User talk:BigNate37/Archive 6

notable faculty-alumni additions
Hi there. I recently added Bob Boyer and Dion Taylor to the list on which you had made a comment. Prof. Bob Boyer is a desceased famous artist, and his work hangs in galleries across the world, including Nat. Gallery of Canada. I have not been able to write an article on him yet. Please do not erase in the meantime. Also -- Dion Taylor (BFA) released a well-received album recently. She has been making the rounds at media outlets across Canada and along the way she has been quite straightforward in explaining she's a U of R alumnus. See ya! Mumun 22:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fair. I noticed the list was growing and that it had a lot of red links, so I brought up the idea of notability for the list. The discussion on the article's talk page was enough to satisfy me, that is the fact that the point I raised and the discussion around it are visible and in the minds of editors is enough for me. I'd personally suggest that the list should be kept short, to the most notable 10 or however-many people, rather than listing anyone and everyone that has a claim to notability, but that's something I won't worry about. To reiterate, it is enough for me that the concern has been raised and taken note of; I won't likely concern myself with the matter any further.  Big Nate 37 (T) 06:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

content vs. contributor

 * Nate, I thought my comment was directed at the content, and not the contributor. Hence the use of 'your own damned page', not 'your damned self'.  huh.  I guess things are getting pretty dicey around wikipedia.  No wonder many of us long-time contributors are dropping away.  Even then, you got to admit that moosejaw is trying to exploit the wikipedia for a series of links as much as possible. Davejenk1ns
 * Replied at User talk:Davejenk1ns.  Big Nate 37 (T) 22:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nate, I wasn't 'threatening' anything. I know that no behaviour merits special treatment.  I am only commenting about the rising tide against arbitrary actions by admins, seemingly capricious policy changes, and other sociological factors that are contributing to a withering wikipedia community.  If anythin, I was lamenting the current cultural shifts i see in wiki-land. Davejenk1ns 23:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

CSD I7
Thanks for the heads up, I had noticed the response. Hasn't really answered the question, since it all seems a bit vague. I wasn't concerned with the specific image as such (and indeed it was deleted within a day or two for similarly reasoning as my own). I guess I was partly concerned by the other admins ever changing story as it just seemed to be that they had decided they weren't going to delete it and that was that or they simply weren't up to date on I7, which could lead to a couple of other concerns (a) We were keeping obvious deletions longer than we need to (and indeed others tagging such may have then been put off, so delaying the deletion further) or (b) I was missing the point completely and possibly deleting stuff we should keep.

As it stands it appears it is all a bit vague, so I'll just take it as differing interpretations of the same thing, and just keep an eye out. --pgk 19:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I understand where you're coming from. The most evident part of the discussion around I7 (to me anyways) is that it's dependence on fair use criteria makes it complicated and rather abstruse.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: HTML userboxes
Yeah, I was reconsidering that after I got off my computer yesterday. I think I'll move them back, because the babel template thing gets kind of messed up. &mdash;The Gr e at Llamamoo? 14:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've moved them all back. &mdash;The Gr e at Llamamoo? 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

unfinished thought?
Hey Nate, good to see the futureart template at an easier-to-remember name now. ;) But did you forget to finish your last thought at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion? -- nae'blis 15:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I was going to talk about how its easier to overturn a speedy because you don't need DRV like in an AfD, but I couldn't actually find any policy that supported that. I guess CSD isn't as easy as prod to overturn. Must have started the sentence before I went researching and never removed it when I couldn't find anything to support my claim.  Big Nate 37 (T) 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, and yes, as far as I know prod is the easiest to overturn (just requires a willing admin). -- nae'blis 16:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note to self, this should be listed at WP:TM/TALK when you get a chance.  Big Nate 37 (T) 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks self.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

re: WP:NUKE
Good morning, BigNate. You don't need my permission to undelete. Any speedy-deletion can be immediately reversed if it is contested in good faith. Likewise, any page can be immediately restored (whether speedy-deleted or otherwise) if it was deleted out of process or if it is needed in support of some investigation like a formal deletion discussion or request for arbitration. Since this is clearly a good-faith request, go ahead and restore it at your convenience.

That said, I do appreciate the notice. I'll be arguing against it in the RfD discussion because I happen to agree with the assessment that it was an unnecessarily inflammatory redirect. Rossami (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: From the wording of your note, I assumed that you were an admin.  Rereading it, I see that you asked permission to "recreate", not to "restore".  I also noticed the note on your userpage.  I strongly recommend against re-creation since that confuses the pagehistory but will restore it based on your request.  Please drop me a followup note when you've opened the RfD.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the restoration.  Big Nate 37 (T) 16:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

re: your comment on WT:CSD
Good morning. You recently commented about your experience creating an ID on Wiktionary. You sounded rather put-out by the process. May I ask what made the process difficult for you? I have IDs on a number of our projects and have never personally found it to be a difficult process.

Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all been dealt with by now, I spoke with a couple admins there and once they realised the situation they corrected it quickly. As a part of my Wikipedia editing, I wanted to add a definition request however upon realising I could not edit as an anon, I signed up as was promply banned for a bad username. I think the rationale at the time was "there's no User:BigNate, so who but vandals would append a number?" At the time, it was quite frustrating. But like I said, once I got a message through to a Wiktionary admin here on Wikipedia it was corrected quickly, and I hold no animosity towards anyone at Wiktionary. The general feeling I expressed at CSD was one of apprehension towards creating another account somewhere—it probably won't be as difficult as all that, but to me it is enough hassle to deter. Not to mention the loss of preferences and monobook.js settings.  Big Nate 37 (T) 18:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How odd... I would not have made that assumption about a username and am surprised that it was blocked.  I'm glad that it's worked out for you.  And I'm sure we're both looking forward to the day when they go live with the unified identity.  Take care.  Rossami (talk)