User talk:Feezo/Archive 2

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I appreciate your vigilance. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too! Billlion 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Just FYI, this user was reported in entirely the wrong place (in the hidden comment section), and therefore it not only went unnoticed for more than 24 hours, but also caused a bot to malfunction. Please follow directions when reporting users on AIV, and make sure they go in the proper location next time. Preview is also not a bad idea either. Thanks Pilotguy (ptt) 21:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

THX for revert

Hello! THX a lot for revert of my User page. I was away so I didn't see it. One more time Thanks--Krzysztofpawliszak 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

template:grammar1

Thank you for improving {{grammar1}}. Shortly after I created it, I had second thoughts if it's even helpful and thought about nominating it for deletion. Do you use this template? — Sebastian 08:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Going commando

Why are you removing my edit from the Going commando post ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testing01 (talk • contribs)

I do think of it as useful, since it is one of the most well-known examples of someone who was going commando. Grtz. Testing01

I understand you wish to discourage edits that are purely between British and American spelling, but in British usage "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun. I think this may be a useful distinction. Rodparkes 10:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I think valid criticisms were raised in areas that I need to work on, so I've withdrawn my name. I intend to work on addressing the concerns that were raised, and think I need to work contributing without allowing myself to become as stressed as I have been at times, which did result in some inappropriate behavior. Perhaps I may re-explore adminship at some point in the future, but it's a little early to consider that. Again, thank you. Fan-1967 21:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thagomizer

What I can't figure out is why that other guy keeps deleting it. Wahkeenah 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

I had added links in bangla cinema since us Bengalis also like to watch hindi movies. MovieDesi has the rights to several movies and songs and clips as well as other bollywood information that would be of interest to easter/middelEastern and even other readers who would like to get a feel of bollywood, and indian cinema; since the bengali cluture and language are quite similar.

Thanks

Thanks for helping revert vandalism on the Komodo Dragon article. However, you may want to tell the vandal in question with warning templates on their talk page. Just a suggestion. bibliomaniac15 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Strength training

Hi,

You removed a bunch of text from the strength training article (the 'common concerns' section). I reverted your edit, and this is to let you know why. You said in your edit summary "deleting copyvio from http://www.tranquillizer.co.uk/weight-training-concerns.html" - if you look at that page, you can see at the end of some statements, there are numbers thus "[17]". The tranquillizer site actually copied the information from wikipedia, not the other way around. Its not a copyvio from us, it's a copy vio from them. Just a head's up.

WLU 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you think the section's biggest problem is the tone of the section rather than the section itself. I'd agree with that, I'll try for a re-write if I have time in the near future. WLU 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Stained glass

Thank you for keeping your eye on Stained glass. I get so tired of the vandalism... I've also worked on Leonardo da Vinci, which is semi-protected, and I swear that kids get themselves accounts specifically so they can vandalise it. It's nice to see someone else watching my watchlist.

--Amandajm 07:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Licensing

Hi, nice to meet you. Glad to know that my work isn't going completely unnoticed. :)

I'm doing this in part due to issues raised with the Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia) article when we were GA nomed. I'm working with PublicSchoolReview.com, and I think they'll comply given enough time to update their website. Unfortunatly, its part of a larger family of sites that also steals from Wikipedia, so I need to contact those sites as well.

I'm happy that I finally have something to really work on here, I wanted to help out more on a WikiProject, but I didn't know which one to stay focused on. Thank you again for your note, Wikipedia can seem somewhat cold at times, but its the random kindness that keeps me here. Zidel333 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

chapeaux redux

No problem on reverting hats to chapeaux. I was indeed trying to avoid flowery prose, but I can understand using the word if it's the same one used in the comic itself. Esrever 01:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Committed identity

Many thanks for catching my hash-identity error; I ultimately created a new SHA-512 inamsuch as SHA-1s are apparently generally disfavored. My compliments, also, on your being the first editor in some time to use stormtrooper here other than in an attempt to impute Nazism to an admin's acting untowardly. :) Cheers, Joe 06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Adam. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Decision engineering

