User talk:Bfigura/Archive 3

CSS_Corporation
Just a note: I've tried speedying that before, but the tag was removed by an IP (the contrib history suggests the IP might not be a sock, based on a different level of interests). Hopefully this one will go through. Best, -- B figura (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I elected to just handle that one the "old-fashioned way" and delete it myself. On further reflection, I don't need more input, it's clearly an advert. :-)  - Philippe &#124; Talk 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and blank the talk page of and do whatever else is needed to clean up after the vandalism. The party being attacked really doesn't need to have any mention of them visible on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Only bit left is the edit summary for the talk page creation. But since I don't know how to get rid of that without axing the talk page (with the block warning), I think it'll have to do for now. (I'd don't think edit summaries are spidered, are they?) Best, -- B figura (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to try to explain yourself more fully?
I saw your comment on Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda.

Are you willing to try to explain yourself more fully? I hope so. A lot of the comments on the afd are leaving me perplexed. So far the article has been accused of being my POV, the POV of the Seton Hall scholars, and hte DoD POV. It clearly can't be all three.

My understanding of WP:NPOV is that it is wikipedia contributor's POV that has to be kept out of articles. My understanding is there is, in general, no problem, with quoting opinions from authoritative, verifiable sources. I just checked WP:NPOV. I truly don't understand why there should be a problem with quoting the DoD allegations, so long as they are properly cited, and our article makes clear they are merely allegations.

Could you explain what you mean when you wrote: "...we have no way of verifying the contents of the article?"

The DoD prepared a Summary of Evidence memo for the last 572 captives to be held in Guantanamo. The Seton Hall scholars based their five papers, including the one in which they included this list they compiled, on those memos. At the time they wrote their studies the names and ID numbers were all redacted. But they have subsequently re-released those memos, with the names included. So, verifying that the DoD leveled those allegations is quite possible.

Maybe that is not what you meant by "verifying the contents"? Now Lawrence Cohen keeps repeating that if we can't verify that the captives are terrorists, we can't carry any of this materials. I believe he is just plain wrong. I have pointed out to him, several times, that WP:VER says the aim of the wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I'd really appreciate it if you could spell out what you mean by verifying the contents.

Thanks in advance!

Cheers! Geo Swan 00:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. All of this is based solely on DoD reports. There's no other way to verify the allegations made here. (Seton Hall is merely grouping/organizing DoD data, not verifying it in any way). Having an entire article devoted to allegations made via only one primary source is pretty non-neutral, and lends undue weight to the source. It's as if we had an article entitled People who have been called douchebags by Jimbo (or the New York Times, for that matter). Even if we could document that Jimbo made the remarks, having an article on it would still violate WP:NPOV. (There's also the issue that the DoD may not be a reliable source here, but that's a political debate I'd like to avoid). -- B figura  (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Nice work on the CSDs! - Dom the dude 001 03:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Allegations
Hi. Thank you for your post and, in particular, the extra step you took in consulting ArielGold. Your advice and good work is very much appreciated. Victoriagirl 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Conner leverett
Hi: I think we "knocked brooms" with respect to the Conner leverett page -- and Crunkomatic. I thought there was some sort of edit conflict -- a number of things seemed to happen simultaneously -- so I decided to leave the field to you to sort out the ((hangon)) tag, etc. Thanks for handling this; if there's something further you want me to do, other than keep my hands off which I was going to do anyway, you have but to ask. Cheers. Accounting4Taste 02:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it got deleted (deservedly, IMHO). I'll leave a note for the user about DRV. Thanks for the help though :-) I'm up for a game of broom hockey anytime :) Cheers, -- B figura (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My created article
why should my KFFL.com be deleted when the article on HipHopDX.com is just as small, I mean I am going to make it bigger, just give me a chance before you delete it--Rockies17 03:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Rockies. It's not about the size of the article, it's a question of whether or not the subject of the article has been written about in reliable sources. And I agree, there are plenty of other articles out there that fail the guideline, it's just that someone hasn't gotten to them yet. But if you want some time, I'd be happy to place an under construction banner on the article for you. Best, -- B figura (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

