User talk:Chcknwnm/Archive1

Copyrights
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as First Contact (TNG episode), but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! AlistairMcMillan 19:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights again
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Galaxy's Child (TNG episode), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68486.html. As a copyright violation, Galaxy's Child (TNG episode) appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Galaxy's Child (TNG episode) has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source. If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Galaxy's Child (TNG episode). If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Galaxy's Child (TNG episode), after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. --Sherool (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

10047 What's the link between 10047 and New York City? Just curious. Ta, --Oscar The Cat talk 10:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The connnection is that 10047 is one of New York City's zip codes. Chuck 10:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

100.. articles
I've just speedy deleted a few articles you created along this format, since they only had the comment "this zip code does not represent an area". I really don't think we need an encyclopaedia article for every number which does not correspond to a valid U.S. zip code. --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 10:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Egads - looks after looking at your contributions, I see you have made quite a few such edits. I think this probably falls under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 10:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While these are not actual articles per se, they are only redirects to where the zip code represents. I think that people would find it helpful to be able to view a city or town by zip code. Chuck 10:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoah. What you propose would mean thousannds of new articles in wikipedia if adopted by other areas too.  Not sure this is a good idea. --Oscar The Cat talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 10:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also speedy deleted a few. Please refrain from adding articles with next to no content thanks. -- Longhair 10:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Very Well
I understand how that many articles could not be good, I guess. I'll stop adding these articles. Thanks for all the input. Chuck 11:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. And you might have already done this, but maybe have a look at the zip code and List of ZIP Codes in the United States articles to see if there's anything there you might want to contribute. Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 11:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing content warnings
This has been discussed at length several times.    . Please do not create censorship forks and content labeling messages. It's not our place to decide that. — Feb. 17, '06 [01:47] 

I don't know if you are attempting to bait me into a knee-jerk response, but in any case I refuse to be manipulated. In response to your question, "No, because child pornography is illegal in the United States of America, where Wikipedia servers are physically located, and for no other reason." The prisoner abuse photos document a crime, but documenting a crime does not, in itself, make them offensive pictures. There is, of course, one exception to this, which is, as alluded by your strawman argument, the crime of child molestation. — Feb. 17, '06 [02:58] 

Based on what wording? Again, stop putting words in my mouth, I don't appreciate it. — Feb. 17, '06 [03:15] 

It would obviously be inappropriate for me to block anybody in connection with this article as I have already demonstrated that I have strong opinions on it. As for "stopping at two reverts" I mean I will not proceed onto a third or fourth. — Feb. 17, '06 [03:23] 

Three revert rule
You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess it would have been prudent to find out about this rule, before learning about it the hard way. Anyway, job's done and the article is getting worse and worse. Chuck 08:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not censor wikipedia. The American government may try to censor these images in the US but this gives you no right to censor them on wikipedia--Mushobe10 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please know what you're talking about before you write on my page. Last time I looked, a warning about disturbing images is not censorship, simply courtesy. Unfortunately, the sick minded people that run this place prevailed and the warning is gone. Isn't that censorship, by censoring the fact that there are grotesque pictures in the article. That's more against the rules than what I was doing. But go ahead and have fun looking at your pictures of abuse and toture. Chuck 19:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I resent being called a sick-minded person. Since you are unfamiliar with our policies, please also read "no personal attacks". — Feb. 17, '06 [19:47] 

