User talk:Dominic/Archive5

Lists of airports and companies in the PRC
I'd like to hear your opinion on the recent attempts to display the other versions of these two lists. I've started discussions at the talk pages (airports, companies). Thank you very much. :-) &mdash; Instantnood 07:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

About a block (from user page)
From my own user page:

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.. This account seems to be used for vandalism and personal attacks exclusively. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

So what's this about then? I get a warning (see above) and then dcmdevit just blocks without warning or anything at all? Is this how it's supposed to work?

I had understood that, after the comments that I exchange with Bishonen, I was on some sort of probation. I have not edited anything since then. So why is Dmcdevit blocking me?

Is this supposed to be a serious project or is it just an ego trip for people such as dcmdevit?

212.101.64.4 14:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC) 212.101.64.4 16:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Your "exchange" with Bish (and you comments here as well) showed that you had no intention of stopping the personal attacks. And your contribution history and conversation with Bishonen proves you know how to use a talk page, so your adding that to my user page was simply vandalism. Next time you go around calling people "shitheads" don't be surprised when you find yourself blocked. Oh, and by the way, -Ril-, don't think I'm fooled by your little innocent anonymous sockpuppetry. Dmcdevit·t 17:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

So it is just an ego trip for people like you. I thought so. I'm rather unsure about the usefulness of such a thing as wikipedia, which perhaps show in my uneven attitude to people/things here,  but your arrogant, cocksure attitude "'cos you're an admin and so a really cool guy" is more likely to alienate people than anything I could say.

212.101.64.4 08:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC) P.S. WTF is -Ril-?

I've just noticed that, on your user page, you have a sub-page entitled IP-Blocking. What is the point of having a page of guidelines if you don't bother following them yourself? 212.101.64.4 08:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

NPA
I appreciate the effort here, but I would suggest that objective wording will be much more useful than phrasing that requires subjective interpretation. The idea that the editor and admin don't have a history is hard to determine. one week on the article with the attack, and one week after any block/warning is issued sort of separates the admin from the editor. It also requires more than one admin to permanently block an editor (6, to be precise). while it isnt' perfect, it is objective, which makes it easier to implement and harder for admins to abuse. FuelWagon 21:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood my emphasis. The goal is not making it harder for admins to abuse. That's the means to the goal. If you make it hard for admins to abuse, then you can achieve the goal of making it bloody difficult for false accusations of "admin gaming" to choke the system. The point is to design a system so that it can run by itself with little oversight from arbcom, and with a lot of trust that it will work right. If you ever get pulled over for speeding, the cop gives you a ticket or a warning or whatever, adn when you get back on the road, he either turns around and goes the other way or he takes the first exit. The point is not to prevent him from gaming you and giving you multiple tickets, the point is that if every police officer has to do that, then you can be much more confident that if a driver gets two speeding tickets right in a row from different police officers that they're both legit. It's like having two parachutes instead of one. a redundant system is more reliable than just one. FuelWagon 21:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I hereby award you...
I hearby bestow upon you Dmcdevit [[Image:Sandwich.jpg|thumb|right|240px|The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence   (Potato Salad of Congeniality cluster, 1st. class)

In Panis, Veritas]]this noble award. For your help and congeniality relating to all issues Wiki, and for your outstanding contributions as a newly minted WP Godling. Hamster Sandwich 23:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I admit it, I am a Reedie
But I never graduated. My mother cut off the funds, I had to establish my status as an "emancipated minor" to get my scholarships back, but after one year of that, and watching the loan amounts pile up, I decided to finish up at Berkeley. Three years Reed, one year Berkeley.

I have mixed feelings about Reed. It was the first time in my life I didn't feel like an oddball, and I threw myself into social life with more gusto than wisdom. I just CRINGE to think of the stuff I was doing back in those proto-hippie days. My time there did nothing to equip me for life in the big world -- it seemed to be expected that you would graduate and go on to graduate or professional school of some kind, and when I didn't do that immediately ...

Good you're doing history. I think that's what I might do if I had to do it over again, rather than anthropology. It won't necessarily get you a day job, however. My standard advice for young'uns is to acquire a saleable skill along with all the academic ones. Zora 02:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Graduate school? Professoriate? Don't count on it. There's a reason that someone called Wikipedia "Unemployed PhD deathmatch". Grad schools are churning out grads out of all proportion to the job market and then turning away as their students struggle to find jobs. Not to mention the withering away of the professoriate as departments trim their staffs to a few "star" tenured professors who serve to provide prestige, and farm out the real work to "adjunct professors" aka temps who make next to nothing, have no benefits, and no job security. Not to mention the horrors of grad school -- go to Dorothea Salo's blog "Caveat Lector" for her impassioned take on grad school.