yes please put the under construction banner on it, I would greatly appreciate that--Rockies17 03:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll do that in a sec. In the meantime, I've switched the deletion method to something that will buy you 5 days. -- B figura (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks--Rockies17 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. However, please note that there's still the possibility that someone might delete the page under the speedy deletion policy. Hopefully they'll be nice and wait, but if they do, don't worry about it too much. You can always build a draft of an article anywhere in you userspace. (For example, at this address: User:Rockies17/DraftofArticle). And again, any questions, feel free to ask me, or the help desk.-- B figura (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

all right--Rockies17 03:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What's your beef about "Malik"?
Who is Malik here? What, or whom, for G-d's sake, are you talking about? --Ludvikus 05:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that would be the editor who replied directly above me. (In this forum). -- B figura (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ripbot
hey, hope its ok to use this :) just curious as to what would define notability if other software along similar lines is accepted on wikipedia? if a piece is dicussed on doom9, you cant really get much bigger in its selective field. Is the objection because its not open source, i.e the code cant be shared and modified? otherwise i believe it has as much merit as other listed pieces of software, maybe more so in fact. btw im just a user, i have no connection with the creation etc. Flidge 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My objection has nothing to do with open-source, just notability, as defined here. The issue with doom9 and other forums is that anyone can edit them, and Web 2.0 type forums tend not to be considered reliable (see WP:RS). But I understand your point that for this sort of field, the key 'publications' are web forums. I'd make that point on the AfD (please do give your opinion there). As far as what would define notability, I'm really not sure, since I'm not a software guru, so I don't know what the big names are in that sort of thing. Perhaps Ars Technica or something like that? Hopefully this whole thing isn't too discouraging, I know Wikipedia's rules can get a bit opaque at times :) Best, -- B figura (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a PS: it's always ok to use talk pages. Discussion is never a bad thing. (Unless someone starts doing something silly like No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man). Cheers, -- B figura (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

i think i've done what you suggested :) doom9 is the world leader in its field, while i fully accept forums and such should be with limited credibility due to their nature, I wouldn't waste my time on doom9 if it truly wasn't the font of all knowledge where video and such is concerned :) microsoft big wigs use the site for feedback and product releases. Also its sort of similar to megui. hope im doing this right! Flidge 20:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind, but I just went and modified your comment to make it fit with AfD standards. Even though AfD isn't a vote, it gets formatted kind of like one. Usually something like:

Other than that though, you're fine, I think. Cheers, -- B figura (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Some reason
 * Delete Other reason. . You could also say Merge, Redirect, or just Comment

no thats cool, your guidance is appreciated, its all a little confusing to someone whose only ever read stuff on here before. Cheers, thats quite english of you ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flidge (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Take Root
Your ref tag was removed, and I later placed other tags on it. I'll redo it. Bearian 21:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

extension
Do you think I can get an extension on the time I have to expand the KFFL.com article, one of my homies died today and i wont be editing for a while--Rockies17 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Rockies. Anyone can remove prod tags, including you. It won't bother me if you remove it. (Someone could come along and delete it, but if you're worried about that, you can keep a working draft in your user space until you get back). -- B figura (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So i can delete both of them--Rockies17 03:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. -- B figura (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement!
I'd like to thank you for the thank you that I really don't deserve that popped-up here: User talk:MBK004. I've also left a reply there.-MBK004 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Petr Vaníček
B, thanks for your comments, but I think notability has not yet been established in this article. The primary sources tag had been added by another 3O volunteer to more clearly point out that the issue is not about the information being sourced, but rather than none of the sources are independent of the subject, and hence none are evidence of notability. I'm going to put those tags back. Please comment on the article talk page if you see cited sources that you believe serve as the required evidence of notability. Dicklyon 05:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree entirely. I'll respond here: Talk:Petr_Van%C3%AD%C4%8Dek. -- B figura (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've opened an RFC about Geoeg; see Requests_for_comment/Geoeg; see if it's something you can endorse or not. Dicklyon 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

