User talk:AdelaMae/Archive2

This archive contains messages from January 15, 2006 to October 9, 2006.

Religion split vs. Invisible Pink Unicorn
The religion split more or less inverted the meaning of the userbox. Previously it said something like "This user doesn't really believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn". Now it says "This user is religious". Not likely... I've removed the box from my page. HFuruseth 02:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the person who took over doing the split after me didn't go around fixing the userpages of everyone who used the old splits to refer to the new, split templates.  Now that the template has been split, anyone whose userpage used to contain  is going to see the default  box.  The template you want is  . If I ever have free time (I can only hope!) I might see what I can do to fix this problem for others.  It even took me a while to notice it on my own userpage.  - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 04:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks for the info.  BTW, something similar has happened to , I don't know whom to tell about that.  And the IPU2/IPU2 boxes lost the image from the original.  Anyway, no big deal for me, maybe I'll take all this as a hint to remove a bunch of my userboxes instead:-) HFuruseth 04:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Copied from my talk page: Maybe this should be posted on WP:UB? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 05:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, summarized to its talk page. HFuruseth 07:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Its no big thing...
...but the vandal you reported on WP:AIV had a final warning from yesterday, not today. It depends on the admin looking at it whether that would constitute a non-warned vandal. I did block the vandal, because they've been blocked and warned multiple times before. Cheers! --Syrthiss 15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, I was just pointing it out incase you didn't notice the day difference (because I've done that... gone to report someone and realized it was a day or two before on the warnings). :) --Syrthiss 16:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject
Bandia dhuit, Adela Mae. I am curious about something. Since there will definitely be interest in a WikiProject for neopagan-related articles, and you already set it up, why not just formally make it a Wikiproject in its own right? In my opinion, it deserves to be listed as such.

Slainté, → ''' P. Mac Uidhir''' (t)  (c)  18:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If Barnstars were not such a debased currency, I would give you one for your effort in setting this project up. I especially appreciate the clear focus on actual editing of actual articles.  Please accept this note of appreciation.  Jkelly 04:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

An Esperanzial note
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: EA-welcome (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

0.999 etc.
Please see my talk for reply. Lambyuk 02:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi there - I see you've discovered our Pinfo4 and Pinfo5 templates! --HappyCamper 05:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do...Actually, it was me who requested that those be made...Jtdirl is really good at making them. --HappyCamper 05:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Those templates are supposed to be used extremely sparingly, so in some sense, I guess you could say only those who know how to use them are "in the know". There really wasn't any discussion I was aware of. I just kindly asked Jtdirl to make them :-) These sorts of templates began to spring up after the Siegenthaler controversy. --HappyCamper 06:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Admin Noticeboard FYI, apparently his IP was blocked for a month with the admonition that any new IP's appearing in that block are to be blocked if the behaviour continues... So what do you want to do about the Christo-Hellenism section? Revert, edit or create a new article? Also, at the very least, I think there needs to be a template put up on the talk page. I don't think he's going to be going away permanently. Cyberdenizen 22:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that just today. Well, if anything needs to be done, just let me know. --HappyCamper 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for fixing my religion user box on my userpage - much appreciated. Oliver Keenan 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

65.182.172.x
Am I correct in inferring that this anonymous harasser is being dealt with by administrative blocks? If so, that is what I would favor. I do not like the idea of long-term unilateral administrative action against registered users, but disruptive anonymous editors are a different matter altogether. (Also, his cowardice and hypocrisy in claiming to identify posters by their true names when he hides behind anonymity is appalling.) Robert McClenon 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote: I do not believe blocking this user will be a loss to Wikipedia because I do not get the impression that this person was here to contribute to Wikipedia.  I agree.  He appears to be a hostile disruptive editor.  I don't know if he also makes any good edits, but even if he does, the benefit is outweighed by the harm.  Anonymous disruptive editors are in some ways easier to deal with than signed-in disruptive editors.  Anonymous disruptive editors are usually just blocked, while "obsessional" editors typically have to be banned by the ArbCom.  Robert McClenon 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

More notes...
I have heard from another admin (see my talk page) that at least 5 others are aware of the severity of the editing situation, so I think all is well now. --HappyCamper 03:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops
I had deleted the wrong one. Thanks for catching that. Selena Fox/Temp has been moved to Selena Fox. Sorry about that.  howch e  ng   {chat} 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate it! :D Cyberdenizen 05:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions and answers
Hi AdelaMae - you are correct - only the developers actually have the technical ability to permanently remove information from Wikipedia. An administrator who deletes a page only puts the edits into a state where the content is only visible to admins - the information is still technically accessible.