Abu Ghraib
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. The stuff regarding the images on Abu Ghraib is interesting; it appeared that the debate moved beyond dealing with the individual article and towards the Ideology of Wikipedia. People seemed concerned that we would have to provide image-free versions of a number of other pages. I disagree with this; Auschwitz need only have its images removed if someone asked for it to be done. I understand the POV of the editors who were worried about setting a prescedent, but who says we need to be consistent? Kurt Godel seems to suggest that consistency is impossible, anyway. We ain't lawyers...--James Kemp 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Samuels
Hi Chuck. I have put a 24 block on User:209.226.117.80 and asked some other admins to look at the situation (which doesn't seem very acceptable). Please in future remember the 3 revert rule which I see you and a few others have broken tonight in combating the vandalism. Placing a note at Administrator intervention against vandalism breifly explaining the situation is sure to get you pretty quick administrator attention. I note the anon user doesn't seem to be responding to my request to explain exactly what their problem is. --Martyman- (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I wasn't sure wether the 3RR applied to reverting vandalism too. I had asked some people, but didn't get a response. Thanks for letting me know, and in the furture I will make a mention on the Administrator intervention against vandalism.  Chuck 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an exemption of the 3RR for simple vandalism. The question is is this simple vandalism? I would be inclinde to say no, because if you believe in good faith the anon editor was not acting to be disruptive but out of concern for what they believe are inacurate facts. I don't know really. I have only been an admin for two days after all. Anyway good luck with it when his block runs out tomorrow. ;-) --Martyman- (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

cAPS lOCK
cAN YOU POINT ON YOUR EXACT PROBLEM? 88.154.5.22 11:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * aNSWER OR I'LL UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT AND RE-EDIT THE PAGE. 88.154.5.22 11:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, but I believe that leetspeak is a unique and interesting form of writing, whereas capslock is not. I don't think that caps is something that would improve his page. Chuck 11:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Warning message
No problem :) — FireFox • T • 11:36, 26 February 2006

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my user page! -- Vary | Talk 03:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem
Always looking for good stuff to add, and it's kinda neat to have two space-related stories up there. :)

Current Events: GMU vs Florida
Why not? KI 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey
Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

good article
Please do not re-create good article. It was deleted following a TFD discussion. Also, displaying metadata such as this would represent a policy change and substantial discussion and agreement should take place first. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles, among other places, for more information. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to add that I do like the idea of WP:GA and I support its continued development. For now I'm going to rollback the template additions to the main space until there is further agreement for this sort of policy change. I hope you'll be able to help out the project identify and improve good articles. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, don't worry; I took care of it for you. I do appreciate your initiative and I'm sure you'll find other ways to help the Wikiproject. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it; that's my job. It's not possible to keep up to speed on all matters simultaneously. I see you're studying aerospace engineering and that you've been contributing to some of the space exploration–related articles. I'm glad to see it; we could always use more editors specializing in this area. Space exploration is a fascination of mine, though of course I'm an amateur and could not hope to know the matter in much depth. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:LinkGA-star.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:LinkGA-star.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

FACFailed
For the record... When the template was added by User:MarcK, and also when I removed it, the link pointing to "its nomination subpage" was red, making the template completely useless. This was part of a massive bulk-add of such useless templates to Talk pages, which struck me and other editors as vandalistic. While I am glad that the linking issue is now fixed, I don't take particularly kindly to your implied assertion that I removed the edit out of ignorance or carelessness; when removed, it was as useless as my edit summary stated. Perhaps I should have fixed the template instead of simply removing it, but then that responsibility really falls on the editor who added the template in the first place; and frankly, I don't think that even the fixed version adds much information.

In any case, thanks for making sure that the templates are now blue-linked and somewhat less useless than before. Cheers! -- Visviva 13:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you bother to read my usrpage
Most of it's boring ;D! 68.39.174.238 01:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (386)Enh... It doesn't matter that much, it's a public display so I can't really complain if people DO read it ;D! 68.39.174.238 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RE:Thanks
You're welcome. Regards -- M o e   ε  19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:172.144.50.56
Sorry, thats the first time that has ever happened. I confess, I copied your no personal attack message. :) I wont be likely to try that again, Was that a template that you used for your message? Ans  e  ll  06:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Novels
Hi thank you for joining the WikiProject. There is still plenty of scope for influencing things and making your contribution count. We are about establishing standards for Novel based articles and writing articles that meet our own and others high standards, and to improve Wikipedia's diet of articles on Fiction books, otherwise called Novels. If you have any questions, do ask. Please be very welcome. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  08:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

reply
I see what you mean about the photo overlapping the template. I hadn't noticed that before. It's generally better to address the issue by changing the template itself, as I did here. Inserting an arbitrary number of &lt;br&gt; linebreaks is not good, because not everybody uses the same browser or font size. What may appear to be "fixing an overlap" for one user could be "creating a large, unnecessary gap" for another user. Look at the article again, it should appear correctly now. — Apr. 23, '06 [03:00] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

