 30 minutes or so. I'll try to at least look at that graf then, and see what I can come up with. I'm in the middle of trying to keep the Hillary Rodham Clinton article at GA status as well as preparing a rather large examination for my students for tomorrow afternoon and Thursday afternoon. Crazy times! Bellwether ^B_C 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• BTW, can you post the graf you were wanting me to look at to my talkpage? I archive my outlook regularly, as I get dozens and dozens of emails, and I can't get at my archives when I log in remotely. I've already archived that message, so I'm not sure which it was. Thanks, Bellwether ^B_C 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sample

Done, although I hate that song and having to listen to it repeatedly for this purpose was painful :D. If you're looking for FA, then I'd wish you the best of luck, but as of now there's a long way to go. You might want to look at say, Frank Black for a "model" FA on an individual musician. Also, external links should never be in the main body of the article and a section like "Musical style and influence" would be necessary. I hope the sample I got for you is adequate; you'll have to change the caption in the article, I didn't do it. Add the song sample to the song's article too (add additional fair-use rationale too). Best wishes, indopug (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. indopug (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Per your request

I've created a few ref-ed grafs in userspace for you to take a look at. Here is a link to the text I've created. Let me know if you think any changes need to be made, or--of course--feel free to make the changes yourself. Regards, Bellwether ^B_C 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• It will actually end up being grafs 2-4 of the Souls section. I will copy it now. It was no problem at all. It only took maybe 30 minutes, once I got started on it. Bellwether ^B_C 00:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the barnstar! It really wasn't any trouble at all, especially given the hell that the HRC GA review is. We have a committed POV-pusher who's now weighed in, trying to get the article delisted. The funny thing is, he insists that I'm some kind of Clinton partisan, but I can't stand her. I'm an Obama guy, but I'm interested in keeping the GAs good, and preventing POV-pushers from having their way. I'm this close to unwatching all the political articles, as they're a frickin' magnet for this kind of nonsense. I say all that to say, it was a nice, relaxing change to sit down and write some good material, instead of protecting the project from POV-pushers. Thanks for recruiting me to help! Bellwether ^B_C 15:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notice about the Blunt article getting GA. You give me too much credit, though. You did all the heavy lifting on this one, and richly deserve all the credit for it achieving GA. Kudos! Bellwether ^B_C 12:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Hockey Hall of Fame

No, I would have no problems with that, so go ahead. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The IHHOF's Wikipedia article is a bit of an interesting subject. For a long time, it was the target of a pro-IHHOF vandal named VaughanWatch. He continually added things that made it look like the IHHOF came first and even removed the entire history section of the HHOF prior to the 60's. As for which came first, as far as I can tell, they were the same thing up until 1958. They both claim to have started in 1943, and both share the inductees prior to 1958. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For all your excellent help with Hockey Hall of Fame. -- Scorpion0422 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archive #2 - January/08 -

[edit] DYK

No, the cites don't have to be checkable online, but the facts in the "hook" should normally have inline cites to a reliable source of some description. Your own noms should ALWAYS have inline cites for the facts in the hook or they will probably be rejected. If you are nominating someone else's article though, I personally will waive the inline cite requirement IF the article is obviously very well sourced and there is little doubt that the hook is factually correct. Hope that helps. Gatoclass (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Craig McKenzie

Thanks Risker for your advice and help. You are correct-- I am fairly new and I will take some time to thoroughly read Wiki's requirements and figure out how to create well written articles. I agree with your point about other "player agents." McKenzie is a very humble guy and very active in many different areas and I think this sets him apart. He is also one of the youngest persons in this business with these accomplishments. I believe the article will remain as other notable characteristics will come out within the next year or so as it relates to McKenzie such as a novel he has written that will be published with a notable publisher and a documentary film which he is directing. He is also a marketing consultant for one of the Presidential campaigns. I'm very fond of him and in time I certainly believe you will not second guess his notability. Thanks again for your time and again I will review your work too so that I have the adequate knowledge for my future entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bournei7 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Gold

Hi, Actually I copy-pasted the contents of that article from Jimi Hendrix discography#Black Gold. They weren't sourced there either, and I agree that this is a problem. However, I don't see the controversy that you see. I also don't see any way that this article would get deleted even if you AFD'd it. The content, although unsourced, definitely "seems" legit. It does refer to Tony Brown, who does exist and has published books about Jimi Hendrix, so I think that whoever originally put this material on Wikipedia knew what they were talking about. EAE (Holla!) 18:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ludwig Merwart

I would like to reedit the Ludwig Merwart entry. Pls could you define what exactly is missing? Thx in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.10.205 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've completed the merwart entry. Therefor I created the new subtilte "work". Hope it is fine now. Best, Manfred.

[edit] Palladian Villas

Yes, the template does need some attention. I have made a minor fix. --Alan (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "Category:Villa Angarano Bianchi Michiel" This one needs turning into another villa article, but I am puzzled as to how to amend this material.

[edit] Robert Gilbert (chemist)

Thank you indeed for supporting me against those juvenile antics. I guess we can hardly semiprotect a talk page. I wonder whether banning the address of the user is a viable course of action. The fact that s/he has persisted for so long makes me think that the problem won't go away soon. Tony (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The pleasure is mine! Tony (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image undeletion request: Image:Hong Kong Market Crash.jpg

Hi, Risker. I didn't delete it because of a bad rationale, but because the image is replaceable - since it's a simple graph, it should be trivial to draw an identical one. I've restored the image for now to get a second admins' opinion on it. east.718 at 12:59, February 17, 2008

