User talk:Cactus.man/Archive 6

What i said was true
Entirely true! and certainly applies to the singer Morrissey. You think it's a joke? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.170.52.205 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

Wrong about Morrissey Mr. Cactus
You're just simply wrong about Morrissey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.170.52.205 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

The Stepford Wives (2004 film)
Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. -- Cactus.man   &#9997;  10:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the summary because of the neutrality dispute. I felt that by leaving it there, the POV might have influenced future writers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.147.4.6 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the explanation and your efforts to improve things. It is important to leave these notices and the text in place because they place the article into categories that allow other editors to find articles in need of attention and improve them. In this case Category:Wikipedia articles with off-topic sections and Category:Articles which may be biased. I'm not sure who placed the notices there, but they really should have started a discussion on the article talk page. If you have some knowledge on this topic, perhaps you could start it.


 * I see you are quite new to editing here. You may want to consider creating an account which offers many benefits when compared to editing as an unregistered user. Here are some useful links to help you get started:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Wikipedia Tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * The Manual of Style


 * If you need to experiment and improve your editing skills, you can use the sandbox quite safely.


 * Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically insert your user name plus a date and timestamp after your message. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page.


 * Happy editing .... [[Image:smile.png|20px]] -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  11:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

set up the books thing
and added xrefs to all three pages to the other two, yours, Phaedriels and mine ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Great stuff, mighty quick too. Now to get the literary thinking cap on ... -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  14:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Selfish of me but I wanted to be the person who does it... I need a better book icon for the individual user title bar though... that was just the first one I found... ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Plenty time for that new icon. Just a thought, I think that a different colour for each page's user- header bar would be good, it would give a quick visual clue to which page you are on when in the midst of reading. That's why I changed initially from Phaedriel's colour. Thoughts welcome. Also, I see that Lkjhgfdsa has added the Wikipedian Gamebox. Things are taking off :-) -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  19:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Scotland

 * Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Version 0.5, or, failing that, Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:
 * WikiProject Norway
 * WikiProject Australia
 * WikiProject New Zealand
 * WikiProject Peru
 * WikiProject Hong Kong
 * etc.

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at: Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Version 0.5 Nominations
 * Version 1.0 Nominations
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPPlaces
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medieval Scotland articles by quality
 * WikiProject
 * WikiProject/Best practices

eAcceleration wiki page
Cactus.man,

I am the CTO of eAcceleration. We did not iniate this article and would be quite happy to have it deleted. Articles or (positive or negative) product or company review do not blong on Wikipedia.

By the way, I was in the process of editing the article when Matisse popped his edit in. I saved over his deletion notice quite unintentionally.

David Nason CTO eAcceleration Corp. cto@eacceleration.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidnason (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

Reverting edits to anarchism page
If you read the discussion page you'll see that the sections I removed are considered innapropriate vandalism by everyone except the person who wrote them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.139.53 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC).


 * Thanks for your reply. The reason I left you the above message was precisely because I saw your post to the talk page after I reverted your large content deletion. It was obviously done in good faith, but I think you need to discuss further with the article contributors. From a quick read of the talk page, the only discussion I see on this issue (other than yours) is here, with only 2 editors commenting. Some of the comment was to move information around within the article rather than perform a blanket delete, which is what you have repeatedly done. You need to get consensus for such large changes before continually reverting. Please be mindful of the 3 revert rule, and always seek agreement before making wholesale controversial deletions of content. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually there are several quite heated arguements on the discussion page advocating the removal of the sections on Thomas Jefferson et al, read carefully those sections with his name in the title and the following discussions (sometimes coming under other headings like 'the bickering' and 'despise our kind'. Only one persistent editor believes these sections on US anarchism are justified, and it is very frustrating to see such innapropriate content on the page. In the interests of creating an accurate, informative and representative article I ask you to undo your previous revert so that the page is how it was after my last edit (as if I have to do it yet again it will only encourage people to assume I am a vandal and revert it). Thank you 81.79.139.53 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Connor Barrett
Sorry if I left it bulging at the seams, and thanks for tidying. Tyrenius 09:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. Somehow I revisited the page and things just looked confusing for those who may have followed my comment, so a few indents later .... Anyway, thanks for the note and happy editing. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  09:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You correctly blcoked him last night. Unfortunately he has a bunch of blatant socks. I don't think there is any doubt. I put in a checkuser request but the vandalism is happening now. To wit, see these folliwing edit patterns of vandalism (click contribs, since it's not complicated vandalism) Same articles. Same vandalism. Similiar account names.

The admin noticeboard didn't act last night on one of them but I think that was probably workload based.

