User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 5

RfA Time!
 Crzrussian would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Crzrussian to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. - crz crztalk 18:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hurry up, would you? I can't support until you accept :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, all right. I wanted to write a big long response, but if the public demands... :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! Take the time to make your best response...I can be patient, I just want the honor of "First Support" --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have waited 'til you completed your answers, but I've seen enough of your work that I didn't feel it necessary. Still, they're good answers...I wish you the very best of luck. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good answers. We have enough I think :) - crz crztalk 20:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But I want to be honest! I want to tell everything! I'll try very hard to shut up now. I think I see the fascination, and why you were so nervous during your second. Twitch, twitch. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you really want to fill Tony Sidaways' shoes, I can lend you a pair of blood-stained combat boots. So long, and thanks for all the fish :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No thanks! Frankly, while I respect Tony's energy and dedication, I actually disagree with the way he went about some things, he was pretty rough on people some times. So not only can I not replace him, I'm not sure I want to. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Your RfA
Hi there! My main concern is in regards to your wanting to use the admin buttons in an area in which you clearly have strong opinions and/or biases about. A smaller concern, ironically, is simply my own personal bias in regards to those who spend considerable time in your subject of interest, but I'm quite sure that I was able to look past that in my participation. Cheers  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 03:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again! Thanks a lot for the clarification.  I'm sure you'll make a great admin!  Cheers 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote worth saving
"... we cannot rely solely on the web site's own claims and the existence of the website itself as evidence that the thing actually exists." -- Zoe, 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)."

I agree, that quote is worth saving, just for the sheer amusement value of it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA so far ...
... seems to be going tolerably well. :) I was glad to support, and not just because of your prior kind words to me and the barnstar. Several days left, so don't count your chickens (do mice get along with chickens?) and all that, but I anticipate you'll be a mouse with some new shiny buttons for your climbing wheel in about 6 1/2 days.

