User:Fys/talk archive4

Happy New Year
Thank you for your generous acknowledgement. Happy New Year!&mdash;Theo (Talk) 00:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What have you done?
You recently reverted User:Daniel Brandt - I'm sure that before the sun sets, your name will be on the black list along with the rest of us ;-) Izehar 16:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If I don't get on there very soon I shall be very disappointed in myself! David | Talk 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You did, SqueakBox 18:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"great userbox genocide"
Hi David. I noticed this phrase on your user page and I would like to ask you to reconsider it. "Genocide" is an incredibly loaded term, and using it lightly can come across as insensitive to the suffering of millions. Thanks, FreplySpang (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. FreplySpang (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

LGBT interest userbox
Hi! After participating in some discussion about userboxes, I've decided to create a userbox specifically for people who are interested in LGBT issues. I like this userbox a lot because it doesn't force people to take a stand on LGBT-related political issues or declare a particular identity, but just expresses a common interest in editing LGBT-related articles on Wikipedia. I saw your name on the list of people who are interested in this kind of thing at the LGBT notice board, and I am inferring from your userpage that this is a type of userbox you might support, so I thought I'd let you know about this one in case you want to list it on your user page. I am hoping that people will see it, click the link to the notice board, and become more involved in editing LGBT-related articles on Wikipedia. The userbox is at Template:User LGBT interest. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

userbox policy
Hi- I noticed your support of policy #6. Its contents have been incorporated into #4, and we intend to remove #6 and #7 to declutter your page. Provided you agree with its contents, it would be useful if you could shify your vote from #6 and #4. Deano (Talk) 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Dbiv, I've started noticing your name again on various pages. It's good to see you're still around! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The rollback button
That would be because the button shouldn't be labeled "rollback vandalism" (and in fact isn't any more). I am presently writing explanations in several places including WP:VPT, please join the discussion. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict
I'm sorry, indeed I didn't mean to. I'll watch out next time. Larix 12:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User box TfD
You are voting to delete a user box you have (atheist). This is hypocrisy. I realize that you subst:ed yours or copied the code, but that still means that you were dependent on the original box for your code. While you may have the technical know how to create boxes yourself, many others do not. Your vote is essentially a vote to create two classes of Wikipedians with different rights: those who can write their own code to create boxes and those who are denied the pleasure of user boxes by their lack of fluency in code. WAvegetarian (talk) (email)   (contribs) 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank you for responding in so civil a manner. I'm sorry to have brought the discussion to your user page. I was rather irate and feeling argumentative at the time I wrote that due in large part to outside RL concerns and shouldn't have gotten involved in a debate in that state of mind. Looking back at it, I agree that it was hyperbole. I have come to agree with you that party and religious affiliation categories will do more harm than good and have removed them from my user page. Back to positive contributions to the encyclopedia. WAvegetarian (talk) (email)   (contribs) 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Charles Kennedy
Just a note that I wasn't ignoring your protection tag - it wasn't there when I clicked edit and the system added my contribution rather than flagging an edit conflict. Glued to BBC News 24 now... --Whouk (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't worry about it, I just wanted to start the section without putting anything in it and the inuse tag was the first one I could think of. David | Talk 14:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice that you removed the sentence about "immediate press speculation" that he could be leader in future from the two articles. While I don't think it's worth restoring, there was speculation - albeit media, not press - from Nick Robinson who said exactly that on BBC News 24. --Whouk (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback
You aren't supposed to list RFA's until the nominee has accepted and answered the questions. Guettarda 16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you aren't supposed to list them until the nominee has accepted. Read the rubric again. In any case WMC has now answered the questions. It's unfair to RFA voters who have not spotted the nomination in Recent Changes to delay listing it on the RFA page, given the voting deadline. David | Talk 16:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole issue of not listing them until they are accepted is that people would vote "oppose, hasn't answered questions" - so whatever the wording, a nom isn't really accepted until the questions are answered. As for timing - timing should start with listing.  But mostly - rollback implies vandalism, an edit summary as to why I was wrong would have been a lot less jarring.  Guettarda 16:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda has a very good point. Per, Administrators, one should not


 * "...use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary."

