User talk:Sarcasticidealist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thanks for your help man, i got what i needed from the restored croydon click article. go ahead and delete it. thanks again Robfranx (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist is running in the 2008 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections. To ask him questions, go here. To vote, go here (although not until June 1). If you'd like to show your support, please display my userbox on your userpage:
{{User:Sarcasticidealist/Userboxes/WMF 2008}}


Contents

[edit] Deletion due to banned user

Mr. Idealist - the Drug Policy project page was deleted, and although I agree that deleting pages created by a banned user is a valid reason for a quick purge, I put a fair amount of work into that myself to ensure NPOV (so as not to have some pothead banging the legalization drum) and to broaden scope from just prohibition to treatment options and distribution/regulation of legal drugs, as well as unofficial policy (such as Iran-Contra and the French Connection).

As I looked into the thus far scant List of Entheogens page, there was a question about listing the legality of each, and I responded with a comment about regional differences making this difficult. I think that the banned user had a good idea in looking into the Policy aspect of intoxicants, and 200 million illicit drug users (according to www.unodc.org) worldwide probably agree (as might the many more users of legal ones)! Might we discuss reviving the project, and what flaws in it you saw, if any, apart from its creation by a banned user? Regards - Clavius Centralis (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to assist with this project, it was deleted before I could join. --Abd (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I'm examining this issue, and will address it tonight when I have a few minutes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Too damn much rush around this place anyway.... --Abd (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks in advance. I'll keep my eyes open. My email's posted as well if you have questions. Shamanchill (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Found one that was overlooked, and if you could please undelete, SarcasticIdealist, we'd appreciate it. Cagegory:WikiProject Drug Policy members. Regards Shamanchill (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You looked after that super quick, and just as I was about to add a second page as a minor edit. Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy/Assessment. Thanks again, Shamanchill (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
SarcasticIdealist - could you please undelete the following:
  • Unassessed Drug policy articles
  • WikiProject Drug Policy articles
Thanks again - Shamanchill (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yep

It helped </post> Geek45 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moo

You made me laugh today. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fredrick day up to his same old same old

[1] --Abd (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The situation is getting worse. See [2], where an AfD nominator removed strikeout I'd inserted and threatens to "report" me. See also [3], and contributions for the IP.
(This AfD is complicated because the article is about the public debate over Instant Runoff Voting, and thus part of what is sourced is opinion that ordinarily would not be considered reliable source, but which is reliable for the fact that the opinions are being expressed notably. The subject article was not a POV fork, it was created through a consensus of editors working on the main article, including editors affiliated with various POVs in conflict, as a means of exploring, in an NPOV fashion, the details of the debate, more thoroughly than was considered appropriate in the main article. WP:FORK specifically allows this as a matter of editorial consensus, but the nominator -- and Fredrick day -- are appealing to a knee-jerk reaction against kinds of sources that would, indeed, ordinarily be inadequate. Further, I'm in the process of adding secondary sources about the debate. They exist.) --Abd (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HAU

Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my userpage -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 07:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback feature

Thanks for granting me the rollback rights. Just so I understand a bit better -- is there anything special I have to do to use the feature, or will it apply to any reversion I make? GreenSarah (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dave fork

Think it was previously deleted as a speedy. The first thing I thought when I saw it on the new pages list was that I was pretty sure someone had just got done deleting it. I think the first article might have been Dave Fork. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC) From deletion log "15:57, 16 May 2008 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "Dave fork" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance) " Hope that helps Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

for your contribution. I'm new in this and created the Britney Sixth Album article with limited knowledge and now im getting it fast. Mazenation (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closure of Lara's userbox MfD

Please see my last comment there. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this, both because I'm a Keep !vote, and because I'm the one who requested the closure, but there may be some merit to that suggestion (that the content was just moved to the userpage, rather than retained as a template-style Userbox). Do MFD's deal with individual content items on userpages? If so, then maybe this should stay open... The alternative, and one that might get wider discussion, would be WP:ANI, which I'm sure everyone would be thrilled about. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(moved from Equazcion's talk page) Frankly, I'm out of my element here, since I probably don't have the breadth of experience to evaluate the proper use of MFDs, and whether your proposed use of this one qualifies. I'd have no objection to somebody else undoing my close. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I started an ANI discussion regarding this -- WP:ANI#User:LaraLove's controversial userbox. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for colorizing my reasons box.

I got frustrated by the process and said the hell with it. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vote

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates/Submissions

I see you there.