Just so it doesn't surprise you at some future date, though, I have serious reservations about the idea of featuring a porn bio, however well-written, on the main page. I understand completely, WP:NOT censored and no subject-matter limits to content, but the firestorm that would come down on the project from putting J.J. on the main page just doesn't seem worth it to me. I'm open to persuasion that I'm misguided on this, of course; but feel free to hold off on responding to this comment until the RfA is over if you like. Regards, Newyorkbrad 05:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (Butts in)...Getting FA status doesn't mean that a page will automatically feature on the front page sometime in the future. Raul maintains a list of FAs that will never appear. As to whether that page (should it become a featured article) would be on that list...well, it's not my list, but that aside, there's no reason why a well-written informative item on any subject should be denied FA status. Yomangani talk 08:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for "butting in"; that's very helpful information (and I realized after hitting "save" that this might possibly be the case). I have no problem with this or any article's being featured per se; it was specifically the idea of having it automatically pop up on people's homepages at work, school, etc. that concerned me. It wouldn't offend me, but ... well, just close your eyes and imagine what "mainpage talk" would look like that day. But of course, now you have me curious; where can I find this "list of articles that are excellent enough to be featured, but will never grace the front page"? Newyorkbrad 11:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Raul has it written on a piece of paper somewhere, so as not to cause a polemic over why such-and-such an article is on the list (or it may just be listed somewhere I don't know about). He occasionally lets slip on what might be on it (1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) for instance) - check the talk archives at WP:FAC,WP:FAR and WP:WIAFA. Yomangani talk 11:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * /nodding/ Thanks. That reminds me of a few days ago, when there was a heated dispute over editing of the "Fuck (movie)" article that was the subject of a long threat on ANI. I believe the dispute is resolved now, but at the time I remember thinking to myself that would be an interesting addition to the list of arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad 11:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be OK to feature JJ on the front page, but her picture may not be provocative. I don't mean she has to be clothed, I mean she has to be really clothed... - crz crztalk 22:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, let's table this discussion for a week or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again
Not only for the FA support, but for the detailed suggestions you tossed out there for me. I appreciate all the help, both on a personal and Wikipedia level. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Caution
Please do not respond in any way to the oppose #1. You have written way too much as it is... Please... - crz crztalk 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No modern RfA is complete without a personal diatribe, and now yours has one. I concur that no response is necessary; your record speaks for itself and the concerns expressed seem minor in comparison to your contributions. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Crz's advice sounds strangely familiar. :-).
 * Wait, I got ... an oppose? I must commit seppuku immediately... AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hrr. I read it, and not responding is harder than I thought it would be. It's not a silly diatribe, it's an intelligent, detailed, and reasonably respectful and well thought out objection. I won't change the user's mind, but I do think it does deserve a response, just out of courtesy. Maybe on the talk page? I'll give you two a chance to convince me otherwise... AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seppuku seems excessive, I think chopping of your tail and rubbing ashes in your belly-fur would be sufficient. I used "diatribe" in reference to the length of the comments, not their content, which is indeed intelligent and well-written. Some of the criticisms seem to revolve around the idea that, while you've done good work there is still more to do and therefore you shouldn't be an Admin. I wouldn't bother responding to that at all. However, a brief explanation regarding the situation with Jimbo might be a good idea. Did I mention it should be brief? I think it should be brief. Possibly even "laconic" --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do it offwiki. - crz crztalk 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Co-nom
Civility is the solution to all problems! Best of luck in your RfA! =) Nish kid  64  22:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
FYI, I've added some additional questions to your RfA. When you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you would take a look. Thanks. JoshuaZ 22:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, but I fear Doc Tropic is going to try hunt me down and explain that the word "brief" does not mean what I think it means... AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "I do not think that word means what you think it means." but you need to be careful with quotes. I once told another editor "I fart in your gen'ral direction, and it really didn't go over too well. Can we help it if some people suffer from a humor deficit? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses to my comments and other editors' followups. It is good (suprising but good) to see a policy discussion free of personal overtones. In response I toned down my position. I've been tied up with my kids (& their kids) since the weekend and haven't been able to get back to this very much. I'm going to try to add a couple followup questions which you can answer on the rfa or my talk page if you have time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Half Empty vs. Half Full
Not only is this glass half-empty, it's not even my glass. My glass was full, AND it was a premium beer, not this third rate swill. Who swiped MY glass?!?! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

MySpace links
Please see Wikipedia talk:External links for a discussion as to whether or not MySpace links are appropriate. My understanding is that your position may differ from mine and as such, I'd especially welcome your feedback on this issue. --Yamla 19:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops
Yeah, I did misunderstand that greatly. I shall change my vote immediately. Sharkface217 17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A request
I know you have a ton on your plate right now, so if you don't have a few minutes, no big deal, but could you give me some input on improvements to Mom and Dad? It's the Kroger Babb-related article that you suggested that I branch out and expand, and since you're arguably as familiar with the subject matter at this point as anyone else here, if you could give it a quick look over, I'd appreciate it. It even made today's main page under "Did you know!" Thanks again! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the DYK! I made ... just a few short comments ... on Peer review/Mom and Dad/archive1. :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're excellent, I'll leave responses there later today. I owe you a few. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbComm election questions
I've just been reading the ArbCom election nominations, and was wondering what questions I could ask, and then I saw your questions! Great stuff. I'm going to look closely at the candidates' replies to your questions. I almost wish the Arbitrators not running for re-election would answer some of them as well... Carcharoth 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting set of questions, yes; a little bit of overlap with mine, but not too much. I do wonder whether the sheer overall number of questions is reaching the maximum reasonable limit, but I suppose my two questions contribute to that as much as anyone else's. I suppose I will have to figure out what my own answers are before I ever run myself someday. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, they are thoughtful questions, keep it up! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A Bold Stroke for a Wife