 * Your model, young man, should be Spinoza. While the "professors" at Dutch universities were doing nothing memorable, he was working as a lens-grinder (the hi-tech job of the time) to support himself while he philosophized. We remember him.


 * Now that knowledge is moving onto the net, tools for thinking are escaping the grasp of the professoriate and getting into the hands of scurrilous interlopers like you and me. All hail the scurrilous interlopers! Zora 05:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not a bitter old man, I'm a bitter old woman. Actually, if I had an income, I'd be happy as a clam. Between Wikipedia and Distributed Proofreaders, I'm functioning as a scholar, learning lots, and doing something that's going to be around hundreds of years after I'm dead (not my Wikipedia articles, which will probably have morphed out of all recognition even if Wikipedia survives, but the DP e-books I've worked on).


 * I'm a bitter old woman with a daughter who is going to Mills and who, though she currently despises me, has picked up enough of my worldview to be learning sound engineering as well as music. Yes, she's a musician who's learning a day job that will keep her in the music world. Wish I'd been that smart when I was her age. Zora 07:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia and school. Grenavitar has also been complaining of neglecting schoolwork to do Wikipedia. My half-serious suggestion was to rewrite and expand the articles pertaining to whatever courses he is taking. But as for Reed and Humanities 110 ... I got an award for being the best student of my freshman year and I did it by studying fourteen hours a day and being a speed reader. On Friday afternoon I dropped everything to party like mad up to and including Saturday night. After a slow start on Sunday, I hit the books again Sunday afternoon. Am I recommending this? No. There's something to be said for actually interacting with real live people on a frequent basis . Zora 23:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Much as I hate to lose sensible admins, I'd say to let it go, don't even LOG ON, for at least the first semester. Protect yourself. There's a good chance -- though I can't guarantee it -- that someone else will step up to man (person?) the barricades against vandals and POV warriors.


 * Or drop the adminship and focus on protecting just ONE article. Take everything off your watchlist but that ONE article.


 * Hahahahaha! Why can't I take my own good advice? 23:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

protection
Why the hell did you take the protection from my page? Leave it on and read the message. Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 03:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about. I didn't unprotect anything. I removed the personal information you put in there on another user. What were you trying to invite there? Actual harm? This is egregious behavior. Dmcdevit·t 03:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Since he was willing to sign his name openly and is linked to a Wikipedia page already by another user, all I did was use the details he provided so that Wikipedians can know who precisely the Wikistalker Skyring is. He's been banned from WIkipedia for stalking me, yet still he is able to vandalise my talkpage. It is about time people found out just who he really is, as revealed by himself! Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 03:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So that's a yes then? Dmcdevit·t 04:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Uriah923
I've unblocked only because you appear involved and 48 hours is a bit too much for the first block. If you like, discuss it on his talk page or list it on AN/I so that someone else does the block. You know that. - Taxman Talk 20:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

War on Linkspam
I understand what you're -trying- to do with cleaning up linkspam and it's understood. What I don't understand is why you delete references without deleting the content they reference in the wiki pages. I have added some considerable content to a few pages both with my name and anonymously when I forget. If you feel that all ON links need to be removed, then by all means, delete away. I apologize for trying to fill in the gaps on wiki with the content that is posted on ON. I don't speak for Uriah, he's just a member of the site. I am the owner of it. We, like wiki, try to gather credible information. A few months ago when it was mentioned, we said it might be nice to take the info our users were giving us and fill in some gaps in wikipedia which we often use t o learn about a variety of topics. So, I apologize if you or any other admin views this as spam. We're just trying to help the cause. You will note that in several articles on ON, wikipedia is cited since that's where the info came from. I just find it odd that you have info on your site from ON that is accepted because it doesn't get deleted, yet you have no issues deleting the reference.