I can not read english well. :)

So, I decide by "only picture"!! :)

Have a nice day~ :) -- WonRyong (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

I am working on my entry on the Constitution of the Roman Republic (and greatly expanding it into many other entries). For some reason, it seems to be marked for deletion. It doesn't say this on the top of the page. It only says this when I open the history part of the entry. To see an example, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_the_Roman_Republic&oldid=212759111 and look at the bottom of the page. It says that it was marked on May 16. I can't tell who marked it. I have spent a lot of time on this, and don't want someone just deleting it.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my question. I have another question. When I finish with my series (which will probably occur within a couple more weeks) I wanted to submit Constitution of the Roman Republic for per review. I would like to make it a featured article. I am still quite unfamiliar with the protocols of Wikipedia. Can you tell me if the article looks like it might be approaching featured article status?RomanHistorian (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I can add many more references to Constitution of the Roman Republic. I have not added more because I wasn't sure how many references would be too many. I could probably add references to just about everything, but I thought that might be excessive. How do I know what the right balance of references would be?
Also, all of my references come from the four books at the bottom of the page. Do you think four books is enough for featured article status?
Finally, if featured articles are not your expertise, do you know a few people whom I can talk to about this?RomanHistorian (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I will send a message to him. I wanted to get a better idea regarding the logic you were using. When I look at other Roman featured articles, such as the one on the Emperor Augustus, I see as many as 20 books being cited. Could you please give me a better idea of why you think that four books is a satisfactory number to cite from? Is it common for featured articles, even ones on subjects as unique as this one, to have only four sources for citation?RomanHistorian (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little present

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
It seems every time i check my watchlist for the latest new pages i've tagged for deletion or vandal-tastic users who i'm waiting to be blocked, there's your username on every line. So this is just a quick thanks and reward for all your hard work deleting csd'd pages and blocking sockpuppets and similar. Enjoy! Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sho Dozono

I've made some edits and responded to the points in your review. Thanks for taking the time to do a thorough review! VanTucky Vote in my weird poll! 02:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe everything you brought up has been addressed, and the article has been updated now that the election is over. VanTucky 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ilovecallie...oooookay....

Thanks for taking care of that...whateveritwas. I have never even interacted with that user, which leads me to believe it might be a reincarnation of Jamesinc14, of whom I've been catching and reporting socks quite often in the past few days. The fact that he went after Azumanga pretty much doubles those suspicions... Anyway, thanks for catching and squashing....much appreciated! Gladys J Cortez 07:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

Hi there, I saw your comments on related questions on the talkpage of WP:SOCK so I thought I'd ask for your opinion on this RfC. Part of the question I think needs to be addressed is if this editor has used multiple accounts in a way that is inconsistent with policy. User:WLU has tried to address this on the RfC talkpage, but received what I see as equivocal and evasive answers. If you have time to comment it would be much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Joseph Driscoll disambiguation

That's OK. I turned it into a disambig page because they can be very helpful. Firstly, both pages already had different titles and no page moves (leaving loads of links to fix) were needed. The page itself creates a list of the individuals and means the title can be listed in Category:Lists of ambiguous human names to track ambiguous names. It also makes identifying links that need to be disambiguated much much easier to identify as they point to a disambiguation page, rather than the wrong article, and are much more likely to be fixed to point to the right article (see Special:Disambiguations, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links which tracks these things, good place to start if you want to learn a bit about disambiguation and help out). I added a hatnote at Joseph Driscoll (Canadian politician) as it is possible a link may be mis-disambiguated, or people arrive at the article from outside, eg searching for Joseph Driscoll politician and they want the other article, and the link makes it much easier to find the disambig page and the other article (articles if it's expanded). Hope that helps and let me know if you have any more questions. mattbr 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Hello - when you did your stuff with the various Matthew McCauley pages, you conducted at least one copy and paste page moved. I've undone this, because copy and paste page moves violate the GFDL, because the page history is lost. After undoing all that, I've re-created Matthew McCauley (disambiguation) (although without the Wiktionary link, which seemed to me to serve no purpose, although I left Matthew McCauley pointing to Matthew McCauley (politician), just because there are a bunch of pages that currently link to Matthew McCauley intending it to be to the politician. If you want to change all of those links, feel free to point the main one back to the disambig. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure how to do the moves best but wanted to be bold and get them done. I don't think your changes adversely affected any of my edits; your's just helped restore the page history for the politician...great job and thanks! --Eustress (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet question

Hi,

You've answered a couple questions on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry, could you answer one more? Thanks, WLU (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would like a copy of Joquiste