He continues to make new personal attacks after your warning, on Talk:Least-squares spectral analysis. Thanks for also warning him about the tags removal. Dicklyon 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hello! I'd like to inform you that I have answered your questions and I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you for letting me express a better self-description. Regards, Rudget Contributions 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I'll go take a look shortly. -- B figura (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CSIN
Im trying to delete the page... Can you do it? I cant figure out how. MS-Morgan 01:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Pages may only be deleted by administrators. Just leave the deletion tag on, and it will be taken care of. Best, -- B figura (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Korea U and related pages
Hey Bfigura, thanks for your interest in the alert. Aside from the 2 user talk pages I have added some diffs and a short summary on the page below. I may have put them poor form,as I am not familiar with needing to do this sort of thing, but I hope it helps. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&action=edit&section=24 Epthorn 22:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The banner
You had it on the wrong page, and you forgot the semi-colon. Try a forced refresh and it should work now. --Deskana (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Deskana. I had just gotten that point from someone over at the help desk too. Thanks for fixing it for me :) -- B figura (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You've almost got it! Copy and paste this into the .css:

table.fundraiser-box {display:none}

No other symbols. You forgot to put table in the front. Try once more, and you'll get it! ~*croses fingers*~ (and you can remove the one above, that is missing the word table, don't need two of them) Ariel ♥ Gold 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did it work after you reloaded? ~*Holds breath*~ Ariel ♥ Gold 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, Thanks ariel. Wow, it's got to be quite a good sign when I can't reply b/c I'm being e/c'd with helpfulness. Do make sure you post something once you run for your inevitable RfA. :D -- B figura (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Woops sorry, I fixed it at the same time directly on your page ;). I rollbacked my changes. -- lucasbfr talk 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was a bit worried when it came back for a sec, but no harm done. (Although 'zOMG, Zombie banner!!!' did enter my mind for a second.) -- B figura (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai and Ludvikus
Thanks for your msg. I have replied at User talk:BrownHairedGirl. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

New Topic Break
there is no objectiveness. if i had any idea wikipedia was like this then i would not have posted. I am an end user in the field the post was in, people have no clue, yet decide the fate of an article. They viewed doom9 as not a valid source because its a forum, which i understand, yet this is not like any other forum. If you get something discussed in detail on doom9, such as ripbot264, then its clearly a value in its field. If the person who votes had any experience of the field, they would know this. They don't and they seem to have influence as i have returned from a trip to see the article deleted. I am slightly perturbed by this as i always held wikipedia in high regard, but sadly it would appear that the lure of power to some individual has overshadowed any community objective, new contributors should not be talked down to as the other poster did to me. I thank you for your effort though, your attitude and manor was appreciated and if all the people on here acted as you, i would come away with a far more positive outlook on this site than i have :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flidge (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry it didn't go so well. I think the outcome of the AfD would probably be repeatable, as doom9 isn't recognized as a reliable source. However, we do have an article on it (doom9). If you haven't been too discouraged by this whole process (and I hope not), it would be amazing if someone could find some sources for it (as it currently only cites the doom9 page). I'd imagine that if we had reliable sources that showed doom9 was notable, it'd be easier to use it as a source for other topics. Just a random thought though. Best, -- B figura (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudget RfA
Dearest Supporter, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!

Rudget Contributions 09:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WQA
Hi Bfigura, thanks for letting me know of that filing. I however, refuse to dignify that screed with a response. Atleast, not unless some respectable editors seek a response from me. He has been trolling, soapboxing and nitpicking on that India talk page for nearly a year now. Would you believe it if I said he has over a thousand edits just on that talk page! A record of sorts, perhaps. Its not just me but there are several editors there who are fed up with his antics. User:Priyanath, User:Amarrg, User:Nikkul, User:Rueben lys have all given him a piece of their mind in the past (recent past). Even User:Blacksun who is sympathetic to some of his views has accused him of owning that page. He has not only relentlessly soapboxed on that page, but he has also committed several NPA violations on that page against several editors including myself. I am too pressed for time to dig for diffs now, but it is all there and everyone active on that page knows it. Given his apalling behaviour, it is ludicrous that he has the gall to go forum shopping at ani and wqa and god knows where else. Thanks for your time. Regards. Sarvagnya 07:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you filed an RfC/U? That might be the next appropriate step. (Or some form of mediation). Best, -- B figura (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Aah.. no. He's not worth losing so much sleep over.  I've like many others, learnt to ignore his trolling.  Thanks for the suggestion though.  Sarvagnya 16:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert
From my own talk page: It was my pleasure. i love rolling back vandals :) --Excirial 17:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks For reverting my userpage. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Please do not label edits such as these as "Vandalism". They are Good Faith edits. Thanks --  ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤   21:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The editor's only contributions have been to blank content (see here). To me that sends up a red flag. Best, -- B figura (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're correct. There were some good faith edits on the 50Cent article. However, everything up until then had been blanking (which made me suspect that the first 50-cent edit was nonsense, since there wasn't alot of context there). Best, -- B figura (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And on even further consideration, I think this edit justifies some skepticism. Best, -- B figura (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do agree that most of their edits were vandalism, however the edit that ou gave them their final warning on was actually a good faith edit. No worries! --  ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤   21:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your comments at Ellman's reagent, it was in response to that particular conversation that I proposed a change to the Manual of Style to make this kind of discussion easier to resolve. If you had any comments they would be most welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. All the best Tim Vickers 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
I am Bfigura on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Bfigura. Thanks. -- B figura (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem
It smacked of OR, as it had analysis and synthesis of Plato, as well as extensive descriptions of various forms of gay sex. Socrates may have been gay and a pederast, I don't know. However I do know that the section as it was had no place in an encyclopedic article. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and a few more Q's...
This site reminds me of "Dungeons and Dragons" but on some serious steroids! I was never good at D & D as a kid, but never had someone to really help me understand it. So my questions are regarding the creation of a new page here.