Thanks. --Tbeatty 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update on this user and his socks. I've blocked all the others not already dealt with, as the pattern and style of vandalism was pretty obvious. I think that it's probably not worth pursuing the checkuser request in this case, particularly as they're pretty overworked as things stand. I'll leave that to your judgement however. I'll also put the articles on my watchlist to keep an eye out for future socks. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  07:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note on my talk page. I updated the checkuser request to give them the option to drop it unless they want to try to find other undisclosed socks. --Tbeatty 07:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since they are all blocked, the chose not to do the checkuser.

Admin tools for vandals
Are the vandal tools that admins have worth pursuing? I spend some time fighting vandals like above. I don't really want to get bogged down with admin stuff all the time but if there was a one click button to tag vandals, submit the checkuser and block them, it would be worth it. tracking the vandals and leaving the messages are probably the most time consuming. I don't use IRC so I deal with vandals as I find them.--Tbeatty 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are LOTS of tools out there to help non-admins fight vandals. I don't think any one of them can do exactly what you described but, armed with a variety of tools, you can do a lot of good work without too much effort. Some are stand alone applications, some are javascripts that you need to incorporate into your monobook.js (or equivalent, although some don't work with other skins). Check out the following:


 * Tools/Navigation popups - THE absolute must-have enhancement to edit here (including vandal fighting)
 * WP:TOOLS - 1st stop for handy tools and enhancements
 * WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts - Lots of useful user scripts
 * User:Lightdarkness/ARV - Javascript to warn vandals and report on WP:AIV
 * User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool - Useful javascript anti-vandal tool
 * User:Henna/VF - Standalone app using real time IRC feed of recent changes (my preferred tool). A bit quirky to configure and prone to losing configuration details, but good nonetheless.
 * User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof - Standalone app
 * User:Crazycomputers/VandalSniper - Standalone app, ported from above to Mono/Gtk#


 * That's some stuff to get you started :-) If you need help getting things working give me a shout. Good luck. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  09:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK
Many thanks for the medal, Cactus man. Appreciated. Take care -- Samir धर्म 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Jordan Cooper
You deleted my article, you meany, I wanted to write one, wahhhhhhhhhh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.158.86 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

Bobblewik
Hi M62 (long time since I've been on that road :-), you mentioned on WP:ANI that you might mentor Bobblewik. I agree that he is a useful contributor, his work on units is to be commended, but I also see that he has not responded to your suggestion of mentorship. He also seems to be unaware of the contentious nature of his date delinking efforts. Would you be prepared to pursue this? I really don't have the time, but would like to turn this around for the benefit of WP and "the Bobble" too. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  13:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree to mentor him; in fact I've had the idea that he has to ask me before he does any date delinking on User:TheM62Manchester/Bobblewik mentorship and I will discuss it with him. Any thoughts?? --TheM62Manchester 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. My only thoughts are that you need to get a dialogue going with him soon. He seems to be confining his edits in the meantime to units only which is good. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi to both of you. I don't know what a mentor is in this context but I suspect that it will not work in this case. The problem is not that editors are editing outside MOS constraints, the problem is that blocks/rollbacks are imposed outside MOS constraints. If the current constraints are inadequate for all editors, they should be changed. We did it before and we can do it again. We should discuss this in the relevant MOS talk page. bobblewik 15:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wangi/RFA
Thanks for your support on my RfA. Give me shout if I can be of help. Thanks/wangi 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
I have an account, I just wanted to edit the page quickly. I'm having a little trouble with the images on the page (I originally made the page, and uploaded the images, etc.), they keep spacing out the text. I thought I was doing it right, but apparently not. Can you show me how to do it?

Thanks, Jack Lawson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.202.9 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 August 2006.


 * Re Gevalum
 * Hi, I've moved and resized the images. It's usually best to have them immediately before the section heading. Check out this diff to see what I changed. Feel free to resize to whatever you feel comfortable with. If you omit the size parameter (200px) the thumbs will display at the size set in your preferences, but this will not affect you until you log in. Hope that helps. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

National Security Council (Turkey)
You are contradicting with yourself by acting against your own advice you gave under the stepford wives topic which amounts to vandalism itself. Read the differences and act cortically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.15.167 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC).


 * The advice I gave re the The Stepford Wives (2004 film) article is entirely consistent with my actions on National Security Council (Turkey). Your edits are removing large sections of text, all the references, working external links and much verifiable information. I see you have reverted it again. If you have concerns about the content of the article, start a discussion on the talk page. Your edits are destructive to the article and are vandalism. I see you have now been blocked.


 * When the block expires, spend some time reading about how to edit here. Here are some useful links to help you get started:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Wikipedia Tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * The Manual of Style


 * If you need to experiment and improve your editing skills, you can use the sandbox quite safely.


 * Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically insert your user name plus a date and timestamp after your message. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question
 * -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting my userpage. DVD+ R/W 19:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
Thank you for the quick revert on my talk page. Down to the minute! :) Capi 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I love you, Scotland, United Kingdom
I am not removing any content and vandalizing anything. Just shut up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.174.137.168 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC).


 * I think you'll find that this is removing content without good reason. If you think it shouldn't be in the article please discuss it on the talk page first and seek consensus. Thanks. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  17:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is good reason, too
What the heck do you know? Nothing. Now shut up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.174.137.168 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Two more test {afd} for Guantanamo detainees
There are two more test {afd} for Guantanamo detainees. Would you mind going over to Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli and form and state an opinion on the merits of the {afd}?

Thanks again! -- Geo Swan 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Geo, I didn't get a chance to visit the above before it was closed. I've been through the articles and am glad to see they survived (albeit via no consensus), as I was intending to register a keep opinion for both. Keep up the good work, you are doing a remarkable job in documenting this topic. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  18:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi Cactus man, saw you on and I had a quick question: Would you go with Somalia or Somaliland for the first DYK on the main page now? Somaliland is unrecognized from what I understand, but is a de facto sovereign entity (runs its own elections, etc.) Didn't want to ruffle feathers on the mp. Would appreciate your advice. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Samir, nice question, but one with no right or wrong answer I think. From a quick read of the article it looks as if it is technically in Somaliland, but that is probably a less familiar name to readers than Somalia. But looking at the various crosslinks between the articles, it's easier for the casual reader to arrive at the Somalia article from Somaliland than the other way around. My preference would therefore be to use Somaliland for the link. Either is probably fine though. Hope I haven't confused you :-) Take care. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  07:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, changed to Somaliland -- Samir धर्म 07:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, but expect ruffled feathers either way, maybe even a lame mini edit war. Something along the lines of The Wrong Version always holds true when there are alternative options I find :-) -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  08:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert-warring on Pluto
You and User:Ryulong are both at the limit of 3RR. Revert warring is disruptive. Please take your disagreement to the talk page and agree how to proceed. The next revert from either of you will result in a block unfortunately. Thanks. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  08:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Ryulong already violated the 3RR limit dispite the warning. According the rules, the user should be blocked and your edit reverted by an administrator.--Nixer 08:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Leave this to the admins at WP:AN3, especially with my explanations there, in the last edit summary, and other places. Ryūlóng 08:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nixer, thanks for your message. Firstly, whether or not anyone exceeded 3RR is dependant on exactly where one measures the starting point of the full revert. From examining the history I deemed you and User:Ryulong to be on exactly 3 full reverts at the time I left my message to you both. The intent was to stop the disruptive revert war, and I'm glad to see that it had the desired effect.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by saying "...your edit [should be] reverted by an administrator." I didn't edit the article, and I am an administrator. I have no desire to block anyone, but I would have done so if the revert war continued. I see that a report has been filed on WP:AN3, and I'll leave that for the regular admins who deal with that page to resolve. In the meantime I'm glad you've both stopped, and I suggest you engage in some civil and meaningful dialogue with each other to agree acceptable wording. Good luck. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  09:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now only I stopped, not Ryūlóng. He already did 4 full reverts by the time of your warning (see WP:AN3). I wait an administrator to revert the last edit by User:Ryulong. He should be stopped by an admin, otherwise UI will revert him myself.--Nixer 09:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I regard this edit to be the first full revert in this petty edit war. The substance appears to be over the paragraph structure, and whether Pluto is referred to as a dwarf planet or a celestial body. You were both on exactly 3 reverts when I intervened. User:Ryulong's subsequent edits have not been reverts, merely edits. He even edited the article to include your preferred wording of celestial body, as well as dwarf planet. Stop this petty squabbling and try working together to improve the article. As far as I can see for now, the revert warring has stopped. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No. This is the first revert in the edit war:. The edit which you have cited to be the first full revert is just the return to the version  already reverted by User:Ryulong. Please do not "stop" revert-wars by supporting those who violates the rules.--Nixer 10:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That revert, on some minor wording, is not what I consider to be part of the revert war proper, which I explained above. I am not "supporting" anybody or any particular position, just working to ensure that Wikipedia and the integrity of its articles is not disrupted. I would have blocked either of you had you continued reverting. That the revert war is stopped is a positive thing, would you not agree? I urge you again to work with fellow editors to work things out co-operatively. I have processed your report at WP:AN3 and declined to block User:Ryulong. If you feel aggrieved at this decision you are welcome to take it further with other admins, at WP:AN or via dispute resolution. I would suggest however that you let the matter drop, move on and work towards improving Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That edit was the part of the edit war and all the way he continued reverting to the same. The present state of the article is the version by User:Ryulong with all my changes reverted.--Nixer 10:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nixer, I've explained to you above that I'm not supporting anyone or any particular version of the article, merely working to protect Wikipedia. Please see The Wrong Version for some light relief. I see that you also changed my edit to the result of your posting to WP:AN3 again from "Not blocked" to "No consensus". Please do not do so again, or you will be blocked for disruption. I've explained to you above how to seek further opinion if you feel aggrieved by my decision, please heed it and stop reverting the AN3 decision. Really though, the substantive content of this dispute is so minor, why all the effort over so little, which is now just about the paragraph structuring and minor semantics. Please move on. Thanks. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  11:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Note
Please see this edit by Nixer at WP:AN3: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=71981257&oldid=71980572 Ryūlóng 10:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on User:Nixer's WP:AN3 edit, although I'd already reverted it and left a further note / warning. Do you have any past history with this user? He is teetering towards a block of his own sadly. Regards. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't even heard of this guy until I did the editting at Pluto. Ryūlóng 10:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He changed it from "Not blocked" to "No consensus" now... Even though it got me into this trouble, I've reverted him. I don't understand what I did to this guy. Ryūlóng 10:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yr welcome to stasi2 of Aug 28
Many thanx not only for cordial welcome but for invaluable summary of what I must learn. All this and it's fun too !! Stasi2 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (just for practice)