To be honest, I don't have a very good answer to give you regarding your question. I don't know where would be the best place to go. From what I've seen, usually, people just post these requests on WP:AN, and from there, the information is removed as soon as possible.

In retrospect, I should have blocked 65.182.172.x the very first time I encountered this problem. Unfortunately, the situation was quite new for me. At least I will know what to do in the future. The fact is, this problem should not have escalated to this point. It should have been capped right at the start, so in some sense, it was a failure on my part. This issue of privacy on Wikipedia is probably something that is beyond my ability to answer adequately at the moment.

I can tell you that if I were to receive a request to remove personal information from Wikipedia, I would follow through with that to the best of my capability - it just makes sense to do so. In your case, which 70 edits are you referring to? Which page history is it in? You don't need to point out every single edit - that would be a waste of time. I can look for these myself in the page history. Just let me know which page it is on. Once this is done, I might go and delete the RfC so that the record of those edits will be gone. Let me know what you think. --HappyCamper 06:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it's already in the google cache. I'd personally prefer to have the RfC serve as documentation of the events even if it has to be taken to someone's user space. This fellow will be back, whether it's with a different IP in the same block, a proxy IP or a username. I googled the fellow who the anon user kept mentioning by name as my "secret identity" and the first hit was this incident on wikipedia. (Apparently the guy has edited here before, but I cannot find a contribution history for his user name.) Regardless, I think AdelaMae's concerns about the potential for things like this to escalate before admin intervention is a real concern, and honestly I am still a little disatisfied with the way it all went down, although that is not anyone's fault. There seems to be some problems with the administrative function of notification and dealing with harassment and outright stalkers. It was like watching a train wreck. BTW, does the 3rv rule apply when someone is engaging in ad hominem or vandalism? Thanks for all you've done to help us out on this, Happy Camper. Cyberdenizen 08:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why the response was unsatisfactory was partly because, in my opinion, adminstrators are not trained explicity to handle such things on Wikipedia, myself included. Thinking back, had it occurred to me that this might be a recurring problem, I would have done things differently. Yours and AdelaMae's concerns are simply not addressed very well on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, sometimes it is only experiences like this which help bring attention to issues that are not being adequately addressed on Wikipedia. It is clear that the procedures need to be more transparent, both to the newcomer, and for the experienced volunteer. When I get a chance, I will try and update the relevant policy pages - at least on the bright side, this is actually possible!


 * Well, in the post above, I was suggesting that I might delete some of the edits, but after looking at the page history, I think I will leave it as is, especially since AdelaMae has already sent the list to someone to take a look at. It has been escalated to the point where I think I have done as much as I can to help out.


 * 3RR does not apply to reverting simple vandalism, so don't worry - you should not be blocked because of this! If either of your are blocked in mistake, let me know, and I'll unblock. --HappyCamper 12:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I'm fairly certain that everything is gone now. Just do a quick double check when you get a chance? I've also protected the RfC per Cyberdenizen. I hope this will give the two of you some peace of mind. If an IP comes back a month later, I'll semiprotect the articles that you're working on. --HappyCamper 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,

--Cel es tianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Talk:Criticisms of sexual behavior
Thanks for coming to the aid of the Wikipedia. 68.110.9.62 14:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Facebook
They're doing yet another vote on page moving. Since you voted in the last move I figure you should know about it. Mike H. That's hot 08:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User marriage man-woman
Thanks for your message. I read the discussion on TfD. It looks like the usual bogus bullshit to me. Most editors steer clear of that page and crap userboxes get kept by landslides. Luckily, there are admins who will do the right thing anyway. This template should be speedied under T1. It's homophobic and clearly divisive on that account. I look askance at editors who want it kept. It's like you ran up a flag. Have a nice day. Grace Note 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If by saying "I look askance at editors who want it kept. It's like you ran up a flag," you mean to imply that you think I am homophobic, you are badly mistaken; I am a lesbian and a card-carrying member of the Human Rights Campaign. However, the box merely expresses an opinion on same-sex marriage, and it seems obvious to me that so long as we allow any userboxes expressing opinions on same-sex marriage, we must allow all userboxes expressing opinions on same-sex marriage; we can't discriminate against those opinions we don't like.  This interpretation of Wikipedia policy was borne out by the consensus on the TfD - and I would like to remind you that 22 editors voted to keep, which is more than even vote in the average AfD, so your claim that the discussion only went that way because the page is neglected is unwarranted. Therefore, there is (at the least!) debate as to whether this box meets the speedy criteria, and when there is debate as to whether a page meets the speedy criteria, the procedure is to take it to 'X'fD for discussion.  Also, please note the official deletion policy: "In general, if an article has had a deletion discussed and this did not result in a "delete" decision, the article should not be immediately renominated for deletion."  This is doubly true in a case like this where there was not only no consensus to delete, but there was in fact a very clear consensus to keep.  Repeatedly nominating this template for speedy deletion, despite the demonstrated consensus that it should be kept, is inappropriate and against policy. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By "you", I meant "you" general, not "you" Adele. Your wanting it kept was inexplicable to me. Now I understand. You want it so that your faction can express its (equally divisive) views (although you don't display any such box yourself). "Repeatedly nominating this template for speedy deletion, despite the demonstrated consensus that it should be kept, is inappropriate and against policy." You're simply wrong. The template is contra CSD T1 and should be deleted. If you managed to create a "consensus" to keep "User hates niggers", would you insist that it should be kept? Sorry, Adele, principle trumps process and this template needs to go. Grace Note 03:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm not picking on this particular userbox. It just happens to have come to my attention. I tend to deal with whatever's in front of me. I do take your point. Were I an admin, I'd happily delete all userboxes of this type. I would as soon rid us of "user supports gay marriage" as "user thinks gays should not get married". I'm not pushing a particular POV here, although I do have one.

