User talk:C12H22O11/archive05

My RFA
I'm sorry you found reason to object to my adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future. ALKIVAR &trade; 07:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold! dispute
Why did you revert this page without explanation? Be Bold is an important, long-standing guideline, and because of its status should not be changed without discussion and consensus. Variations of the currently disputed language have been proposed, by my count, at least four times in the last six months or so, and always soundly rejected. The current change -- clearly more drastic than the version rejected in September -- doesn't simply modify existing policy, it reverses it, without notice or discussion. Monicasdude 13:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that you're the only editor who keeps reverting the page back shows that there's not much of a consensus for your position. If you want a discussion on this, go to the talk page and start one. I don't see anything there relating to this. - ulayiti (talk)  16:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Then take another look at the talk page, particularly under the section headed "Poll" (#9). At that point, a similar requirement was proposed for Featured Articles only. It was rejected by a 2-1 margin. Also take a look at sections 4-5 on the talk page. This has been gooing on for most of the year, and JDG keeps pushing variations on the same theme without ever getting consensus. As another editor commented in one of the earlier rounds of this dispute, "If you want to change a guideline that's been unchanged for a year, you need to get a consensus on the talk page first." And the newest version wasn't even mentioned on the talk page. And how about responding to JDG's thoroughly inappropriate, policy-violating practice of including gratuitous personal attacfks in edit summaries? Monicasdude 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It may be of some use of you to know that Monicasdude has an RfC page started by others due to his way of working.  Feel free to leave remarks, if you so wish. BGC 18:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Aren't admins supposed to implement Wikipedia standards?
I find your actions in the "Be Bold" dispute irresponsible, and inconsistent with the role of an administrator. Applicable Wikipedia standards call for prior discussion and consensus before significant revisions to a guideline. That wasn't done in this case, and nobody claims it was. Given the extensive discussions of prior proposals for similar (but less drastic changes), it's plain that the revision wasn't made in accordance with existing standards, in theory or practice. And your refusal to substantively explain your position is particularly inappropriate; a short-term "poll" of 3 or 4 actively disputing users isn't an adequate basis to gut a long-standing, significant guideline. It shows no respect for real consensus. Monicasdude 20:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for reverting your edits - I should have looked into the matter more thoroughly - but frankly, with you as the only editor reverting the change and numerous editors backing it up, it seemed to me like a legit change. I can see now that it isn't in fact backed by consensus, but it hasn't been rejected either. Explaining why you reverted it in edit summaries or on the talk page would have helped this. - ulayiti (talk)  16:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem; as Superm401's comments last night demonstrated, I hadn't made my argument as clear as I should have for editors who weren't involved in the previous conflicts. And, as well, I regret the overheated tone of my initial comment under this (equally overheated) heading. Monicasdude 16:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/LeveL (webcomic)
Hi, I see that you closed this as "no consensus". Three clean deletes + nominator + one withdrawn, two transwikis, three clean keep + two with very low contributions. It didn't get much attention after the first few days, so would you consider re-listing since it would only take a few extra contributors to make consensus clear? brenneman (t) (c) 06:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for letting me do that. If it comes down to "no consensus" now, it will at least be a real no consensus.  I know that I've bent your ear about a couple of your closes in the last couple of days, I hope that you don't feel like I'm breaking your boxes.  Just coincidence. -  brenneman (t) (c)  01:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Infuquitable
You recently removed a speedy tag from the article mentioned in the header. It is currently tagged as an AFD. Feel free to put in your two cents. --WAvegetarian 23:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: Removed db-g1/Remixism
Hi Ulayiti, thanks for your reply. I used the same tag as was on the other article, which got deleted, but I take your point, Wikipedia doesn't have a formal convention for speed-deleting this type of post. I kinda like WAvegetarians idea too, although I guess probably needs to be revised ;-) - N (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Help
If you get the chance to take a look at the article on Islamofascism -- resurrected by some reactionary trolls through a parliamentary trick of some kind, I'd appreciate it.

Option A is for the article to be deleted or merged, but I'm not sure how to do that at this stage. Option B is for the page to reflect a very brief summary of the usage of the word, as opposed to, say, photographs of Nazis and Muslims palling around during WWII, which is what some people favor. BrandonYusufToropov 22:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Help
Please vote to merge and redirect Islamofascism to Neofascism and religion...

... which is where it belongs. Vote here: BrandonYusufToropov 21:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Are u back
As you have said that you are on wikibreak till 25 nov 2005. Now are you back? I want to edit many documents, which you object of not having NPOV 220.227.207.12 12:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hope you can take a look at this
[] BrandonYusufToropov 22:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please discontinue your involvement outside of the article namespace
I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. --Gmaxwell 05:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if your aim was to offend as many people as possible by your posting of that comment to everyone who voted oppose on RI's RfA, you've certainly succeeded. Now, as to your claim that trying to decide on the worth of every article individually, instead of taking a mechanical 'only 100% is consensus' point of view, is 'ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard', I have to say I completely disagree with you. I also can't fathom how you could possibly leap into that conclusion, so could you please explain?


 * I am also unaware of any 'wiki political battle' that you accuse me of waging. If RI's political views have caused him to leave Wikipedia, then I'm sorry to hear that, but I can't help it, you know. But your insistence that people you don't agree with stop contributing to the community is surely against every policy and rule ever written. - ulayiti (talk)  13:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User Bill of Rights
You may be interested in User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 04:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

Pupuhanska
Hei, mitä mieltä olet tästä? Articles for deletion/Pupuhanska &mdash; J I P  | Talk 13:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

World Citizen userbox, User world
Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add User world to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ? :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Look more like the babel templates"? huh?