Also note that well-meaning contributors may be offended by you using the rollback against them. Please refrain from doing that in the future. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a complete storm in a teacup. Although the revert click is intended for vandalism, it's no different in its fundamentals to a manual revert. I used it in this case because it saved time and because it ought to have been very obvious why it had suddenly become appropriate to go back to my edit (because WMC had now answered the questions and should be listed without delay) I think WMC (whom I've met) is probably one of the best known Wikipedians and his last RFA was quite well publicised. I'm afraid I can't work out what it had to do with Oleg Alexandrov though no doubt he has good reasons for wading in. David | Talk 18:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not fuss over nothing. You are abusing a tool you are supposed to use only against vandals. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a fuss over nothing; a revert through using rollback has exactly the same effect as a manual revert. But I really can't be bothered to reply to you in any more detail as I'm trying to improve articles and find this sort of debate sterile, enervating and pointless. David | Talk 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That some other people also use the rollback button for non-vandalism is a lame excuse. You used the rollback button against a good-faith edit by a fellow Wikipedia editor; that is not acceptable.

I don't intend to take more of your time which both you and me can use more productively. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't "against" the edit. This is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopaedia, not a competition. The old edit was superseded because WMC now had to be listed. I still think this a fuss over nothing. David | Talk 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kippur
Hi there, thanks for your input. I agree with you that most English speakers, particularly from the US/UK, would refer to this war as the Yom Kippur war. Also, I agree with your statement regarding the two competing policies. I would like you to consider two things though, first is that there is a NPOV title already commonly used in other encyclopedias (maybe you saw my vote, first one). And second, that the English wikipedia is used not just by native English speakers, but users from many other countries and cultures. I think starting off with a NPOV title, specially when it's pretty straight forward, would go a long way in the perception of wikipedia users worldwide as to the neutrality and unbiased content of the article as a whole. Just my thoughts. Thanks again... Spaceriqui 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom elections
David, I noticed your subpage on the elections, and wondered if I might steal the wording for a page of my own. Also, I wanted you to know that I don't hold you or any one person responsible for Proteus' departure. To me, it's a sad state of affairs, but ultimately we all have to make our own decision whether to stay or go. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

updates to list of PMs
Hi, Dbiv, thanks for your updates and clarifications to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, I must admit that I was quite pleased to be getting to the end of the descriptions and I rushed them a bit. By the way, when coming here, I saw User:Dbiv/ArbComvotes, funnily enough I had the same idea. I am also voting against 25 candidates for inexperience, I wonder if they are to the same people! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 16:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. A very good source for all of this is Facts about the British Prime Ministers by Dermot Englefield, Janet Seaton and Isobel White (ISBN 0720123062), over a decade old now but there's only been one Prime Minister since. I may find the time to fill out some of the other entries. As for the Arbcomvote, Mackensen has already stolen the idea from me. I see it as being a way to remove any hurt feelings while not having to put long comments on the vote pages. We'll see how many votes we coincide on! David | Talk 17:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re RfB
And here was me thinking I rather like living in Bucks... -- Francs2000 17:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a vote here where some users to try to overturn WP categorisation policy (whereby categories and subcategories cannot be placed on the same page) and force a subcategory (LGBT organisations) onto the North American Man/Boy Love Association page. Some of the comments made are distinctly homophobic and rather disturbing (eg, "organised faggotry", etc). Personally it gives me the creeps even mentioning NAMBLA but your vote on the issue would be welcome.

George Galloway
What regulations would prevent Channel 4 from broacasting political messages from George Galloway? -- Tompsci 13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Principally paragraphs 5.5 and 5.11 - 5.13 of the OfCom Broadcasting code . I'll quote them:


 * 5.5 Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.


 * 5.11 In addition to the rules above, due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service (listed above) in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.


 * 5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.


 * 5.13 Broadcasters should not give undue prominence to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy in all the programmes included in any service (listed above) taken as a whole.