 * Hi again, thanks for your reply. I'm sensing some positive messages that you would like to continue contributing, despite the wobbly start about your username - it's great that you wish to continue. Yes, it's great fun, and it's addictive, though not known to be fatal (yet :). Best wishes and good luck for your forthcoming wiki "career". -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Guess who hasn't given up
Requests for checkuser/Case/Ryulong made by our friendly neighborhood. Ryūlóng 19:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to bring this to your attention. Ryūlóng 04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for blocking 220.233.51.231, who was constantly vandalising my userpage. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, I was checking WP:AIV, and there he was, distributing more "toilet blocks" after his last warning, so it was time for him to have a WP block instead :-) Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Scotland
Hi Mais, good work in getting this up and running. I've not been overly productive of late and didn't manage to contribute to the initial discussions, but will toddle along in time, add myself to the member list and start some proper work. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really can say, without qualification, that it is a pleasure. Thank you!


 * I am really optimistic about the possibilities of this format, although it does raise issues about what the heck we are going to use the notice board for? I will be "clearing out" the notice board soon (probably not today), but we will have to see how both the Project and the Board evolve.


 * I am not planning on actually actively promoting it today, cos of probably restrictions on my time, but best foot forward tommorrow. User:AntzUK has offered to help already (better drop him/her a line. --Mais oui! 13:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Help. My Article has been moved.
An article I've written has been moved. I believe the article in its current form to be legitimate. I've worked hard to make a valuable contribution. Can you help?

The administrator that moved it left this message in my talk:

I've moved Radwell International to User:Brian Radwell/Radwell International, since you've put a lot of work in on it. However, the article shouldn't be put back in the main article space because it's a recreation of material that was previously deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia (see Articles for deletion/Radwell International.) You seem to have done some good work on it; I don't have an opinion right now as to whether or not this could be re-added to Wikipedia, but when you're ready to try the community's opinion, you should open up a deletion review, and link to both the deletion debate and to the article in your userspace, so people can see what you are proposing. Mango juice talk 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian Radwell (talk • contribs) 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC).


 * Hello Brian, you left me a message asking for help with your deleted article. As you know, this has already been reviewed by the community at AfD and deleted. Mango has offered to help you take the decision for review at deletion review above. I suggest that you pursue this option with him if you still think the article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Please read all the introductory links first though to understand what is and isn't worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm sure Mango will help you through the process perfectly well, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a source of free advertising. As things stand, you have some significant web links to this company in your user space. I will leave things be for now pending any deletion review you wish to make, but this material in your userspace contravenes our userspace policy and will be removed in due course. Please read the links provided above and good luck in contributing to Wikipedia in the future. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  22:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

St Fillans
Hi Angus, I noticed that you created St Fillans. I had already done St. Fillans back in November last year. Obviously we should merge the contents and create a redirect. The question is; which is the correct name - St or St. ? Any thoughts? -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think St Fillans would be better because we have St Andrews. I've copied my version to my sandbox and slapped a on it. I suggest moving St. Fillans to St Fillans when the duplicate is zapped. Either that or call it Saint Fillans and have a redirect from St and St. versions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've deleted your article and done the move. I thinks St Fillans is preferable to Saint Fillans. I added in your external links, but I'll leave any stuff you think should be merged over to your good self. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  13:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! I'll have a look and see what I can add. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you did such a nice job on Meigle, I thought I'd tell you about an uncategorised, and thus probably unnoticed, stub for Clunie I came across yesterday. Hopefully you can come up with a picture for this as well ... Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk)