[edit] Peaches Geldof

Hello Risker, thanks for editing the Peaches Geldof article, but why did you throw out the important link which I added to it? The whole controversy is, that she was shown in HELLO! Magazine in three dresses which were later claimed to be fakes. The link that I added substantiated this. It seems to be obvious that Ms Geldof was pranked and that is what the extract of the edit should reflect. You cannot make that clear in three sentences. And you just made the claimed Monroe worn dress appear real and authentic with your edit. Please correct and put back the link. I agree with you that I posted to much on Travilla but that can be fixed without losing the importance of the articles which you simply removed. Thank you. -- Weareallone (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. The article is about Peaches Geldof, not about the dresses. The dresses are peripheral to the fact that she was on the cover of Hello Magazine - only her appearance in the magazine is relevant to her article. The rest of the stuff has nothing to do with Peaches. The hypothetical controversy about the dresses is immaterial to her appearance on the cover of the magazine; the controversy did not occur relative to her appearance. The controversy was relative to the dresses appearing elsewhere. Risker (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You would be correct if the article was mainly about Ms Peaches Geldof, but the article was about the dresses she wore. Have you read or seen the article at all? The people behind the exhibition claimed that Ms Geldof was wearing originals, made by Travilla and worn by Monroe. Your edit actually is supporting this claim which is not why I posted this information. One may argue that Ms Geldof with her celebrity status has, unknowingly supported a hoax. Remember that they charged people to look at the claimed to be Monroe worn costumes in Brighton. So the crime, if proven has already been committed. My edit is not accusing Ms Geldof of such action. But in my opinion she was pulled and used to sell a false product, a false exhibition. I did not get your reply and edited down my previous post and put back the media link which is important to at least give the reader the chance to realize that there were doubts. Ms Peaches Geldof obviously believed that the dresses she wore were real, but so did another British model, who was fooled, just like Peaches Geldof was: http://www.laracroftonline.com/news/tr_models.php Read this article and realize the WATH model Lucy Clarkson even mentioned makeup which she thought was Monroe's, yet knowing that Peaches Geldof wore the same dress there is a great chance it was Geldof's makeup. I hope you can agree on my last edit, thank you. Please feel free to work the Lucy Clarkson / Travilla article in, but I doubt that is of relevance for the Peaches Geldof article, and that is why I did not include it. -- Weareallone (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about the reference sources you are using. I am talking about the WIKIPEDIA article. That one is only supposed to be about Peaches Geldof and things relevant to her. You are using her article as a coatrack for your issues about these dresses. Not acceptable. The link above does not meet Wikipedia standards as a reliable source, incidentally. Risker (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I am copying this discussion over to the Talk:Peaches Geldof page. Risker (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there might also be a chance that the makeup originates from the British Marilyn Monroe impersonator Suzie Kennedy who was also wearing the white dress for PR reasons and for a photo shoot. http://www.raievents.co.uk/content/fashion-shows/the-lost-connection.html Since Suzie Kennedy appears to be bustier than Marilyn Monroe and larger in statue and weight, you can do the math I guess yourself. It is very obvious that Ms Geldof was pranked, I never thought or claimed she wore the fakes, knowing they actually were fakes. -- Weareallone (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do find it very relevant that Ms Geldof was pictured on the cover of a yellow press magazine and that she was fooled, that the public was fooled and that Peaches Geldof unknowingly supported this scam with her name. The people who brought out this hoax even charged a shockingly high amount of money to the magazine to photograph Ms Geldof in the costumes which became absolutely questionable. It may have very well have to do with Peaches Geldof, because paying visitors of the hoax paid money to look what Peaches Geldof was modeling in a famous magazine and they trusted the exhibition to be real and authentic of course. Peaches Geldof has unwillingly become part of the hoax. She was used and that will stand for both parties history, the Travilla's and Peaches Geldof's as well. Please do not claim that the dresses she modeled were made by Travilla himself, because that has become highly questionable as well over the course of the past six months as I read into this fascinating exposure of an exhibition scandal which fooled the entire British media. -- Weareallone (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This ANI report might shed some light on those edits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Will you be interested in working on another article?

Specifically Jacques Plante. It's been at GAN for about a month now, and I've decided to start moving to another stage of its development. I've contributed more or less the entire content of the article. I think it could you use some copyediting. Can you take a look, plz? I think you did a very good job with Hockey Hall of Fame, and I want to work on another article with you. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, 3 to 4 weeks seems to be fine. As for the sourcing, most of the stuff except the 'early life' section can be found online. I've been aware of this issue, it's been pointed out to me before. Should I replace the references or should I add the other references as well? Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 13:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All the Lost Souls

Thanks for taking the trouble to inform me for the reason for your reversion. My copy of All the Lost Souls has a Bonus track which is a very slow version of Dylan's "I Want You" without the final verse (it also contains the bonus track "Dear Katie"). I wondered if that was the iTunes bonus track, hence my edit. Mickraus (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MM Prop Dec.

It's interesting. I find myself deleting about half the responses and comments I might make because they are wholey snarky and filled with inappropriate language. and surprizingly it seems that everyone else (so far) is doing the same. Have a great weekend. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at Arbcom

Risker,

I don't want to clog up the talk page (more than it is), but I do want to clarify. I quibbled with the detail about when the proposal was added. I did not mean to be dismissive of your comments, and in particular, the second paragraph here exactly captures what I was thinking. I watch cases because I am interested, but also because I invested time and effort in making informed choices to support candidates for ArbCom, and their voices, as individuals, carry weight and matter. That is why they are on the committee. Jd2718 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; I didn't feel particularly dismissed by your comment, but am pleased to know that we are on the same page about the value of arbitrators "owning" their opinions. Personal accountability is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, and it needs to be in evidence at the level of the Arbitration Committee. Much as I may have disagreed with many of Fred Bauder's votes and comments, at least he stood behind them. I am of the sense, based on the fact that our "newest" arbs are the most active on this case, that there may be an internal desire on the committee to become somewhat "kinder and gentler." I have to say that the one thing that many in the community found completely improper does not seem to have made it into their list of "indecorous" behaviours - the editing of other people's evidence. To me, "incivil" doesn't come close to covering that particular action. Best, Risker (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some insightful comments

Hi, u:Risker, re this insightful post, I imagine I could construct an argument that editting another user's posts was a "personal attack", and that edit-warring with other users also is a "personal attack", but it might not fly. I think your approach is more reasoned. PS: fixed my talkpage, regards Newbyguesses - Talk 06:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit summary

I try to call 'em like I see 'em.  ;)

Unfortunately, this has sucked up the remainder of my enthusiasm for the project for the time being. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques Plante

Sadly, I missed your note in a pile of other ones. :-( It's now been archived to User_talk:Maxim/archives/mar08#Jacques_Plante. Concerning your ideas... I work on stuff off-wiki in a text editor then paste the text in. For refs, I haven't scoured the library, but I have a book on Plante's contemporary Glenn Hall which portray Plante in a rather more negative light, and the internet can provide the rest. Your ideas? --Maxim_(talk) 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Of course

Since you're obviously already familiar with the reasons for removing content from that talk page and such a good friend of Giano's, I felt sure you'd share his concern over about the community's best interest ...and Jimbo's. Good work you two dealing with Diligent Terrier!. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I do count Giano amongst my friends, but I can hardly say that about many of the other editors who concurred with his opinion there. Luckily for Diligent Terrier, he seems to have you for a friend. Risker (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!

...for fixing the AFD...Renee (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks. :P

For undoing my edit in the Hockey Hall of Fame page.

Just a little out of it today. ^^; I should have thought about that a little more before deciding to change it.