 * What this means in practice is that, were George Galloway to make an impassioned plea for an end to the war, either Channel 4 would have to balance it with a similar length speech of support for the U.S.-led coalition, or they would have to leave it out of the programme. Otherwise they would be in breach of the code for not giving a balance of views. David | Talk 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom votes
Thank you for providing logical, kind rationale for your Arbitration Committee election votes. --King of All the Franks 14:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
 Francs2000's Bureaucratship 

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: my vote on your ArbCom candidacy
Thank you for clarifying your ArbCom candidate statement for me. I guess you intended it a different way than I read it, and I just misunderstood it. I've changed my vote; there was no other reason for me to oppose you. Best of luck, H e rmione1980 01:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

your vote on my arbcom nom
Hi, I saw you voted oppose due to my candidacy statement and/or my answers to the questions presented.. I think you have a fair comment, and I have expanded on my replies to questions already given as well as adding more info into my candidacy statement and answered some new questions. I would be grateful if you could re-read my questions page. If you have any additional questions or inquiries please add them to that page or ask me on my talk page and I will answer them as soon as I possibly can. Jtkiefer T 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Vote
Hi Dbiv,

As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
I find your statement and answers to question quite reasonable. My concern is that you seem to be a member of a political party, and this may make you not neutral in some cases. The uncertainty in the introduction of your statement is also off-putting. Good luck, I won't be disappointed if you're elected after all.  Grue  11:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Slashme user page
Thanks for the reverts and the user block! We Davids have to stick together :-] --Slashme 12:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote on mindspilage
That is very clearly an attempt at vote fraud (see WP:AN/I for my embarassing status at the time). I have not completed my evaluation of that candidate at this time. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, seems like a malicious impersonation to me. Have left a warning note on the talk page of the anon. David | Talk 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your ArbCom Candidacy
Hi, David, thanks for having clarified about your "reluctance", or whatever is. I enjoyed your willing to explain what you actually meant: I always guessed that anyone should be extremely and deeply convinced of what is doing when running for a office or position, and you made me understand you really care about this position. However, I couldn't note your intervention about the revert issue which Oleg Alexandrov made visible on the voting page, and sincerely I quite don't share your opinion. It's 1 year and a half that I am here on Wiki, and sincerely I wouldn't appreciate at all to be treated like an anonymous guy who thinks that Wikipedia is a joke. According to me, the "rollback" button should be used just on vandalism cases, otherwise it could be easily taken as an offence. So, I have to confirm my opposal, even if I guess you would anyway add a professional and fair contribute in the ArbCom. Good luck. --Angelo 00:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom: Merovingian
Merovingian and xe's 18,747 edits, not experienced enough for ArbCom? How?

Please note that I am not affilated with Merovingian, but I saw your vote, and I had to gape. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 00:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case, the inexperience comment relates to the candidate's age (17 years 2 months) rather than to pure edit count. I'm reluctant to support candidates who are below the age of 18 unless there is substantial demonstration of maturity beyond one's years. I'm very much a fan of Merovingian's edits but couldn't be entirely convinced. David | Talk 00:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh, okay. It seemed like you had made a mistake. My mistake. :P — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox
Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.
 * User arbcom nom

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom election: Oppose
Thanks for that clarification on my Talk page. But I still oppose your nomination. What particularly concerns me is your refusal to accept consensus decisions, for example in the use of Swing statistics in UK by-election articles (as outlined in the Wikipedia article about David Boothroyd). There is a very clear consensus, for example at the Talk:Livingston by-election, 2005, that the swing shown should be between the first two parties, not always Lab-Con (which becomes absolutely silly when the Labs or Cons are in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th place, or lower, or even totally absent, as is often the case in Scotland and Northern Ireland). I note with dismay that you deleted all mentions of swing in a wee, surepticious edit around Christmas, without even the courtesy of an Edit summary. You have also been very unreasonable and disruptive at the Bermondsey article, and others. I do admire people who dig in and refuse to budge (I am that way inclined myself), but it makes for absolutely useless arbitrators--Mais oui! 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oneself
Hello! I hope you're well. Can you answer me one question: who did it? I've already voted, and I'm reluctant to peruse the 60+ pages that I've delisted from my watch list. ;)  However, curiosity may kill the cat.  Anyhow, thanks and good luck!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * TY! (BTW, you're one of an octet whom I think has the 'royal jelly'.)  Good luck!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * NP. It's probably because it isn't fait accompli.  Besides, things can turn on a dime: closer to home, an impending federal election may result in an outcome not expected scant days ago.  Whatever the outcome, good luck to us all.:) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Inexperience
Hi, your disambig page about your voting rationale is interesting... but the criteria are still unclear. Just how much experience (how long on the wiki, how many edits...) is enough to be regarded "experienced" by your lights? Also, your attitude of wanting to take arbcom members from admins, rather than the other way around seems to me to be on its head, since I guess an admin's workload is large enough already. Also, you have to start some time, and this office is not necessarily one that needs old heads at local politics, just even ones with good sense and a grasp of wikipedia policies. --Svartalf 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom election
Fair enough, you've convinced me. HGB 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse"
I have added this to the Redirects for Deletion page. Click here to add your vote: Camillus (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Election
Thanks for contacting me, I think I see now that you deserve a spot on the Arbitration Commitee... Alex43223 23:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks from rogerd
Hi Dbiv- Thanks for your support on my RfA. I appreciate the kind words that you used in your comments. If I can be of any service please leave me a message --rogerd 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
 Thanks  Thanks for your recent support on my RfA. It passed with a final vote of 24/1/2 :-). If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! --Admrboltz (T | C) 04:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Codicil
''I suppose I could have linked to the wiktionary article on codicil but this is somewhat incomplete and refers only to the 'amendment to a will' definition whereas the Wikipedia article is longer and more complete. It isn't a disambig page (although it looks like one), it is the most complete article on the subject. David | Talk 10:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)''


