User talk:Splash/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005

[edit] Adminship

Hey, Splash. Are you an adm. If not, I'd be glad to nominate you - so long as it doesn't end up like the last one I nominated. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering the same myself, since it seems you're doing the same thing I am of closing Keep VfD's for fun and amusement. It's annoying too cause for some reason it's not showing me some of your closes, so I'll go and add the tags then update it and bam you'd beat me to it ten minutes ago. Carry on. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Funny. I was thinking this same thing quite recently. You've struck me as the sort of emininently reasonable, Func or Essjay-style user who ought to be an Admin. The Literate Engineer 07:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Even funnier, I was also recently thinking the same thing. I saw your note on The Literate Engineer's talk page. I can understand why you might want to hold off for a few more weeks, but when you do decide to take the plunge, please let me know. I don't always watch RfA, and I don't want to miss a chance to add my support vote. I've been really impressed with what I've seen. Joyous (talk) 19:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would definitely vote support and write something compelling to go with it ;). Fernando Rizo T/C 22:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quadrature amplitude modulation

May I ask how the circular presentation of the signal constellation for QAM is derived? I have not seen that before and would like to learn more about it. For M-ary QAM systems, the signal constellations I've seen are usually presented in a linear manner, so I was quite pleased to see it being displayed in a more symmetrical manner. I am also thinking of starting a WikiProject on digital communication systems. Do you think you would be interested in helping out? --HappyCamper 01:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thorough response! If I get around to setting up the WikiProject I will let you know. After more reading, I realized that the circular versions of QAM are optimized so that the energy is minimized. Let me do some reading and see if I'm able to find the typical basis functions for those signals. See you around! --HappyCamper 00:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I got around to starting something here...take a look if you like! Wikipedia:WikiProject Digital Communication Systems]] --HappyCamper 15:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh yes, I also saw your note about frequency spectrum and the DTFT. I'm almost inclined to say 100% yes, but it would be very difficult to distinguish the two. So many of these technical terms are aliases for others...For me, DTFT is a very specific manner of extrating the frequency domain representation of a signal, whereas "frequency spectrum" does not necessarily involve DTFT. --HappyCamper 15:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Dear Splash, I can deliver some proof about items that are claimed on the Genseiryu site. Only I want them to be treated confidential. They are at the moment translated by an official translator from Japanese to English. I will sent them, after the translation is ready, to JeremyA who already tried to mediate in the conflict about the Genseiryu article. Best regards, TenChiJin

[edit] If you have an interest in reading...

Regarding Tony Sidawy: User_talk:Theresa_knott#Prodigal_returns...

[edit] London, Ontario

Hello Splash, I was wondering if you could take a look at the article London, Ontario. There is an anon user who keeps removing an entry under "Notable Londoners" Bill Brady. His reasoning for doing so is very weak and I have provided what I feel is adequite proof on that articles talk page to back up his notability. If you would kindly take a few minutes to intervene and perhaps leave a comment on that page? I will look here for a response so as to preserve continuity. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 21:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've left somewhat of an essay (or two) on the article's talk page. The 3RR may or may not need to be deployed if an edit war ensues. It's worth remembering that page-protection should not be necessary over a single bullet point, and anyway will result in protection to The Wrong Version. -Splash 00:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I've left my comment on that page as well, but I must mention that the anon seems to have a personal axe to grind regarding Bill Brady. London is a smallish city and its possible the anon has had personal dealings of some kind with Brady. Oh BTW Brady's been in London since the '50's actually, not the 70's. The other stations mentioned in his bio are or were affiliates. He is one of the most recognizable personalities not only in London but the entire region. For contrast see Roy McDonald, basically a London hobo-poet, with really smelly clothes. Hes also included in the Notable Londoners section. I wouldn't dream of putting it up for VfD however, he's notable in that every person who ever seen him here in town knows who he is. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 01:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I do wonder why the anon is quite so determined over a minor issue. Hopefully they can be persuaded that is, in fact, minor and that they can live with it, as long as the link to London is good enough. Given your answer above, it would appear to be. Maybe the ad-hoc review I gave the article might encourage the anon to contribute to the article in other ways too, and put the bulleted list into persepective. -Splash 01:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again I appreciate your balanced comments. Please see Bill Brady and if you could, restore the bullet concerning him at London article. I'm not even particularly a big fan of radio talk shows, and I've barely ever read his regular news column, but I really feel that the anons constant removal of his entry goes against what this encyclopedia is about. It would bother me to capitulate, and I hesitate to restore it myself at risk of being blocked. I hate to think that I would wreck a perfect record and risk getting a bad rep for fighting what is essentially at this point (IMO) a vandal. They have offered no real explaination for his actions other than the personal opinion that Brady might be a nice person etc etc. but not notable. I feel his notabilty, in the context of the London article has been established. Thanks again for your time and consideration in this rather silly matter! Hamster Sandwich 17:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The blind reverting despite my warning to stop is beginning to look like a case of advocacy. The changing IPs make a 3RR block difficult, and WP:AN/3 responds so slowly most of the time, that I'm not sure it could usefully deal with the issue. Might be worth a try. I'm a touch concerned at forming an effective 'revert-team' since this has been admonished against by ArbCom. But I'll put it back in at least once.
    • There are two alternative solutions
      1. Give it a week i.e. starve him; Anon response: this is impossible, see my Viet Cong comment on discussion of article
      2. Make the list into a category. -Splash 20:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a good plan. The fact that you didn't put Bill Brady up for VfD bodes well, I suppose! Thanks again for your help and input here. Theres three or four admins that I seem to be learning the most from, and you have consistantly been one of the best. See you 'round! Hamster Sandwich 20:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey Splash, you left a signature on that Bill Brady bullet in the article. I don't want to touch it till another few hours goes by! :-) Hamster Sandwich 23:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. -Splash 23:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Bill Brady, I was going to fill that article with as much hyperbole as I could muster, but decided to reign it in a lil bit. Thanks for the edit there! Hamster Sandwich 23:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm certain that would survive a VfD. -Splash 23:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon: Splash here is a potential compromise which maybe you'll have some success suggesting to HS: now that Brady has a his own entry he does not need to be listed under notable people for London, and his individual entry will be allowed to stay, free from interference or deletion.

Splash I'm feeling ganged up on here, there is one user HS which is intent on keeping him there, for what I'd say are reasons other than the merits of Brady being notable. There is you, who have sided with him, and there is one other user, Adam Bishop that has repeatedly stated he doesn't care either way but keeps reverting me anyways. My point is that this more or less is one person verus another, and I don't think that the "consenus" that's developed is really based on the facts. Brady simply isn't notable, he has been part of some organizations, but has not acheivement to speak of that's notable. AND THAT MATTERS! That's why someone gets listed as notable. Being a good person is not the same as being notable. To permit his entry is to waterdown the entire category.

Hey, anon. First, I'm duty bound to encourage to get an account; it makes life easier for everyone. I will take your suggestion to the talk page of the article (rather than HS specifically), but I am not sure that it will gather too much support: if anything, having an article is a stronger reason than before for inclusion in the list. I'm not clear on why you are so determined to see Brady, and no others, removed?
In general, though, I think that list is too long to stay in the article, particularly if it is seeking featured article status. Several of the lists might have to either be pared down brutally or spun-out into seperate articles. Do you object more to the mention of Brady in London, Ontario or to any mention of him at all?
I can understand why you might feel ganged up on. But you don't help your cause by promising to revert "until you die" or viewing this as some kind of guerilla warfare. That's just not the way things are done around here, and such unwillingness to flex generally encourages corresponding unwillingness in one's opponents. The article is now protected: after something like 6 different editors reverted your changes. I think, from the talk page of the article that every other editor who has commented favours Brady's inclusion in the list: that is good enough for a consensus to include. As I already said, if the Bill Brady article were deleted, the case for mentioning him would be much diminished; but the chances of that happening are slim.

<moved from top of section>

Whoa whoa whoa, Splash given the below conversation how can you claim to be impartial? This seems conspiritorial, had I approached you with my arguements first I think you would view the matter decidely different.

The version you last reverted is now the one permanently frozen. The person below uses ad homenim attacks against me, that's below the belt! I have no personal vendetta, I don't even know who Bradly is, which by the way is part of why he doesn't deserve to be there.

I think in future you have to be cautious about wading into something like this claiming to be impartial when you are having a dialoge with one of the parties but not the other. If this is not fair please explain.

When I arrived on the talk page of the article I was impartial. I read the article and the argumentation, did a bit of looking around to check some of the claims, and came to an opinion. I do not always reach definitive opinions in such disputes, and remain neutral, but this one seemed clear to me. My opinions are not so easily influenced as for it to matter who asks me to consider a question.
The discussion over how we might proceed is not conspiracy. It is a response to your stated aim of reverting on sight indefinitely despite the talk-page discussions. If you began to take less of a hard-line I imagine the attitude of the discussions on all the talk pages would soften towards you considerably. The version now protected is, to be fair, the version that is supported by all editors on the talk page apart from you. As to the question of dialogue: well, I have talked with you on the article's talk page, so you're far from out-of-the-loop and my talk page has been available throughout. I am not able to come to you to talk as you don't have a talk page of your own: another good reason to get an account. -Splash 13:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I am happy to compromise, but in perspective this is a relatively minor issue, my only qualm is that he's listed as notable when he shouldn't be, how can that be accommodated? I have no qualms with him having his own vanity page that HS set up explicitly to make him feel good about Brady. In fact I don't mind if there are several entries detailing his non-prolific career if that makes HS happy. However on the basic point that he should be included, being the nobody that he is, it is hard to see why he should be included. Unless there is an agenda to paint London Ontario in a pathetic light where nobody's qualify as notable people. It is an insult to London.
Ok, well, an obvious compromise is to change the titling of the list to remove the assertion of notability. What would you suggest? -Splash 21:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Splash, upon investigating further it turns out that everyone that has weighed in on Bill Brady aside from myself was first approached by HS. I think this is basically between two people with one having done the rounds so to speak framing the issue and getting them involved. I understand you serve in some offical capacity here, is there a higher authority to appeal to?