That page was created by a couple of my friends as a harmless joke. I hope the wikipedia community wasn't offended and I really don't think that I damaged wikipedia because of it. But Hopefully you would be willing to provide me a backup copy. I was told, after my article was requested for a speedy deletion, that I could ask an administrator for such a request. - Cstarj (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Fredrick day shenanigans

I made a report to AN/I at [4] about current edits of Fredrick day. He's basically been following me around, watching for opportunities to disrupt. Response to the AN/I report has not been swift, so I'm letting you know here. If you have any time, thanks for your attention, and, if not, thanks anyway. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holy S word

I thought you had John in a corner on that Prison Sentence thing. He may be turning a corner attitude wise. Thanks for helping him. :Albion moonlight (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Byrne

My bad. I checked the revision history and looked to be the same editor. How I missed that I don't know. Thanks for catching it. Pedro :  Chat  07:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Byrne

Yeah, Bearcat already informed me of my gaffe. In my head I really thought I had checked the history, but clearly I didn't. I'm guessing its time for bed. AniMate 07:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Permanent IP Block or Extended (5 Yr intervals)

Hi i want your opinon about an IP block, please click here for more info, its to do with an IP block. Im gathering opinions of multiple admins. Thanks

Y Done Prom3th3an (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lost password

Hi SarcasticIdealist.

This is GreenSarah. You granted me rollback privileges recently. To make a long story short - a hard drive crash has left me without my Wikipedia password. There's no email address associated with my account. Am I out of luck? Feel free to leave a response on my talk page. I'll find it there. GreenSarah (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.44.250 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's sort of what I figured. I wanted to change my user name anyway, so maybe not such a big deal. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.33 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted article

hi man, i made a page today that was very hastily deleted. i would like a copy sent to me please. and if u could find the time to indicate how i could make it legit that would be awesome. if not, thanks for ya time anyways. Robfranx (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Yes, I'm Kerry G. Johnson, not Milesaurus

Hello. Yes, I am Kerry G. Johnson. I'm not Milesaurus, BUT I know him. He informed me of what was happening with his Harambee Hills article. I reget that my webcomic title did not meet your Wikipedia standards. He told me he was a fan and wanted to support my efforts. especially after I told him about all the other webcomic entries on your site. Additionally, Harambee Hills does have a entry on Comixpedia AND a web site.

And about the edits to my own Kerry G. Johnson entry. I believe he also originally started that about 2 years ago. Though, I do and edit or clarify the content if I see any mistakes or for updating. It's not an actual autobiography, because I do have an online presence.

One last note, as Milesuarus, mentioned. I am an award-winning cartoonist and caricaturist. I do believe this is notable, because there are not many African-American professional cartoonist and caricaturist in our industry. Not to mention, cartoonist who were born in Nashville. Here are true to life examples: I have been contacted often by aspiring minority artists/cartoonists looking for source material for projects or book reports. So in closing, I am not a novice in this industry, my accolades, illustrated books and awards have proven that.

Perhaps you can also rethink Milesauarus Harambee Hills entry?

Sincerely,

Kerryjohnson (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Okay, give me a few days

Okay, give me a few days to gather the info. I will update the reference content in the next few days. Who is Steve, do you mean Milesaurus? Also, after I add the third-party reference information, can the administrator please remove the "tags"? (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

- Kerry G. Johnson

[edit] Yarrow

There is a pending compromise offer [[5]] on both the prison sentence and on the "category" dispute. While VERY imperfect, I have gone along with this in an extreme display of the 'spirit of compromise". John celona (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have my full support

I supported your request for adminship and I also support your campaign for the board. I have placed your banner on my talk page. Cheers --Law Lord (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] However,

This is precisely hilarious. Thanks for the chuckle. David in DC (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Timeshift9#Blocked

FYI, Rebecca (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) decided to unblock Timeshift9 (talk · contribs). Her justification suggests she was under the incorrect impression that it was for removing the warnings that had been "sanctimoniously added back". Despite my requests that she discuss it with you (the blocking admin), despite Timseshift9's persistent incivility (I have been watching it for months) and despite her obvious familiarity with Timseshift9 (from their similar contributions), Rebecca considered it prudent to unilaterally counter another administrator's action then go offline. Therefore I reinstated the original block length until it is properly discussed. Rockpocket 08:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have re-blocked him again for the original period to reinstate the status quo. Consider it your block, so if you wish to unblock at any time feel free to do so without consulting me. Rockpocket 08:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't misinterpret the reason for the block, as I explained on Rockpocket's talk page. Rather, it's about dispute resolution.