 * Angus, thanks for flagging up Clunie. I've done a small bit of expanding and added a photo. I'd never even heard of Clunie before, but quite an interesing wee research project with some fascinating history. BTW, for your information, I source a lot of photo's from Geograph. It's absolutely perfect for Wikipedia because everything is released under a Creative Commons, Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 license. If you're looking for UK related location photos, it's a great place to start. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalized
Your userpage was just vandalized. I fixed it. Keep on the look out. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Ready   Aim   Fire!  09:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the speedy revert on my userpage and the note alerting me. I'll keep an eye on this IP for a while. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  09:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Scotland
Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.

While I am here, please also have a look at the new WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.

Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

All the best. --Mais oui! 11:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

2 reasons
Hi Durin, long time no speak. I've been meaning to swing by here for some time since I discovered your "Welcome to Durin" signpost image during a vandalism revert of your userpage. It's a great idea and a great wee image, is it entirely homemade? In light of current events though, I think you need another direction board, along the lines of: "Controversy nearby" :-)

That's the real reason for dropping in, to say thanks for your ever wise and measured words of counsel offerred to all on the Carnildo promotion discussion. I, like many others, am pretty unhappy at this whole state of affairs, but have chosen not to pipe up in the meantime for fear of saying something which adds more heat than light. I agree with the comments you made, but there is much more required in way of explanation as to exactly how and why this decision was reached.

Many of the dissenting voices raise perfectly valid questions, one of which was rolled back by Danny of all people. In fact, it's Danny's position within this whole affair that I find the most troubling at present, given the lack of detail on the decision rationale. I'll comment in due course, or when it goes to RfC (however futile that will be) as seems likely to happen given the strength of feeling there is about this promotion. Let's hope things don't degenerate into another Wikipedia riot. Keep up the good work on fair use images, but don't you need a wee break from that thankless job. WP will not blow up if you take a short breather to do something more rewarding. Best wishes. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliments on the image. Yeah I think I need a speed limit type sign on it "Warning: This area under construction^wcriticism" ;) The image is a self creation. I didn't take any elements except for the grass, and as I recall that was a free license image.
 * I agree a considerable amount of effort needs to be made by the bureaucrats who made this decision to calm these waters. So far, that hasn't been forthcoming. Rather, two of the bureaucrats who were involved in the decision have been fanning the flames rather than throwing water on them. Disheartening.
 * I think an RfC or RfAr on this will be futile. Reason; ArbCom was apparently involved in the decision. So, it's highly unlikely they will reverse themselves through any normal process. Instead, what it will take is a large, large amount of editors calling "foul!" to create such a mass of voice against this that ArbCom can not safely ignore it. There's precedent to this, with the force RfA of another person. ArbCom was lambasted about that poor decision, and they eventually corrected it. They've made another poor decision here, if only because the action has been very poorly explained. Maybe there's good reasons for the decision, maybe not. I can't tell at this point. I tried to write what I wrote as neutrally as possible to allow them the opportunity of responding to this issue in an appropriate manner, to help calm the waters, but I doubt it's going to come to anything.
 * I've long considered stepping away from my fair use work. My main reason for doing so is that I've lost confidence that the project is willing to treat this issue as seriously as I do; not that they have to, just that they don't care so why should I? I know that sounds petty, but that's not my intention at all. I think it's going to take a major lawsuit before some teeth is put into our copyright policy. Right now, the copyright violations are getting worse day by day, not better. The tools in place are woefully inadequate to the task. People in a position to do something about it seem deaf to the concerns voiced. There are plenty of people up in arms about it, but nobody who is willing to take a stance. This is in large part because any realistic plan to curb this problem will involve curbing the very thing that makes wikis powerful; universal access to functionality. For example, one way in which to handle this is to have images that are uploaded be forced to go through a review process before inclusion as an available image on the project. This reverses the current model of upload first, ask questions later. Such a plan would generate considerable dissent. But, the plan would stop copyright violations in their tracks. All images would have a source. All images would be appropriately tagged. That is a policy that would work to prevent copyright violations with images. Unfortunately, there will be those that argue (and rightfully so) that we could apply that to textual content too, which is just as subject to copyright protections as images. Sadly, it is possible that a true wiki may be entirely incompatible with any reasonable self protective copyright policy.
 * I've already reduced my efforts in the fair use realm quite signficantly. I still have a list of images I keep tabs on, but I am not actively searching for more violations now except that I do recent changes patrol on templates. For example, I used to scan userboxes for violations. In fact, I went through every userbox in existence in the template space looking for violations. After I did that once, and came back to it a couple of months later, the problem had gone from non-existent to half as bad as it was when I first started doing it. I.e., in another few months it would be just as bad as before I ever touched it. Futile work if ever there was any. The very negative comments I received from a few individuals has never motivated me to stop doing the work. That's never been a consideration in stopping. --Durin 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Durin, I hope you didn't interpret my "homemade" comment re the image as suggesting that you had misappropriated others material, it was merely a question that would elicit my further admiration of your talents if you responded in the affirmative :-) It really is a great image, it has a kind of rustic "homemade" quality that I like, not all Photoshopped, glitzy and over-puffed ... I think it's the bee's knees.