I don't serve in any official capacity here, no. There is nobody who does from a content point-of-view, and no final arbiter of what should or should not be in an article — that's for the community. There are higher authorities to deal with poor user behaviour, but I think you'll agree that HS hasn't exhibited that. However, a Request for Comment on an article's content can be a useful way to proceed at times — however, it is worth noting that several outside voices have already been heard and that they do not, so far, agree with you. RfC's can also be filed over poor user behvaiour — but this is a serious step to take, and would probably reflect poorly on you as a new editor. I should also gently point out that registering multiple accounts for this purpose, as would seem likely from the talk page, is not usually a good way to go. You should choose either User:Terminousbandage or User:Consensusbuilder and stick with it. Note that some user names are not preferred: I would recommend you choose User:Terminousbandage to avoid people making suppositions about you. -Splash 21:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Splash upon further reflection your suggestion that the list is too long generally is probably correct. Will you support the exclusion of Brady if it is part of a series of removals that take off the extraneous notables that are really pushing the envelope with their inclusion? As you state it will make for a stonger article that is more likely to become a featured article -consensusbuilder

Possibly. It might be better though, to spin the whole list out into a separate article. Can I just remind you to log in to your new account (which name you should change, like I said) and sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~? Thanks. -Splash 23:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Splash I am still getting the hang of the wiki, terminsousbandage is not me so I can't use that account. I will use this one Consensusbuilder for now, and once this Brady matter is resolved I am happy to change my name to whatever you'd prefer, in the meantime I will keep it just to keep things straight for purposes of communication if that's ok with you. Consensusbuilder

  • Terribly sorry to respond so late to your comments of the 24th, Splash. I just now noticed them there. Thanks for the advice of course, you are suggesting that I file the RfC regarding this issue? I might do that, but I've been waiting for Consensusbuilder to initiate the request for comment. I suppose at this point the London, Ontario article could be unlocked, and we can see if there is a consistant and definate effort of the editor in question to vandalize the page. Of course the other option is to pare the list down to the five or ten most notable people on the list, but who makes that determination? Me? You? Consensusbuilder? Any of the other editors? It occurs to me that we will be opening an even bigger can of worms, and not just between the editors who have been engaged in the current dispute. I still maintain that an RfC concerning this is going to offer the most equitable solution to the content dispute, is Brady's notability such that he should occupy a spot on that list. I would abide by a descision by and of the community. I have left a suggestion on the talk page there, and at the present time, there has been no response. So it remains in stasis, a highly unsuitable and undesireable state for an article that still needs some editing and expansion. I leave this with you for your consideration, and will look here for a response, if you care to make one. Such a reletively insignificant issue, occupying so much discussion has left me weary, but nonetheless resolute. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genseiryu

Hi Splash! I'm glad to see you taking an interest in this article. I have become very frustrated with the parties involved in this edit war as neither side shows any desire to compromise. I have received a lot of correspondence (mostly by email) from both sides of this argument as well as from admins at the Dutch wikipedia. I have considered attempting a rewrite of this article myself (I know nothing of karate or genseiryu). These last couple of weeks I had decided to step back, do other things, and give it another chance to resolve itself, which clearly hasn't happened. If you can find a solution I will be very pleased. Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A. F. Gotch

I'd like to ask you to re-consider your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A. F. Gotch. I've cleaned up the page, and added another of his books. If Wikipedia lists people only on the basis of how well their books were received, it seems to me that we're crossing a rather dangerous line into reviewing rather than building an encyclopedia. -Harmil 11:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I took another look, but I'm still not really persuaded, I'm afraid. -Splash 19:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of IMAX cinemas where there are trees near the back door

I created that, and was really disappointed to see it speedy deleted before I could even comment... :( Voyager640 19:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It was quite funny while it lasted, though! -Splash 19:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexa

Hi, I noticed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/God's Learning Channel you mentioned its Alexa traffic rank. How do you find out the Alexa traffic rank of something? Cursive 00:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Cheers for the info. Cursive 00:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stikman

Congratulations indeed. Don't forget to go and delete Stikman and it's talk page, where you closed the VfD as a delete. -Splash 00:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It was the first VfD I closed so it took me some time while I made sure I didn't make a mistake. I was wondering whether to delete the talk page, but in the end I went through the logs and I discovered that talk pages are generally deleted. Anyway, it is good to know that I'm being watched! -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] category titles

Hi - Do you think it might be useful for us to talk about category titles off the "public" page a bit? I'm not suggesting I think there's a problem between us, but just want to make sure you agree (that we don't have a problem). I suspect we have a fairly fundmental disagreement (my inclination to "use what we have" vs. your "decide what we want and make it so") which I doubt we're going to be able to resolve but I don't think this means we have a problem. Anyway, if you think it might be useful to talk please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:26, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Pragmatically, I'm not sure there's much difference between "x of foo", "x in foo", and even "fooish x", which I think implies we're unlikely to reach a clear consensus whether we pay attention to existing practice or not. I suspect (perhaps pessismistically) this means that the best we'll be able to do is to codify the existing de facto standards. To insist we ignore these standards (regardless of whether they reflect prior consensus or are more "organic") seems to me to eliminate a powerful tool we can use to help drive consensus. Of course, looking ahead, considering the de facto standards likely increases the chances that the people related categories will end up as "fooish x", but I think the main goal is clear, enforceable standards - not elimination of the "fooish x" category names. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're famous!

Hold still while my secretary takes your picture
Hold still while my secretary takes your picture

I just got back from a Las Vegas trip. I went to the Riviera and saw a show called Splash [1]. I was doing a Wikipedia search on Google (query: splash las vegas site:en.wikipedia.org), and I found your name in the Templetes for Deletion page (your name was on the Sexual Orientation template). Have you seen this show? Hbdragon88 04:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Well you can't please them all, granted I liked Splash :) , but i'm weird too. I wasn't sure how you would take that pic, but figured you could always have me blocked for 5 mins ;-p if it was offensive. ∞Who?¿? 05:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of civility addition

Does it matter what number of Vfd's a nominator has to deal with if it infringes on Wikipedia:Civility. What is wrong with taking into account that not everyone has their created articles watchlisted and may not be informed...then it's possibly gone without ever having the chance to make a vote or defend the article. A quick notice by the nominator to the original creator isn't asking very much. This, of course, needn't apply to speedy delete qualified items.--MONGO 07:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your speedy response. I fully understand that it is just too cumbersome for every nominated article to also get a red flag warning sent to original or primary editors due to the reasons you cited. I wonder if in cases such as the recent nomination of WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency for deletion that since it was a project, and a very unusual nomination due to the project status, that some form of enforcement of WP:civ isn't required. I'll take your advice and toss it into the village pump, although I am sure you're right that it will get squashed. Thanks again for the clarification...have a good one.--MONGO 07:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LaTeX tables

Can anyone help me with this? I'm trying to create a table in latex that will look like this

    Input   Output   Formula
    -------------------------
      A        1      x = f(y)
      B        2
      C        3
    / D        4
   <| E        5
    \ F        6

(though with different stuff in the table). In particular, the main difficulty is getting a curly brace on the outside of the last three values, and also getting the inside to align well with the titles. I've tried all kinds of table nesting, but I can't work out how to do it.

Any help REALLY appreciate, thanks! Mary K 15:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you wanting to create this in ordinary LaTeX or in a mixture of Wikimarkup and LaTeX? If you want it in ordinary LaTeX, then this gets close enough, as long as you have remebered to \usepackage{} as appropriate:

\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r|c|c}
Input & Output & Formula\\
\hline
A & 1 & $x=f_1(y)$\\
B & 2 & $x=f_2(y)$\\
$\left\{\begin{matrix} \mathrm{C} \\ \mathrm{D} \\ \mathrm{E} \end{matrix} \right.$ & 3 & $x=f_3(y)$ \\
F & 4 & $x=f_4(y)$
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

If you don't want the vertical lines, just take them out of the curly braces on the line starting \begin{tabular}.

This won't work in the restricted version of LaTeX available in MediaWiki (doesn't LaTeX tables for a start), so if that's what you're after give me a prod on my talk page. -Splash 19:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Splash, thank you very much for your reply.
When I try using that code and running pdflatex, I get the following error:
! Missing } inserted.
<inserted text>
}
l.173 $\left\{\begin{matrix} \mathrm
{C} \\ \mathrm{D} \\ \mathrm{E} \end...
Hitting Enter has it try to add in an extra \cr, and then it seems to loop, taking it out and putting it back in again.
Has this got something to do with your comment about \usepacket{}? What packet should I use?
Thanks for your help, Mary K 10:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Category titles

I've just put together a Proposed poll question? since discussion dried up a bit. I hope that's not too presumptuous and that I covered all the points. Steve block talk 20:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cfd Electricity

To an extent, yes. However, wherever an electrical current flows there will be both an electric field and a magnetic field, so you can't have electricity without electromagnetism. Technical, irrelevant point, I know. -Splash 06:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Yea I have no problem referring it to the project, actually prefer it.
Btw, old EET, CET & CIS major (have 2 bachelors), spent plenty of years in military doing it too, but my brain is shot, so I do get things mixed, forgot, or worded induction wrong or incompletely I should say. As for Maxwell's equations, I always took them to be referring to two seperate properties, electricity & magnetism seperately, as one can happen w/o the other, but they interact as one under most conditions. But then again, I dont remember everything I should either, one of the reasons I'm 100% disabled :( Enough of that sob story though. ∞Who?¿? 01:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh no, don't appologize, I never made it public about what all of my expertise and experience was in, and it's definately not your fault that I have a disability. I didn't take it as patronizing, you were politely correcting my mistake, as I said, I'm not up to par due to disabilities, so, I make quite a few memory related mistakes now. Hopefully I didn't come off as rude, I was just letting you know I had a good deal of history with electricity related things :) I call some colleges and other Universities, depends on the school and what it offers, although I have been to plenty, never stayed at one fore more than 2 years, and been to plenty when I was moving around a lot, ugh.. not happy memories transferring credits. ∞Who?¿? 01:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celebration!

Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration
Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration

Please join me in celebrating my 1000th edit at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource! Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PSK

Hi Splash! Sure, I'll take a look at PSK. Let's try and get it featured on the front page! --HappyCamper 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey again! I know I'm making a significant number of changes to the article you started. If I seem a bit overbearing with my changes, please let me know and I'll tone it down or stop. Admittingly, I'm a bit enthusiastic the there's such a good article to start building on at the moment. --HappyCamper 01:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Alright, that sounds good :-) I think I'm done with the article today. I'll take another look at it tomorrow when I get a chance. I'd like to see it become a FAC too! --HappyCamper 03:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. Brady

Wanna good laugh? Talk:Bill Brady. Hamster Sandwich 00:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Lol — the anon will have a head explosion! Though, interestingly, the edit they made to the article was reasonable. Mainly, anyway. -Splash 00:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on my RFA

Thanks for your comments on my RFA. I'm not going to bore you with an attempt to proof my knowledge of WP policy. But I would like to address some of the other points you raised: The reason I mentioned the VfD was not a "debate which didn't go the 'right' way "; at the time, I was upset that the article was deleted despite the fact that the debate had gone the 'right' way. – Your point about appearing pro-active is well taken. I don't like to make specific promises I may not be able to keep, my area of interest in WP has changed quite a few times. Are there other criteria you use for determining whether someone is pro-active? Rl 09:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. -Splash 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for your detailed explanation. To answer your question: I used to do RC patrol early on and switched to NP patrol later. At the time, I was also very active on VfD pages. For a while, I was the major contributor to WP:CP (on some days roughly half the entries were by me); I also tried to mitigate the copyvio problem with a proposed change (see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#More_visible_warning.3F, MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning#Proposed_change). I've been involved with quite a few discussions on MoS pages. I also spend quite a bit of time talking to people who make newbie mistakes (cut'n'paste page moves and UTF-8 breakage, for instance). Unfortunately, with close to 4000 pages on my watch list, vandals and link spammers keep me busy most of the time (you can easily verify that by checking my contributions). My watchlist has become the subset of pages that I'm doing RC patrol for, and following the trails of vandals and spammers makes the list grow further. Rl 23:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From User:txgeekgirl regarding God's Learning Channel listing on Wikipedia

This listing has had a (vfd) for Vanity or Ad type status and placed on comment for delete by you. I am the webmaster for this television station, and have today modified the listing to be in line with similar listings for Christian TV such as Day Star and TBN. Just to note, what was listed before I made the changes today was NOT what was submitted by our chief engineer. Thank you. (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll take a look a little later. -Splash 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CENT

You said, "Delete per precedent (and observe we should collect our CfD precdents up somewhere....like Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions). -Splash 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)" - excellent idea. Want to help me plod through the CFD logs and see what salvageable precedents there are? Radiant_>|< 12:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • How about this. I'll take april and june, you take may and july (from [[2]]). Try to find 1) similar discussions (not necessarily close to one another), such as any "American thing" vs "United States thing" (except that we already know of that one). For any such groups, a precedent may be desirable to prevent repeated debates. And 2) tendency or partial consensus of the discussions in such a group, if any, and good arguments to either side, if any. And while we're in there anyway, it may be worth spotting 3) categories that were deleted and exist anyway. Radiant_>|< 11:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, that was faster than I thought. From June, I got the following list:
    • Naming issues:
    "Film" is preferable over "Movie" or "Cinema"
    "September 9, 2001 attacks" is preferable over "9/11"
    "Comics" is preferable over "Comic" or "Comic book"
    "North Korean" or "South Korean" is preferable over "Korean"
    "Student society" is preferable over "Fraternity" or "Sorority"
    TBD: "People from <city>" vs. "<city>ans" (and should that exist in the first place?)
    TBD: Mainland China issues
    • Categorizations that should not exist:
    "<year> news" (upmerge)
    "<year> by month" (upmerge)
    "<cause> deaths" or "<method> suicides" (trivial)
    "Democrats" (CSB)
    "Dead people" (confusing)
    "Free <thing> software" (ambiguous, trivial)
    "Grammar schools in <place>" (upmerge)
    "Localities with numerals in their names" (trivial)
    TBD "Members of the <city> council" (listify)
    "Liberal/Conservative/... parties of <country>" and "Pro-/contra- marriage/family/1st amendment/... (parties)" (POV/overcat)
    "<label> artists" (listify)
    "<thing> by title" (overcat)
    "<year> <xFC> Pro Bowl players" (listify)
  • Comments welcome. Radiant_>|< 12:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I found the following in July, some of which reaffirm the above:
    • Categorizations that should not exist:
    "Opinions of Justice <X>" (listify)
    No categories for individual peerages (don't have any, too many thousand of them, too narrow)
    "Members of <authority> for <period>" (listify)
    But "Members of <authority>" is obviously ok
    Don't put 'Notable' etc in cat titles (as usual)
    "Fooian terrorists", "Terrorism in/of Foo" (POV, subjective)
    "<Type of politicians>" eg. conservative, liberal, but only tested for US. (POV, vague)
    • Naming issues
    "Canadian First Nations <foo>" preferred over "First Nations <foo>" (per discussion elsewhere)
    "Solar System" preferred over "Sol System" (common usage)
    Symphonies by <full name> preferred over "<surname> symphonies" (not many reasons, but avoids ambiguity)
    "<Full Name> films" preferred over "<surname> films" (consistency)
    "Film" preferred to "Cinema"
    "computer and video games" preferred over "Computer games" (generality)
    "DJ" NOT expanded to disc jockey (common usage)
    "Murdered <people>" renamed TO "Murdered <more general type>" eg. presidents, prime ministers TO politicians
    TBD: "Geography of" vs "Geography in"
    "Student societies" kept over splitting back to fraternities/sororities (generality, and CSB)

-Splash 22:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adequacy

Probably either to one of the internet trolling articles, or the adequacy.org article. Trollderella 22:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genseiryu & WGKF

Hi Splash! I requested the unprotection of this article. The previous month-long protection did nothing to difuse this edit war. I therefore think that it is better to block users who blindly revert or engage in abusive behaviour, and try to foster discussion on the relevant talk pages. JeremyA (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view?

I don't mean to solicit your support but would you mind commenting at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Coug It? View Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Coug it first. Thanks, Redwolf24 05:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's mail

That's nice. Maybe that should be put somewhere on a subpage of Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles? Unless he'd prefer not to, of course. Radiant_>|< 13:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the advice!

Thanks, I undertand completely. So far Consensusbuilder has been merely an irritation, so no need for an RfC concerning his conduct. As far as the content dispute, well he'll have to file on his own behalf. I feel my opinion has been expressed fully, and has support of every editor who weighed in the issue, with the exception of Terminousbandage, and quite frankly, an editor who creates an account with a singular agenda of supporting (or critisizing) an issue, and who has made no other edits, smells of socks, or various meats, as the case may be. Onto a new issue...it seems as though someone is going around vandalizing pages with the name Hamster Sandwich. and please notice the period at the end of the name. Its not me and I've cleaned up a couple of other users accounts this morning as his work pops up on my watched pages screen. Any advice how to deal with this? Hamster Sandwich 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VFD Bot & VFD/Old

VFD Bot is now automatically scheduled to update WP:VFD/Old --AllyUnion (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OQPSK

Something definitely fishy is going on...I don't really trust those waveforms depicted in that paper yet. Have you noticed that in figure 2, each dibit boundary is entirely filled with a pure sinusoid? Same with the other example. This should not be. Neither of the in-phase or quadrature phases should be zero (unless they're using some other basis functions that we aren't using) - For these reasons, I think you're right.

I have to think more about it...right now, sleep is a priority, but I still think you're right :-) --HappyCamper 05:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's because the signal constellation they are using is not the one on the page...it looks like the points are actually on the axis so the 4 of them looks like a diamond. --HappyCamper 11:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I know, I know! :-) Splash, what a way to make a Wikipedian smile! Awesome OQPSK diagram. Now what to do? I really don't know. Would you be able to make another diagram? I don't know if it would be useful though. Maybe worth mentioning this somewhere on the page. Let me try some editing and see what you think? --HappyCamper 23:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let me pull up my file and change the bit stream and see what happens...that paragraph I typed just doesn't sound right I know. --HappyCamper 00:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Let me contact an active researcher in this field. I'm sure she'll help us out with this subtelty. Isn't this interesting?? --HappyCamper 01:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
No, nothing of the sort! Was doing some RC patrolling and just saw it coming up. Just couldn't resist! BTW, I've sent that e-mail off. Hope to hear from her soon.--HappyCamper 03:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Which bit stream is it? I couldn't figure it out... :) --HappyCamper 03:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
One last thing...what should I put for the encoder? I know I need it. Right now, it assumes that NRZ polar signaling is used...put this as the very first block? I've never actually took into account the encoder explicitly before, so this is a first for me. --HappyCamper 04:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey, been a bit busy lately. Haven't had a chance to work on the transmitter. I will also draw up a receiver. I actually don't have the latest version of Haykin's book, so I didn't know that he inserted an encoder in front. --HappyCamper 00:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm not that enthusiastic about the refactoring. I would like to see it become a featured article, but refactoring and simplifying so that it is accessible to the general population is somewhat difficult to do. Courses on communication systems are usually taught in upper year university courses after all... --HappyCamper 00:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genseiryu--Any suggestions?