 * For the DYK request that I believe you posted, I added to the main body of A Bold Stroke for a Wife to increase its length. -- Jreferee 16:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just hate to see a DYK go to waste. -- Jreferee 16:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
You're now an admin. Use the shiny new tools for good, not evil. Conservative use is usually better, as learning to de-escalate a situation is more valuable than inflaming it. Re-read the policies as needed before acting and as you get comfortable help clear out the backlogs. Have fun, and again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Go you. - crz crztalk 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done! --Guinnog 20:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you all. I'm a bit overwhelmed, and will try to start slowly. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Word! --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, and thanks for the nifty "Thank You card". FYI - it's a good thing for you that there's no ANB for bad puns! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Commercial link" removal
Hi AnonEMouse. I removed those links because they were all added by one user, all within the space of about a week, and all linking to one of two sites. You can look here for details. I have a hard time seeing how most of those articles should stay on Wikipedia, let alone the links I removed. Keeping in mind WP:EL, if there is important information contained in those links it should be written into the article somehow. To me, the addition of the entire batch of those links by Luftballoons looked like nothing more than an attempt to boost his site's rankings on Google and other search engines. Robotman1974 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello!
I just thought I'd drop by for a few reasons:

Firstly, congratulations! Glad to see another admin on board! We need all the labor we can get. :D

Secondly, great questions on the ArbCom candidate statements. Thought provoking, and I have a feeling they may actually shake some of the candidates up a bit and make people take the election a bit more seriously. Thanks for that.

Third, I've updated a few of my answers on there to remove some "wiggle". In case it's occurred to you that I have a bit unusual an approach to my candidacy, just recall that my primary goal in all this is not to win myself a seat on ArbCom, it's to end up with the best ArbCom that we can get. This means we need as many good candidates as possible and we need the best of those to win the seats. If I end up being selected, of course I have no hesitation in performing the duties, though if five people better suited to the job are elected, then that's better for Wikipedia as a whole.

Again, congratulations on your successful RfA! Take care. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca Cummings article
Since you are an Administrator that has been around the porn articles I would like your unbiased input on Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings and Image:Rebecca_Cummings.jpg that has been put up for deletion. Along with the discussion on the deletion page you can find information and discussions on this at Talk:Rebecca Cummings and Image_talk:Rebecca_Cummings.jpg.

I feel like this is an unfair attack because she fits the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). This is listed in her article and restated at Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings. The reason I feel like this is an unfair attack by User:Chowbok. On November 4, Chowbak tagged image:Rebecca Cummings.jpg for deletion, we were having discussions on this and now 4 days later user:Chowbok lists the article for deletion.

Thanks for your input! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeartThrobs (talk • contribs) 01:02, November 9, 2006


 * Responded in both places, though I somehow believe in not quite the way you wanted. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I asked for your honest input and truly apreciate you giving your honest opinion. Sincerly, --HeartThrobs 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (Sorry about forgetting to sign the above.)


 * Thank you for your courtesy. Good luck with the article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Very sweet note. I am touched. But why have you not deleted anything yet? For a P* contributor you seem a little too attached to your administrative virginity! :) Click here - crz crztalk 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not wise to do on your own, but once there was a call for a speedy deletion from another user, it was pointless to continue the AfD. Keep on prodding the hoaxes while you gain experience. With time you'll learn to figure out which ones deserve a little process and which ones are too stupid and blatant to waste time on. - crz crztalk 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove the tag. Images of PD art are still PD. In order to have rights, they need to do something "transformative" to it in U.S. law. A straight photo or scan or whatever is PD if the underlying thing is PD. Tag it bravely. PD-art - crz crztalk 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Note the Mona Lisa isn't U.S. either." U.S. law requires that U.S. subjects honor even foreign copyrights, so I think this makes no difference. - crz crztalk 20:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I responded late, but thanks for the great co-nom note. =) Have fun as admin, and if you ever need help, you know where to find me.  Nish kid 64  01:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT
Thanks. I went ahead and went through the proper channels. I thought it would fit with the delete template I used since it was a redirect to a user page. I didn't understand that it was only used for those from the main Wikipedia site. --Pinkkeith 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad - the whole point was that WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSFUNNY and so on should come up red, while WP:V and WP:RS do not. Bah, humbug :-) Guy 11:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lǐ Wèi
I've listed it as a procedural nomination at AfD, abstaining. Thanks for the feedback. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright stuff
While you may decide it's a direct reproduction, the image owner does not and has copyrighted the page. By not honoring the website publisher's view that the material is copyrighted, Wikipedia runs the risk of a lawsuit. Indeed, you could be quite wrong about "direct reproduction" in this specific case. What looks like a direct reproduction may well be a rather careful and painstaking restoration job. It's not something you can tell just by looking at the final product. What you can tell, though, is that the publisher has copyrighted the page, and that Wikipedia has chosen to ignore this. That's not a good risk. Rklawton 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats
I'm sure you'll make a good Wikipedia Admin. It's quite interesting, about a day after I put down neutral for your nomination, I actually got perm blocked (eventually reduced) by an admin (violation of spam policy, was campaigning for an article of mine; was fully unaware about Wikipedia's policy on campaigning). I suddenly found myself on the other side; I was lumped in with the common vandals. It showed me that yes, it's pretty easy to make mistakes here. It showed me both our cases were similar: we both got in trouble for trying to improve Wikipedia, doing things that were against Wikipedia's policy while were were unaware.