Thanks again! Thysiazo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About that WP:BLP1E problem

I'm glad you left a note at Doc glasgow's talk page about this. Please take a look Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here for some suggestions about how to clean up the problem, and add your sugestions. (You might as well, since I mention you ;) )Noroton (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have indeed said something, although I am not entirely certain it fits into any of your options. As far as I am concerned, and from my observations, most of the people using the shortcut were people who've been doing it since long before it was moved to the Notability guideline, so they probably meant to link to the policy in the first place. This is one thing that really does drive me slightly nuts about Wikipedia. There is not a single significant content policy that has remained anywhere near stable in the just over 2 years I've been editing. Some of them are nearly unrecognizable now. And yet, the majority of editors simply remember the policies as they were in their earliest editing days, and are tripped up by changes they knew nothing about, and that often are the peccadillo of a small group of editors who are striving to shape policy to meet their own ends. Hmm. Time for some tea, I think. Risker (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I have doubts about this consensus decisionmaking system, although every system will have its problems. As far as WP:BLP1E goes, I can live with any decision as long as we get it off the BIO page. Noroton (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubts about consensus. It is the founding principle and driving force of Wikipedia. It is the murky brown tea that flows in our veins. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...not exactly an appetising mental image, that. Consensus worked far better when there was a homogeneous and relatively small editing community, or at least a relatively small community that cared about policy development. That ceased to exist a long time ago. And what is consensus? How do we define it? Why is it different for some things than others? As Wikipedia has grown, it has attracted people who are far less prone to groupthink, who question more, who have broader experience in the real world. As well, more editors are weaning themselves from the enculturation, on realising that the Five Pillars have shifted in position considerably over the last few years. Consensus was always a little bit of a charade; it has become more so in recent times. Risker (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi! I was wiki-surfing and came abou your userpage. I was wondering if you would mind if I used your cartoon of the {{cn}} on my userpage. It prety much sums up my philosophy, as well! Thanks!--Sallicio 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free! The cartoon is "safe" for user pages (it's creative commons instead of fair use), you can either copy the the top of my page or just click on the picture to get the image name. Risker (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mahalo for the picture! Cheers!--Sallicio 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I responded on my talk page, too!--Sallicio 04:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arb

Hey, thanks for noticing that. I didn't see if he changed it, but I think hopefully people will get the point from context. Mackan79 (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I am a stickler for language use, particularly in "official" pages, because misinterpretations can have significant repercussions for the individuals involved. If FT2's timeline is correct, then your block is truly stunning. Good on you to roll with the punches. Risker (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great edit!

This edit is an excellent contribution to Wikipedia. I was tempted to do that but I thought that I leave to Giano to put the guy in his place. In retrospect, I think yours approach and my initial hunch was best. None of those fellows has ever learned anything anyway. Thumbs up! --Irpen 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well don't relax either of you! or rest on your laurels for too long. Giano (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Awww geez, does this mean I have to go and *write* something again? Well, I'm working on Jacques Plante right now, serious subjects will just have to wait. Risker (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques Plante

I've been a tad slow so that's why I didn't reply to the note. Feel free to add content; I've been adding some new refs and replacing older ones so the first book isn't the only major reference work. I've done some light copyediting on the article itself, so your version now is quite out of date. I've also removed the quotes and revamped the awards. Hope you're feeling better, Maxim_(talk) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the oppose, really

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, here's your very own personal humanoid robot. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Adminship

Done and sorry about that. I didn't know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I got it from here and I ended up removing it. For future problems. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plante to FAC?

I'm feeling quite eager to send the article to FAC. Can you update me on your progress? Thanks, --Maxim_(talk) 12:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't wait. I'm going away and I'll log in in around 20:00 UTC. Can't wait. Good luck! Maxim_(talk) 16:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask to some users at WT:HOCKEY for a review instead of going to WP:PR, a place that doesn't generate many comments. Afterwards it's FAC. And I'm quite sure he died of a heart attack, I'll try find a sturdier ref for that. Maxim_(talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD and Naerii

Hi, Risker. Did you see that Naerii admitted to being canvassed off-wiki at the Wikipedia Review? Interesting turn of events, no? Frankly, whatever issues you have with JayJg, I would appreciate if you left them with him and kept me out of them. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to engage in a bout of intellectual honesty with me. I invite you, as I did everyone else during my RfB, to go through my edit history, and make a determination for yourself if you believe I have my own mind or not. Of course, statistically speaking, Jay and I would tend to agree on Israel or Jewish related topics, much as eleland and Abu Ali would. While I do not think he has ever admitted to being Jewish, he takes an interest in those topics, and I have never denied my upbringing or religious faith. However, I believe there are plenty of examples where I disagree, vociferously, with him and/or others that are usually linked to him (such as SlimV). I have, am, and will always do my best to make my own decisions. The fact that he decided to include me on a cc: is unfortunate for me, but I do not control who sends me e-mail, just as I do not control which off-wiki website people like Naerii like to frequent. I also invite you to look at the answer #6, which I gave to Dorftrottel at my RfB. I believe there is a fundemental difference between people who share opinions, such as Noor, eleland, G-Dett, etc. showing up to the same RfA/AfD, and true meat/sock puppetry. What do you think? -- Avi (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, as you may have seen I have responded to your comments in on the AfD directly, but I hope to respond to some of your more direct points here. I'm not quite sure what makes some community discussions more "high profile" than others; some topic areas are obvious, and I suppose that anything Israeli/Palestinian related would fit there. Thus, such community discussions spread out all over the wiki-sphere. It wouldn't surprise me to hear this AfD is being talked about on blogs, in email and on IRC as well as on Wikipedia and WP-related websites. The more places something is being talked about, the more editors come to check it out, bringing along their own biases and history. I don't have a pony in this race, so to speak; it's a topic area about which I have decided to remain relatively ill-informed, and thus I will not venture to chime in on either side of the core discussion.

Meatpuppetry and canvassing, however, are something that I do have some rather well-developed opinions about. I recognise and agree with your point that one doesn't have much control over what emails show up in the inbox; indeed, I've had some pretty nasty ones (including a few accusing me of being a meatpuppet) and some blatantly canvassing ones. I'll venture to guess that you and I both respond to the canvassing in the same way - if the topic is of no interest to us, we ignore or respond that we will not be participating; and if it is a topic of interest, we take a look at the material being discussed and put forth our own independently developed positions. I find that there is a rather pernicious use of the term "meatpuppet" that has been getting more pronounced in recent months, which is unfortunate and uncalled-for. As you quite correctly point out, it's very rare for two or more editors to hold the same substantive opinion across their entire editing experience, although common to see editors hold similar opinions on specific topics. The latter is what makes almost all WP editors susceptible to meatpuppet accusations. I wonder if we aren't getting pretty close to a meatpuppet version of Godwin's law, since it often seems to have a very similar rhetorical effect. Regarding Naerii specifically, I believe s/he has written that s/he first found out about the AfD on WR; that is not the same thing as being canvassed to express a specific opinion, and one thing I've figured out from reading that site occasionally is that their members are all over the map on a lot of subjects, so whatever opinion Naerii is espousing, it isn't the "WR" one.