 * I agree that an RfC would be the usual futile mess of hot air, posturing and inconsequential fizzle out; there are no teeth in the process. Also, the chances of an RfAr being accepted are on a par with somebody creating a viable chocolate teapot. Hence, the perennial question: where does that leave us? I agree entirely that there needs to be much more explanation of the procedure and reasoning that underpin this decision, but there are absolutely no signs that this will be forthcoming. Short, defensive statements are all that we get at the moment. Disillusionment, dark thoughts of cabals, Lord Acton and worse are difficult to dispel. In the absence of more detailed explanation, this seems to me to be a wilful disregard for community opinion, and is more divisive than any stupid colourful box could ever be. The polarisation of the community moves on apace, it appears that the gravitation of true power into the hands of a select few individuals continues, and I am left pondering whether I will continue here. Perhaps the noble goal of the truly free, open, wiki-driven encyclopedia is unattainable once such an endeavour reaches a certain critical mass. Groups form, power struggles ensue, conflict arises, innocent people are crushed and true progress is hindered. I'm continuing for now, but I have been particularly unproductive of late and can only think this will get worse in the current climate.


 * The copyright issue is a problem. If the Foundation is seriously concerned about potential copyright litigation, they really need to sort this out, by not leaving it to the army of (substantially) legally untrained volunteers that make up Wikipedia. For the large part, WP policy in relation to copyright (and the myriad image copyright tags) is drafted, tweaked, honed, reverted, reverted back and ends up as a legally meaningless halfway house formed by people not competent to do so. There are far too many part time "copyright experts" here making pronouncements that they have no authority to make. I'm not suggesting you are doing so, quite the contrary. You are merely enforcing a more restrictive WP fair use policy prohibiting use outside of article space, quite outwith the realm of determining whether an image has a valid fair use rationale within an article. That is a determination that, ultimately, only a court can reach.


 * If the Foundation are serious about this, particularly with regard to images, they need to dedicate some significant resources to clearing up all the confusion, misinformation, opinion, hyperbole and bluster that surrounds this image copyright issue. I am not a lawyer, even if I was I would not be a US lawyer, and probably not a US intellectual property rights lawyer. As such, I would not be competent to make some definitive statements on image copyright as it pertains to US copyright law and hosting on the Florida based servers. Yet, this is happening daily, hourly, by the minute - by unqualified people. The Foundation needs to think carefully about this, and should devote some full time legal input to sorting out the image copyright morass.