Hi, Adam. I removed the CSD G1 tag from this page per WP:CSD, since the policy states that patent nonsense does not include "badly translated material". Please understand. I've checked the previous deleted versions, this current version seems slightly better than the second time it was deleted, then again it still looks bad. I'm inclined to tag the article for cleanup or copyedit, or we may consider the template {{notenglish}}, which is specifically used for articles that exist on another Wikimedia project. In any case, I don't think the page should be speedily deleted. Sorry I wasn't clearer in the edit summary. Please feel free to run the Afd process should you need more input from other editors. ~ Best regards, PeaceNT 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Have a beautiful day/night! Take care, :) PeaceNT 03:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the second external link which is written in excellent english: I'm sure you'll make sure it is not redundant with systems engineering. This concept Decision engineering is learned in the most famous schools in France, as HEC for instance. See also french article in wikipedia, sources show that publications can be found on this subject (Decision engineering) in CNRS as well wich is the main research frenc institute. If it ia a problem of english langage, try to improve it. It will be a nice contribution to Wikipedia in english. Robertatum 19 June 2007

Vandalism

Thanks for your response. I understand your caution; but, as you can see from the sockpuppet page, this is part of a long pattern of similar abusive edits. At least one previously banned editor, User:84.109.62.205, was using the same ISP and a closely-related address. A user check should show that many of the "disposable" vandalism IDs set up were from the same source. RolandR 11:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the IPs are not very persistent because it seems that a proxy or anonymiser is being used, so they change frequently. Semi-protection would not help, since to date over 150 pages have been vandalised; such a step would start to paralyse Wikipedia. RolandR 11:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:uw-srv

I reverted your edit to {{uw-selfrevert}}: compare Template:uw-t1, where we also thank people for experimenting, and in that case they didn't revert their own edit. I can see some sense to this: it can be a bit of a hurdle for people to find and have the courage to use the 'edit' functionality, even if it's just for a test. Also, we always first assume good faith.... If you think it should be changed, I think we should also change this on {{uw-t1}}, so maybe you could discuss this on WT:UTM. Thanks, and happy editing! Phaunt 11:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Not a problem on your reversion; I respect the goal of template consistency. While my edit was perhaps a bit bold, I did have several reasons for the change —

1. "Experimenting" is somewhat presumptuous — sometimes people who know how the site works simply make joke edits, for example, to play a trick on a friend.
2. There's no guarantee that the same person made both edits. At school computer labs, for example, several people might make joke edits, which are then cleaned up later by someone from the same IP.
3. Finally — and this is admittedly subjective — there's the matter of attitude. We don't want people randomly inserting h1 #REDIRECT == Headline text ==[[Media:Example.ogg]] into articles. Most people probably know this, and thanking them for it comes across as disingenuous.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter. — Feezo (Talk) 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First, of course no problem with your bold edit, and it seems to have sparked some discussion, which is of course all for the better.

There are several series of warning templates. As to your first point, the Template:uw-j1 series is for joke edits; your third example would IMO fall under vandalism, for which there is the Template:uw-v1 series. At some point edits become so disruptive that we stop assuming good faith, which indeed is a subjective call.

That said, you are probably aware of the existence of the uw-j1 and uw-v1 series. If your point is that Template:uw-srv seems particularly suited to good-faithed self-reverted editing tests, not to disruptive joke or vandalism edits (even if they are self-reverted), I agree with you. Maybe we need to address this at WT:UTM, for example by proposing multiple levels of uw-srv, with (a) higher one(s) for more disruptive edits.

Finally, as to your second point, I also agree but I don't quite see how this weighs in for this case (also, your change to uw-srv didn't seem to address it); do you have a suggestion how to rephrase uw-srv, and do you think it's even really necessary? Phaunt 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a uw-srv series is a good idea. Some self-reverted edits are more clearly disruptive than others. In that case, my version could be uw-srv2 (no faith assumptions), and uw-srv3 would warn that persistant, disruptive edits are not tolerated, even if self reverted, etc. — Feezo (Talk) 14:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of the Mechanics article

Recently you revered an edit to Mechanics. That edit had added an external link to [1], which seems to me to be a nice expansion on the article as it contains illustrative animations and videos of several aspects of the field of Mechanics within Physics. As you did not place an explanation in the edit summary, and the link seems valid to me, I am going to revert your reversion. I would welcome an explanation of why you thought it inappropriate in that article. Pzavon 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on my talk page. Does the fact that I've stuck my foot into this and restored the link do anyhting to remove the conflict of interest issue? I am not connected with that web site in any way.Pzavon 01:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Hi there. The decision to put the More Revealed link in has been discussed on the talk page. If you would like to remove it, please go to the AA page and discuss it with other editors of the article. For the moment, it is going back up. Take it easy.... 82.19.66.37 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Streisand effect AfD notice