I've blathered on here long enough, I hope, to help you understand my perspective on things. I personally do not believe you are a meatpuppet of Jayjg; I also don't believe that Naerii expressed his/her opinions on behalf of anyone at Wikipedia Review. And I think all of us (I'll include myself here) need to be sure to AGF or simply ignore certain points, if for no other reason than to keep discussions moving. Thanks for popping by my page, I don't think we have edited together since the early days of the Essjay controversy article. Best, Risker (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. I believe we agree on this, and I tried to tell this to Naerii directly, but I guess I was not conciliatory enough. I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my, usually, overly long posts, and I look forward to collaborating with you slightly more frequently than once a year :D Thanks again, and please feel free to drop me a line anytime you think I could be helpful. -- Avi (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: See here. :) -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques Plante FAC

Remember not drag the ref fixes too long. :-p You'll get an orange bar for each day. Meant as a friendly reminder and a bit of a joke, too, but there is a serious part to this. :-p Maxim_(talk) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Kalisha Buckhanon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kalisha Buckhanon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalisha Buckhanon. Thank you. MCB (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peaches Geldof

The discussion in this section has now been moved to Talk:Peaches Geldof. Please do not post any more on this subject on my user page; go to the article talk page instead. Thanks. Risker (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] accident at image delete

Thanks for fixing; we edit-conflicted in trying to achieve the same result. TONY (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Tony. You know, if that map had only been used on one tiny article, I doubt anyone would have ever noticed...instead it was spammed into almost every article relating to health policy. Ah well. Risker (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] to the memory hole with it.....

got your message at my talk, and I think you're right - have consigned my edit at jimbo's talk page to the memory hole as well; and this april, I've been somewhat the fool in an attempt at mischievous humour..... as I said in my edit summary at Jimbo's page - jokes and bones shouldn't be too close, I guess - sincerely no intent to harm, and moving along now.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't left a note at jimbo's page because I'm not sure that would help... and if anyone else has noticed my silly post at giano's talk page, which I signed 'jimbo wales' then please accept this post as a note of contrition if it's touched any nerves - I meant it with a smile, without malice, and now shall move on.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page, I just noticed! I don't know what I did to attract the attention of a vandal! Kelly ^hi! 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it seems to be endemic today. That particular account is only ever active on this one day each year, and it behaves very, very oddly. Risker (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are far too easily pleased or Why are you stalking my edit summaries? A true Story, from A Reader

It happens to be one of my fav jokes; I will stop smiling when it forms part of a WP:NPA complaint, I guess... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh? How on earth do you think I've got so many edits verses article space contributions? (remembers to sign...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a joke

It was just a joke because of the "Peaches Geldof is a man" thing. --User:Iambus^৹ | talk 07:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well...it isn't very funny; this isn't a tabloid or a joke book. As I say, I am looking at all of your edits now, and my concern for your ability to edit appropriately is rising. Risker (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will no longer engage in jokery, as this is not the place for that. I'll stop. --User:Iambus^৹ | talk 07:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just so you know, that article is on the watchlist of a lot of people because it has been the subject of repeated vandalism. It's not a good place to joke around, as a lot of people might notice, and some of them have blocking buttons. Keep your nose clean, and you'll do fine. And don't add links to any more blogs and you'll do even better - if you get my drift. Risker (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit on Wikia, please see the edit summary. And I am about 99.5% sure what you did was browse my contributions looking for other inappropriate things. I believe that you came across something you wanted to revert. Isn't that stalking my contributions and does it violate a of policy or guideline? --User:Iambus^৹ | talk 07:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is perfectly acceptable to do that. I was hoping *not* to find anything to revert. However, I am trying to work on something else right now and I will admit I do not have the patience to counsel you on why that particular edit to Wikia is inappropriate, so I will just pop over to [{WP:AN/I]] and ask someone else to assist you. Risker (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada literature

Hi Risker. I surely do appreciate you lending me a hand. Please go ahead with copy edits. yes, I will be very much around to answer your questions.Thank youDineshkannambadi (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Risker. will you be starting copy edits today. I was waiting for your inputs.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Even as I write this, I have been reading the article thoroughly from one end to the other. Have you created any sub-articles from this one? It is awfully large as it is at 72 KB, and there's something to be said for having separate articles for the major time classifications and moving toward a more summary style in the main article. Do you have any thoughts on this? Risker (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually Risker, the subarticles are all listed as "see also" articles under each "Chronologically important periods". There is perhaps more than 250K of data just in the subarticles (excluding the wiki links) and growing. For instance, Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire, (a see also sub-article) itself has grown to about 40K. However, having said this, I am willing to consider any chopping of info if required. I have tried to bring out the history/development/overview of the literature of the language over 1500 years which is one reason it has grown. But i do believe we can bring it down to 68K or so quite easily. I have tried to retain the connection of cultural developments and political developments, just to ensure the continuity in the historical development of the language.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dineshkannambadi, just so you know...I *am* working on this, but as is my usual practice I work with hard copy first, it just seems to work better for me - showing my age, I guess. I have been working on the hard copy for much of today, and now I must spend a bit of time eating and socializing with my family before they forget what I look like. I should be starting the online copy editing in about 3 hours or so, if there is anything you want to work on before then, please feel free. Risker (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank you very much for the effort you are putting to help me. I will make a few copy edits in the "lead" by the time you finish family/food obligations. In case I dont get to it before you start, just leave me a note.Thank you very much again.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just one minor point. If and when chunks of sentences move around during copy edits, please try to ensure the respective citations also follow. I will look over it anyway after you are done.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh that isn't a minor point at all, DK; I will be watchful of that. I am about to start, but I will be working in the body of the article first, going from section to section, so we should not edit-conflict if you practice section editing as well. This will be a longish project, I probably will not get it all done tonight, but will finish it before I go to bed tomorrow. If I remove a sentence and there is a child article for the section involved, I will place the sentence (with any references) on the talk page of the child article so that it can be integrated there if it isn't already present. Okay...here goes... Risker (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for starting the work. So far, it looks fine. A few thoughts