 * Thanks for your note. I understand your reasons now, but I still believe we should encorage Wikipedia to contain only enyclopedia articles. Dictionary definitions should go to Wiktionary. I will strike my comment from the vote page. JoaoRicardotalk 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM
You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin. CastAStone|(talk) 03:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom reply
I feel that you are an outstanding contributor and leader on Wikipedia, but a fellow editor of mine stated something that sparked my interest while voting last night. Basically, it led me to believing that ArbCom would not be a good idea for admin and dedicated editors, since we need as many quality ones as we can get. Plus, he stated that he opposes ArbCom canidates who are dedicated admins, because they already have their hands full and an extra significant position may grant too much power to one member. Forgive me if this makes no sense, it's early in the morning :) Deckiller 14:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also respect that view, which is why it was a difficult choice for me to make. Deckiller 14:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it, I have decided to change my vote to support (see voting page for more details). :) Deckiller 16:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I am very grateful. David | Talk 16:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Irish Boundary Commission
I reverted one aspect of your otherwise good edit to this article - material that I've read suggests that NI would increase, not decrease. But all the material is third source. I haven't found the recommended book. If you have, please quote it and I'll give way. --Red King 15:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I have read the Geoffrey Hand book (which is fascinating) but don't own a copy. I think it has tables showing the population affected by the proposed changes. There is more detail on the negotiations by which the Baldwin government persuaded the Irish not to make a fuss, which was a masterpiece of British diplomacy since they essentially persuaded the Irish to accept a situation profoundly to their disadvantage. David | Talk 15:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Appology
I have withdrawn my opposition, one should read further into your statement I appologise for being one who didn't. I thought that anyone who gives reluctance such a prominant(spelling) position within a statement really didn't want to be there. Hope you succeed with ArbCom and it doesn't consume so much of your time that you aren't able to contribute in other ways Gnangarra 16:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your support, and I don't blame you for anything. With 68 candidates it's a lot of reading to do and anyone would want to cut out the time and make a quick judgment. David | Talk 16:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Help
David, I've run across User:Soames and User:JackHearne creating articles on various peers and baronets. I hesistate to call their contributions vandalism, but they clearly have little idea of what they're doing. I've tried leaving notes on talk pages, but to no effect. I'm trying to clear up the mess now. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking
Thanks for your prompt action on User:Fakesomeone -- Dyslexic agnostic 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ramon Tikaram
Wow - wasn't expecting anyone to add to the article that fast! Thanks! Cheers, CLW 12:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