Welcome to Esperanza!
Welcome, Chcknwnm, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, we will keep you updated about the results. Because you are a new member, you are not able to vote in these elections, but you will be more than welcome to take part in the elections in June.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC Tutorial written by one of our members. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Fe e zo (Talk) 10:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Enterprise first flight.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Enterprise first flight.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 22:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why?
Any reason you nominated templet spoiler for deletion? Happy editing- Banana04131 03:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that your reason is quite clear. Thanks for trying to keep the wikipedia honest and consistent (even though I voted to keep).--<font color="Green">E <font color="Blue">va <font color="Red">d <font color="Red">b  09:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're Welcome...
Chuck, thanks for the reply. I've just joined Esperanza, and its nice to already be helping to encourage wikipedians and make this a happier place. Thanks. (PS - It's pretty early/late in Illinois right now, isn't it?)--<font color="Green">E <font color="Blue">va <font color="Red">d <font color="Red">b  09:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bust that stress...
Hello, Chuck. Just wanted to drop by in the hope that your stress has gone down a notch or two. My advice is don't take any comments that could be construed as attacks or assumptions of bad faith to heart. People who write comments like the ones you bemoan on your Esperanza alert would probably equally bemoan such behaviour if they were on the receiving end. My advice is keep a lively sense of the ridiculous, and keep your standards up by refusing to respond in kind! While I have no strong feelings about the keeping or deletion of the spoiler template, I commend your effort in nominating it if you feel strongly about it. Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 11:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Titan

 * Hey, just wanted to say thanks for your work on Star Trek: Titan, and the good commuinication about editing issues. I went back to the article tonight and saw loads of new stuff and loved it. Keep up the good work, Chuck 08:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think about 40% of my edits are to talk pages. I think they're woefully underused and nothing bugs me more than people making conflicting edits and using (if anything) only the summaries to communicate with each other. The Titan article's not so bad, but after having edited a number of more controversial pages on this and other wikis, I like to take full advantage of the talk pages because no one person has all the answers and/or best ideas. - Hayter 05:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason half of the people voting refer to WP:POINT...
...is that you have strongly implied in a number of places that your actual problem with the spoiler template is that you disagree about the presentation of images in the Abu Ghraib article. A better place to air your concerns on improper images would be one of the policy pages. Further, your nom states that the tag is censorship but does not explain. Per the voting page, none of us is able to find the connection that you see. Thanks MilesVorkosigan 16:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks..
Thanks for your advice and your time. I'd assumed the user in question was manic dpressive, but your theory sounds good too. Have a great day.--<font color="Green">E <font color="Blue">va <font color="Red">d <font color="Red">b  14:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm manic-depressive. That's why my mood changes when I want it to. I treated you decent when you acted decent; when you returned to old form and broke trust...then I let it be known that I wasn't going to put up with it anymore. You've had so many chances, preferring to blow it all. You've asked me time and again. I gave you answers. You ignored the fact that you brought up requests for discussion, so you discussed nothing but the same drivel and missing the point--over and over again. I'm sorry, but you've pushed my patience beyond normal limits. Thickheaded? See my User discussion page; look at the userbox trifecta and what it means. Eva, don't you dare bother me again! IP Address 20:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's up to you, but don't bet on me taking to kindly the badgering she gives me and with which words she does so. But, you fancy yourself valiant and lacking objective? Let her handle this herself. She's a big girl. IP Address 03:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I dragged you into this, Chuck. I'd not realized that you'd get messages from IP Address on your talk page. There are no hard feelings, and I appreciate your attempt to be neutral and bold. We'll see what happens. Thanks.--<font color="Green">E <font color="Blue">va <font color="Red">d <font color="Red">b  08:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for reverting vandalism on my userpage! —   <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1">nathanrdotco<font color="#336666">m  (Got something to say? Say it.) 07:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC) As regards to the recent edits on my talk that you reverted (thank you again), I have no idea what they are either, so I've asked the user myself. —   <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1">nathanrdotco<font color="#336666">m  (Got something to say? Say it.) 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism Warnings
Sorry about that, I just saw that lovely greeting User: Anarchy101 whatever put on top of my page so I assumed that he had vandalized. Cheers, Mahoga <b style="color:red;">ny</b>
 * See this edit


