User talk:Spaully

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NOR

I responded on Slimvirgins talk page, but she has twice archived my responses.

Here is my response on NOR...I am not presently engaged at the NOR page even though smear has been spread by the above user..because I made a promise to another editor two wait it out two weeks. I keep my word, so I am doing nothing there at the moment. Below is again my response after your post and the genesis of the problem...Now this user wishes to change the rules so that her edits in the future can't be challenged. How nice.

"If consensus forming was followed in the first place on April 10th by this user Slimvirigin, there wouldn't have been a problem. The point is really moot. Limiting this to admins is interesting but also wrong. Policy is not set in stone; it changes with Wikipedia and consensus. However it should not change on the whim of the few and changes should not occur without proper procedure. Procedure was not followed, people objected, they were called names and mistreated rather than have their objections treated in good faith. My proposal, for Arbcom to decide disputes or for a special committee to be electd by the community to decide them when they arise was removed by Slimvirgin to her archives. I think that is far better than allow any admin to edit policy changing it at their whim to suit their needs as this user here has be charged as doing by other editors. --Northmeister 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive28" --Northmeister 23:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, I've not been following this well enough to fully understand the cause of the current problem, and while there are undoubtedly some people to blame I don't want to get involved in dishing it out.

I think using Arbcom might be useful for problems that really cannot be solved any other way, but perhaps is not ideal for less difficult decisions. I also think that this being an even smaller number of individuals, there is even more opportunity for their consensus not being the same as everyone else's. This might also be a problem for select committees, which would neccessarily only involve a small number of people also.

Anyway it's another decent proposal and I'll keep a look out for people trying to set such a system up. If I can understand the issues over at WP:NOR(as the talk page is a mess) I might have a look there also. Thanks. |→ Spaully°τ 16:04, 15 April 2006 (GMT)

[edit] In re 168.170.203.60

168.170.203.60 (talk • contribs • count) seems to be back to vandalism [1]. I see you have already warned him/her many times. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Peace. gunslotsofguns 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have been a single offence this time, but thanks for letting me know. If in the future you notice a repeat vandal back for more I recommend you look at WP:AIV and if appropriate post them there so they can be blocked. I'll be sure to watch out for 168.. causing trouble! |→ Spaully°τ 16:40, 27 April 2006 (GMT)

[edit] A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Spaully, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS talk to me 21:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done Spaully! Valuable mates in the Wikipedia community. I kind of feel left out... --Masud 23:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your advice?

Hello Spaully. Its been a while since i have seen any of your excellent contributions, i hope you are still around. If so and, as per your interest in animal experimentation issues, I wonder if you would mind having a look at a related mini project i'm embarking on? Your opinion would be most welcome. Thanks. Rockpocket 07:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject proposal

Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare. Cheers, Localzuk ^(talk) 10:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coral GA

That's a great clean-up, the article's now looking much better!

However, whilst it's very nearly there, I still think there's room for improvement in the style. The lead could probably be cut down still further (I'd try to make it contain at most one or two short points for each section or paragraph - if there's anything in there that's not adding new and key information, cut it!); there are lots of other small niggling things (like grammar associated with occurrences of 'however') that would also benefit from a bit of re-writing. I appreciate that this is slightly tedious stuff, but a few well-executed re-wordings could improve the article no end. I'll take a look myself once I get the chance and make a few small edits; in the mean time, I'll look forward to seeing what you can come up with!

Verisimilus 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment again. I have trimmed a very little bit more from the lead, and TimVickers has changed the grammar somewhat. I am not keen on removing more info as I think it would start to lose value as a summary of the article.

The 'however' usage is something I'm guilty of often, but as is the way I don't usually notice it. When you do get the chance to look perhaps this is something you could look out for as fresh eyes and a clearer sense of grammar would be good. |→ Spaully^₪† 22:02, 10 April 2007 (GMT)

If you ever want to expand the environmental threats section a bit, I've done a good bit of slightly-related work on the Great Barrier Reef article that could be used as a case study. -Malkinann 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks like a very good article. If/When I get round to it that should provide lots of info. |→ Spaully^₪† 21:58, 10 April 2007 (GMT)

[edit] TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Spaully. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 23:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template for 3D computer graphics‎

The image you added to the Template:3D computer graphics‎ article was a nice touch for the series. However, the 3D rendering article has the same image with a caption. This leaves two of the same images on the one page. It doesn't bother me, but I'm sure someone else will probably want to remove it eventually. If the one from the article is removed, it raises the question of if the caption is needed and what to do with it. Someone else may change the image and the template for this reason. Just letting you know so you have the option of pre-emting an undesirable change. Oicumayberight 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I hadn't seen it in the other article. I don't think that in itself is a problem, but will wait to see what it is replaced with. I was very impressed when that came through featured pictures, one of the most realistic and complex scenes I've seen. |→ Spaully^₪† 21:06, 5 May 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Welcome

Many thanks for the kind comment - as a newbie here it's good to know the pages are being seen and especially nice to know they are appreciated! Any constructive criticism would be really appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photo2222 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Abortion article

There's some discussion here about the accuracy of the first paragraph of the abortion article, and you're invited to participate.Ferrylodge 21:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion

Yesterday you tagged and speedily-deleted an image I uploaded probably over 18 months ago. I don't think speedy deletion is appropriate in such a situation where the uploader cannot reasonably expected to review the image and correct any problems - the main issue being the time of the upload. This means that you cannot expect the uploader to remember the specifics of the image, and that it may have been uploaded when rules deemed it appropriate.

In this case I think a more appropriate tag and reason for deletion is that it is not in use, not has it been for a while. I write this as your message confused me - I didn't remember the image, your templated message seems quite similar to a warning(!), and is not at all specific to the file. Maybe a better catch-all message could be written to stop this, especially in cases of long-forgotten images.

Thanks, |→ Spaully^₪† 23:36, 1 November 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Coral reproduction

Thanks for helping clean that up. I had wanted to put something back into that section for a while but hadn't gotten around to it until yesterday. Again, thanks for the help. Esoxid^t 14:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I don't edit here much now so didn't notice the large deletion that crept in. I quickly amalgamated our texts and looks pretty good, though probably could do with better integration. I might take another look when there is time but it might be a while. Thanks for the descriptions. |→ Spaully^₪† 19:57, 18 May 2008 (GMT)