Hi Splash! My patience is wearing thin and I am close to re-protecting the Genseiryu and WGKF articles. However, I am unwilling to just let them sit for a month only for the edit war to restart when someone unprotects them. Although I think both sides in this war are reluctant to compromise it seems to me that one side is being particularly arrogant and stubborn and has gone beyond the point where reasoning or mediation will get through to him.

So, my question is do you have any suggestions for what to do next? I'm tempted to file either article-based or user-based RfCs (or perhaps both), but I'm not sure that either would do any good. Is it time to take the article/users to arbitration?

I've tried everything else that I can think of here (moving through: friendly informal mediation, offering formal mediation, suggesting RfCs, blocking of those that try to prolong the war), so I'd welcome some suggestions as to what to do next.

Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've protected the pages (see the latest outbursts from the anon IPs). I agree with you that we should try the RfC route before going for arbitration (and no, I'm not sure whether third parties are even allowed to request arbitration). Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
p.s. it was very difficult to resist the temptation to add the {{vprotected}} rather than the regular {{protected}}. But I managed to resist. JeremyA (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm currently at work (shhh) and so I can't do too much just now--I would have no objection to you starting the RfC process, and me adding my point of view later when I get home. I will go through my saved emails, I am a little reluctant to reveal the content of private discussions, but most of the messages that I have are simple reiterations of stuff that con be found on the various talk pages here. The archives of my own talk page have a lot of messages relating to these articles too. JeremyA (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Rather than trying to understand the Dutch wikipedia (I tried that once with limited success) maybe I can get some of the admins from there to come and contribute to the RfC. In the past I have been in email contact with User:Effeietsanders and I think another admin whose email escapes me at the moment. JeremyA (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The other admin you are thinking of could be Waerth... Anyway, he is active on both the Dutch and English Wikipedia and he knows about the situation too! Hope I am helping out here... -- MarioR 23:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Village pump

Very strange indeed! I have no clue to what the user is referring about "religion". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-25 20:33

[edit] RfC

Hi Splash! I've never filed an RfC before, but I'm back from work now and willing to help. JeremyA (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the great work on the RfC... you have been very thorough. Unfortunately my email at home is broken so I have to use a webmail client which it appears hasn't saved copies of my out going mail. So I have no record of my emails regarding this issue, just the replies. I have however, added some more evidence to the RfC and I will continue to go through the history to add more. Thanks again, JeremyA (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether email exchanges can be included in an RfC. However, my most recent communications with Mario have given me cause to believe that he is now interested in working towards articles that are acceptable to all (I hope that he doesn't mind me relaying some of the details of these private conversations).

For example I wrote:

Ideally, I would like for the Genseiryu article to fully explain the history that has led to this situation, but from the point of view of a neutral third party. Maybe there is someone from the Karate community who is not directly involved in Genseiryu who could do this? I think that at no point wikipedia should state that the GKIF is not doing Genseiryu, but we should say that it is the opinion of people outside the GKIF that they are not. Likewise, we should state that it is the opinion of those inside the GKIF that they are the only ones doing Genseiryu, but that others disagree on this. I think that with careful writing it would be possible to write an article that, whilst it may not be exactly what members of either the WGKF or the GKIF would like, is not unacceptable to either side

To which he replied:

I totally agree with what you wrote in the last email!! However, this third party "outside" Genseiryu will be a difficult job. Only people inside Genseiryu know Genseiryu. People outside this style usually haven't even heard of the style, even when they are doing another karate style. I will do my best however...

As Peter is no longer logging in to his account I will also inform him of the RfC by email. I am also going to inform the people from the Dutch wikipedia that I have talked to, hopefully they will add some useful comments to the RfC. JeremyA (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


The GKIF article, although initially involved in the edit war, has never needed protection. I think that early on a Dutch wikipedian (who edits at en.wikipedia under the user name User:Londenp) gave Mario advice on writing a NPOV article. Following this advice Mario decided to create seperate articles for the WGKF and GKIF so that each could express their own point of view in their own respective article (this was the reason for the hidden messages). I have explained to Mario that it is my opinion that this is not NPOV in action and that there is no ownership of articles by any individual or organisation. However, the plus side is that, for the most part Mario has not edited the GKIF article (he thinks of it as their article) so there has not been much of a dispute at this page.

BTW, in terms of evidence did you include this diff at the RfC (I don't see it, but there are a lot of diffs). Here Peter Lee lays into a totally innocent RC patroller whose only crime was to revert one of his edits. JeremyA (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What to do next? I'm not 100% sure of how to follow up on the RfC. It looks to me that Mario has responded well and promised not to repeat past mistakes. I think that so long as he keeps that promise no further action is needed, although it might be useful if we could get him to agree to not edit genseiryu-related articles (at least for a period of time, may be a few months). Peter Lee, on the other hand, seems to have decided to be as big a pain as he can be. Whether he is doing it personally or by proxy, having multiple IPs constantly reverting these articles is something that is difficult to control without the potential to affect innocent users. I know for sure that Peter Lee has used the IP 212.10.33.148 (talk • contribs • block) because when I blocked it he emailed me a long rant (15 times). All of the other IPs in the range 212.10.3x.xxx that have edited the genseiryu article trace to the same ISP as this IP (stofanet.dk), but there are some IPs outside of this range that I have had difficulty tracing (I think that these might be open proxies, used to evade blocks). So far blocking the various 212.10.3x.xxx IPs for 24 hours at a time has not caused any legitimate users problems—at least, none that anyone has contacted me about it. As Peter Lee has refused to openly participate in wikipedia any more I am not sure that arbitration can do anything, except perhaps give blessing on the use of range blocks to tackle the IP edits.

Maybe you are right that we should quietly unprotect the articles and hope for the best. If the reverting returns then we could try an escalating process of range blocking. Block for a few hours at first, if no one complains and the reverts return go for a 24 hour block, going up to 48 hours, a week, etc.. Of course, this would mean that I will have to learn how to do range blocks, but maybe another admin will help me. If we are agreed to go for unprotecting then I will do it ASAP. JeremyA (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I am about to go ahead and unprotect Genseiryu and World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation, so be on the watch-out for blind reverts—I think that it is fair to treat such reverts as vandalism (so far no one has disputed that). I'll give them a few days, but if the reverting returns I might reprotect. JeremyA (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it took a little over 24 hours but he's back! See the edits by 212.10.33.138 (talk • contribs • block)—he could at least have come up with a new edit summary. JeremyA (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Filings

I've seen you around enough to know that you wouldn't do anything to out of bad faith. Based on the evidence you and Jeremy have presented, I know that it is a serious case. I don't have enough experience with RfC to whether it is okay to file against one case against two separate people. Per WP:IAR, it's fine. The reason I posted that comment was because on Rainbowwarrior1977's RfC, RW1977 viewed that same sentence and "dismissed" the RfC as it involved multiple disputes, instead of one, which it is supposed to be about. Those who filed the RfC granted him his wish and upgraded to arbitration. If Peter Lee and Mario Roering are refusing mediation and intervention, arbitration might be a good idea for this case as well. Acetic Acid 07:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, everything seems to be in order now. Good luck with the rest of case. Acetic Acid 19:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scimitar's RfA

Thanks for your strong support. IT goes without saying that if you have any qualm about my actions, irregardless of whether I become an administrator, please let me know. All the best. --Scimitar parley 14:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hi! I have received an email relating to the RfC that I would like to forward to you. Please email me (using the 'Email this user' link on my userpage) so that I can send it to you. Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Bailey vfd

Hi, regarding the above article, there's also a poet by the name, although if he's any more notable I don't know, but have a look and change your vote if you so wish. Steve block talk 21:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed my vote. Thanks. -Splash 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
No worries. I agree it is a weak keep, but I just like to fight vanity with reality rather than deletion, you know. Steve block talk 14:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD template

Just saw you're note. But I don't really know how to fix it. I've unprotected it for the time being so you can edit it. :) Dmcdevit·t 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to not reprotect it and keep it quiet and see if we get any more vandalism or anyone else protecting it anyway. (Ohno! WP:BEANS!). I really don't like the unconcious habit some seem to have with protecting big targets like that, because as long as they're big targets, they're also important places that good faith editors could need urgent access to at any time. Anyway, you know, if you were an admin... you wouldn't have to ask permission. I know you've been asked before and said you were too young, but maybe that's changed? I think you are about the same age now as Flcelloguy was when he was promoted. Even though you are a little new, you are one of the most prolific and level-headed editors around. And I like your help at VfD and doing closings. You could do a lot more with that little delete button at the top of the page. What do you say? May I nominate you? Dmcdevit·t 04:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the magic 3 months is September 2nd, right? That's Friday? I'll nominate you then! By the way, I've made three noms before now, and (counting Beland) I'm 3-for-3 (Spangineer and Uncle G too). I think you're a shoo-in too. You're probably right that you'll get a few opposes for relative newness, but I feel just as strongly about editcountitis as I do agecountitis. Only in the extreme low cases are they telling. Oh and about the vfd template, it's too bad. I guess it's not horrible, and I'm not going to argue with anyone about it, it's just that I hate to see good faith editors (like you in this case) not able to help out the 'pedia because only the cabal members are able to touch it :) Seems to be a violation of AGF and a prevention of BB. But it's really easy to forget if you've got that little "protect" button. So go prepare the answers to your questions now I guess. :) Dmcdevit·t 19:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VFD confusion

See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. I believe I've fixed the matter by moving today's VFD page to PFD (of course leaving a redir). Please let me know if it helps. Radiant_>|< 08:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Response in wrong place?

