User talk:Ed/Archive Mar 2007

Esperanza
Would this edit be a compromise you could live with and we could consider the matter closed? Steve block Talk 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, that seems like a good idea. In fact, I'm also okay with this edit by Elaragirl, although that might need some minor fixes. (For example, the current version now has "ultimately" in the same sentence twice.) -- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 02:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see what was wrong with the suggested compromise. Could you please explain to me why that edit was reverted?-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dev objects to the sentence "Aside from participating in the group's official programs, members of Esperanza were also encouraged to show support to other editors through such methods as awarding barnstars for good work and supporting other editors with kind words during hard times." His reason is "because they didn't encourage anything outside official programs". Therefore the attempt at the compromise failed.  I don't know enough about Esperanza to know what's right and what's wrong.  If that sentence was removed from this diff, would you prefer that to the current page? Steve block Talk 09:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind about the removal of that sentence. IMHO, there really was no encouragement from Esperanza itself, the official programs just "told" us to do these things.
 * I also have another question...what are we going to do about the other MfDs regarding the Coffee Lounge, User Page Award, and the Coffee Lounge Games? These were important details pertaining to Esperanza.-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 15:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Ed, thanks for asking how I am on my talk page. I changed broadband provider and unfortunately that meant I was without internet access for about two weeks. Hell, I tell you!! I managed to get to the library a couple of days but didn't really use wikipedia that much as I only had 30 mins every time I went. I'm back now though!! Thanks for putting that afd up, I've added my comment, there doesn't seem to be much consensus though == Kneale 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what is happening with my contribution entry for Still Pending (band)
I am new to this and I don't really understand the recent flurry of activity on the Still Pending entry. Can you help me to understand what's going on? Thank you Stampsations 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the page is the subject of vandalism by Wikieditor07. Can you remove the spam template since I am the author and I am not supposed to do it myself. Check the user's history - they have also attempted to delete another band's article. Thank you. Stampsations 06:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt to this person, even though it appears to be malicious. I am continually impressed by what an amazing "place" Wikipedia is. What an incredible community of people all striving for the goal of having the richest online resource available anywhere. Thank you and the other editors for all that you do. Stampsations 18:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Images used on the Still Pending article
Regarding the photos and images I have uploaded (Image:StillPendingCrystalPoster.jpg, Image:SP Crystal Ballroom.JPG, and Image:Still Pending Innocent Days 200.jpg) - I had the express permission of David Ellman, the creator of these images, to upload them into the public domain. He was present at the time of the upload and released them to me personally. I provided what I thought to be the correct photo credits at that time. If I did not follow the correct protocol, please let me know what I can do to correct it. I uploaded the images at his request. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stampsations (talk • contribs) 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sound Effects Choir on DYK for 8 March 2007
Thank you for your contribution! &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU and clerks
Greetings! A recent change has been made in the clerking system at Requests for checkuser. There are no longer any obstacles to editors who wish to help out in this areas, as the standby list has now been deprecated. You were listed as a volunteer on the standby list before it was deprecated. If you are still interested in helping out in this area, please: I am not involved with the checkuser system. I am acting only to inform you of this change. Thank you. --Durin 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider adding yourself to the list of active clerks at Requests for checkuser/Clerks.
 * In helping, please make sure you follow the instructions at Requests for checkuser/Procedures as it is very important to the process there to follow these instructions for smooth operation.
 * Please remember "Trust between the clerks and the checkusers is essential. Clerks who persistently make problematic comments on requests or otherwise violate decorum may be asked by the checkusers to cease contributing here."
 * Add Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard to your watchlist to stay up to do date on the latest communications happening regarding this role.
 * "Be aware that this position is rather dull and carries no particular prestige; status-seeking will not be looked upon kindly."

Quick note
Hey, there. :) Regarding your archiving at Requests for checkuser/Case/Magonaritus, looks at first glance like you got everything right. One final step, though, we need to remove the transclusion from the WP:RFCU frontpage when finished archiving (granted, the whole transcluded page should be inside noinclude tags, once archived, so it's hardly a problem of any serious magnitude). Glad to see you got the table entries all figured out, though. :) Well done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's all a learning process. Takes some practice. Uuuusually, we give all cases three(ish) days and archive them all just the same, regardless of results and whatnot, but as you can see we're a bit more backlogged than usual, at which point I figure there's a little more leeway to be had. I don't think there's ever been too many problems, in that area, so just as long as the archiving gets done, the wait period doesn't seem worth too much fuss (I could be wrong, of course, but no sense making a big deal about these things unless somebody raises an issue). – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know there's a box, somewhere. I'll let you know if I can dig it up; if not, you're welcome to use the one I've got. – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EA
Ed, the version as it stands is comprehensive, accurate and well-written. Steve Block's compromise missed out too much, Elara's was too harsh, and yours, quite frankly, was badly written. I really do not see what your problem is with the current version. As I recall you were bleating about it being POV, but now you claim that the version you proposed fits everything I asked for, which surely makes it just as POV. What exactly is your problem with it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that you're in a minority of one then, by your own arguments your views should not be represented. Seriously, I don't know what you have against that paragraph, but we both know it's nothing to do with the MfD closing comments. That was something you came up with afterward. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would I want to revise the essay? It should have burned, but as it stands it is an accurate history of how it started, what went wrong and what we did about it. It fulfils the MfD closing thing, and that's it as far as I'm concerned. You're the one who keeps removing the criticisms. I hope you realise the irony of the whole thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU Archiving
Hi, I saw that you have archived the CheckUser case for Nationalist, but there is another request for Morphi that has not been completed yet. Is it possible for you to un-archive that? Thanks,  Vic  226 16:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Help with WP:RFCU
Ohhh, heh. The indicator is the checkuser's response template -- ✅ and and whatnot. There's a table of them at Requests for checkuser/Indicators (which I think is transcluded some place or other, but there's the table itself). I use too many buzzwords -- good question, catching me on that. – Luna Santin  (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCU
Hi. Could you re-archive Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn? Jpgordon reconsidered the case. Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
( not ) ( listening )