 * That's enough ranting, there's my 50p worth. ... :-) Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  08:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a subset of users who believe they are at the core of the project, and understand the basic principles and underlying ethos of the project. This subset has legitimacy in that many of the people who hold power within Wikimedia are part of this subset. Those who fail to have an understanding similar to this subset's way of thinking are often poorly regarded by those within the subset. Not all within the subset have condescending attitudes. However, enough of them do that it affects how this group is perceived.
 * I've been a contributor to this project now for two years, actively for 1.5 years. I have something like 13,000 edits. I've been involved in countless areas of Wikipedia. Yet, in all that time and effort I have never reached the same understanding that the subset professes to have. This isn't for lack of intelligence or desire to know. Every test I've ever taken that evaluates one against a national pool has shown me to be in the top 5%. The last time I took an IQ test, it held me just a handful of ticks below genius. I have desperately wanted to gain this understanding that the subset professes as the true ethos of Wikipedia. I grant that I have learned a lot over the last couple of years. Yet, the remains ellusive. In trying thus to solve a problem, we are compelled to look for all possible answers. One possible answer is that despite any one person's knowledge of guidelines and policy here, of the five pillars, of the history of the project, one can not attain an understanding of the ethos held by the subset if one is not part of the inner circle through political/social means.
 * This does not motivate me to leave the project however. I believe the project has become so large, so overbearingly huge, that no small subset of users can truly control its destiny without dramatically undermining the basic nature of a wiki. We do see attempts on small levels to control it, as we've recently seen, but any large scale attempt would crumble the foundation of the project or alternatively cause the subset to be viewed with such anger that their legitimacy would be seriously undermined. I think, on some level, they realize this. Their ideas of change are having less of a chance of being implemented than, say, in 2004. This angers them, and further widens the divide.
 * I think ultimately this is little more than petty squabling. If given the right environment, this sort of problem could rapidly evaporate. However, with the current leaders of the project this is unlikely. As a careful review of Jimbo, and not in any respect an insult, I do not feel he is capable of doing this. Some people do well with small projects. Others do well with big ones. The tool set needed for one is not necessarily compatible with that needed for the other. I fear Jimbo has the toolset for the former and not the latter.
 * I keep plugging away here because I am still of the firm belief that this project is very meaningful to humanity as a whole. Knowledge is everything. On a base level, the only thing that separates us from being savages are books. Without books, information is not conveyed from one generation to the next. The young remain untaught. The old remain incapable of communicating to others their developed knowledge. Knowledges becomes lost without books. Look at the Romans; sure they had books, but not in the numbers we do. They made a form of concrete that could set under water, and another that was light and strong. Neither of these forms of concrete was replicated for more than 1,000 years. Why? Information was not passed forward through the existence of books. Electronic media is a new form of book. Wikipedia is already the largest single compendium of human knowledge that has ever existed. There are collections certainly that are larger (pick any library), but none that are singular, none that are available to the world anywhere, anytime, without cost.
 * With the right direction, the right leadership, in ten to twenty years, Wikipedia will be capable of being regarded on the same level as the Great Library. It can cause a fundamental change in the education of the world. That is worth doing. That is a goal worthy of our effort.
 * The subset can have their view. They can have their attitudes, their condescension, their vitriol. Ultimately, it matters not. They are but poor players that strut and fret upon their stage believing they are important. They aren't. --Durin 13:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Polls:
Hi. I'm just sending out a message for a new study I will be undertaking soon. It will involve surveys & polls to gather information & trends of editors on Wikipedia & other subjects. The data gathering will involve yourself recieving a questionaire on your talk page for you to fill out. I will then collect your questionaire & combine it with data from other editors. If you would like to be a part of this experiment, or know of someone who does, place a "Yes" or "No" below this message. Remember, it's only for fun & you can choose not to fill out all or parts of your questionaire once they arrive. Have a nice day... -- Spawn Man 06:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC). P.S. I'm part Scottish too. Go Braveheart! :)

Thanks for the revert
Some guy really seems to like blanking my userpage... it's been going on for a while. Thanks for reverting it. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ /?!  00:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cactus.man
Hey Cactus.man, thankyou for your message and your kind words. I do appreciate your intention to vote. :) By the way, I really like your user page. The Scotland images are fantastic; I especially liked the "Kyle of Durness". Thanks again for your message, it was very much appreciated. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

National Gallery of Scotland
Hi. I know that you are one of our art lovers. I wonder if you would take a glance over my work on National Gallery of Scotland this morning?

The article had been quite a sad little stub since creation on 30 July 2002 (although kudos of course to the editors who had taken the effort to start the article), which I considered to be something of a national disgrace :)

So I grasped the thistle myself. There is absolutely tons and tons of work that could be done, perhaps starting with a benchmarking exercise against really good art gallery articles (I assume these exist?)

All of our galleries and museums really are gems, and the Burrell Collection (stub), all the National Galleries of Scotland (stub), McManus Galleries (stub) and other key institutions really ought to be taken up beyond stub/start status to at least B quality. See Category:Art museums and galleries in Scotland.

We have no article at all on Aberdeen Art Gallery or Glasgow Museums, and others. --Mais oui! 18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Mais, thanks for the note. Nice work and a good start on expanding the article. I didn't realise how under developed our gallery articles were. I'm still not feeling particularly creative at the moment, but I'll don the thinking cap and go ferretting around other gallery articles to make a start on assessing how things can be improved. This could be a nice project to convert me back to a "proper" editor again :-) -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  07:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of service :)


 * Actually, I was getting awful bogged down in utter trivia recently. But I have discovered the full delights of proper referencing, so I think I may start doing more of that. It is actually by far the best way to avoid inane arguments and edit wars with the Cro Magnon brigade. --Mais oui! 08:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you help with undelete?
I wrote a very researched and unbiased synopsis of an independent film entitled, "ALONE AND RESTLESS."

But I believe an administrator keeps deleting the film in error. I have made numerous edits to try to correct the content to his liking, yet he keeps deleting it. Administrator Netsnipe has worked with me to restore this article, yet Admin Samuel_Blanning keeps destroying the content. Can you please help intervene? I think this film is relavent to my larger Florida Film Industry history page. He keeps confusing the earlier MTD Studios entry (that I also wrote) with this movie synopsis. They are seperate entries. "Alone and Restless" meets all Wiki Guidelines. MTD did not, so I agreed with its deletion.