• Is it okay to remove the number of poems written by Sarvajna (2000)? That detail exists in the wiki link for the poet. So I suppose its okay. Except it is not cited in the wiki link article. And Sarvajna is extremely popular:)

• poetic metre. Perhaps this needs to be included as it differentiates between forms of poetry. Example: Saugandika Parinaya written in two versions, a sangatya and a drama, is popular. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest using the same reference you have for this article to reference the 2000 poems in the Sarvajna article. I'll add back the two versions, but leave out the "is popular" part; that would need further explanation (Does it remain popular in the 21st century? ^{cite needed} Was it popular in his time?) I think the photo with Queen Elizabeth should probably be moved, as it isn't congruent with the time line and it's a bit disconcerting to see a 20th century monarch in an automobile while discussing poetry of the 16th to 18th centuries. Risker (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sarvajna's poems have remained very popular to date and have become proverbs used in day-to-day Kannada speaking family kitchens (no kidding!).

You are right about the King in the Jeep image. Go ahead and move it. Or I can do it too.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Risker. Though the FAC nom was closed today because of prose issues, Sandy Georgia, the FAC director has said I can re-nominate after your copy edits because prose was the main concern earlier. Please go full steam ahead with your excellent work.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Dineshkannambadi. If you don't mind, I think I'll take it a little slower though, and perhaps after I am finished you might like to ask another editor to give it a once-over as well. (And yes, I know I am not breaking any speed records as it is.) You have worked hard and done a lot of research here, and it would be very good if the next trip to FAC is short and favourable. Risker (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your personal efforts to strengthen wiki quality.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

However, please do try to get the edits done by tommorow if possible.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please proceed whenever you are ready. The article is open now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfect timing, I just finished a project for someone else. Will be on it as soon as I make my tea. Risker (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have any questions, please leave it on my talk page itself.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ranna: "poetic faculties have reached its zenith in ...." is used.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"poignant pieces of elegy" paragraph was included to indicate it is one of the earliest available elegiac poems. Perhaps you could mention it in a short sentence or two?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem:). Just make sure the citations dont get misplaced, thats all. I am very big on citations and I am sure so are you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Small issue. There are no "full leangth elegiac works" in Kannada untill the modern era, but plenty of elegiac poetry couched in the classics you are curently editing from 9th century. Sorry I should have mentioned earlier.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right about "Evidence of early Kannada writings" being a very important section. I have changed the title per your recommendation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Risker. I took the opinion of another user who said we should address weasel words that may have crept in (prior to your copy edits ofcourse) and address them. Some examples quoted were "although some poets continued…”, “Some historians credit…”, “has been ascribed by some scholars". etc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, DK. I think I've cleared out most of them in the sections I've copy edited, but no doubt I could have missed a few. Often, these can be cleared up by restructuring the sentences. I have had an idea about a graphic addition to the article that might be very helpful, but I want to see if I can find an example elsewhere in the encyclopedia because I'm not quite sure how to explain it. I'll continue the copy edit this evening when I get home. Risker (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Risker - just dropped by to congratulate you on the excellent work you've done with the cpedits. There were a few artefacts which remained of the feverish expansion and reorganisation of the article in the last couple of weeks and you've done a great job of ironing them out in the course of your cpedits. The article reads much better now. Carry on with your great work! Thanks! Sarvagnya 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lovely work, thanks. Have been wondering about it off-and-on for some time, and kept on putting it off.

The problem with FAs these days is precisely the level of copy-editing they require. I firmly believe the sourcing/content vs cyediting -MoS balance is off in the evaluation there. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'd like to think that it's a good example of the benefits of collaborative effort; some people are better at the sourcing and content, and others are better at making an article a "good read"; my strength is in the latter. Most FA reviewers, I think, tend to pick apart the sourcing and MoS stuff because it's easier to identify actionable problems; it's much more difficult to describe weaknesses in the flow of writing and tone of voice in an article, so many simply say it needs a copy edit. I hope my work in this article will help it succeed in its FAC; it is a good, scholarly subject appropriate for a general encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to thank you for your beautiful cedits! It reads so much better now. I was one of those who opposed the FA status for this article due to the reasons I had stated in the FAC discussions. Though it is not a FA at present, it is a good article in my view. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contribution to this article. Any potential reader will be thankful.--Aadal (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm done. I've left the prose untouched (for you to take a stab at), only fixing what I thought were the glaring inaccuracies in the lead. I haven't taken a look at your revisions yet, but the glowing reviews above suggest felicitous work. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 7th

Hi Risker. Thanks for resuming. One request. For poets please comment out Srivijaya but retain Kavisvara. Regarding Chudamani ("Crest Jewel"), a 96,000-verse commentary on logic, I feel it is important to mention that number because the book was called "the greatest work in Kannada" by 1604 CE Kannada grammarian Bhatta Akalanka who authored Karnataka Sabdanusasanam. Scholars realise that the book was therefore available to him in the 17th century and must have been lost there after. That number is repeated faithfully by multiple historians.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps I should include that 96,000 detail in a sub-article I plan to write for "early writings in Kannada". Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi DK - I think the 96,000 detail would be an excellent foundation for a sub-article. I will switch around the poets, as you suggest. Sorry, I went to comment on a practice I feel strongly about on AN/I and am now getting back to it. I am determined to have this finished tonight! Risker (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Risker, I can't thank you enough for your marathon copyediting of such a big article. I am gald users like are around to help. Thanks a lot.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Minor point. User:Abacedare (if I got the name right), in his objection wrote that the word written used twice in the very first line of the article is not acceptable. Perhaps you could tweak that sentence.thanks. I personally have no problem with the sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 9th/10th

Hi, I just unarchived a few sections as they were still the topic of discussion. As for the referencing nonsense - this is what I'd said on april 3rd when I thought that Fowler meant for all the refs to be replaced with the original year. Then I noticed that he'd only fixed the years in the References section and even withdrew my comment.. but today I watched with disgust as he went ahead and changed every single reference. I didnt revert him because, I'm waiting for the dust to settle -- so I can bring back the cited info he'd removed and also fix a few things you inadvertantly changed (the meaning of) during your cpedits. But he seems determined not to let the dust settle. Sarvagnya 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the still-being-discussed sections from the archive makes perfect sense; I was half expecting an edit conflict so moved quickly to cut the archive to a more manageable 52Kb or so, without confirming if all issues had been completed. I hope that all editors can come to a consensual agreement on the talk pages. I have deliberately not participated in the content debates so as to remain neutral in my edits; however, the article now has my imprint on it, and I feel responsible to ensure the content issues I have raised are addressed in the proper manner, and that the quality of my work is not eroded by poor editing practices. Of course, please correct any contextual errors I introduced into the article during the copy edit. Thanks. Risker (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] yes

yes thank you. somebody must have hacked my name. I think it was user: Jakew i already changed my password and reported it. what else can i do? Mayday2010 (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada literature

Hi Risker. Let me first apologize for the behaviour of two users, Fowler and Aadal, both frivolous opposers on the earlier FAC of this article. They seem to be determined to ensure that an article without conflict becomes one of conflict. But trust me, your efforts will not go in vain. Those who commit bad faith will eventually go away, no matter what their silly intentions are, I am confident. I have been on wiki for over two years and have learnt that only those with good faith and hands on hardwork will survive here. Thank you again. Once the Rfc is over, we will clean up whatever does not belong in the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ummm...