 * Sorry to bug you but see this edit, this guy obviously has problems. Mahoga <b style="color:red;">ny</b>

Compromise re Herald
How is banning a link to the official site of body of heralds - one of which the article is about - a compromise? Having read the edits I'm still none the wiser as to what the problem with the link is - other than the personal argument between two users. Alci12 13:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

 * In response to:
 * Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I was browsing through past RfA's (sorry that your's did not go through) and saw your answer to JoshuaZ's question recently. I hope you do not mind, but I've quoted your answer on my userpage, as something I believe important that you have described wonderfully. Let me know if you object. Have a good day, Chuck(척뉴넘) 13:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not object! I'm honored :-) &mdash;M e ts501 talk 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting on my RfA
Mahoga <b style="color:red;">ny</b>

IP_Address report on WP:RFI
Peculiar is definitely the right word, but I'm not sure vandalism is. The user has been warned to stop the talk page spamming (and it did seem to be a one-off burst, for now at least). Edits to articles look more like potential WP:3RR issues rather than actual vandalism. 3RR violations should be reported to WP:AN3. Feel free to get back to me on my talk page with any questions. Petros471 19:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Esperanza User Page Award
Don't worry about it! The message on the page wasn't actually that clear, it's just what has been done in the past. Have fun being a judge! -- Nataly a 23:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings
May I ask when you feel should ever be used? I ask only because looking at your recent contributions you have removed the template from quite a few places it seems logical (Anakin Skywalker, for example, when it's perfectly possible someone has only seen some of the films and looks up the article). First, Spoiler warning explicitly states "Not all visitors will recognize the site as an encyclopedia, which should strive first to inform, spoilers or not. The article should also contain analyses and background detail not available—or at least, not obvious—in the work being critiqued. Where this is the case, a spoiler notice should be made prominent as a simple courtesy."