EurekaLott dispute
You can question my vote all you want. I could care less. Perhaps you should review the policy in regard to RFAs. freestylefrappe 15:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion
Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:
 * A discussion about 200 articles, one each for the first 200 verses of Matthew - Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
 * A discussion about 18 articles, one each for the first 18 verses of John 20 - Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20
 * A discussion about whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters - Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Karen Dotrice
Nice catch, thank you; these things are not always obvious during research. :) This article is up for Featured Article status, BTW, feel free to visit and vote. Radio  Kirk   talk to me  19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Question on Vandalism
Why do we need to give a warning to repeat vandals with multiple "final warnings" and blocks before re-blocking? Doesn't that just encorage them to game the system?-Colin Kimbrell 15:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding to my question.-Colin Kimbrell 15:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: My oppose votes
Which candidate's page were you referring to? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah. I played with a formatting issue (indenting a user's sig), but I don't think that'll fix it. However, I wouldn't worry about it, as long as the actual page is correct. Also, it could just be a time-lapse issue. If you wish, you can ask Oleg about it, though I would wait and see if it continues to do that. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for snooping. It looks like Mathbot changed from 46 to 47 yesterday .  This corresponds to roughly these diffs in your arbcom page.  I'm not exactly sure what caused it though.  I know the parsing is kind of tricky...  I had someone point out at least one bug in my parsing code so far, but I don't see anything in the diff there that would specifically trigger it.  Not sure.  --Interiot 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
I'd like to apologise most sincerely for being so rude to you a couple of weeks ago. I wasn't having a good time then, and was overreacting to most things that happened to me, and I'm sorry I took my frustrations out on you. I'm feeling much better with the world now, and hopefully I'll be able to get on a bit better with people here, and I really hope you haven't got the impression I think badly of you, because I certainly don't. Best wishes. Proteus (Talk) 19:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Revisionism and Reformism
David,

I found that the WP article on the former term did not include reference to its significance in the UK Labour Party over the past fifty years, and neither did rhe linked page on Reformism. I've tried to start work on resolving this problem, also rewriting the preliminary summary in the appropriate Revisionism section, but would appreciate you looking over my changes.

Cheers, Philip Cross 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comment re my page/category on Cumbrian MPs. I have now seperated into it into two pages - though it would be more useful as one in my opinion. There seem to be various category pages and similar lists which are not the same because they are split. eg towns/villages as lists and categories. It is not my intention to add much to my area of interest - merely make sure that pages are tagged as belonging to the approriate categories and correcting errors when I find them. User:Juliancumbria 19:18, 19 January 2006

Do not repost deleted content
You reposted the category "causes célèbres", contrary to established consensus to delete at Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_11 and hence in violation of Wikipedia deletion policy. It has since been speedy deleted as a repost of previously deleted material. The only way to repost it is to gain consensus for undeletion on Deletion review, as you undoubtedly know based on your own unsuccessful attempt to use this procedure for the same category. Absent undeletion consensus, do not recreate this category again or any other more "specific" variations of it (such as "social causes célèbres") that are necessarily covered by the same deletion decision. Postdlf 22:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I take issue with almost every word of this statement but that issue is not being debated here. See WP:DRV. David | Talk 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote
Thanks for you note about my vote. Maybe you should edit your campaign statement to better reflect your true goals. Unfortunately when voting, there's so many candidates that I have to make snap-judgements based on what I believe is a reasonable approximation of a good reason... Voting is a statistical phenomenon and I'm trying to create a reasonable signal to noise ratio for my votes but all I really have to go on is what's in the statement. If you feel your statement has caused my vote to be erroneous, then you should probably correct it before others act as I have. Cheers - JustinWick 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if you're willing to dicuss individual votes, you actually do want the position... I shall re-evaluate. - JustinWick 00:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I am wary of politicians in general, as their ways are not my own, I reviewed your wikipedia entry and your statement and you seem to have all necessary qualifications. Personally I would love to see all of the politics in wikipedia totally gone, and just verifiable facts and concise writing, but wikipedia is just a big hobby project - I doubt it'll ever be more than that.  Out of curiousity, how do YOU see wikipedia? - JustinWick 00:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ming thing
Looking back on it, my PMQs contribution was a bit rushed POV. Thanks for improving it :)