I have followed the Userbox deletion wars as it happens. My view originally was that it was a huge fuss about nothing, but on reflection, I've been converted to the view that userboxes that divide Wikipedians into pros and antis are not a good idea. The template thing is the clincher for me. If the boxes were just drawn on user pages, I don't think they would have aroused people's interest so greatly. Grace Note 07:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Invite to join/help organize Wikiproject LGBT studies
Hello. (Sorry for the form letter) In my various travels in Wikipedia, I have run across your name as someone who takes an active interest in LGBT articles. This is an invitation to check out a new project: Wikiproject LGBT studies. The initial goal is to create an within Wikipedia a unicversity-level academic-quality reference encyclopedia for LGBT and Queer Studies-related topics. The goal is two fold: 1. bring as many as possible up to Featured Article quality, and 2. prove that LGBT-related topics are as academically relevant to WP as other anthropology subsets. - Davodd 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Articles for deletion/List of religions once classed as cults...
Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cults or expanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

garde manger
Hello, I just wanted to drop a line and let you know that I make a contribution to the "garde manger" entry. I hope that you are not offended by the entry. Is is fairly long and I believe gives a very good explanation of the term. You can contact me at chef@gardemanger.com, if you have any comments positive or negative. Thank you. Allan Doherty.

Help wording a rewrite of "Wiccan views on Divinity"
Hi, I've just put a draft rewrite of Wicca on Talk:Wicca and I wanted to let you know in the hopes you had anything to contribute. I see this as a really important section, central to the religion, and I'd like to get it right. There's still a bit of work in it, finding references, etc, and anything you choose to bring of your knowledge and consistently good editing would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 12:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand some of the delimna going on with Wikipedia. I do personally think that we reference a specific religon like Wicca or Santeria, it would be iportaant to use the capitolization forms. The terms neopagan, and pagan have been so widespread, to the average reader it probably won't make much of a difference. But then your bubble is burst when you have the extremist pagan slam his fist in your face (figuratively I am speaking, I hope), you didn't capitolize it! If you make the claim that only specifice religions and Proper names are to be capitolized, but not the names of movements or traditions, maybe then you'll have some leverage. As a former Wiccan, now I just term myself "A Believer in Deity", I know how agrivating it can be to please people with such widespread beliefs. We are supposed to be open-minded, but like any other religion we fall prey to the hands of the ever fateful "my way is right, therefore yours isn't." Such childish behavior, and we're supposed be adults. I'd hope that if you make the claim about the capitolization issue in a section titled "Why these words aren't capitolized" and explain the situation, maybe people would be less upset by it. Often I read articles on Wicca, where Wicca is sometimes capitolised, but in other places in the text it will read "wicca." I personally think you should give yourself credit, and make an effort to place on the page an explanation for whichever route you chose. At least people then would have an understanding why you did or did not capitolizwe a word.

Blessed Be,

Ryver Wolf.

Back from break?
Welcome back. Jkelly 20:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that classical Roman, Greek, mythology is not neo-paganism. Sure neo-pagans may incorporate the mythology into their religious structure. Simply put, neo-paganism has adopted classical mythology. The gods and goddesses of these mythologies should therefore be placed under the category mythology, and not under neo-paganism. Or at least that is my opinion.

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)