User talk:Christopher Parham/Archive07

'''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:Christopher Parham. 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
 * Archive 6 -- May 5, 2006 to October 19, 2006

Email
FYI, I've just sent you an email. JoshuaZ 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Montesquieu
The image of Montesquieu is a profile because it depicts only one side of his face. I will concede that to describe it as a portrait is not incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lvms90 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Thank You!
Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎8) -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

email
Hi Christopher- I saw you answering questions on the citing sources policy page, so I figured I'd ask you. How should I cite an email? Specifically this is an email from the creater of a software program (don't worry, it's a free program, he's not getting any money) giving information about his program, ie history, impetus for creation, coding idiosynchrasies, etc, that has not been published anywhere online. If you could shed some light, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!--Ioshus (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

External link reverts
Thanks for the heads up and I commented on what I found on this project back at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Calltech 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Twit
Can you be a serious student of political science and take David Duke seriously?

Please, admittedly, I got a litttle carried away, but (1) I was frustrated at how much BS was in that article, and (2) he's a twit anyway.

Facts:

He did NOT graduate from LSU.

He did NOT earn a PhD in anything, from anyway - at least not in any real sense of the word. A doctorate takes years of study and hard work. When, exactly, did he do this?

He did NOT teach English to Laotian military officers.

He did NOT work for Air America.

He was NOT Time's "Person of the Year".

Those are NOT his parents in the picture.

He IS a homosexual.

He IS an idiot.
 * Obviously you would get rather further if you attempted to use an encyclopedic tone and refrained from taking potshots. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Saint Mary's Catholic School AfD and DRV
First, I fail to see how "Deletion nominations in which nobody presents a policy-based reason for deletion should always be closed as keep." If there are a dozen delete !voters, all noting WP:N, and no keep !voters, should the article still be kept? Secondly, one of the people in the AfD did note that the article lacked (and, as it happens, still lacks) reliable sources, which is policy. I'm sorry if it seems as if I'm badgering you, as this is not my intention. I would like a clarification of your statement if you are willing to provide one. Of course, I would ask that you change your !vote, or at least state whether or not a redirect (as someone- not myself- attempted to perform after the AfD) would be acceptable, but your opinion is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Thanks, and have a nice day. -- Kicking222 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, and thanks a lot. -- Kicking222 20:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Demo page for citation system
Hi. I saw your response to my demo page. I'm fairly sure that you have not rightly understood the proposal. If, on the other hand, you know of articles that are already using the system demonstrated on the page, please point them out to me. Thanks. -- Lonewolf BC 07:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I am sorry to say that those examples you gave (on the talk-page of "citation templates") don't actually use the system I've proposed. They use a similar style of citation, but they don't employ the technical elements existing within WP in the proposed way. The latter is what the proposal is really all about. Thanks anyway. -- Lonewolf BC 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Deletion Template
You recently posted a deletion template on The page previously knwon as Devin Scanlon. Although I agree with you as far as why it should be deleted goes, you deleted the entire article just to put the template, which is not allowed. From now on please post deletion templates at the top of the article without deleting anything.--Danielfolsom 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I agree with you, it was a crap page, but sadly you have to takt the slipperly slope here. For example, editors should never edit another users comments, even if it's for spelling and grammar - the reason is that it could be taken to an extreme where eventually the edited comments don't represent the opinion of the original. With this case - if people removed content when adding a speedy delete template, just because they thought it was worthless, controversies would eventually errupt. Removing content goes against the entire speedy delete process, where an admin analyzes the article and then determines whether or not to keep it. I'm sorry, but I really feel that until an admin has deleted the article, it should be kept as is, with the deletion templates warning visitors about the content. --Danielfolsom 00:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I wasn't aware of that policy, but waitasecond, I didn't ADD anything to the article except a bio deletion template, do me a favor and check the original to make sure it wasn't in there. I'll go ahead and revert back to what you had - but please get back to me, I'm 100% positive I didn't add anything.--Danielfolsom 01:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (P.S., I'm citing you on my user page)