That's life, eh? Sharkface217 05:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

w00t!
Wear the mop with pride :-) Guy 11:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Watching
No I wasn't. I just did a "What links here" before I deleted my QnA page. - crz crztalk 13:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all right, it's not supposed to be private or anything. I just didn't advertise. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, do you have a google chat thingie? Add me as yr friend, please. Use my real email address, not crz@gmail. - crz crztalk 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't "chat" much. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - crz crztalk 14:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But you'll see I did remember to check my email, though! That's something... :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you AC candidate review page. You seemed to interpret "not wanting to research something for minimal use" with "not wanting to research anything". You also said that one of the answers was confusing, yes, the complexity was the point; I was showing that the matter of deciding RfA policy what clearly out of the bounds of ArbCom as drifts into open ended legislating and that the role of Bcrats has not been well defined. While AC can decide on abuses ideally, effectively it will have a hard time as the role was never made clear by consensus, and AC can't just "figure out" the rules to "get consensus" either as it drifts into that same complexity as before. What would help is a community discussion on achieving consensus. I'd give you a simple answer if there was one. As for mispelling a word while I hammered out all these replies, I don't really know what to say about that. Voice -of- All  18:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand defending yourself before others if I were making a public attack on you. I'm just writing down my thoughts. You're welcome to read them, they're not private, but they're not intended as an argument to others (yet). Right now they're only really intended for me. Since I edit from different computers at different times, this is the most convenient place to store them, rather than as a text file on one computer. If you want to convince me to support, defending yourself isn't as useful as actually doing the work. Note that almost everyone else did the work.
 * I can put it as a follow-up question though. Why are you willing to do the research to track down a personal page that nothing links to, in the user space of one not particularly notable editor, out of thousands, but not to do the research to search through actual arbcom decisions that will be directly relevant to the job you're applying for, and to answer a question that you have been directly asked?
 * Also, I have to say, responding to a question that I asked of you with "minimal use" didn't imply a whole lot of respect for that question, and by extension, for the questioner. You are, of course, not required to give it, but if you want my vote, it helps. Meanwhile, most other candidates seem to have thought the question was reasonable and answer it; some even considered it quite useful. More that that, there are even other candidates treating actual blatant personal attacks on them, directly, in their questions with a reasonable amount of respect (see the questions pages for Nandesuka, Avraham, etc.). I value that ability to treat others with respect quite highly, and it seems that others do too. You may remember User:Phaedriel, who recently got the second highest number of supports for admin ever; that overwhelming support was mostly based on that ability to treat others well.
 * You're not being judged as an absolute here, almost all of the candidates for arbcom are fine editors, most are even fine administrators. I'm pretty sure I wrote that as well. However only 5 will get seats. So all are being judged in comparison to the others. Getting a "no" doesn't necessarily make you bad, just makes others better. If you want a "yes" from me, you don't just have to be good, you have to be better than some very impressive users. Note that I'm not running myself; I don't think I would be able to meet my own criteria yet :-) - but that doesn't mean I shouldn't differentiate between some excellent candidates as best I can, does it?
 * It's also "misspelling". :-)
 * AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ouch! You must learn to love your brother irrespective of his spelling prowess! - crz crztalk 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Every month or so I check the 2 pages of WLH of my user name, partly out of curiousity and to see if I am on any user lists, but also because I temporarily desysopped myself and wanted to see if I was listed anywhere based on that. Your userpage subpage was one of the ones that stood out. Anyway, some of the questions I got were more useful than others, and I am not "incorrect" or attacking or disrespecting anyone if I think that, just in disagreement.
 * As for the Stevertigo re-RfA, I wouln't call that a "nickpick" either, that was a half-backed solution to avoid figuring out the extend of the sysop power abuses and just dumping some sort of admin recall sort of idea on RfA. And it predictably turned out to a be a pile-on failure. At any rate, I am not going to look through every AC case just to find one, if I can, that I think is completely wrong (and there are none that I remember since I've been active on this site). Overall, ArbCom does a pretty good job more or less, so most of what I have to say would be nitpicks.
 * I'd rather do more productive things, such as work on the backlog at WP:PP and WP:AfC develop a MW patch. On ArbCom, whatever research is not already presented on the lengthy evidence page I'd be willing to look for because it would help decide the outcome of a case, which greatly affects the editors (often several) in question. I don't feel a need to "prove that I can do research" upon request as I already know I can. I am sorry if that comes of a not respectful, but thats just how I feel: I only do such things that serve enough purpose to be worth it, rather than distract me from other matters. I see what you are trying to get at though, what I would be willing to do is, if you gave me a specific pending case, give my thoughts on what policies are relevant and come up with some proposed remedies. That at least isolates things down to a less time consuming level, and one more accurate to ArbCom.
 * As for "mispelling", I was wondering how you would react to that :). That seems a tad too superficial IMO, I can't see why that would matter too much. I suppose I could download the Firefox toolbar. The main reason that I am running for AC is to give more options to voters and because its a task that I feel I could handle. In fact if 2 more candidates came up that I would support myself, then I'd drop out. I don't think I am being disrespectful to anyone, and your questions are not any less harsh than my harshist replies :).  Voice -of- All  19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I understand, but reserve the right to disagree. Not about misspelling, of course, that is certainly minor. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
Thanks for your thanks :) I try to keep up with PR as much as possible but there's too few reviewers and too many requests, so some (most) take a while to get reviewed. Hope my suggestions were vaguely helpful (feel free to ignore some of them), and I'll give it another look in a few days. Trebor 22:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Heymann Standard
Thanks for keeping me honest, there; not sure how I accidentally excised your link on that page, but I appreciate your swift and no nonsense reinclusion. Oh, and congratulations. -- nae'blis 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:POV
Greetings, you must have copied the code from edit space... I've adjusted your template test page and you'll note now that the &amp;#160; (which is just a filler space) doesn't show up. Cheers. (→ Netscott ) 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've add to the talk on the template page. Here's what I'm seeing on both Firefox and Safari. (→ Netscott ) 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

George P. Oslin?
In Singing telegram, you wikilinked George P. Oslin. Did you plan to make that article? When I wrote that part of the singing telegram, I looked around a bit for information on Oslin, and only found singing telegram stuff. Is he notable for other things as well? AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I had run across him in a number of places, and thought that he was starting to appear to be a decent article subject. For now, he's a placeholder until it's created