...No? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am, I'm afraid, having some problems with my pc's cache - for the last few days when linking to this site I get the main page with the painting of some guy in a turban as the Featured Article. I don't want to clear the cache since I keep a lot of pages I visit in there, as it is less easily trawled than a "favourites" page, and until just now has not caused me any problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Thanks. I'm hoping it helps to calm things and not stir them up further. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured status!

Your amazing copyedit was key, man. Bezhin Meadow got FA tonight. :) Lawrence § t/e 04:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada literature

Hi Risker. As I had mentioned earlier, the dark clouds that had gathered over this article are blowing away. User:Abecedare will help in smoothening out a few issues that are considered contentious, in the early part of the article and may do some copy edits before I go for FAC nomination. So in short, your efforts will not go in vain. Thanks for your excellent contributions. Hope you will be available to improve prose on other future articles of mine. Best wishes.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very happy to hear that the article is back on its feet, so to speak; it was an energizing challenge for me to copy edit, and I hope I have served you and the article well. I would be happy to work with you again. Thank you so much for the barnstar! Risker (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your excellent contribution to Kannada literature article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tango block in march

Thanks for the explanation there. That sort of description is much more informative to me than the brief summary you gave as part of the list.

The edit history of that page on March 21 does look like an edit war to me. It would have been right for Tango to warn both editors before blocking, I agree. I don't think the IP edits can be characterized as vandalism, though; they're intended to form the content of the article rather than deface it. It's somewhat sad, but not unfortunately not surprising, that User:Tubesship advised the IP to stop edit warring but didn't pause to ask anyone else to take over reverting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Carl; I am going to update that report to reflect the fact that nobody was warned in advance of the blocks, and no report had been made to the noticeboard. I think one of the greatest challenges admins (like you) and experienced editors (like me) face is that we forget what it is like to be newbies, to not know the rules or to only understand a few of them and not the way that they interact. I think many admins forget what it is like to be a non-admin, and that is the root of a lot of the resentment and pushback from regular users. When there was a small, fairly consistent and predictable core of admins, editors could reasonably predict where the lines were drawn. Now, we see admins leaving edit summaries saying "f*** off" and editors being put on civility patrol for saying "get lost" in the same context. Today we have a huge group of admins, and their opinions on things are considerably more diverse and less predictable. I haven't seen stats for some time, but I would be curious to know how many genuinely frequent editors we have now at WP (those with150 edits/month or more), and the ratio of admins to frequent editors. My betting is it is somewhere between 1:10 and 1:20.

[edit] Points

a) It wasn't on the public channel, it was a private chat. Have you ever used IRC before? It was in a separate window.

b) timestamps get on my nerves, so I have my IRC client set to not display them.

c) if I logged every chat I had with everyone, I would have long since filled my hard drive to capacity. DS (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• oh, and d) a substantial portion of the chat prior to that subject was me advising him on some good freeware computer games. DS (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, DS. I have used IRC from time to time, but prefer other methods of communication so haven't played around with changing my default client settings. Too bad they don't have time and date on them—looking at the log in the future won't be as helpful—but they are what they are. And of course I can't blame anyone for not logging all those conversations. Private conversations are just that, private; I'm sorry I'm such a stickler about these things, but given the heated debates that have occurred over time about IRC logs, and what has come from which channel, and different layers of permissions being given for disclosure—well, now it is all up front, without questions dangling over anyone's head. There have already been more than enough allegations of borderline behaviour flying around in every direction, often at people acting with good intentions, as I am sure you are. Nobody else needs to get caught in the crossfire. Risker (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] block logs

Resolved.

IRT your notes at User:Risker/Tango2#Block 8:

Smeelgova's block log is [3] and Smee's is at [4]. One does not have to be an admin to access block logs, but it helps to have Popups. (grin)

Horologium (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Horologium! It never occurred to me to use popups in this way. I'll add those links later this evening when I am on a computer that's more considerate of having multiple windows open. Good luck on your RfA. Risker (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Horologium (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please explain more fully?

Resolved.

WRT this comment, are you saying you know a way to look at an article, and determine how frequently it is read? I have been contributing to the wikipedia for three and half years now. I never heard of this feature. If I am understanding you correctly I wonder how I managed to miss learning about this feature?

Could you please explain how to use this feature? Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. This tool here gives a record of page views. It's very useful and interesting, is a daily record of views of any WP page, including those on other WMF wikis. I spotted it when someone else referred to it, in late December, although it slips my mind where it was. User:Henrik developed it. The data goes back to mid-December, and he seems to have it operating very effectively so that at the end of each day the data is updated. Amazing the tools that people come up with! I keep a link on my userpage for quick access. Risker (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy to Help =

Hi,

I'm Greg Comlish from WP:INVESTMENT. Foggy Morning pointed us in the direction of your request for experts from ArbCom. Which pages need the attention experienced investors? We've got a lot on our plate right now, but I'm always happy to help. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overstock related articles

Can you let those involved know that I would be willing to review any issues bounced my way for a neutrality check or NPOV or other concerns?

Obviously this means I would be likely to recuse in a future case, but with the main decision out of the way I feel that I am better able to help as an editor (which I do a lot of) than as an arbcom member. I am also financially clued in and have tended to do a fair number of our more difficult "problem article" cleanups when requested.

I haven't yet decided whether to actively edit or not (I might but I want to see how it goes first), but I am definitely willing to be involved to the extent of being a resource, if there are still concerns over neutral writing.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's credential verification

Here. Cheers, Bstone (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OOPS, Portland image fix

Thanks Risker!

This being my first discourse in wiki space I'm not even sure how to get back to where it's going to continue. So I'm here.