BillMasen 14:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I was about to reconsider my vote, until....
Reading the note you left on my talk page about my vote opposing your bid for arbcom, I thought perhaps I should reconsider and remove the vote. But then I reached your last sentence, which said "However, it seems to me that this may be a polite way of hiding an oppose vote founded on a serious objection to the way I would handle disputes, and if so I apologise for taking up your time." Believe it, if I had a serious objection to the way you handle disputes I would have said so. Your misinterpretation of my motive astounds me. Moriori 22:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a jerk
I'm so sorry. I went just now to remove my oppose vote since I offered an explanation and failed to follow through, but I, being the complete airhead I am, forgot that it's on UTC time and not... well... my time (PST). Doh. I've been so disorganized. I've been sucked into a disastrous edit conflict recently which occupied most of my Wiki attentions lately, and the fact that real life has been hectic hasn't made things any easier (in a few hours, I'm leaving town AGAIN for another four days, this time, hopefully, with internet access). I feel absolutely terrible that I didn't come through on my promise, so I hope you will accept my sincere apologies. I'd still be happy to discuss it with you sometime, if you're at all interested; actually, ideally, I wanted to find you on IRC, but I never found the time. In short, my conclusions regarding your view on IAR wasn't just based on your candidate statements, but your posts on topics elsewhere, particularly in the Kelly Martin userbox debacle (one of the reasons for my horrible procrastination was that I intended to search for the specific posts that gave me that impression). I strongly believe in very, very limited usage of IAR. In my opinion, it exists to make sure the spirit of the rules is upheld over Wikilawyering. In accordance with that, I am very strongly opposed to any usage of IAR that is even slightly controversial. IAR is inherently extremely subjective, thus what one person believes to be an acceptable breach of policy might be completely unacceptable to another. I feel that, to be fair and to uphold an important spirit of egalitarianism here on the 'pedia, one should anticipate opposition to one's actions, and if it's significant, defer IAR to policy. That's the easiest way to avoid trouble and to avoid disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. That's why I was very vocal in Kelly Martin's RfC. This may seem particularly heavy-handed, but I'm wary of anyone who doesn't see things this way. In my personal opinion, any other interpretation of IAR than the strictest one possible (and I'm well aware of the irony in that statement) is an assertion of one's own or someone else's judgement as being better than the rest. Even if said editor's judgement WERE better than most anyone else's, it smacks of elitism, which is dangerous for many, many reasons; not the least of which being that it turns many editors cold on principle, and many potential contributors away. Despite the posturing of many long-time editors here, this IS and WAS a problem; as far as I know, several people actually left Wikipedia over the whole userbox thing. That's entirely unacceptable, and anyone who glosses over that or tries to soften the appearance of its impact strikes me as having suspect judgement, regardless of how good their intentions may be. Furthermore, the prospect of IAR being invoked more liberally terrifies me because there's no check on it. Whereas almost all other policies and guidelines have other policies to keep abuse in line, IAR by its very nature is self-perpetuating, so long as one has enough sway to not be censured for their own actions. This seems like a classic "slippery slope" to me. Finally, I'm not necessarily saying that all of the above applies to you specifically; I'm clarifying how I feel about the subject in general, and why the connections I made regarding your opinions to the subject troubled me.

Again, I'm terribly sorry about my irresponsibility regarding clarifying my vote. I honestly wish you the best of luck as the election process enters the next phase. -- Hinotori(talk) 02:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vote
I am not sure precisely whether to congratulate or comiserate on your result in the recent vote. I had you down as a win before the result was anounced, and after publication I think i still do. What was that about lies, damn lies, and statistics? Sandpiper 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Godfrey Taylor
The penultimate sentence lacks an ending. ;) Morwen - Talk 12:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan Amos
apologies - I misread the compared versions. Thanks for pointing this out, I will take extra care in my edits. --Smerus 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

2:1
Do I have a source? Yes, but it's rubbish: http://thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=4133537&postcount=20 Change it back. Interesting that Oxford only started giving 2:1s and 2:2s long after he left. Cambridge must've started earlier b/c my dad has a 2:1 from the early seventies. ZephyrAnycon 13:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bryan Edwards
Hi there, I notice you've linked all the political dates in this article ( and a few others that didn't seem significant). Is there something special that happens to political dates? Otherwise surely these are non-notable? cheers JackyR 22:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael of Romania
David, now that I see that it was you who edited the article on Michael to report his death, I retract my allegation that it was a hoax edit. Of course you would not do such a thing. But it does seem you were in error. Regards Adam 04:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (who has made many erroneous edits)


 * I saw his name in the Recent Deaths added by someone else, and assumed that this must have been a good faith edit - wrongly, it would seem. David | Talk 09:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:JWterbraak.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:JWterbraak.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Blair
Actually, we rustled up a consensus to change the Manual of Style (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, that means I can finally return Glenys Kinnock to the realm of sanity (see its history). David | Talk 23:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)