 * All right, good luck! AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out what I whipped up at George P. Oslin. Alansohn 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the addition of the ISBN. I was going to do that later. You think someone's just a footnote and they do make for a worthwhile article. Alansohn 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions for Paul August
Hi AnonEMouse. I've answered your questions. Thanks for asking. Paul August &#9742; 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Porno icon.gif
It's so awful... can you think of anything better that's PD for the stub template? - crz crztalk 19:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, lordy. It is rather poor quality. You're talking about Template:Porn-stub I gather? The issue has been brought up on the talk page there for a while. I guess the idea is that there isn't much better choice. Can you meet me there? AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Selig Percy Amoils
I know it's not directly related to your subject-matter expertise (at least, I certainly hope Mr. Amoils won't be doing any nude scenes ), but there is an ongoing dispute on the talkpage regarding how to apply BLP in this case. I've already changed my stance once, and I may need to do so again. I'm hoping someone who is knowledgeable about the finer points of BLP will weigh in before I get whiplash. Please note that I have no personal interest in the subject or his article, I just want to see that policy is applied properly. Any guidance you can give would be greatly appreciated :) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Franchezca valentina
2nd opinion desired. - crz crztalk 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing encyclopedic. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions
Hi there! I've preemptively answered your questions here, the same that you asked of other people. Feel free to ask me others :) ( Radiant ) 14:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review
Hi AnonEMouse, Could I ask you to weigh in on the deletion review for the XPLANE article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your opinion is much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weighed in, and have to tell you, it was a close thing. I looked at most of the references and they were passing mentions at best. If not for Uncle G's emphasis of the St. Louis business article, I would have argued to endorse the deletion. Try to rewrite from a neutral point of view, not as an ad. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please deal with Lcnj. He keeps on changing the article List of Lebanese people and adding irrelevant and useless material. I consider this as vandalism. Jaber 12:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't now enough about Lebanese people to tell which additions are irrelevant. But his edits clearly aren't Vandalism, see that link. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." It's a content dispute, and apparently a minor one - will the addition of one or two debatable entries to this list really shake the world? Discuss it on the article's talk page, and try to come to agreement or compromise. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Alessandra
Can you please just let it past,because there is almost no one watching,and this is a perfect time to remove that picture.When I was known as Dzoni and Ice Cold,you rejected it,but now its the third time Im asking you for this,so it could be my lucky third time.Since communistas are in power now,there is no need to discredit someone like Alessandra like that.So please let me remove it and dont put it back,and after 7 or 8 times others will get bored of putting it back and then it wont even be there.

Thank you.

YXYX 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, sorry. It's not being used to discredit her, it's an important part of her biography, and a notable part of her fame. Few articles about Alessandra Mussolini won't mention her past as a Playboy model, and she does not hide it in her interviews. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, being an indefinitely blocked user is often considered reason for being blocked again. Even though I've been given the mop and flamethrower since we last met, I won't do it myself (since an admin shouldn't block someone in an edit dispute with them, and also since I do think you do have good intentions), however I should warn you to be careful. I've looked over your edits, and they're not vandalism, but they're mostly on talk pages, and most of the messages on talk pages are rather argumentative. Don't do that. Wikipedia is not a message board, it's an encyclopedia. There are dozens of other places and message boards that you can argue Serbs vs Croats vs Muslims and Fascists vs Communists vs Democrats to your heart's content. Not here, please. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I know,I dont mind it mentioned,but lets just remove the picture.We can still see how pretty she is on the other picture,but people doesnt need to see her naked.It is very offensive and is taking away the voters,especialy in Italia.We can leave the informations about,but no one will be hurt if the picture is removed.

It is like putting the picture of Berlu when he fainted.Those are just some thing that might be interesting to watch,but there are links for it,there is no need to put it in the front.

YXYX 16:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw you new message,congratulations for the promotion.I`ve been banned manu times,but it is just because I am trying to show them who are really Italias patriots and I dont wont Italia to got to the wrong hands again like it happend in April when people voted sinistra and now we are going to suffer for ages because of that.I also tryed to show them that it is not Serbs who are guilty for Balkans wars,but it were Muslims.I didnt even talk about Croats,but Muslims are guilty for Balkan wars and Muslims are flooding Italia and very soon there will problems like in France if they continue to come in.You cant evn go thrugh the street without seeing a Muslim anymore.My intentions indeed are good,because i want to explain it to them thta things cant get out of hand here like it happend in Balkans and in France.