I'm the founder/president of Music Forte, Inc., a site that deals with distribution for independent artists, sheet music retail, as well as several other divisions including social networking with an international userbase in over 100 countries. I recently starting searching around Wiki to see if some comparable level biography pages were here for other indie artist sites, and some were, some weren't. Now I could be wrong:) but I'm feeling Music Forte might be important enough in our industry to maybe have a page here at Wiki so I'm trying to follow the proper protocol to do so.

My business partner took a shot at creating a page here last year but it got removed. In talking with him though, I realize that he must have violated several editing rules including the nature of bias, self-promotion, linking, and probably others. So if you could give me some direction in this arena I would greatly appreciate it. Regards,Mrrose13 05:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So the really big issue here is conflict-of-interest. (And while checking to see what else exists does make sense, make sure you keep the policies listed at the top of this page in mind. It's kind of like speeding, just because other people do it isn't an excuse for whoever get pulled over. :) )


 * Real life is calling, so I can't go into too much detail now, but I'd strongly suggest reading WP:COI and what what wikipedia is not before creating a page on a subject you're involved with. Best, -- B figura (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Don't Remove! Janet Jackson's 10th studio album!
Please don't remove this page because i need more info for fans to know for this page please Janet Jackson is coming out with a new album! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshazimiz439 (talk • contribs)
 * If you want to dispute the deletion, the best way to do that is to place a tag on the article, and discuss why the page shouldn't be deleted on the article's talk page. (But in general, Wikipedia doesn't have articles on unsourced future events). Best, -- B figura  (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion
I incorporated that suggestion you made into my broader response. Thanks for your thoughts.--chaser - t 12:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I saw your advice over on GK's talk page, and it looks like you did the right thing. Best, -- B figura (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks
You're quite welcome to change what I wrote, even minutes after I did it. I don't claim ownership to Wikipedia. In fact, it's flattery when there is improvement added to what I wrote.

In return for answering my question, I've answered someone else's question on the help desk! Congolese 04:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Way to work on the wiki-karma :) -- B figura (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.
Thank you for your excellent help on a vandalism problem. It has been reported - the guy apparently did over 20 vandalisms in one day!

Your directions were impeccable and I appreciate the help.

