User talk:Christopher Parham/Archive06

'''This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form. New additions to this page are unlikely to be seen; please direct all comments to my latest talk page at User_talk:Christopherparham. Thanks!'''

'''Welcome to my talk page. I will respond to comments made here on your talk page, so no need to watch. Please note your responses here, as I will probably not be watching your talk page unless I messaged you first.'''


 * Archive 1 -- November 21, 2004 to October 14, 2005
 * Archive 2 -- October 14, 2005 to December 5, 2005
 * Archive 3 -- December 5, 2005 to January 11, 2006
 * Archive 4 -- January 12, 2006 to March 11, 2006
 * Archive 5 -- March 12, 2006 to May 5, 2006

Federalist Papers
Hi Christopher. I notice you reverted my edit of Federalist Papers to the new reference mechanism. Your "edit summary" says "rv, please dont". Would you mind elaborating a little? Thanks. EncMstr 22:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll leave it as is. However, the article appears on a list of articles needing conversion—and will as long as the cite template is used (see the bottom of Template messages/Sources of articles).  So someone else might do the same thing.  EncMstr 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Houston, we've still got a problem.
Dear Chris,

How are things? I'm here to ask about something we spoke about some time ago. There're 3 or 4 people I've wanted to see obtain administrator permissions on Wikipedia for a long time. One of them has just gotten it, one other soon will (I hope), and then there's you. A finer candidate for sysop permissions I have never met, and it'd be my pleasure to do the honors. If you'd like someone else to nominate you, I'd understand too, no worries. Give it some thought, ok? — Encephalon 20:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I quite understand—that was in fact one of the main reasons I myself held off for a considerable time. Well, if and when you do decide to go up for it, you should know I'll always consider it an honor and a pleasure to nominate you, Chris.;-) All the best — Encephalon 23:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

re: DRV transclusions
I was just following the pattern of the page. I took a day or two off from Wikipedia and discovered that someone had switched them all to sub-pages. It wasn't discussed that I could find but no one seriously objected to it either.

Personally, I prefer the sub-pages because they make finding the old discussions easier. And we are needing to do that more lately. It also gives the person making the close a place to record their reasoning in more detail than the "kept deleted" at the bottom of the page. Have a good evening. Rossami (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

GA spam on featured template
hi, i see that the "good article" spam has been put back in Template:featured despite objections from several users. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required to put it there in the first place).

this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations!

they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed.

i would appreciate any comments on the template's talk page. i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! Zzzzz 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Dear Christopher Parham &mdash; Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 72/2/0 and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any adminnery I can help you with in the future. &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

FARC and FAR
As you're active on the page and supported the merger, I wondered if you might comment on the sub page: Featured article review/sub. Hopefully, the merger will occur in a week. Note the explanations are longer but the actual procedure is identical except you do not need the waiting period on the talk page. Marskell 09:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and: Template:FAR/sub

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available
 After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You answered my question
Thanks! -ReuvenkT C E 14:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WrightPPCCScheme1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WrightPPCCScheme1.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, that's what happens when you upload at 6 AM. Addressed. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

EWS23's RfA
Hi Christopher! Thank you very much for supporting my request for adminship. I always hear your name mentioned as someone who would make a good administrator, and I know when your RfA finally comes around it will far outshine my own. Thanks again, and please let me know if you ever see something that I could be doing better. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Tipsy McStagger
I am a deletionist and I like deleting things. No, it wasn't just that it was on AfD. It's just that it didn't really fall under any category on WP:CSD. enochlau (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

List of proper nouns containing an exclamation mark
Hi,

Just so you know, I have closed the very confusing DRV on this article. In my judgment, the deletion, undeletion, reopening, reclosing, renaming and redeletion of this article that occurred during the DRV marred any attempt at a definite consensus. Based on the comments rendered after this sequence of events occurred, I have found a consensus to restore the article and begin debate afresh. I advise you of this because you had offered the most cogent argument in the article's favor, and might be able to help it receive a fair hearing. Thanks, Xoloz 03:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
I was wondering if you could provide me with some creative criticism on my Requests for adminship/Computerjoe 3. This way, I can at least improve. Computerjoe 's talk 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/We Belong Together
Since you objected in a prior nomination, it would be appreciated if you could provide your input for this nomination as well. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello Christopher Parham, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman
Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move
As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country). Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Good article
hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template that puts a star on the article's mainpage (you voted in the original deletion debate). the vote is here Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Shcok and Awe
Hi Chris. Thanks for the vote on Shock and Awe. My main concern with the "survey", something in which I have never started, is that Starcare is attempting to place more information, such as the claim that shock and awe is terrorism, in the article along with a multiple of other issue outside of the scope of the survey in an attempt to push his POV. Is he violating any rules? Is this allowed? where you can set up a survey which says one thing and yet does something else? Is there a way that a survey gets invalidated since it is deceptive? I have posts my rebuttals to the lines that he wants included at the end of the talk page. He has yet to address the issues. As an example of the work that I have done for NPOV, please look at my recent work on family values. I'd appreciate your input.ED MD 07:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice contributions to the article. ED MD 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro
Thank you for weighing in. I could not believe my eyes when I saw this article the other day. It was the most obvious candidate for speedy deletion as an attack (I did not know one could ask for that at the time) that I have yet seen on WIkipedia. I did a double take when I saw your comment about Pol Pot -- i had missed that in the author's rant. This attorney is hardly even infamous in his own community, let alone nationally or internationally. A local newspaper reported about the sanction of the attorney for false advertising. That is hardly the equivalent of Pol Pot or John Wayne Gacy. This says volumes about the author, and nothing about the subject of the attack. It disturbs me that this was even such a battle, and still is. Never would I have dreamed someone would add such an article and then defend it so vigorously. jawesq 01:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