When I tryed to explain how Muslims are guilty for what happend in France,I got blocked.I got blocked about 20 times,but since my last return I am trying to keep out of arguments because I realized that I can never explain it to people here when i keep getting blocked for telling the truth.

I would appriciate if you could think over about that picture and agree with me.

YXYX 16:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
This person User:Chidom launched the personal attack against me first, by accusing me of libel, as you can see. The person is using wikirules of which they obviously have no comprehension. Did you also put a warning on his page for this action ? Wjhonson 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "He did it first" is generally not accepted as a sufficient defense for grossly inappropriate action. Even if it were, the text Chidom put on your talk page was:

See Talk:Johnny Hazzard. ~.
 * You should be aware of this, as you have now deleted it twice from your talk page. The blp1 template is a standard user talk page warning template, used in dozens of places all over the Wikipedia, and is not intended to be an accusation of libel or a personal attack. Your response was extremely personal and offensive. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Mouse. I wouldn't have troubled you otherwise, but it seems you're aware of the Johnny Hazzard issue now. Since you're the "local expert", could you either confirm or deny my interpretation of policy in this case? Thanks. Doc  Tropics  02:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no court in the world that would consider posting a person's real name to be "defamation". Wjhonson 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not a court. We are an encyclopedia. I would be extremely happy to add a clearly useful and important piece of information to an article, but it needs to be verifiable. This is especially important for a controversial fact in a biography of a living person. Regardless of the law, that is our policy. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your most recent remark on my talk page. I have never had a problem with a *normal process of discussion* as you can see I have thousands of edits.  I have a very serious problem with the blp1 template which I will take to the bpl talk page.  Thank you for your tact in not trying to restore it to my page. Wjhonson 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Good luck! If we can convey the same information without giving offense, we certainly should. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca Cummings image
Hi. You recently paticipated in the fair use discussion of. The image has been deleted and I cannot find an archive of the discussion page. Can you point me in the right direction or is there a way to get a copy of the discussion? Thanks. --HeartThrobs 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfied to User:HeartThrobs/ImageTalkRebeccaCummings.jpg. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --HeartThrobs 19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson
Nice abuse of the rollback tool for non-vandalism edits. I wouldn't count myspace as the official page unless there is no other official page to goto. We can't link to everyone's 12 different official pages. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Geez, that was stupid of me. I was in a bit of a rush, and was a little annoyed at people who think that IAR is a reasonable keep reason. I have finally went and took a look at the mailing list also from yesterday (which I didn't do before), and saw a discussion on WP:RS, among other things. But, I stupidly jumped to "I'm right and your wrong" like I said I wouldn't. I should have stepped away for a couple minutes, and it's good someone actually asked me what I was doing. Although, while looking through transclusions of myspace (how I found that), I did find some links to myspace that were blatent advertisments. So, I guess the right thing now is to ask for consensus of people, and not single-handidly do something like deleting all transclusions (unless of course it's a link to "the unofficial myspace fansite for _insertartisthere_" or "Bob's page" or a full page ad). -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's kind of you. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late...
In offering my congratulations/deepest sympathies on your new status. Actually, I hope you'll always enjoy it enough to keep doing it; we need more of you! Didn't I read somewhere that they learned how to clone mice? I'll start a collection if it's really expensive....

I wish I had known about the nomination; not that you needed input from me, but you would have gotten very positive feedback indeed. Long may you squeak! &mdash; Chidom   talk   04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

...and another thing
If there was ever any doubt that you could handle tricky situations with grace and patience, lately you've more than proven that you can&mdash;and do. Thanks for all your help! &mdash; Chidom   talk   04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

... and one more
Just for future reference, have a look at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons : The discussion is with regard to the Brandy Alexandre article and how that situation affects/should affect using real names for porn stars. It makes for interesting reading but I don't know if it provides any further justification for not allowing unsourced names; the policy as it stands is in no way unclear; I tried to point out something along these exact lines on my talk page as a concrete example of why we couldn't include the alleged real name of the performer. "'It could be libelous, if the person whose real name is being discussed is NOT a famous porn star. Going around naming real people as porn stars is not a good thing. Without a real source, such 'outings' should be regarded with great suspicion, as they could easily be malicious attempts to hurt some real person who is not a porn star.--Jimbo Wales 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)'" On the basis of the rest of that discussion, perhaps the field "birthname" should just be taken out of the adult bio templates. I've posited that at the BLP talk page.