User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle / User world / User:FayssalF (or other users on Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship for examples.. it's the same size and standard as all other user boxes/babel boxes... I don't get what you mean o_O

--Mistress Selina Kyle 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

lol ok

drinking too much I guess ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My repeated removal of comments on my user talk page
There is nothing on Civility about erasing comments from my user talk page. In fact, I don't recall reading about that anywhere. I was under the impression that it's my personal choice as to whether or not I wish to leave minor comments (to which I feel no need to reply) on my user talk page; much like emails in an inbox or messages on my answering machine. If I am wrong and there is a policy against that, please point it out to me.

On another note: I get the feeling that you are (for lack of a better term) stalking me. It's making me feel very uncomfortable and I would appreciate it if you stopped. I am not a troll, a vandal, or a spammer. I have started up several good articles and have been making positive contributions for the most part. Sure, I make mistakes every once in a while; don't we all?
 * Don't bite the newbies. Daykart 21:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * From Talk page:  'Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings.' 


 * About me 'stalking' you, well, I just noticed that you had posted welcome messages and vandal warnings to people's user pages instead of their user talk pages. I notified you that you shouldn't do this, and you removed my comment. I restored it with a note that you shouldn't remove comments from your user talk page like that, and you removed it again without any kind of acknowledgement whatsoever. I am aware that you're not a vandal, but I was merely pointing out that if you do that in the future someone might think you are. So no biting here. :) - ulayiti (talk)  21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No hard feelings, I understand. I'm just feeling a little violated right now and would greatly apreciate it if you could refrain from communicating with me for a little while. I'm not trying to insult you or anything; it's just that I have psychological disorders and I'm getting bad vibes from you at this time. Thanks. Daykart 01:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

why did you delete my Hex (board game) (Buy a rollup board) page?
I'm new here, and if I stepped across the bounds of what is permissible here on Wikipedia, my apoplgies.

I would have contacted you directly, Ulayiti, but I saw no way to do so.

When you deleted my new page, all you wrote was "ridiculous." (or maybe you said "nonsense.") More details would be welcome. What was ridiculous about it? This was the second version of another page, which is being considered for deletion: the same title, without the second set of parentheses.

This page was intended as an adjunct to the Hex (board game) page. I put a link to it in the "Physical sets" section. The first version directly referenced the retailer (Chessex) where such a mat could be obtained. I did not want to include a large image like that on the main Hex (board game) page because I am certain many people would complain about it and probably have it removed. After all, they complained about my POV-ray image of a Hex board and had that removed (see the history for the Hex (board game) page.) This image is even less relevant, but it makes sense if you actually happen to have such a mat and want to cut it up into Hex boards.

I created a new page which removed the link to Chessex because my original page was blocked by an admin who called it spam. I thought the reason for this was the link to the retailer.

So, please, what is so ridiculous about the page you deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twixter (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

re: del of 'pragmatic maxim' + talk pages
hi, i just got here and i'm trying to contribute, and i will learn the ropes as time goes by, but if you delete stuff as i go, it's a big waste of all our times, i think. so i'd appreciate some breathing space. i'd like to develop potential content in stages in the talk page of a stub, so that concerned folks can comment as i go and thus avert potential edit wars, if that's okay with you. if you show me how to create a stub that'd be a real service. thanks, Jon Awbrey 18:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

okay, i'll try another way, just trying to find an m.o. that does not leave me with a full-blown variorum in my notepad, or force me to buy a c.v.s. and i know how the beauty of wiki is 'sposed to work "in theory", but being a pragmatist --- well, i've seen some real ugly wars in "in practice". btw (back to work) Jon Awbrey 19:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Welcome
Hi Ulayiti,

Thanks for welcoming me on wikipedia.

Actually I started participating quite long time ago. Only now I've created an account to be able to create new pages.

Was there a specific reason that you listed all the helpful links on my talk page?

Cheers,

Klimov

rm content dispute
If this is a content dispute, how should the edit war be handled, as the IP refuses to use the discussion page? "A fair comment" is all it said so far using the edit summary, which is true - the edit it is a comment, thus fitting for the discussion, but not the article page. --tickle me 01:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Encyclopedist
Thank you, I am sorry that people are so foolish as to think that they have the right to vandalize my page.

Take care, ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  00:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Democrat Userbox
I don't think you'll ever agree to what I said on the talk page there, and I'm never going to agree to someone saying something is illegal "because they say so", so I've asked BD2412 for a third opinion here since he's a lawyer in Florida. Hopefully that can settle things. karmafist 05:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Band vanity?
I started a page on "The Merediths," a local band, and I was just wondering why you deleted it. I'm not too worked up about it or anything, just a little curious. Sorry, I'm relatively new and don't understand- I'm not a part of the band or anything, they're just a pretty big band here in Louisville. I'm just a fan of them, and thought I'd make a page for them. --Evanc88 07:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remake the page for a little practice, but you were right- they meet near none of the requirements except radio play around this region on most college radio stations. They are, however, featured on the AllMusic guide. If you give me the go ahead, like I said, I'd love to practice a bit and work on a page for them. --Evanc88 19:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

ta
G'day ulayiti,

thanks for rvting vandalism on my userpage! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

220.247.252.29 vandal
just noticed that apart from myself, User:MarkGallagher has also blocked the same user for 24 hours and 48 hours respectively. Would all these blocks cumulate or the longest one hold? I am not clear if some unblocking needs to be done. Could you let me know? --Gurubrahma 11:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The user will be unblocked as soon as ulayiti's block expires, so it doesn't matter that the two of us also blocked him (or that mine is 24 hours longer). Kinda funny to see three blocks within minutes of each other; I'd imagine he'd be the most-blocked user ever to be blocked right before Christmas Day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)