Hello Splash! Now I have read the page again, I think I kind of misunderstood the part of "response". I probably took the term "response by Mario Roering" literally and thought I was allowed to write my opinion here. Wasn't I supposed to??? Could you please move it to the proper position, which would probably be just above the lines of "Response by..." and below the header of "Response"... I could do it myself too of course, but I am afraid that I might move it to the wrong place (again)... Thanks! -- MarioR 19:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

— Actually, I think I figured it out myself now. Please just check it for me. Thanks again! Regards, MarioR 19:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] category titles

Hi - I don't mean for my latest proposal to be a step backwards but rather a giant step forward. Various folks seem to be chomping at the bit to skip ahead to the finish line (Steve posted something and deleted it, Radiant seems to be kind of impatient with the whole thing, etc.). My guess is that coming up with a consensus proposal for the community at large that settles all the names will take at least as long as we've spent on this already and I really think we don't have the collective patience for it. As far as I can tell, the only thing we've agreed on is to not rename the "man-made objects in foo" categories (and I'm not sure everyone agrees to renaming the sports venues that I found lately). Rather than painfully and slowly proceed to a subgroup consensus that the community at large may overrule, this is my atempt at a compromise that skips us to the finish line. I'll post some more thoughts on this on the Wikipedia_talk:Category_titles page, but thought I'd try to explain directly to you as well. I'm sorry if this seems like a step backward that ignores the work to date - that's not my intent. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cafés in (British) Cambridge

Clowns is horrible! Their coffee! They take cold stale coffee, and infuse it with hot water and charge you a pound. Is there wifi in Clowns now, though? Well!

Admittedly, as an American used to nice filtered coffee I am biased -- only Starbucks serves it in Cambridge (and they even stop serving it after 7 pm!) My favourite cafes in Cambridge were definitely Indigo's, which is wonderful, and CB2, which has a higher weirdo quotient, but makes up for it with the books. Sdedeo 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bristol

Hi- not really about Wikipedia. Ok, not at all about Wikipedia- but I was just following links and I somehow ended up on your page, and I saw you go to Bristol. I'm applying for the 2006 admissions to study Maths and/or Philosophy and I haven't actually ever spoken to anyone who goes there (other than reading the glowing comments from the people in the prospectus ;)). I was really just curious as if you are enjoying yourself, no need for a long answer but if you are hating every minute of it then let me know ;) Also- what are you studying? - sars 14:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the speedy reply- I think you’ve told me more real things than all the guest speakers have in the past year. I went to see Bristol on the second of the open days, I remember the many grassy areas you mentioned- which were one of the things that stick out in my mind (of course for studying, sunbathing never crossed my mind... ;)). Unfortunately as we went after term time there were few, if any, students there- hence why I’m asking you these questions!
You mentioned that a particular hall of residence is the most sought after- forgive my ignorance but as this whole thing is pretty new to me (no siblings went to Uni) why are those particular halls in demand?
I see what you mean about Oxbridge- indeed they are just universities but I’m still in my mind counting Oxford as a only slight possibility! It’s not so much the grades as the sheer competition that I don’t think I could beat. You were right in that I have been told what College I apply to doesn’t matter- so thanks for letting me know, again I was pretty ignorant in what they all have to offer but having looked on Wikipedia today (where else?!) they all seem to have their own quirks and characteristics.
Interesting that Cambridge don’t allow you to get a job- but I am guessing that if I am having trouble finding time at the moment I’m going to find it even more difficult to find time for a degree and a job!
Again, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. - sars 21:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Broadbandreports Edits

Thank you for your comments from the RfC request, and for also reverting the comments folks have made in the talk page. --Paul Laudanski 21:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. -Splash 21:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skepsis

Greetings! I've restored it. I looked at it when it was new and hesitated (especially since it was created by a registered user), and was looking for a "move to Wiktionary" template when I saw the request for a speedy and deleted it, as perhaps I shouldn't have. I was looking for the creating user's talk page to ask them about it when I got your message. Since the speedy criterion seemed iffy to me in the first place (as you say), I have no qualms about reviving it. Fire Star 00:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I don't suppose the Merriam-Webster people want to provide us too much free copy on a good day! ;-) Sorry for the mixup. Fire Star 01:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nero (band)

With regard to your query about the VfD, I counted three keeps against six deletes. That's right on the edge, so considering the fact that the article had been improved, some users had reservations about deleting it and one of the people who voted delete is relatively new, I decided that there was no consensus to delete. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 01:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I generally don't either unless it's a really significant rewrite; however, that was only one of many factors that I took into consideration. JYolkowski // talk 01:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "All about Networking"

Good catch on All about Networking! It certainly read like a copyvio, but I didn't know the source. I figured it was worth speedying just based on the inappropriate contents. Owen× ☎ 01:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] people who hate extraterrestrials

your right it should be VFD not FPC, I undeleted all the edit revisions so that it can go to vfd. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the userpage phonebomb

I have to get to work, so may not be on VfD for awhile. I give you, however, the ultimate weapon of mass annoyance, to be deployed only in severe cases (such as articles on submerged rocks): Public Payphones (New York City, 58th St. and Third Avenue). Sdedeo 04:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TFD - Template:Ludwig van Beethoven

I am looking at resolving this particular item on TFD (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Ludwig_van_Beethoven). Rather than render non-admin summary jugement and interpret the commentary as it stands, I was wondering whether you would like to revise your input or leave it as it stands considering the comments made by User:EldKatt which appear to have been convincing for a couple of other people providing input and were made after you had provided your own input. Thanks for revisiting the TFD entry and considering the finality of your decision. Courtland 05:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel war?

Probably. There's some revert warring on the VFD templates. I've got them watchlisted, please notify me or Uncle G or both whenever something else is messing up. Radiant_>|< 10:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unreverting a revert on a policy page

Ohkay, sooo, I reverted a contested and undiscussed policy change on WP:NOT, and you unreverted it back to the contested version. Um, you realize that that actually does break several suggested guidelines, including the very template you quoted, as well as for instance WP:HEC ? (Both are guidelines btw). You have to be very careful in applying guidelines, in that you don't actually break them yourself. It's a very fine line sometimes ^^;;

In the mean time, I've fixed the template so that people are more likely to get things right, and less likely to get themselves into trouble again.

Finally: I won't undo your change: I'll leave that to someone else now. Do consider fixing it yourself! :)

Kim Bruning 15:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of follow-up discussion?

Hello Splash! I haven't had much of a chance for correspondance lately, getting ready for the start of the new semester and all that, but I've been wondering what your ideas are concerning the London, Ontario page? I'm going to write notes to all the principals so far in the Brady discussion, get a concensus, and post the results at the talk page there. Or perhaps you feel the RfC is more appropriate. I look to the other editors for guidance. As a sidebar, you have been and I am sure will continue to be, a voice of reason and moderation at WP:Votes for deletion. Hamster Sandwich 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Shall I reply here? Well, I'm not sure that we have particularly settled our differences with the anon (or whichever name s/he edits under), but the discussion has at least broadened out into the Bill Brady article, as it ought to have done. I do not believe that the "UNBIASED READER" is any such thing, however. Nevertheless, the feelings of all-but-one of those active on the talk-page are quite clear: The Brady Bullet stays, and so does the Brady article. I'm hopeful that User:Consensusbuilder has reconciled themselves to that fact and, having had the article protection force discussion, s/he can at least see that they are unlikely to make much headway; reverting is too easily undone. It's a pity that just as they began to branch out into other articles, they stopped editing. I think therefore that we should ask the protecting admin, Adam Bishop, to release the protection and see how we do. People have wanted to work on the article and been unable to do so. Filing article-based RfCs is often a bit of a dead-end but, if the disagreement does re-erupt, we could take that route then: for now, the opinions of those involved in the article should be sufficient. Do you have in interest in taking London toward FAC? -Splash 21:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
And re VfD, thanks, but you're much better at making VfD a more reasonable place than I am! -Splash 22:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey Splash! Yes of course, I agree the article should be unprotected. I don't know if the Concensusbuilder is squatting in his cyber-jungle, waiting for this to happen, but it won't hurt anything to find out either. Perhaps, sated by rat-meat and rice he will be more reasonable and amienable to the concensus that has formed around the issue of Brady's inclusion.Hamster Sandwich 02:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Yup, should have wikilinked to modulation. I couldn't help but insert that word there! :-) (Check above for some other note I added about the PSK transmitter...) --HappyCamper 00:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] subst:vfd

Can I just remind you to subst: the VfD tag? It's especially important at the moment as the templates are being changed fairly often and not-substing means the links break when the template is changes. Thanks. -Splash 22:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There were quite a few of your nominations with redlinks in the VfD tags. I've cleaned them all up. subst: is always good for VfD, but especially at the moment.-Splash 23:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree, for the long version look at Talk:VfD back when the subst:ing was introduced, for the short version see the talk item three sections up from your comment on my talk page. Still, thanks for clearing up the VfD/AfD mess. --fvw* 13:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Huh? Everybody subst:s the vfd tag! Even the instruction on WP:VFD ask for it to be subst:'d. It reduces server load and, at the moment, circumvents any revert wars on the templates. I'm not sure I quite understand. Not subst:ing must have produced nearly 10 broken VfD tags yesterday. My comment was not a comment on the current rename question, just a reminder that we are asked to subst: the VfD templates, so I'm not sure of why the section 3 up from here is related. -Splash 13:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
A little further down in the rant, I meant this bit:
      • Not that much really. VfDed articles get very little traffic on the grand scale of things, if you want to talk major load savings, try substing stuff like {{current}} and the main page templates. We could subst in lots of templates, and yes it would save CPU cycles, however in the long run the software is working for us and not the other way around. Transcluded templates are the right thing to do design-wise. If using this feature causes load problems (which it doesn't, the load problems were caused by people editing meta-templates that were included on huge numbers of pages like the meta-stub template) we need to either fix the servers/software or decide that for stuff like tags transclusion isn't technologically feasible (which would be bollocks, but at least we'd be consistant in our bollocks).
--fvw* 13:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, ok. You evidently don't like subst: for some reason. But lately redlinks in VfD tags have resulted in split VfD debates and confusion among newbies over why they are looking at either a redirect for editing or a blank page. Since the templates seem to have stabilised, I suppose the problem has largely gone away. Although I suppose you must have been subst:ing vfd2 and vfd3 (or not using them) since otherwise the VfDs wouldn't have been editable by non-admins. -Splash 13:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with subst, but only for stuff where it's necessary and labour-saving, not for all tags. This wouldn't have caused any trouble with the namechange if people hadn't been so overeager to change the name and thought it out first. (The correct order of doing this was 1) bot-move all discussions from VfD to AfD leaving the redirects 2) change the template 3) optionally remove the redirects if nothing links to them. That way no links would have been broken and that nasty edit war on template:vfd presumably wouldn't have occurred). As for vfd2 and vfd3, you're right, I don't use them, I find it's less typing to just type and copy+paste the header myself. If I did use them I'd have no problem with substing them though, because as you point out, there's a technical reason why it's necessary. Hope that clears things up. --fvw* 13:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Ok. And you're right about how the VfD namechange should have been done. Some people are a little to...err...bold. -Splash 13:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KBPA and KPBA