You are being very helpful in appreciating my problem. I do know the flickr person that made the attempt. She's a much better photographer living in Portland. I'll contact her about the "change the copyright status to "CC by SA" rights issue, and forward your advice.

Once that is squared away then I guess we link to it at flickr, or upload it.

This uploading the image part, and put it in the article part is still a bit of a mystery having not yet done this stuff, but I'm sure you are correct in suggesting that it's very easy to become addicted.

So thank you for offering to help me get through this first venture. It will might be a day or two before I return to you with the image copywright issues resolved.

Looking forward!

Thanks again, IfOnlyThePresidentUnderstood (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Resolved. copy edit and peer review done

Hi,

Would you be able to copyedit/peer review Adelaide Rams.

I have significantly improved the status of the article over the past few days and would like to get it to Good Article status.

It would be greatly appreciated if you would do this. Thanks.  The Windler talk  06:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Windler - I've taken a quick peek at the article and would be happy to give it a good run-through. It looks interesting. I'll warn you that I'm not great with wikitables, so I will work on the assumption they are properly formatted and the information is correct. I figure it will take me a couple of hours to do a review and thorough copy edit; I'll put any questions onto the talk page of the article. I am tied up for the next few nights (darn this real life!), so won't get to it until Friday evening or Saturday morning Eastern (North American) time - is that acceptable to you? Risker (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. May I suggest for the review/questions part that you place them on the Peer review page, as to better organise the reviews. But if you'd prefer the talk page, its fine by me. Also, I am more worried about the prose text than the tables, so thats fine too.  The Windler talk  23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, the peer review page it is. Risker (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was greatly appreciated. I hope to do some work on it and hope to get to GA level soon. Thanks again.  The Windler talk  04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the copy-edit. I know I could spend time raing guides like that, but my English is poor but I try.  The Windler talk  05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thanks so much! You know, we all find our niches here at Wikipedia. I'm not very good at creating new content but I do enjoy the challenge of helping other editors bring their work up a notch or two. Your kind words are very much appreciated. Risker (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		Copyediting is a laborous underrated part of Wikipedia and I award this for Risker's efforts in a request he didn't necessarily have to do. Thanks again.  The Windler talk  05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for peer review

Resolved. Peer review completed

Hi there, I found you on the volunteers list and I would most appreciate it if you could provide feedback for this article: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Rand/archive1. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFAr/Tango

User:AGK is asking for either evidence of Tango's misuse of the tools or a summary dismissal of the arbitration case. Since it was you who worked to compile the evidence of prior incidents, you might want to copy that information to the RFAr evidence page. Horologium (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, beat me to it :) Was coming here to say the same thing. I think threats of summary dismissal are a bit silly - they've decided to hear the case, and Risker had already said clearly that he would do the additional work to investigate if the case was accepted, otherwise there would not be much point. I would offer to help but I'm just about to go on a full wikibreak for most of this week. Orderinchaos 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well hello, everyone. I did note AGK's comment and left him a message here; however, I am very happy to copy and paste the work I did beforehand to the Arbcom page. As noted, I am willing to do the drilling down on the rest of the stuff, but in order to best present it I am going to have to quickly develop some wikitable skills, something I sadly lack. If anyone knows someone who's good with wikitables, I'd appreciate the hand. Oh, and just to clarify...she. Risker (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help with table syntax. Just lay out the information anyway you can and let me know how you would like the table to look; or I can write example code for how to achieve the output you're looking for. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl, I will certainly take you up on that offer. Let me start collecting stuff together and we can go from there. Risker (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just let me know if I can help. I think there is plenty for the committee to review here, and so getting it into a convenient form for them is important. I'm glad you posted your initial research into Tango's blocking history to the evidence page already. I have posted a few diffs that I think are relevant, as well. I'm hoping this case can actually help people find some common ground for future situations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can use Excel, there is an Excel to MediaWiki converter at [5]. Just copy the cells into the form and then paste the returned code into your Wikipedia edit. --Abd (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, what a great idea; I work with Excel every day. Definitely worth playing around with. Thanks! Risker (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Abd! That will be most useful for my mainspace work too. Orderinchaos 23:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tango evidence

Would you be able to provide links to the ANI and other discussions you mention here? There's little I hate more than trawling the ANI archives :) --bainer (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bainer, that is exactly what I am working on even as we speak (write?). I plan to set it up in a table similar to what you did with the IRC evidence, which I think is probably the most user-friendly format, and others have indicated that if I get the info, they'll help me with the table. It may take a couple of evenings, though; I'd rather get it right than get it fast. I hope that is okay. Risker (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thebainer - As I noted on my talk page, I am currently putting together the more indepth evidence with diffs to noticeboards, talk pages and so on. I intend to present it in a chart form, similar to what you did with the IRC case; however, since I am untested (shall we say) at wikitables, I'm collecting the info first and will move on to tables once it is mostly done. Just to check with you though, this is a sample of the information I am pulling together; could you let me know if this is the kind of information you and the other arbs would find most helpful?
(From User:Risker/Tango2)
Date/Time of block: 23:21 on 21 March 2008
Article(s) involved: List of countries and outlying territories by total area
User(s) blocked: User:Tubesship, User:70.49.152.70
Reason(s) for block: WP:3RR violation on List of countries and outlying territories by total area
Warning(s) given: None by User:Tango. Message on talk page of IP from User Tubesship at 23:05, 21 March 2008 requesting end to edit war[6]
Noticeboard info: User:Tubesship requests help with anonymous IP on the article at 22:49, 21 March 2008; some discussion of dispute resolution occurs after both parties blocked for 3RR [7]
Subsequent actions by Tango: Notice to IP of 24-hour edit warring block[8]; notice and extended conversation with User:Tubesship on user talk page[9]. Discussion of the 3RR rule, explanation of why IP's edit was not considered vandalism, Tubesship's request that autoblock be lifted as others use the same proxy, no offer to lift block once new user understood rule.
Subsequent actions by other admin(s): None
Additional Notes: (1) The edit war had started several hours earlier at 01:42 with edits by another IP, which were reverted by User:Polaron and User:Parsecboy; it could be considered a slow edit war, with 2 IPs and 3 registered regular editors. (2) User:Tubesship registered his account on 26 February 2008. Editing was in articles relating to Kosovo, a few miscellaneous articles, and a discussion with an experienced user with respect to image copyright ("Please help a greenhorn understand the difference between public domain and wiki commons").