Thank you for changing the warning on User:LongBay's user page. I wasn't sure exactly which warning to give him, I suppose I should have searched more. Thanks again. --Pixelface 19:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my deleted comment

Dear Feezo

Just be so kind and feel the situation out of my view ! Waiting for any one competent to get in contact with, the onliest thing what happens is, to be deleted again. ( That fore my comparison ) No help, no case study, no explication, no argumentation, just delete. Thats all. You will delete this comment also, I am sure about this. All the policies are worthless if the wikipedians themself doesnt respect their guidelines. Here is a newcomer who feels extremely violated by incorrect usage of rules and guidelines. Will wikipedia respond to this matter or not ? This is the question, and the answer tells everything about wikipedia.

Thank You

C.G.

I am approving what is mentioned above, as Mr Feezo'willing is deleting an article "Decision engineering" because it is not written in perfect english. So instead of improving the writting, Mr Feezo's willing is to delete merely the article. This is unrespect and censure. My question is: if Mr Feezo has enough time to check every day new articles, it would be more profitable for him and for Wikipedia to improve those articles instaed of deleting them. If Mr Feezo who deleted this article once wants to delete it again, I am planning to complain more and more. Wikipedia cannot accept that only one person can do what he wants.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertatum (talk contribs).

Thank you - Robertatum

Deletion

I dont know what a article deletion thing is. please explain?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.90.4 (talk • contribs)

Thanks!

Thanks for the info.The preceding unsigned comment was added by NastalgicCam (talk contribs).

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again!

Also, you need to add yourself to my list of ASW folk. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons links

Hi there. I noticed you removed the Commons link from the Burn (injury) page. I thought it was unlikely that there would be no collection of burns images on Commons, and indeed I found some, which I linked to by this edit. Would you be able to check for this sort of thing before removing seemingly dead Common links in future? Thanks. For the record, I also found the original addition of the commons link here. That editor should have realised that pages with parenthetical bits in the title need to be specified in more detail, and should have checked the link he or she created anyway. Carcharoth 11:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake. I'll be more careful in future. Feezo (Talk) 21:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Example.com

Example.com's purpose is to be an example website. Wikipedia articles are mirrored on hundreds of different sites and may be published in printed form as well. We cannot, therefore, rely on the context you mention being preserved. The use of Wikipedia's web address also seems questionable with regard to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Feezo (Talk) 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're misconstruing the RFC. example.com is intended to be used when providing examples of DNS where use of real addresses may cause conflicts when working with nameserver software. The use of a real domain name for rhetorical purposes is entirely valid, and for the layman - who is not working with nameserver software - less confusing. As for being self-referential, in this instance I'm afraid you are again misconstruing the intent. It is an example reference for a domain name, it is not referring in a literal sense to wikipedia. However, any domain would do, so I'll change it to something neutral. Anastrophe 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can't think of a better domain to use. example.com fails as a useful example in my opinion, and the politics of finding a 'neutral' domain name to use instead fail me (yahoo.com, the most trafficked site on the net - commercial enterprise, not appropriate to use, really; google.com, well, i don't like the idea of google as the most obvious/general example; whitehouse.gov - talk about a can of worms; nasa.gov - 'you're being US centric!', - etc etc etc.. I still maintain that wikipedia.org is probably the best compromise of the lot. Anastrophe 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a fairly trivial issue overall. In other words, you're welcome to change it back. It's not that big a deal. Anastrophe 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

N:M threads

About the removal of the reference to Marcel. I know that wikipedia shouldn't be used for advertisement etc. But the fact is that as pointed out in a recent article at EuroPar, there are very few N:M thread implementations still supported, and wikipedia only cites the BSD one (under an "exampleS" title...), I thought it was useful to notice that it is not the only one.

19 inch rack

Hello. Just wondering why the link I added to server-racks.com was removed from the 19-inch_rack page. I'm not complaining .. just curious. Bmartus 14:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dilberito

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Dilberito, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)