In my opinion, it was a mistake and premature to redirect KPBA to KBPA. There is a radio station called KPBA and another called KBPA (aka The Bob, for which the article was written). It would be better to create a stub for KPBA rather than have a redirect, since it confuses the callsigns and introduces an error, which is why the title was nominated for deletion to begine with. Therefore, I'll just create the stubs for those.... FYI Roodog2k 14:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Roodog2k 14:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Cool, Didnt want you to be insulted. I created the stub for the other station, which appears to have had its license yanked due to safety violations. I am considering leaving the KPBA-FM redirect in place to KBPA, since the other station was KPBA sans FM. The "-FM" is part of the callsign, so since the other station was AM, its most likely someone will make a typo KPBA-Fm searching for KBPA-FM rather than someone typing KPBA-FM looking for KPBA (AM)... dig it?

Roodog2k 14:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Football in Portugal TFD

I posted this on my user talk page and repeat it here

  • I have seen cases where templates with far more support for keeping have been deleted based on a statistical measure of consensus. I've expressed my opinion as to what I think should be done with the template by placing where I have and providing an explanation of why I did it .. more than can be said for most other folks who put things in the Holding Cell, if they ever get there at all before being acted on. The template has been listed on TFD for two weeks after the last comment; also, it has languished so long that a couple of days ago someone (User:Nick C) unilaterally removed the TFD-notice template .. without bothering to enter his request that it be kept on TFD. That being said, it appears that there is a silent group of persons who want it kept but aren't willing to defend it. Should it be kept under those circumstances. Likely it should, despite it not really being "the way we do things", which really isn't a very good defense of actions or support under any circumstances. Courtland 01:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

In light of the recent CFD debate about fictional emperors and empresses, I decided that the issue was way overdue for a more global discussion. Thus, please join the talk at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Radiant_>|< 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I noticed on Rick's talk page a comment from you regarding my usage of the term filibustering, and feel compelled to apologise as it appears my comment regarding filibustering caused you offence. I was attempting to describe what I saw as a tendancy amongst all of us to talk across each other rather than the issue at hand. However, it was clumsy and I hope you can now accept I regret making it. Steve block talk 08:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM WP:VFD

Your comment was moved by Uncle G from WP:RM to the talk page of VFD. Discussions always take place on the talk page of pages to be moved listed on WP:RM. At that time there was no clear place for your opinion to be placed in opposition to the move so he placed in in a general section. Currently there is a section where you can register your opposition, so you might like to move your text into that section which is called "Requested move". The section has been deleted a couple of times and it may be delete again, so it it is not there when you look please wait until it reappears. Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with the way things are going at the moment, but thanks for thinking of me. I reckon the least collateral damage will be done if we simply allow the rename to go ahead: it's only really cosmetics anyway. My opposition at the time was to the particular name, rather than to the concept. -Splash 15:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You've been nominated.

Your 3 months are up. So, I nominated you for an adminship. Go accept (or decline) the nomination, and of course, good luck. The Literate Engineer 06:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What the...? No fair! I'm co-nominating anyway (even though after eight hours it's 18-0!) Like I said, you're a shoo-in. I don't know where you are (okay, fine, I looked it up: Bristol) but Friday just started here, I just woke up. So unfair... :) Ah well, guess I don't need to wish you any luck. Dmcdevit·t 15:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you snooze, you loose. I was bold. Oh yeah! Anyway, Splash, you're welcome for the nom, and the text, but I was just giving full disclosure of my opinion. You're the one who earned the positive opinion. The Literate Engineer 04:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abebooks

Apparently, not copyvio. Read the history of the article. My fault though. I should have explained in the AfD text. --GraemeL (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone from the company the text was copied from emailed me to say they released it under the GFDL. See Talk:Abebooks. Angela. 19:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. I should have looked at the talk page, seeing as it was blue for a new article. I've reverted myself. -Splash 19:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Angela. I actually conflicted with your edit trying to explain that. --GraemeL (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No what?

Why not? Do you think the subject has any merit whatsoever? A direct answer would be appreciated. — Xiong熊talk* 23:01, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Fragmented discussion merged from User talk:Xiong -- please avoid fragmented discussions. — Xiong熊talk* 23:15, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Do you mean cross namespace redirects? Redirects that point out of one namespace e.g. Wikipedia: into another (e.g. the null namespace a.ka. article namespace) are a Bad Thing. You'll have to ask the devs why. Particularly, redirects into and out of User: space are routinely removed to avoid User:Xiong be redirected to [[:Image:]]-take-your-pick-of-Toby's-favourites. The sandbox is in Wikipedia: space, so articles should not routinely be redirected there (again, ask the devs why).
I think that many proposals to produce alternatives to VfD/AfD have merit, and the 'pure Wiki' ones (of which this is a flavour, right?) are amongst them. I imagine we can talk about pointing dud-articles to the sandbox and it has a certain fail-gracefully behaviour to it. Many of the blank-and-leave ideas don't do it for me because the blank page would almost demand an editor to look in the history and discover what used to be there. With Wiki's credibility amongst its most serious problems, discovering that the article called "Fwuglump" content used to be "Yo! Digg! Expletive!" is just going to make people reach for Britannica. On the other hand, landing them in the sandbox would remove the immediate "hey, what?" feeling, and give them somewhere to play around. Of course, any mildly-experienced user would soon work out how to navigate back across a redirect, but at least the first impression would be better. Still, my preference is to remove ridiculous content altogether: it saves on not-paper (which we're currently raising $200,000 to buy more of, remember) and just removes the in-credible (hyphen deliberate) content. It does no harm, really, since if someone really has something to say about "Fwuglump" they'll surely remake it, and possibly very soon. -Splash 23:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What's your real objection, Sir? Cross-namespace redirects?? This can be fixed, and you know it. What is it about editors that make them reach for the rollback so goddamn fast!? Why don't you try improving the solution, instead of trashing it and putting us back where we started -- with blatant SPAM on a user page.

I don't disagree with the fine point you raise. Sofixit. What do you like? A dummy user? Done. User:Zapped User page now exists as a target for zapped userspace redirects. You could have done that yourself, or spoken to me politely and asked. I'm very open to discussion -- but I don't like to do work just so others can crap on it.

Whose side are you on? Do you defend the bone of contention? I might even tolerate it if it were mixed in with something else, or the user had done some other editing -- I'm very tolerant. But not as what it is. Are you defending this page?

Zapping is not an alternative to AfD. It's not a policy proposal. It's a direct, simple, straightforward way of dealing with objectionable content. You're still free to follow around behind the elephant with a broom and work to delete the whole thing -- redirects, history, talk page. I don't agree that's a good idea, but I don't stand in your way.

I just take care of the problem. Can't you work with me, and not against me? Zapped User page 23:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are angry, offended or just indignant. In any case, I don't feel inclined to sofixit because I think that it is not the right idea, as I said. I'm not working against you, though you feel that I am. -Splash 23:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and this just occured: a case in point. -Splash 23:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
"This" is User:Redwolf24 zapping poor User:WikiFan04 to prove a point. Do you blame me for this? — Xiong熊talk* 23:56, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
No, but it's a good example of why we shouldn't encourage the prospect. I believe you wrote the rather excellent WP:BEANS. -Splash 23:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks in afd summaries

Please update your autovfd script; it's still leaving redlinks to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/whatever as the summaries on the afd daily logs. The appropriate line is

document.editform.wpSummary.value = 'Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/' + target + '';

in function autovfd(); it needs to change to

document.editform.wpSummary.value = 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/' + target + '';

Thank you. —Cryptic (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not sure which AfD you're referring to. I fixed it a couple days ago e.g. Controversial science has a bluelink to AfD. Was this Fender bender? That got messed with by a vandal doing a bunch of moves (not WoW). -Splash 23:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
It's just your edit summaries (so it's purely cosmetic, but still annoying). See the history of the daily log pages. —Cryptic (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Aaaaahhh, I see. Should have read your message more carefully; was distracted at the time. Will fix it now. -Splash 23:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucratship

Hi, Splash. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I appreciate your feedback and I will try my best to keep your criticisms and suggestions in mind in the future. Andre (talk) 05:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pearle, again

Hi again, Beland. There's several cats reaching into the several hundreds of edits at the bottom of CfD at the moment. I think Whobot has had some Hurricane Katrina problems lately, so I was wondering if Pearle could be pressed into service?-Splash 18:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem! Pearle is working on these now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Beland 22:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Great, thanks. -Splash 22:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Pre-emptive congrats on the RfA, by the way!

Thanks! 8) -- Beland 22:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome! -Splash 22:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I got you a nice table

Check your User page, I got you a table that's ever so nice ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Splash:
image:WikiThanks.png Thanks for support in my recent RFB nomination. And yes, I intend keeping my promises. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 19:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion?