FFX-2 FAC
Hi. I was able to locate plenty more critical response info on Final Fantasy X-2. Please let us know if it's sufficient to alleviate your concerns. Ryu Kaze 01:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All in all, it covers the leading (or primary) gaming critics/sites out there, so it's comprehensive (relatively speaking). &mdash; Deckill e r 02:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Heinz Field
You accidentally reverted my coordinates. Next time, you may want to write your paragraph in a seperat document, then hit edit this article and insert just the new paragraph or changes you've written. This will cut down on accidental reverts. This sort of thing happens all the time in the IT world.--Dr who1975 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Shock and awe
What problems? What in particular, of those two paragraphs which you just reverted, have any problems? One is a summary of the other, and the detailed one is completely sourced. Publicola 05:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: shill accusation
You are right. I am sorry. I should have checked the timestamps more carefully. I have removed the offending statement per removal instructions at WP:NPA Starcare 06:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Shock and awe
This is not a compromise: "To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name."

Chris, Shock and Awe is not terrorism by another name.--Scribner 08:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Shock and awe
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Shock and awe, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. KWH 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Away
I'll be away for the next few days. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Unverifiable-external-links
A new tfd discussion has been started because usage guidelines have been added on the template page and because the {tfd} notice was missing for most of the duration of the last discussion. Please review the recently-created usage guidelines before casting your vote. Although my delete vote remained unchanged, I would appreciate your renewed input in this discussion whether or not you agree. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"That's good to know, but frankly the fact that the nominee even accepted this nomination worries me."
How come? (I think he's to new amd I'm surprised that anyone would mistake him for an admin.) Oh, well.

Cheers,


 * Thanks for your reply. I was afraid that would be the case. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 17:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons
Hi,

Sure thing! :) As far as I know, there are no rules on this question.  I only the undelete on request, though.  Of course, if you would relent and allow an RfA, you could (after getting 500 support votes) do these things for yourself! ;)  In jocular admiration, Xoloz 15:24, 11 August 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 14:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion
A portal created recently by - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at: Thanks. --Mais oui! 09:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Miscellany for deletion

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

Santorum
Hi Christopher. As your vote on the Santorum AfD was "per Dpbsmith" let me point out that Dpbsmith's Google SafeSearch filter was unknowingly turned on (or forgotten). Please see my updates at Articles_for_deletion/Santorum. Without the SafeSearch filter, "the frothy mix" shows up as the first and ninth results. I've included instructions for seeing the unfiltered results over at the AfD page. — Coelacan | talk 23:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-references on templates
I actually wondered about your removal of the category from the wrong title templates, as I didn't see any discussion first. My intuition is that people making templates are familiar with WP:ASR, and so there was probably a good reason for making them. But I'm not an admin, and I don't know especially much about this area of WP, so I don't know what the reason might be. Anyway, I just wanted to see if you could provide more explanation (maybe on the talk pages there, which would also prevent people reverting it, if you are indeed right). --Galaxiaad 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong title templates
With the deletion of the lowercase category, maybe it is time to propose deleting all the rest of the wrong title categories. I've tried talking to CyberSkull about this, but he seems unresponsive to the idea of just deleting the categories from the templates. So that probably means we need to do this formally, at CFD. -- Samuel Wantman 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Starcare
The request is here. I had two checks in, one on Publicola (Pepsidrinka's sock) and one on Striver. The clerk merged the two requests which mangled both. Starcare is likely Pepsidrinka's (Publicola) sock.--Scribner 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Checkuser was for Publicola as puppeteer of Starcare. See the request.  The clerk merged two separate requests for Striver and Publicola in a way in which Publicola would not have been checked.
 * Pepsidrinka is Publicola. I'm not the first to pickup that, see his talk.  I checked his contributions pretty thoroughly.  One and the same.--Scribner 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on Point Park Civic Center making Featured Article! A well deserved honor Ruhrfisch 03:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Federalist Papers links to WS
Didn't realize this; sorry about that. To answer your question, yes, that's Wikisource policy, since it allows us to use relative linking: instead of typing Federalist No. 10, all I need is /No. 10. I modified Federalist No. 10 using the two optional arguments of wikisource. I believe that solves the problem for that one&mdash;is that what you meant? --Spangineeres (háblame)  04:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't think that the War on Islam is real, then you too are against Islam.

vandal
this is a school computerr,please do not block.

Jake Gyllenhaal FAC
Hi! You made a comment on the FAC of Jake Gyllenhaal regarding critical commentary: critics have now been added for all major films, so would you mind taking a look at the article and perhaps giving it your support, please? Dev920 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Shock and awe mediation
Hello, I've decided to mediate the Shock and awe case. Sorry it took so long. Anyways, there's some questions you can answer here. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Image licensing question
Someone left a question for me about image licensing and I'm not sure of the answer. Could you look at this and give me your opinion? Thank you. RJFJR 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking at it. RJFJR 17:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice. I've added another question on RJFJR's talk page and would appreciate any feedback you might have. Das my 18:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

School
It's not a bad idea to start like this but its wording is weak to the point of meaninglessness (in particular, #4 and #7 can be argued to apply to any school, #6 would apply to any celeb's kindergarten, #3 applies to most schools depending on how you define 'region' as I'm sure that over sufficient time most schools will win a football trophy). Also, #2 is systemic bias as 50 years is only "old" for an American school, and very young for a European one (my school was 660 years old, by comparison).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Morocco Mediation
The issue suurounding the Moroccan map which you commented on the talk page on has gone to mediation and as a result of that comment you have been listed as a party to the dispute. As a result I ask you to sign to the mediation so that a proper decision can be reached.

P.S I do have I vested interest in getting you to sign but I will understand if you feel no need to. Aussie King Pin 11:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)