The section in italics pertains to general plot summaries that purposefully do not include spoilers, such as much of the Plot section under Cheers. The bold section clearly says that when you cannot discuss a subject without spoilers (such as the specific sections of Cheers that were spoiler'ed) you should include the tag. This is precisely what the article had, precisely what was approved of by a large enough majority of the Wikipedia public to become a featured article, and precisely what Raul chose to appear on the Main Page. As I said on Cheers talk page, I do not wish to violate the 3RR so I have brought this to a third party for review. I hope you do not see my actions in a bad light, but what they truly are, attempts to preserve the best encyclopedia Wikipedia can offer while simultaneously not letting that perfection of detail ruin a great fictional work for any potential fans. Staxringold 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with you about the part about preserving the best encyclopedia Wikipedia has to offer. Of course we can disagree, that is what this encyclopedia is all about :). Don't worry, you didn't sounds condescending, and I respect the inclusion of a 3rd party (btw: do you mind if I ask who it is?). Anyway, I believe it very superfulous to have a heading labeled plot + a spoiler tag. It seems very redundant, as most people who read that it's the plot, will take it to mean that it contains the whole plot, details, endings and all. As for Joe Schmoe talking in the coffe shop with x and y in town z being what the show is about, that information belongs in a plot introduction, which generally comes before the plot, without any heading. Thank you for the good communication, even though we do disagree. Ch<font color="Green">u ck(척뉴넘) 14:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, it's nice to have a disagreement that doesn't devolve into a shouting match. Thanks for restoring the spoiler tags until we've reached some kind of an agreement. I asked User:Kmf164 to look over things (he was the third party I mentioned), but he's afraid he has limited experience with film and television articles so he suggested the same thing you did, discuss it at the template talk page. I'll head over there and do that right after hitting save page. Staxringold 14:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As to your list of questions (don't worry about long posts, better to say it all in one than to play talk-page-tag) I'd say:
 * Sections that include spoiling materials (plot details on things other than the general premise of the show that is immediately gleaned) should include spoiler tags.
 * I believe the spoiler tag should generally apply to any fictional work - be it television, film, play, book, character, or game - the article for which includes spoiling data. IMO the use of spoiler tags should have more to do with whether or not facts included could spoil the work and not what the work is.
 * I think the purpose of the endspoiler template is much more limited, more just so that an article such as Cheers (I keep using Cheers as an example because I know it inside and out) can include details on the plot (including those that require spoiler tags) where they would make sense in the article and use the end spoiler tag to make it clear the rest of the article (be it on awards the work won or whatever) doesn't contain spoilers.
 * I believe a whole article can be considered a spoiler, but a well-written article should not be.
 * An article's introduction should be as spoiler-free as possible (for example, I recently removed a sentence from the lead of Dog Day Afternoon (which I'm working on) that told you a key plot detail about why Sonny Wortzik was robbing the bank that is by no means immediately clear.
 * I believe spoilers should generally be grouped together, but if an article's pacing makes sense in form A but form A has 2 seperate spoiler-filled sections I would rather use form A and two spoiler tags than a messier form B with one spoiler tag.
 * Again, I believe that any fictional work can be spoiled, so spoiler tags should be used to protect the integrity of any story secrets regardless of the medium (I don't play MGS but it seems like the type of game with twists and turns that could be spoiled in a length plot summary).
 * Thanks for the detailed questions, what do you think? Staxringold 15:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As for plays, as I said above anything fictional should be eligible if it's spoilable. As for age, *shrug*, I think that's a judgement call per Penny Arcade. Finally, I agree documentaries don't need spoiler tags except in extremely odd cases with things like the mocumentary Incident at Loch Ness. Staxringold 21:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