Hi Splash! Would you give me your opinion of Nathan Bedford Forrest? I'm going to try to get it to featured article, and get one of those cool looking badges. I'll look here for any response you want to make. Thanks! See ya 'round! Hamster Sandwich 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that tomorrow if that's ok. I've been reviewing journal papers all day, and playing ultimate frisbee all evening, so my mind is only really in gear for grunt work. Looks like a good article, though! -Splash 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, swimming around in policy space has switched my brain back on, and grunt work has sated me. So I'll take a look now. -Splash 00:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope to be sated on spaghetti and meatballs in a short while, but I was thinking of adding an infobox to hold the war records and promotions section (a la Dmcdevit). It just struck me today that it could be good enough for a featured article, so I'm gathering some input and suggestions. Peer revue? I'll put it up over there after some further editing and contributions. Let me know what your ideas are. I'll post some of the regular editors there as well. See ya! Hamster Sandwich 00:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Watch out for the noodly appendages of your meal!
    • Yes, it will certainly need to go to [WP:PR|peer review]], if it doesn't it'll be thrown out of FAC almost summarily. The immediate things that suggest themselves on the FAC-route are needing more images (make sure you know their copyright status) and more solid references e.g. print. Images make FACers go "ooooh". Beware adjectives: the article has many and each is a description that needs to be backed up either in the refs or in the text. The third ref has evidently been used extensively: do make sure you are well clear of copyvio on it and all parts of it. The lead is going to need to be a bit longer; though only to a about a paragraph or so. You probably spotted the suggestion that the (putative) WP1.0 would use lead sections only in the print version hence the emphasis on them for FAs. In one or two places, it needs minor copyedits which I was too short on rat-meat to do. In detail, then:
      1. Early life is good.
        • Repeat the d.o.b. Can you get his mother's name?
        • "Determined to pull himself..." sounds like reportage. Did he say this/write this?
      2. Military career
        • "...an innate sense of successful tactics and strong leadership ability..." needs evidencing.
        • Split the final sentence up: put the intimidating bit at the start of the section and the swordsmanship in e.g. the middle or something.
      3. Cavalry command is an exciting read. This will be a good part of the FA.
        • Did he rally 4000 men (oh, check what the MOS says about commas in numbers) specfically for the purpose of retreating? Were they existing soldiers? Weren't they disobeying orders then? Or do I misunderstand? I wonder if he proved a point and got blocked for it.
        • "green recruits"? Inexperienced recruits. (And that's the phrase that made me wonder about the copyright of the 3rd ref.)
        • The relationship with Bragg needs fleshing out a little — there's clearly some significant tension that might be helpfully contextual.
        • Can you find a wikilink to WW2 warfare tactics for the end of this section?
        • I wonder what criteria for speedy deployment were.
      4. Mobile cavalry warfare is another good read.
        • Needs a minor copyedit and language smoothing.
        • Ah, there's a bit about the relationship. Would be helped by their strained relationship being dwelt on more a little earlier.
      5. Controversial battle of Fort Pillow.
        • Don't put adjectives in titles.
        • Definitely needs references: especially about Forrest's character.
      6. Conclusion of the war
        • Any particularly good quotes in the farewell address? Could italicize and indent one of them if it's especially pretty.
      7. Impact of Forrest's doctrines
        • Reference the report on the Battle of Paducah, and the fits of anger (perhaps they are just soldiers' stories, but they must have been mentioned somewhere)
        • "Many students of warfare..." is a little bit romantic. Can you find a good example or two of them being taught/studied/researched?
        • "...somewhat novel approach"?
      8. War record and promotions needs to be either proseified or timelineified like in some other famous people's articles. Since it duplicates info mentioned elsewhere in the article, a timeline might be best. There might some material here to expand the lead with: with some careful selection.
      9. Postwar years and Ku Klux Klan is interesting. He was a busy man, wasn't he?
        • A little bit more meat on his role in the KKK might be good, although don't duplicate the KKK article too much.
        • Don't begin sentences with "because".
      10. Posthumus legacy waxes a little too lyrical. History will remember him certainly, but some kind of more encyclopedic phrasing is needed. I think you should use "is". He's dead already, after all, and this isn't a eulogy.
        • "In retrospect..." sounds like personal thoughts. This will be fixed by the same kind of encyclopedic rephrasing as above. Possibly just excise that sentence altogether.
      11. References might also be inlined e.g. with Wikipedia:Footnote3 or one of the other footnotes, although this is optional.
    • That sounds like a lot, but I really think most of that is minor, apart from the referencing and the images. I certainly reckon you can get an FA out of this. -Splash 01:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Those are some mighty fine comments and suggestions you've got there, pilgrim! I'll be referencing them in the upcoming overhaul. I left a comment on the talk page of the NB Forrest article, asking for the other editors ideas as well. For an example of some of the public domain images of that general, please refer to this hideous statue[[3]]. Truely a horror. Thanks for the work you put in here with your reply. If the artcile goes to FA in the near future, it would be on the account of your help here! Peace! Hamster Sandwich 22:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AFD

Well, the consensus was to not keep it. A redirect never hurts, and it sure looks to me like it's worthy of a redirect. It was a little bit of WP:IAR. --Phroziac (talk) 01:58, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry

Tony, I'm sorry if you thought I was needling you. I genuinely wasn't at all. I left a reply at the CSD talk page; I'd personally prefer not to just make the change while there's still a discussion going on and, probably, not at all if you would be unhappy with such a change. Although I also replied slightly further up the page to you too, re the difference between undeletion and recreation. -Splash 02:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, mainly I was just very puzzled. I felt like I was being needled because my comments, and my presumed favorite activity, were being related to something I hadn't even been aware of until that moment. I was really a little annoyed to find that the page was protected without being properly marked as such. I agree that it isn't important to make the change until we're all agreed (and as far as I'm concerned I have only a weak objection to the proposed change--the vague feeling that it's probably unnecessary). But it is fairly important that our policy pages should remain editable unless there's some serious problem such as vandalism or edit warring. The odd edit by a newcomer isn't a problem--indeed I regard that as an opportunity to introduce the newcomer to how Wikipedia makes policy. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CFD

Hello. Maybe you will be interested to vote on the CFD for that "Oceanic trenches by depth (km)" category. Just go here. - Darwinek 12:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

D8mn. Thanks, I'll fix it.  :( Zoe 20:20, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maltese funniness

What did you mean by "Maltese funniness going on today.." in the afd site. 212.56.128.186 19:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I was observing that there have been at least two articles related to things to do with Malta turn up in AfD today. One of them looks like a copyright violation. The other looks sure to be kept, although there have been questions over its veracity. It being unusual for any Malta-related things to turn up on AfD and us having two in one day, I wondered if the two appearances were connected. It would seem they were not. -Splash 23:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D'oh, Ok I can't spell

Hehe, thanks for the fix, I can't believe it's been that way all this time. But, in my favor, I did it quickly (sorry excuse).  :) ∞Who?¿? 01:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I imagine you were a little bit busy at the time... -Splash 01:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | Talk 05:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations Splash! I have been impressed by your work, and it was a great pleasure to vote so early that I succeeded in "stealing" support vote number 1 from The Literate Engineer. Enjoy your mop! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Huzzah!
Huzzah!

RC patrols should be a breeze now. :) Owen× ☎ 05:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Splash, am mightily pleased with your sysophood! Awesome work.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  09:43:47, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Indeed, congratulations! --Canderson7 14:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 14:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Good luck with the mop&bucket! Hamster Sandwich 17:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats, K1Bond007 19:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ahh! I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to voice my support for your RFA, I had no idea. Still w/o net, and didn't see it on my watchlist. Glad you made it though :) ∞Who?¿? 20:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hah, "we"... Yeah, congrats as well. Now go fix WP:CP! :) About the break, thanks for your concern (actually I'm glad more people haven't asked). I could give a long answer but basically it's both that I can't realy keep up with WP and schoolwork, and also I've become really dissatisfied with all the voting and trolling going on lately. I'm back for today at least as I've got some free weekend time. Anyway, if you want my advice it's to always think before you block. A common admin mantra, and one I like to use, is that almost everything you'll do as an admin is reversible. With a block, most of the damage is done in the first fifteen seconds though, when they first try to edit and that error message pops up. Even if they are unblocked an hour later, that felling can't be taken back. That doesn't mean I'm saying "use blocks sparingly", but that that you should think about what they will accomplish. Have a specific action in mind you need to stop. A block is never punishment for past deeds, just a temporary measure (in most cases). Nearly every controversy I've been involved in as an admin has involved a block. Sheesh, tht wasn't very cheery. Well, if you ever have any questions about your new tools, I'll gladly help. Happy admin-ning Dmcdevit·t 21:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joolz's RFA

Hey Splash, thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, your support was appreciated! :D And congratulations on becoming an admin as well :) -- Joolz 11:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff and such

Hi Splash,

Thanks for your response! Ah yes, those categories speedied relating to list of battles were all marked by a single Wikipedian. I don't remember much of the details of them anymore, but I recall checking their histories and seeing that most of them were never populated with anything. Either 2 or 3 edits to them at most, one for creating, and one for the speedy. There was also a talk page about getting rid of them somewhere, either on a template, or something else. Anyway, I'll wait 24 hours before deleting categories in the future.

Well, I guess it was "patent nonsense" for me based on some of my research background in quantum mechanics. My colleagues had quite a laugh when they read Flux qubit. Maybe I should recover it and place it in WP:-)? If you are into that sort of humour, take a look at it. I guess I'll send articles like it to AfD next time.

Here is my interpretation of your last sentence:

*nudge nudge* - draw the receiver structure for QPSK! :-)

Yes, yes I know... ^^ - Anyway, thanks for your message. That was nice to read.