Here is the history on the content:

I'll send an appeal to the closing administrator to have this article undeleted so you can continue to improve it. I believe this article still has hope. -- [[User:Netsnipe|' [[User:Netsnipe|

The closing administrator declined to restore the article as discussed here. If you wish to continue on improving your article on MTD Studios, you may ask Samuel Blanning to userfy the deleted article so you can rewrite it (under your personal account outside of the encyclopedia) until it meets Wikipedia standards or reaches notability before resubmitting it. You can also appeal the decision at Deletion review. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dodgem4s (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC).


 * Hello Dodgem4s, thanks for your message regarding the above article. The original version was deleted as part of the AfD on MTD Studios, and subsequently deleted twice under criteria G4 of the speedy deletion policy as recreation of properly deleted content. The advice by Netsnipe above is perfectly correct. If you think the content meets all the relevant wikipedia criteria for inclusion, then deletion review is your best course of action, otherwise it is likely to get re-deleted unless the content is significantly different to the original deletion. The page is in fact currently protected to prevent re-creation. Alternatively, as Netsnipe suggests, you could work on the article in your userspace before posting if you plan to do more work on it. I would be happy to userfy any version you wish if this is the route you wish to take. Let me know. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Restore article to my user space?
Hello there -- I created an article a while back, and it has vanished. Could you assist me with restoring it to my personal user space, somewhere? The article is Ellis Lawson Banister. Thanks! -FJ | hello


 * Hi, I have restored the article to your userspace at User:Forteanajones/Banister. Please remember that recreation of deleted content is a valid reason for speedy deletion. Please develop the article before reposting or, alternatively, you could list it at deletion review. Good luck either way. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I assume such an article can remain indefinitely in personal user space? -FJ | hello 9/26/2006 12:42 PM PST


 * No, it should be there for you to develop for eventual use as a Wikipedia article. Please see this section on deletion review. Specifically:


 * Keeping deleted content in your userspace if you have no immediate intention of using it for encyclopaedic purposes is frowned on, as Wikipedia is not a free web host. If kept too long, the page may be nominated for deletion at miscellany for deletion.


 * I hope that helps. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  07:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of Article to my User Space
Hello, I created an article on the comedy group All Sorts of Trouble for the Boy in the Bubble Sketch Comedy, which has recently been deleted. I was wondering if you could restore this article to my personal user space.

Best Regards, --GoodAaron 07:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi GoodAaron, I received your request but I see that you listed the article at deletion review. Let's wait to see the outcome of that first. If it fails, and you genuinely intend to develop the article further, I will userfy it for you, but please be aware that Wikipedia is not a free web host. If you have no immediate intention of using it for encyclopaedic purposes the page may be nominated for deletion at miscellany for deletion.


 * I hope that helps. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  09:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I had no intention of keeping it there as a webhost. I was hoping to transfer the information to a different wiki, should it be found not to meet Notability standards for Wikipedia. Incidentally, I was also curious about possibility of temporarily restoring the article for the Deletion Review-- it seems that without the article there for people to review, the discussion is mostly going off of hearsay and circumstantial evidence.
 * Best Regards,--GoodAaron 16:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've added the content to your userspace at User:GoodAaron/Boybubble to allow DRV commenters to see the content. Good luck. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  06:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani
The article is being put to AfD because of the persons notability, can you please provide your information that shows they are notable. Your vote symbolizes you have such information as you call them notable yet I have yet to find any media coverage of this person. Whatever information you have is appreciated. Thank you. --NuclearUmpf 13:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello NuclearUmpf, thanks for your message. My explanation for considering this individual to be notable and worthy of inclusion in WP is set out perfectly clearly in my posting the AfD in question. As I stated, I believe all these detainees are notable due to the nature of the political event that they are embroiled in. I did not suggest that I had fresh information, thus I cannot provide any. There is no hard and fast metric to measure notability by, and that particular issue will always be subject to personal interpretation, hence AfD will always be a see-saw of sorts. As long as we can abide by consensual decisions that are made, all should be well. Best wishes. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  13:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again....
Hello again,

I have submitted Alone and Restless for Deletion Review (September 27).  Admin Netsnipe and I believe the article is now worthy for inclusion. I'd hope you'd voice opinion either yes or no. In the possibility that it does fail, then could you userfy. I think its just a matter of time before the objections subside -- since its worldwide DVD release is only a few months away.

Thanks for all your help,

Dodgem4s 16:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)