 * Oh ok thanks, again, I am really sorry though, I didn't know that Wikipedia had a policy on blanking - and by the way I just finished linkning you to my user page, if you don't want me to use your name though, feel free to comment back, also feel free to add anything. I think I say this, but I'm using that section so I would remember to rethink editting an article, so I would actually appreciated if you added anything, since obviously I have alzheimer's - I'm not remembering too well. --Danielfolsom 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
--Thanks! Christopher Parham (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. I'm not sure who I ticked off there, or if I was just a random target. -- Kesh 04:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Popups
You've made several edits with the summary "Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups" - perhaps your popup is misconfigured?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Trans fat FAC
Hi there, thanks for you suggestion on the organization of the Trans fat article. I have some more thoughts on that, including a suggestion that I'd like your opinion on. (It's over here.) Thanks! -- cmhTC 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –m y s i d ☎ 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans
I noticed you did an edit on this, and would like to make a very informal request for comment, if you have time. It's not an edit war, but there's some intense discussion. I just dropped in by accident and rewrote the lead section, which I found very woolly. This diff shows the lead as I found it, and the current state (which is greatly improved). User:TonyTheTiger has worked hard, mostly alone, but in my evaluation is not precise enough. I'm trying to do corrections and make my case, but a third party would be very helpful. I'm not even particularly involved with this. The ideal would be to point Tony in the right direction. If you can't do this, let me know and I'll cast my net elsewhere. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ta. Tyrenius 03:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Those articles
Yes, if you would email me the articles, I'd like to read them, though I doubt if they would meet our reliable sources requirements. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I got them, thanks, I haven't had a chance to read them yet, I will when I get home. Vintagekits put a request on my Talk page to get them, as well, would you mind? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim "Dim" McCormack, Gerard "Jock" Davison
Hi mate, following on for the Gerard Montgomery issue a few days ago, what is going to happen with these two articles, Zoe deleted them (without discussion) and then she asked my to find a reference to show that they had been charged with the attached which I did here, two days ago, I then followed it up on on her talk page here (without response) until she sent me this messege on my talk page where she accused me of harrasing her. Firstly, I thought that was a bit out of order, she was quick to delete the pages without discussion and I have waited 3 days for her to action anything. I dont want her to ban me for nothing but I do want ot resolve thiese issue. Can you help/what should I do? regards--Vintagekits 12:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I think valid criticisms were raised in areas that I need to work on, so I've withdrawn my name. I intend to work on addressing the concerns that were raised, and think I need to work contributing without allowing myself to become as stressed as I have been at times, which did result in some inappropriate behavior. Perhaps I may re-explore adminship at some point in the future, but it's a little early to consider that. Again, thank you. Fan-1967 21:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
cheers, its appriciated.--Vintagekits 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:RFAR
Hello Christopher, thanks for your clarification on my talk page. I had posed the same question to Thatcher and got a similar reply though a long discussion followed. Many members of the arbcom are accepting the case just to address this point. I think thats the right way as clarity is always helpful especially after we have grown to such a size where statements could be interpreted in many different ways by the ever expanding community &mdash; Lost (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men
Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey Christopher,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Location Maps
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries. New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps. As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design. Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the '''presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited''' to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option. There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:05 (UTC)

Natl1's RFA

 * Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments
... in the discussion about "Articles about ongoing enterprises should be official policy." The goal is to protect Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedic resource, and protect Wikipedia from civil liability. The consensus appears to be that WP:BLP should be modified to include ongoing enterprises. What do you think? Please add any additional comments to the existing discussion on this page. Dino 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Hi, Christopher Parham, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honored at the trust the community has placed in me and hope my conduct as an administrator will justify that trust. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 09:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
 It's been a week and a bit since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Ok, you've been approached before about being an admin. You responded with. That's the latest mention I can find of anyone approaching you about being an admin. I don't care who nominates you, whether it be myself, Encephalon, or anyone else. But, it is obvious from your editing that you are very active in vandal fighting, and active at AfD. It's clear you have a need for the tools. You're well respected, you've never been blocked, and from a cursory review do not appear to have been on the pointy end of a dispute. So, what's stopping you? Encephalon is still active (though lightly in the last few months) and you'd said you would approach him if you wanted to be an admin. So, go approach him. If he doesn't want to do it, or you don't want him to, I'd be happy to review you against my guidelines towards a possible nomination. Hoping you grab the mop, --Durin 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the time difference over the last 50 edits :) True; 3 edits in the last two months. I didn't see that. Still, you did say you'd approach him first and I respect and adhere to commitments. As to self nom; be careful. I will re-iterate that I don't care who nominates you, just that it's blatantly obvious you should be an admin. Be aware; self nominations, even of long experienced users have a ~20% less chance of success. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_82 for supporting data backing this up. Even noms of users >10,000 edits have an 18% better chance if not self-nommed. That's significant. It's silly really; all things being equal, there isn't any reason a self nom should have less of a chance of success than a non-self nom. Maybe there's something peculiar about self-noms that causes them to do poorly, or maybe it's contributors viewing self-noms poorly, or a combination. That's hard to discern. But, the track record says; don't self nominate if you want to succeed. There's no a single category of self-nomination users (based on edit counts) that has a better than 50% chance of success. I recommend you find someone to nominate you. If you want me to, I'll conduct a review of you. --Durin 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I just noticed since I was curious how many edits you had relative to the above discussion; you just crossed 10,000 edits. Not that edit counts carry any more significance than the number of grains of salt here, but congratulations anyways :) --Durin 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Entrusted with the Bucket!
] Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!

School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Deryck C. 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Much thanks to you too. I wish I can do well in my exams. --Deryck C. 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No personal offense intended by my last edit of your page. I guess I respect your work - it's just I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of Wikipedia.

Process overhead ??
I read your comment about the GA being flawed, and don't understand what you mean: What is process overhead? Richiar 04:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Strong Automobile Objective on DYK for 8 March 2007
Thank you for your contributions! &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Issue de table
Well, the feast is over for this time, and off we go into a period of intellectual fast. But mayhaps will we meet again some day to make more medieval merry! My regards to you for your comments at the nomination.

sincerely, Peter Isotalo 07:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)