Here, you had a good user who was angry after some pretty sanctimonious warnings had been re-added to their talk page a number of times. In the circumstances, what could possibly be hoped to be achieved by blocking them for incivility, apart from creating a load of drama and potentially causing them to get so furious they quit? It sure isn't going to calm them down, and it isn't going to make them any less abrasive, so what's the point? There are better ways of dealing with these things.

Thank you for unblocking the reblock, and letting the matter die. However, it's worth thinking, especially when you're dealing with established users, "will a block here actually help things, or will it just generate drama?" Rebecca (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that Timeshift has been making those sorts of poisonous comments for, literally, months. I have had two editors, independently, request my assistance in dealing with his attacks. So, what do you suggest one does to make him less abrasive, because that sort of behaviour is not really acceptable when it is driving other editors away? (and that is not a rhetorical question, if you have a better solution, I would like to hear it). Rockpocket 08:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
While I think a better way could have been found to deal with it, I don't strongly object to the block and wouldn't have done it myself - although I agree with the reasons for unblock.
However I just wanted to respond to the above points by Rockpocket. Being a user of 2 years and more standing on the relevant projects and having watched the intractable dispute between various parties along with other admins for some time, I'm confused as to how he has come to this conclusion - although I could almost bet on which two users it was, and point to examples where their behaviour has been as bad or worse. It should be noted the dispute being referred to is limited to at most four articles (of which Timeshift is involved in two), that there are two very definite "camps" each with a mix of tendentious users intent on rewriting history and good faith users who are unfortunately prone to react to the excesses of others in a manner not entirely consistent with Wikipedia expectations of behaviour. I would classify Timeshift in the latter category. Each side has for as long as I can remember been trying to get the other wiped from Wikipedia in order that they can "win". I don't even think anyone who could be driven away is still there - previous disputes were remarkably efficient at removing such from the scene, which is one of the articles' biggest problems. Some of the worst disputants who got the battle started aren't even with us any more - one was effectively community banned and another is serving a three-month block for stalking one of the others (his second for the same offence). I've talked privately to individuals of all sides and good faith doesn't even remotely exist between the parties. There has been occasional discussions between admins who watch the area - especially around December last year when it was hitting AN/I every 4-8 hours - regarding what to do in this area, but in my view it must be approached as a whole-of-area problem, involving ArbCom if we're not able to resolve by other means.
I'd also note that outside these 2-4 articles I have seen Timeshift edit very well and interact well with other users. Orderinchaos 17:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Idiot" is hardly the most incendiary attack in the English language. I've had reason to call others that on a few occasions, and it hasn't led to cataclysmic things. There's plenty of users around who are really good editors, who do a lot of terrific work, and generally work fine with others, but are a bit abrasive and sometimes need to be handled a bit carefully.

It's the nature of working on a broad project like this. You can barge in and chase them off - but you'd be losing a huge amount of great content for not a whole lot of gain - or you can deal with issues with a bit of care as they come up. I've worked with the guy for a couple of years, and I don't recall ever seeing him drive anyone else off, so the fact that he's a bit terse? It really ain't doing any harm. Several of the best editors I've worked with on Wikipedia have been similar. Rebecca (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is far to much defense of abusive communication going on here. I think this sort of apologist attitude towards personal attacks, and the idea that established users should be given more freedom towards personal attacks contrary to the well being of Wikipedia. 1 != 2 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who would you vote for?

Re your board vote ranking: I agree with your 1, 2, and last, but I don't understand your 3rd position for Kohs - did you read his Wikispecies answer? Even worse, his wikipedia edits and the things he's posted on dozens of other sites? -- Jeandré, 2008-06-04t21:58z

[edit] Well...

I would vote for you, but I don't have enough edits :( good luck though!</post> Geek45 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Html challenged

I am not sure how to set up my user page in the way you suggested. I am a non typist as well. But I am still willing to give it a go if you can coach me as how to get it started. I am hoping that the expansion will quickly become a group effort. :Albion moonlight (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help.

I will likely start working on it later on tonight. I will likely be moving at a snails pace. Albion moonlight (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any Ideas about how to go about including the others in the expansion.? Should we wait a bit or do it right away ?  :Albion moonlight (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then I will do it sometime before they all wake up, Also do feel free to go ahead and tell them yourself. It may go over better if you tell them. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article probation

I heard you mention it as a possible solution for the Yarrow article conflict. Do you see any hope for the mediation ? Can the mediation continue during a probation period ? And or are you willing to back an Rfc against Jkp aimed at an article ban against him ? : Albion moonlight (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)