Please let me know if I am collecting too much or the wrong information. Thanks. Risker (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I was actually just looking for ANI links (like here), but if you're working on providing more information then that's great! The main thing is that the evidence you do provide is well organised, and a table format would be very good for what you're doing there. If you already know HTML tables then wikitables are fairly straightforward, in fact there's a good comparison of the syntax here. If you don't know either... well I guess you'd better accept some of those offers of help then :) --bainer (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammer

Oh, I thought it was correct. Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 00:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand how one could make that error, RyRy5. One of the ways I check grammar is by taking out the "extra words" in a sentence - like this:

• Actual sentence:

• "Several other close relations, such as the prince's cousin Dutchess Marin, also reside in the palace. "

• Taking out extra words (my grammar lessons were very very long ago so someone else might know the correct term for this exercise):

• "(O)ther close relations....reside in the palace. "

• Or to simplify the sentence further:

• "Other people...live in the palace."

(Incidentally, this exercise is useful for copy editing as well.) Risker (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Easter

Mykola Pymonenko, "Easter morning prayer in Little Russia", 1891, Oil on canvas, 133x193 cm, Rybinsk Museum-Preserve of History, Architecture and Art, Rybinsk, Russia.

Hi Risker, as you probably know, this Sunday the Easter also arrived to the Eastern Orthodox world. To mark this event and make a small present for you, here is the great piece of one of my favorite Ukrainian painters depicting this event in my homeland as he saw it a little over 100 years ago. Enjoy! --Irpen 08:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Irpen, what a lovely painting. Where I grew up, there was a large Ukranian community, and I recognise the special dress - sort of like having a taste of my youth. Христос воскрес! Risker (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An award

The Medaglia Reale for all your help at Prince's Palace of Monaco and elsewhere. Giano (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

[edit] Never received any e-mail

I don't know what happened to it, but I never received any e-mail at my non-Yahoo account. Bellwether ^B_C 04:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Very odd! Well, I have resent it to both accounts now, just in case. Risker (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire

Resolved.

Hi Risker. This article has seen a PR and I have addressed all the issues from it. I probably have a few more lines to add and it will be ready for copy edits. Please let me know when you will be free to do your magic here so I can pace myself accordingly.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi DK! Glad to hear that the issues have been resolved. I have a few prior commitments that have fallen far behind, so will probably be available starting on Monday or Tuesday evening. In the interim, you may wish to consult with SandyGeorgia in advance to see if article size is likely to be a problem going to FAC, as my understanding is that the upper limit is about 60kb and the article is very, very large, at 77kb. If we need to meet the 60kb limit, that means reducing the text and photos by 22%, which is going to be a major effort. Depending on SandyGeorgias' thoughts, you might want to identify areas that have child articles and consider condensing in this page and beefing up the child articles (references and all) with what is here. After all the work you and everyone else have put in, it would be a tragedy to let a single word go to waste! Risker (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Risker. I think you are referring to Kannada literature which is 77K. The article I mentioned above and requested copy edits for is one of its child articles that has grown to about 50K and is a potential independent candidate. Kannada literature is now being scrubbed by an independent mediator (the lead and another section only) after the Rfc initiators withdrew. I am hoping the mediator (user:Abecedare) will provide his inputs next week. So, to avoid any confusion, we have two different articles here. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! Not a good sign when the copy editor looks at the wrong article! Sorry about that, DK. Well, that makes things much easier. My timeline is the same, I will start Monday or Tuesday evening. This one should go a little more quickly, both because of its smaller size and my now increased familiarity with the subject matter. Thanks. Risker (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your efforts are much appreciated.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a new section ("DK's comments") on that talk page for my comments.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Risker, regarding the "conclusion" section you mentioned, while some reviewers wanted it in one of my FA's (Western Chalukya architecture), others did not want it on the previous FAC (Kannada literature). Seems like its hard to gauge what reviewers really want. Maybe its better to let them comment in FAC. As such the info can be generated at short notice. What do you think?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that certainly works for me, Dineshkannambadi. You're right, it's hard to predict which way the winds will blow at FAC. I think you'd probably be able to generate a succinct conclusion without any trouble, so I am fine with you holding off for now. I'll be back to the article in about 45 minutes, just finishing up some paperwork here. Risker (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your patient and thorough copy edits and insights.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Risker, in the lead, there are a couplr of instances where a compound word such as "socio-religious" and "well-known" is used. should it have an ndash in the lead too?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I made it ndash. Also, does every date (such as 1510) need to be preceeded by "c." to make it c. 1510? Right now we have a mixture of c. xxxx and xxxx. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) - Yes you were correct to make it ndash, sorry I missed those ones! There are a couple of editors who have dash-bots around, the one I worked with most recently has retired so I will have to hunt down another; with such rich text as this, it is difficult to spot all of them. I don't think the dates need to be prefaced by the "c. for circa" unless there is some real speculation about them. Given the antiquity of these works, some dates will be accurate enough for a specific year and others will not; I think the mix is appropriate for the nature of the subject. Hope that's helpful; when this comes to FAC, I will be happy to express this opinion again should the issue arise. Risker (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. ThanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Risker. During FAC discussions, some content gets copy edited to make reviewers happy. Please do drop by (if you can) every now and then to ensure that the prose is correct during these changes, especially in the lead section and the section that follows it.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed some of the comments, and some of the changes in the last day or so; it's my intention to take a good look this evening when I'm at home and can concentrate a bit better to address some of these points and perhaps re-edit a few things. As you'll note on the article's talk page, I put my foot down about one change that was made during the process last night. I know there's a bit of a history there, so I will do my best to be diplomatic. Risker (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from prose copy editing, the issue of usage of hyphen for compound words such as "best-known" vs "best–known" vs "best known" has come up. Please look into this also.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the support.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure to work with you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] evidence subpage

Hi, as User:Risker/Tango Blocks was created and used prior to the arbcom case, I think it is best left where it is. OTOH, User:Risker/Tango2 was created after the case was opened primarily to be used for evidence; I can see precedence for subpages where a substantial amount of evidence is created and is accepted by the community as being a worthwhile addition to the case; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence/by White Cat . So, I propose to move User:Risker/Tango2 to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Evidence/by Risker . Sound ok? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

John, that sounds perfect. I think the text of "Tango Blocks" is already included in toto into the evidence page for the case. As a couple of the arbitrators have referred to the information in the Tango2 page, it would be good to have it all in one place for future reference. Thanks for looking into this; feel free to move things around whenever it is convenient for you. Risker (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diorama (album)

Reminder for when you get home; Diorama (album). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Poke! :) (I know, I'm desperate for this :P) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Diorama done because it was on FAC...really, you could have waited another day, no?  ;-) Risker (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)