 AC Best  My Contributions  08:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock my autoblock
Soothsayer was at my house as I was trying to teach her how to edit Julius Caesar (play). I had no knowledge of her email abuse.-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 23:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins, please see this thread on WP:AN before removing the autoblock Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
I edited the page to, hopefully, deal with your concerns. Take a look. Oh, and sorry that it took me so long to get around to it, I've been pretty busy the past week. Warhol13 11:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU move to non compliant
Hello, Ed! I noticed today that you moved a case (Requests for checkuser/Case/American Brit) to the non-compliant section of WP:RFCU, citing that you may only have one code letter. However, multiple code letters are allowed. Majorly already reverted your edits. Cheers, PTO 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of the specific details of RFCU are ignored, in order to provide more specific descriptions of the case. We discourage the use of more than one, but we won't halt the check if there is. Cheers, PTO 01:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza
No, Ed. You yourself admitted that the whole closing comments thing was just something you came up with to support your efforts to reduce the criticisms. I have tried reasoning with you but it has become clear that you are merely trying to play for time, or have a "dialogue" to point to when you presumably turn to external processes. I have too much to do, I'm writing an FA and everyone, Ed, everyone but you has realised that the consensus is against them and moved on. Please do the same, instead of complaining about how I'm not discussing with you - there's nothing to discuss. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Batyr Berdiyev
AFAIK the template only allows for living or dead, not missing or otherwise. By all means remove that line if you feel it necessary, my main concern was tagging the article for the Biography project. Regards, PC78 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Welcome to the first user editing the new page
Thanks for your contribution! --Coppertwig 23:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You're on AN/I
Thank you Ed, but I can count. You're under the same restriction. I've reported you to AN/I. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept your terms on condition that the full protection is on the original version and that I reserve the right to terminate this "discussion" at any time if I think you are simply leading me on. Accept this and I will start digging through diffs to show you how the original version has consensus. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, how the hell am I supposed to demonstrate that people who never commented on it agreed with it? Please. You'll get what you'll get. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You asked for the Wikipedian population at large. Obviously I will not mention the major players in this dispute, but everyone else is fair game. Look, just judge it when you get it, Ok? I write it within the week. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza; What's the deal?
Ed, long time no see. I've noticed your messages on Dev's talk page and her returns on yours, and this ongoing edit war. I'm saddened to see something like this happening, as I'd hoped we could finally leave Esperanza in peace. I'm trying to get a grasp on the situation here; basically, you and Dev are disputing over a paragraph, correct? Is there consensus on the paragraph? If so, do you have a link to it? What are your/Dev's arguments on this? I'd like to help this get worked out, cause I know (you know I know) what crap Esperanza can fuel. Thanks,  Dooms Day349  22:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. Well, I've contacted Dev about it.  If you guys want to use my talk page as a neutral sounding board, feel free to do so.  I'll be glad to help out.  (Take ya up on that coffee sometime XD)  Dooms  Day349  22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just start a topic and go at it. I'll watch it for you guys and make sure no one oversteps their bounds.  Dooms  Day349  23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

please remove autoblock
(sigh)...Ok, I admit it. I did a presentation at my school about the benefits of Wikipedia during a debate. I helped some of my debate club friends create accounts, including Soothsayer.03 and Handicap on wheels. Handicap on wheels is a friend of mine, who was paralyzed for a period of time. He had no intention of causing offense with his *oW username, his choice of username was due to his paralysis.-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás?
 * Seriously man; you need to hang out with different friends.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 02:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael S. Greco
An editor has nominated Michael S. Greco, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Gender Studies Barnstar Award
Congratulations on being the first recipient of the WP:GS barnstar and well done for you work on the template I think your final decision on the wording was appropriate and most importantly instantly understandable.--Cailil 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: your bot's a little late :)
Hi Ed, thank you for notifying about my bot's mistake. I've looked into the issue, and I found out what went wrong. My bot does check whether the article author already knows about the discussion by checking the discussion page and seeing if it contains a link to the author's talk page. It didn't see your signature because you use a lot of custom formatting, which my code didn't account for. It does now, and in the future this shouldn't be a problem anymore. Cheers, Jayden54 11:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)