So my point is this, if you're going to delete the reference, do the academic thing and delete the content that goes with it rather than taking it for your own. Just my thoughts after reading your conversation with Uriah (I was the anon comment, not him) and watching your indiscriminate deletions. I'll be sure to avoid adding content in the future. MarkMcB 21:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting to me that deleting article content is the "academic thing"? My deletions were very pointed, only ON spam. Your deletions, however... Dmcdevit·t 23:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Let's consider the alternative: Someone provides you a summary of their work, the same person provides a reference that credits the statements provided.  You delete the reference, but leave the work.  There's a word for it: plagiarism.  So yes, it is generally considered academic to either cite your sources when you borrow information, or not use the information and come up with something original... kinda like the wiki policy states.  The only things I deleted were the things I added.  So like I said, if you want to delete, fine, just be consistent and live outside your self-made spam rules.  MarkMcB 00:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. Look at the big bold words that appear every time you edit a page. You released your words under the GFDL and they can't be taken back. Just because I don't want to link to your personal website doesn't change that. Dmcdevit·t 00:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * You know, I have nothing against you deleting my stuff, I really don't. But let's be serious for a second, the purpose/spirit of the GFDL isn't, "oh sucker, you wrote that on here so it's ours now!"  I believe it's to provide others with freely available information, i.e., visitors of the site.  I encourage you to read the big bold words that say, "Please cite your sources so others can check your work."  Here's the link: Cite_sources.  If what you're saying is correct, could you please advise me where I should go to have that read, "Cite your work at your own risk.  Most admins will accuse you of link dropping and delete your citation prior to any discussion on the page in question."  Thanks.  MarkMcB 01:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have copied this conversation to the sub-page set up specifically for this purpose so a decision can be made. Please continue there. Uriah923 05:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Spam
That was my misunderstanding - but if we remove the references, the content should also be removed. &brvbar; Reisio 23:16, 2005 September 1 (UTC)


 * If the content is good (and not really bad as the discussion on Uriah's talk page suggests), then the web reference links should remain. &brvbar; Reisio 23:52, 2005 September 1 (UTC)


 * If the reference is unreliable, then so is the information - both should go. &brvbar; Reisio 01:03, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
 * Reisio, I don't think it's a question of reliability, as the articles in question are well-research and annotated. The question is of notability and spamming.  Apparently since our site doesn't yet get x-thousand hits per day that makes the content unworthy.  If that is the true standard, then I guess the content must go.  I thought it was a helpful addition, but I seem to be outvoted by the admins.  As far as I can tell, the content was within policy and guidance, it's just a matter of the source: ON.com.  If it's not notable enough, so be it.  I just don't like the idea of blocking useful and valid information based on the web traffic of the source, which seems to be the case here.MarkMcB 02:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have copied this conversation to the sub-page set up specifically for this purpose so a decision can be made. Please continue there. Uriah923 05:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Didn't know that was going to happen!
Hi Dmcdevit. I had no idea The Literate Engineer was going to nominate me today ahead of a nom by you &mdash; it came out of the blue! In any case, thank you for persuading me that the timing was probably ok, and for your offer of a nomination.  -Splash 12:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the co-nom! -Splash 16:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Link spam
Thank you for your efforts to clean up the ON link spam. They are most appreciated.

If you'll check out my edit history you'll see that I've made a practice of going after link spam for a while. It's something I feel I can generally do well that is quite helpful to Wikipedia, though a few times I might have been overzealous and taken out good articles.

I was thinking perhaps we might want to start a WikiProject to deal with link spam (and to help develop standards for dealing with link spam). We could start out by developing standards and watching for spam in new articles and then maybe taking it upon ourselves to go through old edits and exi sting external links looking for that kind of behavior. I know that when I really get looking at some articles, especially articles about Christian eschatology issues, I sometimes see that they are just bloated with links added by one-shot editors who went around adding links to their site everywhere they possibly could.

A few thoughts:


 * If a person links to their own site, it is probably link spam, although of course more regular editors on a page can best decide if the link is really of value anyway.
 * If a person links to their own site on multiple articles, it's more definitely link spam.
 * Members of an anti-link spam WikiProject ought to agree to some kind of code of conduct to not engage in self-promotion of their own sites. That makes it easier to require that kind of behavior from others.
 * If the only edits a person has ever made consist of adding links to the same site, it's link spam.
 * If a person brazenly adds links to a site at the top of the external links section above more significant or more general sites rather than humbly adding them at the bottom, it's link spam.
 * If a person keeps coming back every three months readding their link, but never does anything else, it's link spam. Amazingly I have discovered some links that got into articles this way.  You just keep trying and hope nobody is looking.