Manway 05:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored
I've added additional clarification, please check.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied. -- B figura (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
Yes, I believe that was it. They said that they cannot do much, but will take any suicide threats more seriously. Neran e i  (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely better to be safe than sorry here. Thanks for taking the initiative to contact the (right) people :) -- B figura (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just don't want them calling me or my parents. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Love, Neran e i   (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the help. I come across "under construction" a fair bit and I'm never very sure whether to leave it or not! Thanks again :)) --Marc Talk 00:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Glad to help. -- B figura (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Help Request: Reply
So, what can be done. I'm so lost. <_<--FSX-2007 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What did you want to do? If you know the correct name, the article can be moved. Otherwise, I'm not sure what needs to be done. Best, -- B figura (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was originally "Usher's fifth studio album."--FSX-2007 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So is this title incorrect? (Or just based on rumor, so it might be?). In either case, I'm going to bed soon, so I'm not going to undertake any action that might be controversial. (There seem to be a number of IP's editing the page). If you want, you can suggest a move on the talk page, and if no one objects, feel free to move it. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:School Article
I was trying to find that how do I talk to you. So, that you can guide me better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilania (talk • contribs) 05:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like you got it :-) You can also just reply on your talk page, and I'll keep my eye on the page. Best, -- B figura (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! However, what I see is that, the article is left too short and most of the part has been removed. Do you mean that the part that has been removed was inappropriate to be added in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilania (talk • contribs) 05:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, what I removed seemed like blatant advertising, which we can't really have. (You're free to add more information, just make sure it's verifiable and neutral sounding. Best, -- B figura (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And on that note, I'm going to head to bed soon. If you want any more help, feel free to leave a note here (please sign it with four tildes ( ~ ) so I know who's talking though). Or, if you don't want to wait, type helpme on your talk page, and someone will come along. Best, -- B figura (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I check the page about 'neutral....' and couldn't really understand the policy. Would you please tell me in an easily understandable term? Also, how would I know that the information I'm adding to the article is non-advertising because I just want to write about the school. And, when I'm trying to add the facts, it might sound like an 'advertising' information to a some of us, but to the rest it would be an 'informative' article. So, how do I figure that out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilania (talk • contribs) 05:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's really late here too. So, it's better that I head towards my bed too. :), That was nice chating with you and I really appreciate your help. I'd like to make a few more changes in a few days or may be some time later. So, I'll get in touch with you. Take care Thanks & Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilania (talk • contribs) 05:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help on my talk page with the help me template. Much appreciated. Twenty Years 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
You may want to look at you AN/I request, as it has been marked as resolved. Cheers! Tiptoety 05:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping a notice, it seems fine to me. (Although that was an odd coincidence that was found at the end :) Best, -- B figura (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am hoping it is just a Halloween thing.:) Tiptoety 05:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, seems like a Halloween prank after all. diff -- B figura (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea i saw that, Happy Halloween! Tiptoety 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood
Regarding Talk:Kilogram, already fixed—as you’ve probably noticed by now. It’s my fault for assuming you were an administrator. I don’t know how you can do what it is you do without the extra powers associated with being administrator. I very much appreciate all your help in this matter and your offer to start the WP:RFC/U if necessary (I sure hope not). Greg L (my talk) 05:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Hopefully it can be settled amicably. (I should also add that I'dd be happy to help with one, I'm not sure that I should be the one starting one, as I'm not directly involved). Cheers, -- B figura (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Contributions so far....
.... have been impressive. is this the direction you're looking towards in the future ? Pedro : Chat  09:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm flattered. Thank you -- I certainly haven't ruled that out. I was hoping for another month or few of contribs (so I can spend more time writing articles) before I thought about it though. Perhaps after the holidays? (And sorry for the short reply, but I'm in a RL time-crunch. I'll try a more detailed reply later). Best, -- B figura (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think one more month of contributions would be required. After that let me know and I'd be delighted to review and nominate ..... Pedro : Chat  13:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your kind words and for your support during my RfA. AND for being one of the few people to appreciate my sense of humour ;-) which I have been told is so evil that I have to keep it under wraps for the most part. It will peep out now and then!! If you ever have any reason to think I've lost my grip on what being an admin is all about, please be just as quick to let me know.  Accounting4Taste 13:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt that I'll ever need to. Congrats on the RFA again, and best of luck with the mop / buttons :) -- B figura (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Up, up, and away
I'm off to a conference. Will be back in a week-ish. I'll probably have some internet access, but only irregularly. Cheers, B figura  (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Kilogram and Gene (*sigh*)
I got your message on my talk page. I was baffled as to why Gene Nygaard got blocked for a week because I couldn’t immediately find any disruptive behavior after I started looking at his contributions history. Finally, I realized that this choice rant/objection on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents really snowballed on him—and entirely on autopilot too; he didn’t chime in once after it started snowballing. I didn’t know all that was going on. The Eddie Haskell in me finds some measure of satisfaction in this but the Ward Cleaver in me is really disappointed that the block was due to “lipping off” to administrators that was interpreted as a lack of contrition over “incivility.” Instead, the block should have been over the “real” issue: how G*d d*amned disruptive he’s been lately at almost every level in every forum.