George Bush
Sorry about the comment I made on Tony Sidaway's talk page; I'll remove it if you like. My family is traditionally socialist-democratic though, so his policies don't really agree with me and I don't agree with them. :P Mopper Speak! 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Disappointed
I just came across Nathan's RfC, and was suprised to see you certified that Cyde and Kelly Martin were bullying and attacking Nathan. But after perusing Tony Sidaway's talk page, I am quite surprised and disappointed to see your behavior there. This comment is especially inappropriate, and reflects very poorly on you. Not only do I find your logic bizarre, it is incomprehensible that you are attacking Tony for posting a potentially controversial block on AN. That's what we're supposed to do. Attempting to inflame the situation by implying that his goal here was to power-trip and that his sole purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia crosses into incivility. It is a credit to Tony that he remained calm and did not return your insults. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only did you use inflammatory language, you used it in a provocative way: "Tell me how 3 flags in a sig (that are 20px each) is disrupting to anyone, except admin's who want to power-trip (that's right, I said it again), because that's all you are doing." If the behavior is inappropriate, you should be able to criticize that without speculating on the bad faith of the user's motives. Furthermore, your perception that all directives must be written in policy is not accurate. While Wikipedia has many policies, it does not contain a well-defined, complete, legal code. Rather, it depends on the view of the community. Situations arise all the time that are not explicitly written into policy, and it would be a waste of the community's time to debate each potential case. Administrators are explicitly entrusted to use their judgment. The inflaming I described was not that you criticized an administrator—I criticize users, administrators or not, when I feel they have acted in error. It is your use of terms like "power-tripping" to ascribe ill motives. Nor is Cyde's statement ("Please remove the images in your sig") either an order or bullying, anymore than your statement "Please comment again on my talk page..." is an order. It is a request. Cyde requested Nathan to remove the images, pointing out that it was beyond what was expected. Nathan responded by saying the only way he would do it were if it were made policy and the software were rewritten to disable them. This reply was at both inappropriate and shows a lack of community respect as Nathan is effectively saying "Even if it's policy I won't comply; only if you force me will I comply." — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, and after thinking about it for a while, I have decided to withdrawl my endorsements from the RFC (I hope that that is allowed, and I am not violating policy. After your comment about the RFC looking bad for Nathan, I decided that it is looking bad for me, and my chances of ever becoming an admin, hence the withdrawl. For the record, I still support Nathan's complaint against Tony, but have recognized my own errors for which someone could make a complaint against me (eg, the edit you mention above). I hope you will not forever consider me an attacking user, and look forward to seeing you around Wikipedia. Regards, Ch<font color="Green">u ck(척뉴넘) 09:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I could basically do with any support I could get, I respect your decision not to be involved. -- Natha<font color="#336666">n (Got something to say? Say it.) 09:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are certainly allowed to withdraw from RFC, although traditionally votes are struck out rather than removed. The RFC doesn't reflect on you the way it calls attention to Nathan's behavior; you can certainly still participate if you like. The endorsement of Nathan's quite dubious statement was what I thought made your judgment look bad; if you still disagree with Tony's actions, you are welcome to write an outside opinion, add an endorsement to one of them already existing, or modify your previous endorsement to clarify which parts of the endorsement you agree or disagree with. It's important to be critical, when it's constructive. My lone opinion is rather unimportant, but if the comments you made were part of an isolated incident, and you normally don't interact with other users in this manner, you have little to worry about. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just came across your entry to Esperanza's stressed users. I apologize I have contributed to your stress. Interpreting your comments to me in light of that post suggests you wish to pacify me, that you would like to continue participating in the debate but perhaps are fearful that you may experience retribution, perhaps in the form of a block. If this is so, you need not worry: the most you have to fear—and what I was trying to warn you about—is loss of community respect due to a perception of poor judgment. If indeed you felt that I was somehow threatening you, then I apologize—I was not. It was not my intention to pressure you to leave the RFC—I haven't made any comment to the other supporters. The reason I left the message on your talk page is because I like you, and I don't want to see you making statements you'll later regret. If you wish to be critical, please continue. I do a good share (probably too much) of offering criticism myself to both administrators and non-administrators, as you'll see if you peruse my contributions. And it occasionally has gotten more serious, such as Requests for comment/Stevertigo or Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Proposed decision; the users in both cases ultimately had their administrative powers removed. Feel free to resume your participation if you wish, and feel free to criticize me or other users if you feel we are acting inappropriately. If I may, let me offer a few pieces of advice. One, be sure that the behavior is inappropriate. There are more than a few quite experienced Wikipedians who feel that Nathan acted inappropriately here, and that Cyde and Kelly's comments were not out of line. Two, consider what you feel the purpose of the interaction is. An RFC is not always the appropriate action, even for inappropriate behavior. An RFC over a single 12-hour block, one which the administrator had instantly announced on AN and which had been discussed there, seems...unproductive at best. Three, and most important, remember to moderate your tone. Everything is saved on Wikipedia. Comments you make in the heat of the moment remain to rile up or insult the user, or to come back and bite you later on. Anything you need to say you should be able to say calmly and rationally, without insulting the other user. You should be able to explain the fault of the action. Trust me, it's more effective that way. Anyway, feel free to pursue this matter in whatever method you feel is effective. I'm not trying to force my opinion here—I'm sure you're not the first person to speak rudely to Tony and the RFC borders on frivolity—but I just thought I'd alert you to something you might later regret. Let me know how I can help you. I'm on your side. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I don't feel that I'm getting through to you, Knowledge Seeker: 'Do this' is an order. 'Do this' with a 'please' on the end is still an order. 'Could you do this please' is not. I wasn't asked, the sentence did not end in a question mark, I was ordered. Pure and simple - and I don't take orders. Think what you want about me - since I don't know you, the impact on me is minimal. What you may or may not think of me doesn't hurt me in the slightest. -- Natha<font color="#336666">n (Got something to say? Say it.) 09:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Signatures
Yeah, my signature is pretty boring, but that is the point. Look, I meant no insult to you or anyone else...Tony and I go back a year and half around here, so I was just trying to humor him. In a nutshell...I think garish signatures and userboxes makes us look like we are doing something other than what we are supposed to be doing...namely write an encyclopedia. Of course we want the place to be fun too, since it's not like anyone is going to get rich editing here. However, some lines have to be drawn and when an editor is asked repeatedly to alter a username template and refuses I can't say I agree with that. I'm sure all his other contributions are excellent as are yours.--MONGO 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There are no orders!
On the Tony Sidaway RFC, you said: "He needs to heed to orders stated in Wikipedia policy and by the ArbCom."