Most of these are pretty self-evident, but we could flesh them out more, and I think even those who might want to be more inclusionist would be fine with it if we set the standard that regular editors on an article are always welcome to overrule us on a link they feel is of value for an article.

Basically, I want us to quit rolling over and taking it when search-engine optimizers and such show up and spam us into oblivion. Yes, we are supposed to assume good faith, but sometimes it is clear from somebody's shifty behavior that they have only one purpose in mind by being here. Spammers quickly learn to exploit our willingness to be long-suffering. They love pushing buttons like dragging us into debate, asking, "What is the standard?" and so on.

We could also develop a series of templates like the Template:test series designed to successively inform someone that they are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote their site. It would also be nice to have a team of admins dedicated to responding to notifications from the rest of us rank and file users that, "I've given the guy the three warnings and he's still spamming, can you go ahead and block him?"

Anyway, what do you think? Jdavidb 17:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dmcdevit for responding here, but a coherent conversation has value. It's probably a good idea. If you're read User:UninvitedCompany's essay linked on his user page, you'll reallize this is a problem that is only going to get worse. I believe we can put together technical tools to help combat the issue. Edits are coming so fast now that even with Cryptoderk's vandal fighter, I don't think a high percentage of vandalism can be caught by RC patrollers any more. In any case, Jdavidb I'd suggest starting with a subpage of your user page and then move it to somewhere else if it takes off. I can't promise I'll be active in it, but I think it may help. Do some searching and asking though to see if something overlapping is already out there. - Taxman Talk 18:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting something over on my user page. Jdavidb 20:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry if I went over your authority by talking to Mark on his talk page. I know it is your job as an admin and a good user to delete non-encyclopedic things such as linkspam from articles, and for that I agree with you. I had observed the discussions between MarkMcB, you, and other users and noticed the discussion was getting a little heated, through no fault of your own. I felt stepping in would diffuse tension and perhaps allow him to make positive contributions to other articles in the future. I felt that by stating that I was not an admin helped him relieve his notion that it was admins and big dogs that were purely trying to go after the newbie. I hope you dont mind that I got my nose in something that wasn't my business, and I hope it helped your wikistress go down a little. - Sun glasses at night 17:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Attack of the juggling janitor!
Just showing off my new sig. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support, and enjoy your break. I had about a three month one earlier this year, and it was great and very needed. Jdavidb 22:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not worthy
Dear D,

I am an Aspie and frequently clunky in social situations. I do much better online, but I am still much too blunt and brusque at times. I would not make a good admin -- at least until I learn to control my temper better and be more conciliatory in manner. Yes, other people have asked me to admin, and I keep turning it down. Zora 23:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sure. I am trying to get my life in order -- cleaning house, getting rid of stuff, taking care of business, tying up loose ends, trying to make calm and space. I'm heavily committed to four volunteer organizations and I've got to cut back. Sorry. Zora

23:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist!
Thanks for the revert on my user page. Let me know if I can help out, i'll be around Karmafist 23:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
I am rather new to this site so it hadn't occurred to me to look at page histories. Sorry for inconveniencing you. Felix Frederick Bruyns 03:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank You
It was simple. Thank you very much for the advice. Felix Frederick Bruyns 04:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats
It's kind of traditional for the promoting bureaucrat to congratulate their newly minted admin and thereby impart some sagely advice. Or at least notify them they've been promoted. I don't know where Ed's head is, but let me be the first to congratulate you then. That RFA was just what I expected it would be. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions about your new admin tools! Dmcdevit·t 19:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your congratulations, and thanks for your nomination. I'm already finding my new powers surprisingly handy.  "Hey I can do that myself now!" -- Beland 04:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it can be even more than just "handy." It's often cathartic. Mwahahahahaha!!!!! Dmcdevit·t 04:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bhadani
Yes I know, but I'd prefer to ask him after my RFB nomination is over in a day's time. Thanks for supporting be in RFB. =Nichalp «Talk»=  05:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not really worried about those votes. I've got a lot of support from those who have seen my work. Besides, those who have wished to remain neutral or oppose have never really attemped to get an article featured, so won't know the huge amount of resources it takes to produce one. I'd like to add I'm also noticed in and in the French and German wikipedias, by people who don't have active accounts in en:. And I prefer to stay away from the village pumps simply because its a distraction. If I keep watching for new posts and replying, I'll never be able to produce a FA/FL again.
 * Yeah, even I tried blocking myself for five minutes. It didn't work, I could edit the pages though. :) =Nichalp «Talk»=  05:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree; writing an FA requires a lot of patience. Copyediting is also a big ask. My fastest one the the Geography of India. I did it over the weekend, drew the maps on Monday, and it was in FAC on Tuesday. You've stopped producing lists in the recent past. Any reasons? PS. I'm trying to achieve a first of sorts, hope it goes well. I've just nominated High Courts of India in FLC. I'm currently discussing with Raul and Jguk if it can be an FA too. =Nichalp «Talk»=  05:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed your RFA, I was really engossed in reading all 6 Harry Potters that week, and my WP activity was low during that period. =Nichalp «Talk»=  06:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Er no... I'm not Hindu. =Nichalp «Talk»=  06:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * No probs, thanks for the holiday wishes, and wish you the same. Its Teacher's day here in India today. Not a holiday though. Plus Ganpati is on 7th. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»=  06:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0
Actually, I didn't ask if she would accept, I simply created a nomination and told her I had done so. Has she rejected nominations in the past? I didn't notice any mention of something like that while skimming her talk pages. Oh well, at this point she can still say no if she wants to but it will be in the face of much support, I suspect. Dragons flight 17:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am almost certain she's been asked two or three times before, and always been reluctant. In the future I would ask first, but how could she refuse now? Dmcdevit·t 18:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * When someone is a strong candidate, I am actually not a fan of asking for permission (though I wouldn't nominate someone who I already knew didn't want to be). If they want to cancel the nom, well okay, but at the very least they get to see they have the strong support of the community.  :-)  Dragons flight 18:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I know. It's just, when I nominated Uncle G for adminship without his prior acceptance, well... there was a fiasco. Dmcdevit·t 18:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't had a good fiasco in several days, and even so, I think it would be worth it. Of course your 62/9/3 "fiasco" on a second nom, is not the worst outcome I have ever seen.  Dragons flight 18:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * :) True, true, the result was good, but it was really bad timing, (he's a Wikinews admin and it was right after the London bombings, he was busy to say the least) and so many people started to assume bad faith after he didn't show up for two days. I just just don't want any of mine to be a surprise from now on. Dmcdevit·t 18:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Be Forewarned
As part of a plan for making peace with Moriori, I am deleting all of my references to him, including from YOUR user talk page. So don't worry, you're not being vandalized. Felix Frederick Bruyns 01:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay then. I'm just going to include the diff here so that it can be found when this is archived, even though the actual comment will not be captured by search engives. I suggest all the comments you delete be replaces by a diff link to be the least disruptive as possible. Dmcdevit·t 02:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how to change links on user talk pages, but I could edit your talk page to make it look neater. Obviously, though, I need your permission to do that? Do you want me to? Thank you very much. Felix Frederick Bruyns 05:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, your user talk page looks fine. I only mentioned it because you mentioned the untidiness that the "peace accord" editing could cause, and also because I don't know much about linking comments. Thank you very much. Felix Frederick Bruyns 05:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact is, I couldn't possibly find the precise places where I deleted the messages and so I can't change the links. My apologies to anyone whom I've inconvenienced. Thank you very much. Felix Frederick Bruyns 05:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Unintentional and Highly Technical
I'm not deliberately editing anyone's messages. If you look at Moriori's user talk, there is a full and rather complicated explanation of what's been happening. I haven't even been doing anything incorrectly. Either my computer or my web service has been malfunctioning. Pass that along to Zoe as well. Thank you very much. Felix Frederick Bruyns 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunate, But Unavoidable
I am sure that I am leaving extra spaces in every message that I send. But as I said before, it is some complicated computer or web service problem and while I understand your concern and apologize for the inconvenience (my own user talk site is a bit messy, so I understand), Zoe just crossed a major line regarding the assume good faith policy as well as accusations of vandalism that amount to libel. If he blocks me from editing Wikipedia, I will, as I assured him, succeed in returning and go to the highest level of arbitration with the goal of removing him from Wikipedia PERMANENTLY. I am being kept up late at night (it's well past 11:00 PM where I live) by libels and threats and I will NOT take it lightly. If I am unjustly blocked from Wikipedia, there will be justice. What happened with Moriori was a misunderstanding. I now find that he is a reasonable and helpful man, but you just saw Zoe's libelous threat for yourself. I don't take character assassination lightly and I am the wrong man to cross, period, and you may tell that to Zoe. Felix Frederick Bruyns 06:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * sigh* Dmcdevit, I want to help this guy. He was doing so well, and then he blew up again (he already threatened to take me to arbitration over apparently removing his messages or something). Any ideas? I'm almost inclined to have him just take someone to arbitration just so he sees how the community perceives these matters. If he doesn't manage to cool down, he's going to find himself in arbitration, and I really don't want to see that happen. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Dmcdevit:

Thanks for support in my recent RFB nomination. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. Nice socialising with you er... :) Regards, <font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp <font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=  18:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * PS I think you need to configure your user page for 800x600. The layout looks messed. <font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp <font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=  18:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll add my knowledge to the Indian names, maybe not tomorrow though, I have User:Nichalp/Bhutan to feature instead. Did you intend having blue on top and green below on yr user pg? <font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp <font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=  19:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * No mediator stuff for me. Will distract me. Stewardship will keep me out of en:. A bot is what I always wanted though. Would speed up my work. <font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp <font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=  19:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've never been to Bhutan though, came tantalisingly close and saw it from far across Tibet. See it completed tomorrow. Maybe you'd like to vote then. ;) <font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp <font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=  19:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I sometimes do interwiki stuff. If you'll notice the India page, all that list on the left is my doing. :) . The page has the most iw links. But I need an article generator. <font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp <font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=  19:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Correction: I've not been to Tibet. Unless of course you count the fact that I put my face in Tibetan airspace, put my foot on Tibet soil while the rest of my body was in India (Sikkim at the Nathula Pass). The geography there was such that its like Nepal-India-China-Bhutan. So I could see China ofcourse, and Bhutan far away to the east. I was at 4,300 metres / 12,000+ feet. No Indian or Chinese may cross the border though there but that is set to change. <font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp <font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=  19:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Opinion?
Hello Dmc! I was wondering what your opinion would be of an article I've done some work on being nom'd for a Featured Article? The item in question is Nathan Bedford Forrest. If you think its worthy, could you help shepard me in the proceedure and acrcana of the nomination process? Pretty please? :-D I'll look here for your reply! See ya! Hamster Sandwich 22:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm, well what jumps out at my right off the bat is tht it needs more references (preferably some print ones), a longer lead, and more images if possible. I'd also like to see if the KKK section could be fleshed out. In one sentence he just heard about it, in the next he's Grand Wizard, that confused me. I also don't relly like that war records section, becaause it's not prose so it kind of disrupts the flow. I would say just make it into prose, but it is already in the military part. Perhaps it would be useful if converted into an inline timeline like this one. You should, of course, take it to WP:PR as well. Good luck! Dmcdevit·t 23:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of your suggestions. I'll try to incorporate that timeline info box (ammended of course!) and get some better print references. I've owned a couple good ones over the years (Forrest bios) but books seem to come and go with me, as every time I move there is literally a couple of tons of books that move with me! So keeping track of each one seems out of my reach, however I will find the pertinent info and edit it into the article before I go to WP:PR. As far as the section that outlines Forrest's nascent KKK relationship, that is one part of the article that has been rather contentious. That period is regarded as pretty murky, and various sides (southern apologists particularly) tend to downplay Forrest's role in that organization. I found some pretty good references from minutes of the KKK's first large meeting in Nashville, but another editor removed the section of that paragraph. As I say, a murky period at best, so no need for me to argue the point. Anyways, thanks for looking at that, I appreciate the input. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 00:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

$10 WikiCash
Thanks for the dough. Only that with these gas prices, it will just be enough to buy 3 gallons of Wikigas... :( Well, since you're a Wikipedian of Arizona, I don't need to tell you how expensive it is over here. But thanks again! ;) Tito xd 22:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, I'm at Arizona State. And it's nice to know someone on the Wiki! ;) Tito xd 23:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, too much academic overload, and some people at the Barrett Honors College just told me it wasn't worth it. I already need 128 hours to major in Aerospace engineering... which reminds me of homework. Thank you! Tito xd 00:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 80º? That's cold! :P --Tito xd 01:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Filepile.com
FilePile.com wasn't a recreation but an article on a website not related to the one which was the subject of the FilePile article and RfD. FilePile.com was a very large shareware site from the 1990s which was the front-end for a BBS. So, I'm not sure it should have been deleted quite like that. --Aquafinal 02:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)