Last but not least, congrats on your well deserved adminship! --HappyCamper 15:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All the best

All the best for your new role as an administrator. --Bhadani 16:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats! I hope you use your powers sensibly. I'd like to ask you a question. You saw my recent RFB nomination here. If you were a bureaucrat would you consider Objection #4 as valid? User:Nichalp/sg 17:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'd asked you this particularly since you'd asked me to consider all votes as fair. Here I was reverting a page which had clear copyvio images, and the newbie goes on a rant, despite me telling him clearly on his talk to message me (he had logged as an IP). Let me be honest here. If I have to deal with such a case in RFA the future, I'll not count a newbie oppose vote who refuses to tow the WP copyright policy properly. As for me, I've never had my user page vandalised. Some strange luck I've had! :) User:Nichalp/sg
Thanks for clarifying. User:Nichalp/sg 18:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Splash/Archive3/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RFA

You're welcome. And thanks. I'll watch you, but I'm still pretty new with this too. ;) --Phroziac (talk) 00:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Congrats! No problem with the support. If you've go any questions about your marvellous new superpowers the admin tools, just drop me a line! Grutness...wha? 00:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
How precisely did you find time to thank all 80 voters of your RFA? Do you get any work done on that Phd at all? :) Borisblue 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Missunderstanding? Bovasial_contex_driven_neural_response

  • You seem to have deleted this page, it was not a nonsense page or a redirect, it was the victem of page-move-vandalism, you can see this if ytou look very carefully at the edit histories of the involved pages, the user in question moved the article to a nonsense page, then made it look like the origional was blank, If it's alright with you I've restored the article--172.150.4.192 03:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry, I've fixed it. I'll post you a message, 172.150.4.192! --HappyCamper 03:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

Splash, thank you for the thank you . It is truly refreshing that you would actually put some thought into your thank-yous instead of copying and pasting the same message over and over again (including an incorrect username) to everyone who supported your RfA, unlike some others. I thank you for your comments, and by you writing an individualized response, I feel much more appreciated in my voting. The fact that your RfA was one of the highest ranked astonishes me on how you were able to write personalized notes to each and every one who voted. It is true that I do not spend as much time on VfD as I once did (many things contributed to that fact), and I'm glad you like my new sig. (I keep trying to type in Word using wikisyntax [yes, I'm a wikipediaholic], and the idea just stuck.) I was wondering however, if it were possible to kern the characters of the sig. I want to have my contribs and talk part be kerned over the date and time, and wondered if there was a script that would allow me to do that. Thanks much, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 03:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, some people got more of a boilerplate message than others, but I tried to repay the time some had taken to write a comment (usually a nice one!) by writing one of my own back. Anyway, I'm 99% sure I've seen the question about kerning asked before and 99% sure the answer was "it can't be done, at least not yet" (which makes me 98.01% certain overall). I've tried a few things myself, and Googled and such, but I can't find anything. Apparently newer versions of (X)HTML support a <%math%></%math%> construct which approximates the alignment features properly. I don't think any browser usefully supports this at the moment (and IE definitely won't). But if I spot someone with such a sig, I'll let you know! -Splash 13:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC) (PS. In show preview I think I noticed your sig missing a closing /sub tag, unless I deleted it by accident)
Thanks for the google search (and that interesting math you did), but hopefully it will be implimented soon. You are correct that the sig is missing a /sub tag, and that is something I hope you can help me with also. I don't want to create a template for my sig, but using the sig box in preferences doesn't allow one to mess with the UTC date/time code. At the end of the sig, I added in a (sub) tag to make the date and time subscripted to contrast with the additions | email superscript, but there is no way of closing the tag in the prefs box. I was under the impression that if a line was left unclosed, the software (mediawiki/browser) would automatically close it, but maybe I'm wrong. In any event, I think I'll try to remember to sign my posts from now on my using the customary 4 tildes followed by a /sub tag, unless I can find a fix. Thanks much, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 16:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, that would explain it. I suspect it would probably be auto-fixed sometimes like at the end of a bullet point or something, but not in ordinary flowing text. I can't think of a way around the MediaWiki being too helpful. By the way, I did see your message on my talk page, but didn't reply to avoid complications while HC was clearning me up! I wonder if you might post your edit in the relevant section of my talk page, just so that I have it complete and then I can archive it again. Thanks. -Splash 18:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, and here it is! I looked over your RfA, and saw that the sig you were commenting on was different from the one I am currently using, and I wondered which you liked better. My new one has a lot of nowiki tags, and the like, but I kinda like it, while my old one says more where my name comes from. I personally don't care too much, but if you'd tell me which you'd prefer, that would be appreciated. Did you know of "Sunglasses at Night" or did you just like the sig? I listened to the GTA:VC soundtrack too much, and the name kinda stuck (I'm a sucker for 80s music). Thanks to HC for restoring your page (and doing a great job, I might add), congrats on being an admin, and happy editing. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 18:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Argh! :-)

Those pages are a mess...I think I'm going to block someone soon...very very very very trick vandalism! --HappyCamper 03:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup in Aisle 5...

Go test out those powers!
Go test out those powers!

Ah, so here's a new mop-bearer. I do appreciate the comment, both about your RfA and my edits. It was pleasing to see your RfA succeed in such a large manner, and I have no doubt that you'll be a fine admin. Of course, I'll keep an eye on you; we wouldn't want a rogue admin now, would we? ;). Just don't forget that image deletions are the only non-revertable admin action!! Cheers, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is not any doubt in my mind that you will be an excellent admin. Congratulations, and I'll see you at AfD, as ever. Fernando Rizo T/C 12:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Ack! When I saw you thanking people, I realized that I forgot to vote for you! Well, congratulations. I'm always happy to see you adding your calm, reasonable voice to a heated discussion, and I think you'll be a great admin. FreplySpang (talk) 14:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Well, first, the 5000 people is almost a joke..."

...was a comment you made at WP:BIO. I very much agree but when I attempted to amend it (based on what appeared to be decent talk consensus) it was reverted by Kappa. I have just placed a [poll] at RfC and wondered if I might get your input. Thanks, Marskell 14:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup

Hey, you heard about this: Wikipedia:Meetup/London? --HappyCamper 16:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fixup

Sure, I'll help you make those changes :-) I'll start now. --HappyCamper 16:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

All done! Mysekurity also added a message for you, but I did not restore it because it would cause the talk page to not look correctly. It was added while the page was still being restored - guess I should have protected your page initially! :-) Anyway, I've told Mysekurity that it's okay to add his comments now, so expect another message from Mysekurity soon! --HappyCamper 17:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Happy, I'm adding the comment back now (good job, btw!) -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 18:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:FAD at TfD

Well firstly, congratulations your Adminship Sir, 77/1/0 is enviable. Next, may I ask that you review this TfD in light of the rationale of your fellow admin with his vote. I'm pretty confident that the template will be deleted anyway but I'm asking for speedy to prevent anyone from using this redirect and to allow me to make a new and more appropriate shortcut redirect. Thanks, hydnjo talk 18:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

I have no idea how to watch logs, but I'm sure you will do fine. The category stuff got moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) where I think Rick is trying to drum up support/debate. I think it's pretty much flogged to death on my end to be honest, although I think it was a useful exercise and I hope something conmstructive comes out of it. Towards the end I felt we almost hit it and then it seemed to disintegrate. I think we all pulled at different speeds in the same direction, near as damnit. Anyway, good luck as an admin. Steve block talk 19:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in here - I don't think it's dead at all (maybe I'm overly optimistic). Where it goes from here is the entire community reaches consensus on it as a policy (according to Wikipedia:How to create policy, this might be difficult but this is pretty much just codifying what we already do so I'm hopeful that we can reach consensus). Assuming progress on this occurs and it is adopted as policy in the not too distant future, then we start nominating whole classes of categories at CFD. It might take quite a while (at least weeks, perhaps several months), but if the page gets adopted as policy then we can make progress at CFD speed (which I think is much faster than community consensus speed). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WEB

Thanks for pointing out that it's only a proposed standard. I usually remember, but forgot in my haste to get to the pub. ;-) --GraemeL (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again). — Phil Welch 23:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I tried!

I tried to revert the IP vandal, but you are too quick on the draw for me pardner! Next time I'll get him! :-D Hamster Sandwich 00:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! Now that I have a gatling mop, things are a bit faster (when the wiki isn't crawling along, anyway). -Splash 01:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Can you help me to connect with the WP community through IRC? I have no idea as how to accomplish this. Where do I find the chnnel? Hamster Sandwich 01:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
You need to start by getting an IRC client if you don't have one. I think Chatzilla is popular; it's what I use for no particular reason. It integrates handily into Firefox as an extension. Choose a username, something recognisable from the Wiki usually. Then you need to connect to irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia — with the default settings you should be fine as I've never had to change them. The full list of IRC channels is at Wikipedia:IRC channels. There're some handy scripts at Wikipedia:IRC channel scripts specific to various IRC clients that will allow wikilinks to work and things. On the rare-ish occasions that I'm in there, I'm called Splash_wp as some b* has stolen 'Splash'. Does that help? -Splash 02:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Attempting to do thismakes me realize that I am completely computer illiterate, and should attempt nothing more complicated than typing and clicking a mouse. Sign me, Completely Inadequite to the task... Hamster Sandwich 02:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok...I made it...somewhere...there seems to be wikipedians there, so must be allright... Oh BTW did you read Barry Wells comments at the London, Ontario page? A notable Londoner commenting on a notable Londoner. Sweet! Hamster Sandwich 02:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cfd and stuff

Hey, not sure if you seen my comment above about congrats, but wanted to say it again to be sure. Also, I hope you understand that I would have voted support if I would have known about your RFA and was able to get online to do so.

Other than that, I would love to have you on CFd as I mentioned on Kdbank71's talk page, and I actually request your assistance on a category titles related Cfd. Can you take a look at this Cfd and see if it conforms to the new standards. I believe I spoke to you before about why I couldn't keep up with the whole discussion, and especially being w/o power/net for the past few weeks, I haven't been able to check. I would appreciate it greatly, you can close it if you want, or just msg me back and I will do it later tonite or tomorrow. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 00:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)