I'd also welcome your opinion on the timing of my use of blp1. There had already been two removals of the name; the first, by someone else, included an edit summary that just said the legal name was being removed; however, when I removed it the first time my edit summary was "Therre is no source stated for his legal name; please don't restore it unless a verifiable source is listed".

When I discovered that it had been reinserted anyway, I placed the template and provided copious amounts of documentation on the article talk page. Did I jump the gun? (I know we're probably not talking about the usual sort of encounter one would have in these situations, by the way.) It occurred to me that perhaps I should have provided all the information on the talk page for a second reversion and held off on the template until a third. As you may have noticed, I get irritated with people who want to argue about incredibly clearly-stated policy. I don't think the template as it exists necessarily has the best wording in situations like this, but it's what's available. (However, when broken down, the wording of the template makes perfect sense&mdash;see my talk page.) Not that any of my attempts were effective (nor were they going to be), but again, hopefully this isn't the norm.

Finally, I don't know if you came across the link to the attorney in Chicago with the same name as the one causing so much recent controversy; fortunately, there was a picture of him on the webpage so no one could possibly think the two people were one and the same. (Sheesh, it's difficult to write "around" information, lol.)

Take care. &mdash; Chidom   talk   06:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A belated thank you...
...for your help with the Krog. It worked! Hurrah! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yasmine Bleeth mugshot again.
I noticed you removed the mugshot from the page. I'm pretty sure we had reached a compromise, leaving a link to the image. Do we have to have the argument again? AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agreed to a link to it, but are you aware that there was not a link - there was the actual image of her mugshot? With only one other image on the site - that of her as a child - it doesn't make any sense to me that that one picture should reflect her entire adult existence encompassing her grief over her mother's death, her parents' divorce, her shock and anxiety over 9/11 which happened in her hometown the day before the incident with the car and cocaine - especially since her father and half-brothers may have lived near the World Trade Center at that time, her career setbacks, her breakup with her fiancee, etc.  She paid her dues re: the cocaine paraphernalia possession, and I don't think that wikipedia should continue to potentially impact negatively on her career in such a brazen way as to have ONLY her mug shot as a reflection of her adult life.  She has been very open about her previous addiction and her mother's death and her breast cancer advocacy (especially since it can impact negatively on her career since she was known for her natural breasts), etc.  Many other celebrities refused to discuss their arrest and drug addiction and family member's breast cancer diagnosis so I think that she should be given a break so that at the very least - ONLY a link to that sad, unfortunate picture should be on her wikipedia site. Bcsurvivor 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I remember our compromise to make it only a link, but you didn't do that, you just removed. That's why I wrote to ask if our compromise was still on. Since it seems to be, hopefully my restoring the link is OK. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Belated commentary on JJ
Since we both got sidetracked a bit, you had asked for commentary on Jenna Jameson. My one issue with it is the pseudo-bullet-pointedness of the prose from the "business" section down. I'm not sure if there's plans to expand it further or not, but it feels very stilted. I'm also unsure about the mainstream appearances section, I'd personally either keep it all there and eliminate the list or eliminate the prose and keep the list, not necessarily both. It's off to a pretty good start, though - I never thought I'd find her interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's basically what the other reviewers wrote. I'll add it to the review. However, I've noticed that it's a lot harder for me to actually put the reviewer comments into practice than it was for you - with Babb, I would write something, and you would do it, while with Jameson, it's taking many days for me to make better paragraphs out of the broken points. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedia-I (talk • contribs) 17:42, November 30, 2006