I couldn’t possibly care less if Gene called me a “poopy head” on a discussion page (it’s hard to win over others to your point of view if you act uncivil and routinely resort to name-calling) and am mildly amused that political correctness has given so many such a thin skin and a sense of entitlement to be totally free of criticism. I remember when I was first working on Thermodynamic temperature and he corrected me numerous times. I remembered him as 1) being intolerant, and 2) always correct. I always figured him as the prototypical sort that is often described as “not suffering fools easily” and tried especially hard to not to be a fool when he was lurking about. I can see from his block log that most of his offensive behavior has been a rather recent phenomenon. He seems to have changed and that’s too bad. I am rather disappointed in him because his way-off-base battle over “weight” doesn’t match the Gene I remember.

Really, this all started because I used a non-SI unit of measure, the µGal, in the Kilogram article. As I explained in Sorting it out on Talk:Kilogram, this is proper because according to Wikipedia policy (Manual of Style): “In scientific articles, [editors should] use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic.” Gene has long served as Wikipedia’s “SI-Nazi”—I mean that in good way—but it can be done to excess. The µGal got him initially focused on Kilogram. Once he doesn’t get his way, his arguments can spread like flaming napalm into all sorts of off-base, tangential, and tedious issues. Even all that would be OK if he didn’t also become intransigent.

As for your advise that I should wait “for him to return before going anywhere substantial with the article”, I understand your point and why you felt the need to pass along the caution. I can assure you that I have zero intention to try to take advantage of the situation. I noticed this allegation by an administrator on “The Gene topic” on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that I “baited Gene.” I was tempted to object to that in an open forum and then thought the better of it given what happened to Gene. But that administrator’s allegation is 100%, industrial-strength “El toro poo poo” (Bol mierda). The only edits I make are good-faith ones. Period. I did note that after I made one particular edit, Gene reverted it here along with the threat that “…if Greg L insists on changing this, [the] "dubious" tag goes back on.” Of course, I waited until Gene was no longer blocked before making any changes and was frankly surprised that he objected to that particular edit because the difference was over a subtlety and the revised version was factually unassailable. But after he objected to it—and even after he threatened to again slap the article with tags, one can’t cave in the face of “Wiki-terrorism” threats; he really went overboard with that comment so I simply ignored it. Gene obviously had sufficient judgment to not carry through with the threat. That edit and the back-to-back reversions are what I think the administrator may have tarred and feathered with his “bait” allegation.

I understand it would be highly inappropriate to purposely exploit the current situation (Gene being blocked for a week). I appreciate your acknowledgment that reaching a consensus is one thing; working to get Gene’s buy-in could take us to infinity and back. I also know that at some point, I have to treat the whole “Gene thing” as just another bug splat on my windshield of life and get on with doing the right thing: making good-faith edits and having fun as a volunteer on a collaborative writing phenomenon. But I’ll also be careful to not do any edits that might be interpreted as intentionally provocative.

Again, thanks for your time and attention on this matter. Greg L (my talk) 02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

adding a person
Greetings-Sorry for the confusion. My question was in the area of adding a new person to Wikipedia. Stefan Lysenko has develped a unique approach to are called BLISSING which is outline on his company web site at: www.blissing.com We would like to add Stefan Lysenko to Wikipedia based on his discoveries yet we are not quite sure how to do this. We are very open to your thoughts on the subject. Cheers and thanks-1blissing 23:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Generally, it's highly frowned upon to write articles about people or organizations that you happen to have ties to. (Whether those ties are familial professional). This is because it's likely that there would be a conflict of interest that could lead to lack of neutrality. (Which is a requirement for any article on Wikipedia).


 * Also, articles need to establish the notability of their subject. The acid test for notability is whether or not there are multiple 3rd party independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. (This is because all information in wikipedia must be verifiable). Articles that don't meet these guidelines tend to be speedily deleted. (For more information on how to establish the notability of a person, see this guideline).


 * Lastly, I noticed that you refer to yourself as we. For legal reasons relating to our licensing, accounts on Wikipedia may not be shared, or represent the input of multiple people. (Such accounts are termed 'role accounts', and really aren't generally permitted). If you have more questions, feel free to ask the help desk, or just place helpme on your talk page, and someone will stop by. Best, -- B figura (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)