Well, the arbitration committee can sort of give orders, I suppose, but "wikipedia policy" thankfully cannot. Nor can Admins.

Rather, the idea is that the essay/guideline/policy pages are a description of what people generally have agreed on over time to be The Right Thing ("descriptive, not prescriptive"). Users (and that includes users with the admin bit set) are supposed to Do The Right Thing, all the time, whether it's already been written down or not.

According to you, what's The Right Thing here? And why? Let's see if we can agree and form a consensus.

Kim Bruning 11:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC.
Chuck, RfC has been retracted to retain what little sanity I have left. -- Natha<font color="#336666">n (Got something to say? Say it.) 12:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User Page Judging
Hi Chcknwnm! You've signed up to be a judge for the Esperanza User Page Award! You'll have three user pages to examine. The user pages you get coincide with your signup number. So if you signed up to be a judge in spot 1 than you will get nominations 1-3. Pick your favorite one, and list it in the finalist section. After all 5 judges have chosen a finalist it's time to award them 1-10 points in the four categories:


 * Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
 * Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
 * Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
 * General niceness: at the judges' discretion

Please see the Scores section on this page for additional information on your job as a judge.

Keep in mind that your scores are confidential! Email Petros471 with your scores and final picks. As soon as all the scores have been tallied, a winner will be announced! Thanks. - Pureblade  | Θ 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Highway's RfA
 Request for Adminship 

Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers

Did you get my message?
Some time ago, I left you a message. You didn't respond, but you got several messages around the same time, I think, so I just wanted to be certain you received it and to know that you should not feel threatend or pressured by me, if indeed I was the one inspiring the comment. OK? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, you're right, I didn't notice your message. (I didn't notice Nathan's strange adding of '7' right afterwards either...how strange.) Don't worry, I didn't feel threatened, and I'm very glad you sent your comments. I was in over my head, and just got too into it during the heat of the moment. I had interacted with Nathan before, and I saw him in trouble and ran to defend. While the block was wrong, so was the RfC, and I now realize that, and I hope I saved my dignity in time. I am not normally that way when I talk to other users, but that isn't an excuse to get away with it once. This was my first time ever being involved with something formal on Wikipedia regarding a complaint. I didn't exactly understand the hierarchy of complaining, and thought that the RfC was neccessary. I see that that is not true now, and probably should have ended it after the conversation on Tony's talk page. When I added myself to the stressed users and said, "...and have to sit back now and watch as certain admins get away with abusing their power", it was not because I feared a block, but because of what I recognized after you alerted me that my judgement might come under question. I really do appreaciate you messages, and sorry I didn't notice the new ones. I hope to see you around in the future, Ch<font color="Green">u ck(척뉴넘) 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it. If you need advice or any help, just let me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0
Hi Chuck, and welcome to the Version 1.0 Editorial Team! I wanted to find out what projects you might be interested in working in. We currently need help at Core Topics, and we will very soon need help contacting WikiProjects and reviewing nominations for the test CD release. We are currently re-assessing the main core topics table, and as we do this we add the core topic template containing the assessment to the talk page, as in (see Talk:Animal for an example). In a week or two we will start a mass contact of all the WikiProjects and encourage them to use the new automated assessment handling. We will also open up V0.5 at around the same time (and maybe WP:V1N?. Is there something there that would interest you?  Thanks, Walkerma 06:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I noticed you'd been helping out a bit with the Core Topics COTF and the like. I'm thinking of opening up V0.5 for nominations on Thursday, and I'd like to get a nice "pipeline" of articles going from core topics into V0.5 as smoothly as possible. Your help in assessing and improving those articles is much appreciated. If you could pitch in and help review articles for inclusion in V0.5 too, that'd be a great help! Thanks, Walkerma 02:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, and thank you for your hard work on the review team. I wanted to check whether or not you wanted to add comments regarding reviews. I have reflected on this, and also done a few reviews, and I wonder if we should have a place where the reviewer can put comments on all reviews. I'm thinking also, I'd like to know things like "Why did an FA like Tony Blair fail on quality (presumably it's gone downhill?) At the same time I think we shouldn't make the reviewing job more burdensome than necessary.  Now you've done a few more reviews, do you think a page for comments could work?  I will also post something on the nominations talk page.  Thanks again, and keep up the good work! Walkerma 03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, you seem to have something specific in mind, so can you set something up and let us know how your system works? Let's give it a try! Thanks, Walkerma 04:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks! When we set up V0.5, we wanted to make sure we got the nominations processed quickly, that's why we went with only one reviewer. Since this is only a test release, I think two people's opinions (nominator + reviewer) should be enough - if there are a few weak articles people can accept that (this isn't even V0.9!). The idea is that we can have another review before it goes into the next version, and by the time it goes into V1.0 it will have had reviews by several people. Shouldn't that be enough?

I also think that rather than assigning articles to people, the current system is working OK and should stay. The way it is now, people review what they feel they can - for example, I may be a science major in college who feels OK reviewing Big bang but not Economics, but maybe I just did a paper for my art class on Vincent Van Gogh so I could do a good job with that. Also, people on Wikipedia may float in & out - for example, I'm heading off to a conference for much of this week, but I may decide to spend several hours later in the month working on clearing old 0.5 noms.

As for the format, I love it! It's cleverly put together, and I think it could be very useful. Let's hear what others think - but I'm off to bed now. Walkerma 06:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing List of Oregon State University people
Thanks for reviewing List of Oregon State University people. I have replied to your comments on the talk page in hopes you could expand a little further on one of the points you made. VegaDark 07:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Trading spaces program
If you can wait 1-2 days, post a theme for your page on my talk, and I will renovate your talk page.- Dictator G  a  n  g  staEB -13:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Trading spaces
Hello, Chcknwnm, thank you for signing up to participate in Esperanza's trading spaces program. As you requsted to have your user page renovated by another user, Gangsta-Easter-Bunny will be renovating your userpage. Please contact Gangsta-Easter-Bunny on their talk page about the renovating. The renovating will be listed at Esperanza/Programs, please feel free to update the status as it changes. Enjoy!

Re: New Idea for 0.5 Version Nominations reviewing
The obvious concern would be that assigning reviewers to each article, as you have done (aside from requiring someone to coordinate the work) will basically eliminate the chance that the reviewer knows something about the topic. Given that we're using GAs (which also only require a single approval) or even unrated articles, such a method brings about a significant possibility that an article could get approved for V0.5 without ever having had a sanity check by someone at least passingly familiar with the material. Kirill Lokshin 06:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we need more reviewers, obviously ;-)
 * More generally, though, I think it's fine that some articles slip through the cracks without having anyone with subject-area knowledge review them, so long as the majority of articles don't get that treatment. Maybe we could use the categories from the 0.5 listing and have reviewers explicitly choose categories they'd feel comfortable reviewing when they sign up?  It would decrease the chance of the world's foremost Pokemon expert having to determine whether Thirty Years' War was suitable for inclusion (and vice versa). Kirill Lokshin 06:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Signatures.
I know it's a pain when your signature is arbitrarily changed because the other party thinks it's "long and unsightly", it was done to me too.

Please see also my request to Tony Sidaway, asking him (as sweet as pie, which is probably much more polite than was called for) to knock off the signature editing.

Just a head's up. He'll do that. — Natha<font color="#336666">n (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)